Reflex Sympathetic DystrophyNCT01960400
Investigation of the Efficacy of tDCS in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) Type 1
A study testing Graded motor imagery (GMI) in people with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, run by Université de Sherbrooke at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
The efficacy of the current standard non-pharmacological treatments for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a painful syndrome mostly occurring after musculoskeletal trauma, is suboptimal. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
- What is being tested?
- Graded motor imagery (GMI)
- Type of treatment
- Medical device
- Could I receive a placebo?
- Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
- How many people
- 22 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- Apr 2013to Jun 2015
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults diagnosed with CRPS type 1, based on Bruehl's diagnostic criteria for research.
Who cannot join
- Other painful conditions;
- Central nervous system disease;
- Other upper limb conditions;
- Diagnosis of psychiatric condition;
- Dyslexia and/or severe visual impairment;
- Presence of contraindication of tDCS (brain implant, history of severe cranial trauma, severe or frequent headaches, chronic skin conditions);
- Sympathetic blocks for less than one month;
- Pregnancy.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Investigation of the Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Added to the Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) Type 1
The efficacy of the current standard non-pharmacological treatments for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a painful syndrome mostly occurring after musculoskeletal trauma, is suboptimal. It thus appears essential to examine new non-pharmacological therapeutic imagery (GMI) - a non-pharmacological approach with the highest level of evidence (level II). As suggested by the most recent clinical guideline 2, a potential solution would be to add an electrotherapeutic procedure - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) - that may prove effective in modulating cortical excitability and reducing the effect of cortical reorganization on pain. Given the positive results previously obtained in patients with neuropathic pain, it is hypothesized that tDCS will prove to be an innovative add-on treatment method for CRPS patients, and help reduce pain and disability.
Read the detailed description
Executive summary: The efficacy of the current standard rehabilitation treatments for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a painful syndrome mostly occurring after musculoskeletal trauma, is suboptimal. For instance, the first line of treatment in rehabilitation, progressive motor imagery (GMI), only induces a 50% improvement in symptoms. Although such improvement is interesting, further solutions should be sought to enhance clinical outcomes. It is thus essential to explore new options of therapy. A potential solution to enhance clinical outcomes would be to add an electrotherapeutic procedure, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Given the positive results previously obtained in patients with neuropathic pain, we hypothesize that tDCS will induce functional and structural reorganization in the cortex and lead to better pain relief. The cortical reorganization frequently observed in CRPS patients mainly involves a shrinkage of cortical map of the affected limb on primary and secondary somatosensory cortex. Interestingly, therapies that aim to reverse the cortical reorganization are often associated with a decrease in pain. Therefore, combining GMI and tDCS could lead to added pain relief compared to traditional GMI treatments alone. Furthermore, neuroimaging before and after the procedures could help us explain if and how this is achieved. Objectives: Thus, the primary objective of this research is to study the therapeutic efficacy of tDCS in the treatment of CRPS type 1 in addition to the current best evidence-based rehabilitation treatment, GMI. The second objective is to study, through MRI/fMRI, how brain structures and functions are changed following tDCS and GMI treatments, and whether these changes correlate to clinical changes.
Methodology: To achieve the first objective, we will recruit adults diagnosed with CRPS type 1 via established collaborations with different physicians from our university affiliated hospital. Participants will be randomly allocated into one of the two treatment groups A) experimental group, which will receive the GMI and tDCS stimulation; B) control group, which will receive GMI and sham [placebo] tDCS stimulation. GMI treatment is composed of a three-phase protocol, each lasting two weeks. The GMI treatments will be performed using software and well-established procedures (www.noigroup.com). For its part, the tDCS will be applied for 5 consecutive days during the first 2 weeks of phase 1 and once a week during the 4 other weeks. The anodic (positive) stimulation over the motor cortex (M1) contralateral of the affected limb is sought to modulate cortical excitability and promote pain inhibition and cortical reorganization. Sample size estimates (β:80%,α 5%) show that 15 subjects/group will be necessary.
Anticipated results and impact of the proposed project: This project will allow us to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of an innovative approach to the treatment of CRPS, primarily for the purpose of enhancing the clinical outcomes of GMI. In the event of positive results, we will be able to further examine the therapeutic benefits of this modality in a larger clientele and even in other populations (i.e., patients with chronic low back pain). In addition, our results may contribute to the creation of a clinical practice guide, since there currently is insufficient evidence-based data to establish guidelines regarding the non-pharmacological treatment of CRPS. Finally, MRI/fMRI analysis will help us to capture the phenomenon of tDCS-driven cortical reorganization.
