Efficacy of early cognitive-linguistic treatment and communicative treatment in aphasia after stroke: a randomised controlled trial (RATS-2)

Management of communication disability in the first 90 days after stroke: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

People with communication disability after stroke need interventions to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes. Current evidence syntheses do not adequately inform the management of communication disability during the first 90 days post-stroke.

PURPOSE

To explore the scope of literature for the management of communication disability in the first 90 days after stroke.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using a systematic keyword search of six databases. A descriptive synthesis was generated using communication-related domains related to the biopsychosocial framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF).

RESULTS

A total of 129 studies met eligibility criteria. Aphasia was the most frequently addressed communication disability after stroke (76/129 studies) with a paucity of evidence investigating other acquired neurogenic communication impairments. Management predominantly focused on communication-related: body functions and structures (62 studies) (e.g., linguistic-behavioural therapies), followed by environmental factors (39 studies) (e.g., communication partner training/support); activities and participation (15 studies) (e.g., augmentative and alternative communication); and personal factors (13 studies) (e.g., assessment of depression after aphasia).

CONCLUSION

A coordinated, integrated approach to developing and testing acute and subacute interventions for all communication disabilities across all communication-related domains is required.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONInterdisciplinary stroke clinicians need to manage communication disabilities in the first 90 days after stroke to optimise healthcare communication and rehabilitation outcomes.There is some evidence to guide clinicians in aphasia management but less in other disabilities of speech and cognitive functioning.Most interventions to inform clinical practice address communication-related body functions and structures (e.g., linguistic and speech therapies). Clinicians need to address all domains and more evidence is needed to address environmental factors (e.g., communication support); activities and participation (e.g., person-centred goal setting); and personal factors (e.g., psychological care).

Dosage, Intensity, and Frequency of Language Therapy for Aphasia: A Systematic Review-Based, Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Optimizing speech and language therapy (SLT) regimens for maximal aphasia recovery is a clinical research priority. We examined associations between SLT intensity (hours/week), dosage (total hours), frequency (days/week), duration (weeks), delivery (face to face, computer supported, individual tailoring, and home practice), content, and language outcomes for people with aphasia.

METHODS

Databases including MEDLINE and Embase were searched (inception to September 2015). Published, unpublished, and emerging trials including SLT and ≥10 individual participant data on aphasia, language outcomes, and time post-onset were selected. Patient-level data on stroke, language, SLT, and trial risk of bias were independently extracted. Outcome measurement scores were standardized. A statistical inferencing, one-stage, random effects, network meta-analysis approach filtered individual participant data into an optimal model examining SLT regimen for overall language, auditory comprehension, naming, and functional communication pre-post intervention gains, adjusting for a priori-defined covariates (age, sex, time poststroke, and baseline aphasia severity), reporting estimates of mean change scores (95% CI).

RESULTS

Data from 959 individual participant data (25 trials) were included. Greatest gains in overall language and comprehension were associated with >20 to 50 hours SLT dosage (18.37 [10.58-26.16] Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient; 5.23 [1.51-8.95] Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test). Greatest clinical overall language, functional communication, and comprehension gains were associated with 2 to 4 and 9+ SLT hours/week. Greatest clinical gains were associated with frequent SLT for overall language, functional communication (3-5+ days/week), and comprehension (4-5 days/week). Evidence of comprehension gains was absent for SLT ≤20 hours, <3 hours/week, and ≤3 days/week. Mixed receptive-expressive therapy, functionally tailored, with prescribed home practice was associated with the greatest overall gains. Relative variance was <30%. Risk of trial bias was low to moderate; low for meta-biases.

CONCLUSIONS

Greatest language recovery was associated with frequent, functionally tailored, receptive-expressive SLT, with prescribed home practice at a greater intensity and duration than reports of usual clinical services internationally. These exploratory findings suggest critical therapeutic ranges, informing hypothesis-testing trials and tailoring of clinical services. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42018110947.

