Telerehabilitation for aphasia – protocol of a pragmatic, exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial

Background The Cochrane review on the effectiveness of speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke suggests intensity of therapy is a key predictor for outcome. Current aphasia services cannot provide intervention at the intensity observed within trial contexts because of resource limitations. Telerehabilitation could widen access to speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in geographically remote contexts and reduce the time spent on travel by the therapist and patient. The current academic literature within this field is in its infancy, with few trials of speech and language therapy (SLT) delivered by videoconference. Our pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will explore feasibility aspects and effectiveness of telerehabilitation for aphasia in addition to standard SLT. Method/design Our study is a pragmatic, exploratory, pilot randomized controlled trial, where participants will be randomized to a telerehabilitation group or a control group. Both groups receive standard SLT (usual care) but the telerehabilitation group receives an additional 5 h of telerehabilitation per week over 4 weeks through videoconference. This additional telerehabilitation focuses on spoken language with an emphasis on word naming. We aim to include 40 patients in each group, with inclusion criteria being aphasia any time post stroke. Participants will be assessed blindly at pre-randomization (baseline), and 4 weeks and 4 months after randomization. The primary endpoint is naming ability 3 months after the completed intervention, measured by the Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment (NGA) naming subtest. Secondary endpoints include other subtests of the NGA, the VAST (Verb and Sentence Test) subtest sentence production, Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) and the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life scale (SAQOL-39). Experiences of patients and SLPs with telerehabilitation are assessed using questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Statistical between group comparisons will be in line with an intention-to-treat analysis. Discussion This pilot RCT of intensive language training by videoconference will contribute new scientific evidence to the field of aphasia telerehabilitation. Here, we describe our trial which will explore the feasibility of telerehabilitation for aphasia as an intervention, our choice of primary and secondary outcome measures and proposed analyses. Our trial will provide information for the development and delivery of future definitive RCTs. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02768922 . Registered on 11 May 2016. Last updated on 17 November 2017

Technical features, feasibility, and acceptability of augmented telerehabilitation in post-stroke aphasia – experiences from a randomized control trial

Background: Post-stroke aphasia is a communication disorder where existing evidence favors intensive therapy methods. Telerehabilitation represents a service model for geographically remote settings, or other barriers to clinic attendance or to facilitate an augmentation of therapy across a continuum of care. Evidence to support efficiency, feasibility, and acceptability is however still scarce. Appraising aphasia telerehabilitation in controlled trials beyond its effectiveness, by investigating feasibility and acceptability, may facilitate implementation into clinical practice. Methods: In our pilot randomized controlled trial, we investigated the feasibility and acceptability of speech and language therapy by videoconference, in addition to usual care, in people with aphasia following stroke. To improve functional, expressive language, a tailored intervention was given 1 h per day, five times per week over four consecutive weeks. Feasibility measures included evaluation of technical setup using diary logs. Acceptability was investigated by examining adherence and satisfaction with therapy alongside evaluation of data safety and privacy. Results: Feasibility and acceptability data were collected in relation to 556.5 h of telerehabilitation delivered to 30 participants over a 2-years intervention period by three speech-language pathologists. Protocol adherence was high, with a tolerable technical fault rate; 86 faults were registered over 541 video sessions. Most (80%; n = 30) of the participants experienced zero to three faults. The main cause of technical failures was flawed internet connection, causing delayed or interrupted therapy. Total satisfaction with telerehabilitation was rated good or very good by 93.1% (n = 29) of participants and two of three speech-language pathologists. Within a moderate variance of technical failure, participants experiencing more faults were more satisfied. No serious events regarding security and privacy were reported. Our model is feasibly and ready to be implemented across a range of clinical settings and contexts. Conclusions: Synchronous telerehabilitation for post-stroke aphasia is feasible and acceptable and shows tolerable technical fault rates with high satisfaction among patients and pathologists. Within a low rate of faults, satisfaction was not negatively influenced by fault frequency. Access to clinical and technical expertise is needed when developing telerehabilitation services. Telerehabilitation may be a viable service delivery model for aphasia rehabilitation