- Conditions
- Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
- Being tested
- transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo), Graded motor imagery (GMI)
- Keywords
- Complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS), Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), Graded motor imagery (GMI), Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
- Medical subject headings
- Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, Complex Regional Pain Syndromes
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo)Device
Also called Transcranial direct current stimulation
TDCS was delivered according to the method described by Fregni et al. (2006) and the safety parameters related to tDCS application were respected (DaSilva et al., 2011). Direct current was delivered using a battery-driven constant current stimulator coupled to saline-soaked (0.9% NaCl) sponge electrodes (5 X 7 cm). Anodal stimulation was delivered over the M1; the anode was placed over C3 or C4 position in the 10/20 system for the EEG electrode position, contralateral to the affected limb, and the cathode over the opposite supraorbital area (i.e. ipsilateral to the affected limb). In the laboratory, a constant current of an intensity of 2 mA was applied for 20 min/day X 5 consecutive days during the first and the second weeks of GMI. To help maintain the potential effects of the neurostimulation, the tDCS was also applied simultaneously with GMI once a week during the 2 other phases until the end of the six weeks GMI program, for a total of 14 treatment sessions.
Graded motor imagery (GMI)Device
The treatment was performed using a software (Recognise™ online) provided by NOI group (http://www.noigroup.com/recognise). As an alternative to the software (for patients without an internet access), the patient could do the exercises with a Recognise™ Flash Cards set consists of 25 left and 25 right matching images (upper limb or lower limb). Using standardized procedures, inspired from the randomized controlled trial conducted by Moseley (2004, 2006), the participants performed the therapy at home, 10 minutes per session, 3x/day, 6 days/week, using the computer software and a mirror box (Lagueux et al., 2012).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| GMI + tDCS | Active comparator | Graded motor imagery (GMI) + tDCS Receives: Device: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo); Device: Graded motor imagery (GMI) |
| GMI + sham TDCS | Placebo comparator | Graded motor imagery (GMI) + sham tDCS Receives: Device: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo); Device: Graded motor imagery (GMI) |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Severity
The choice of outcome measures was performed in accordance with Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) guidelines (Dworkin et al., 2005). All instruments were used before (T0) and after 6 weeks of treatment (T1).
The primary outcome measure was pain severity as measured with the Brief pain inventory short-form (BPI-sf) (Poundja et al., 2007). The BPI-sf includes four questions on pain levels, where subjects were asked to rate intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) for: (1) pain at its worst in the last 24 hours; (2) pain at its least in the last 24 hours; (3) pain on average in the last 24 hours; (4) pain right now. The total score ranges from 0 to 40 (sum of the four subscales). The higher the score, the greater the severity of the pain is severe.
Measured: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
Secondary outcomes (3)
Pain Catastrophizing
The Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) (Sullivan et al., 1995) was used to evaluate the feelings, thoughts, and emotions related to pain catastrophizing of the patient. The PCS instructions ask participants to reflect on past painful experiences, and to indicate the degree to which they experienced each of 13 thoughts or feelings when experiencing pain, on 5-point scales with the end points (0) not at all and (4) all the time. The PCS yields a total score and three subscale scores assessing rumination, magnification and helplessness.
- The scores ranging from 0 to 52 points (sum of the tree subscales), with higher scores representing stronger pain catastrophizing (Sullivan et al., 1995).
Measured: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
Kinesiophobia
The Tampa Scale of kinesiophobia (TSK) (Kori et al., 1990) was used to assess fear of movement and injury/(re)injury. The TSK questionnaires consist of 17 items. Each item, composed of a statement, is scored by the patient on a 4-point Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The total scores range from 17 to 68, with higher scores representing stronger fear-avoidance beliefs (Clark, Kori, Brockel, 1996).
Measured: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
State Anxiety
The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was used to assess the state of anxiety at the moment (Spielberg et al., 1983). The total score is obtained by adding the scores for all 20 questions range from 20 to 80; the higher the result is, the higher is the anxiety about an event.
