Electroencephalographia as Predictor of Effectiveness HD-tDCS in Neuropathic Pain: Machine Learning Approach

April 19, 2021 updated by: Suellen Marinho Andrade, Federal University of Paraíba

EEG as Predictor of Effectiveness of HD-tDCS in Treatment of Neuropathic Pain After Brachial Plexus Injury: Machine Learning Approach

Contextualization: Neuropathic pain is a complication present in the clinical picture of patients with traumatic Brachial Plexus injury (BPI). It is characterized by high intensity, severity and refractoriness to clinical treatments, resulting in high disability and loss of quality of life. Due to loss of afferent entry, it causes cortical and subcortical alterations and changes in somatotopic representation, from inadequate plastic adaptations in the Central and Peripheral Nervous System, one of the therapies with potential benefit in this population is the Transcranial High Definition Continuous Current Stimulation (HD-tDCS). Thus, by using connectivity-based response prediction and machine learning, it will allow greater assurance of efficiency and optimization of the application of this therapy, being directed to patients with greater potential to benefit from the application of this approach. Objective: Using connectivity-based prediction and machine learning, this study aims to assess whether baseline EEG related characteristics predict the response of patients with neuropathic pain after BPI to the effectiveness of HD-tDCS treatment. Materials and methods: A quantitative, applied, exploratory, open-label response prediction study will be conducted from data acquired from a pilot, triple-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial investigating the efficacy of applying HD-tDCS to patients with neuropathic brachial plexus trauma pain. Participants will be evaluated for eligibility and then randomly allocated into two groups to receive the active HD-tDCS or simulated HD-tDCS. The primary outcome will be pain intensity as measured by the numerical pain scale. Participants will be invited to participate in an EEG study before starting treatment. Clinical improvement labels used for machine learning classification will be determined based on data obtained from the clinical trial (baseline and post-treatment evaluations). The hypothesis adopted in this study is that the response prediction model constructed from EEG frequency band pattern data collected at baseline will be able to identify responders and non-responders to HD-tDCS treatment.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Not yet recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

Using connectivity-based prediction and machine learning, the objective is to assess whether characteristics related to baseline EEG predict the response of patients with neuropathic pain after BPI to the effectiveness of HD-tDCS treatment. An observational, retrospective cohort study will be carried out, of predictive response with a quantitative approach, of an applied nature, of an exploratory and open-label type, related to the efficacy of HD-tDCS4x1 in patients with neuropathic pain due to BPI, from an analysis of data obtained from a pilot, placebo-controlled, triple-blind, randomized, crossover type clinical trial, in accordance with the CONSORT guidelines, which will investigate the effectiveness of treatment with HD-tDCS.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Anticipated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
30

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

  • Brazil
    • Paraíba
      • João Pessoa, Paraíba, Brazil, 58051-900
        • Federal University of Paraíba,Department of Psychology

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

14 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Participants in a triple-blind clinical trial, based on free demand by the Laboratory of Neuroscience and aging studies at the UFPB and through access to a database with the information of these patients, linked to the Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery of Paraíba. Patients diagnosed with neuropathic pain due to brachial plexus injury according to clinical history, physical examination and complementary. The diagnosis will be based on clinical and neurophysiological criteria, according to protocols and recommendations of Guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology. Also, it will be based on clinical evidence of loss of post-traumatic sensitivity and muscle weakness involving the upper limb. And neurophysiological tests showing damage to the nerve trunks of the brachial plexus.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Age over 18 years;
  2. Moderate to severe pain score according to the Numerical Pain Scale (4-10);
  3. Persistent pain and refractory to clinical treatment for at least 3 months;
  4. Appropriate pharmacological treatment for pain for at least 1 month before the start of the study;
  5. Not presenting contraindications for Non-Invasive Brain Stimulation;
  6. Absence of concomitant diseases of the Central Nervous Sistem or Peripheral Nervous Sistem.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Failure to sign the informed consent form;
  2. Missing two consecutive or three alternate sessions during treatment;
  3. Developing a disabling condition that prevents further participation in the study

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Observational Models: Cohort
  • Time Perspectives: Retrospective

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort

Group / Cohort

A group or subgroup of participants in an observational study that is assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
HD-tDCS4x1
All data will be acquired from patients of the triple-blind clinical trial that will investigate the effectiveness of treatment for neuropathic pain after brachial plexus injury with HD-tDCS. There will be collection and analysis of EEG data before the clinical trial protocol, to later assess the prediction of response to the technique employed. At the end, they will be grouped into responders and non-responders to HD-tDCS, according to the numerical scale of pain, with assignments serving as targets for the analyzes with machine learning. The labels for clinical improvement used to classify machine learning will be determined based on the data obtained in the baseline and post-treatment assessments, according to similar studies. Thus, the EEG data of these patients will be retrospectively examined, identifying possible neurophysiological characteristics and biomarkers related to the frequency bands that allow predicting which patients are most likely to improve with this treatment.
Device: Neurostimulation (High Definition - transcranial Direct Current Stimulation) HD-tDCS
5 consecutive sessions lasting 20 minutes of HD-tDCS4x1, based on previous publications (VILLAMAR et al., 2013). A list will be provided current of 2 mA, placing a central electrode (anode) on the M1 contralateral to the painful limb and the four return electrodes within a radius of 7.5 cm around, corresponding approximately to Cz, F3, T7 and P3 if the stimulation is on the side left, and Cz, F4, T8 and P4 if it is on the right, according to the International 10/20 System.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Pain intensity measured using Numerical Pain Scale
Time Frame: 1 week (5 sessions)
Identification of responders and non-responders to treatment with HD-tDCS, according to the scores obtained by the patients response on the Numerical Pain Scale recorded immediately after the treatment, thus determining the functional labels for processing machine learning models. This instrument measures the intensity of pain, consisting of 11 points (0-10), 0 being counted for no pain and 10 for the worst possible pain. A reduction of two points or by 30% will be considered a clinically important minimum difference (DWORKIN et al., 2008).
1 week (5 sessions)
Neurophysiological characteristics and biomarkers recorded by EEG
Time Frame: One month
The EEG data will be retrospectively examined by comparing the two groups (responders and non-responders), identifying possible neurophysiological characteristics and biomarkers related to frequency bands and connectivity that could be characterized as possible markers of response to treatment, predicting which are most likely to respond. The examination of the cortical electrical activity using the EEG tool (BrainVision actiCHamp, Herrsching, Germany), with 32 silver chloride electrodes fixed according to the International System 10-20, by means of an adjustable cap, containing holes that will allow the contact of the electrode with the scalp. The prefrontal, frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital regions will be monitored bilaterally (Fp1, Fp2, F3, F4), temporal (F7, F8, T3, T4, T5, T6), central (C3, C4, Cz) and parieto-occipital (P3, P4, P7, P8, O1, O2), in the condition of silence, with eyes closed, for five minutes each, totaling 10 minutes of collection for each participant.
One month

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Federal University of Paraíba

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Anticipated)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
June 15, 2021

Primary Completion (Anticipated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
December 15, 2021

Study Completion (Anticipated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
June 15, 2022

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
April 5, 2021

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
April 19, 2021

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
April 21, 2021

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
April 21, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
April 19, 2021

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
April 1, 2021

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • EEGPain/hd-tDCS

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings