Frequency-tuned electromagnetic field therapy improves post-stroke motor function: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
ELF-EMF
ENTF
NIBS
ischemic stroke
magnetic field therapy
neurorecovery
neurostimulation
upper extremity motor function
Journal
Frontiers in neurology
ISSN: 1664-2295
Titre abrégé: Front Neurol
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101546899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
27
07
2022
accepted:
05
10
2022
entrez:
1
12
2022
pubmed:
2
12
2022
medline:
2
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Impaired upper extremity (UE) motor function is a common disability after ischemic stroke. Exposure to extremely low frequency and low intensity electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) in a frequency-specific manner (Electromagnetic Network Targeting Field therapy; ENTF therapy) is a non-invasive method available to a wide range of patients that may enhance neuroplasticity, potentially facilitating motor recovery. This study seeks to quantify the benefit of the ENTF therapy on UE motor function in a subacute ischemic stroke population. In a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial, ischemic stroke patients in the subacute phase with moderately to severely impaired UE function were randomly allocated to active or sham treatment with a novel, non-invasive, brain computer interface-based, extremely low frequency and low intensity ENTF therapy (1-100 Hz, < 1 G). Participants received 40 min of active ENTF or sham treatment 5 days/week for 8 weeks; ~three out of the five treatments were accompanied by 10 min of concurrent physical/occupational therapy. Primary efficacy outcome was improvement on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) from baseline to end of treatment (8 weeks). In the per protocol set (13 ENTF and 8 sham participants), mean age was 54.7 years (±15.0), 19% were female, baseline FMA-UE score was 23.7 (±11.0), and median time from stroke onset to first stimulation was 11 days (interquartile range (IQR) 8-15). Greater improvement on the FMA-UE from baseline to week 4 was seen with ENTF compared to sham stimulation, 23.2 ± 14.1 vs. 9.6 ± 9.0, ENTF stimulation in subacute ischemic stroke patients was associated with improved UE motor function and reduced overall disability, and results support its safe use in the indicated population. These results should be confirmed in larger multicenter studies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04039178, identifier: NCT04039178.
Sections du résumé
Background and purpose
UNASSIGNED
Impaired upper extremity (UE) motor function is a common disability after ischemic stroke. Exposure to extremely low frequency and low intensity electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) in a frequency-specific manner (Electromagnetic Network Targeting Field therapy; ENTF therapy) is a non-invasive method available to a wide range of patients that may enhance neuroplasticity, potentially facilitating motor recovery. This study seeks to quantify the benefit of the ENTF therapy on UE motor function in a subacute ischemic stroke population.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
In a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial, ischemic stroke patients in the subacute phase with moderately to severely impaired UE function were randomly allocated to active or sham treatment with a novel, non-invasive, brain computer interface-based, extremely low frequency and low intensity ENTF therapy (1-100 Hz, < 1 G). Participants received 40 min of active ENTF or sham treatment 5 days/week for 8 weeks; ~three out of the five treatments were accompanied by 10 min of concurrent physical/occupational therapy. Primary efficacy outcome was improvement on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment - Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) from baseline to end of treatment (8 weeks).
Results
UNASSIGNED
In the per protocol set (13 ENTF and 8 sham participants), mean age was 54.7 years (±15.0), 19% were female, baseline FMA-UE score was 23.7 (±11.0), and median time from stroke onset to first stimulation was 11 days (interquartile range (IQR) 8-15). Greater improvement on the FMA-UE from baseline to week 4 was seen with ENTF compared to sham stimulation, 23.2 ± 14.1 vs. 9.6 ± 9.0,
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
ENTF stimulation in subacute ischemic stroke patients was associated with improved UE motor function and reduced overall disability, and results support its safe use in the indicated population. These results should be confirmed in larger multicenter studies.
