3.11.R2 Recommendation
Neuromodulation
- Strength of recommendation:
- Strong against intervention
- Level of evidence:
- Very low
How the strength and level of evidence are graded
What the strength of a recommendation means
The strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which a guideline panel is confident that desirable effects of an intervention outweigh undesirable effects, or vice versa, across the range of patients for whom the recommendation is intended.
Strong for (↑↑) or against (↓↓) intervention
For patients: Most individuals in this situation would want the recommended course of action and only a small proportion would not.
For clinicians: Most individuals should receive the recommended course of action.
Conditional for (↑) or against (↓) intervention
For patients: The majority of individuals in this situation would want the suggested course of action, but many would not.
For clinicians: Recognize that different choices will be appropriate for different patients, and that you must help each patient arrive at a management decision consistent with her or his values and preferences.
Neither intervention nor comparison (—)
The panel did not recommend for or against the intervention.
Source: GRADE Handbook, section 6.1, Table 6.1 (GRADE uses “weak” and “conditional” interchangeably).
For the rating of the strength of the recommendation, in addition to evidence from studies in FRDA, evidence from like conditions, clinical experience and expert consensus are taken into account when published evidence is not available.
The level of evidence is based on published evidence from studies in FRDA. If there is no published evidence in FRDA, evidence from other like conditions or clinical expertise may have been used to make the recommendation – this is graded as ‘very low’ or in some cases ‘low’ level evidence. See the table below for an explanation of the symbols used to grade recommendations.
| Strength of recommendation | Symbol | Level of evidence | Symbol |
| Strong for intervention | ↑↑ | High | ⨁⨁⨁⨁ |
| Conditional for intervention | ↑ | Moderate | ⨁⨁⨁◯ |
| Neither intervention nor comparison | — | Low | ⨁⨁◯◯ |
| Conditional against intervention | ↓ | Very low | ⨁◯◯◯ |
| Strong against intervention | ↓↓ |
We recommend that clinicians should not use active neuromodulation (tDCS, TMS) as part of clinical practice to improve cognitive function in individuals with Friedreich ataxia.
Question
Should active neuromodulation (tDCS, TMS) versus sham neuromodulation be used for all individuals with Friedreich ataxia?
Justification
There are no data available to support positive effects of active neuromodulation to improve cognitive function in individuals with Friedreich ataxia.
Subgroup consideration
This recommendation is for individuals with Friedreich ataxia with concerns about cognitive function.
Evidence to recommendation table (PDF)
Part of 3.11 Cognitive function in Friedreich ataxia
References (35)
1. Naeije G, Schulz JB, Corben LA. The cognitive profile of Friedreich ataxia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2022;22(1):97.
2. Baumann O, Borra RJ, Bower JM, Cullen KE, Habas C, Ivry RB, et al. Consensus paper: the role of the cerebellum in perceptual processes. Cerebellum. 2015;14(2):197-220.
3. Stoodley C, Schmahmann J. Evidence for topographic organization in the cerebellum of motor control versus cognitive and affective processing. Cortex. 2010;46(7):831-44.
4. Koeppen AH, Mazurkiewicz JE. Friedreich ataxia: neuropathology revised. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2013;72(2):78-90.
5. Davies DL. The intelligence of patients with Friedreich's Ataxia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1949;12(34):34-8.
6. Fehrenbach RA, Wallesch CW, Claus D. Neuropsychologic findings in Friedreich's ataxia. Arch Neurol. 1984;41(3):306-8.
7. Nachbauer W, Bodner T, Boesch S, Karner E, Eigentler A, Neier L, et al. Friedreich ataxia: executive control is related to disease onset and GAA repeat length. Cerebellum. 2014;13(1):9-16.
8. Hernandez-Torres A, Monton F, Hess Medler S, de Nobrega E, Nieto A. Longitudinal Study of Cognitive Functioning in Friedreich's Ataxia. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2021;27(4):343-50.
