Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation for upper limb motor function after ischaemic stroke (VNS-REHAB): a randomised, blinded, pivotal, device trial.
Aged
Case-Control Studies
Combined Modality Therapy
/ methods
Exercise Therapy
/ methods
Female
Humans
Implantable Neurostimulators
/ adverse effects
Ischemic Stroke
/ complications
Male
Middle Aged
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Paresis
/ etiology
Recovery of Function
/ physiology
Stroke Rehabilitation
/ methods
Treatment Outcome
Upper Extremity
/ physiopathology
Vagus Nerve Stimulation
/ instrumentation
Vocal Cord Paralysis
/ epidemiology
Journal
Lancet (London, England)
ISSN: 1474-547X
Titre abrégé: Lancet
Pays: England
ID NLM: 2985213R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 04 2021
24 04 2021
Historique:
received:
24
09
2020
revised:
16
02
2021
accepted:
19
02
2021
entrez:
25
4
2021
pubmed:
26
4
2021
medline:
24
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Long-term loss of arm function after ischaemic stroke is common and might be improved by vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation. We aimed to determine whether this strategy is a safe and effective treatment for improving arm function after stroke. In this pivotal, randomised, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial, done in 19 stroke rehabilitation services in the UK and the USA, participants with moderate-to-severe arm weakness, at least 9 months after ischaemic stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either rehabilitation paired with active vagus nerve stimulation (VNS group) or rehabilitation paired with sham stimulation (control group). Randomisation was done by ResearchPoint Global (Austin, TX, USA) using SAS PROC PLAN (SAS Institute Software, Cary, NC, USA), with stratification by region (USA vs UK), age (≤30 years vs >30 years), and baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score (20-35 vs 36-50). Participants, outcomes assessors, and treating therapists were masked to group assignment. All participants were implanted with a vagus nerve stimulation device. The VNS group received 0·8 mA, 100 μs, 30 Hz stimulation pulses, lasting 0·5 s. The control group received 0 mA pulses. Participants received 6 weeks of in-clinic therapy (three times per week; total of 18 sessions) followed by a home exercise programme. The primary outcome was the change in impairment measured by the FMA-UE score on the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy. FMA-UE response rates were also assessed at 90 days after in-clinic therapy (secondary endpoint). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03131960. Between Oct 2, 2017, and Sept 12, 2019, 108 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (53 to the VNS group and 55 to the control group). 106 completed the study (one patient for each group did not complete the study). On the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy, the mean FMA-UE score increased by 5·0 points (SD 4·4) in the VNS group and by 2·4 points (3·8) in the control group (between group difference 2·6, 95% CI 1·0-4·2, p=0·0014). 90 days after in-clinic therapy, a clinically meaningful response on the FMA-UE score was achieved in 23 (47%) of 53 patients in the VNS group versus 13 (24%) of 55 patients in the control group (between group difference 24%, 6-41; p=0·0098). There was one serious adverse event related to surgery (vocal cord paresis) in the control group. Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation is a novel potential treatment option for people with long-term moderate-to-severe arm impairment after ischaemic stroke. MicroTransponder.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Long-term loss of arm function after ischaemic stroke is common and might be improved by vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation. We aimed to determine whether this strategy is a safe and effective treatment for improving arm function after stroke.
METHODS
In this pivotal, randomised, triple-blind, sham-controlled trial, done in 19 stroke rehabilitation services in the UK and the USA, participants with moderate-to-severe arm weakness, at least 9 months after ischaemic stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1) to either rehabilitation paired with active vagus nerve stimulation (VNS group) or rehabilitation paired with sham stimulation (control group). Randomisation was done by ResearchPoint Global (Austin, TX, USA) using SAS PROC PLAN (SAS Institute Software, Cary, NC, USA), with stratification by region (USA vs UK), age (≤30 years vs >30 years), and baseline Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) score (20-35 vs 36-50). Participants, outcomes assessors, and treating therapists were masked to group assignment. All participants were implanted with a vagus nerve stimulation device. The VNS group received 0·8 mA, 100 μs, 30 Hz stimulation pulses, lasting 0·5 s. The control group received 0 mA pulses. Participants received 6 weeks of in-clinic therapy (three times per week; total of 18 sessions) followed by a home exercise programme. The primary outcome was the change in impairment measured by the FMA-UE score on the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy. FMA-UE response rates were also assessed at 90 days after in-clinic therapy (secondary endpoint). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03131960.
FINDINGS
Between Oct 2, 2017, and Sept 12, 2019, 108 participants were randomly assigned to treatment (53 to the VNS group and 55 to the control group). 106 completed the study (one patient for each group did not complete the study). On the first day after completion of in-clinic therapy, the mean FMA-UE score increased by 5·0 points (SD 4·4) in the VNS group and by 2·4 points (3·8) in the control group (between group difference 2·6, 95% CI 1·0-4·2, p=0·0014). 90 days after in-clinic therapy, a clinically meaningful response on the FMA-UE score was achieved in 23 (47%) of 53 patients in the VNS group versus 13 (24%) of 55 patients in the control group (between group difference 24%, 6-41; p=0·0098). There was one serious adverse event related to surgery (vocal cord paresis) in the control group.
