StrokeInHIbNCT01371409
Interhemispheric Inhibitory Interactions
A study testing continuous theta burst stimulation in people with Stroke, run by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
After a stroke the excitability of the brain decreases on the stroke side and increases on the opposite, non-stroke side. These changes make use of the stroke-affected arm difficult and slow recovery. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 40 to 75 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Stroke
- What is being tested?
- continuous theta burst stimulation
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 49 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Apr 2011to Jun 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 40 to 75 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- aged 40-75
- single, MCA territory stroke
- at least 6 months post stroke
- Fugl-Meyer (upper extremity) score of 15-55
Who cannot join
- absence of TMS motor evoked potential
- score <24 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
- history of seizure/epilepsy, head trauma, major psychiatric diagnosis
- aphasic (score <13 on Frenchay Aphasia Screen)
- contraindications to TMS/MRI
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Canada1 site
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, V6T 2B5
About this study
Official title: Interhemispheric Contributions to Neuroplasticity and Motor Learning After Stroke
After a stroke the excitability of the brain decreases on the stroke side and increases on the opposite, non-stroke side. These changes make use of the stroke-affected arm difficult and slow recovery. Rehabilitation exercises that increase arm use after stroke help increase brain excitability, but the net effect of this approach is low. New therapies are needed that restore more equal levels of brain excitability between the two sides. Brain stimulation is a noninvasive way to affect activity the excitability of brain cells. Pairing brain stimulation with exercises that require patients to learn new movements may help the brain to learn. Using stimulation that reduces activity in the side opposite to the stroke can increase activity on the stroke -affected side, through connections between the two brain hemispheres. The purpose of this study is to test if brain stimulation on the side opposite to the stroke, paired with arm movement exercises, can help patients learn new arm movements and improve arm function.
In this study people with stroke will receive brain stimulation over two different areas on the side of the brain opposite to the stroke: 1) those areas responsible for movement and 2) those responsible for sensation. These experiments will test both the short and long term effects of brain stimulation on patients' learning and arm function and will allow us to identify which area of the brain best improves learning and arm function. These experiments have the potential to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation after stroke. The proposed study is among the first to test stimulation over the side of the brain opposite to the stroke damage and at multiple sites. This unique approach may help stimulate the development of new methods for stroke rehabilitation.
Read the detailed description
The overall objective of this proposal is to examine the efficacy of new approaches to stroke recovery based on recent reports of interhemispheric contributions to neuroplastic change and motor skill learning. After stroke, cortical excitability is decreased in the ipsilesional and increased in the contralesional primary motor cortices (M1). Combined, these changes hamper hemiparetic arm use and impede functional recovery. Increasing hemiparetic arm use elevates the excitability of the ipsilesional cortex and improves function. Importantly, skilled motor practice raises cortical excitability to an even greater extent than merely increasing generalized use. However, the impact of increasing cortical excitability on recovery of function after stroke is limited, perhaps because the rate of change associated with both increasing use and learning new motor skills is low.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive method of brain stimulation. In humans, rTMS applied at high frequencies can increase cortical excitability; conversely, at low frequencies it can decrease cortical excitability. While rTMS in isolation can change cortical excitability after stroke its impact on neuroplastic change is small, likely reflecting a lack of consolidation in the absence of paired motor behaviour. Modulating the activity in a given neural network with brain stimulation prior to motor skill practice may in essence prime the system and enhance the neuroplastic effects associated with learning new motor skills. Yet to date, few studies have paired rTMS with practice of a novel motor task and assessed changes in motor function or behaviour.
Intuitively, it seems simplest to employ high frequency rTMS in the ipsilesional cortex to enhance cortical excitability. However, because of the difficulty of locating stimulation targets in the damaged hemisphere, low-frequency rTMS applied over the contralesional cortex may be the better approach. Though the direct effect of low-frequency rTMS in the human cortex is to suppress activity in the stimulated region it also indirectly enhances distant activity. Low-frequency rTMS over M1 increases cortical activity in the contralateral M1 homologue. We recently extended this finding to the primary sensory cortex (S1); demonstrating that low-frequency rTMS over left S1 increased excitability in (i.e., disinhibited) right S1. Therefore, suppressing the contralesional cortex to enhance ipsilesional cortical activity may facilitate a neural environment that is conducive for neuroplastic change.
Taken together these data suggest that inhibitory brain stimulation over the contralesional cortex, paired with skilled motor practice, may offer a new approach for stroke rehabilitation. To better understand whether this approach has merit, we propose to test two specific aims in separate experiments.
