Emerging Stroke Recovery Treatments? Yeah NO.

Share

Just caught this over at Dean's stellar stroke-recovery site:

An article called "Emerging Treatments for Motor Rehabilitation After Stroke."  They include:
1. mirror therapy
2. motor imagery or mental practice
3. constraint-induced movement therapy
4. noninvasive brain stimulation 
5. selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor medications

A coupla itzy problems: These treatment options have been around for at least a decade and at least one has little proven efficacy.

Let's get the 5th one out of the way; these meds (SSRIs) are things like prozak and paxil and they usually treat depression. They've been used forever to treat depression in survivors. Do they help depression, yeah. Do they help you recover, no. SSRI's effectiveness-- if you take JAMA's word for it: meh. BTW, Mild to moderate depression is probably better treated with exercise. (A review here from Harvard.) And exercise is what survivors ought to be doing anyway, so its a two-fer! 

The 2nd and 3rd I've been involved in published clinical trials and have written about in my book, blog entries and magazine articles. In fact, our group, led by our fearless leader Stephen J. Page, was the first to do a modification of constraint induced therapy, and the first to look at motor imagery post stroke. And this goes back to the late 90s. "Emerging Treatments." Yeah. No. I've written about it extensively in every edition of my book as well as magazine articles, journal articles and every talk I've ever done.

Mirror therapy has been around for stroke, again, since the late 90s. I've written about it in this blog, in my book and in every talk.

Noninvasive brain stimulation is nonspecific but they're talking about Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS), which has been around for quite some time. Our group has done

a lot of work with the "next gen" of this called Navigated Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation -- basically its more accurate. But there is no research that shows that sapping the "stroked" brain with TMS does anything--yet. Promising, maybe, but not much there...yet.

So we have 3 "emerging" treatment option that have been around for more than a decade, one option that probs does not work and one that we're not sure what it does or how to use it. 

Therapists are not like oncologists.

Therapists are not like oncologists.

Imagine an oncologist who has no idea what the latest treatment is. Imagine now that they are trying to cover their butts. "You have cancer, but I have something that works in my patients." "Something that works in your patients?" Even in your distress something seems odd about that statement. "Does it work in all patients or just in yours?" Its one of those questions you think twice about asking an MD because it smacks of sarcasm and hints a possible incompetence. But it is exactly the most rational question.

Of course, of an oncologist you'd not have to ask this question because oncologists are required by law to use the most effective treatment. If they do not do the latest and greatest they can get sued. Into oblivion.

People die of cancer. People generally don't die of bad therapy.

Now imagine your therapists says this... "You've had a stroke but I have something that works in my patients." "Does it work in all patients or just in yours?" There are 2 possible answers:

1. I have a lot of clinical experience, and in my experience it works.

2. Actually, its not ME saying it works in MY patients, but the research says it works in patients with your sequalae (symptoms).

I feel safer with #2.

#1 could have an unspoken "...but I've never really collected data or analyzed data or compared it to a control group or blinded myself during your measurement, or done anything else that science does to make sure that my data is "clean"."

"Does it work in all patients or just in yours?" is really the question, "Is there research that says it works?"

Encourage therapists to have a look at their diploma. It'll say, clear as day "Associate's of applied SCIENCE," "Bachelors of SCIENCE," "Masters of SCIENCE," and so on. The the notion that they base treatment solely on clinical experience is dangerous. One of the biggest determinants of recovery is the therapist sitting in front of you. Do yourself a favor, and do them a favor: Call them on the evidence.

Dangerous Phrases

In the Seinfeld episode "The Kiss Hello" George Costanza describes his physical therapist as “… so mentally gifted that we mustn't disturb the delicate genius.” This could describe many of us involved in neurorehabilitation. We assume that we’re making the treatment choices for stroke swurvivors because we have a lot of experience. A lot of experience is a good thing, right?

Not necessarily.