INTERPRETATION
Vagus nerve stimulation paired with rehabilitation is a novel potential treatment option for people with long-term moderate-to-severe arm impairment after ischaemic stroke.
FUNDING
MicroTransponder.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33894832
pii: S0140-6736(21)00475-X
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00475-X
pmc: PMC8862193
mid: NIHMS1779054
pii:
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03131960']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1545-1553Subventions
Organisme : RRD VA
ID : IK6 RX003075
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : P20 GM109040
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of interests JD and TJK have received reimbursements for conference attendance, where results of the pilot study were presented, from MicroTransponder. SCC has served as a consultant for Constant Therapeutics, Neurolutions, MicroTransponder, SanBio, Fujifilm Toyama Chemical, Medtronic, and TRCare. DP, NDE, and CNP are employees of MicroTransponder. SLW is a consultant to Enspire and serves on the Scientific Advisory Board of Saebo. GEF has received research grants, consulting honoraria, or both from Allergan, Ipsen, Merz, MicroTransponder, Ottobock/Hangar Orthopedics, Parker Hannifin, Revance Therapeutics, ReWalk, and Sword Health. The MGH Translational Research Center has a clinical research support agreement with Neuralink, Paradromics, and Synchron, for which LRH provides consultative input. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.
Références
J Neurosurg. 2015 Mar;122(3):532-5
pubmed: 25526267
Stroke. 1999 Nov;30(11):2369-75
pubmed: 10548673
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020 Jul;34(7):609-615
pubmed: 32476617
Stroke. 2016 Jan;47(1):143-50
pubmed: 26645257
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):51-62
pubmed: 31128926
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Feb;30(2):107-19
pubmed: 25748452
Stroke. 2009 Aug;40(8):2805-11
pubmed: 19556535
Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791-8
pubmed: 22282773
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Apr;19(4):348-360
pubmed: 32004440
Seizure. 2013 Dec;22(10):827-33
pubmed: 23867218
Brain. 2011 Jun;134(Pt 6):1591-609
pubmed: 21482550
Clin Rehabil. 1997 May;11(2):139-45
pubmed: 9199866
Clin Otolaryngol. 2017 Aug;42(4):959-961
pubmed: 26597336
Cereb Cortex. 2012 Oct;22(10):2365-74
pubmed: 22079923
Stroke. 2018 Mar;49(3):710-717
pubmed: 29371435
Lancet Neurol. 2015 Feb;14(2):224-34
pubmed: 25772900
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Jun;24(5):486-92
pubmed: 20053950
Stroke. 2018 Nov;49(11):2789-2792
pubmed: 30355189
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2013 Oct;27(8):732-41
pubmed: 23774125
J Neurosci. 2014 May 21;34(21):7314-21
pubmed: 24849363
Prog Brain Res. 2013;207:275-99
pubmed: 24309259
Neuron. 2007 Sep 20;55(6):919-29
pubmed: 17880895
Behav Brain Res. 2020 Aug 5;391:112705
pubmed: 32473844
Nature. 2011 Feb 3;470(7332):101-4
pubmed: 21228773
Int J Stroke. 2014 Apr;9(3):313-20
pubmed: 23227818
Eur Stroke J. 2019 Dec;4(4):363-377
pubmed: 31903435
Neuron. 2015 Nov 4;88(3):528-38
pubmed: 26593091
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2011 Jan 19;9:5
pubmed: 21247433
Stroke. 2018 Sep;49(9):2138-2146
pubmed: 30354990
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1983 Jun;46(6):521-4
pubmed: 6875585
Transl Stroke Res. 2021 Feb;12(1):65-71
pubmed: 32583333
J Neurosci. 1992 Dec;12(12):4701-11
pubmed: 1361197
Sci Adv. 2020 Apr 08;6(15):eaaz4232
pubmed: 32285002
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009 Jun;23(5):429-34
pubmed: 19289487
Front Neurosci. 2020 Apr 28;14:284
pubmed: 32410932
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2015 Oct;8(6 Suppl 3):S163-9
pubmed: 26515205
Lancet Neurol. 2020 Aug;19(8):651-660
pubmed: 32702334
Brain Stimul. 2018 Jul - Aug;11(4):945-946
pubmed: 29661599
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2016 Aug;30(7):676-84
pubmed: 26542082
Front Neurosci. 2019 Mar 29;13:280
pubmed: 30983963
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2003 May-Jun;12(3):119-26
pubmed: 17903915