A Systematic Review of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Primary Progressive Aphasia: Methodological Considerations

A variety of tDCS approaches has been used to investigate the potential of tDCS to improve language outcomes, or slow down the decay of language competences caused by Primary Progressive Aphasia (PPA). The employed stimulation protocols and study designs in PPA are generally speaking similar to those deployed in post-stroke aphasic populations. These two etiologies of aphasia however differ substantially in their pathophysiology, and for both conditions the optimal stimulation paradigm still needs to be established. A systematic review was done and after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 15 articles were analyzed focusing on differences and similarities across studies especially focusing on PPA patient characteristics (age, PPA variant, language background), tDCS stimulation protocols (intensity, frequency, combined therapy, electrode configuration) and study design as recent reviews and group outcomes for individual studies suggest tDCS is an effective tool to improve language outcomes, while methodological approach and patient characteristics are mentioned as moderators that may influence treatment effects. We found that studies of tDCS in PPA have clinical and methodological and heterogeneity regarding patient populations, stimulation protocols and study design. While positive group results are usually found irrespective of these differences, the magnitude, duration and generalization of these outcomes differ when comparing stimulation locations, and when results are stratified according to the clinical variant of PPA. We interpret the results of included studies in light of patient characteristics and methodological decisions. Further, we highlight the role neuroimaging can play in study protocols and interpreting results and make recommendations for future work.

Cognitive linguistic Treatment in Landau Kleffner Syndrome: Improvement in Daily Life Communication

We report a case study of cognitive linguistic treatment in a teenager with chronic severe Landau Kleffner Syndrome. The effect of speech and language therapy in LKS is rarely examined and our case is unique in that we use an effective approach in adult aphasia to treat language deficits in aphasia in LKS. The results show successful acquisition of a considerable amount of new words as well as improved communication in daily life. However, auditory verbal agnosia, the most prominent feature in LKS, persisted. Cognitive linguistic treatment seems a promising treatment to improve spoken language production in LKS, but more research is needed to optimize speech and language therapy of auditory verbal agnosia and auditory language comprehension in children with LKS

Current Approaches to the Treatment of Post-Stroke Aphasia

Aphasia, impairment of language after stroke or other neurological insult, is a common and often devastating condition that affects nearly every social activity and interaction. Behavioral speech and language therapy is the mainstay of treatment, although other interventions have been introduced to augment the effects of the behavioral therapy. In this narrative review, we discuss advances in aphasia therapy in the last 5 years and focus primarily on properly powered, randomized, controlled trials of both behavioral therapies and interventions to augment therapy for post-stroke aphasia. These trials include evaluation of behavioral therapies and computer-delivered language therapies. We also discuss outcome prediction trials as well as interventional trials that have employed noninvasive brain stimulation, or medications to augment language therapy. Supported by evidence from Phase III trials and large meta-analyses, it is now generally accepted that aphasia therapy can improve language processing for many patients. Not all patients respond similarly to aphasia therapy with the most severe patients being the least likely responders. Nevertheless, it is imperative that all patients, regardless of severity, receive aphasia management focused on direct therapy of language deficits, counseling, or both. Emerging evidence from Phase II trials suggests transcranial brain stimulation is a promising method to boost aphasia therapy outcomes.

The verbal, non-verbal and structural bases of functional communication abilities in aphasia

