Literature DB >> 16477089

Amphetamine fails to facilitate motor performance and to enhance motor recovery among stroke patients with mild arm paresis: interim analysis and termination of a double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

T Platz1, I-H Kim, U Engel, C Pinkowski, C Eickhof, M Kutzner.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the effects of d-amphetamine on motor facilitation and recovery in stroke patients with mild arm paresis receiving the Arm Ability training.
METHODS: Thirty-one stroke patients with mild arm paresis were randomly assigned to either (a.) receiving placebo or (b.) d-amphetamine twice a week 2 hours before Arm Ability training sessions for three weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: time needed to perform TEMPA tasks, a measure of upper extremity performance reflecting everyday life tasks. Secondary measures: aimed movements, tapping, and a 10 m walkway as well as motor performance during training sessions.
RESULTS: The interim efficacy analysis of 26 stroke patients who completed the study intervention showed overall arm motor recovery both from pre to post test after 3 weeks of training and from pre test to follow-up 1 year later. No superior effect of d-amphetamine over placebo could be substantiated for either motor facilitation during training or motor recovery (post training or long-term). D-amphetamine exerted mild effects on blood pressure. Serious adverse events were not observed.
CONCLUSIONS: d-Amphetamine failed to facilitate motor performance during training sessions, to promote skill acquisition with training tasks, and most importantly to enhance motor recovery among patients with mild arm paresis after stroke.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16477089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Restor Neurol Neurosci        ISSN: 0922-6028            Impact factor:   2.406


  11 in total

Review 1.  Plasticity.

Authors:  Randolph J Nudo
Journal:  NeuroRx       Date:  2006-10

2.  Intrastriatal dopamine D1 antagonism dampens neural plasticity in response to motor cortex lesion.

Authors:  E J H Davis; C Coyne; T H McNeill
Journal:  Neuroscience       Date:  2007-02-27       Impact factor: 3.590

3.  [Drugs for improvement of motor deficits after stroke].

Authors:  J Liepert
Journal:  Nervenarzt       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 1.214

Review 4.  Central Noradrenergic Agonists in the Treatment of Ischemic Stroke-an Overview.

Authors:  Zohi Sternberg; B Schaller
Journal:  Transl Stroke Res       Date:  2019-07-20       Impact factor: 6.829

5.  Motor priming in neurorehabilitation.

Authors:  Mary Ellen Stoykov; Sangeetha Madhavan
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 3.649

6.  The future of restorative neurosciences in stroke: driving the translational research pipeline from basic science to rehabilitation of people after stroke.

Authors:  Binith Cheeran; Leonardo Cohen; Bruce Dobkin; Gary Ford; Richard Greenwood; David Howard; Masud Husain; Malcolm Macleod; Randolph Nudo; John Rothwell; Anthony Rudd; James Teo; Nicholas Ward; Steven Wolf
Journal:  Neurorehabil Neural Repair       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.919

Review 7.  Biological approaches to aphasia treatment.

Authors:  Steven L Small; Daniel A Llano
Journal:  Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 5.081

8.  Management of patients with stroke: is it time to expand treatment options?

Authors:  Harold P Adams; Randolph J Nudo
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 10.422

Review 9.  Pharmacologic approaches to cerebral aging and neuroplasticity: insights from the stroke model.

Authors:  François Chollet
Journal:  Dialogues Clin Neurosci       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 5.986

Review 10.  Translating the frontiers of brain repair to treatments: starting not to break the rules.

Authors:  S Thomas Carmichael
Journal:  Neurobiol Dis       Date:  2009-09-18       Impact factor: 7.046

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.