AzTrials
AzTrials

Focal DystoniaPhase 1/2DSSNCT01738581

rTMS and Retraining in Focal Hand Dystonia

A Phase 1/2 study testing Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Sensorimotor Retraining and Non-specific Therapy in people with Focal Dystonia, run by University of Minnesota at 2 sites in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study is exploring a new experimental procedure in dystonia called repetitive transcranial magnetic brain stimulation (TMS) combined with rehabilitation. The purpose of the study is to determine whether repetitive TMS is effective as a treatment to reduce symptoms in dystonia as demonstrated by improved motor… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 to 75 years
Conditions the study is for
Focal Dystonia
What is being tested?
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Sensorimotor Retraining and Non-specific Therapy
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
9 participants
Where
2 sitesUnited States
Study dates
Nov 2011to Jun 2015
Phase
Phase 1/2
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

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 75 years
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Greater than 18 years of age
  • Symptoms of focal hand dystonia or writer's cramp

Who cannot join

  • History of seizure or other neurologic disorder

Trial locations and contacts

2 sites in 1 country.

United States2 sites
  • University of Minnesota, Program in Physical Therapy

    Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55414

  • Program in Physical Therapy, University of Minnesota

    Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55455

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: Effectiveness of rTMS and Retraining in the Treatment of Focal Hand Dystonia

This study is exploring a new experimental procedure in dystonia called repetitive transcranial magnetic brain stimulation (TMS) combined with rehabilitation. The purpose of the study is to determine whether repetitive TMS is effective as a treatment to reduce symptoms in dystonia as demonstrated by improved motor performance.

Read the detailed description

BACKGROUND: Though the etiology of focal hand dystonia (FHD) is uncertain, two primary factors implicated in the development of dystonic symptoms are excessive cortical excitability and impaired sensorimotor processing.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the functional efficacy and neural effects of a Dual intervention of rTMS and sensorimotor retraining. Our working hypothesis is: subjects receiving the combined intervention will (1) display significantly improved handwriting measures; (2) report significant improvement in daily functional ability; (3) display reduced hand cramping compared; and (4) demonstrate reduced corticospinal excitability after the Dual intervention when compared to the rTMS+ stretching and massage (Sham) intervention.

METHODS: A randomized, single-subject, multiple baseline design with crossover is used for this study that will examine ten subjects with FHD with two interventions: five days of low-frequency 1 Hz rTMS + sensorimotor retraining (Dual intervention) vs. rTMS + stretching and massage (Sham). The rTMS is applied to the premotor cortex at 1 Hz at 90% resting motor threshold for 1200 pulses. For sensorimotor retraining, a subset of the Learning-based Sensorimotor Training program was followed.

Conditions
Focal Dystonia
Being tested
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Sensorimotor Retraining, Non-specific Therapy
Keywords
focal hand dystonia (FHD), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), sensorimotor retraining
Medical subject headings
Dystonic Disorders, Dystonia, Focal, Task-Specific

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic StimulationDevice

    Also called Magstim stimulator (Magstim Co. LTD, Whitland,UK), Neuromodulation

    Applied to the premotor cortex at 1 Hz at 90% resting motor threshold for 1200 pulses.

  • Sensorimotor RetrainingBehavioural

    Also called Learning-based Sensorimotor Training program,, Sensory and motor Retraining

    For sensorimotor retraining, a subset of the Learning-based Sensorimotor Training program was followed

  • Non-specific TherapyBehavioural

    Also called Massage, Stretching

    A non-specific massage and stretching program directed to the hand, wrist and forearm

Study groups in NCT01738581
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
rTMS + SMR, then rTMS + CTLExperimentalFirst phase of treatment: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and sensorimotor retraining (SMR). Second phase of treatment: rTMS and control treatment (CTL) (CTL therapy consisted of non-specific therapy that includes stretching, massage, range of motion).
Receives: Device: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Behavioral: Sensorimotor Retraining; Behavioral: Non-specific Therapy
rTMS + CTL, then rTMS + SMRExperimentalFirst phase of treatment: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with non-specific therapy that includes stretching, massage, range of motion. Second phase of treatment: rTMS and sensorimotor retraining (SMR).
Receives: Device: Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Behavioral: Sensorimotor Retraining; Behavioral: Non-specific Therapy

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Change From Baseline in Global Rating of Change at Posttest (Day 5)

    Symptom severity was assessed using the global rating of change (GROC). For the GROC, participants were asked to identify between one to three functions most impacted by focal hand dystonia. At posttest 1 they were then asked to select a rating of perceived change that represented the level of function compared to baseline. Perceived change consisted of a ±7 point Likert scale (+7= a very great deal better, 0= no change, -7= a very great deal worse).

