Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Poststroke Dysphagia: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Scutt P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4672134 | biostudies-literature | 2015
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Treatment of Poststroke Dysphagia: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Scutt Polly P Lee Han S HS Hamdy Shaheen S Bath Philip M PM
Stroke research and treatment 20151124
Background. Dysphagia after stroke is common, associated independently with poor outcome, and has limited treatment options. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is a novel treatment being evaluated for treatment of poststroke dysphagia. Methods. We searched electronically for randomised controlled trials of PES in dysphagic patients within 3 months of stroke. Individual patient data were analysed using regression, adjusted for trial, age, severity, and baseline score. The coprimary outcomes ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Swallowing impairment (dysphagia) post-stroke results in poorer outcomes. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is a potential treatment for post-stroke dysphagia. In a post hoc analysis, we investigated PES using videofluoroscopy swallow studies (VFSS) from the STEPS trial incorporating multiple measures of safety (penetration aspiration scale-PAS), speed and duration (timing), and efficiency (clearance), as opposed to the original trial which only measured PAS scores. 81 randomised participants (PES (N = 43) versus sham (N = 38)) were analysed at baseline and 2 weeks. Participants swallowed up to 6 × 5 ml and 1 × 50 ml of thin liquid barium at 40% w/v, images at ≥25 fps. Based on PAS, the 5 ml mode bolus (most frequently occurring PAS from 6 × 5 ml) and the worst 50 ml bolus were chosen for further analysis. Eight timing measures were performed, including stage transition duration (STD) and pharyngeal transit time (PTT). Clearance measures comprised oral and pharyngeal residue and swallows to clear. Comparisons of change of scoring outcomes between PES and sham were done at 2 weeks. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was also used to evaluate longitudinal changes from both groups' combined results at two weeks. Between-group analysis showed no statistically significant differences. Issues with suboptimal image quality and frame rate acquisition affected final numbers. At two weeks, both groups demonstrated a significant improvement in most safety scores (PAS) and STD, possibly due to spontaneous recovery or a combination of spontaneous recovery and swallowing treatment and usual care. A nonsignificant trend for improvement was seen in other timing measures, including PTT. This study, which conducted additional measurements of kinematic and residue analysis on the STEPS data did not detect "missed" improvements in swallowing function that the PAS is not designed to measure. However, more studies with greater numbers are required.
| S-EPMC8205591 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNeurogenic dysphagia is common and has no definitive treatment. We assessed whether pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is associated with reduced dysphagia.MethodsThe PHAryngeal electrical stimulation for treatment of neurogenic Dysphagia European Registry (PHADER) was a prospective single-arm observational cohort study. Participants were recruited with neurogenic dysphagia (comprising five groups - stroke not needing ventilation; stroke needing ventilation; ventilation acquired; traumatic brain injury; other neurological causes). PES was administered once daily for three days. The primary outcome was the validated dysphagia severity rating scale (DSRS, score best-worst 0-12) at 3 months.FindingsOf 255 enrolled patients from 14 centres in Austria, Germany and UK, 10 failed screening. At baseline, mean (standard deviation) or median [interquartile range]: age 68 (14) years, male 71%, DSRS 11·4 (1·7), time from onset to treatment 32 [44] days; age, time and DSRS differed between diagnostic groups. Insertion of PES catheters was successfully inserted in 239/245 (98%) participants, and was typically easy taking 11·8 min. 9 participants withdrew before the end of treatment. DSRS improved significantly in all dysphagia groups, difference in means (95% confidence intervals, CI) from 0 to 3 months: stroke (n = 79) -6·7 (-7·8, -5·5), ventilated stroke (n = 98) -6·5 (-7·6, -5·5); ventilation acquired (n = 35) -6·6 (-8·4, -4·8); traumatic brain injury (n = 24) -4·5 (-6·6, -2·4). The results for DSRS were mirrored for instrumentally assessed penetration aspiration scale scores. DSRS improved in both supratentorial and infratentorial stroke, with no difference between them (p = 0·32). In previously ventilated participants with tracheotomy, DSRS improved more in participants who could be decannulated (n = 66) -7·5 (-8·6, -6·5) versus not decannulated (n = 33) -2·1 (-3·2, -1·0) (p<0·001). 74 serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 60 participants with pneumonia (9·2%) the most frequent SAE.InterpretationIn patients with neurogenic dysphagia, PES was safe and associated with reduced measures of dysphagia and penetration/aspiration.FundingPhagenesis Ltd.
