Cerebral PalsyNCT03635775
Single-session tDCS in Cerebral Palsy
A study testing Active tDCS in people with Cerebral Palsy and Perinatal Stroke, run by University of Minnesota at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The goal of this study is to characterize individual responses to a single application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP), and to test which electrode configuration produces changes in brain excitability and motor function. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 7 to 21 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Cerebral Palsy, Perinatal Stroke, Periventricular Leukomalacia
- What is being tested?
- Active tDCS
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 20 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 1 May 2018to 21 Feb 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- 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 7 to 21 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Ages 7-21
- Able to follow two-step commands.
- Presence of an MEP in the non-lesioned hemisphere
- Clinical diagnosis of unilateral cerebral palsy
- Radiological evidence of stroke or periventricular leukomalacia
Who cannot join
- Evidence of seizure within 2 years
- Other neurological or metabolic conditions
- Is pregnant (females only)
- Presence of indwelling metal in the head (e.g. aneurysm clip) or medical device.
- Treatment with injectable agents (e.g. Botox) for spasticity management within 2 months
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Effects of Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children With Cerebral Palsy
The goal of this study is to characterize individual responses to a single application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP), and to test which electrode configuration produces changes in brain excitability and motor function. Participants with UCP, ages 7-21 years, will be assigned to one of four tDCS groups. Using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, the investigators will assess cortical excitability before and at regular intervals up to 1 hour following tDCS. The knowledge gained from this study will advance the field through more targeted approaches of neuromodulatory techniques in this population and others, using individual characteristics to guide optimal treatment
Read the detailed description
Hemiparesis, or weakness on one side of the body, is common following stroke early in life. The broader clinical diagnosis for this type of childhood movement impairment is unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP). Cerebral palsy effects about 3 out of every 1000 live births in the Unites States, and produces lifelong motor, sensory, and cognitive disability.
Neurorehabilitation has primarily focused on intensive motor training to encourage use of the affected extremities in an effort to produce use-dependent neuroplasticity in the brain. Such interventions are effective, but require a burdensome amount of time, 60-90 hours per week, for both the child and therapist. Furthermore, some children do not respond at all to such training.
Neuromodulation is a relatively new field that aims to influence the brain's neuronal activity through direct application of magnetic (TMS) or electric (tDCS) energy. It is thought the combination of neuromodulation and motor training may reduce the dosage of training needed, and would promote recovery to a greater extent for more individuals. Indeed, previous work in adult stroke demonstrate a benefit of combining repetitive TMS (rTMS) and tDCS with motor training, compared to training alone. These types of synergistic interventions are just beginning to be used in children with UCP, with some preliminary data showing potential benefit.
One of the many questions surrounding neuromodulatory interventions like tDCS is how to reliably predict changes in neuronal activity. The currently hypothesized effects of tDCS are polarity-specific: anodal tDCS depolarizes membranes resulting in increased in neuronal excitability; cathodal tDCS hyperpolarizes tDCS resulting in decreased neuronal excitability. Furthermore, these effects scale with the intensity of stimulation: the larger the direct current delivered, the greater the change in excitability. This framework has been used to guide almost all studies using tDCS to produce a change in brain function and resulting behavior.
More recently, the field is beginning to appreciate that this framework may be overly simplistic. For example, when a cognitive task is performed concurrently with tDCS, there are reported non-linear effects related to current intensity and direction of change in excitability. Such work has a significant impact on the use of tDCS in rehabilitation, which advocates for the pairing of stimulation with on-going activity.
One common approach to using tDCS in individuals with stroke is to target the non-lesioned hemisphere. Following stroke, there is an imbalance of communication between brain hemispheres. This communication, known as interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), is a normal control process whereby the activated motor cortex sends an inhibitory command to the opposite motor cortex to momentarily interrupt its activity, allowing for the execution of controlled unilateral movements. IHI is exaggerated in the non-lesioned hemisphere after stroke, resulting in increased inhibition on the lesioned hemisphere. Applying inhibitory current to the non-lesioned hemisphere may disinhibit this side and allow for recovery in the lesioned hemisphere.
IHI is mediated through fibers passing through the corpus callosum and can be examined non-invasively using TMS. First and foremost, IHI has been shown to exist in children and young adults, indicating that this mechanism is not exclusively a feature of the developed adult nervous system. The effect of NIBS to modulated IHI has been demonstrated in adults with stroke, but less clearly in children. One reason for this is a lack of data characterizing IHI in children after perinatal brain injury. It is feasible, through ongoing adaptive and maladaptive neuroplasticity, that IHI is weakly present (or not at all) in these children as compared to adults. As studies continue to focus on NIBS interventions targeting the non-lesioned hemisphere, a more comprehensive understanding of the motor control mechanisms present in children with UCP is needed to guide these interventions. Therefore, one objective of this study is to characterize IHI of both brain hemispheres in children with UCP.
