Cerebrovascular AccidentPhase 3NCT00057018
Improving Arm Mobility and Use After Stroke
A Phase 3 study testing Constraint-induced movement therapy in people with Cerebrovascular Accident, run by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at 7 sites in United States.
Trial summary
An individual suffering a stroke or other brain injury may lose function on one side of the body (partial paralysis). As the individual shifts activities to favor the unaffected side, the problem worsens. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Cerebrovascular Accident
- What is being tested?
- Constraint-induced movement therapy
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- How many people
- 229 participants
- Where
- 7 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- Apr 2000to Jan 2006
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 80 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- 3 to 9 months post cerebral infarct or 1 year post injury
- 2.5 or lower on the Motor Activity Log scale
- >= 10 degrees of active wrist extension
- >= 10 degrees of extension of all joints of thumb and two other digits
- Ability to perform wrist/finger extension movements three times within one minute
Who cannot join
None listed.
Trial locations and contacts
7 sites in 1 country.
7 sites in 1 country
United States7 sites
Emory University
Atlanta, Georgia, 30322
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Birmingham, Alabama, 35294
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 27599-7135
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio, 43210-1234
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, 32610-0154
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, California, 9009-9006
Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27157
About this study
Official title: The Extremity Constraint Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) Trial
An individual suffering a stroke or other brain injury may lose function on one side of the body (partial paralysis). As the individual shifts activities to favor the unaffected side, the problem worsens. Constraint induced (CI) therapy forces the individual to use the neglected arm by restraining the good arm in a sling. This study examines the effectiveness of CI therapy for improving arm motion after stroke.
Read the detailed description
Profoundly impaired motor dysfunction is a major consequence of stroke. As a result, a large number of the more than 700,000 people in America sustaining a stroke each year have limitations in motor ability and compromised quality of life. Therapeutic interventions designed to enhance motor function and promote independent use of an impaired upper extremity are quite limited.
CI movement therapy, or "forced use," involves motor restriction of the less effected upper extremity for 2 weeks. Over this time, repetitive use of the more effected upper extremity is promoted for many hours a day. This treatment produces long lasting improvements in extremity use among patients who are more than 1 year post-stroke and who have an ability to initiate some extension in wrist and digit joints.
This study will determine if CI therapy for a hemiparetic upper extremity in patients with sub-acute (3 to 9 months post-cerebral infarct) stroke will lead to functional improvements and enhanced quality of life measures more than usual care.
Patients are randomized into a treatment or usual care group and stratified by movement capability into higher and lower functioning categories. Higher functioning patients are defined as those who have at least 20 degrees of active wrist extension and 10 degrees of active finger extension at each digit joint. Lower functioning patients are defined as those with at least 10 degrees of wrist extension and 10 degrees of extension at each thumb joint and all joints of two other digits. Patients randomized into the control group receive treatment one year later to permit replication efforts for findings using this therapy in patients with chronic stroke.
The intervention consists of making patients use their impaired arms by constraining movement in the less impaired limb for most waking hours over a 2 week period. The constraint is a taped splint in which the hand rests to prevent limb use but enable protective responses. A micro-switch within the splint will permit monitoring of contact time (wearing). Each weekday for 2 weeks, patients come to the clinic/laboratory for specific task training. Evaluations in laboratory and actual use tests are made prior to treatment, 2 weeks later, and at 4 month intervals thereafter. Changes in psychosocial functioning will also be measured. Primary outcomes include the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Motor Activity Log. Secondary outcomes include Stroke Impact Scale, Actual Amount of Use Test, and accelerometry.
- Conditions
- Cerebrovascular Accident
- Being tested
- Constraint-induced movement therapy
- Keywords
- stroke, cerebrovascular accident, upper extremity, physical therapy, constraint-induced therapy
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Constraint-induced movement therapyProcedure or surgery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted28 Mar 2003 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2000
- Primary completionMar 2005
- Study completionJan 2006
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (20)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cerebrovascular AccidentStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Enrolment
- 229 participants
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Sponsor type
- US National Institutes of Health
- Investigators
- Steven L Wolf, PhD/PT/FAPTA, Principal investigator, Emory University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00057018
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- R01HD037606
- Status last verified
- May 2011
- First submitted
- 26 Mar 2003
- Last updated
- 26 Sep 2016
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Ostendorf CG, Wolf SL. Effect of forced use of the upper extremity of a hemiplegic patient on changes in function. A single-case design. Phys Ther. 1981 Jul;61(7):1022-8. doi: 10.1093/ptj/61.7.1022.
PubMed 7243897Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989 May;104(2):125-32. doi: 10.1016/s0014-4886(89)80005-6.
PubMed 2707361Taub E, Crago JE, Burgio LD, Groomes TE, Cook EW 3rd, DeLuca SC, Miller NE. An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Mar;61(2):281-93. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-281.
