| Literature DB >> 31587534 |
Mi Joo Choi1, Hana Kim2, Hyun-Wook Nah3, Dong-Wha Kang2,3,4.
Abstract
Digital therapeutics is an evidence-based intervention using high-quality software, with the sole purpose of treatment. As many healthcare systems are encountering high demands of quality outcomes, the need for digital therapeutics is gradually increasing in the clinical field. We conducted review of the implications of digital therapeutics in the treatment of neurological deficits for stroke patients. The implications of digital therapeutics have been discussed in four domains: cognition, speech and aphasia, motor, and vision. It was evident that different forms of digital therapeutics such as online platforms, virtual reality trainings, and iPad applications have been investigated in many trials to test its feasibility in clinical use. Although digital therapeutics may deliver high-quality solutions to healthcare services, the medicalization of digital therapeutics is accompanied with many limitations. Clinically validated digital therapeutics should be developed to prove its efficacy in stroke rehabilitation.Entities:
Keywords: Aphasia; Cognition; Digital therapeutics; Hemianopia; Hemiplegia; Stroke
Year: 2019 PMID: 31587534 PMCID: PMC6780014 DOI: 10.5853/jos.2019.01963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Stroke ISSN: 2287-6391 Impact factor: 6.967
Summary of studies on digital therapeutics as cognitive rehabilitation in stroke patients
| Study | Study design | Sample size (n) | Intervention | Study description | Stroke stage | Frequency of intervention | Follow-up | Outcome measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akerlund et al. (2013) [ | RCT | IG: 20 | Online platform Cogmed QM | IG: standard rehabilitation with Cogmed training | Sub-acute | 30–45 min for 5 day/wk | 5 wk intervention | WAIS-III | Both IG and CG improved after their training in working memory, BNIS and digit span; however, a greater improvement in was seen in IG compared to CG. |
| CG: 18 | Digit span | ||||||||
| CG: standard cognitive rehabilitation | 6, 18 wk post-intervention | Spatial span | |||||||
| Working Memory sub-scale | |||||||||
| BNIS | |||||||||
| DEX | |||||||||
| Westerberg et al. (2007) [ | Randomised pilot study | IG: 9 | Online platform Cogmed QM | IG: Cogmed | Chronic | 40 min, 5 day/wk | 5 wk intervention | CFQ | A significant improvement seen in working memory and attention, and decrease in cognitive symptoms |
| CG: 9 | CG: no training | Digit span | |||||||
| Span board | |||||||||
| PASAT | |||||||||
| Raven’s progressive matrices | |||||||||
| Claeson-Dahl test | |||||||||
| Richter et al. (2015) [ | RCT | IG: 18 | Online platform WOME | IG: WOME training | Chronic | 1 hr/session, 9 sessions | 4 mo post-intervention | CFQ | Significant improvement in working memory in IG |
| CG: 18 | CG: standard rehabilitation | Digit span | |||||||
| Lundqvist et al. (2010) [ | A controlled experimental study with a cross-over design | Group 1: 10 | Online platform Cogmed QM | Both groups received training program but at different times | Chronic | 45–60 min, 5 day/wk | 5 wk intervention | PASAT | A significant improvement in the working memory tasks after training and at follow-up |
| Group 2: 11 | 4, 20 wk post-intervention | CWIT | |||||||
| WAIS-III | |||||||||
| Listening Span Task | |||||||||
| The Picture Span | |||||||||
| Johansson et al. (2012) [ | Prospective cohort study | 18 | Online platform Cogmed QM | Cognitive assessment at baseline, after training, and at follow-up was compared | Chronic | 30–45 min, 3 day/wk | 8 wk intervention | CFQ | A significant improvement in working memory tasks post-training, effect was maintained at follow-up |
