Kelsey A Potter-Baker1, Corin E Bonnett1, Patrick Chabra1, Sarah Roelle1, Nicole Varnerin1, David A Cunningham1, Vishwanath Sankarasubramanian1, Svetlana Pundik2, Adriana B Conforto3, Andre G Machado4, Ela B Plow5. 1. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. 2. Department of Neurology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Neurology, Louis Stokes Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Neurology Clinical Division, Neurology Department, Hospital das Clinicas, São Paulo University, São Paulo, Brazil; Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, Department of Neurology, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Center for Neurological Restoration, Neurosurgery, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Lerner Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: plowe2@ccf.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) can augment functional recovery following stroke; however, the technique lacks regulatory approval. Low enrollment in NIBS clinical trials is a key roadblock. Here, we pursued evidence to support the prevailing opinion that enrollment in trials of NIBS is even lower than enrollment in trials of invasive, deep brain stimulation (DBS). METHODS: We compared 2 clinical trials in stroke conducted within a single urban hospital system, one employing NIBS and the other using DBS, (1) to identify specific criteria that generate low enrollment rates for NIBS and (2) to devise strategies to increase recruitment with guidance from DBS. RESULTS: Notably, we found that enrollment in the NIBS case study was 5 times lower (2.8%) than the DBS trial (14.5%) (χ(2) = 20.815, P < .0001). Although the number of candidates who met the inclusion criteria was not different (χ(2) = .04, P < .841), exclusion rates differed significantly between the 2 studies (χ(2) = 21.354, P < .0001). Beyond lack of interest, higher exclusion rates in the NIBS study were largely due to exclusion criteria that were not present in the DBS study, including restrictions for recurrent strokes, seizures, and medications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we conclude and suggest that by (1) establishing criteria specific to each NIBS modality, (2) adjusting exclusion criteria based on guidance from DBS, and (3) including patients with common contraindications based on a probability of risk, we may increase enrollment and hence significantly impact the feasibility and generalizability of NIBS paradigms, particularly in stroke.
OBJECTIVE: Noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) can augment functional recovery following stroke; however, the technique lacks regulatory approval. Low enrollment in NIBS clinical trials is a key roadblock. Here, we pursued evidence to support the prevailing opinion that enrollment in trials of NIBS is even lower than enrollment in trials of invasive, deep brain stimulation (DBS). METHODS: We compared 2 clinical trials in stroke conducted within a single urban hospital system, one employing NIBS and the other using DBS, (1) to identify specific criteria that generate low enrollment rates for NIBS and (2) to devise strategies to increase recruitment with guidance from DBS. RESULTS: Notably, we found that enrollment in the NIBS case study was 5 times lower (2.8%) than the DBS trial (14.5%) (χ(2) = 20.815, P < .0001). Although the number of candidates who met the inclusion criteria was not different (χ(2) = .04, P < .841), exclusion rates differed significantly between the 2 studies (χ(2) = 21.354, P < .0001). Beyond lack of interest, higher exclusion rates in the NIBS study were largely due to exclusion criteria that were not present in the DBS study, including restrictions for recurrent strokes, seizures, and medications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, we conclude and suggest that by (1) establishing criteria specific to each NIBS modality, (2) adjusting exclusion criteria based on guidance from DBS, and (3) including patients with common contraindications based on a probability of risk, we may increase enrollment and hence significantly impact the feasibility and generalizability of NIBS paradigms, particularly in stroke.
Authors: Valerie M Pomeroy; Geoffrey Cloud; Raymond C Tallis; Catherine Donaldson; Veena Nayak; Simon Miller Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2007-04-04 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Friedhelm C Hummel; Pablo Celnik; Alvero Pascual-Leone; Felipe Fregni; Winston D Byblow; Cathrin M Buetefisch; John Rothwell; Leonardo G Cohen; Christian Gerloff Journal: Brain Stimul Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 8.955
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
Authors: Benjamin N Groisser; William A Copen; Aneesh B Singhal; Kelsi K Hirai; Judith D Schaechter Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Ela B Plow; David A Cunningham; Erik Beall; Stephen Jones; Alexandria Wyant; Corin Bonnett; Guang H Yue; Mark Lowe; Xiao-Feng Wang; Ken Sakaie; Andre Machado Journal: Trials Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Timea Hodics; Leonardo G Cohen; John C Pezzullo; Karen Kowalske; Alexander W Dromerick Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 4.895