At the moment, it is unclear what the acute effects of a single session tDCS are, when paired with motor training, on brain excitability or motor performance in children with and without UCP. This leads this investigative team to design the proposed study, which will offer insight into the mechanisms of tDCS and lead the field toward a better understanding of how tDCS be implemented in a neurorehabilitation setting for both children and potentially adults.
Purpose: To characterize motor cortex neurophysiology and to understand how one form of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) changes brain excitability and behavior in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy, as compared to children with typical development (CTD).
Aim 1: Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), characterize brain excitability, specifically interhemispheric inhibition, in children with CP and CTD.
Aim 2: Evaluate the immediate effect of tDCS on brain excitability and motor performance in children with UCP and CTD.
Aim 3: Compare the responses to tDCS in each with individual estimated electric field intensity from computational modeling.
Procedures:
This is a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded study. The intervention consists of a single, 20 minute session of tDCS paired with motor training (see Figure 2). Participants will be randomized to either real or sham tDCS. The participants and the members of the research team involved in assessments and testing will be blinded to intervention group (real or sham tDCS), but the other research staff/PI/Co-Is will be unblinded.
The investigators will complete TMS assessments of cortical excitability at Pre-test, as well as an MRI of the brain. Behavioral assessments of hand function and performance will also be included.
The intervention will last a total of 30 minutes, including preparatory time. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive real or sham tDCS. Children with presence of a lesioned hemisphere motor evoked potential (MEP) response may receive 1) ipsilesional anodal; 2) contralesional cathodal tDCS or 3) sham tDCS. Children without a lesioned hemisphere MEP may receive 1) contralesional anodal or 2) sham tDCS. Participants and their families will be blinded to group assignment. Participants will be unblinded after completing the study.
Immediately following the intervention, TMS and Behavioral assessments will be performed at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes following the intervention.
Study Duration: Each participant will complete the study in either one day (MRI and intervention, four hours total) or on two separate days (one hour MRI, and three hours intervention). If done on two days, the MRI and intervention will be separated by no longer than a two week (14 day) period.
- Being tested
- Active tDCS, Sham tDCS
- Keywords
- non-invasive brain stimulation, rehabilitation, pediatrics
- Medical subject headings
- Cerebral Palsy, Leukomalacia, Periventricular
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Active tDCSDevice
Also called transcranial direct current stimulation
Low-level (1.5 milliampere) current delivered to the scalp using saline-soaked sponges.
Sham tDCSDevice
Sham-setting--no electrical current delivered.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Anodal ipsilesional Active tDCS | Experimental | Anodal tDCS (excitatory) applied to the lesioned hemisphere. Participant must have lesioned hemisphere MEP. Receives: Device: Active tDCS |
| Cathodal contralesional Active tDCS | Experimental | Cathodal tDCS (inhibitory) applied to the non-lesioned hemisphere. Participant must have lesioned hemisphere MEP. Receives: Device: Active tDCS |
| Anodal contralesional Active tDCS | Experimental | Anodal tDCS (excitatory) applied to the non-lesioned hemisphere. Participant must not have lesioned hemisphere MEP. Receives: Device: Active tDCS |
| Sham tDCS | Sham comparator | Sham tDCS applied in one of the above configurations Receives: Device: Sham tDCS |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change in Motor Evoked Potential Amplitude
Motor evoked potential is a measure of cortical excitability using transcranial magnetic stimulation. MEP is measured as the amplitude of electrical activity from finger muscles. Outcome is reported as the percent change in MEP amplitude from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention.
Measured: approximately 5 minutes
Secondary outcomes (1)
Change in Movement Accuracy
Finger tracking was measured using an instrumented goniometer that recorded finger position, which was then used to control a cursor on a laptop computer. The outcome is reported as the percent change in accuracy from pre-intervention to 60 minutes post-intervention.