| 6 mo post-intervention | COPM | ||||||||
| Des Roches et al. (2015) [ | Clinical controlled study | IG: 42 | iPad based program | Both groups received 1 hr clinic session with a clinician | Chronic | 1 hr, once/wk | 10 wk intervention | WAB-R-CQ | Both groups showed an improvement over time, IG showed a greater positive change in accuracy and latency on the tasks than CG. |
| CG: 9 | Constant Therapy | IG also received Constant Therapy at home | CLQT | ||||||
| PAPT | |||||||||
| De Luca et al. (2018) [ | RCT | IG: 6 | VR training with BTs-Nirvana using I-SIP | IG: VR training with BTs-Nirvana | Chronic | 45 min, 3 day/wk | 8 wk intervention | MoCA | Immediately after treatment, IG presented a greater improvement in TCR, MoCA, attention assessment, the verbal memory, and the visuo-spatial abilities compared to CG. Improvement persisted at follow-up only in IG. |
| CG: 6 | FIM | ||||||||
| CG: standard cognitive treatment presented by using a paper-and-pencil modality | 1 mo post-intervention | FAB | |||||||
| AM | |||||||||
| TCT MI |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; IG, intervention group; CG, control group; WAIS-III, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition; BNIS, Barrow Neurological Institute Screen for Higher Cerebral Functions; DEX,dysexecutive index; CFQ, Cognitive Failures Questionnaire; PASAT, Paced Auditory Serial Attention Test; WOME, Working Memory; CWIT, Color Word Interference Test; COPM, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure; WAB-R-CQ, Revised Western Aphasia Battery CQ; CLQT, Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test; PAPT, Pyramids and Palm Trees; VR, virtual reality; I-SIP, interactive-semi-immersive program; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; FIM, Functional Independence Measure; FAB, Frontal Assessment Battery; AM, attentive matrices; TCT, Trunk Control Test; MI, Motricity Index scale.
Summary of studies on digital therapeutics as speech and language rehabilitation in stroke patients with aphasia
| Study | Study design | Sample | Intervention | Study description | Stroke stage | Frequency of intervention | Follow-up | Outcome measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palmer et al. (2012) [ | RCT | IG: 15 | Computer-based program StepByStep | IG: StepbyStep training with usual care—reading, and writing activities with therapists | Chronic | 20 min, 3 day/wk | 5 mo intervention | OANB | IG showed more gains in naming ability after treatment than CG, with the difference of 19.8%. |
| CG: 13 | CG usual care only | 3 mo post-intervention | |||||||
| Doesborgh et al. (2010) [ | RCT | IG: 8 | Computer-based program Multicue | IG: Multicue | Chronic | 30–45 min, 2/3 day/wk | 2 mo intervention | BNT | Only IG improved in the BNT. Mean improvement did not differ between IG and CG. |
| CG: 10 | CG: no treatment | ANELT-A | |||||||
| Fink et al. (2002) [ | Clinical controlled study | Group 1: 3 | Computer-based program Moss Talk Words | Group 1: full clinician guidance | Chronic | 12 sessions for 30–45 min each | 4 wk intervention | PNT | Both groups showed gains on trained words in PNT. |
| Group 2: 3 | Group 2: partial independence | PRT | |||||||
| PORT | |||||||||
| Ramsberger et al. (2007) [ | Clinical controlled study | Intensity | Computer-based program Moss Talk Words | Low intensity: 2/wk | Unspecified | Unspecified | 4 wk intervention | Performance on Moss Talk Words | Patients showed gains in naming, regardless of intensity. |
| Low: 2 | High intensity: 5/wk | ||||||||
| High: 2 | |||||||||
