Treatment of adynamia in aphasia

Pharmacotherapy for post-stroke aphasia: what are the options?

INTRODUCTION

Aphasia is a common, long-lasting aftermath of stroke lesions. There is an increased integration of pharmacotherapy as an adjunctive strategy to speech and language therapy (SLT) for post-stroke aphasia (PSA). Nevertheless, more research in pharmacotherapy for acute and chronic PSA is necessary, including the election of drugs that target different neurotransmitter systems and deficits in specific language domains.

AREAS COVERED

This article updates the role of pharmacotherapy for PSA, focusing the spotlight on some already investigated drugs and candidate agents deserving of future research. Refining the precision of drug election would require using multimodal biomarkers to develop personalized treatment approaches. There is a solid need to devise feasible randomized controlled trials adapted to the particularities of the PSA population. The emergent role of multimodal interventions combining one or two drugs with noninvasive brain stimulation to augment SLT is emphasized.

EXPERT OPINION

Pharmacotherapy can improve language deficits not fully alleviated by SLT. In addition, the 'drug-only' approach can also be adopted when administering SLT is not possible. The primary goal of pharmacotherapy is reducing the overall aphasia severity, although targeting language-specific deficits (i.e. naming, spoken output) also contributes to improving functional communication. Unfortunately, there is still little information for recommending a drug for specific language deficits.

Dynamic aphasia with emerging agrammatism, anomia, and aberrant frontal behaviors in a case of atypical parkinsonism

A 57-year-old man presented with dynamic aphasia with evolving agrammatism and anomia. Additionally, he exhibited emerging atypical parkinsonism and features of behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Insights pertinent to this complex clinical presentation are discussed.

An update on medications and noninvasive brain stimulation to augment language rehabilitation in post-stroke aphasia

INTRODUCTION

Aphasia is among the most debilitating outcomes of stroke. Aphasia is a language disorder occurring in 10-30% of stroke survivors. Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) is the gold standard, mainstay treatment for aphasia, but gains from SLT may be incomplete. Pharmaceutical and noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques may augment the effectiveness of SLT. Areas covered: Herein reviewed are studies of the safety and efficacy of these adjunctive interventions for aphasia, including randomized placebo-controlled and open-label trials, as well as case series from Pubmed, using search terms 'pharmacological,' 'tDCS' or 'TMS' combined with 'aphasia' and 'stroke.' Expert commentary: Relatively small studies have included participants with a range of aphasia types and severities, using inconsistent interventions and outcome measures. Results to-date have provided promising, but weak to moderate evidence that medications and/or NIBS can augment the effects of SLT for improving language outcomes. We end with recommendations for future approaches to studying these interventions, with multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trials.

Psycholinguistics of Aphasia Pharmacotherapy: Asking the Right Questions

BACKGROUND

Among the obstacles to demonstrating efficacy of pharmacological intervention for aphasia is quantifying patients' responses to treatment in a statistically valid and reliable manner. In many of the review papers on this topic (e.g., Berthier et al., 2011; de Boissezon, Peran, de Boysson, & Démonet, 2007; Small & Llano, 2009), detailed discussions of various methodological problems are highlighted, with some suggestions on how these shortcomings should be addressed. Given this deep understanding of caveats associated with the experimental design of aphasia pharmacotherapy studies (e.g., Berthier et al., 2011), investigations continue to produce inconsistent results.

AIM

In this review paper we suggest that inclusion of theory-driven linguistic measures in aphasia pharmacotherapy studies would add an important step toward elucidating precise patterns of improvement in language performance resulting from pharmacotherapeutic intervention.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

We provide a brief review of the clinical approaches currently used in pharmacotherapy studies of aphasia, which often lack psycholinguistic grounding. We then present ways in which psycholinguistic models can complement this approach, offering a rationale for task selection, and as a result, lead to a better understanding of treatment effects. We then follow with an example of how such an integrative approach can be implemented in studies targeting stress reduction in people with aphasia, via beta-blocking agents, as a means to augment language performance, using the psycholinguistic framework of "linguistic anxiety" outlined in Cahana-Amitay et al, 2011 as our guideline.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the incorporation of psycholinguistic models into aphasia pharmacotherapy studies can increase the resolution with which we can identify functional changes.

Aphasia therapy on a neuroscience basis

BACKGROUND: Brain research has documented that the cortical mechanisms for language and action are tightly interwoven and, concurrently, new approaches to language therapy in neurological patients are being developed that implement language training in the context of relevant linguistic and non-linguistic actions, therefore taking advantage of the mutual connections of language and action systems in the brain. A further well-known neuroscience principle is that learning at the neuronal level is driven by correlation; consequently, new approaches to language therapy emphasise massed practice in a short time, thus maximising therapy quantity and frequency and, therefore, correlation at the behavioural and neuronal levels. Learned non-use of unsuccessful actions plays a major role in the chronification of neurological deficits, and behavioural approaches to therapy have therefore employed shaping and other learning techniques to counteract such non-use. AIMS: Advances in theoretical and experimental neuroscience have important implications for clinical practice. We exemplify this in the domain of aphasia rehabilitation. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: Whereas classical wisdom had been that aphasia cannot be significantly improved at a chronic stage, we here review evidence that one type of intensive language-action therapy (ILAT)-constraint-induced aphasia therapy-led to significant improvement of language performance in patients with chronic aphasia. We discuss perspectives for further improving speech-language therapy, including drug treatment that may be particularly fruitful when applied in conjunction with behavioural treatment. In a final section we highlight intensive and rapid therapy studies in chronic aphasia as a unique tool for exploring the cortical reorganisation of language. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that intensive language action therapy is an efficient tool for improving language functions even at chronic stages of aphasia. Therapy studies using this technique can open new perspectives for research into the plasticity of human language circuits.

Amantadine for adynamic speech: possible benefit for aphasia?

OBJECTIVE

Dopaminergic agents may stimulate behavior and verbal expression after frontal lobe dysfunction. Although amantadine is used in neurorehabilitation of motivational disorders and head injury, it is not commonly prescribed to improve aphasia. This pilot study examined verbal fluency on and off amantadine for nonfluent speech.

DESIGN

Four participants undergoing inpatient rehabilitation, meeting criteria for transcortical motor aphasia had stroke (2), stroke postaneurysm surgery (1), or brain tumor resection (1). We administered 100 mg of amantadine twice a day in an open-label, on-off protocol, with multiple assessments per on-off period.

RESULTS

Off medication, subjects generated a mean 12.62 of words (abnormally few) on the Controlled Oral Word Association test. On medication, word generation significantly improved to 17.71 words (P = 0.04), although scores remained psychometrically in the abnormal range.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research on amantadine, specifically for nonfluent speech and nonfluent aphasia, including effects on functional communication and control conditions, may be warranted.