Multicentre, single-blind randomised controlled trial comparing MyndMove neuromodulation therapy with conventional therapy in traumatic spinal cord injury: a protocol study

Kim D Anderson, James R Wilson, Radha Korupolu, Jacqueline Pierce, James M Bowen, Daria O'Reilly, Naaz Kapadia, Milos R Popovic, Lehana Thabane, Kristin E Musselman, Kim D Anderson, James R Wilson, Radha Korupolu, Jacqueline Pierce, James M Bowen, Daria O'Reilly, Naaz Kapadia, Milos R Popovic, Lehana Thabane, Kristin E Musselman

Abstract

Introduction: This protocol is describing a multicentre, single-blind randomised controlled trial. The objective is to compare the efficacy of MyndMove therapy versus conventional therapy (CT) in improving upper extremity function in individuals with C4-C7 traumatic, incomplete spinal cord injury (SCI). It is being conducted in two US and two Canadian SCI rehabilitation centres.

Methods and analysis: Sixty people aged 18 years or older with a C4-C7 incomplete (AIS B-D) SCI between 4 months and 8 years postinjury are randomised to receive 40 sessions of MyndMove neuromodulation therapy or CT within a 14-week period of time. Therapy sessions are 1 hour in duration with a dose of 3-5 sessions per week. Assessments occur prior to randomisation, after 20 sessions, after 40 sessions and 10 weeks after the last session. The primary outcome measure is the efficacy of MyndMove therapy versus CT in improving upper extremity function as measured by Spinal Cord Independence Measure III: Self-Care subscore after 40 sessions. Secondary outcomes include: (1) improvements in the SCIM mobility subscore; (2) upper limb functions measured by Graded Redefined Assessment of Strength, Sensibility and Prehension and (3) Toronto Rehab Institute Hand Function Test; (4) To assess safety as measured by serious and non-serious adverse events recorded for participants in both groups of the study population over the duration of the study; (5) to compare the change in quality of life as measured by the Spinal Cord Injury-Quality of Life; and (6) to evaluate the impact on healthcare resource utilisation.

Ethics and dissemination: All ethical approvals were obtained prior to enrolling any participants. Dissemination of the results of the study will be made at peer-reviewed academic meetings and through peer-reviewed medical journals TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03439319.

Keywords: neuromuscular disease; rehabilitation medicine; spine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: MyndTec Inc is the contracting organisation of this study and through funding provided by US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, researchers are reimbursed for doing this study. All investigators have an interest in completing the study.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram of study flow chart. CONSORT, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials.