The effect of augmented speech-language therapy delivered by telerehabilitation on post stroke aphasia – a pilot randomized controlled trial

Pilot a definitive randomized controlled trial of speech-language telerehabilitation in poststroke aphasia in addition to usual care with regard to recruitment, drop-outs, and language effects. Pilot single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Telerehabilitation delivered from tertiary rehabilitation center to participants at their home or admitted to secondary rehabilitation centers. People with naming impairment due to aphasia following stroke. Sixty-two participants randomly allocated to 5 hours of speech and language telerehabilitation by videoconference per week over four consecutive weeks together with usual care or usual care alone. The telerehabilitation targeted functional, expressive language. Main measures: Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment: naming (primary outcome), repetition, and auditory comprehension subtests; Verb and Sentence Test sentence production subtest and the Communicative Effectiveness Index at baseline, four weeks, and four months postrandomization. Data were analyzed by intention to treat. No significant between-group differences were seen in naming or auditory comprehension in the Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment at four weeks and four months post randomization. The telerehabilitation group ( n = 29) achieved a Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment repetition score of 8.9 points higher ( P = 0.026) and a Verb and Sentence Test score 3 points higher ( P = 0.002) than the control group ( n = 27) four months postrandomization. Communicative Effectiveness Index was not significantly different between groups, but increased significantly within both groups. No adverse events were reported. Augmented telerehabilitation via videoconference may be a viable rehabilitation model for aphasia affecting language outcomes poststroke. A definitive trial with 230 participants is needed to confirm results

An Umbrella Review of Aphasia Intervention descriPtion In Research: the AsPIRE project

Background: Recent reviews conclude that aphasia intervention is effective. However, replication and implementation require detailed reporting of intervention is and a specification of participant profiles. To date, reviews concentrate more on efficacy than on intervention reporting quality. Aims : The aim of this project is to review the descriptions of aphasia interventions and participants appearing in recent systematic reviews of aphasia intervention effectiveness. The relationship between the quality of these descriptions and the robustness of research design is explored, and the replicability of aphasia interventions is evaluated. Methods and Procedures : The scope of our search was an analysis of the aphasia intervention studies included in the and EBRSR 2018 systematic reviews, and in the RCSLT 2014 literature synthesis. Intervention descriptions published separately from the intervention study (i.e. published online, in clinical tools, or a separate trial protocols) were not included. The criteria for inclusion were that participants had aphasia, the intervention involved language and/or communication, and included the following research designs: Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), comparison or control, crossover design, case series. Exclusion criteria included non-SLT interventions, studies involving fewer than four participants, conference abstracts, studies not available in English. Studies were evaluated for completeness of intervention description using the TIDieR Checklist. Additionally, we rated the quality of patient and intervention description, with particular reference to replicability. Outcomes and Results: Ninety-three studies were included. Only 14 studies (15%) had >50 participants. Fifty-six studies (60%) did not select participants with a specific aphasia profile, and a further 10 studies only described participants as non-fluent. Across the studies, an average of eight (of 12) TIDieR checklist items were given but information on where, tailoring, modification and fidelity items was rarely available. Studies that evaluated general aphasia intervention approaches tended to use RCT designs, whereas more specific intervention studies were more likely to use case series designs. Conclusions: Group studies were generally under-powered and there was a paucity of research looking at specific aphasia interventions for specific aphasia profiles. There was a trade-off between the robustness of the design and the level of specificity of the intervention described. While the TIDieR framework is a useful guide to information which should be included in an intervention study, it is insufficiently sensitive for assessing replicability. We consider possible solutions to the challenges of making large-scale trials more useful for determining effective aphasia intervention

Comparison of plasma and CSF biomarkers in predicting cognitive decline

OBJECTIVES: Concentrations of amyloid-β peptides (Aβ42/Aβ40) and neurofilament light (NfL) can be measured in plasma or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and are associated with Alzheimer\u27s disease brain pathology and cognitive impairment. This study directly compared plasma and CSF measures of Aβ42/Aβ40 and NfL as predictors of cognitive decline. METHODS: Participants were 65 years or older and cognitively normal at baseline with at least one follow-up cognitive assessment. Analytes were measured with the following types of assays: plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, immunoprecipitation-mass spectrometry; plasma NfL, Simoa; CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, automated immunoassay; CSF NfL plate-based immunoassay. Mixed effects models evaluated the global cognitive composite score over a maximum of 6 years as predicted by the fluid biomarkers. RESULTS: Analyses included 371 cognitively normal participants, aged 72.7 ± 5.2 years (mean ± standard deviation) with an average length of follow-up of 3.9 ± 1.6 years. Standardized concentrations of biomarkers were associated with annualized cognitive change: plasma Aβ42/Aβ40, 0.014 standard deviations (95% confidence intervals 0.002 to 0.026); CSF Aβ42/Aβ40, 0.020 (0.008 to 0.032); plasma Nfl, -0.018 (-0.030 to -0.005); and CSF NfL, -0.024 (-0.036 to -0.012). Power analyses estimated that 266 individuals in each treatment arm would be needed to detect a 50% slowing of decline if identified by abnormal plasma measures versus 229 for CSF measures. INTERPRETATION: Both plasma and CSF measures of Aβ42/Aβ40 and NfL predicted cognitive decline. A clinical trial that enrolled individuals based on abnormal plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 and NfL levels would require only a marginally larger cohort than if CSF measures were used

Characterization of pre-analytical sample handling effects on a panel of Alzheimer's disease–related blood-based biomarkers: Results from the Standardization of Alzheimer's Blood Biomarkers (SABB) working group

Introduction: Pre-analytical sample handling might affect the results of Alzheimer's disease blood-based biomarkers. We empirically tested variations of common blood collection and handling procedures. Methods: We created sample sets that address the effect of blood collection tube type, and of ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid plasma delayed centrifugation, centrifugation temperature, aliquot volume, delayed storage, and freeze–thawing. We measured amyloid beta (Aβ)42 and 40 peptides with six assays, and Aβ oligomerization-tendency (OAβ), amyloid precursor protein (APP)699-711, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light (NfL), total tau (t-tau), and phosphorylated tau181. Results: Collection tube type resulted in different values of all assessed markers. Delayed plasma centrifugation and storage affected Aβ and t-tau; t-tau was additionally affected by centrifugation temperature. The other markers were resistant to handling variations. Discussion: We constructed a standardized operating procedure for plasma handling, to facilitate introduction of blood-based biomarkers into the research and clinical settings

A blood-based diagnostic test incorporating plasma Aβ42/40 ratio, ApoE proteotype, and age accurately identifies brain amyloid status: Findings from a multi cohort validity analysis

BACKGROUND: The development of blood-based biomarker tests that are accurate and robust for Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD) pathology have the potential to aid clinical diagnosis and facilitate enrollment in AD drug trials. We developed a high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS)-based test that quantifies plasma Aβ42 and Aβ40 concentrations and identifies the ApoE proteotype. We evaluated robustness, clinical performance, and commercial viability of this MS biomarker assay for distinguishing brain amyloid status. METHODS: We used the novel MS assay to analyze 414 plasma samples that were collected, processed, and stored using site-specific protocols, from six independent US cohorts. We used receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analyses to assess assay performance and accuracy for predicting amyloid status (positive, negative, and standard uptake value ratio; SUVR). After plasma analysis, sites shared brain amyloid status, defined using diverse, site-specific methods and cutoff values; amyloid PET imaging using various tracers or CSF Aβ42/40 ratio. RESULTS: Plasma Aβ42/40 ratio was significantly (p \u3c 0.001) lower in the amyloid positive vs. negative participants in each cohort. The area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.77-0.85) and the percent agreement between plasma Aβ42/40 and amyloid positivity was 75% at the optimal (Youden index) cutoff value. The AUC-ROC (0.86; 95% CI = 0.82-0.90) and accuracy (81%) for the plasma Aβ42/40 ratio improved after controlling for cohort heterogeneity. The AUC-ROC (0.90; 95% CI = 0.87-0.93) and accuracy (86%) improved further when Aβ42/40, ApoE4 copy number and participant age were included in the model. CONCLUSIONS: This mass spectrometry-based plasma biomarker test: has strong diagnostic performance; can accurately distinguish brain amyloid positive from amyloid negative individuals; may aid in the diagnostic evaluation process for Alzheimer\u27s disease; and may enhance the efficiency of enrolling participants into Alzheimer\u27s disease drug trials