The ability to communicate, functionally, after stroke or other types of acquired brain injury is crucial for the person involved and the people around them. Accordingly, assessment of functional communication is increasingly used in large-scale randomized controlled trials as the primary outcome measure. Despite the importance of functional communication abilities to everyday life and their centrality to the measured efficacy of aphasia interventions, there is little knowledge about how commonly used measures of functional communication relate to each other, whether they capture and grade the full range of patients’ remaining communication skills and how these abilities relate to the patients’ verbal and non-verbal impairments as well as the underpinning lesions. Going beyond language-only factors is essential given that non-verbal abilities can play a crucial role in an individual’s ability to communicate effectively. This study, based on a large sample of patients covering the full range and types of post-stroke aphasia, addressed these important, open questions. The investigation combined data from three established measures of functional communication with a thorough assessment of verbal and non-verbal cognition as well as structural neuroimaging. The key findings included: (i) due to floor or ceiling effects, the full range of patients’ functional communication abilities was not captured by a single assessment alone, limiting the utility of adopting individual tests as outcome measures in randomized controlled trials; (ii) phonological abilities were most strongly related to all measures of functional communication and (iii) non-verbal cognition was particularly crucial when language production was relatively impaired and other modes of communication were allowed, when patients rated their own communication abilities, and when carers rated patients’ basic communication abilities. Finally, in addition to lesion load being significantly related to all measures of functional communication, lesion analyses showed partially overlapping clusters in language regions for the functional communication tests. Moreover, mirroring the findings from the regression analyses, additional regions previously associated with non-verbal cognition emerged for the Scenario Test and for the Patient Communication Outcome after Stroke rating scale. In conclusion, our findings elucidated the cognitive and neural bases of functional communication abilities, which may inform future clinical practice regarding assessments and therapy. In particular, it is necessary to use more than one measure to capture the full range and multifaceted nature of patients’ functional communication abilities and a therapeutic focus on non-verbal cognition might have positive effects on this important aspect of activity and participation.

Early Rehabilitation After Stroke: a Narrative Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite current rehabilitative strategies, stroke remains a leading cause of disability in the USA. There is a window of enhanced neuroplasticity early after stroke, during which the brain's dynamic response to injury is heightened and rehabilitation might be particularly effective. This review summarizes the evidence of the existence of this plastic window, and the evidence regarding safety and efficacy of early rehabilitative strategies for several stroke domain-specific deficits.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall, trials of rehabilitation in the first 2 weeks after stroke are scarce. In the realm of very early mobilization, one large and one small trial found potential harm from mobilizing patients within the first 24 h after stroke, and only one small trial found benefit in doing so. For the upper extremity, constraint-induced movement therapy appears to have benefit when started within 2 weeks of stroke. Evidence for non-invasive brain stimulation in the acute period remains scant and inconclusive. For aphasia, the evidence is mixed, but intensive early therapy might be of benefit for patients with severe aphasia. Mirror therapy begun early after stroke shows promise for the alleviation of neglect. Novel approaches to treating dysphagia early after stroke appear promising, but the high rate of spontaneous improvement makes their benefit difficult to gauge. The optimal time to begin rehabilitation after a stroke remains unsettled, though the evidence is mounting that for at least some deficits, initiation of rehabilitative strategies within the first 2 weeks of stroke is beneficial. Commencing intensive therapy in the first 24 h may be harmful.

Does Naming Therapy Make Ordering in a Restaurant Easier? Dynamics of Co-Occurring Change in Cognitive-Linguistic and Functional Communication Skills in Aphasia

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to investigate the static and dynamic relationships between impairment-level cognitive-linguistic abilities and activity-level functional communication skills in persons with aphasia (PWA).

METHOD

In Experiment 1, a battery of standardized assessments was administered to a group of PWA (N = 72) to examine associations between cognitive-linguistic ability and functional communication at a single time point. In Experiment 2, impairment-based treatment was administered to a subset of PWA from Experiment 1 (n = 39) in order to examine associations between change in cognitive-linguistic ability and change in function and associations at a single time point.

RESULTS

In both experiments, numerous significant associations were found between scores on tests of cognitive-linguistic ability and a test of functional communication at a single time point. In Experiment 2, significant treatment-induced gains were seen on both types of measures in participants with more severe aphasia, yet cognitive-linguistic change scores were not significantly correlated with functional communication change scores.