PubMed 8169577Taub E: Somatosensory deafferentation research with monkeys: Implications for rehabilitation medicine. In Ince LP (ed.) Behavioral Psychology in Rehabilitation Medicine: Clinical Applications. New York: Williams Wilkins, 1980, 370-401
Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, Cook EW 3rd, Fleming WC, Nepomuceno CS, Connell JS, Crago JE. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Apr;74(4):347-54.
PubMed 8466415Taub E, Pidikiti RD, DeLuca SC, Crago JE: Effects of motor restriction of an unimpaired upper extremity and training on improving functional tasks and altering brain/behaviors. In J. Toole (ed.), Imaging and Neurologic Rehabilitation. New York::Demos, 1996, 133-154.
Taub E, Wolf SL. Constraint Induced Movement Techniques To Facilitate Upper Extremity Use in Stroke Patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997 Jan;3(4):38-61. doi: 10.1080/10749357.1997.11754128.
PubMed 27620374Taub E, Morris DM. Constraint-induced movement therapy to enhance recovery after stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2001 Jul;3(4):279-86. doi: 10.1007/s11883-001-0020-0.
PubMed 11389792Duncan PW. Synthesis of Intervention Trials To Improve Motor Recovery following Stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997 Jan;3(4):1-20. doi: 10.1080/10749357.1997.11754126.
PubMed 27620372Wolf SL, Blanton S, Baer H, Breshears J, Butler AJ. Repetitive task practice: a critical review of constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke. Neurologist. 2002 Nov;8(6):325-38. doi: 10.1097/01.nrl.0000031014.85777.76.
PubMed 12801434Clark PC, Shields CG, Aycock D, Wolf SL. Preliminary reliability and validity of a family caregiver conflict scale for stroke. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2003 Spring;18(2):77-82, 92.
PubMed 12732800Butler AJ, Wolf SL. Transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess cortical plasticity: a critical perspective for stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2003 May;(41 Suppl):20-6. doi: 10.1080/16501960310010106.
PubMed 12817653Winstein CJ, Miller JP, Blanton S, Taub E, Uswatte G, Morris D, Nichols D, Wolf S. Methods for a multisite randomized trial to investigate the effect of constraint-induced movement therapy in improving upper extremity function among adults recovering from a cerebrovascular stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2003 Sep;17(3):137-52. doi: 10.1177/0888439003255511.
PubMed 14503435Aycock DM, Blanton S, Clark PC, Wolf SL. What is constraint-induced therapy? Rehabil Nurs. 2004 Jul-Aug;29(4):114-5, 121. doi: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2004.tb00326.x. No abstract available.
PubMed 15222091Park SW, Butler AJ, Cavalheiro V, Alberts JL, Wolf SL. Changes in serial optical topography and TMS during task performance after constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke: a case study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2004 Jun;18(2):95-105. doi: 10.1177/0888439004265113.
PubMed 15228805
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Sep 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Extremity Constraint Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE) Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00057018
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- R01HD037606
- Conditions
- Cerebrovascular Accident
- Keywords
- stroke, cerebrovascular accident, upper extremity, physical therapy, constraint-induced therapy
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 229 participants
- Lead sponsor
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)US National Institutes of Health
- Collaborators
- National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)
- Study start
- Apr 2000
- Primary completion
- Mar 2005 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jan 2006
- First posted
- 28 Mar 2003 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
An individual suffering a stroke or other brain injury may lose function on one side of the body (partial paralysis). As the individual shifts activities to favor the unaffected side, the problem worsens. Constraint induced (CI) therapy forces the individual to use the neglected arm by restraining the good arm in a sling. This study examines the effectiveness of CI therapy for improving arm motion after stroke.
Detailed description
Profoundly impaired motor dysfunction is a major consequence of stroke. As a result, a large number of the more than 700,000 people in America sustaining a stroke each year have limitations in motor ability and compromised quality of life. Therapeutic interventions designed to enhance motor function and promote independent use of an impaired upper extremity are quite limited.
CI movement therapy, or "forced use," involves motor restriction of the less effected upper extremity for 2 weeks. Over this time, repetitive use of the more effected upper extremity is promoted for many hours a day. This treatment produces long lasting improvements in extremity use among patients who are more than 1 year post-stroke and who have an ability to initiate some extension in wrist and digit joints.
This study will determine if CI therapy for a hemiparetic upper extremity in patients with sub-acute (3 to 9 months post-cerebral infarct) stroke will lead to functional improvements and enhanced quality of life measures more than usual care.
Patients are randomized into a treatment or usual care group and stratified by movement capability into higher and lower functioning categories. Higher functioning patients are defined as those who have at least 20 degrees of active wrist extension and 10 degrees of active finger extension at each digit joint. Lower functioning patients are defined as those with at least 10 degrees of wrist extension and 10 degrees of extension at each thumb joint and all joints of two other digits. Patients randomized into the control group receive treatment one year later to permit replication efforts for findings using this therapy in patients with chronic stroke.