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

Secondary outcomes (6)
  1. Change From Baseline in Arm Dystonia Disability Scale at Posttest (Day 5)

    The Arm Dystonia Disability Scale (ADDS) is a survey where participants rate task difficulty for activities such as writing, handling utensils, and buttoning on a scale of 1-4 (1 = no difficulty ,4 = not able or marked difficulty). This is a subjective assessment of impairment due to focal hand dystonia. Scores are determined using an equation: total points scored, divided by the maximum possible (23), multiplied by the quotient by 90 and subtract from 90%. Scores range from 0%-90% with higher scores indicating more function.

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

  2. Change From Baseline in Sensation at Posttest (Day 5)

    Examinations included two point discrimination. Two-point discrimination threshold was completed using a Disk-Criminator™. Participants were asked to reply "one" or "two" after each presentation. Static and dynamic stimuli were presented to the index and ring fingers bilaterally, meaning it was presented as a static stimuli or it was slowly swept across the skin (dynamic).

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

  3. Change From Baseline in Cortical Silent Period at Posttest (Day 5)

    Cortical silent period (CSP) testing was completed during an isometric contraction of the target muscle whereby the motor evoked potential is followed by a short duration of electromyographic quiescence. The maximal voluntary contraction for finger abduction was recorded using a custom strain gauge placed around the index finger. Real-time visual feedback was given on a laptop screen to project the force produced by the participant and 20% of the maximum of three trials was calculated and displayed on a target line. For the CSP, participants were asked to contract until the target line was met, then a single transcranial magnetic stimulation pulse was delivered to the motor cortex. Ten trials were collected with a short rest period to prevent fatigue.

    CSP duration was calculated in milliseconds (ms). CSP EMG data were first rectified, and then a 10-ms moving average calculation was applied to the data. The onset of the CSP was set as the time point of the delivery of the TM

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

  4. Change From Baseline for Pressure During Hand Writing at Posttest (Day 5)

    Digitized handwriting was assessed using a computerized tablet (WACOM Co., Ltd., japan) with MovAlyzeR® (Neuroscript LLC, Tempe, AZ) hardware and software. Participants used a custom modified digitized pen (Kiko Software, Netherlands) to write in a self-selected pace and style on the tablet with real-time visual feedback. Writing tasks included "My country tis of thee" at a self-selected pace, repeated eight times. Data were sampled at 215 Hz (resolution: 5080 lpi, accuracy: ±0.01 pressure range: 0-800 g). Writing samples were segmented by points of minimal velocity into single strokes for analysis. Pressure for each stroke was automatically calculated within the software.

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

  5. Change From Baseline for Physician Rated Impairment at Posttest (Day 5)

    Video recordings were made as participants wrote on a pad of paper with pen. Participants were asked to draw a series of 10 loops across the pad of paper followed by "The dog is barking" and their signature, each repeated four times. A physician blinded to participant allocation rated recordings. Scoring criteria were adapted from a standardized writer's cramp rating scale (WCRS) (Wissel et al., 1996), rating pathological flexion or extension at the wrist, fingers and elbow, presence of tremor, dystonic posture, writing speed and latency of dystonic symptoms. Final scores are expressed as a rating listed as a movement score.

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

  6. Change From Baseline in Physical Function at Posttest (Day 5)

    Participants completed the full SF-36 assessment with subsection of interest: "physical functioning".

    Measured: Baseline and Posttest

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted30 Nov 2012 (estimated)
  2. Study startNov 2011
  3. Primary completionJun 2015
  4. Study completionJun 2015

Resources

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 1/2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Crossover
Masking
Single blind
Who is masked
Outcomes assessor
Enrolment
9 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01738581
Sponsor's protocol ID
0608M91226-2
Acronym
DSS
Status last verified
Oct 2019
First submitted
18 Sep 2012
Last updated
18 Nov 2019
Data monitoring committee
Yes
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • Byl NN, Nagajaran S, McKenzie AL. Effect of sensory discrimination training on structure and function in patients with focal hand dystonia: a case series. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Oct;84(10):1505-14. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00276-4.

    PubMed 14586919
  • Kimberley TJ, Borich MR, Arora S, Siebner HR. Multiple sessions of low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in focal hand dystonia: clinical and physiological effects. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2013;31(5):533-42. doi: 10.3233/RNN-120259.

    PubMed 23340117
  • Kimberley TJ, Schmidt RL, Chen M, Dykstra DD, Buetefisch CM. Mixed effectiveness of rTMS and retraining in the treatment of focal hand dystonia. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015 Jul 9;9:385. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00385. eCollection 2015.

    PubMed 26217209

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 1/2 study testing Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, Sensorimotor Retraining and Non-specific Therapy in people with Focal Dystonia, run by University of Minnesota at 2 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 2 inclusion and 1 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 18 Nov 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 2 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 combined phase mean?

Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 28 Jun 2016). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

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?

Change From Baseline in Global Rating of Change at Posttest (Day 5) (time frame: Baseline and Posttest). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01738581, which also lists 3 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 18 Nov 2019.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in