CONCLUSIONS

At a single time point, cognitive-linguistic and functional communication abilities are associated in PWA. However, although changes on standardized assessments reflecting improvements in both types of skills can occur following an impairment-based therapy, these changes may not be significantly associated with each other.

Intensive speech and language therapy in patients with chronic aphasia after stroke: a randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, controlled trial in a health-care setting

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for aphasia recommend intensive speech and language therapy for chronic (≥6 months) aphasia after stroke, but large-scale, class 1 randomised controlled trials on treatment effectiveness are scarce. We aimed to examine whether 3 weeks of intensive speech and language therapy under routine clinical conditions improved verbal communication in daily-life situations in people with chronic aphasia after stroke.

METHODS

In this multicentre, parallel group, superiority, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial, patients aged 70 years or younger with aphasia after stroke lasting for 6 months or more were recruited from 19 inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation centres in Germany. An external biostatistician used a computer-generated permuted block randomisation method, stratified by treatment centre, to randomly assign participants to either 3 weeks or more of intensive speech and language therapy (≥10 h per week) or 3 weeks deferral of intensive speech and language therapy. The primary endpoint was between-group difference in the change in verbal communication effectiveness in everyday life scenarios (Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test A-scale) from baseline to immediately after 3 weeks of treatment or treatment deferral. All analyses were done using the modified intention-to-treat population (those who received 1 day or more of intensive treatment or treatment deferral). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01540383.

FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 158 patients between April 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 156 patients (78 per group). Verbal communication was significantly improved from baseline to after intensive speech and language treatment (mean difference 2·61 points [SD 4·94]; 95% CI 1·49 to 3·72), but not from baseline to after treatment deferral (-0·03 points [4·04]; -0·94 to 0·88; between-group difference Cohen's d 0·58; p=0·0004). Eight patients had adverse events during therapy or treatment deferral (one car accident [in the control group], two common cold [one patient per group], three gastrointestinal or cardiac symptoms [all intervention group], two recurrent stroke [one in intervention group before initiation of treatment, and one before group assignment had occurred]); all were unrelated to study participation.

INTERPRETATION

3 weeks of intensive speech and language therapy significantly enhanced verbal communication in people aged 70 years or younger with chronic aphasia after stroke, providing an effective evidence-based treatment approach in this population. Future studies should examine the minimum treatment intensity required for meaningful treatment effects, and determine whether treatment effects cumulate over repeated intervention periods.

FUNDING

German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Society for Aphasia Research and Treatment.

Efficacy of early cognitive-linguistic treatment for aphasia due to stroke: A randomised controlled trial (Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study-3)

Introduction

One third of patients with acute stroke have aphasia. The majority receive speech and language therapy. There is evidence for a beneficial effect of speech and language therapy on restoring communication, but it is unknown whether and how efficacy of speech and language therapy is influenced by timing of treatment. We studied whether speech and language therapy early after stroke by way of intensive cognitive-linguistic treatment is more effective than no speech and language therapy in the Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study-3, a multicentre randomised single-blind trial.

Methods and patients

Stroke patients with first-ever aphasia were randomised within 2 weeks of onset to either 4 weeks of early intensive cognitive-linguistic treatment (1 h/day) or no language treatment. Hereafter, both groups received regular speech and language therapy. Primary outcome was the score on the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test, measuring everyday verbal communication, 4 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test at 3 and 6 months. The study was powered to detect a clinically relevant difference of four points on the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test.

Results

Of the 152 included patients, 80 patients were allocated to intervention. Median treatment intensity in the intervention-group was 24.5 h. The adjusted difference between groups in mean Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test-scores 4 weeks after randomisation was 0.39, 95% confidence interval: [-2.70 to 3.47], p = 0.805. No statistically significant differences were found at 3 and 6 months after randomisation either.

Conclusion

Four weeks of intensive cognitive-linguistic treatment initiated within 2 weeks of stroke is not more effective than no language treatment for the recovery of post-stroke aphasia. Our results exclude a clinically relevant effect of very early cognitive-linguistic treatment on everyday language.