Predicting continuous amyloid PET values with CSF and plasma Aβ42/Aβ40

INTRODUCTION: Continuous measures of amyloid burden as measured by positron emission tomography (PET) are being used increasingly to stage Alzheimer\u27s disease (AD). This study examined whether cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma amyloid beta (Aβ)42/Aβ40 could predict continuous values for amyloid PET. METHODS: CSF Aβ42 and Aβ40 were measured with automated immunoassays. Plasma Aβ42 and Aβ40 were measured with an immunoprecipitation-mass spectrometry assay. Amyloid PET was performed with Pittsburgh compound B (PiB). The continuous relationships of CSF and plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 with amyloid PET burden were modeled. RESULTS: Most participants were cognitively normal (427 of 491 [87%]) and the mean age was 69.0 ± 8.8 years. CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 predicted amyloid PET burden until a relatively high level of amyloid accumulation (69.8 Centiloids), whereas plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 predicted amyloid PET burden until a lower level (33.4 Centiloids). DISCUSSION: CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 predicts the continuous level of amyloid plaque burden over a wider range than plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 and may be useful in AD staging. HIGHLIGHTS: Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) amyloid beta (Aβ)42/Aβ40 predicts continuous amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) values up to a relatively high burden.Plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 is a comparatively dichotomous measure of brain amyloidosis.Models can predict regional amyloid PET burden based on CSF Aβ42/Aβ40.CSF Aβ42/Aβ40 may be useful in staging AD

Development of an evidence-based aphasia therapy implementation tool: an international survey of speech pathologists' access to and use of aphasia therapy resources

Background Speech and language therapy can reduce the level of impairment and disability caused by aphasia (Brady et al., 2016). Selecting a therapy can be challenging for clinicians who may struggle to stay abreast of the best evidence to support therapy selection (Rose et al., 2014). Once a therapy is selected, accessing relevant resources is a significant barrier to implementation (Shrubsole et al., 2019). The Aphasia Therapy Finder (ATF) is proposed to be an online repository of therapy resources designed to aid selection of evidence-based aphasia therapies and to bridge the evidence-practice gap in aphasia rehabilitation. Aims In this study, we aimed to explore speech pathologists’ selection and use of aphasia therapy approaches, and access to aphasia therapy resources in clinical practice. We further aimed to explore speech pathologists’ perspectives on the proposed ATF. Methods & Procedures A cross-sectional, mixed-methods, survey design was employed. A 22-item web-based survey was developed and disseminated to speech pathologists via professional networks internationally. Data analyses included descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Outcomes & Results Eligible responses from 176 speech pathologists across 19 countries were included in the analyses (86.3% completion rate). Speech pathologists reported using a range of therapy approaches (n = 43) in aphasia rehabilitation, consistent with previous findings (Rose et al., 2014). Information regarding new therapy approaches was predominantly obtained from academic sources including conferences, research literature, and professional development workshops. Speech pathologists placed high importance on research evidence when selecting therapy approaches. Resource limitations, including time and budget constraints, were identified as key barriers to implementing evidence-based aphasia therapy approaches in clinical practice. There was strong support for development of the ATF; 91.7% of respondents indicated they would use it in clinical practice. Recency of research, equity of access with the inclusion of linguistically and culturally diverse resources, and usability of resources were identified as priorities when developing the ATF. Conclusions While speech pathologists report using a range of aphasia therapy approaches in clinical practice and consider research evidence when selecting therapy approaches, resource limitations continue to present a barrier to the implementation of evidence-based practice. The development of the ATF may support the translation of research evidence into clinical practice