Repetitive sessions of tDCS to improve naming in post-stroke aphasia: Insights from an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis

Article type: Research Article

Authors: Rosso, Charlotte^{a; b; *} | Arbizu, Céline^{b; c} | Dhennain, Claire^b | Lamy, Jean-Charles^a | Samson, Yves^{a; b}

Affiliations: [a] Inserm U 1127, CNRS UMR 7225, Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Institut du Cerveau et de la Moelle épinière, ICM, Paris, France | [b] APHP, Urgences Cérébro-Vasculaires, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France | [c] IM2A, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France

Correspondence: [*] Corresponding author: Charlotte Rosso, APHP Urgences Cérébro-vasculaires, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47-83 Bd de l’Hôpital, 75013 Paris, France. Tel.: +33 1 42 16 21 03; Fax: +33 1 42 16 21 04; ORCID: 0000 0001 7236 1508; E-mail: [email protected].

Abstract: Objectives:Small clinical trials reported that repetitive sessions of tDCS could improve naming abilities in post-stroke aphasia. However, systematic meta-analyses found no effect, but all of these analyses pooled data from both single and repetitive sessions at the group level. The aim of this paper was to perform a meta-analysis based on individual patient data to explore the effects of repetitive tDCS sessions on naming in post-stroke aphasia and in prespecified subgroups. Methods:We searched for published sham-controlled trials using the keywords “aphasia OR language” AND “transcranial direct current stimulation OR tDCS” AND “stroke”. We computed an active and sham improvement ratio by dividing the difference between naming scores after and before the active or sham sessions, respectively, by the total number of picture items. Because of heterogeneity (I2 = 66%, p: 0.002), we used random-effects models to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) for the naming outcome. We then analyzed subgroups according to number of sessions, polarity, side/location of the active electrode, post-stroke delay, aphasia severity and comprehension disorders. Results:Seven eligible studies were identified, including 68 chronic stroke patients. tDCS was beneficial on naming ability (35% ±34% in the active vs. 25% ±37% in the sham condition). An SMD of 0.8 (95% CI: 0.27–1.33) was found for the naming outcome. Additionally, there was a dose-dependent effect (5 vs. >5 sessions). We also demonstrated a prevalence of anodal vs. cathodal condition and left vs. right targeting electrode. Finally, repetitive sessions were beneficial regardless of the severity of aphasia, comprehension disorders or post-stroke delay. Conclusion:Repetitive sessions of tDCS are likely to be valuable in enhancing naming accuracy in post-stroke aphasia.

Keywords: Stroke, aphasia, rehabilitation, transcranial direct current stimulation

DOI: 10.3233/RNN-170783

Journal: Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 107-116, 2018