| Des Roches et al. (2015) [ | Clinical controlled study | IG: 42 | iPad-based program Constant Therapy | Both groups received 1 hr clinic session with a clinician. | Chronic | 1 hr, 1 day/wk | 10 wk intervention | WAB-R-CQ | Almost all patients showed gains on treatment tasks, IG showed more gains on standardized measures than CG. |
| CG: 9 | IG also received Constant Therapy at home. | CLQT | |||||||
| PAPT | |||||||||
| Steele et al. (2014) [ | Pre-poststudy | 9 | iPad-based program Lingraphica TalkPath | Participants received individual and group speech-language teletherapy services, and also used on-line language exercises to practice from home between therapy sessions. | Chronic | 21 hr over 12 wk | 12 wk intervention | WAB | Participants showed gains in CETI and NOMS on most items, RIC-CCRSA also showed gains in one item and in the overall score. |
| CETI | |||||||||
| NOMS | |||||||||
| RIC-CCRSA | |||||||||
| Kurland et al. (2014) [ | Pre-poststudy | 5 | iPad-based program iBooks | Intensive 2-wk aphasia treatment program prior to beginning the individualised home practice programs | Chronic | 2 hr/wk | 6 mo intervention | BDAE | All patients maintained previous improvements and showed a further improvement in new trained words. BDAE and BNT scores were equal to or better than baseline. |
| BNT | |||||||||
| Thompson et al. (2010) [ | Clinical controlled study | IG: 6 | VR training Sentactics | IG: Sentactics | Chronic | 1 hr, 4 day/wk | 8 wk intervention | NAVS | IG showed more improvements in NAVS than CG, no difference to the clinician delivered therapy. |
| CG: 6 | CG: no treatment | ||||||||
| Cherney et al. (2010) [ | RCT | IG: 11 | Computer-based program ORLA | IG: computer ORLA | Chronic | 1 hr, 2–3 day/wk | 8 wk intervention | WAB-AQ | Groups had equal gains in both WAB-R and WAB-AQ and showed no difference between the two groups. |
| CG: 14 | CG: clinician delivered therapy | WAB-R | |||||||
| Cherney et al. (2012) [ | RCT | IG: 19 | VR training Webbased ORLA | IG: Web-based ORLA | Chronic | 9 hr/wk | 6 wk intervention | WAB-AQ | An improvement in language performance measured by WAB-R-AQ and WAB-R writing in IG; however, insignificant changes in WAB-R-AQ and WAB-R reading. Improvements were maintained in follow-up. |
| CG: 13 | CG: placebo-computer treatment | 6 wk post-intervention | WAB-R | ||||||
| Fridriksson et al. (2012) [ | Pre-posttest | 13 | iPod-based program | Aphasia assessments evaluated before and after the training. | Chronic | 30 min/wk | 6 wk intervention | WAB-R | Patients were able to produce more than twice as many words during the speech entrainment–audio visual compared with the speech entrainment–audio only therapy. |
| BNT |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; IG, intervention group; CG, control group; OANB, Object and Action Naming Battery; BNT, Boston Naming test; ANELT-A, Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test scale A; PNT, Philadelphia Naming Test; PRT, Philadelphia Repetition Test; PORT, Philadelphia Oral Reading Test; WAB-R-CQ, Revised Western Aphasia Battery CQ; CLQT, Cognitive Linguistic Quick Test; PAPT, Pyramids and Palm Trees; CETI, Communicative Effectiveness Index; NOMS, National Outcome Measurement System; RIC-CCRSA, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago–Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia; BDAE, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination; VR, virtual reality; NAVS, North-western Assessment of Verbs and Sentences; ORLA, Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia; WAB-AQ, Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient.