| S-EPMC7700977 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dysphagia is a serious cause of morbidity and mortality in stroke survivors. Electrical stimulation is often included as part of the treatment plan for dysphagia and can be applied at a sensory or motor level intensity. However, evidence to support these different modes of stimulation is lacking. This study compared the effectiveness of sensory and motor level stimulation on post-stroke dysphagia. This is a randomized trial conducted in an inpatient rehabilitation facility. Thirty-one participants who had dysphagia caused by stroke within 6 months prior to enrolment were included. Participants were excluded if they had a contraindication for electrical stimulation, previous stroke, psychiatric disorder, contraindications for modified barium swallow study (MBSS), or pre-morbid dysphagia. Each patient received ten sessions that included 45 min of anterior neck sensory or motor level electrical stimulation in addition to traditional dysphagia therapy. Motor stimulation was administered at an intensity sufficient to produce muscle contractions. Sensory stimulation was defined as the threshold at which the patient feels a tingling sensation on their skin. Swallow functional assessment measure (FAM), dysphagia outcome severity scale (DOSS), national outcome measurement system (NOMS), penetration aspiration scale (PAS), diet change, and the swallowing quality of life questionnaire (SWAL-QOL). Clinical outcomes were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test, Mann-Whitney U test, RM ANOVA, or chi-square analysis. There was no significant difference in age, length of stay, or initial swallow FAM between groups. Patients in the sensory group showed significant improvement on swallow FAM, DOSS, and NOMS, while those in the motor group did not (Sensory: Swallow FAM (S = 48, p = 0.01), DOSS (S = 49.5, p = 0.001), NOMS (S = 52.5, p = 0.006); Motor: Swallow FAM (S = 20.5, p = 0.2), DOSS (S = 21, p = 0.05), NOMS (S = 29.5, p = 0.2)). When the groups were combined, there was statistically significant improvement on all measures except the PAS (Swallow FAM (S = 138.5, p = 0.003), DOSS (S = 134.5, p < 0.001), NOMS (S = 164, p = 0.0004)). When comparing motor to sensory NMES, there was no significant difference between groups for Swallow FAM (p = .12), DOSS (p = 0.52), or NOMS (p = 0.41). There was no significant difference in diet change for solid food or liquids among the groups, although 50% more participants in the sensory group saw improvement in diet. This study supports the use of electrical stimulation as part of the treatment plan for post-stroke dysphagia. Sensory-level stimulation was associated with greater improvement on outcome measures compared to motor level stimulation.
| S-EPMC9488887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether vertebroplasty is more effective than placebo for patients with pain of recent onset (≤ 6 weeks) or severe pain (score ≥ 8 on 0-10 numerical rating scale).DesignMeta-analysis of combined individual patient level data.SettingTwo multicentred randomised controlled trials of vertebroplasty; one based in Australia, the other in the United States.Participants209 participants (Australian trial n = 78, US trial n = 131) with at least one radiographically confirmed vertebral compression fracture. 57 (27%) participants had pain of recent onset (vertebroplasty n = 25, placebo n = 32) and 99 (47%) had severe pain at baseline (vertebroplasty n = 50, placebo n = 49).InterventionPercutaneous vertebroplasty versus a placebo procedure.Main outcome measureScores for pain (0-10 scale) and function (modified, 23 item Roland-Morris disability questionnaire) at one month.ResultsFor participants with pain of recent onset, between group differences in mean change scores at one month for pain and disability were 0.1 (95% confidence interval -1.4 to 1.6) and 0.2 (-3.0 to 3.4), respectively. For participants with severe pain at baseline, between group differences for pain and disability scores at one month were 0.3 (-0.8 to 1.5) and 1.4 (-1.2 to 3.9), respectively. At one month those in the vertebroplasty group were more likely to be using opioids.ConclusionsIndividual patient data meta-analysis from two blinded trials of vertebroplasty, powered for subgroup analyses, failed to show an advantage of vertebroplasty over placebo for participants with recent onset fracture or severe pain. These results do not support the hypothesis that selected subgroups would benefit from vertebroplasty.
