Clinical trial NCT05811013: Effects of Transcranial Static Magnetic Field Stimulation (tSMS) in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Official title: Effects of Transcranial Static Magnetic Field Stimulation (tSMS) in Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: RECRUITING
Phase: NA
Conditions: Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Keywords: Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
transcranial Static Magnetic Field Stimulation
disability progression
cortical hyperexcitability
cortical plasticity
Lead sponsor: Neuromed IRCCS
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2023-04-13
Enrollment: 40
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Maximum age (years): 65
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: CROSSOVER
Intervention model description: We will conduct a randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, within-subjects, cross-over study (allocation ratio 1:1) to test the ability of repeated sessions of tSMS to safely reduce disability progression in patients with PMS.
Primary purpose: TREATMENT

Brief summary: In multiple sclerosis (MS) brains, inflammation induces specific abnormalities of synaptic transmission, collectively called inflammatory synaptopathy. Such synaptopathy consists in unbalanced glutamatergic and GABAergic transmission and in remarkable changes in synaptic plasticity, causing excitotoxic neurodegeneration and impairing the clinical compensation of the ongoing brain damage, thereby exacerbating the clinical manifestation of the disease. In progressive MS (PMS), synaptopathy is characterized by pathological potentatiation of glutamate-mediated synaptic up-scaling (Centonze et al., 2008; Rossi et al., 2013) and loss of long-term synaptic potentiation \[LTP (Weiss et al., 2014)\], both caused by proinflammatory molecules (released by microglia, astroglia, and infiltrating T and B lymphocytes) (Malenka et al., 2004; Di Filippo et al., 2017; Stampanoni Bassi et al., 2019). The combination of increased up-scaling and decreased LTP has a significant impact on the clinical manifestations of PMS, often presenting with signs and symptoms indicating length-dependent degeneration of neurons of the corticospinal tract. Altered LTP expression impairs brain ability to compensate ongoing neuronal loss (Stampanoni Bassi et al., 2020), and pathological TNF-mediated up-scaling may directly promote excitotoxic damage and neurodegeneration (Rossi et al., 2014). In addition, up-scaling and LTP are mutually exclusive at a given synapse through a mechanism of synaptic occlusion (i.e., pre-existing up-scaling saturates and prevents subsequent LTP expression), further promoting neurodegeneration by preventing the pro-survival effect of LTP, the induction of which activates intracellular anti-apoptotic pathways (Bartlett \& Wang, 2013). It follows that a neuromodulation approach that can chronically (over several months) dampen up-scaling expression in the primary motor cortex (M1) of PMS patients could be beneficial by preventing excitotoxic neurodegenerative damage triggered by up-scaling itself (Centonze et al. 2008, Rossi et al. 2014), and also by promoting LTP induction and LTP-dependent functional compensation of deficits, thereby reducing the speed of the neurodegeneration process through increased LTP-dependent neuronal survival and preservation of dendritic spines (Ksiazek-Winiarek et al., 2015). Our study aims to test whether transcranial static magnetic field stimulation (tSMS) could represent such a therapeutic approach, as recently proposed in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) (Di Lazzaro et al, 2021). Forty (40) ambulatory patients with PMS, presenting with the ascending myelopathy phenotype of the disease, will be recruited at the MS Center of the Unit of Neurology of the IRCCS Neuromed in Pozzilli (IS). In this randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, within-subjects, cross-over study (allocation ratio 1:1), we will test the ability of repeated sessions of tSMS applied bilaterally over the M1 to safely reduce disability progression in patients with PMS. Patients will be randomly assigned to either real or sham tSMS. Each patient will participate in two experimental phases (real or sham stimulation). Each patient will self-administer tSMS over right and left M1, two session per day, 60 minutes each. The order will be randomly established and counterbalanced across participants. Both investigators and participants will be blinded to stimulation parameters. In the "real stimulation" phase, tSMS will be applied for 120 minutes each day, at home, for 12 consecutive months. In the "sham stimulation" phase, sham tSMS will be delivered with non-magnetic metal cylinders, with the same size, weight and appearance of the magnets. Clinical evaluations, including the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite measure (MSFC) will be performed before, during and after each experimental phase ("real" and "sham"). In addition, blood levels of neurofilaments, excitability and plasticity of M1, and MRI measures of cortical thickness will be measured before, during and after each stimulation phase.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Ability to give written informed consent to the study
* Age range 18-65 years
* Diagnosis of primary of secondary progressive MS according to 2017 revised Macdonald's criteria (Thompson et al., 2017), presenting with signs of symptoms of progressive dysfunction of the corticospinal tract
* EDSS ≤ 6,5
* Ability to participate to the study protocol
* No or stable (at least six months) DMT or rehabilitative treatments before study entry, and willingness not to change these therapies (including cannabinoids, SSRI, baclofen) during the study.