The intervention consists of making patients use their impaired arms by constraining movement in the less impaired limb for most waking hours over a 2 week period. The constraint is a taped splint in which the hand rests to prevent limb use but enable protective responses. A micro-switch within the splint will permit monitoring of contact time (wearing). Each weekday for 2 weeks, patients come to the clinic/laboratory for specific task training. Evaluations in laboratory and actual use tests are made prior to treatment, 2 weeks later, and at 4 month intervals thereafter. Changes in psychosocial functioning will also be measured. Primary outcomes include the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Motor Activity Log. Secondary outcomes include Stroke Impact Scale, Actual Amount of Use Test, and accelerometry.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 80 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- 3 to 9 months post cerebral infarct or 1 year post injury
- 2.5 or lower on the Motor Activity Log scale
- >= 10 degrees of active wrist extension
- >= 10 degrees of extension of all joints of thumb and two other digits
- Ability to perform wrist/finger extension movements three times within one minute
Key exclusion criteria (0 listed)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Constraint-induced movement therapy | Procedure or surgery | – |
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Sep 2016.
- Background: PubMed 7243897Ostendorf CG, Wolf SL. Effect of forced use of the upper extremity of a hemiplegic patient on changes in function. A single-case design. Phys Ther. 1981 Jul;61(7):1022-8. doi: 10.1093/ptj/61.7.1022.
- Background: PubMed 2707361Wolf SL, Lecraw DE, Barton LA, Jann BB. Forced use of hemiplegic upper extremities to reverse the effect of learned nonuse among chronic stroke and head-injured patients. Exp Neurol. 1989 May;104(2):125-32. doi: 10.1016/s0014-4886(89)80005-6.
- Background: PubMed 8169577Taub E, Crago JE, Burgio LD, Groomes TE, Cook EW 3rd, DeLuca SC, Miller NE. An operant approach to rehabilitation medicine: overcoming learned nonuse by shaping. J Exp Anal Behav. 1994 Mar;61(2):281-93. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1994.61-281.
- BackgroundTaub E: Somatosensory deafferentation research with monkeys: Implications for rehabilitation medicine. In Ince LP (ed.) Behavioral Psychology in Rehabilitation Medicine: Clinical Applications. New York: Williams Wilkins, 1980, 370-401
- Background: PubMed 8466415Taub E, Miller NE, Novack TA, Cook EW 3rd, Fleming WC, Nepomuceno CS, Connell JS, Crago JE. Technique to improve chronic motor deficit after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993 Apr;74(4):347-54.
- BackgroundTaub E, Pidikiti RD, DeLuca SC, Crago JE: Effects of motor restriction of an unimpaired upper extremity and training on improving functional tasks and altering brain/behaviors. In J. Toole (ed.), Imaging and Neurologic Rehabilitation. New York::Demos, 1996, 133-154.
- Background: PubMed 27620374Taub E, Wolf SL. Constraint Induced Movement Techniques To Facilitate Upper Extremity Use in Stroke Patients. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997 Jan;3(4):38-61. doi: 10.1080/10749357.1997.11754128.
- Background: PubMed 11389792Taub E, Morris DM. Constraint-induced movement therapy to enhance recovery after stroke. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2001 Jul;3(4):279-86. doi: 10.1007/s11883-001-0020-0.
- Background: PubMed 27620372Duncan PW. Synthesis of Intervention Trials To Improve Motor Recovery following Stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. 1997 Jan;3(4):1-20. doi: 10.1080/10749357.1997.11754126.
- Background: PubMed 12801434Wolf SL, Blanton S, Baer H, Breshears J, Butler AJ. Repetitive task practice: a critical review of constraint-induced movement therapy in stroke. Neurologist. 2002 Nov;8(6):325-38. doi: 10.1097/01.nrl.0000031014.85777.76.
- Background: PubMed 12732800Clark PC, Shields CG, Aycock D, Wolf SL. Preliminary reliability and validity of a family caregiver conflict scale for stroke. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs. 2003 Spring;18(2):77-82, 92.
- Background: PubMed 12817653Butler AJ, Wolf SL. Transcranial magnetic stimulation to assess cortical plasticity: a critical perspective for stroke rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2003 May;(41 Suppl):20-6. doi: 10.1080/16501960310010106.
Related trials for Cerebrovascular Accident
Recruiting
Connectomic Alterations Following Acute Ischemic Stroke in the MCA Territory
Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Clevidipine for the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Intracerebral Hemorrhage, Stroke
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
A Study Testing How Well the Drug Extract of Ginkgo Biloba Leaves Tablets Works for People With Memory or Thinking Problems After a Stroke When Added to Standard Treatment
Ischemic Stroke Hospitalized, Impairment, Cognitive
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Anti-inflammatory and Anti-thrombotic Therapy With colcHicine and Low Dose Rivaroxaban for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events Reduction in Ischemic Stroke
Ischemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
CoMind Early Feasibility Study
Intracranial Pressure, Intracranial Pressure Changes
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Steven L Wolf, PhD/PT/FAPTA principal investigator
Emory University
7 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Constraint-induced movement therapy in people with Cerebrovascular Accident, run by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) at 7 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 0 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Sep 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 7 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00057018, which also lists 20 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Sep 2016.