Summary of studies on digital therapeutics as physical rehabilitation in stroke patients
| Study | Study design | Sample size (n) | Intervention | Study description | Stage of stroke | Frequency of intervention | Follow-up | Outcome measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subramanian et al. (2013) [ | RCT | IG: 16 | VR training CAREN | IG: VR training | Chronic | 45 min, 3 day/wk | 4 wk intervention | RPSS | Both groups showed a significant improvement post-intervention, a greater improvement was seen in shoulder adduction and flexion in IG compared to CG. |
| CG: 16 | CG: conventional training—targeting reaching and pointing movements similar to the VR training | WMFT | |||||||
| MAL-AS | |||||||||
| McEwen et al. (2014) [ | RCT | IG: 30 | VR training IREX | IG: standard rehab+VR training (in standing) | Chronic | 30 min, 10–12 sessions/day, | 3 wk intervention | TUG | IG showed a greater effect on TUG and TMWT. |
| CG: 29 | CG: standard rehab+VR training without the challenge (in sitting) | 1-mo post-intervention | TMWT | More individuals in IG than in CG showed a decreased impairment in the lower extremity, measured by CMSA. | |||||
| CMSA | |||||||||
| Broeren et al. (2004) [ | Single case study | 1 | VR training with haptic device | Changes in the pre-posttraining assessments and follow-up assessments were evaluated | Unspecified | 90 min/session, 12 sessions in 4 wk | 4 wk intervention | Purdue Pegboard Test | Improvements were seen in fine manual dexterity, grip force, and motor control of the affected upper extremity. |
| 20 wk post-intervention | Dynamometer handgrip strength | ||||||||
| Cannell et al. (2018) [ | RCT | IG: 35 | VR training JRS | IG: JRS WAVE | Subacute | 1 hr/wk | 8 wk intervention | MMAS, FRT, ST, 10 MWT, TUG | Both groups improved on standing balance after training. No difference was seen between the two groups in primary or secondary outcomes. |
| CG: 38 | WAVE | CG: usual care—individualised and group physical exercise program | Sitting balance test | ||||||
| Ikbali Afsar et al. (2018) [ | RCT | IG: 19 | VR training with | IG: conventional physical rehab+VR | Unspecified | 30 min/session, 5 times/wk | 4 wk intervention | BBT | The functional measures showed a significant improvement post-treatment in both groups. IG showed a significantly higher result in the Brunnstrom stage and in BBT compared to CG. |
| CG: 16 | Microsoft Xbox | CG: conventional rehab only | Brunnstorm stage | ||||||
| 360 Kinect system | FMA | ||||||||
| Emmerson et al. (2017) [ | RCT | IG: 30 | iPad-based home exercise program | IG: iPad program | Chronic | Unspecified, completion of program in 4 wk | 4 wk intervention | WMFT | There was no difference between IG and CG. |
| CG: 32 | CG: standard program | ||||||||
| Carabeo et al. (2014) [ | Cohort study | - | Android-based game app FINDEX | 3 | Chronic | 30 min/session, total 9 sessions | 6 wk intervention | Performance on FINDEX | Improvement in patients’ dexterity |
| Schneider et al. (2007) [ | Clinical controlled study | IG: 20 | MST | IG: conventional therapy+MST | Chronic | 15 sessions, 30 min/session | 3 wk intervention | ARAT | Patients showed an improvement in speed and precision of movements. IG showed an improvement in motor control. |
| CG: 20 | CG: conventional therapy only. | BBT | |||||||
| 9HPT |
RCT, randomized controlled trial; IG, intervention group; CG, control group; VR, virtual reality; CAREN, computer-assisted rehabilitation environment; RPSS, Reaching Performance Scale for Stroke; WMFT, Wolf Motor Function Test; MAL-AS, Motor Activity Log Amount Scale; IREX, Interactive Rehabilitation Exercise software; TUG, Timed Up and Go test; TMWT, Two-Minute Walk Test; CMSA, Chedoke-McMaster Stroke Assessment; JRS, Jintronix Rehabilitation System; MMAS, Modified Motor Assessment Scale; FRT, Functional Reach test; ST, step test; 10 MWT, 10-m walk test; BBT, Box & Block Test; FMA, Fugl-Meyer assessment; MST, musicsupported therapy; ARAT, Action Research Arm Test; 9HPT, 9 Hole Pegboard Test.
