4.6 Article

The Specific Requirements of Neural Repair Trials for Stroke

Journal

NEUROREHABILITATION AND NEURAL REPAIR
Volume 30, Issue 5, Pages 470-478

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1545968315604400

Keywords

stroke rehabilitation; mHealth; brain tissue regeneration; neuronal plasticity; axonal sprouting; physical therapy; clinical trials; stem cell

Funding

  1. Dr Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation
  2. Richard Merkin Foundation for Neural Repair at UCLA
  3. American Stroke Association/Bugher Foundation
  4. National Institues of Health [NS085019, NS081055, NS077521, NS071481, HD071809]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Novel molecular, cellular, and pharmacological therapies to stimulate repair of sensorimotor circuits after stroke are entering clinical trials. Compared with acute neuroprotection and thrombolysis studies, clinical trials for repair in subacute and chronic hemiplegic participants have a different time course for delivery of an intervention, different mechanisms of action within the milieu of the injury, distinct relationships to the amount of physical activity and skills practice of participants, and need to include more refined outcome measures. This review examines the biological interaction of targeted rehabilitation with neural repair strategies to optimize outcomes. We suggest practical guidelines for the incorporation of inexpensive skills training and exercise at home. In addition, we describe some novel outcome measurement tools, including wearable sensors, to obtain the more detailed outcomes that may identify at least some minimal level of success from cellular and regeneration interventions. Thus, proceeding in the shadow of acute stroke trial designs may unnecessarily limit the mechanisms of action of new repair strategies, reduce their impact on participants, and risk missing important behavioral outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available