Exclusion Criteria:

* Relapsing-remitting MS or progressive MS presenting with signs of symptoms other than those typical of the ascending myelopathy phenotype (i.e. progressive cerebellar or cognitive involvement)
* Female with positive pregnancy test at baseline or having active pregnancy plans
* Comorbidities for which synaptic plasticity may be altered (i.e., Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, stroke)
* Contraindications to TMS
* History or presence of any unstable medical condition such as malignancy or infection
* Use of medications with increased risk of seizures (i.e. Fampridine, 4-Aminopyridine)
* Concomitant use of drugs that may alter synaptic transmission and plasticity (L-dopa, antiepileptics)

Primary outcomes:
measure: Functional assessment, that "change" is being assessed.
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Neurological Assessment, that "change" is being assessed.
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neuropsychological and psychometric evaluation
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Neurophysiological assessment
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: blood neurofilament light chain (NFL) levels
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
timeFrame: BASELINE EVALUATION 1-30 DAYS BEFORE REAL OR SHAM tSMS T0; 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
measure: Patients' adherence to tSMS, potential side effects and adverse events
timeFrame: 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 1, T12); 6 MONTHS OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T6); 1-30 DAYS AFTER THE END OF STIMULATION (SESSION 2, T12)
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Pozzilli
country: Italy
facility: IRCCS Neuromed
state: Isernia
Study officials:
References:
citation: Bartlett TE, Wang YT. The intersections of NMDAR-dependent synaptic plasticity and cell survival. Neuropharmacology. 2013 Nov;74:59-68. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.01.012. Epub 2013 Jan 25.
citation: Bjornevik K, Munger KL, Cortese M, Barro C, Healy BC, Niebuhr DW, Scher AI, Kuhle J, Ascherio A. Serum Neurofilament Light Chain Levels in Patients With Presymptomatic Multiple Sclerosis. JAMA Neurol. 2020 Jan 1;77(1):58-64. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2019.3238.
citation: Bliss TV, Lomo T. Long-lasting potentiation of synaptic transmission in the dentate area of the anaesthetized rabbit following stimulation of the perforant path. J Physiol. 1973 Jul;232(2):331-56. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1973.sp010273.
citation: Centonze D, Rossi S, Tortiglione A, Picconi B, Prosperetti C, De Chiara V, Bernardi G, Calabresi P. Synaptic plasticity during recovery from permanent occlusion of the middle cerebral artery. Neurobiol Dis. 2007 Jul;27(1):44-53. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2007.03.012. Epub 2007 Apr 5.
citation: Di Filippo M, Mancini A, Bellingacci L, Gaetani L, Mazzocchetti P, Zelante T, La Barbera L, De Luca A, Tantucci M, Tozzi A, Durante V, Sciaccaluga M, Megaro A, Chiasserini D, Salvadori N, Lisetti V, Portaccio E, Costa C, Sarchielli P, Amato MP, Parnetti L, Viscomi MT, Romani L, Calabresi P. Interleukin-17 affects synaptic plasticity and cognition in an experimental model of multiple sclerosis. Cell Rep. 2021 Dec 7;37(10):110094. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.110094.
citation: Di Lazzaro V, Profice P, Pilato F, Capone F, Ranieri F, Pasqualetti P, Colosimo C, Pravata E, Cianfoni A, Dileone M. Motor cortex plasticity predicts recovery in acute stroke. Cereb Cortex. 2010 Jul;20(7):1523-8. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhp216. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
citation: Di Lazzaro V, Musumeci G, Boscarino M, De Liso A, Motolese F, Di Pino G, Capone F, Ranieri F. Transcranial static magnetic field stimulation can modify disease progression in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Brain Stimul. 2021 Jan-Feb;14(1):51-54. doi: 10.1016/j.brs.2020.11.003. Epub 2020 Nov 10. No abstract available.
citation: Disanto G, Barro C, Benkert P, Naegelin Y, Schadelin S, Giardiello A, Zecca C, Blennow K, Zetterberg H, Leppert D, Kappos L, Gobbi C, Kuhle J; Swiss Multiple Sclerosis Cohort Study Group. Serum Neurofilament light: A biomarker of neuronal damage in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 2017 Jun;81(6):857-870. doi: 10.1002/ana.24954.
citation: Kos D, Kerckhofs E, Carrea I, Verza R, Ramos M, Jansa J. Evaluation of the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale in four different European countries. Mult Scler. 2005 Feb;11(1):76-80. doi: 10.1191/1352458505ms1117oa.
citation: Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, Steinberg AD. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol. 1989 Oct;46(10):1121-3. doi: 10.1001/archneur.1989.00520460115022.
citation: Ksiazek-Winiarek DJ, Szpakowski P, Glabinski A. Neural Plasticity in Multiple Sclerosis: The Functional and Molecular Background. Neural Plast. 2015;2015:307175. doi: 10.1155/2015/307175. Epub 2015 Jul 2.
citation: Lu Y, Christian K, Lu B. BDNF: a key regulator for protein synthesis-dependent LTP and long-term memory? Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2008 Mar;89(3):312-23. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2007.08.018. Epub 2007 Oct 17.
citation: Malenka RC, Bear MF. LTP and LTD: an embarrassment of riches. Neuron. 2004 Sep 30;44(1):5-21. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.09.012.