Assessment Fidelity in Aphasia Research

Purpose

In aphasia treatment literature, scarce attention is paid to factors that may reduce a study's validity, including adherence to assessment and treatment procedures (i.e., fidelity). Although guidelines have been established for evaluating and reporting treatment fidelity, none exist for assessment fidelity.

Method

We reviewed treatment fidelity guidelines and related literature to identify assessment fidelity components. We then examined 88 aphasia treatment studies published between 2010 and 2015 and report the frequency with which researchers provide information regarding the following assessment fidelity components: assessment instruments, assessor qualifications, assessor or rater training, assessment delivery, assessor or rater reliability, and assessor blinding.

Results

We found that 4.5% of studies reported information regarding assessment instruments, 35.2% reported information regarding assessor qualifications, 6.85% reported information regarding assessor or rater training, 37.5% reported information regarding assessor or rater reliability, 27.3% reported on assessor blinding, and no studies reported information regarding assessment delivery.

Conclusions

There is a paucity of assessment fidelity information reported in aphasia treatment research. The authors propose a set of guidelines to ensure readers will be able to evaluate assessment fidelity, and thus study validity.

Improving Production of Treated and Untreated Verbs in Aphasia: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Demographic and clinical predictors of aphasia recovery have been identified in the literature. However, little attention has been devoted to identifying and distinguishing predictors of improvement for different outcomes, e.g., production of treated vs. untreated materials. These outcomes may rely on different mechanisms, and therefore be predicted by different variables. Furthermore, treatment features are not typically accounted for when studying predictors of aphasia recovery. This is partly due to the small numbers of cases reported in studies, but also to limitations of data analysis techniques usually employed.

Method: We reviewed the literature on predictors of aphasia recovery, and conducted a meta-analysis of single-case studies designed to assess the efficacy of treatments for verb production. The contribution of demographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables was assessed by means of Random Forests (a machine-learning technique used in classification and regression). Two outcomes were investigated: production of treated (for 142 patients) and untreated verbs (for 166 patients).

Results: Improved production of treated verbs was predicted by a three-way interaction of pre-treatment scores on tests for verb comprehension and word repetition, and the frequency of treatment sessions. Improvement in production of untreated verbs was predicted by an interaction including the use of morphological cues, presence of grammatical impairment, pre-treatment scores on a test for noun comprehension, and frequency of treatment sessions.

Conclusion: Improvement in the production of treated verbs occurs frequently. It may depend on restoring access to and/or knowledge of lexeme representations, and requires relative sparing of semantic knowledge (as measured by verb comprehension) and phonological output abilities (including working memory, as measured by word repetition). Improvement in the production of untreated verbs has not been reported very often. It may depend on the nature of impaired language representations, and the type of knowledge engaged by treatment: it is more likely to occur where abstract features (semantic and/or grammatical) are damaged and treated.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading, and writing. Approximately one third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 September 2015), CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5) and other Cochrane Library Databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA, to 22 September 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), AMED (1985 to September 2015), LLBA (1973 to September 2015), and SpeechBITE (2008 to September 2015). We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (to 21 September 2015), the Stroke Trials Registry (to 21 September 2015), Current Controlled Trials (to 22 September 2015), and WHO ICTRP (to 22 September 2015). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) versus no SLT; social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); or another SLT intervention (differing in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 57 RCTs (74 randomised comparisons) involving 3002 participants in this review (some appearing in more than one comparison). Twenty-seven randomised comparisons (1620 participants) assessed SLT versus no SLT; SLT resulted in clinically and statistically significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01), reading, writing, and expressive language, but (based on smaller numbers) benefits were not evident at follow-up. Nine randomised comparisons (447 participants) assessed SLT with social support and stimulation; meta-analyses found no evidence of a difference in functional communication, but more participants withdrew from social support interventions than SLT. Thirty-eight randomised comparisons (1242 participants) assessed two approaches to SLT. Functional communication was significantly better in people with aphasia that received therapy at a high intensity, high dose, or over a long duration compared to those that received therapy at a lower intensity, lower dose, or over a shorter period of time. The benefits of a high intensity or a high dose of SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout rate in these intervention groups. Generally, trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke, and severity profiles), interventions, and outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, reading, writing, and expressive language compared with no therapy. There is some indication that therapy at high intensity, high dose or over a longer period may be beneficial. HIgh-intensity and high dose interventions may not be acceptable to all.