References

    1. Anderson KD. Targeting recovery: priorities of the spinal cord-injured population. J Neurotrauma 2004;21:1371–83. 10.1089/neu.2004.21.1371
    1. Noonan VK, Fingas M, Farry A, et al. . Incidence and prevalence of spinal cord injury in Canada: a national perspective. Neuroepidemiology 2012;38:219–26. 10.1159/000336014
    1. Hoshimiya N, Handa Y. A master-slave type multi-channel functional electrical stimulation (FeS) system for the control of the paralyzed upper extremities. Automedica 1989;11:209–20.
    1. Handa Y, Handa T, Ichie M, et al. . Functional electrical stimulation (FES) systems for restoration of motor function of paralyzed muscles--versatile systems and a portable system. Front Med Biol Eng 1992;4:241–55.
    1. Nathan RH, Ohry A. Upper limb functions regained in quadriplegia: a hybrid computerized neuromuscular stimulation system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1990;71:415–21.
    1. IJzerman MJS, Stoffers TS, et al. . The NESS Handmaster orthosis: restoration of hand function in C5 and stroke patients by means of electrical stimulation. J Rehabil Sci 1996;9:86–9.
    1. Snoek GJ, IJzerman MJ, in 't Groen FA, et al. . Use of the NESS handmaster to restore handfunction in tetraplegia: clinical experiences in ten patients. Spinal Cord 2000;38:244–9. 10.1038/sj.sc.3100980
    1. Prochazka A, Gauthier M, Wieler M, et al. . The bionic glove: an electrical stimulator garment that provides controlled GRASP and hand opening in quadriplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997;78:608–14. 10.1016/S0003-9993(97)90426-3
    1. Popović D, Stojanović A, Pjanović A, et al. . Clinical evaluation of the bionic glove. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80:299–304. 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90141-7
    1. Popovic MR, Popovic DB, Keller T. Neuroprostheses for grasping. Neurol Res 2002;24:443–52. 10.1179/016164102101200311
    1. Popovic MR, Thrasher TA, Zivanovic V, et al. . Neuroprosthesis for retraining reaching and grasping functions in severe hemiplegic patients. Neuromodulation 2005;8:58–72. 10.1111/j.1094-7159.2005.05221.x
    1. Popovic MR, Thrasher TA, Adams ME, et al. . Functional electrical therapy: retraining grasping in spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2006;44:143–51. 10.1038/sj.sc.3101822
    1. Rebersek S, Vodovnik L. Proportionally controlled functional electrical stimulation of hand. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1973;54:378–82.
    1. Peckham PH, Marsolais EB, Mortimer JT. Restoration of key grip and release in the C6 tetraplegic patient through functional electrical stimulation. J Hand Surg Am 1980;5:462–9. 10.1016/S0363-5023(80)80076-1
    1. Peckham PH, Mortimer JT, Marsolais EB. Controlled prehension and release in the C5 quadriplegic elicited by functional electrical stimulation of the paralyzed forearm musculature. Ann Biomed Eng 1980;8:369–88. 10.1007/BF02363440
    1. Kilgore KL, Peckham PH, Thrope GB, et al. . Synthesis of hand GRASP using functional neuromuscular stimulation. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 1989;36:761–70. 10.1109/10.32109
    1. Wuolle KS, Van Doren CL, Thrope GB, et al. . Development of a quantitative hand GRASP and release test for patients with tetraplegia using a hand neuroprosthesis. J Hand Surg Am 1994;19:209–18. 10.1016/0363-5023(94)90008-6
    1. Mangold S, Keller T, Curt A, et al. . Transcutaneous functional electrical stimulation for grasping in subjects with cervical spinal cord injury. Spinal Cord 2005;43:1–13. 10.1038/sj.sc.3101644
    1. Beekhuizen KS, Field-Fote EC. Sensory stimulation augments the effects of massed practice training in persons with tetraplegia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:602–8. 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.11.021
    1. Kowalczewski J, Chong SL, Galea M, et al. . In-Home tele-rehabilitation improves tetraplegic hand function. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011;25:412–22. 10.1177/1545968310394869
    1. Teferra M. Functional electrical stimulation (FeS): review. IJLRET 2017;3:95–101.
    1. Popovic MR, Kapadia N, Zivanovic V, et al. . Functional electrical stimulation therapy of voluntary grasping versus only conventional rehabilitation for patients with subacute incomplete tetraplegia: a randomized clinical trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2011;25:433–42. 10.1177/1545968310392924
    1. Nagai MK, Marquez-Chin C, Popovic MR. Why is functional electrical stimulation therapy capable of restoring motor function following severe injury to the central nervous system? : Tuszynski MH, Translational neuroscience. New York, NY: Springer Science and Business Media, 2016: 479–98.
    1. Kapadia N, Zivanovic V, Popovic MR. Restoring voluntary grasping function in individuals with incomplete chronic spinal cord injury: pilot study. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2013;19:279–87. 10.1310/sci1904-279
    1. Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, et al. . The spinal cord independence measure: how much change is clinically significant for spinal cord injury subjects. Disabil Rehabil 2013;35:1808–13. 10.3109/09638288.2012.756942
    1. Scivoletto G, Tamburella F, Laurenza L, et al. . Distribution-based estimates of clinically significant changes in the International standards for neurological classification of spinal cord injury motor and sensory scores. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med 2013;49:373–84.
    1. Hebert DA, Bowen JM, Ho C, et al. . Examining a new functional electrical stimulation therapy with people with severe upper extremity hemiparesis and chronic stroke: a feasibility study. Br J Occup Ther 2017;80:651–9. 10.1177/0308022617719807
    1. Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, et al. . SCIM-spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997;35:850–6. 10.1038/sj.sc.3100504
    1. Kalsi-Ryan S, Beaton D, McIlroy W, et al. . Quantification of multi-modality sensation of the hand in cervical spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 2006;29:311.
    1. Kalsi-Ryan S, Beaton D, Curt A, et al. . The graded redefined assessment of strength sensibility and prehension: reliability and validity. J Neurotrauma 2012;29:905–14. 10.1089/neu.2010.1504
    1. Kalsi-Ryan S, Curt A, Verrier MC, et al. . Development of the graded redefined assessment of strength, sensibility and prehension (GRASSP): reviewing measurement specific to the upper limb in tetraplegia. J Neurosurg Spine 2012;17:65–76. 10.3171/2012.6.AOSPINE1258
    1. Kapadia N, Zivanovic V, Verrier M, et al. . Toronto rehabilitation institute-hand function test: assessment of gross motor function in individuals with spinal cord injury. Top Spinal Cord Inj Rehabil 2012;18:167–86. 10.1310/sci1802-167
    1. Tulsky DS, Kisala PA, Victorson D, et al. . Overview of the Spinal Cord Injury--Quality of Life (SCI-QOL) measurement system. J Spinal Cord Med 2015;38:257–69. 10.1179/2045772315Y.0000000023
    1. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.
    1. Zhang Y, Alyass A, Vanniyasingam T, et al. . A systematic survey of the methods literature on the reporting quality and optimal methods of handling participants with missing outcome data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;88:67–80. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.016
    1. Thabane L, Mbuagbaw L, Zhang S, et al. . A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013;13:92. 10.1186/1471-2288-13-92
    1. de Souza RJ, Eisen RB, Perera S, et al. . Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: sensitivity analyses in randomized controlled trials. Am J Clin Nutr 2016;103:5–17. 10.3945/ajcn.115.121848
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, et al. . Spirit 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583
    1. Kapadia N, Moineau B, Popovic MR. Functional electrical stimulation therapy for retraining reaching and grasping after spinal cord injury and stroke. Front Neurosci 2020;14:718. 10.3389/fnins.2020.00718

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren