Prevalence of Arm Weakness, Pre-Stroke Outcomes and Other Post-Stroke Impairments Using Routinely Collected Clinical Data on an Acute Stroke Unit.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of upper limb motor weakness early post-stroke may be changing, which can have clinical and research implications. Our primary aim was to describe the prevalence of upper limb motor weakness early post-stroke, with a secondary aim to contextualize this prevalence by describing pre-stroke outcomes, other post-stroke impairments, functional activities, and discharge destination. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study extracted clinical data from confirmed stroke patients admitted to a metropolitan stroke unit over 15-months. The primary upper limb weakness measure was Shoulder Abduction and Finger Extension (SAFE) score. Demographics (eg, age), clinical characteristics (eg, stroke severity), pre-stroke outcomes (eg, clinical frailty), other post-stroke impairments (eg, command following), functional activities (eg, ambulation), and discharge destination were also extracted. RESULTS: A total of 463 participants had a confirmed stroke and SAFE score. One-third of patients received ≥1 acute medical intervention(s). Nearly one-quarter of patients were classified as frail pre-stroke. Upper limb weakness (SAFE≤8) was present in 35% [95% CI: 30%-39%] at a median of 1-day post-stroke, with 22% presenting with mild-moderate weakness (SAFE5-8). The most common other impairments were upper limb coordination (46%), delayed recall (41%), and upper limb sensation (26%). After a median 3-day acute stroke stay, 52% of the sample were discharged home. CONCLUSION: Upper limb weakness was present in just over a third (35%) of the sample early post-stroke. Data on pre-stroke outcomes and the prevalence of other post-stroke impairments highlights the complexity and heterogeneity of stroke recovery. Further research is required to tease out meaningful recovery phenotypes and their implications.

Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Control comparator selection is a critical trial design issue. Preclinical and clinical investigators who are doing trials of stroke recovery and rehabilitation interventions must carefully consider the appropriateness and relevance of their chosen control comparator as the benefit of an experimental intervention is established relative to a comparator. Establishing a strong rationale for a selected comparator improves the integrity of the trial and validity of its findings. This Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) taskforce used a graph theory voting system to rank the importance and ease of addressing challenges during control comparator design. "Identifying appropriate type of control" was ranked easy to address and very important, "variability in usual care" was ranked hard to address and of low importance, and "understanding the content of the control and how it differs from the experimental intervention" was ranked very important but not easy to address. The CONtrol DeSIGN (CONSIGN) decision support tool was developed to address the identified challenges and enhance comparator selection, description, and reporting. CONSIGN is a web-based tool inclusive of seven steps that guide the user through control comparator design. The tool was refined through multiple rounds of pilot testing that included more than 130 people working in neurorehabilitation research. Four hypothetical exemplar trials, which span preclinical, mood, aphasia, and motor recovery, demonstrate how the tool can be applied in practice. Six consensus recommendations are defined that span research domains, professional disciplines, and international borders.

Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable.

Control comparator selection is a critical trial design issue. Preclinical and clinical investigators who are doing trials of stroke recovery and rehabilitation interventions must carefully consider the appropriateness and relevance of their chosen control comparator as the benefit of an experimental intervention is established relative to a comparator. Establishing a strong rationale for a selected comparator improves the integrity of the trial and validity of its findings. This Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) taskforce used a graph theory voting system to rank the importance and ease of addressing challenges during control comparator design. "Identifying appropriate type of control" was ranked easy to address and very important, "variability in usual care" was ranked hard to address and of low importance, and "understanding the content of the control and how it differs from the experimental intervention" was ranked very important but not easy to address. The CONtrol DeSIGN (CONSIGN) decision support tool was developed to address the identified challenges and enhance comparator selection, description, and reporting. CONSIGN is a web-based tool inclusive of seven steps that guide the user through control comparator design. The tool was refined through multiple rounds of pilot testing that included more than 130 people working in neurorehabilitation research. Four hypothetical exemplar trials, which span preclinical, mood, aphasia, and motor recovery, demonstrate how the tool can be applied in practice. Six consensus recommendations are defined that span research domains, professional disciplines, and international borders.

