Amount of therapy matters in very early aphasia rehabilitation after stroke: A clinical prognostic model

Background and Aim The effects of very early aphasia therapy on recovery are equivocal. This article examines predictors of very early aphasia recovery through statistical modeling. Methods This study involved a secondary analysis of merged data from two randomized, single-blind trials conducted in Australian acute and subacute hospitals. Study 1 (n = 59) compared daily therapy to usual ward care for up to 4 weeks poststroke in patients with moderate to severe aphasia. Study 2 (n = 20) compared daily group therapy to daily individual therapy for 20 1-hour sessions over 5 weeks, in patients with mild to severe aphasia. The primary outcome measure was the Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (AQ) at therapy completion. This analysis used regression modeling to examine the effects of age, baseline AQ and baseline modified Rankin Scale (mRS), average therapy amount, therapy intensity, and number of therapy sessions on aphasia recovery. Results Baseline AQ (p = 0.047), average therapy amount (p = 0.030), and baseline mRS (p = 0.043) were significant predictors in the final regression model, which explained 30% (p < 0.001) of variance in aphasia recovery. Conclusion The amount of very early aphasia therapy could significantly affect communication outcomes at 4 to 5 weeks poststroke. Further studies should include amount of therapy provided to enhance reliability of prognostic modeling in aphasia recovery. © 2013 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc

Statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial: a 3-arm randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy to usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia (COMPARE)

BackgroundWhile high-quality meta-analyses have confirmed the effectiveness of aphasia therapy after stroke, there is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of different aphasia interventions. Two commonly used interventions, Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT Plus) and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT), are hypothesised to rely on diverse underlying neural mechanisms for recovery and may be differentially responsive to aphasia severity. COMPARE is a prospective randomised open-blinded end-point trial designed to determine whether, in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia living in the community, CIAT Plus and M-MAT provide greater therapeutic benefit compared to usual care, are differentially effective according to aphasia severity, and are cost-effective. This paper details the statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial developed prior to data analysis.MethodsParticipants (n = 216) are randomised to one of three arms, CIAT Plus, M-MAT or usual care, and undertake therapy with a study trained speech pathologist in groups of three participants stratified by aphasia severity. Therapy occurs for 3 h blocks per day for 10 days across 2 weeks. The primary clinical outcome is aphasia severity as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ) immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes include WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up, and functional communication, discourse efficiency, multimodal communication, and health-related quality of life immediately post intervention and at 12-week follow-up.ResultsLinear mixed models (LMMs) will be used to analyse differences between M-MAT and UC, and CIAT-Plus and UC on each outcome measure immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention. The LMM for WAB-R-AQ will assess the differences in efficacy between M-MAT and CIAT-Plus. All analyses will control for baseline aphasia severity (fixed effect) and for the clustering effect of treatment groups (random effect).DiscussionThis trial will provide relative effectiveness data for two common interventions for people with chronic post-stroke aphasia, and highlight possible differential effects based on aphasia severity. Together with the health economic analysis data, the results will enable more informed personalised prescription for aphasia therapy after stroke.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12615000618550 . Registered on 15 June 2016

Statistical analysis plan for the stepped wedge clinical trial Healing Right Way—enhancing rehabilitation services for Aboriginal Australians after brain injury

Background Aboriginal Australians are known to suffer high levels of acquired brain injury (stroke and traumatic brain injury) yet experience significant barriers in accessing rehabilitation services. The aim of the Healing Right Way trial is to evaluate a culturally secure intervention for Aboriginal people with newly acquired brain injury to improve their rehabilitation experience and quality of life. Following publication of the trial protocol, this paper outlines the statistical analysis plan prior to locking the database. Methods The trial involves a stepped wedge design with four steps over 3 years. Participants were 108 adult Aboriginal Australians admitted to one of eight hospitals (four rural, four urban) in Western Australia within 6 weeks of onset of a new stroke or traumatic brain injury who consented to follow-up for 26 weeks. All hospital sites started in a control phase, with the intervention assigned to pairs of sites (one metropolitan, one rural) every 26 weeks until all sites received the intervention. The two-component intervention involves training in culturally safe care for hospital sites and enhanced support provided to participants by Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators during their hospital stay and after discharge. The primary outcome is quality of life as measured by the Euro QOL–5D-3L VAS. A mixed effects linear regression model will be used to assess the between-group difference at 26 weeks post-injury. The model will control for injury type and severity, age at recruitment and time since commencement of the trial, as fixed effects. Recruitment site and participant will be included as random effects. Secondary outcomes include measurements of function, independence, anxiety and depression, carer strain, allied health occasions of service received and hospital compliance with minimum processes of care based on clinical guidelines and best practice models of care. Discussion The trial will provide the first data surrounding the effectiveness of an intervention package for Aboriginal people with brain injury and inform future planning of rehabilitation services for this population. The statistical analysis plan outlines the analyses to be undertaken. Trial registration Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000139279. Registered 30 January, 2018

