14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Functional Strength Training and Movement Performance Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery Early Poststroke—Efficacy, Neural Correlates, Predictive Markers, and Cost-Effectiveness: FAST-INdiCATE Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Variation in physiological deficits underlying upper limb paresis after stroke could influence how people recover and to which physical therapy they best respond.

          Objectives

          To determine whether functional strength training (FST) improves upper limb recovery more than movement performance therapy (MPT). To identify: (a) neural correlates of response and (b) whether pre-intervention neural characteristics predict response.

          Design

          Explanatory investigations within a randomised, controlled, observer-blind, and multicentre trial. Randomisation was computer-generated and concealed by an independent facility until baseline measures were completed. Primary time point was outcome, after the 6-week intervention phase. Follow-up was at 6 months after stroke.

          Participants

          With some voluntary muscle contraction in the paretic upper limb, not full dexterity, when recruited up to 60 days after an anterior cerebral circulation territory stroke.

          Interventions

          Conventional physical therapy (CPT) plus either MPT or FST for up to 90 min-a-day, 5 days-a-week for 6 weeks. FST was “hands-off” progressive resistive exercise cemented into functional task training. MPT was “hands-on” sensory/facilitation techniques for smooth and accurate movement.

          Outcomes

          The primary efficacy measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Neural measures: fractional anisotropy (FA) corpus callosum midline; asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA; and resting motor threshold (RMT) of motor-evoked potentials.

          Analysis

          Covariance models tested ARAT change from baseline. At outcome: correlation coefficients assessed relationship between change in ARAT and neural measures; an interaction term assessed whether baseline neural characteristics predicted response.

          Results

          288 Participants had: mean age of 72.2 (SD 12.5) years and mean ARAT 25.5 (18.2). For 240 participants with ARAT at baseline and outcome the mean change was 9.70 (11.72) for FST + CPT and 7.90 (9.18) for MPT + CPT, which did not differ statistically ( p = 0.298). Correlations between ARAT change scores and baseline neural values were between 0.199, p = 0.320 for MPT + CPT RMT ( n = 27) and −0.147, p = 0.385 for asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA ( n = 37). Interaction effects between neural values and ARAT change between baseline and outcome were not statistically significant.

          Conclusions

          There was no significant difference in upper limb improvement between FST and MPT. Baseline neural measures did not correlate with upper limb recovery or predict therapy response.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials: ISRCT 19090862, http://www.controlled-trials.com

          Related collections

          Most cited references83

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Inter-individual variability in response to non-invasive brain stimulation paradigms.

          Non-invasive Brain Stimulation (NIBS) paradigms are unique in their ability to safely modulate cortical plasticity for experimental or therapeutic applications. However, increasingly, there is concern regarding inter-individual variability in the efficacy and reliability of these paradigms. Inter-individual variability in response to NIBS paradigms would be better explained if a multimodal distribution was assumed. In three different sessions for each subject (n = 56), we studied the Paired Associative Stimulation (PAS25), Anodal transcranial DC stimulation (AtDCS) and intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) protocols. We applied cluster analysis to detect distinct patterns of response between individuals. Furthermore, we tested whether baseline TMS measures (such as short intracortical inhibition (SICI), resting motor threshold (RMT)) or factors such as time of day could predict each individual's response pattern. All three paradigms show similar efficacy over the first hour post stimulation--there is no significant effect on excitatory or inhibitory circuits for the whole sample, and AtDCS fares no better than iTBS or PAS25. Cluster analysis reveals a bimodal response pattern--but only 39%, 45% and 43% of subjects responded as expected to PAS25, AtDCS, and iTBS respectively. Pre-stimulation SICI accounted for 10% of the variability in response to PAS25, but no other baseline measures were predictive of response. Finally, we report implications for sample size calculation and the remarkable effect of sample enrichment. The implications of the high rate of 'dose-failure' for experimental and therapeutic applications of NIBS lead us to conclude that addressing inter-individual variability is a key area of concern for the field. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord and roots: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical application. Report of an IFCN committee

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery.

              Stroke remains a leading cause of adult disability. Some degree of spontaneous behavioral recovery is usually seen in the weeks after stroke onset. Variability in recovery is substantial across human patients. Some principles have emerged; for example, recovery occurs slowest in those destined to have less successful outcomes. Animal studies have extended these observations, providing insight into a broad range of underlying molecular and physiological events. Brain mapping studies in human patients have provided observations at the systems level that often parallel findings in animals. In general, the best outcomes are associated with the greatest return toward the normal state of brain functional organization. Reorganization of surviving central nervous system elements supports behavioral recovery, for example, through changes in interhemispheric lateralization, activity of association cortices linked to injured zones, and organization of cortical representational maps. A number of factors influence events supporting stroke recovery, such as demographics, behavioral experience, and perhaps genetics. Such measures gain importance when viewed as covariates in therapeutic trials of restorative agents that target stroke recovery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Neurol
                Front Neurol
                Front. Neurol.
                Frontiers in Neurology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-2295
                25 January 2018
                2017
                : 8
                : 733
                Affiliations
                [1] 1School of Health and Rehabilitation, Institute for Applied Clinical Sciences, Keele University , Keele, United Kingdom
                [2] 2Wellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, Functional MRI of the Brain (FMRIB), University of Oxford, Nuffield Department of Clinical neurosciences, John Radcliffe Hospital , Oxford, United Kingdom
                [3] 3Sobell Department of Motor Neuroscience and Movement Disorders, UCL Institute of Neurology , London, United Kingdom
                [4] 4School of Psychology, Ulster University , Coleraine, United Kingdom
                [5] 5Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park , Norwich, United Kingdom
                [6] 6Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, United Kingdom
                [7] 7School of Psychology, University of Birmingham , Birmingham, United Kingdom
                [8] 8Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton , Southampton, United Kingdom
                Author notes

                Edited by: Pavel Lindberg, Centre for Psychiatry and Neuroscience (INSERM), France

                Reviewed by: Margit Alt Murphy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; Assia Jaillard, Université Grenoble Alpes, France

                *Correspondence: Valerie M. Pomeroy, v.pomeroy@ 123456uea.ac.uk

                Specialty section: This article was submitted to Stroke, a section of the journal Frontiers in Neurology

                Article
                10.3389/fneur.2017.00733
                5810279
                29472884
                119d95d2-f3be-48e0-8d2a-b216c3b8a5dc
                Copyright © 2018 Hunter, Johansen-Berg, Ward, Kennedy, Chandler, Weir, Rothwell, Wing, Grey, Barton, Leavey, Havis, Lemon, Burridge, Dymond and Pomeroy.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 10 October 2017
                : 19 December 2017
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 13, Equations: 0, References: 121, Pages: 24, Words: 20547
                Funding
                Funded by: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme 10.13039/501100001922
                Award ID: 10/60/30
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Original Research

                Neurology
                stroke,rehabilitation,physical therapy,transcranial magnetic stimulation,magnetic resonance imaging,upper limb; prediction

                Comments

                Comment on this article