Dose, Content, and Context of Usual Care in Stroke Upper Limb Motor Interventions: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this systematic review were to describe the current dose and content of usual care upper limb motor intervention for inpatients following stroke and examine if context factors alter dose and content. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search (EMBASE, MEDLINE) was completed from January 2015 to February 2023 (PROSPERO CRD42021281986). METHODS: Studies were eligible if they reported non-protocolised usual care upper limb motor intervention dose data for stroke inpatients. Studies were rated using the Johanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Data were descriptively reported for dose dimensions of time (on task or, in therapy) and intensity (repetitions, repetition/minute), content (intervention type/mode), and context (e.g., severity strata). RESULTS: Eight studies were included from four countries, largely reflecting inpatient rehabilitation. Time in therapy ranged from 23 to 121 min/day. Time on task ranged from 8 to 44 min/day. Repetitions ranged from 36 to 57/session, and 15 to 282/day. Time on task was lowest in the stratum of people with severe upper limb impairment (8 min/day), the upper limit for this stratum was 41.5 min/day. There was minimal reporting of usual care content across all studies. CONCLUSION: Upper limb motor intervention dose appears to be increasing in usual care compared to prior reports (e.g., average 21 min/day and 23 to 32 repetitions/session). Context variability suggests that doses are lowest in the stratum of patients with a severely impaired upper limb. Consistent reporting of the multiple dimensions of dose and content is necessary to better understand usual care offered during inpatient rehabilitation.

Enhancing generalizability of stroke clinical trial results: Illustrations from upper-limb motor recovery trials.

INTRODUCTION: Broadening eligibility criteria has been a focus to increase the generalizability of trial findings. Using upper-limb motor trials conducted early post-stroke as the illustrative domain, we sought to (1) investigate whether the published aim and conclusion statements adequately reflect the generalizability of findings and (2) explore internal validity and feasibility as constraints to achieving generalizability. METHODS: We systematically applied a conceptual model of a trial sampling process to published literature from systematic review and prospective cross-sectional data. The eligibility criteria reported and used to exclude patients were classified by consensus as related to safety, internal validity, feasibility, or a combination thereof. Categorical data were reported as counts/proportions, and continuous data were reported as median (interquartile range (IQR)). RESULTS: Thirty trials (n = 1638 participants) were included in the published literature and 1013 patients in the prospective data set. Thirty-seven percent of trials did not describe their target population in the aim and conclusion, and 80% did not report all trial screening data. Eligibility criteria related to internal validity were the most common type reported and applied to exclude patients across both data sets. In the prospective data set, 70% of patients were excluded for more than one reason. CONCLUSION: Key information to support the generalizability of trial findings was insufficiently reported in published upper-limb motor research conducted early post-stroke. Broadening eligibility criteria alone is unlikely to sufficiently improve trial inclusivity due to internal validity constraints. Trials could achieve inclusivity through targeting multiple sub-populations, that in combination, produce clinically relevant results that are applicable to a broader population.

Early-phase dose articulation trials are underutilized for post-stroke motor recovery: A systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: To enable development of effective interventions, there is a need to complete systematic early-phase dose articulation research. This scoping review aimed to synthesize dose articulation research of behavioral motor interventions for stroke recovery. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were systematically searched for dose articulation studies. Preclinical experiments and adult clinical trials were classified based on the discovery pipeline and analyzed to determine which dose dimensions were articulated (time, scheduling or intensity) and how they were investigated (unidimensional vs multidimensional approach). Reporting of dose, safety and efficacy outcomes were summarized. The intervention description, risk of bias, and quality was appraised. RESULTS: We included 41 studies: 3 of preclinical dose preparation (93 rodents), 2 Phase I dose ranging (21 participants), 9 Phase IIA dose screening (198 participants), and 27 Phase IIB dose finding (1879 participants). All studies adopted a unidimensional approach. Time was the most frequent dimension investigated (53%), followed by intensity (29%), and scheduling (18%). Overall, 95% studies reported an efficacy outcome; however, only 65% reported dose and 45% reported safety. Across studies, 61% were at high risk of bias, and the average percentage reporting of intervention description and quality was 61% and 67%, respectively. CONCLUSION: This review highlights a need to undertake more high-quality, early-phase studies that systematically articulate intervention doses from a multidimensional perspective in the field of behavioral motor stroke recovery. To address this gap, we need to invest in adapting early phase trial designs, especially Phase I, to support multidimensional dose articulation.