Rehabilitation of lexical and semantic communicative impairments: An overview of available approaches

Lexical-semantic impairments are common consequences of acquired neurological damage. However, little is known about the benefits of existing treatment methods for this type of language impairment.

A comparison of aphasia therapy outcomes before and after a Very Early Rehabilitation programme following stroke

BACKGROUND

Very early aphasia rehabilitation studies have shown mixed results. Differences in therapy intensity and therapy type contribute significantly to the equivocal results.

AIMS

To compare a standardized, prescribed very early aphasia therapy regimen with a historical usual care control group at therapy completion (4-5 weeks post-stroke) and again at follow-up (6 months).

METHODS & PROCEDURES

This study compared two cohorts from successive studies conducted in four Australian acute/sub-acute hospitals. The studies had near identical recruitment, blinded assessment and data-collection protocols. The Very Early Rehabilitation (VER) cohort (N = 20) had mild-severe aphasia and received up to 20 1-h sessions of impairment-based aphasia therapy, up to 5 weeks. The control cohort (n = 27) also had mild-severe aphasia and received usual care (UC) therapy for up to 4 weeks post-stroke. The primary outcome measure was the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) and a measure of communicative efficiency (DA) at therapy completion. Outcomes were measured at baseline, therapy completion and 6 months post-stroke and were compared using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) models.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

After controlling for initial aphasia and stroke disability, the GEE models demonstrated that at the primary end-point participants receiving VER achieved 18% greater recovery on the AQ and 1.5% higher DA scores than those in the control cohort. At 6 months, the VER participants maintained a 16% advantage in recovery on the AQ and 0.6% more on DA scores over the control cohort participants.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

A prescribed, impairment-based aphasia therapy regimen, provided daily in very early post-stroke recovery, resulted in significantly greater communication gains in people with mild-severe aphasia at completion of therapy and at 6 months, when compared with a historical control cohort. Further research is required to demonstrate large-scale and long-term efficacy.

The Efficacy and Timing of Melodic Intonation Therapy in Subacute Aphasia

Background. Little is known about the efficacy of language production treatment in subacute severe nonfluent aphasia. Although Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) is a language production treatment for this disorder, until now MIT effect studies have focused on chronic aphasia. Purpose. This study examines whether language production treatment with MIT is effective in subacute severe nonfluent aphasia. Methods. A multicenter, randomized controlled trial was conducted in a waiting-list control design: patients were randomly allocated to the experimental group (MIT) or the control group (control intervention followed by delayed MIT). In both groups, therapy started at 2 to 3 months poststroke and was given intensively (5 h/wk) during 6 weeks. In a second therapy period, the control group received 6 weeks of intensive MIT. The experimental group resumed their regular treatment. Assessment was done at baseline (T1), after the first intervention period (T2), and after the second intervention period (T3). Efficacy was evaluated at T2. The impact of delaying MIT on therapy outcome was also examined. Results. A total of 27 participants were included: n = 16 in the experimental group and n = 11 in the control group. A significant effect in favor of MIT on language repetition was observed for trained items, with mixed results for untrained items. After MIT there was a significant improvement in verbal communication but not after the control intervention. Finally, delaying MIT was related to less improvement in the repetition of trained material. Conclusions. In these patients with subacute severe nonfluent aphasia, language production treatment with MIT was effective. Earlier treatment may lead to greater improvement.