| S-EPMC3133975 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) suffer from dysphagia that increases the risk for aspiration, pneumonia and weight loss. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) is a therapeutic technique that applies electric stimuli to the patient's pharynx in order to improve swallowing based on the principle of cortical plasticity and reorganization. Previous studies have demonstrated positive effects in patients with various neurological diseases.ObjectiveThis study was initiated to investigate the effect of PES on swallowing function in patients with ALS.MethodsIn all, 20 ALS patients with severe dysphagia [characterized by a Penetration Aspiration Scale (PAS) of at least 4 in thin liquid] were randomized to receive either PES for 10 min at 3 consecutive days in addition to Standard Logopaedic Therapy (SLT) or SLT alone. Swallowing function was evaluated by Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) at five timepoints: at baseline, 1 day, 4 days, 3 weeks and 3 months after treatment. Primary endpoint was the severity of penetrations or aspirations as classified by PAS. Secondary endpoints were adverse events, dysphagia-related quality of life, Swallowing Quality of Life (SWAL-QOL), Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), residues, leaking, ALS Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R), and the performance in Clinical Evaluation of Swallowing (CES). The trial is registered under the name of 'Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis' with ClinialTrials.gov, number NCT03481348 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03481348).ResultsBoth groups combined showed a significant improvement (p = 0.003) of median Total-PAS from 3.6 [interquartile range (IQR) = 2.9-5.0] at baseline to 2.3 (IQR = 1.8-4.0) 1 day after treatment. During subsequent study visits, PAS increased again but remained below baseline. PES and control group did not differ significantly 1 day after intervention (p = 0.32). Similar effects were found in the majority of secondary endpoints.InterpretationThe findings suggest that PES may not provide an additional positive effect on swallowing function in ALS. SLT seems to yield at least short-term positive effects on swallowing function and swallowing-specific life quality in ALS.Registration: ClinialTrials.gov: NCT03481348.
| S-EPMC8832561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To compare the characteristics, quality and treatment effects of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) by individual patient data (IPD) availability, in trials eligible for 18 IPD meta-analyses (MA).Trial characteristics, risk of bias (RoB) and hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival were extracted from IPD-MA publications and/or RCTs publications. Data for the RoB assessment were extracted for a subset of 73 RCTs. Two investigators blinded to whether IPD was available or not evaluated the RoB for these trials. Treatment effects were compared using ratios of global HRs (RHRs) of IPD-unavailable trials and IPD-available trials. RHR were pooled using a fixed-effect model.We examined the IPD availability for each trial eligible for each IPD-MA; when the IPD was not available for a trial, we used information from published sources.We selected all published IPD-MAs conducted at Gustave Roussy and the RCTs eligible for each.349 RCTs (73?018 patients) from 18 MAs were eligible: 60 RCTs (5890 patients) had unavailable IPD and 289 RCTs (67?128 patients) had available IPD. The main reason for IPD unavailability was data loss by investigators. IPD-unavailable trials were smaller (p<0.001), more often monocentric (p<0.001) and non-international (p=0.0004) than IPD-available trials. Geographical areas differed (p=0.054) between IPD-unavailable IPD-available trials. RoB was higher in IPD-unavailable RCTs for random sequence generation (p=0.007) and allocation concealment (p=0.006). The HR and 95% confidence interval (CI) for overall survival were extractable from publications in 23/60 IPD-unavailable trials included in 10 different MAs. Treatment effects were significantly greater for IPD-unavailable trials compared with IPD-available trials (RHR=0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.98)).IPD-unavailable RCTs were significantly different from IPD-available RCTs in terms of trial characteristics and were at greater RoB. IPD-unavailable RCTs had a significantly greater treatment effect.
| S-EPMC6091903 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionTinnitus is the perception of sound without an external stimulus, often experienced as a ringing, buzzing sound. While several studies have shown a reduction in tinnitus distress following cochlear implantation, others showed an increase or no change after implantation. At this stage, clinicians have little certainty when counselling their patients prior to implantation regarding tinnitus post-implantation. To help clinicians to counsel cochlear implant (CI) candidates on the risk of developing or improving tinnitus after implantation, we aim to assess the effect of electrical stimulation with a CI on tinnitus impact for individual adult patients with tinnitus. We will also apply prediction models to individual patient data (IPD) of clinical trials to find predictive factors of the effect of electrical stimulation on tinnitus impact.Method and analysisThe IPD meta-analysis is a follow-up project of the systematic review on cochlear implantation in patients with tinnitus as a primary complaint. First, the systematic searches will be updated to date. Methodological quality of eligible studies will be assessed using the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Intervention tool (ROBINS-I). Based on a data-sharing agreement, authors of the eligible studies will be invited to share their deidentified and complete IPD. The primary outcome is the effect of electrical stimulation with a CI on tinnitus impact 1 month or more post-implantation. IPD meta-analysis will be used to assess the primary outcome, while differentiating the tinnitus impact questionnaires. Second, linear regression analyses will be used to model the effect of electrical stimulation on tinnitus impact based on relevant predictors.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Research Involving Human Subject Act does not apply, and ethical approval is not required. The study results will be made accessible to the public in a peer-review open access journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42022319367, review ongoing.
| S-EPMC9208004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.