Specific Aim: To test the cumulative effects of repeated sessions that pair brain stimulation over M1c versus S1c with skilled motor practice in individuals with stroke.
We will assess hemiparetic arm motor and sensory function, motor performance/ motor skill acquisition (repeated sequence response times), cortical excitability, and neuroelectric activity in individuals with chronic sub-cortical stroke. Pre-brain stimulation measures will be compared with those obtained after 5 days of training paired with brain stimulation at a separate no-rTMS retention test to assess the cumulative effects of brain stimulation.
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Being tested
- continuous theta burst stimulation
- Keywords
- Stroke, TMS, Paired Pulse, EEG, Motor Learning
- Medical subject headings
- Stroke
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
continuous theta burst stimulationOther
Also called transcranial magnetic stimulation
80% active motor threshold, 600 pulses
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| active cTBS | Experimental | Not described Receives: Other: continuous theta burst stimulation |
| Sham cTBS | Sham comparator | Not described Receives: Other: continuous theta burst stimulation |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Response Time
Response time on a custom designed serial tracking program
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Secondary outcomes (6)
Wolf Motor
standardized measure of upper limb function
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Limb Position Matching
Limb position matching using custom designed software
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Intracortical Inhibition
Intracortical Inhibition as measured by paired pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Movement Time
movement time on custom designed serial tracking program
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Movement Trajectory
Movement trajectory on a custom designed serial tracking program
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Intracortical facilitation
Intracortical facilitation as measured by paired pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation
Measured: change from baseline to day 6
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Jun 2011 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2011
- Primary completionFeb 2014
- Study completionJun 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for StrokeStudies 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 N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 49 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
- Sponsor type
- Other government
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lara A Boyd, PT, PhD, Principal investigator, University of British Columbia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01371409
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- H09-00368
- Other IDs
- CIHR
- Acronym
- InHIb
- Status last verified
- Jun 2016
- First submitted
- 2 Jun 2011
- Last updated
- 28 Jun 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 28 Jun 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Interhemispheric Contributions to Neuroplasticity and Motor Learning After Stroke
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01371409
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- InHIb / H09-00368
- Conditions
- Stroke
- Keywords
- Stroke, TMS, Paired Pulse, EEG, Motor Learning
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 49 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)Other government
- Study start
- Apr 2011
- Primary completion
- Feb 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Jun 2011 (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.
After a stroke the excitability of the brain decreases on the stroke side and increases on the opposite, non-stroke side. These changes make use of the stroke-affected arm difficult and slow recovery. Rehabilitation exercises that increase arm use after stroke help increase brain excitability, but the net effect of this approach is low. New therapies are needed that restore more equal levels of brain excitability between the two sides. Brain stimulation is a noninvasive way to affect activity the excitability of brain cells. Pairing brain stimulation with exercises that require patients to learn new movements may help the brain to learn. Using stimulation that reduces activity in the side opposite to the stroke can increase activity on the stroke -affected side, through connections between the two brain hemispheres. The purpose of this study is to test if brain stimulation on the side opposite to the stroke, paired with arm movement exercises, can help patients learn new arm movements and improve arm function.
In this study people with stroke will receive brain stimulation over two different areas on the side of the brain opposite to the stroke: 1) those areas responsible for movement and 2) those responsible for sensation. These experiments will test both the short and long term effects of brain stimulation on patients' learning and arm function and will allow us to identify which area of the brain best improves learning and arm function. These experiments have the potential to improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation after stroke. The proposed study is among the first to test stimulation over the side of the brain opposite to the stroke damage and at multiple sites. This unique approach may help stimulate the development of new methods for stroke rehabilitation.
Detailed description
The overall objective of this proposal is to examine the efficacy of new approaches to stroke recovery based on recent reports of interhemispheric contributions to neuroplastic change and motor skill learning. After stroke, cortical excitability is decreased in the ipsilesional and increased in the contralesional primary motor cortices (M1). Combined, these changes hamper hemiparetic arm use and impede functional recovery. Increasing hemiparetic arm use elevates the excitability of the ipsilesional cortex and improves function. Importantly, skilled motor practice raises cortical excitability to an even greater extent than merely increasing generalized use. However, the impact of increasing cortical excitability on recovery of function after stroke is limited, perhaps because the rate of change associated with both increasing use and learning new motor skills is low.
Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a noninvasive method of brain stimulation. In humans, rTMS applied at high frequencies can increase cortical excitability; conversely, at low frequencies it can decrease cortical excitability. While rTMS in isolation can change cortical excitability after stroke its impact on neuroplastic change is small, likely reflecting a lack of consolidation in the absence of paired motor behaviour. Modulating the activity in a given neural network with brain stimulation prior to motor skill practice may in essence prime the system and enhance the neuroplastic effects associated with learning new motor skills. Yet to date, few studies have paired rTMS with practice of a novel motor task and assessed changes in motor function or behaviour.
Intuitively, it seems simplest to employ high frequency rTMS in the ipsilesional cortex to enhance cortical excitability. However, because of the difficulty of locating stimulation targets in the damaged hemisphere, low-frequency rTMS applied over the contralesional cortex may be the better approach. Though the direct effect of low-frequency rTMS in the human cortex is to suppress activity in the stimulated region it also indirectly enhances distant activity. Low-frequency rTMS over M1 increases cortical activity in the contralateral M1 homologue. We recently extended this finding to the primary sensory cortex (S1); demonstrating that low-frequency rTMS over left S1 increased excitability in (i.e., disinhibited) right S1. Therefore, suppressing the contralesional cortex to enhance ipsilesional cortical activity may facilitate a neural environment that is conducive for neuroplastic change.
Taken together these data suggest that inhibitory brain stimulation over the contralesional cortex, paired with skilled motor practice, may offer a new approach for stroke rehabilitation. To better understand whether this approach has merit, we propose to test two specific aims in separate experiments.
Specific Aim: To test the cumulative effects of repeated sessions that pair brain stimulation over M1c versus S1c with skilled motor practice in individuals with stroke.
We will assess hemiparetic arm motor and sensory function, motor performance/ motor skill acquisition (repeated sequence response times), cortical excitability, and neuroelectric activity in individuals with chronic sub-cortical stroke. Pre-brain stimulation measures will be compared with those obtained after 5 days of training paired with brain stimulation at a separate no-rTMS retention test to assess the cumulative effects of brain stimulation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| active cTBS | Experimental | Other: continuous theta burst stimulation |
| Sham cTBS | Sham comparator | Other: continuous theta burst stimulation |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 40 to 75 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- aged 40-75
- single, MCA territory stroke
- at least 6 months post stroke
- Fugl-Meyer (upper extremity) score of 15-55
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- absence of TMS motor evoked potential
- score <24 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment
- history of seizure/epilepsy, head trauma, major psychiatric diagnosis
- aphasic (score <13 on Frenchay Aphasia Screen)
- contraindications to TMS/MRI
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 |
|---|---|---|
| continuous theta burst stimulationAlso: transcranial magnetic stimulation80% active motor threshold, 600 pulses | Other | Sham cTBS, active cTBS |
Primary outcome
Response Time
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
Response time on a custom designed serial tracking program
6 secondary outcomes
Wolf Motor
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
Limb Position Matching
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
Intracortical Inhibition
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
Movement Time
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
Movement Trajectory
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
Intracortical facilitation
Time frame: change from baseline to day 6
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 28 Jun 2016.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Stroke
Not yet recruiting
Foot Drop Rehabilitation and Mobility in Chronic Stroke
Stroke
Enrolling by invitation
Study on the Efficacy and Safety of Non-Invasive Brain-Computer Interface With MRI-Guided Multi-Channel Time-Domain Interference Stimulation in Treating Motor Dysfunction in Acute Cerebral Infarction Patients
Acute Ichemic Stroke
RecruitingObservational study
Development, Validation and Normative Data of the Italian Battery for the Recognition of Famous Faces (FAME)
Stroke, Alzheimer s Disease
Enrolling by invitation
Long-Term Clinical, Health Economic, and Process Evaluation of Intensive Technology-Integrated Motor Rehabilitation in Chronic Neurological Conditions (INTeRAcT-bis)
Stroke, Spinal Cord Injuries (SCI)
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Rimonabant for Improving Walking Ability in Patients With Chronic Stroke
Chronic Stroke
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.
Lara A Boyd, PT, PhD principal investigator
University of British Columbia
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing continuous theta burst stimulation in people with Stroke, run by Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) at 1 site in Canada.
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 4 inclusion and 5 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 28 Jun 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. 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. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
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.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Response Time (time frame: change from baseline to day 6). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
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 28 Jun 2016.