Timing and Dose of Upper Limb Motor Intervention After Stroke: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review aimed to investigate timing, dose, and efficacy of upper limb intervention during the first 6 months poststroke. Three online databases were searched up to July 2020. Titles/abstracts/full-text were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Randomized and nonrandomized studies that enrolled people within the first 6 months poststroke, aimed to improve upper limb recovery, and completed preintervention and postintervention assessments were included. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane reporting tools. Studies were examined by timing (recovery epoch), dose, and intervention type. Two hundred and sixty-one studies were included, representing 228 (n=9704 participants) unique data sets. The number of studies completed increased from one (n=37 participants) between 1980 and 1984 to 91 (n=4417 participants) between 2015 and 2019. Timing of intervention start has not changed (median 38 days, interquartile range [IQR], 22-66) and study sample size remains small (median n=30, IQR 20-48). Most studies were rated high risk of bias (62%). Study participants were enrolled at different recovery epochs: 1 hyperacute (<24 hours), 13 acute (1-7 days), 176 early subacute (8-90 days), 34 late subacute (91-180 days), and 4 were unable to be classified to an epoch. For both the intervention and control groups, the median dose was 45 (IQR, 600-1430) min/session, 1 (IQR, 1-1) session/d, 5 (IQR, 5-5) d/wk for 4 (IQR, 3-5) weeks. The most common interventions tested were electromechanical (n=55 studies), electrical stimulation (n=38 studies), and constraint-induced movement (n=28 studies) therapies. Despite a large and growing body of research, intervention dose and sample size of included studies were often too small to detect clinically important effects. Furthermore, interventions remain focused on subacute stroke recovery with little change in recent decades. A united research agenda that establishes a clear biological understanding of timing, dose, and intervention type is needed to progress stroke recovery research. Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID: CRD42018019367/CRD42018111629.

Multidimensional Phase I Dose Ranging Trials for Stroke Recovery Interventions: Key Challenges and How to Address Them.

Despite an increase in the amount of published stroke recovery research, interventions have failed to markedly affect the trajectory of recovery poststroke. We argue that early-phase research to systematically investigate dose is an important contributor to advance the science underpinning stroke recovery. In this article, we aim to (a) define the problem of insufficient use of a systematic approach to early-phase, multidimensional dose articulation research and (b) propose a solution that applies this approach to design a multidimensional phase I trial to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). We put forward a design template as a decision support tool to increase knowledge of how to develop a phase I dose-ranging trial for nonpharmaceutical stroke recovery interventions. This solution has the potential to advance the development of efficacious stroke recovery interventions, which include activity-based rehabilitation interventions.

Advancing Stroke Recovery Through Improved Articulation of Nonpharmacological Intervention Dose.

Dose articulation is a universal issue of intervention development and testing. In stroke recovery, dose of a nonpharmaceutical intervention appears to influence outcome but is often poorly reported. The challenges of articulating dose in nonpharmacological stroke recovery research include: (1) the absence of specific internationally agreed dose reporting guidelines; (2) inadequate conceptualization of dose, which is multidimensional; and (3) unclear and inconsistent terminology that incorporates the multiple dose dimensions. To address these challenges, we need a well-conceptualized and consistent approach to dose articulation that can be applied across stroke recovery domains to stimulate critical thinking about dose during intervention development, as well as promote reporting of planned intervention dose versus actually delivered dose. We followed the Design Research Paradigm to develop a framework that guides how to articulate dose, conceptualizes the multidimensional nature and systemic linkages between dose dimensions, and provides reference terminology for the field. Our framework recognizes that dose is multidimensional and comprised of a duration of days that contain individual sessions and episodes that can be active (time on task) or inactive (time off task), and each individual episode can be made up of information about length, intensity, and difficulty. Clinical utility of this framework was demonstrated via hypothetical application to preclinical and clinical domains of stroke recovery. The suitability of the framework to address dose articulation challenges was confirmed with an international expert advisory group. This novel framework provides a pathway for better articulation of nonpharmacological dose that will enable transparent and accurate description, implementation, monitoring, and reporting, in stroke recovery research.