Measured: Approximately 1 hours
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted17 Aug 2018
- Study start1 May 2018
- Primary completion21 Feb 2020
- Study completion21 Feb 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (21)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cerebral PalsyStudies 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
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Minnesota
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03635775
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- STUDY00002820
- Other IDs
- P2CHD086844, K01HD078484
- Status last verified
- Mar 2021
- First submitted
- 12 Jul 2018
- Last updated
- 13 Apr 2021
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- Yes
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Christensen D, Van Naarden Braun K, Doernberg NS, Maenner MJ, Arneson CL, Durkin MS, Benedict RE, Kirby RS, Wingate MS, Fitzgerald R, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Prevalence of cerebral palsy, co-occurring autism spectrum disorders, and motor functioning - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, USA, 2008. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Jan;56(1):59-65. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12268. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
PubMed 24117446Bolognini N, Vallar G, Casati C, Latif LA, El-Nazer R, Williams J, Banco E, Macea DD, Tesio L, Chessa C, Fregni F. Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDCS combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in poststroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Nov-Dec;25(9):819-29. doi: 10.1177/1545968311411056. Epub 2011 Jul 29.
PubMed 21803933Figlewski K, Blicher JU, Mortensen J, Severinsen KE, Nielsen JF, Andersen H. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Potentiates Improvements in Functional Ability in Patients With Chronic Stroke Receiving Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy. Stroke. 2017 Jan;48(1):229-232. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.014988. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
PubMed 27899754Antal A, Terney D, Poreisz C, Paulus W. Towards unravelling task-related modulations of neuroplastic changes induced in the human motor cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2007 Nov;26(9):2687-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05896.x. Epub 2007 Oct 26.
PubMed 17970738Duque J, Hummel F, Celnik P, Murase N, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Transcallosal inhibition in chronic subcortical stroke. Neuroimage. 2005 Dec;28(4):940-6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.033. Epub 2005 Aug 9.
PubMed 16084737Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004 Mar;55(3):400-9. doi: 10.1002/ana.10848.
PubMed 14991818Zewdie E, Damji O, Ciechanski P, Seeger T, Kirton A. Contralesional Corticomotor Neurophysiology in Hemiparetic Children With Perinatal Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Mar;31(3):261-271. doi: 10.1177/1545968316680485. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
PubMed 27885162Kirton A, Deveber G, Gunraj C, Chen R. Cortical excitability and interhemispheric inhibition after subcortical pediatric stroke: plastic organization and effects of rTMS. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Nov;121(11):1922-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.021.
PubMed 20537584Collange Grecco LA, de Almeida Carvalho Duarte N, Mendonca ME, Galli M, Fregni F, Oliveira CS. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality for improving gait in children with spastic diparetic cerebral palsy: a pilot, randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2015 Dec;29(12):1212-23. doi: 10.1177/0269215514566997. Epub 2015 Jan 20.
PubMed 25604912Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001 Nov 27;57(10):1899-901. doi: 10.1212/wnl.57.10.1899.
PubMed 11723286Gillick BT, Krach LE, Feyma T, Rich TL, Moberg K, Thomas W, Cassidy JM, Menk J, Carey JR. Primed low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and constraint-induced movement therapy in pediatric hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Jan;56(1):44-52. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12243. Epub 2013 Aug 21.
PubMed 23962321Kirton A, Chen R, Friefeld S, Gunraj C, Pontigon AM, Deveber G. Contralesional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic hemiparesis in subcortical paediatric stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008 Jun;7(6):507-13. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70096-6. Epub 2008 May 1.
PubMed 18455961Ciechanski P, Kirton A. Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation Can Enhance Motor Learning in Children. Cereb Cortex. 2017 May 1;27(5):2758-2767. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw114.
PubMed 27166171Kirton A, Ciechanski P, Zewdie E, Andersen J, Nettel-Aguirre A, Carlson H, Carsolio L, Herrero M, Quigley J, Mineyko A, Hodge J, Hill M. Transcranial direct current stimulation for children with perinatal stroke and hemiparesis. Neurology. 2017 Jan 17;88(3):259-267. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003518. Epub 2016 Dec 7.
PubMed 27927938Bikson M, Grossman P, Zannou AL, Kronberg G, Truong D, Boggio P, Brunoni AR, Charvet L, Fregni F, Fritsch B, Gillick B, Hamilton RH, Hampstead BM, Kirton A, Knotkova H, Liebetanz D, Liu A, Loo C, Nitsche MA, Reis J, Richardson JD, Rotenberg A, Turkeltaub PE, Woods AJ. Response to letter to the editor: Safety of transcranial direct current stimulation: Evidence based update 2016. Brain Stimul. 2017 Sep-Oct;10(5):986-987. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Jul 12. No abstract available.
