24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Safety and Feasibility of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Cognitive Rehabilitation in Patients With Mild or Major Neurocognitive Disorders: A Randomized Sham-Controlled Pilot Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is a potentially novel strategy for cognitive enhancement in patients with mild or major neurocognitive disorders. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of tDCS during cognitive training on cognitive functioning in patients with mild or major neurocognitive disorders.

          Methods

          This study was primarily a single arm for safety, secondary a two-arm, parallel, randomized, and sham-controlled trial for potential efficacy. Patients with mild or major neurocognitive disorders were recruited. The participants and raters were blinded to the group assignment. The participants in the active arm received tDCS (anodal; F3, cathodal, Fp2, 2A, 20 min) twice daily for five consecutive days, whereas those in the sham arm received the same amount of sham-tDCS. Calculation and reading tasks were conducted in both arms as a form of cognitive intervention for 20 min during tDCS. The primary outcome was the attrition rate during the trial in the active arm, which is expected to be less than 10%. The secondary outcomes were the between-group differences of adjusted means for several cognitive scales from baseline to post-intervention and follow-up.

          Results

          Twenty patients [nine women (45%)], with a mean (standard deviation) age of 76.1 years participated; nine patients (45%) with minor neurocognitive disorders and 11 (55%) with major neurocognitive disorders were randomized, and 19 of them completed the trial. The attrition rate in the active arm was 0%, with no serious adverse events. Further, in the Intention-to-Treat analysis, patients in the active arm showed no statistically significant improvement compared with those who received the sham in the mean change scores of the mini-mental state examination [0.41; 95% CI (−1.85; 2.67) at day five, 1.08; 95% CI (−1.31; 3.46) at follow-up] and Alzheimer’s disease assessment scale – cognition subscale [1.61; 95% CI (−4.2; 0.98) at day 5, 0.36; 95%CI (−3.19; 2.47) at follow-up].

          Conclusion

          These findings suggest that tDCS is safe and tolerable but causes no statistically significant cognitive effects in patients with mild or major neurocognitive disorders. Additional large-scale, well-designed clinical trials are warranted to evaluate the cognitive effects of tDCS as an augmentation to cognitive training.

          Clinical Trial Registration

          www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03050385.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          THE USE OF CONFIDENCE OR FIDUCIAL LIMITS ILLUSTRATED IN THE CASE OF THE BINOMIAL

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease.