citation: Mori F, Kusayanagi H, Nicoletti CG, Weiss S, Marciani MG, Centonze D. Cortical plasticity predicts recovery from relapse in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2014 Apr;20(4):451-7. doi: 10.1177/1352458513512541. Epub 2013 Nov 21.
citation: Mori F, Rossi S, Piccinin S, Motta C, Mango D, Kusayanagi H, Bergami A, Studer V, Nicoletti CG, Buttari F, Barbieri F, Mercuri NB, Martino G, Furlan R, Nistico R, Centonze D. Synaptic plasticity and PDGF signaling defects underlie clinical progression in multiple sclerosis. J Neurosci. 2013 Dec 4;33(49):19112-9. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2536-13.2013.
citation: Rossi S, Studer V, Moscatelli A, Motta C, Coghe G, Fenu G, Caillier S, Buttari F, Mori F, Barbieri F, Castelli M, De Chiara V, Monteleone F, Mancino R, Bernardi G, Baranzini SE, Marrosu MG, Oksenberg JR, Centonze D. Opposite roles of NMDA receptors in relapsing and primary progressive multiple sclerosis. PLoS One. 2013 Jun 28;8(6):e67357. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0067357. Print 2013.
citation: Rossi S, Motta C, Studer V, Macchiarulo G, Volpe E, Barbieri F, Ruocco G, Buttari F, Finardi A, Mancino R, Weiss S, Battistini L, Martino G, Furlan R, Drulovic J, Centonze D. Interleukin-1beta causes excitotoxic neurodegeneration and multiple sclerosis disease progression by activating the apoptotic protein p53. Mol Neurodegener. 2014 Dec 12;9:56. doi: 10.1186/1750-1326-9-56.
citation: Rossi S, Motta C, Studer V, Barbieri F, Buttari F, Bergami A, Sancesario G, Bernardini S, De Angelis G, Martino G, Furlan R, Centonze D. Tumor necrosis factor is elevated in progressive multiple sclerosis and causes excitotoxic neurodegeneration. Mult Scler. 2014 Mar;20(3):304-12. doi: 10.1177/1352458513498128. Epub 2013 Jul 25.
citation: Singer BH, Gamelli AE, Fuller CL, Temme SJ, Parent JM, Murphy GG. Compensatory network changes in the dentate gyrus restore long-term potentiation following ablation of neurogenesis in young-adult mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 29;108(13):5437-42. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1015425108. Epub 2011 Mar 14.
citation: Stampanoni Bassi M, Iezzi E, Pavone L, Mandolesi G, Musella A, Gentile A, Gilio L, Centonze D, Buttari F. Modeling Resilience to Damage in Multiple Sclerosis: Plasticity Meets Connectivity. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Dec 24;21(1):143. doi: 10.3390/ijms21010143.
citation: Stampanoni Bassi M, Iezzi E, Mori F, Simonelli I, Gilio L, Buttari F, Sica F, De Paolis N, Mandolesi G, Musella A, De Vito F, Dolcetti E, Bruno A, Furlan R, Finardi A, Marfia GA, Centonze D, Rizzo FR. Interleukin-6 Disrupts Synaptic Plasticity and Impairs Tissue Damage Compensation in Multiple Sclerosis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2019 Oct;33(10):825-835. doi: 10.1177/1545968319868713. Epub 2019 Aug 20.
citation: Thompson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F, Carroll WM, Coetzee T, Comi G, Correale J, Fazekas F, Filippi M, Freedman MS, Fujihara K, Galetta SL, Hartung HP, Kappos L, Lublin FD, Marrie RA, Miller AE, Miller DH, Montalban X, Mowry EM, Sorensen PS, Tintore M, Traboulsee AL, Trojano M, Uitdehaag BMJ, Vukusic S, Waubant E, Weinshenker BG, Reingold SC, Cohen JA. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol. 2018 Feb;17(2):162-173. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(17)30470-2. Epub 2017 Dec 21.
citation: Weiss S, Mori F, Rossi S, Centonze D. Disability in multiple sclerosis: when synaptic long-term potentiation fails. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014 Jun;43:88-99. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.03.023. Epub 2014 Apr 12.
citation: Yaka R, Biegon A, Grigoriadis N, Simeonidou C, Grigoriadis S, Alexandrovich AG, Matzner H, Schumann J, Trembovler V, Tsenter J, Shohami E. D-cycloserine improves functional recovery and reinstates long-term potentiation (LTP) in a mouse model of closed head injury. FASEB J. 2007 Jul;21(9):2033-41. doi: 10.1096/fj.06-7856com. Epub 2007 Mar 9.
citation: Zepeda A, Aguilar-Arredondo A, Michel G, Ramos-Languren LE, Escobar ML, Arias C. Functional recovery of the dentate gyrus after a focal lesion is accompanied by structural reorganization in the adult rat. Brain Struct Funct. 2013 Mar;218(2):437-53. doi: 10.1007/s00429-012-0407-4. Epub 2012 Apr 6.