“It works in my patients”

Neurorehabilitation research is now in a “golden age” with an exponential rise in diagnostics. This allows researches to test new treatments ever more accurately. We can now see, with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the work of the brain as it attempts to control movement. Triangulate changes in fMRI with computer-driven kinematic data capture, movement outcome measures and algorithmic data analysis and a three dimensional view of patient progress become startlingly clear. But like the proverbial tree falling in a forest, are therapists listening? 

“It works in my patients” represents observation as justification of treatment. Researchers call observations “anecdotal data.” Anecdotal data does not carry enough scientific weight to justify therapeutic interventions as best practice. Researchers do not consider observations robust enough to be published in journal articles, and journal articles provide the foundation for evidenced-based practice.

Example: I know a PT who perseverates that he has “fifteen years of neurological experience.” I recently asked him what therapeutic interventions he used for reduction of spasticity. He listed 5 or 6 treatments that “…reduce spasticity in my patients.” His answer was remarkable for two reasons. First, few of the interventions were effective, using peer-reviewed literature as metric. Second, he was not trained in measurement of spasticity, so even if something did work there’d be no way to measure success, or report that success in his notes.

“I’ve seen research that said…“ 

It is rare to find a therapist who reads rehabilitation research. Therapists often rely on textbooks and lectures from school, research filtered through magazines or seminars. There is nothing inherently wrong with these sources of information, but the process does promote a scatter-shot perception of available therapies and can lead to a patchwork of treatment strategies, which may or may not be considered “best practice.”

College and university professors often tend to teach what they know and they know what they were taught and what they've used clinically. This provides an echo chamber in which present teachings are based on old, often refuted, research. Proof of this is available through a quick Internet perusal of course descriptions and syllabi for PT/A and OT/A programs. The most didactic and clinical neurorehabilitative teachings on the secondary education level involve treatment techniques that are 50 years old and that remain largely unproven. Textbooks cannot possibly keep pace with the enormous amount of research that unfolds, daily. Our best hope remains the development of the doctor of physical therapy (DPT). DPT’s tend have an inherent appreciation for peer review research and, just as important, they have the skills to access that research. For their part, practicing therapists and assistants hold some responsibility to pull the best that rehabilitation research has into their practice. Entropy often exists because therapists are more comfortable with the known that is ineffective than something new and effective, but that has to be learned.

Example: I finished a talk on neuroplastcicty in stroke and a PT came up to me and said, “That stuff on neuroplasticity was really interesting. The only problem is that if the stroke survivor has loss of sensation and proprioception then there’s no way to get them to move in any sort of functional way.”

I was glad for the question because it was something I’d done quite a bit of research on. I discussed with the therapist how a critical mass of studies has shown that relatively normal and functional movement can be relearned without sensation and proprioception. The therapist was correctly referencing research but was referencing research that was over 60 years old and had been successfully and completely refuted in a large amount of animal and human studies. Therapists often know research. But now more than ever research has become such a fast moving beast that, don’t blink, what was “true” may no longer be.

“I use a mix of therapies”

Many therapists are successful, and many renowned, for a particular therapy mix. And it may be true that their mix that they’ve developed provides superior outcomes. But there are two inherent problems with using therapies not subjected to standardized testing:

1.    There is no way to know if the therapy actually works. Anecdotally (see “it works in my patients,” above) it may work but since there has been no clinical research there is no way to establish efficacy.

2.    Since a “mix” of therapies is inherently complicated to define in terms of dosage and individualized treatments for individual patients, actual definitions of the therapy are difficult to pin down and subsequently impossible to duplicate and test.

Example: I spoke to an OTA program recently and showed some data that a particular therapy technique was not effective in chronic stroke survivors. While I was speaking I noticed that a few of the students were hiding their faces. “What?” I asked. They whispered, “Our program director loves that therapy, she’s certified in it and says it’s the best.” After I finished speaking the program director came to the podium and I said, “I’m sorry. I didn't mean to insult—.“ She cut me off. “It’s OK, I use a mix of therapies,” she said.

I didn't have ANY data on her mix.