9. de Nobrega E, Nieto A, Barroso J, Monton F. Differential impairment in semantic, phonemic, and action fluency performance in Friedreich's ataxia: possible evidence of prefrontal dysfunction. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2007;13(6):944-52.
10. Wollmann T, Nieto-Barco A, Monton-Alvarez F, Barroso-Ribal J. Ataxia de Friedreich: analisis de parametros de resonancia magnetica y correlatos con el enlentecimiento cognitivo y motor. Rev Neurol. 2004;38(3):217-22.
11. Nieto A, Correia R, de Nóbrega E, Montón F, Hess S, Barroso J. Cognition in friedreich ataxia. Cerebellum. 2012;11(4):834-44.
12. Ciancarelli I, Cofini V, Carolei A. Evaluation of neuropsychological functions in patients with Friedreich ataxia before and after cognitive therapy. Funct Neurol. 2010;25(2):81-5.
13. Corben LA, Delatycki MB, Bradshaw JL, Horne MK, Fahey MC, Churchyard AC, et al. Impairment in motor reprogramming in Friedreich ataxia reflecting possible cerebellar dysfunction. J Neurol. 2010;257(5):782-91.
14. Dogan I, Romanzetti S, Didszun C, Mirzazade S, Timmann D, Saft C, et al. Structural characteristics of the central nervous system in Friedreich ataxia: an in vivo spinal cord and brain MRI study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2019;90(5):615-7.
15. Costabile T, Capretti V, Abate F, Liguori A, Paciello F, Pane C, et al. Emotion Recognition and Psychological Comorbidity in Friedreich's Ataxia. Cerebellum. 2018;17(3):336-45.
16. Mantovan MC, Martinuzzi A, Squarzanti F, Bolla A, Silvestri I, Liessi G, et al. Exploring mental status in Friedreich's ataxia: a combined neuropsychological, behavioural and neuroimaging study. Eur J Neurol. 2006;13:827-35.
17. Reetz K, Dogan I, Hilgers RD, Giunti P, Mariotti C, Durr A, et al. Progression characteristics of the European Friedreich's Ataxia Consortium for Translational Studies (EFACTS): a 2 year cohort study. The Lancet Neurology. 2016;15(13):1346–54.
18. Wollmann T, Barroso J, Monton F, Nieto A. Neuropsychological test performance of patients with Friedreich's ataxia. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2002;24(5):677-86.
19. Sacca F, Costabile T, Abate F, Liguori A, Paciello F, Pane C, et al. Normalization of timed neuropsychological tests with the PATA rate and nine-hole pegboard tests. J Neuropsychol. 2018;12(3):471-83.
20. Corben LA, Akhlaghi H, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL, Egan GF, Storey E, et al. Impaired inhibition of prepotent motor tendencies in Friedreich ataxia demonstrated by the Simon interference task. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(1):140-5.
21. Sayah S, Rotge JY, Francisque H, Gargiulo M, Czernecki V, Justo D, et al. Personality and neuropsychological profiles in Friedreich ataxia. Cerebellum. 2018;17(2):204-12.
22. Corben LA, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL, Evans-Galea MV, Churchyard AJ, Delatycki MB. Characterising the neuropathology and neurobehavioural phenotype in Friedreich ataxia: a systematic review. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;769:169-84.
23. Corben LA, Klopper F, Stagnitti M, Georgiou-Karistianis N, Bradshaw JL, Rance G, et al. Measuring inhibition and cognitive flexibility in Friedreich ataxia. Cerebellum. 2017;16(4):757-63.
24. Shishegar R, Harding IH, Corben LA, Delatycki MB, Storey E, Egan GF, et al. Longitudinal increases in cerebral brain activation during working memory performance in Friedreich ataxia: 24-month data from IMAGE-FRDA. The Cerebellum. 2020.