FCET2EC (From controlled experimental trial to = 2 everyday communication): How effective is intensive integrative therapy for stroke-induced chronic aphasia under routine clinical conditions? A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Therapy guidelines recommend speech and language therapy (SLT) as the "gold standard" for aphasia treatment. Treatment intensity (i.e., ≥5 hours of SLT per week) is a key predictor of SLT outcome. The scientific evidence to support the efficacy of SLT is unsatisfactory to date given the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT), particularly with respect to chronic aphasia (lasting for >6 months after initial stroke). This randomized waiting list-controlled multi-centre trial examines whether intensive integrative language therapy provided in routine in- and outpatient clinical settings is effective in improving everyday communication in chronic post-stroke aphasia.

METHODS/DESIGN

Participants are men and women aged 18 to 70 years, at least 6 months post an ischemic or haemorrhagic stroke resulting in persisting language impairment (i.e., chronic aphasia); 220 patients will be screened for participation, with the goal of including at least 126 patients during the 26-month recruitment period. Basic language production and comprehension abilities need to be preserved (as assessed by the Aachen Aphasia Test).Therapy consists of language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic exercises for at least 2 hours/day and at least 10 hours/week, plus at least 1 hour self-administered training per day, for at least three weeks. Contents of therapy are adapted to patients' individual impairment profiles.Prior to and immediately following the therapy/waiting period, patients' individual language abilities are assessed via primary and secondary outcome measures. The primary (blinded) outcome measure is the A-scale (informational content, or 'understandability', of the message) of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), a standardized measure of functional communication ability. Secondary (unblinded) outcome measures are language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic language screenings and questionnaires assessing life quality as viewed by the patient as well as a relative.The primary analysis tests for differences between the therapy group and an untreated (waiting list) control group with respect to pre- versus post 3-week-therapy (or waiting period, respectively) scores on the ANELT A-scale. Statistical between-group comparisons of primary and secondary outcome measures will be conducted in intention-to-treat analyses.Long-term stability of treatment effects will be assessed six months post intensive SLT (primary and secondary endpoints).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier NCT01540383.

Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study (RATS)-3: "The efficacy of intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy in the acute stage of aphasia"; design of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is a severely disabling condition occurring in 20 to 25% of stroke patients. Most patients with aphasia due to stroke receive speech and language therapy. Methodologically sound randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of specific interventions for patients with aphasia following stroke are scarce. The currently available evidence suggests that intensive speech and language therapy is beneficial for restoration of communication, but the optimal timing of treatment is as yet unclear.In the Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study-3 we aim to test the hypothesis that patients with aphasia due to stroke benefit more from early intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy than from deferred regular language therapy.

METHODS/DESIGN

In a single blinded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, 150 patients with first ever aphasia due to stroke will be randomised within two weeks after stroke to either early intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy (Group A) or deferred regular therapy (Group B). Group A will start as soon as possible, at the latest two weeks after stroke, with a four week period of one hour a day treatment with cognitive-linguistic therapy. In Group B professional speech and language therapy is deferred for four weeks. After this period, patients will follow the conventional procedure of speech and language therapy. Participants will be tested with an extensive linguistic test battery at four weeks, three months and six months after inclusion. Primary outcome measure is the difference in score between the two treatment groups on the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test, a measure of everyday verbal communication, four weeks after randomisation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (http://www.trialregister.nl), NTR3271.

