Transcranial Photobiomodulation: a Feasibility and Safety Study with Implications for Signs and Symptoms of Parkinson's Disease
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<b>Title: </b>Safety and Feasibility of Transcranial Photobiomodulation on Signs and Symptoms of Parkinson's Disease.<b>Objective: </b>This quasi double-blinded randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of using transcranial Photobiomodulation (tPBM) to reduce signs and symptoms in patients with Parkinson’s disease.<b>Methods: </b>Forty participants diagnosed with early-stage PD were randomly assigned to either a tPBM group or sham group. The tPBM group received home treatment of transcranial near-infrared light therapy for 24 mins, 6 times per week for 12 weeks. The placebo group underwent a sham treatment with a helmet that did not produce light. Stage 1 of the RCT concluded following 12 weeks. Participants who initially received the sham intervention had the option to continue into stage 2 unblinded for an additional 12 weeks with active treatment.The primary motor outcome measure in Stage 1 was the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale, Part III motor score (MDS-UPDRS-III) modified for remote delivery, assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. Safety was also continuously monitored. Other outcome measures included the Timed-up and go (TUG), Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA) and the self-reported symptom scales Parkinson’s disease sleep scale (PDSS) and 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire PDQ-39. Treatment was delivered remotely, and all assessments were obtained via video conference link due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.<b>Results: </b>The treatment raised no serious safety concerns or adverse events. Two sham participants experienced sporadic, transient, and minor episodes of dizziness. No participants withdrew from the trial due to adverse reactions to treatment. In stage 1 all participants in the active group and 18 in the sham group completed full treatment, with the two withdrawals due to unrelated medical conditions. The mean change in the modified MDS-UPDRS-III score between baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment was 5.59 (SD 7.9) for the active group and 4.85 (SD 7.6) for the sham group. These results in both groups denoted a significant improvement in the MDS-UPDRS-III scores, however, no significant difference was noted between the groups. The improvement in both groups most likely reflects the highly reported dopamine placebo response that typically occurs in PD patients. All other assessments revealed no significant positive changes between the sham and tPBM groups. However, individual participants demonstrated improvements in several signs and symptoms. As heterogeneity in PD is marked, with a substantial variability in clinical presentation, progression, and response to treatment, identifying which patient characteristics lead to a favourable response may aid in generating additional hypotheses and providing insights into the individualised effects of the treatment.<b>Conclusion: </b>tPBM appears to be safe and a promising adjunctive therapy for managing signs and symptoms in PD. However, the heterogeneity of PD may underscore the diversity of patient responses to treatment and complicate the assessment of treatment efficacy. The placebo affect reported here suggests the need for a longer trial where this response may be blunted. As well, as an individual response to treatment noted in this study, the possibility of identifying "responders" within specific disease subtypes and tailoring treatments to address this variation would be worth investigating. This approach can lead to more effective and targeted therapies, improving patient outcomes in the face of this complex and variable disease presentation.Further research is warranted to explore whether stratifying patients into subgroups, considering factors like genetic mutations, biomarkers, or clinical characteristics when providing treatment may reveal a specific group of responders. Overall, further research with larger sample sizes and protracted treatment may provide a better understanding of the long-term effects on specific signs and symptoms that tPBM may provide.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».