Summary of studies on digital therapeutics as vision rehabilitation in stroke patients
| Study | Study design | Sample size (n) | Intervention | Study description | Stage of stroke | Frequency of intervention | Follow-up | Outcome measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sahraie et al. (2016) [ | Clinical controlled study | IG: 16 | NEC Computer-based compensatory therapy | IG: NEC training | Chronic | 45 min/level, total of 12 levels | 2 wk intervention | TÜP | An improvement of around 31% in scanning speed in the cancellation task and 21% in the visual search task. |
| CG: 16 | CG: no training | 11 wk post-intervention | Pen and paper version of the cancellation tasks and visual search tasks | ||||||
| Aimola et al. (2014) [ | RCT | IG:28 | Computer-based compensatory therapy | IG: reading and writing training | Chronic | 1 hr/day | 5 wk intervention | OculusTwinfield 2 perimeter | IG demonstrated a significant improvement in exploration and reading compared to CG. |
| CG:24 | CG: control training | Visual search tasks | |||||||
| TEA,SART1VFQ-251VIQ | |||||||||
| Sato et al. (2014) [ | Pre-poststudy | 9 | VISIOcoach computer-based compensatory therapy | The visual performance measures compared in pre-training and post-training | Unspecified | Unspecified | 8 wk intervention | HVF30-2, ETDRSVA, Peiii-Robson Contrast Sensitivity chart, MP-1 microperimetry, video-recording of eye movements | Performance in reading tasks did not differ significantly after training. However, head and eye movements improved in all patients. |
| Kasten et al. (1995) [ | Clinical controlled study | IG: 11 | Computer-based VRT | IG: computer-based VRT | Unspecified | 1 hr/day | 80-300 hr intervention | HRP | IG demonstrated a significant improvement in the detection of small light stimuli and an increased ability to discriminate colors in the blind field, whereas CG showed a decrease in the visual field. |
| CG:3 | CG: little or no therapy | TAP | |||||||
| Kasten et al. (1998) [ | RCT | IG: 19 | Computer-based VRT | IG: computerized VRT | Chronic | 1 hr/day except Sundays | 6 mo intervention | HRP | VRT led to a significant improvement (29.4%) in the ability to detect visual stimuli in IG. 4.9°一5.8° visual-field expansion was observed. CG did not show comparable improvements. |
| CG: 19 | CG: placebo-no train-ing | TAP | |||||||
| Reinhard et al. (2005) [ | Clinical controlled study | 17 | Computer-based VRT | The visual performance measures compared in pre-training and post-training | Chronic | 1 hr/day, 6 day/wk | 6 mo intervention | SLO | None of the patients showed a significant change in the visual field defect after training. |
| HRP | |||||||||
| TAP | |||||||||
| Schreiber et al. (2006) [ | Clinical controlled study | 16 | Computer-based VRT | The visual performance measures compared in pre and post-training | Chronic | 1 hr/day, 6 day/wk | 6 mo intervention | SAP | VRT has little effect in rehabilitation of HVFD. |
| Huxlin et al. (2018) [ | Clinical controlled trial | IG 17 | VPL | IG:VPL | Chronic | 300 trials/day, 5 day/wk | 3-14 mo intervention | HVF 24-2 and 10-2 | IG recovered 108 degrees [ |
| CG5 | CG: no training | Discrimination task performance | |||||||
| Das et al. (2014) [ | Clinical controlled trial | Group 1:3 | VPL | Group 1: static orientation training | Chronic | 300 trials for 5 day/wk | - | HVF | Moving stimuli and double training may be superior training tools for inducing visual recovery in CB. |
| Graup 2:6 | Group 2: motion and static orientation discrimination training | ||||||||
| Huxlin et al. (2009) [ | Clinical controlled study | 7 | VPL | The visual performance measures were compared in pre-training and post-training | Chronic | Unspecified | 9-18 mo intervention | HVF 24-2 and 10-2 | Perceptual relearning of complex visual motion processing is possible with damaged primary visual cortex when VPL is presented in the blind field. |
| Discrimination task performance |
IG, intervention group; CG, control group; NEC, NeuroEyeCoach; TÜP, Tübingen perimeter; RCT, randomized controlled trial; TEA, Test of Everyday Attention; SART, Sustained Attention to Response task; VFQ-25, Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25; VIQ, Visual Impairments Questionnaire; HVF, Humphrey Visual field; ETDRS VA, Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Visual Acuity; MP-1, MicroPerimeter 1; VRT, visual restoration therapy; HRP, High-resolution perimetry; TAP, Tübinger automatic perimeter; SLO, scanning laser ophthalmoscope; SAP, static automated perimetry; HVFD, homonymous visual field defect; VPL, visual perceptual learning.