Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Problems with cognition, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can affect their ability to complete daily activities and can negatively affect quality of life. Over the last few years, there has been considerable growth in the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of memory rehabilitation in MS. To guide clinicians and researchers, this review provides an overview of the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for people with MS.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation compared to those who received no treatment, or an active control showed better immediate, intermediate, or longer-term outcomes in their: 1. memory functions, 2. other cognitive abilities, and 3. functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL which includes Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (The Whoqol) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, Embase and PubMed (MEDLINE), and the following electronic databases (6 September 2020): CINAHL, LILACS, the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and CAB Abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or quasi-RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared with a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS, unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eight review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and manuscript review. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with Cochrane methods. We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included. Outcomes were considered separately for 'immediate' (within the first month after completion of intervention), 'intermediate' (one to six months), and 'longer-term' (more than six months) time points.

MAIN RESULTS

We added 29 studies during this update, bringing the total to 44 studies, involving 2714 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on using internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias amongst the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology. In this abstract, we are only reporting outcomes at the intermediate timepoint (i.e., between one and six months). We found a slight difference between groups for subjective memory (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; 11 studies; 1045 participants; high-quality evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58; 6 studies; 683 participants; high-quality evidence) favoring the memory rehabilitation group. There was a small difference between groups for verbal memory (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 6 studies; 753 participants; low-quality evidence) and information processing (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.54; 8 studies; 933 participants; low-quality evidence), favoring the memory rehabilitation group.  We found little to no difference between groups for visual memory (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.50; 6 studies; 751 participants; moderate-quality evidence), working memory (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.40; 8 studies; 821 participants; moderate-quality evidence), or activities of daily living (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.24; 4 studies; 400 participants; high-quality evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on some outcomes assessed in this review at intermediate follow-up. The evidence suggests that memory rehabilitation results in between-group differences favoring the memory rehabilitation group at the intermediate time point for subjective memory, verbal memory, information processing, and quality of life outcomes, suggesting that memory rehabilitation is beneficial and meaningful to people with MS. There are differential effects of memory rehabilitation based on the quality of the trials, with studies of high risk of bias inflating (positive) outcomes. Further robust, large-scale, multi-centre RCTs, with better quality reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments (including health economic outcomes) assessed at longer-term time points are still needed to be certain about the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation in people with MS.

Relational Satisfaction of Spousal/Partner Informal Caregivers of People with Multiple Sclerosis: Relational Commitment, Caregiving Burden, and Prorelational Behavioral Tendencies

BACKGROUND

Relational satisfaction of spousal/partner informal caregivers of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) is important for continued care and support. Previous studies have examined relational satisfaction in terms of well-being and quality of life of informal caregivers. Based on the Rusbult investment model, we directly studied the relational satisfaction of spousal/partner informal caregivers of individuals with MS. In doing so, we investigated possible effects that commitment to relationship, caregiving burden, and prorelational behavioral tendencies might have on relational satisfaction.

METHODS

Nine hundred nine adult spousal/partner informal caregivers of people with MS completed measures of relational satisfaction (Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale), commitment to relationship (15-item commitment measure), caregiving burden (Zarit Burden Interview), and prorelational behavioral tendencies (adapted Prosocial Tendencies Measure). Participants also provided demographic information (age, sex, duration and type of relationship [spouse, partner]).

RESULTS

Structural equation modeling highlighted commitment to the relationship as the strongest predictor of relational satisfaction. Caregiving burden was found to affect relational satisfaction directly and through commitment to relationship. Prorelational behavioral tendencies were found to affect less relational satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Commitment to relationship, namely, intent to persist, had the highest positive effect on satisfaction. Caregiving burden was found to have a two-way negative relationship to commitment to relationship. These findings suggest that specialists should enhance the intent-to-persist aspect of commitment because it seems to have an alleviating effect regarding caregiving burden (which itself negatively affects relational satisfaction).

