Objective: Adjuvant protocols devised to enhance motor recovery in subacute stroke patients have failed to show benefits with respect to classic therapeutic interventions. Here we evaluate the efficacy of a novel brain-state dependent intervention based on known mechanisms of memory and learning, that is integrated as part of the weekly rehabilitation program in subacute stroke patients. Methods: Twenty-four hospitalized subacute stroke patients were randomly assigned to two intervention groups; 1. The associative group received thirty pairings of a peripheral electrical nerve stimulus (ES) such that the generated afferent volley arrived precisely during the most active phase of the motor cortex as patients attempted to perform a movement; 2. In the control group the ES intensity was too low to generate a stimulation of the nerve. Functional (including the lower extremity Fugl-Meyer assessment (LE-FM; primary outcome measure)) and neurophysiological (changes in motor evoked potentials (MEPs)) assessments were performed prior to and following the intervention period. Results: The associative group significantly improved functional recovery with respect to the control group (median (interquartile range) LE-FM improvement: 6.5 (3.5-8.25) and 3 (0.75-3), respectively; p=0.029). Significant increases in MEP amplitude were seen following all sessions in the associative group only (p's≤0.006).

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01983319.

Background Preclinical studies suggest that skull remodeling surgery (SR-surgery) increases the dose of tumor treating fields (TTFields) in glioblastoma (GBM) and prevents wasteful current shunting through the skin. SR-surgery introduces minor skull defects to focus the cancer-inhibiting currents towards the tumor and increase the treatment dose. This study aimed to test the safety and feasibility of this concept in a phase 1 setting. Methods 15 adult patients with first recurrence of GBM were treated with personalized SR-surgery, TTFields and physician’s choice oncological therapy. The primary endpoint was toxicity and secondary endpoints included standard efficacy outcomes. Results SR-surgery resulted in a mean skull defect area of 10.6 cm 2 producing a median TTFields enhancement of 32% (range 25-59%). The median TTFields treatment duration was 6.8 months and the median compliance rate 90%. Patients received either bevacizumab, bevacizumab/irinotecan, or temozolomide rechallenge. We observed 71 adverse events (AEs) of grades 1 (52%), 2 (35%), and 3 (13%). There were no grade 4 or 5 AEs or intervention-related serious AEs. Six patients experienced minor TTFields-induced skin rash. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 months and the PFS rate at 6 months was 36%. The median overall survival (OS) was 15.5 months and the OS rate at 12 months was 55%. Conclusions TTFields therapy combined with SR-surgery and medical oncological treatment is safe and non-toxic and holds potential to improve the outcome for GBM patients through focal dose enhancement in the tumor.

Physical exercise improves balance and walking performance, but improved balance is not a prerequisite for functional improvements in chronic stroke. Implications for Rehabilitation Aerobic training and progressive resistance training show small significant improvements in balance and walking, indicating a possible clinical relevance of these training modalities. Improvements in balance may not be a prerequisite for improvements in walking distance when assistive devices are allowed during walking tests.

Introduction: In Guillain‐Barré syndrome (GBS), patients often develop muscle atrophy from denervation and immobilization. We, therefore, conducted a pilot study of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) to evaluate feasibility, safety, and effect on muscle wasting in the early phase of GBS. Methods: Seventeen patients were randomized to receive 20 min of muscle fiber stimulation followed by 40 min of NMES of the right or left quadriceps muscle with the untreated side as control. Cross‐sectional area (CSA) of the muscle measured by ultrasound and isometric knee extensor strength were the primary and secondary outcome measures. Results: No treatment related adverse effects were recorded. Change in CSA was ‐0.25 cm2 (confidence interval [CI], ‐0.93–0.42) on the stimulated side versus ‐0.60 cm2 (CI, ‐1.32–0.11) on the nonstimulated side (P = 0.08). No effect was observed on muscle strength. Conclusions: NMES seems safe and feasible in the early phase of GBS. Further studies are needed to explore effect on muscle function. Muscle Nerve 59:481–484, 2019