Clinical trial registration
UNASSIGNED
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04039178, identifier: NCT04039178.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36452175
doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1004677
pmc: PMC9702345
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04039178']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1004677Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Weisinger, Pandey, Saver, Hochberg, Bitton, Doniger, Lifshitz, Vardi, Shohami, Segal, Reznik Balter, Djemal Kay, Alter, Prasad and Bornstein.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Authors BW, AH, AB, GD, AL, OV, ES, YS, SR, YD, and AA are/were employed by the study funder, BrainQ Technologies Ltd. Authors ES and YS have ownership interest in BrainQ Technologies Ltd. Authors JS and NB serve as advisors to BrainQ Technologies Ltd. Author YS is the father of a neurologically disabled child. This study received funding from BrainQ Technologies Ltd. The funder was involved in the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
Stroke. 2016 Jun;47(6):e98-e169
pubmed: 27145936
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2002 Sep;16(3):232-40
pubmed: 12234086
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Oct 02;21(19):
pubmed: 33023074
Health Serv Res. 2002 Jun;37(3):667-82
pubmed: 12132600
J Physiol Paris. 2003 Jul-Nov;97(4-6):613-28
pubmed: 15242670
Front Hum Neurosci. 2021 Sep 01;15:620573
pubmed: 34539362
Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Oct 26;16(10):25605-40
pubmed: 26516838
Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 2002 Jun;39(1):55-73
pubmed: 12086708
Nat Rev Neurol. 2014 Oct;10(10):597-608
pubmed: 25201238
Int J Biol Macromol. 2014 Apr;65:8-15
pubmed: 24418344
Sci Adv. 2019 Oct 30;5(10):eaav9847
pubmed: 31692960
Curr Protoc Neurosci. 2010 Jul;Chapter 6:Unit 6.25.1-24
pubmed: 20578033
Nature. 2016 Dec 7;540(7632):230-235
pubmed: 27929004
J Neurosci. 2007 Apr 11;27(15):4101-9
pubmed: 17428988
Circulation. 2008 Jan 29;117(4):e25-146
pubmed: 18086926
Stroke Res Treat. 2016;2016:6941946
pubmed: 26949561
Entropy (Basel). 2021 May 11;23(5):
pubmed: 34064732
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 14;6:24588
pubmed: 27074724
Top Stroke Rehabil. 2011 Oct;18 Suppl 1:599-610
pubmed: 22120029
Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2017;2017:2181942
pubmed: 29138675
Cell Calcium. 2004 Apr;35(4):307-15
pubmed: 15036948
J Neurol Sci. 2020 Mar 15;410:116643
pubmed: 31927342
Stroke. 2016 Jan;47(1):143-50
pubmed: 26645257
Brain Sci. 2020 Apr 30;10(5):
pubmed: 32366004
Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):165-72
pubmed: 18568934
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017 Jan;10(1):
pubmed: 28096203
Neuromodulation. 2021 Sep 4;:
pubmed: 34480781
Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 Sep 26;10:294
pubmed: 30319398
Int J Rehabil Res. 1981;4(4):483-92
pubmed: 7333761
Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791-8
pubmed: 22282773
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1179-94
pubmed: 20685078
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 19;9(2):e88921
pubmed: 24586442
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9
pubmed: 15817019
Cells. 2020 Feb 13;9(2):
pubmed: 32069981
Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 May;33(4):279-87
pubmed: 22012856
Exp Neurol. 2010 Nov;226(1):173-82
pubmed: 20816824
Semin Neurol. 2018 Apr;38(2):208-211
pubmed: 29791947
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Jun 27;8:378
pubmed: 25018714
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Dec 2;2(12):e1916646
pubmed: 31800069
Bioelectromagnetics. 2003 Sep;24(6):395-402
pubmed: 12929158
Brain Stimul. 2013 Jul;6(4):469-76
pubmed: 23428499
N Engl J Med. 1995 Dec 14;333(24):1581-7
pubmed: 7477192
Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
pubmed: 3363593
J Cell Physiol. 2017 May;232(5):1200-1208
pubmed: 27639248
FEBS Lett. 1994 Jul 25;349(1):1-6
pubmed: 8045284
Neuroepidemiology. 2001 Feb;20(1):26-30
pubmed: 11174042
Clin Neurophysiol. 2011 Nov;122(11):2157-68
pubmed: 21514214
Arch Neurol. 2004 Dec;61(12):1844-8
pubmed: 15596603
J Phys Ther Sci. 2019 Nov;31(11):917-921
pubmed: 31871377
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1975;7(1):13-31
pubmed: 1135616
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Oct 29;99(22):14518-23
pubmed: 12376621
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
Scand J Rehabil Med Suppl. 1980;7:85-93
pubmed: 6932734
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0131759
pubmed: 26177457
Neural Regen Res. 2015 Dec;10(12):2072-80
pubmed: 26889202
Am J Occup Ther. 1985 Jun;39(6):386-91
pubmed: 3160243
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Mar-Apr;78(2):123-30
pubmed: 10088586
Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 Oct;33(7):568-74
pubmed: 22496058
FASEB J. 1999 Jan;13(1):95-102
pubmed: 9872934
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1723-31
pubmed: 26898852
Brain Commun. 2020 Oct 07;2(2):fcaa161
pubmed: 33215085
Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 Dec;33(8):634-40
pubmed: 22532275
Bioelectromagnetics. 2017 Jul;38(5):386-396
pubmed: 28430370
J Cell Physiol. 2008 Apr;215(1):129-39
pubmed: 17941084
Stroke Res Treat. 2013;2013:170256
pubmed: 23533955
Neuroscience. 2014 Oct 10;278:313-26
pubmed: 25171788
Lancet Neurol. 2021 Oct;20(10):795-820
pubmed: 34487721
Lancet Neurol. 2019 Apr;18(4):376-393
pubmed: 30797715
Clin Rehabil. 2004 May;18(3):300-8
pubmed: 15137561
Neuron. 2010 Jul 15;67(1):129-43
pubmed: 20624597
Transl Stroke Res. 2017 Feb;8(1):33-46
pubmed: 27109642