PubMed 28734680
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 Apr 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Effects of Single-session Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Children With Cerebral Palsy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT03635775
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- STUDY00002820
- Keywords
- non-invasive brain stimulation, rehabilitation, pediatrics
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 20 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of MinnesotaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
- Study start
- 1 May 2018 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 21 Feb 2020 (actual)
- Study completion
- 21 Feb 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 17 Aug 2018 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 25 Feb 2021
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The goal of this study is to characterize individual responses to a single application of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP), and to test which electrode configuration produces changes in brain excitability and motor function. Participants with UCP, ages 7-21 years, will be assigned to one of four tDCS groups. Using single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation, the investigators will assess cortical excitability before and at regular intervals up to 1 hour following tDCS. The knowledge gained from this study will advance the field through more targeted approaches of neuromodulatory techniques in this population and others, using individual characteristics to guide optimal treatment
Detailed description
Hemiparesis, or weakness on one side of the body, is common following stroke early in life. The broader clinical diagnosis for this type of childhood movement impairment is unilateral cerebral palsy (UCP). Cerebral palsy effects about 3 out of every 1000 live births in the Unites States, and produces lifelong motor, sensory, and cognitive disability.
Neurorehabilitation has primarily focused on intensive motor training to encourage use of the affected extremities in an effort to produce use-dependent neuroplasticity in the brain. Such interventions are effective, but require a burdensome amount of time, 60-90 hours per week, for both the child and therapist. Furthermore, some children do not respond at all to such training.
Neuromodulation is a relatively new field that aims to influence the brain's neuronal activity through direct application of magnetic (TMS) or electric (tDCS) energy. It is thought the combination of neuromodulation and motor training may reduce the dosage of training needed, and would promote recovery to a greater extent for more individuals. Indeed, previous work in adult stroke demonstrate a benefit of combining repetitive TMS (rTMS) and tDCS with motor training, compared to training alone. These types of synergistic interventions are just beginning to be used in children with UCP, with some preliminary data showing potential benefit.
One of the many questions surrounding neuromodulatory interventions like tDCS is how to reliably predict changes in neuronal activity. The currently hypothesized effects of tDCS are polarity-specific: anodal tDCS depolarizes membranes resulting in increased in neuronal excitability; cathodal tDCS hyperpolarizes tDCS resulting in decreased neuronal excitability. Furthermore, these effects scale with the intensity of stimulation: the larger the direct current delivered, the greater the change in excitability. This framework has been used to guide almost all studies using tDCS to produce a change in brain function and resulting behavior.
More recently, the field is beginning to appreciate that this framework may be overly simplistic. For example, when a cognitive task is performed concurrently with tDCS, there are reported non-linear effects related to current intensity and direction of change in excitability. Such work has a significant impact on the use of tDCS in rehabilitation, which advocates for the pairing of stimulation with on-going activity.
One common approach to using tDCS in individuals with stroke is to target the non-lesioned hemisphere. Following stroke, there is an imbalance of communication between brain hemispheres. This communication, known as interhemispheric inhibition (IHI), is a normal control process whereby the activated motor cortex sends an inhibitory command to the opposite motor cortex to momentarily interrupt its activity, allowing for the execution of controlled unilateral movements. IHI is exaggerated in the non-lesioned hemisphere after stroke, resulting in increased inhibition on the lesioned hemisphere. Applying inhibitory current to the non-lesioned hemisphere may disinhibit this side and allow for recovery in the lesioned hemisphere.
IHI is mediated through fibers passing through the corpus callosum and can be examined non-invasively using TMS. First and foremost, IHI has been shown to exist in children and young adults, indicating that this mechanism is not exclusively a feature of the developed adult nervous system. The effect of NIBS to modulated IHI has been demonstrated in adults with stroke, but less clearly in children. One reason for this is a lack of data characterizing IHI in children after perinatal brain injury. It is feasible, through ongoing adaptive and maladaptive neuroplasticity, that IHI is weakly present (or not at all) in these children as compared to adults. As studies continue to focus on NIBS interventions targeting the non-lesioned hemisphere, a more comprehensive understanding of the motor control mechanisms present in children with UCP is needed to guide these interventions. Therefore, one objective of this study is to characterize IHI of both brain hemispheres in children with UCP.
At the moment, it is unclear what the acute effects of a single session tDCS are, when paired with motor training, on brain excitability or motor performance in children with and without UCP. This leads this investigative team to design the proposed study, which will offer insight into the mechanisms of tDCS and lead the field toward a better understanding of how tDCS be implemented in a neurorehabilitation setting for both children and potentially adults.