Expert versus proxy rating of verbal communicative ability of people with aphasia after stroke

In randomized clinical trials of aphasia treatment, a functional outcome measure like the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), administered by speech-language therapists, is often used. However, the agreement between this expert rating and the judgment of the proxy about the quality of the daily life communication of the person with aphasia is largely unknown. We examined the association between ANELT scores by speech-language therapists and proxy judgments on the Partner Communication Questionnaire both at 3 and 6 months in 39 people with aphasia after stroke. We also determined which factors affected the level of agreement between expert and proxy judgment of the communicative ability at 6 months in 53 people with aphasia. We found moderate agreement (at 3 months r = .662; p = < .0001 and at 6 months r = .565; p = .0001), with proxies rating slightly higher than experts. Less severe aphasia, measured with the Aphasia Severity Rating Scale, was associated with better agreement. In conclusion, although proxies were slightly more positive than experts, we found moderate agreement between expert and proxy rating of verbal communicative ability of people with aphasia after stroke, especially in milder cases.

Recovery of aphasia after stroke: a 1-year follow-up study

Semantics, phonology, and syntax are essential elements of aphasia diagnosis and treatment. Until now, these linguistic components have not been specifically addressed in follow-up studies of aphasia recovery after stroke. The aim of this observational prospective follow-up study was to investigate semantic, phonological, and syntactic recovery in aphasic stroke patients. In addition, we investigated the recovery of verbal communication and of aphasia severity. We assessed 147 aphasic patients at 1, 2, and 6 weeks, 3 and 6 months, and 1 year after stroke with the ScreeLing, a screening test for detecting deficits on the three main linguistic components, the aphasia severity rating scale (ASRS), a measure of verbal communication, and the Token test, a measure of aphasia severity. We investigated the differences in scores between the six time points with mixed models. Semantics and syntax improved up to 6 weeks (p < 0.001) after stroke, and phonology up to 3 months (p ≤ 0.001). ASRS improved up to 6 months (p < 0.05) and the Token test up to 3 months (p < 0.001). We conclude that in aphasia after stroke, various linguistic components have a different recovery pattern, with phonology showing the longest period of recovery that paralleled aphasia severity, as measured with the Token test. The improvement of verbal communication continues after the stabilization of the recovery of the linguistic components.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading and writing. Approximately one-third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched June 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to July 2011). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles and contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) with (1) no SLT; (2) social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); and (3) another SLT intervention (which differed in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 RCTs (51 randomised comparisons) involving 2518 participants in this review. Nineteen randomised comparisons (1414 participants) compared SLT with no SLT where SLT resulted in significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.30, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.52, P = 0.008), receptive and expressive language. Seven randomised comparisons (432 participants) compared SLT with social support and stimulation but found no evidence of a difference in functional communication. Twenty-five randomised comparisons (910 participants) compared two approaches to SLT. There was no indication of a difference in functional communication. Generally, the trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke and severity profiles), interventions and outcomes. Suitable statistical data were unavailable for several measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides some evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, receptive and expressive language. However, some trials were poorly reported. The potential benefits of intensive SLT over conventional SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout from intensive SLT. More participants also withdrew from social support than SLT interventions. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of any one specific SLT approach over another.

Training the brain: fact and fad in cognitive and behavioral remediation

Putatively safe and effective for improving cognitive performance in both health and disease, products purported to train the brain appeal to consumers and healthcare practitioners. In an increasingly health-centered society, these applications constitute a burgeoning commercial market. Sparse evidence coupled with lack of scientific rigor, however, leaves claims concerning the impact and duration of such brain training largely unsubstantiated. On the other hand, at least some scientific findings seem to support the effectiveness and sustainability of training for higher brain functions such as attention and working memory. In the present paper we provide a tectonic integration and synthesis of cognitive training approaches. Specifically, we sketch the relative merits and shortcomings of these programs, which often appeal to parents who must choose between side-effect-laden medication and other less conventional options. Here we examine how neuroplasticity allows the healthy as well the impaired to benefit from cognitive training programs. We evaluate the evidence and consider whether brain training can be a stand-alone treatment or an adjunct to pharmacotherapy, outline promising future prospects, and highlight what training outcomes are plausible in line with available data. Future research would determine whether the field of brain training realizes its potential to revolutionize education and rehabilitation or withers away engulfed in controversy.