A randomized control trial of intensive aphasia therapy after acute stroke: The Very Early Rehabilitation for SpEech (VERSE) study.

BACKGROUND:Effectiveness of early intensive aphasia rehabilitation after stroke is unknown. The Very Early Rehabilitation for SpEech trial (VERSE) aimed to determine whether intensive aphasia therapy, beginning within 14 days after stroke, improved communication recovery compared to usual care. METHODS:Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial conducted at 17 acute-care hospitals across Australia/New Zealand from 2014 to 2018. Participants with aphasia following acute stroke were randomized to receive usual care (direct usual care aphasia therapy), or one of two higher intensity regimens (20 sessions of either non-prescribed (usual care-plus or prescribed (VERSE) direct aphasia therapy). The primary outcome was improvement of communication on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (AQ) at 12 weeks after stroke. Our pre-planned intention to treat analysis combined high intensity groups for the primary outcome. FINDINGS:Among 13,654 acute stroke patients screened, 25% (3477) had aphasia, of whom 25% (866) were eligible and 246 randomized to usual care (n = 81; 33%), usual care-plus (n = 82; 33%) or VERSE (n = 83; 34%). At 12 weeks after stroke, the primary outcome was assessed in 217 participants (88%); 14 had died, 9 had withdrawn, and 6 were too unwell for assessment. Communication recovery was 50.3% (95% CI 45.7-54.8) in the high intensity group (n = 147) and 52.1% (95% CI 46.1-58.1) in the usual care group (n = 70; difference -1.8, 95% CI -8.7-5.0). There was no difference between groups in non-fatal or fatal adverse events (p = 0.72). INTERPRETATION:Early, intensive aphasia therapy did not improve communication recovery within 12 weeks post stroke compared to usual care

Economic evaluation of the very early rehabilitation in speech (verse) intervention

Introduction: There is limited evidence on the costs and outcomes of patients with aphasia after stroke. The aim of this study was to estimate costs in patients with aphasia after stroke according to the aphasia therapies provided. Methods: A three-arm, prospective, randomized, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint assessment trial conducted in Australia and New Zealand. Usual ward-based care (Usual Care) was compared to additional usual ward-based therapy (Usual Care Plus) and a prescribed and structured aphasia therapy program in addition to Usual Care (the VERSE intervention). Information about healthcare utilization and productivity were collected to estimate costs in Australian dollars for 2017–18. Multivariable regression models with bootstrapping were used to estimate differences in costs and outcomes (clinically meaningful change in aphasia severity measured by the WAB-R-AQ). Results: Overall, 202/246 (82%) participants completed follow-up at 26 weeks. Median costs per person were $23,322 (Q1 5,367, Q3 52,669, n = 63) for Usual Care,$26,923 (Q1 7,303, Q3 76,174, n = 70) for Usual Care Plus and $31,143 (Q1 7,001. Q3 62,390, n = 69) for VERSE. No differences in costs and outcomes were detected between groups. Usual Care Plus was inferior (i.e. more costly and less effective) in 64% of iterations, and in 18% was less costly and less effective compared to Usual Care. VERSE was inferior in 65% of samples and less costly and less effective in 12% compared to Usual Care. Conclusion: There was limited evidence that additional intensively delivered aphasia therapy within the context of usual acute care provided was worthwhile in terms of costs for the outcomes gained