The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on Psychological Distress and Cognitive Functioning in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a Pilot Study

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) often suffer from psychological distress and cognitive dysfunctioning. These factors negatively impact the health-related quality of life. Only recently behavioral therapeutic approaches are being used to treat psychological distress in MS. The aim of the present pilot study was not only to investigate the effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) on psychological distress but also to explore whether it can improve cognitive functioning among patients with MS. Outpatients of the MS Center of the Radboud University Medical Center (Radboudumc) were invited to participate in an MBSR training. Psychological and cognitive measures were administered pre- and post-intervention. Twenty-five MS patients completed the MBSR training and psychological measures, of which 16 patients completed the cognitive tests. Significant improvements were found in depressive symptoms, quality of life, fatigue, mindfulness skills, and self-compassion. Of the cognitive tests, performance on a visual spatial processing test significantly improved after the intervention. Overall, this pilot study showed promising results of the effects of MBSR on reducing psychological distress, and it suggests MBSR might improve cognitive functioning in MS patients. Future randomized controlled trials should be conducted to confirm the possible effectiveness of MBSR-and its long-term effects-on psychological and cognitive functioning in MS patients.

Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the Cochrane review 'Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis' (first published in the Cochrane Library 14 March 2012, Issue 3). Impairments in cognitive function, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can potentially affect their ability to complete functional activities. There is evidence from single-case or small group studies that memory rehabilitation can be beneficial for people with MS, but findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation showed: 1. better outcomes in their memory functions compared to those given no treatment or receiving a placebo control; and 2. better functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life, than those who received no treatment or a placebo.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (2 June 2015) and the following electronic databases: The NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database (NIHR CRN) (from 2010 to June 2015), The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (2010 to June 2015), British Nursing Index (BNI) (2010 to June 2015), PsycINFO (2011 to June 2015), and CAB Abstracts (2010 to June 2015). Start dates for the electronic databases coincided with the last search for the previous review. We handsearched relevant journals and reference lists.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs or quasi-randomised trials of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared to a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011). We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included.

MAIN RESULTS

We added seven studies during this update, bringing the total to 15 studies, involving 989 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology.We found significant effect of intervention on objective assessments of memory in both the immediate and long-term follow-ups: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.41) and SMD 0.26 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.49), respectively. We also found significant effect of intervention for quality of life in the immediate follow-up (SMD 0.23 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.41)). These findings showed that the intervention group performed significantly better than the control group. We also found a significant difference for activities of daily living (ADL) in the long-term follow-up (SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.03)), showing that the control groups had significantly less difficulty completing ADLs than the intervention groups. We found no significant effects, either immediate or long-term, on subjective reports of memory problems (SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.27) and SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.27)); on mood (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.20) and SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.20)); and on immediate follow-up for ADL (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.33)) and in the long term for quality of life (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.36)). We could not complete a sensitivity analysis of intention-to-treat in comparison with per-protocol analysis, due to insufficient information from the included papers. However, a sensitivity analysis of high- versus low-risk studies suggested that while quality of the trials did not affect most outcomes, differences were seen in the objective memory outcomes (both at immediate and long term) and quality of life (immediate) outcome, with studies with higher risk of bias inflating the overall effect size estimates for these outcomes, and the test of overall effect changing from being statistically significant to not significant when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. This suggests that lower-quality studies may have positively influenced the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on memory function, as well as on quality of life. However, the evidence is limited and does not extend to subjective reports of memory functioning or mood. Furthermore, the objective measures used are not ecologically valid measures, and thus potentially limit generalisability of these findings into daily life. Further robust RCTs of high methodological quality and better quality of reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments, are still needed.

A randomised controlled trial of lay-led self-management for people with multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of the Chronic Disease Self-Management Course (CDSMC) on people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

2-group, randomised, controlled trial with Intervention Group (IG) and Waiting-List Control Group (WLCG). Additional data were collected from a Comparison Group (CG) who chose not to attend the CDSMC. Participants completed baseline questionnaires; IG participants attended the CDSMC immediately; all participants were assessed at 4-months and 12-months.

RESULTS

216 baseline questionnaires were returned; 73% were female, mean age 51.1 years, mean disease duration 12.0 years. Results showed that the CDSMC had an impact on self-management self-efficacy (ES 0.30, p=0.009 for the IG) and MSIS physical status (ES 0.12 for the IG, p=0.005). There were no other statistically significant changes. However, trends towards improvement on depression (ES 0.21 for the IG, p=0.05) and MS self-efficacy (ES 0.16 for the IG, p=0.04) were noted. All improvements were maintained at 12-months. At baseline, CG participants were older, had longer disease duration (p<0.01) and less anxiety (p=0.009) compared to RCT participants.

CONCLUSION

The CDSMC provides some small positive effects for people with MS. Motivation to attend may be linked to psychological distress and disease duration.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The CDSMC may be of value for those with mild anxiety/depression who need extra support. Attendance early in the disease course is recommended.