Measured: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted10 Oct 2013 (estimated)
- Study startApr 2013
- Primary completionJun 2015
- Study completionJun 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Other trials for Reflex Sympathetic DystrophyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Université de SherbrookeThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 22 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Université de Sherbrooke
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, Université de Sherbrooke
- Investigators
- Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, PhD, Principal investigator, Université de SherbrookePatricia Bourgault, PhD, Principal investigator, Université de Sherbrooke
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01960400
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 12-116
- Status last verified
- Dec 2016
- First submitted
- 24 Sep 2013
- Last updated
- 6 Feb 2017
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Feb 2017. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Investigation of the Efficacy of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) Added to the Graded Motor Imagery (GMI) in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) Type 1
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01960400
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 12-116
- Conditions
- Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
- Keywords
- Complex regional pain syndrome type 1 (CRPS), Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), Graded motor imagery (GMI), Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 22 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Université de SherbrookeUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Apr 2013
- Primary completion
- Jun 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jun 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 10 Oct 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 16 Nov 2016
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The efficacy of the current standard non-pharmacological treatments for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a painful syndrome mostly occurring after musculoskeletal trauma, is suboptimal. It thus appears essential to examine new non-pharmacological therapeutic imagery (GMI) - a non-pharmacological approach with the highest level of evidence (level II). As suggested by the most recent clinical guideline 2, a potential solution would be to add an electrotherapeutic procedure - transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) - that may prove effective in modulating cortical excitability and reducing the effect of cortical reorganization on pain. Given the positive results previously obtained in patients with neuropathic pain, it is hypothesized that tDCS will prove to be an innovative add-on treatment method for CRPS patients, and help reduce pain and disability.
Detailed description
Executive summary: The efficacy of the current standard rehabilitation treatments for complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), a painful syndrome mostly occurring after musculoskeletal trauma, is suboptimal. For instance, the first line of treatment in rehabilitation, progressive motor imagery (GMI), only induces a 50% improvement in symptoms. Although such improvement is interesting, further solutions should be sought to enhance clinical outcomes. It is thus essential to explore new options of therapy. A potential solution to enhance clinical outcomes would be to add an electrotherapeutic procedure, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Given the positive results previously obtained in patients with neuropathic pain, we hypothesize that tDCS will induce functional and structural reorganization in the cortex and lead to better pain relief. The cortical reorganization frequently observed in CRPS patients mainly involves a shrinkage of cortical map of the affected limb on primary and secondary somatosensory cortex. Interestingly, therapies that aim to reverse the cortical reorganization are often associated with a decrease in pain. Therefore, combining GMI and tDCS could lead to added pain relief compared to traditional GMI treatments alone. Furthermore, neuroimaging before and after the procedures could help us explain if and how this is achieved. Objectives: Thus, the primary objective of this research is to study the therapeutic efficacy of tDCS in the treatment of CRPS type 1 in addition to the current best evidence-based rehabilitation treatment, GMI. The second objective is to study, through MRI/fMRI, how brain structures and functions are changed following tDCS and GMI treatments, and whether these changes correlate to clinical changes.
Methodology: To achieve the first objective, we will recruit adults diagnosed with CRPS type 1 via established collaborations with different physicians from our university affiliated hospital. Participants will be randomly allocated into one of the two treatment groups A) experimental group, which will receive the GMI and tDCS stimulation; B) control group, which will receive GMI and sham [placebo] tDCS stimulation. GMI treatment is composed of a three-phase protocol, each lasting two weeks. The GMI treatments will be performed using software and well-established procedures (www.noigroup.com). For its part, the tDCS will be applied for 5 consecutive days during the first 2 weeks of phase 1 and once a week during the 4 other weeks. The anodic (positive) stimulation over the motor cortex (M1) contralateral of the affected limb is sought to modulate cortical excitability and promote pain inhibition and cortical reorganization. Sample size estimates (β:80%,α 5%) show that 15 subjects/group will be necessary.