25. Botez-Marquard T, Botez MI. Cognitive behavior in heredodegenerative ataxias. Eur Neurol. 1993;33(5):351-7.
26. White M, Lalonde R, Botez-Marquard T. Neuropsychologic and neuropsychiatric characteristics of patients with Friedreich's ataxia. Acta Neurol Scand. 2000;102(4):222-6.
27. Dogan I, Tinnemann E, Romanzetti S, Mirzazade S, Costa AS, Werner CJ, et al. Cognition in Friedreich's ataxia: a behavioral and multimodal imaging study. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2016;3(8):572-87.
28. Wallesch CW, Fehrenbach RA. On the neurolinguistic nature of language abnormalities in Huntington's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1988;51(3):367-73.
29. Hoche F, Guell X, Vangel MG, Sherman JC, Schmahmann JD. The cerebellar cognitive affective/Schmahmann syndrome scale. Brain. 2018;141(1):248-70.
30. Schmahmann JD, Sherman JC. The cerebellar cognitive affective syndrome. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 4):561-79.
31. Gibilisco P, Vogel AP. Friedreich ataxia. BMJ. 2013;347:f7062.
32. Reetz K, Dogan I, Hohenfeld C, Didszun C, Giunti P, Mariotti C, et al. Nonataxia symptoms in Friedreich Ataxia: Report from the Registry of the European Friedreich's Ataxia Consortium for Translational Studies (EFACTS). Neurology. 2018;91(10):e917-e30.
33. Stoodley CJ, MacMore JP, Makris N, Sherman JC, Schmahmann JD. Location of lesion determines motor vs. cognitive consequences in patients with cerebellar stroke. Neuroimage Clin. 2016;12:765-75.
34. King M, Hernandez-Castillo CR, Poldrack RA, Ivry RB, Diedrichsen J. Functional boundaries in the human cerebellum revealed by a multi-domain task battery. Nat Neurosci. 2019;22(8):1371-8.
35. Naeije G, Rai M, Allaerts N, Sjogard M, De Tiege X, Pandolfo M. Cerebellar cognitive disorder parallels cerebellar motor symptoms in Friedreich ataxia. Ann Clin Transl Neurol. 2020;7(6):1050-4.
Disclaimer, intended use and funding
Disclaimer
The Clinical Management Guidelines for Friedreich ataxia (‘Guidelines’) are protected by copyright owned by the authors who contributed to their development or said authors’ assignees.
These Guidelines are systematically developed evidence statements incorporating data from a comprehensive literature review of the most recent studies available (up to the Guidelines submission date) and reviewed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework © The Grade Working Group.
Guidelines users must seek out the most recent information that might supersede the diagnostic and treatment recommendations contained within these Guidelines and consider local variations in clinical settings, funding and resources that may impact on the implementation of the recommendations set out in these Guidelines.
The authors of these Guidelines disclaim all liability for the accuracy or completeness of the Guidelines, and disclaim all warranties, express or implied to their incorrect use.
Intended Use
These Guidelines are made available as general information only and do not constitute medical advice. These Guidelines are intended to assist qualified healthcare professionals make informed treatment decisions about the care of individuals with Friedreich ataxia. They are not intended as a sole source of guidance in managing issues related to Friedreich ataxia. Rather, they are designed to assist clinicians by providing an evidence-based framework for decision-making.
These Guidelines are not intended to replace clinical judgment and other approaches to diagnosing and managing problems associated with Friedreich ataxia which may be appropriate in specific circumstances. Ultimately, healthcare professionals must make their own treatment decisions on a case-by-case basis, after consultation with their patients, using their clinical judgment, knowledge and expertise.
Guidelines users must not edit or modify the Guidelines in any way – including removing any branding, acknowledgement, authorship or copyright notice.
Funding
The authors of this document gratefully acknowledge the support of the Friedreich Ataxia Research Alliance (FARA). The views and opinions expressed in the Guidelines are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of FARA.