Purpose: To characterize motor cortex neurophysiology and to understand how one form of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) called transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) changes brain excitability and behavior in children diagnosed with cerebral palsy, as compared to children with typical development (CTD).
Aim 1: Using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), characterize brain excitability, specifically interhemispheric inhibition, in children with CP and CTD.
Aim 2: Evaluate the immediate effect of tDCS on brain excitability and motor performance in children with UCP and CTD.
Aim 3: Compare the responses to tDCS in each with individual estimated electric field intensity from computational modeling.
Procedures:
This is a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blinded study. The intervention consists of a single, 20 minute session of tDCS paired with motor training (see Figure 2). Participants will be randomized to either real or sham tDCS. The participants and the members of the research team involved in assessments and testing will be blinded to intervention group (real or sham tDCS), but the other research staff/PI/Co-Is will be unblinded.
The investigators will complete TMS assessments of cortical excitability at Pre-test, as well as an MRI of the brain. Behavioral assessments of hand function and performance will also be included.
The intervention will last a total of 30 minutes, including preparatory time. Participants will be randomly assigned to receive real or sham tDCS. Children with presence of a lesioned hemisphere motor evoked potential (MEP) response may receive 1) ipsilesional anodal; 2) contralesional cathodal tDCS or 3) sham tDCS. Children without a lesioned hemisphere MEP may receive 1) contralesional anodal or 2) sham tDCS. Participants and their families will be blinded to group assignment. Participants will be unblinded after completing the study.
Immediately following the intervention, TMS and Behavioral assessments will be performed at 0, 15, 30, and 60 minutes following the intervention.
Study Duration: Each participant will complete the study in either one day (MRI and intervention, four hours total) or on two separate days (one hour MRI, and three hours intervention). If done on two days, the MRI and intervention will be separated by no longer than a two week (14 day) period.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Basic science
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Anodal ipsilesional Active tDCS | Experimental | Device: Active tDCSAnodal tDCS (excitatory) applied to the lesioned hemisphere. Participant must have lesioned hemisphere MEP. |
| Cathodal contralesional Active tDCS | Experimental | Device: Active tDCSCathodal tDCS (inhibitory) applied to the non-lesioned hemisphere. Participant must have lesioned hemisphere MEP. |
| Anodal contralesional Active tDCS | Experimental | Device: Active tDCSAnodal tDCS (excitatory) applied to the non-lesioned hemisphere. Participant must not have lesioned hemisphere MEP. |
| Sham tDCS | Sham comparator | Device: Sham tDCSSham tDCS applied in one of the above configurations |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 7 to 21 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Ages 7-21
- Able to follow two-step commands.
- Presence of an MEP in the non-lesioned hemisphere
- Clinical diagnosis of unilateral cerebral palsy
- Radiological evidence of stroke or periventricular leukomalacia
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Evidence of seizure within 2 years
- Other neurological or metabolic conditions
- Is pregnant (females only)
- Presence of indwelling metal in the head (e.g. aneurysm clip) or medical device.
- Treatment with injectable agents (e.g. Botox) for spasticity management within 2 months
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Active tDCSAlso: transcranial direct current stimulationLow-level (1.5 milliampere) current delivered to the scalp using saline-soaked sponges. | Device | Anodal contralesional Active tDCS, Anodal ipsilesional Active tDCS, Cathodal contralesional Active tDCS |
| Sham tDCSSham-setting--no electrical current delivered. | Device | Sham tDCS |
Primary outcome
Change in Motor Evoked Potential Amplitude
Time frame: approximately 5 minutes
Motor evoked potential is a measure of cortical excitability using transcranial magnetic stimulation. MEP is measured as the amplitude of electrical activity from finger muscles. Outcome is reported as the percent change in MEP amplitude from pre-intervention to immediately post-intervention.
1 secondary outcome
Change in Movement Accuracy
Time frame: Approximately 1 hours
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 Apr 2021.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 24117446Christensen D, Van Naarden Braun K, Doernberg NS, Maenner MJ, Arneson CL, Durkin MS, Benedict RE, Kirby RS, Wingate MS, Fitzgerald R, Yeargin-Allsopp M. Prevalence of cerebral palsy, co-occurring autism spectrum disorders, and motor functioning - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, USA, 2008. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Jan;56(1):59-65. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12268. Epub 2013 Oct 1.