| S-EPMC6797441 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of elective single embryo transfer versus double embryo transfer on the outcomes of live birth, multiple live birth, miscarriage, preterm birth, term singleton birth, and low birth weight after fresh embryo transfer, and on the outcomes of cumulative live birth and multiple live birth after fresh and frozen embryo transfers.DesignOne stage meta-analysis of individual patient data.Data sourcesA systematic review of English and non-English articles from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to 2008). Additional studies were identified by contact with clinical experts and searches of bibliographies of all relevant primary articles. Search terms included embryo transfer, randomised controlled trial, controlled clinical trial, single embryo transfer, and double embryo transfer. Review methods Comparisons of the clinical effectiveness of cleavage stage (day 2 or 3) elective single versus double embryo transfer after fresh or frozen in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments were included. Trials were included if the intervention differed only in terms of the intended number of embryos to be transferred. Trials that involved only blastocyst (day five) transfers were excluded.ResultsIndividual patient data were received for every patient recruited to all eight eligible trials (n=1367). A total of 683 and 684 women randomised to the single and double embryo transfer arms, respectively, were included in the analysis. Baseline characteristics in the two groups were comparable. The overall live birth rate in a fresh IVF cycle was lower after single (181/683, 27%) than double embryo transfer (285/683, 42%) (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.63), as was the multiple birth rate (3/181 (2%) v 84/285 (29%)) (0.04, 0.01 to 0.12). An additional frozen single embryo transfer, however, resulted in a cumulative live birth rate not significantly lower than the rate after one fresh double embryo transfer (132/350 (38%) v 149/353 (42%) (0.85, 0.62 to 1.15), with a minimal cumulative risk of multiple birth (1/132 (1%) v 47/149 (32%)). The odds of a term singleton birth (that is, over 37 weeks) after elective single embryo transfer was almost five times higher than the odds after double embryo transfer (4.93, 2.98 to 8.18).ConclusionsElective single embryo transfer results in a higher chance of delivering a term singleton live birth compared with double embryo transfer. Although this strategy yields a lower pregnancy rate than a double embryo transfer in a fresh IVF cycle, this difference is almost completely overcome by an additional frozen single embryo transfer cycle. The multiple pregnancy rate after elective single embryo transfer is comparable with that observed in spontaneous pregnancies.
| S-EPMC3006495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers are widely used in the treatment of Marfan syndrome to try to reduce the rate of progressive aortic root enlargement characteristic of this condition, but their separate and joint effects are uncertain. We aimed to determine these effects in a collaborative individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials of these treatments.MethodsIn this meta-analysis, we identified relevant trials of patients with Marfan syndrome by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from database inception to Nov 2, 2021. Trials were eligible if they involved a randomised comparison of an ARB versus control or an ARB versus β blocker. We used individual patient data from patients with no prior aortic surgery to estimate the effects of: ARB versus control (placebo or open control); ARB versus β blocker; and indirectly, β blocker versus control. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of change of body surface area-adjusted aortic root dimension Z score, measured at the sinuses of Valsalva.FindingsWe identified ten potentially eligible trials including 1836 patients from our search, from which seven trials and 1442 patients were eligible for inclusion in our main analyses. Four trials involving 676 eligible participants compared ARB with control. During a median follow-up of 3 years, allocation to ARB approximately halved the annual rate of change in the aortic root Z score (mean annual increase 0·07 [SE 0·02] ARB vs 0·13 [SE 0·02] control; absolute difference -0·07 [95% CI -0·12 to -0·01]; p=0·012). Prespecified secondary subgroup analyses showed that the effects of ARB were particularly large in those with pathogenic variants in fibrillin-1, compared with those without such variants (heterogeneity p=0·0050), and there was no evidence to suggest that the effect of ARB varied with β-blocker use (heterogeneity p=0·54). Three trials involving 766 eligible participants compared ARBs with β blockers. During a median follow-up of 3 years, the annual change in the aortic root Z score was similar in the two groups (annual increase -0·08 [SE 0·03] in ARB groups vs -0·11 [SE 0·02] in β-blocker groups; absolute difference 0·03 [95% CI -0·05 to 0·10]; p=0·48). Thus, indirectly, the difference in the annual change in the aortic root Z score between β blockers and control was -0·09 (95% CI -0·18 to 0·00; p=0·042).InterpretationIn people with Marfan syndrome and no previous aortic surgery, ARBs reduced the rate of increase of the aortic root Z score by about one half, including among those taking a β blocker. The effects of β blockers were similar to those of ARBs. Assuming additivity, combination therapy with both ARBs and β blockers from the time of diagnosis would provide even greater reductions in the rate of aortic enlargement than either treatment alone, which, if maintained over a number of years, would be expected to lead to a delay in the need for aortic surgery.FundingMarfan Foundation, the Oxford British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, and the UK Medical Research Council.
| S-EPMC7613630 | biostudies-literature