Anticipated results and impact of the proposed project: This project will allow us to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of an innovative approach to the treatment of CRPS, primarily for the purpose of enhancing the clinical outcomes of GMI. In the event of positive results, we will be able to further examine the therapeutic benefits of this modality in a larger clientele and even in other populations (i.e., patients with chronic low back pain). In addition, our results may contribute to the creation of a clinical practice guide, since there currently is insufficient evidence-based data to establish guidelines regarding the non-pharmacological treatment of CRPS. Finally, MRI/fMRI analysis will help us to capture the phenomenon of tDCS-driven cortical reorganization.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| GMI + tDCS | Active comparator | Device: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo), Device: Graded motor imagery (GMI)Graded motor imagery (GMI) + tDCS |
| GMI + sham TDCS | Placebo comparator | Device: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo), Device: Graded motor imagery (GMI)Graded motor imagery (GMI) + sham tDCS |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Adults diagnosed with CRPS type 1, based on Bruehl's diagnostic criteria for research.
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- Other painful conditions;
- Central nervous system disease;
- Other upper limb conditions;
- Diagnosis of psychiatric condition;
- Dyslexia and/or severe visual impairment;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) (active or placebo)Also: Transcranial direct current stimulationTDCS was delivered according to the method described by Fregni et al. (2006) and the safety parameters related to tDCS application were respected (DaSilva et al., 2011). Direct current was delivered using a battery-driven constant current stimulator coupled to saline-soaked (0.9% NaCl) sponge electrodes (5 X 7 cm). Anodal stimulation was delivered over the M1; the anode was placed over C3 or C4 position in the 10/20 system for the EEG electrode position, contralateral to the affected limb, and the cathode over the opposite supraorbital area (i.e. ipsilateral to the affected limb). In the laboratory, a constant current of an intensity of 2 mA was applied for 20 min/day X 5 consecutive days during the first and the second weeks of GMI. To help maintain the potential effects of the neurostimulation, the tDCS was also applied simultaneously with GMI once a week during the 2 other phases until the end of the six weeks GMI program, for a total of 14 treatment sessions. | Device | GMI + sham TDCS, GMI + tDCS |
| Graded motor imagery (GMI)The treatment was performed using a software (Recognise™ online) provided by NOI group (http://www.noigroup.com/recognise). As an alternative to the software (for patients without an internet access), the patient could do the exercises with a Recognise™ Flash Cards set consists of 25 left and 25 right matching images (upper limb or lower limb). Using standardized procedures, inspired from the randomized controlled trial conducted by Moseley (2004, 2006), the participants performed the therapy at home, 10 minutes per session, 3x/day, 6 days/week, using the computer software and a mirror box (Lagueux et al., 2012). | Device | GMI + sham TDCS, GMI + tDCS |
Primary outcome
Pain Severity
Time frame: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
The choice of outcome measures was performed in accordance with Initiative on Methods, Measurement and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) guidelines (Dworkin et al., 2005). All instruments were used before (T0) and after 6 weeks of treatment (T1). The primary outcome measure was pain severity as measured with the Brief pain inventory short-form (BPI-sf) (Poundja et al., 2007). The BPI-sf includes four questions on pain levels, where subjects were asked to rate intensity on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain) for: (1) pain at its worst in the last 24 hours; (2) pain at its least in the last 24 hours; (3) pain on average in the last 24 hours; (4) pain right now. The total score ranges from 0 to 40 (sum of the four subscales). The higher the score, the greater the severity of the pain is severe.
3 secondary outcomes
Pain Catastrophizing
Time frame: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
Kinesiophobia
Time frame: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
State Anxiety
Time frame: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Feb 2017.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
Related trials for Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy
Enrolling by invitationPhase 4
Low Dose Naltrexone Therapy for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, Chronic Pain
RecruitingPhase 3
Evaluation of IV AMBTX-01 (Neridronate) for Treatment of CRPS Type 1 (CRPS-RISE)
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I
Recruiting
The Effectiveness of Conservative Treatment in Patients With Complex Regional Pain Syndrome.
CRPS (Complex Regional Pain Syndromes)
RecruitingPhase 3
Phase 3, Open-Label Extension Study of AMBTX-01 (Neridronate) for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type 1
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type I
Recruiting
Clinical and Cerebral Changes Following Multifaceted Rehabilitation of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Yannick Tousignant-Laflamme, PhD principal investigator
Université de Sherbrooke
Patricia Bourgault, PhD principal investigator
Université de Sherbrooke
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Graded motor imagery (GMI) in people with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy, run by Université de Sherbrooke at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 8 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Feb 2017. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 16 Nov 2016). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain Severity (time frame: Before (T0) and after treatment (6 weeks) (T1)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Feb 2017.