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 In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant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.

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.

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.

Instrumentos de avaliação breve da comunicação: ferramentas existentes e sua aplicabilidade clínica

TEMA: a avaliação breve da comunicação é um recurso útil aos profissionais da saúde, pois fornece informações que subsidiam tanto o diagnóstico funcional, quanto o planejamento e a execução de avaliações expandidas e de medidas de reabilitação a serem realizados em cada caso. OBJETIVO: apresentar uma revisão sistemática acerca do uso de instrumentos padronizados de avaliação breve da comunicação e caracterizar as populações alvo descritas. CONCLUSÃO: encontraram-se 18 artigos, com 10 instrumentos breves, sendo a população mais examinada a de pacientes pós-acidente vascular cerebral. Os componentes lingüísticos prevalentes nas avaliações foram expressão, compreensão, leitura e escrita.

Validation of a new language screening tool for patients with acute stroke: the Language Screening Test (LAST)

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Standard aphasia scales such as the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation are inappropriate for use in acute stroke. Likewise, global stroke scales do not reliably detect aphasia, and existing brief aphasia screening scales suitable for patients with stroke have several limitations. The objective of this study was to generate and validate a bedside language screening tool, the Language Screening Test, suitable for use in the emergency setting.

METHODS

The Language Screening Test comprises 5 subtests and a total of 15 items. To avoid retest bias, we created 2 parallel versions of the scale. We report the equivalence of the 2 versions, their internal and external validity, and their interrater reliability. We validated the scale by administering it to 300 consecutive patients within 24 hours after admission to our stroke unit and to 104 stabilized patients with and without aphasia using the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation as a reference.

RESULTS

The 2 versions of the Language Screening Test were equivalent with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.96. Internal validity was good; none of the items showed a floor or ceiling effect with no redundancy and good internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.88). External validation against the Boston Diagnosis Aphasia Evaluation showed a sensitivity of 0.98 and a specificity of 1. Interrater agreement was near perfect (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.998). The median time to complete the Language Screening Test was approximately 2 minutes. Importantly, the Language Screening Test does not need to be administered by a speech and language therapist.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensively validated language rating scale is simple and rapid, making it a useful tool for bedside evaluation of patients with acute stroke in routine clinical practice.

Quality of life in chronic disease: a comparison between patients with heart failure and patients with aphasia after stroke

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the impact of heart failure and of stroke with aphasia on quality of life (QoL) and to compare the different domains of QoL in these groups.

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of chronic conditions has increased during the last decades, and chronic diseases such as stroke and heart failure may have a great impact on QoL.

DESIGN

Comparative study of patients from two randomised controlled studies.

METHOD

Seventy-nine patients with heart failure and 70 patients with aphasia after stroke were evaluated concerning the severity of their disease and by QoL, as measured with the Nottingham Health Profile, in the acute phase and after six months.

RESULTS

The severity of the disease improved between baseline and six month for both groups. Correlations between New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and all QoL domains were seen in patients with heart failure after six months. The degree of aphasia correlated to mobility, social, emotional and total score after six month. QoL in patients with heart failure was more affected in the domains of sleep and energy in the acute phase and in the energy domain at six months.

CONCLUSION

Although low energy is more frequent among patients with heart failure, both groups report poor QoL. Improvement in severity of the disease is not necessarily accompanied by improvement in QoL.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nottingham Health Profile can easily be used as a screening instrument, aiming to identify patients at risk for adverse effects on QoL. A better understanding of the subjective QoL of patients with chronic disease is fundamental for health care professionals to be able to identify and support vulnerable patients.

A randomized controlled trial on very early speech and language therapy in acute stroke patients with aphasia

BACKGROUND

Aphasia affects one third of acute stroke patients. There is a considerable spontaneous recovery in aphasia, but impaired communication ability remains a great problem. Communication difficulties are an impediment to rehabilitation. Early treatment of the language deficits leading to increased communication ability would improve rehabilitation. The aim of this study is to elucidate the efficacy of very early speech and language therapy (SLT) in acute stroke patients with aphasia.

METHODS

A prospective, open, randomized, controlled trial was carried out with blinded endpoint evaluation of SLT, starting within 2 days of stroke onset and lasting for 21 days. 123 consecutive patients with acute, first-ever ischemic stroke and aphasia were randomized. The SLT treatment was Language Enrichment Therapy, and the aphasia tests used were the Norsk grunntest for afasi (NGA) and the Amsterdam-Nijmegen everyday language test (ANELT), both performed by speech pathologists, blinded for randomization.

RESULTS

The primary outcome, as measured by ANELT at day 21, was 1.3 in the actively treated patient group and 1.2 among controls. NGA led to similar results in both groups. Patients with a higher level of education (>12 years) improved more on ANELT by day 21 than those with <12 years of education (3.4 vs. 1.0, respectively). In 34 patients in the treatment group and 19 in the control group improvement was ≥1 on ANELT (p < 0.05). There was no difference in the degree of aphasia at baseline except for fluency, which was higher in the group responding to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Very early intensive SLT with the Language Enrichment Therapy program over 21 days had no effect on the degree of aphasia in unselected acute aphasic stroke patients. In aphasic patients with more fluency, SLT resulted in a significant improvement as compared to controls. A higher educational level of >12 years was beneficial.

Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke

BACKGROUND

Aphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage which 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 STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched April 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to April 2009) and CINAHL (1982 to April 2009). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials we handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, searched reference lists of relevant articles and contacted other researchers and authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing SLT versus no SLT, SLT versus social support or stimulation, and one SLT intervention versus another SLT intervention. SLT refers to a formal speech and language therapy intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities and in turn levels of communicative activity and participation. Social support and stimulation refers to an intervention which provides social support or communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions. Direct comparisons of different SLT interventions refers to SLT interventions that differ in terms of duration, intensity, frequency or method of intervention or in the theoretical basis for the SLT approach.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from study investigators if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 trials (41 paired comparisons) in the review: 14 subcomparisons (1064 participants) compared SLT with no SLT; six subcomparisons (279 participants) compared SLT with social support and stimulation; and 21 subcomparisons (732 participants) compared two approaches to SLT. In general, 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

This review shows some indication of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke. We also observed a consistency in the direction of results which favoured intensive SLT over conventional SLT, though significantly more people withdrew from intensive SLT than conventional SLT. SLT facilitated by a therapist-trained and supervised volunteer appears to be as effective as the provision of SLT by a professional. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions in relation to the effectiveness of one SLT approach over another.