← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

PHADER

Pharyngeal Electrical Stimulation for Neurogenic Dysphagia Following Stroke, Traumatic Brain Injury or Other Causes: Main Results from the PHADER Cohort Study

Year of Publication: 2020

Authors: Philip M. Bath, Lisa J. Woodhouse, Sonja Suntrup-Krueger, ..., for PHADER Investigators

Journal: EClinicalMedicine

Citation: EClinicalMedicine 2020;28:100608

Link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100608

PDF: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100608


Clinical Question

In patients with neurogenic dysphagia from stroke, traumatic brain injury, or other neurological conditions, does pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) administered once daily for 3 consecutive days improve dysphagia severity at 3 months as measured by the Dysphagia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS)?

Bottom Line

In this prospective single-arm observational cohort of 245 patients with neurogenic dysphagia, PES was safe and associated with significant improvement in DSRS (-6.2 points), FOIS (+2.9 points), and PAS (-4.1 units) at 3 months across all diagnostic groups. Effects were greatest in patients treated earlier (<32 days) and in those who could be decannulated. However, the absence of a control group limits causal inference.

Major Points

  • PHADER was a prospective single-arm observational cohort study conducted at 14 secondary/tertiary care centers in Austria, Germany, and the UK from March 2015 to September 2018, enrolling 245 patients with neurogenic dysphagia (DSRS β‰₯6).
  • The primary outcome, DSRS at 3 months, improved significantly from a baseline mean of 11.4 to 5.1 (mean difference -6.2; 95% CI -6.9 to -5.6), exceeding the minimum clinically important difference of 1 point. Improvement was seen in all diagnostic groups.
  • DSRS improvement was significant in stroke without ventilation (-6.7; 95% CI -7.8, -5.5), stroke with ventilation (-6.5; -7.6, -5.5), ventilator-related non-stroke (-6.6; -8.4, -4.8), and TBI (-4.5; -6.6, -2.4). The TBI group showed smaller improvement, possibly due to diffuse brain damage.
  • Secondary outcomes confirmed primary findings: FOIS improved by 2.9 points (p<0.001) and instrumentally-assessed penetration/aspiration (PAS) improved by 4.1 units across all participants and diagnostic groups.
  • In ventilated patients with tracheotomy, approximately two-thirds could be decannulated. Decannulated patients showed greater DSRS improvement (-7.5 vs -2.1; p<0.001) than those who could not be decannulated.
  • Earlier treatment was associated with greater benefit: patients treated <32 days from onset had DSRS improvement of -7.7 vs -4.7 for those treated β‰₯32 days (interaction p<0.001). Shorter ventilation duration (<22 days) also predicted greater improvement (p=0.048).
  • Compared with sham-treated non-ventilated stroke patients from the STEPS phase III trial, PHADER patients improved 2.3 points more in DSRS at 3 months (p=0.008), though PHADER patients had more severe dysphagia at baseline.
  • 74 SAEs occurred in 60 participants (1.2 per participant with SAE). Pneumonia was most common (11%). Only 1 SAE was possibly related to catheter insertion. Treatment was well tolerated with mean catheter insertion time of 12 min and ease score >5/7.

Design

Study Type: Prospective, single-arm, multicenter observational cohort study

Randomization:

Blinding: None (open-label observational)

Enrollment Period: March 2015 - September 2018

Follow-up Duration: 3 months

Centers: 14

Countries: Austria, Germany, United Kingdom

Sample Size: 245

Analysis: Ordinal repeated measures regression; STROBE-compliant


Inclusion Criteria

  • Adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia (DSRS >=6) from neurological causes
  • Stroke without ventilation, stroke with ventilation/tracheotomy, ventilator-related non-stroke/non-TBI, TBI, or other neurological causes

Baseline Characteristics

CharacteristicControlActive
NoteSingle-arm study β€” no control group
Mean Age68 years
Male71%
Mean time from onset to treatment32 days
Stroke without ventilation (Group A)84 patients
Stroke with ventilation (Group B)99 patients
Ventilator non-stroke (Group C)35 patients
TBI (Group D)24 patients
Other (Group E)3 patients

Arms

FieldPharyngeal Electrical Stimulation (PES)
InterventionPES using Phagenyx device at 5 Hz for 10 min on each of 3 consecutive days, intensity at 75% of tolerable limit above sensory threshold
Duration3 consecutive days

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
DSRS at 3 monthsPrimaryN/A (single-arm)Improved from 11.4 to 5.1; mean difference -6.2 (95% CI -6.9 to -5.6)-6.2<0.001
FOIS at 3 monthsSecondaryN/AImproved from 1.4 to 4.3; mean change +2.92.9<0.001
PAS improvementSecondaryN/AImproved from 8.9 to 6.8; mean change -4.1-4.1
DecannulationSecondaryN/A~2/3 of ventilated tracheotomized patients
SAEs overallAdverse74 SAEs in 60 participants (1.2 per participant with SAE)
PneumoniaAdverse11%
PES-related SAEAdverse1 possibly related to catheter insertion

Subgroup Analysis

Earlier treatment (<32 days) showed greater DSRS improvement (-7.7 vs -4.7; interaction p<0.001). Shorter ventilation (<22 days) also predicted greater improvement (p=0.048). Decannulated patients showed greater DSRS improvement (-7.5 vs -2.1; p<0.001).


Criticisms

  • Single-arm observational study with no control group β€” cannot establish causal relationship between PES and outcomes.
  • Manufacturer-funded (Phagenesis Ltd) raises potential for bias in study design and reporting.
  • Post hoc comparison with STEPS sham patients has significant limitations due to different study populations and time periods.
  • Heterogeneous patient population (4 diagnostic groups) makes interpretation of overall results difficult.
  • High SAE rate (74 events in 60 participants) though only 1 possibly PES-related.
  • TBI subgroup showed smaller improvement, suggesting variable efficacy across etiologies.

Funding

Phagenesis Ltd (Manchester, UK)

Based on: PHADER (EClinicalMedicine, 2020)

Authors: Philip M. Bath, Lisa J. Woodhouse, Sonja Suntrup-Krueger, ..., for PHADER Investigators

Citation: EClinicalMedicine 2020;28:100608

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.