Complex speech-language therapy interventions for stroke-related aphasia: the RELEASE study incorporating a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis

Background: People with language problems following stroke (aphasia) benefit from speech and language therapy. Optimising speech and language therapy for aphasia recovery is a research priority. Objectives: The objectives were to explore patterns and predictors of language and communication recovery, optimum speech and language therapy intervention provision, and whether or not effectiveness varies by participant subgroup or language domain. Design: This research comprised a systematic review, a meta-analysis and a network meta-analysis of individual participant data. Setting: Participant data were collected in research and clinical settings. Interventions: The intervention under investigation was speech and language therapy for aphasia after stroke. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measures were absolute changes in language scores from baseline on overall language ability, auditory comprehension, spoken language, reading comprehension, writing and functional communication. Data sources and participants: Electronic databases were systematically searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts and SpeechBITE (searched from inception to 2015). The results were screened for eligibility, and published and unpublished data sets (randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case series, registries) with at least 10 individual participant data reporting aphasia duration and severity were identified. Existing collaborators and primary researchers named in identified records were invited to contribute electronic data sets. Individual participant data in the public domain were extracted. Review methods: Data on demographics, speech and language therapy interventions, outcomes and quality criteria were independently extracted by two reviewers, or available as individual participant data data sets. Meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were used to generate hypotheses. Results: We retrieved 5928 individual participant data from 174 data sets across 28 countries, comprising 75 electronic (3940 individual participant data), 47 randomised controlled trial (1778 individual participant data) and 91 speech and language therapy intervention (2746 individual participant data) data sets. The median participant age was 63 years (interquartile range 53–72 years). We identified 53 unavailable, but potentially eligible, randomised controlled trials (46 of these appeared to include speech and language therapy). Relevant individual participant data were filtered into each analysis. Statistically significant predictors of recovery included age (functional communication, individual participant data: 532, n = 14 randomised controlled trials) and sex (overall language ability, individual participant data: 482, n = 11 randomised controlled trials; functional communication, individual participant data: 532, n = 14 randomised controlled trials). Older age and being a longer time since aphasia onset predicted poorer recovery. A negative relationship between baseline severity score and change from baseline (p < 0.0001) may reflect the reduced improvement possible from high baseline scores. The frequency, duration, intensity and dosage of speech and language therapy were variously associated with auditory comprehension, naming and functional communication recovery. There were insufficient data to examine spontaneous recovery. The greatest overall gains in language ability [14.95 points (95% confidence interval 8.7 to 21.2 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and functional communication [0.78 points (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.1 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Spontaneous Communication] were associated with receiving speech and language therapy 4 to 5 days weekly; for auditory comprehension [5.86 points (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 10.0 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test], the greatest gains were associated with receiving speech and language therapy 3 to 4 days weekly. The greatest overall gains in language ability [15.9 points (95% confidence interval 8.0 to 23.6 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and functional communication [0.77 points (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.2 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Spontaneous Communication] were associated with speech and language therapy participation from 2 to 4 (and more than 9) hours weekly, whereas the highest auditory comprehension gains [7.3 points (95% confidence interval 4.1 to 10.5 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test] were associated with speech and language therapy participation in excess of 9 hours weekly (with similar gains notes for 4 hours weekly). While clinically similar gains were made alongside different speech and language therapy intensities, the greatest overall gains in language ability [18.37 points (95% confidence interval 10.58 to 26.16 points) on the Western Aphasia Battery-Aphasia Quotient] and auditory comprehension [5.23 points (95% confidence interval 1.51 to 8.95 points) on the Aachen Aphasia Test-Token Test] were associated with 20–50 hours of speech and language therapy. Network meta-analyses on naming and the duration of speech and language therapy interventions across language outcomes were unstable. Relative variance was acceptable (< 30%). Subgroups may benefit from specific interventions. Limitations: Data sets were graded as being at a low risk of bias but were predominantly based on highly selected research participants, assessments and interventions, thereby limiting generalisability. Conclusions: Frequency, intensity and dosage were associated with language gains from baseline, but varied by domain and subgroup. Future work: These exploratory findings require confirmatory study designs to test the hypotheses generated and to develop more tailored speech and language therapy interventions. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110947. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by The Tavistock Trust for Aphasia

Transcranial electrical and magnetic stimulation (tES and TMS) for addiction medicine: A consensus paper on the present state of the science and the road ahead

There is growing interest in non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) as a novel treatment option for substance-use disorders (SUDs). Recent momentum stems from a foundation of preclinical neuroscience demonstrating links between neural circuits and drug consuming behavior, as well as recent FDA-approval of NIBS treatments for mental health disorders that share overlapping pathology with SUDs. As with any emerging field, enthusiasm must be tempered by reason; lessons learned from the past should be prudently applied to future therapies. Here, an international ensemble of experts provides an overview of the state of transcranial-electrical (tES) and transcranial-magnetic (TMS) stimulation applied in SUDs. This consensus paper provides a systematic literature review on published data – emphasizing the heterogeneity of methods and outcome measures while suggesting strategies to help bridge knowledge gaps. The goal of this effort is to provide the community with guidelines for best practices in tES/TMS SUD research. We hope this will accelerate the speed at which the community translates basic neuroscience into advanced neuromodulation tools for clinical practice in addiction medicine

Tinnitus and tinnitus disorder: Theoretical and operational definitions (an international multidisciplinary proposal)

As for hypertension, chronic pain, epilepsy and other disorders with particular symptoms, a commonly accepted and unambiguous definition provides a common ground for researchers and clinicians to study and treat the problem. The WHO&apos;s ICD11 definition only mentions tinnitus as a nonspecific symptom of a hearing disorder, but not as a clinical entity in its own right, and the American Psychiatric Association&apos;s DSM-V doesn&apos;t mention tinnitus at all. Here we propose that the tinnitus without and with associated suffering should be differentiated by distinct terms: “Tinnitus” for the former and “Tinnitus Disorder” for the latter. The proposed definition then becomes “Tinnitus is the conscious awareness of a tonal or composite noise for which there is no identifiable corresponding external acoustic source, which becomes Tinnitus Disorder “when associated with emotional distress, cognitive dysfunction, and/or autonomic arousal, leading to behavioural changes and functional disability.”. In other words “Tinnitus” describes the auditory or sensory component, whereas “Tinnitus Disorder” reflects the auditory component and the associated suffering. Whereas acute tinnitus may be a symptom secondary to a trauma or disease, chronic tinnitus may be considered a primary disorder in its own right. If adopted, this will advance the recognition of tinnitus disorder as a primary health condition in its own right. The capacity to measure the incidence, prevalence, and impact will help in identification of human, financial, and educational needs required to address acute tinnitus as a symptom but chronic tinnitus as a disorder. © 2021 Elsevier B.V