            Since the introduction of the first cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) in 1997, most clinicians and probably most patients would consider the cholinergic drugs, donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine, to be the first line pharmacotherapy for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease.The drugs have slightly different pharmacological properties, but they all work by inhibiting the breakdown of acetylcholine, an important neurotransmitter associated with memory, by blocking the enzyme acetylcholinesterase. The most that these drugs could achieve is to modify the manifestations of Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane reviews of each ChEI for Alzheimer's disease have been completed (Birks 2005, Birks 2005b and Loy 2005). Despite the evidence from the clinical studies and the intervening clinical experience the debate on whether ChEIs are effective continues. To assess the effects of donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register was searched using the terms 'donepezil', 'E2020' , 'Aricept' , galanthamin* galantamin* reminyl, rivastigmine, exelon, "ENA 713" and ENA-713 on 12 June 2005. This Register contains up-to-date records of all major health care databases and many ongoing trial databases. All unconfounded, blinded, randomized trials in which treatment with a ChEI was compared with placebo or another ChEI for patients with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. Data were extracted by one reviewer (JSB), pooled where appropriate and possible, and the pooled treatment effects, or the risks and benefits of treatment estimated. The results of 13 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials demonstrate that treatment for periods of 6 months and one year, with donepezil, galantamine or rivastigmine at the recommended dose for people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease produced improvements in cognitive function, on average -2.7 points (95%CI -3.0 to -2.3), in the midrange of the 70 point ADAS-Cog Scale. Study clinicians blind to other measures rated global clinical state more positively in treated patients. Benefits of treatment were also seen on measures of activities of daily living and behaviour. None of these treatment effects are large. There is nothing to suggest the effects are less for patients with severe dementia or mild dementia, although there is very little evidence for other than mild to moderate dementia.More patients leave ChEI treatment groups, approximately 29 %, on account of adverse events than leave the placebo groups (18%). There is evidence of more adverse events in total in the patients treated with a ChEI than with placebo. Although many types of adverse event were reported, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, were significantly more frequent in the ChEI groups than in placebo. There are four studies, all supported by one of the pharmaceutical companies, in which two ChEIs were compared, two studies of donepezil compared with galantamine, and two of donepezil compared with rivastigmine. In three studies the patients were not blinded to treatment, only the fourth, DON vs RIV/Bullock is double blind. Two of the studies provide little evidence, they are of 12 weeks duration, which is barely long enough to complete the drug titration. There is no evidence from DON vs GAL/Wilcock of a treatment difference between donepezil and galantamine at 52 weeks for cognition, activities of daily living, the numbers who leave the trial before the end of treatment, the number who suffer any adverse event, or any specific adverse event. There is no evidence from DON vs RIV/Bullock of a difference between donepezil and rivastigmine for cognitive function, activities of daily living and behavioural disturbance at two years. Fewer patients suffer adverse events on donepezil than rivastigmine. The three cholinesterase inhibitors are efficacious for mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. It is not possible to identify those who will respond to treatment prior to treatment. There is no evidence that treatment with a ChEI is not cost effective. Despite the slight variations in the mode of action of the three cholinesterase inhibitors there is no evidence of any differences between them with respect to efficacy. There appears to be less adverse effects associated with donepezil compared with rivastigmine. It may be that galantamine and rivastigmine match donepezil in tolerability if a careful and gradual titration routine over more than three months is used. Titration with donepezil is more straightforward and the lower dose may be worth consideration.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Is 2+2=4? Meta-analyses of brain areas needed for numbers and calculations.

              Most of us use numbers daily for counting, estimating quantities or formal mathematics, yet despite their importance our understanding of the brain correlates of these processes is still evolving. A neurofunctional model of mental arithmetic, proposed more than a decade ago, stimulated a substantial body of research in this area. Using quantitative meta-analyses of fMRI studies we identified brain regions concordant among studies that used number and calculation tasks. These tasks elicited activity in a set of common regions such as the inferior parietal lobule; however, the regions in which they differed were most notable, such as distinct areas of prefrontal cortices for specific arithmetic operations. Given the current knowledge, we propose an updated topographical brain atlas of mental arithmetic with improved interpretative power. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front Hum Neurosci
                Front. Hum. Neurosci.
                Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1662-5161
                06 September 2019
                2019
                : 13
                : 273
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Psychiatry, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, National Center Hospital , Kodaira, Japan
                [2] 2Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine , Baltimore, MD, United States
                [3] 3Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba , Tsukuba, Japan
                Author notes

                Edited by: Ryouhei Ishii, Osaka Prefecture University, Japan

                Reviewed by: Jonas Ranstam, Mdas AB, Sweden; Masafumi Yoshimura, Kansai Medical University, Japan

                *Correspondence: Yuma Yokoi, yyokoi@ 123456ncnp.go.jp
                Article
                10.3389/fnhum.2019.00273
                6742726
                31555109
                c9ff4c51-a802-4294-b8f7-36643c1adaf6
                Copyright © 2019 Inagawa, Yokoi, Narita, Maruo, Okazaki and Nakagome.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 26 November 2018
                : 23 July 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Equations: 0, References: 31, Pages: 10, Words: 0
                Funding
                Funded by: Japan Society for the Promotion of Science 10.13039/501100001691
                Funded by: National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry 10.13039/501100009438
                Categories
                Neuroscience
                Clinical Trial

                Neurosciences
                transcranial direct current stimulation,cognitive training,neurocognitive disorder,dementia,mild cognitive impairment

                Comments

                Comment on this article