Active Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
DeviceSee arm/group description
NCT Number: NCT05355831
In a double-blinded sham-controlled study the effect of patient-tailored transcranial direct current stimulation during rehabilitation training will be examined.
Interested in participating?
Request Info18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Copenhagen University Department of Nutrition and Exercise, Copenhagen, Denmark
Approximately two thirds of stroke patients have reduced motor function which have a large impact on both activities of daily living and quality of life. Only 12-34% achieve full motor recovery.
There is a growing interest in using non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques to supplement neurorehabilitation. NIBS can modulate cortical excitability and is a powerful tool for motor rehabilitation post-stroke. Application Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS) is currently emerging as a tool used in neurorehabilitaiton. Prior studies have shown that TDCS-stimulation prior to physical training may significantly improve of motor function post-stroke. However, up to 50% of the participants recieving active TDCS show no response to stimulation.
A one-size-fits-all approach to TDCS in stroke rehabilitation may not be optimal and a more precise and individualized targeting is warranted to stimulate functionally relevant areas.
In this study TDCS will be personalized for stroke patients with upper-extremity paresis using individual functional and structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and an electric field modelling pipeline developed at Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance (DRMCR). Based on these measures the electric current induced by TDCS will individually target the area with residual neural activity during movement. The effect of personalized TDCS will be assessed by clinical measures of motor improvement. Sub-studies furthermore assess if the functional reorganization of motor networks is affected by personalized TDCS by application of functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) and.
The study will have 3 phases:
Ad baseline Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) will be done as well to assess corticospinal integrity as well as estimation of intracortical inhibition.
Hypothesis:
The main hypothesis is that personalized ipsi-lesional anodal TDCS during specialized individualized arm-training will lead to significantly greater improvements in upper-extremity motor function compared to sham.
Substudy with healthy controls:
A cohort of 20 healthy age- and sex matched controls will be recruited for one session of MRI and TMS identical to the procedure of the patients at baseline as well as the same questionnaires (Protocol amendment approved by the local Ethics Committee the 10th October 2022).
These data will be analyzed in a substudy for normative comparison between the stroke patients and healthy age- and sex-matched controls.
Hypothesis - Healthy Controls:
Stroke patients will exhibit a higher laterality index measured by fMRI and a stronger degree of interhemispheric inhibition at baseline compared to healthy controls measued by task-related fMRI and by TMS iSP and SICI.
The degree of interhemispheric inhibition in stroke patients will normalize during recovery and be similar to normal controls at the last follow-up after 12 weeks.
Further, the degree of normalization of the interhemispheric inhibition in stroke patients will be proportional to degree of improvement of the upper-extremity measured by UE-FMA.
July 2024:
Due to challenging recruitment and at much lower recruitment rate than expected the trial design was changed from superiority to pilot- and feasibility trial. Therefore, the sample size was correspondingly adjusted to expected 24 with 12 participants in each of the two arms. Furthermore, outcome measures were re-prioritized to also contain feasibility outcome measures and primary outcome was changed to follow-up Fugl-Meyer Assessment score of upper-extremity (FMA-UE) adjusted for baseline in stead of change in FMA-UE from baseline to follow-up.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Patients - Inclusion Criteria:
Patients - Exclusion Criteria:
Healthy controls - Inclusion criteria:
Healthy controls - Exclusion Criteria:
See arm/group description
See arm/group description
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in Upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA) score at end of treatment. Range 0-66.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in Action Reach Arm Test (ARAT) score. Range 0-57. High scores mean a better outcome.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in National Health Institutes Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Range 0-42. High scores mean a better outcome.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in Modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Range 0-6. Lower scores mean a better outcome.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in Bartel's 20-item Index (BI-20). Range 0-100. Higher scores mean better outcome.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in 10 Meter Walk Test (10MWT) in minutes:sec.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in Physical Activity Scale 2.0 (PAS2). The answers will be translated into a Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET)-score. The higher MET-score the higher level of activity.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score. Score range 0-30. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) score. Score range 0-110. Higher scores mean a better outcome.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in EQ-5D-5L score. Range 1 to 20, a high score means low health-related quality of life. Includes a 0-100 visual analogue scale for overall percieved quality of life.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in BDI-II score. Score range 0-63. Higher score means increased risk of depression.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in FSS score. Score range 0-7. Higher score means increased fatigue severity.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in WHO-5 score. Score range 0-100. Higher score means better quality of life.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in serum level Cathepsin-B (unit mikro gram/L)
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Change in cerebral blood flow measured with arterial spin labeling (ASL) during rest
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Change in activation patterns measured with blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) during both single and bimanual task.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Change in activation pattern measured by blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) during both single and bimanual task.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Change in activation pattern for hemispheric dominance measured by the ratio of active fMRI voxels in each hemisphere.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Change in corticospinal integrity measured by diffusion MRI.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Difference in change in size of infarct lesion meaured by structural MRI.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Follow-up Upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Assessment (UE-FMA) score adjusted for baseline. Range 0-66
Time frame: During intervention
Proportion of participants experiencing sensations of TDCS (itching, pain, burning, vertigo, headache, fatigue, nausea, and/or other)
Time frame: During intervention
Proportion of TDCS-intervention sessions attended out of the 12 planned sessions
Time frame: During intervention
Extent to which the participant has completed the planned home exercises ('fully', 'most', 'about 50%', 'below 50%', or 'not done')
Time frame: Follow-up1
The patients are asked if they would recommend TDCS to a peer patient (Yes/No)
Time frame: Baseline
Determination of BDNF genetic variant - either Val66Met variant or wildtype.
Time frame: From baseline to four months
Completion of intervention in the active vs. control group
Time frame: Baseline
Determination of existence of a MEP-response by TMS as an indicator of cortico-spinal tract integrity. Prognostic marker of motor recovery.
Time frame: Baseline
Determination of degree of interhemispheric inhibition unaffected vs. affected hemisphere
Time frame: Baseline
Determination of degree of interhemispheric inhibition unaffected vs. affected hemisphere
Time frame: Baseline
Determination of conduction time from stimulation of cortical neurons to response measured in a peripheral muscle (FDI)
Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.
Christina Krusse, MD, Prof
CONTACT
Mia Kolmos, MD
CONTACT
Christina Kruuse
Other
Acronym: PRACTISE
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT01967290
Brain Diseases, Cardiovascular Diseases
Guimarães, Portugal
View Trial DetailsNCT07345702
Basilar Artery Occlusion, Brain Diseases
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, China
View Trial DetailsNCT05032053
Brain Diseases, Cardiovascular Diseases
Ankang, Shaanxi, China
View Trial DetailsNCT07736885
Brain Diseases, Cardiovascular Diseases
Tianjin, Tianjin Municipality, China
View Trial Details