Clinical Trial Details
— Status: Terminated
Administrative data
NCT number |
NCT05096572 |
Other study ID # |
21-500-225-80-04 |
Secondary ID |
|
Status |
Terminated |
Phase |
N/A
|
First received |
|
Last updated |
|
Start date |
November 30, 2021 |
Est. completion date |
October 30, 2023 |
Study information
Verified date |
November 2023 |
Source |
St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Phoenix |
Contact |
n/a |
Is FDA regulated |
No |
Health authority |
|
Study type |
Interventional
|
Clinical Trial Summary
Deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral intermediate nucleus of the thalamus (VIM) is an
FDA approved treatment for medication refractory essential tremor (ET). However, VIM
stimulation can be associated with impacts on speech and balance. There is also suggestion
that there may be habituation to stimulation in more than half of these patients. Stimulation
of the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) has been found to be beneficial in tremor control as
well. In fact, there is thought that the improvement in tremor in standard VIM DBS
stimulation may be related to stimulation effects on the PSA. Updates in DBS stimulation
allow to stimulate more than one area of the brain independently, while using a single lead.
In this study, we will recruit patient who are referred for VIM DBS to a randomized
cross-over trial in which they will receive VIM, PSA, or dual stimulation. We will assess
tremor qualitatively and quantitatively, in addition to evaluating side effects, including
quantitative gait analysis on each setting. The pre-operative, operative, and initial
programming evaluation will be performed per standard of care. After baseline assessment and
initial programming, subjects will be evaluated in a blinded manner after they have been on
each setting for 2 weeks. The entire duration of the study from baseline visit through final
study visit will be 17 weeks. For subjects who are clinically evaluated in our outpatient
clinics, we will review their charts at 6 months for stimulation parameters and clinical
information as it relates to their tremor.
Description:
Essential Tremor (ET) is the most common movement disorder. It is estimated that between 25
and 55% of patients with ET will have a tremor which is refractory to pharmacotherapy
necessitating advanced therapeutic options to control tremor. Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is
one such option and has been FDA approved for ET since 1997 with the ventral intermediate
nucleus of the thalamus (VIM) as a target. Over the past twenty years, DBS has become the
standard of care for patients with treatment-refractory motor circuit disorders such as
Parkinson's disease, dystonia, and essential tremor. A study reviewing the United States
database hospital discharges from 2002 to 2011 showed that more than 30,000 DBS surgeries
were performed during this time, 22% were for ET and the other 78% for Parkinson's Disease. A
study done at Columbia University Medical Center estimated that about 1 in 34 ET patients
undergo DBS surgery. DBS is highly effective at controlling motor symptoms and improvement in
tremor with DBS in ET patients has been reported to be between 47.4% and 65.4%. However,
there are limitations to stimulation in regard to adverse effects, such as dysarthria, gait
imbalance, ataxia, etc. Additionally, some reviews suggest a loss of benefit in more than
half, and as high as 73%, of individuals at a mean interval of approximately 18 months.
Although DBS is relatively safe and effective, alternative surgical treatments include
lesional therapies such as radiofrequency ablation, radiosurgery, and
magnetic-resonance-guided focused ultrasonography. DBS still remains the standard of choice
given ability to adjust stimulation over time or to turn it off if needed.
In addition to the VIM, the posterior subthalamic area (PSA) has emerged as a potential
alternative target for ET. The PSA contains the Zona incerta (Zi) and prelemniscal radiation
(Raprl) and has previously been targeted in subthalamotomies for tremor control. It is
believed that the cerebellothalamic connections of the PSA are involved in tremor and that
the somatotopic organization of the PSA allows for improvement in proximal tremor control, in
particular. From a stimulation perspective, results published in the literature have
suggested that the PSA may be equivalent, and possibly superior to the VIM, in terms of
therapeutic benefit. The PSA was targeted in a case series of patients with severe proximal
tremor specifically, and found to have beneficial impact. The VIM is located dorsal to the
PSA which allows for access to both structures with a single electrode and in fact, review of
VIM lead locations and optimal contacts for tremor control have shown better tremor control
with more ventral contacts, which are more likely stimulating the PSA, to have superior
tremor control than that achieved with thalamic stimulation.
A single small study evaluated the surgical approach of targeting both VIM and PSA with a
single electrode for dual stimulation and found this to be a feasible surgical procedure.
This study showed equivalent outcomes for VIM, PSA, and VIM+PSA but this was a small
unblinded study with only 8 patients. Another small study assessing 17 patients with ET and
DBS of both VIM and PSA in one surgical trajectory found that intraoperatively, PSA
stimulation offered superior tremor control compared to VIM in 88% of aligned trajectories.
Dysarthria and gait ataxia were side effects seen in both VIM and PSA stimulation. Successful
tremor control was achieved in 69% of patients.
In our center, we have a series of patients with longstanding ET who initially had
considerable improvement of tremor following DBS of the VIM only. Although this benefit was
sustained for several years, these patients had re-emergence of their tremor requiring
increasing stimulation over time as well as reintroduction of pharmacotherapy for tremor
control. Higher stimulation was limited by adverse effects in the form of dysarthria and
ataxia. Given the significant disability from their tremors, and the availability of newer
DBS leads with more contacts and the availability of complex stimulation options, these
individuals underwent replacement of their existing VIM DBS leads with longer leads targeting
both the VIM and PSA in one surgical trajectory as salvage therapy. Retrospective review of
these cases show that the reduction in tremor was higher for those receiving concurrent VIM
and PSA stimulation compared to VIM or PSA alone. Others had a reduction in their tremor but
were still functionally limited as even with considerable reduction in tremor amplitude,
there was still a robust tremor present. However, this is a small case series of severely
refractory ET and broad generalizations cannot be made. Therefore, we propose a prospective,
randomized, cross-over trial of DBS for ET quantitatively assessing whether dual stimulation
of VIM and PSA is superior to VIM or PSA alone in terms of the various tremor components of
ET (i.e. proximal v. distal limb tremor), quality of life measures, and side effect profile.
We postulate that since two targets involved in tremor control will be stimulated
simultaneously, lower current will be needed at each target which should limit involvement of
adjacent pathways which are typically recruited with higher stimulation and lead to side
effects.
This study will not be an evaluation of a new surgical target or trajectory, as the patients
eligible to be recruited for this study will already be candidates for VIM+PSA DBS, which are
closely positioned and connected structures often affected simultaneously by DBS depending on
lead placement and targeting of stimulation. This study will only be examining the separate
and combined affected of stimulation within these two structures using the more accurate
targeting available with GuideXT software.