- Background: PubMed 21803933Bolognini N, Vallar G, Casati C, Latif LA, El-Nazer R, Williams J, Banco E, Macea DD, Tesio L, Chessa C, Fregni F. Neurophysiological and behavioral effects of tDCS combined with constraint-induced movement therapy in poststroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Nov-Dec;25(9):819-29. doi: 10.1177/1545968311411056. Epub 2011 Jul 29.
- Background: PubMed 27899754Figlewski K, Blicher JU, Mortensen J, Severinsen KE, Nielsen JF, Andersen H. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation Potentiates Improvements in Functional Ability in Patients With Chronic Stroke Receiving Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy. Stroke. 2017 Jan;48(1):229-232. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.116.014988. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
- Background: PubMed 17970738Antal A, Terney D, Poreisz C, Paulus W. Towards unravelling task-related modulations of neuroplastic changes induced in the human motor cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2007 Nov;26(9):2687-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2007.05896.x. Epub 2007 Oct 26.
- Background: PubMed 16084737Duque J, Hummel F, Celnik P, Murase N, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Transcallosal inhibition in chronic subcortical stroke. Neuroimage. 2005 Dec;28(4):940-6. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.06.033. Epub 2005 Aug 9.
- Background: PubMed 14991818Murase N, Duque J, Mazzocchio R, Cohen LG. Influence of interhemispheric interactions on motor function in chronic stroke. Ann Neurol. 2004 Mar;55(3):400-9. doi: 10.1002/ana.10848.
- Background: PubMed 27885162Zewdie E, Damji O, Ciechanski P, Seeger T, Kirton A. Contralesional Corticomotor Neurophysiology in Hemiparetic Children With Perinatal Stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017 Mar;31(3):261-271. doi: 10.1177/1545968316680485. Epub 2016 Nov 24.
- Background: PubMed 20537584Kirton A, Deveber G, Gunraj C, Chen R. Cortical excitability and interhemispheric inhibition after subcortical pediatric stroke: plastic organization and effects of rTMS. Clin Neurophysiol. 2010 Nov;121(11):1922-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2010.04.021.
- Background: PubMed 25604912Collange Grecco LA, de Almeida Carvalho Duarte N, Mendonca ME, Galli M, Fregni F, Oliveira CS. Effects of anodal transcranial direct current stimulation combined with virtual reality for improving gait in children with spastic diparetic cerebral palsy: a pilot, randomized, controlled, double-blind, clinical trial. Clin Rehabil. 2015 Dec;29(12):1212-23. doi: 10.1177/0269215514566997. Epub 2015 Jan 20.
- Background: PubMed 11723286Nitsche MA, Paulus W. Sustained excitability elevations induced by transcranial DC motor cortex stimulation in humans. Neurology. 2001 Nov 27;57(10):1899-901. doi: 10.1212/wnl.57.10.1899.
- Background: PubMed 23962321Gillick BT, Krach LE, Feyma T, Rich TL, Moberg K, Thomas W, Cassidy JM, Menk J, Carey JR. Primed low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and constraint-induced movement therapy in pediatric hemiparesis: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2014 Jan;56(1):44-52. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12243. Epub 2013 Aug 21.
- Background: PubMed 18455961Kirton A, Chen R, Friefeld S, Gunraj C, Pontigon AM, Deveber G. Contralesional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for chronic hemiparesis in subcortical paediatric stroke: a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2008 Jun;7(6):507-13. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70096-6. Epub 2008 May 1.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Cerebral Palsy
Recruiting
Evaluating Long-term Use of a Pediatric Robotic Exoskeleton (P.REX/Agilik) to Improve Gait in Children With Movement Disorders
Cerebral Palsy, Muscular Dystrophy
RecruitingObservational study
Study of Sagittal Pelvic Statics in the Sitting Position in Children With Cerebral Palsy
Cerebral Palsy Infantile
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Turkish Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability of the ABILHAND-Kids Young CP Scale
Cerebral Palsy
RecruitingObservational study
Investigating Complex Neurodegenerative Disorders Related to Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Frontotemporal Dementia
Frontotemporal Dementia, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Recruiting
Feasibility of the BrainGate2 Neural Interface System in Persons With Tetraplegia (BG-Tablet-01)
Brainstem Stroke, ALS
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.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Active tDCS in people with Cerebral Palsy and Perinatal Stroke, run by University of Minnesota at 1 site 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 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 13 Apr 2021. 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 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. 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?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Feb 2021). 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 in Motor Evoked Potential Amplitude (time frame: approximately 5 minutes). 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 NCT03635775, which also lists 21 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 13 Apr 2021.