Bruce H Dobkin1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of California Los Angeles, Geffen School of Medicine Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA. bdobkin@mednet.ucla.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, behavioral outcomes and physiological measures of activity-dependent plasticity that evolve with task-oriented therapies may fail to reach statistical significance. When significant, clinical effectiveness may not be robust enough to alter professional practices. OBJECTIVE: Provide the conceptual basis for a research design to optimize the effect of an experimental treatment. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Research designs usually do not take into consideration the dynamic state of each subject's potential responsiveness to an intervention. Providing a rational, rather than convenient, intensity and duration of therapy may remedy this potential confounder for clinical trials. To determine whether a most effective dose of a therapy exists, investigators could assess subjects before the intervention, administer interim measures at planned intervals, and continue the intervention until the primary behavioral outcomes or functional imaging parameters or both reach a plateau for at least 15 h of additional treatment. CONCLUSION: Promising interventions ought to be continued in phase II/III trials until subjects reach an asymptote in the primary outcome for behavioral gains. For neuroimaging studies that aim to correlate brain-behavior measures during rehabilitation, the specific intervention should also continue until behavioral gains and cerebral adaptations have attained a persistent plateau. Future trials can investigate whether functional neuroimaging performed in parallel with repeated behavioral assessments can better inform researchers about the optimal duration of an experimental therapy and a subject's maximal capacity for intervention-induced cerebral reorganization.
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials, behavioral outcomes and physiological measures of activity-dependent plasticity that evolve with task-oriented therapies may fail to reach statistical significance. When significant, clinical effectiveness may not be robust enough to alter professional practices. OBJECTIVE: Provide the conceptual basis for a research design to optimize the effect of an experimental treatment. METHODS: Literature review. RESULTS: Research designs usually do not take into consideration the dynamic state of each subject's potential responsiveness to an intervention. Providing a rational, rather than convenient, intensity and duration of therapy may remedy this potential confounder for clinical trials. To determine whether a most effective dose of a therapy exists, investigators could assess subjects before the intervention, administer interim measures at planned intervals, and continue the intervention until the primary behavioral outcomes or functional imaging parameters or both reach a plateau for at least 15 h of additional treatment. CONCLUSION: Promising interventions ought to be continued in phase II/III trials until subjects reach an asymptote in the primary outcome for behavioral gains. For neuroimaging studies that aim to correlate brain-behavior measures during rehabilitation, the specific intervention should also continue until behavioral gains and cerebral adaptations have attained a persistent plateau. Future trials can investigate whether functional neuroimaging performed in parallel with repeated behavioral assessments can better inform researchers about the optimal duration of an experimental therapy and a subject's maximal capacity for intervention-induced cerebral reorganization.
Authors: Heidi Johansen-Berg; Matthew F S Rushworth; Marko D Bogdanovic; Udo Kischka; Sunil Wimalaratna; Paul M Matthews Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-10-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Russell A Poldrack; Fred W Sabb; Karin Foerde; Sabrina M Tom; Robert F Asarnow; Susan Y Bookheimer; Barbara J Knowlton Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: A Karni; G Meyer; C Rey-Hipolito; P Jezzard; M M Adams; R Turner; L G Ungerleider Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1998-02-03 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Carolee J Winstein; J Philip Miller; Sarah Blanton; Edward Taub; Gitendra Uswatte; David Morris; Deborah Nichols; Steven Wolf Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Michael Weinrich; David C Good; Michael Reding; Elliot J Roth; David X Cifu; Kenneth H Silver; Rebecca L Craik; Jay Magaziner; Michael Terrin; Myrna Schwartz; Lynn Gerber Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Ann Van de Winckel; Nicole Wenderoth; Willy De Weerdt; Stefan Sunaert; Ron Peeters; Wim Van Hecke; Vincent Thijs; Stephan P Swinnen; Carlo Perfetti; Hilde Feys Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: B Dobkin; H Barbeau; D Deforge; J Ditunno; R Elashoff; D Apple; M Basso; A Behrman; S Harkema; M Saulino; M Scott Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2007 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Thubi H A Kolobe; Jennifer Braswell Christy; Mary E Gannotti; Jill C Heathcock; Diane L Damiano; Edward Taub; Michael J Majsak; Andrew M Gordon; Robyn K Fuchs; Margaret E O'Neil; Vincent J Caiozzo Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2014-02-13
Authors: Jennifer M Newton; Yun Dong; Joseph Hidler; Prudence Plummer-D'Amato; Jonathan Marehbian; Richard M Albistegui-Dubois; Roger P Woods; Bruce H Dobkin Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 6.556