Effects of a physiotherapy and occupational therapy intervention on mobility and activity in care home residents: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of a programme of physiotherapy and occupational therapy with standard care in care home residents who have mobility limitations and are dependent in performing activities of daily living

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus standard NHS speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease (PD COMM pilot):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Parkinson’s disease is a common movement disorder affecting approximately 127,000 people in the UK, with an estimated two thirds having speech-related problems. Currently there is no preferred approach to speech and language therapy within the NHS and there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard NHS therapy or Lee Silverman voice treatment. This trial aims to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of randomizing people with Parkinson’s disease-related speech or voice problems to Lee Silverman voice treatment or standard speech and language therapy compared to a no-intervention control. Methods/Design: The PD COMM pilot is a three arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Randomization will be computer-generated with participants randomized at a ratio of 1:1:1. Participants randomized to intervention arms will be immediately referred to the appropriate speech and language therapist. The target population are patients with a confirmed diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease who have problems with their speech or voice. The Lee Silverman voice treatment intervention group will receive the standard regime of 16 sessions between 50 and 60 minutes in length over four weeks, with extra home practice. The standard speech and language therapy intervention group will receive a dose determined by patients’ individual needs, but not exceeding eight weeks of treatment. The control group will receive standard care with no speech and language therapy input for at least six months post-randomization. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomization) and post- randomization at three, six, and 12 months. The outcome measures include patient-reported voice measures, quality of life, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. The recruitment aim is at least 60 participants over 21 months from 11 sites, equating to at least 20 participants in each arm of the trial. This trial is ongoing and recruitment commenced in May 2012. Discussion: This study will provide information on the feasibility and acceptability of randomizing participants to different speech and language therapies or control/deferred treatment. The findings relating to recruitment, treatment compliance, outcome measures, and effect size will inform a future phase III randomized controlled trial

Physiotherapy intervention in Parkinson's disease: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy compared with no intervention in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Literature databases, trial registries, journals, abstract books, and conference proceedings, and reference lists, searched up to the end of January 2012. Review methods Randomised controlled trials comparing physiotherapy with no intervention in patients with Parkinson’s disease were eligible. Two authors independently abstracted data from each trial. Standard meta-analysis methods were used to assess the effectiveness of physiotherapy compared with no intervention. Tests for heterogeneity were used to assess for differences in treatment effect across different physiotherapy interventions used. Outcome measures were gait, functional mobility and balance, falls, clinician rated impairment and disability measures, patient rated quality of life, adverse events, compliance, and economic analysis outcomes. Results 39 trials of 1827 participants met the inclusion criteria, of which 29 trials provided data for the meta-analyses. Significant benefit from physiotherapy was reported for nine of 18 outcomes assessed. Outcomes which may be clinically significant were speed (0.04 m/s, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.06, P<0.001), Berg balance scale (3.71 points, 2.30 to 5.11, P<0.001), and scores on the unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (total score −6.15 points, −8.57 to −3.73, P<0.001; activities of daily living subscore −1.36, −2.41 to −0.30, P=0.01; motor subscore −5.01, −6.30 to −3.72, P<0.001). Indirect comparisons of the different physiotherapy interventions found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the interventions for any outcomes assessed, apart from motor subscores on the unified Parkinson’s disease rating scale (in which one trial was found to be the cause of the heterogeneity). Conclusions Physiotherapy has short term benefits in Parkinson’s disease. A wide range of physiotherapy techniques are currently used to treat Parkinson’s disease, with little difference in treatment effects. Large, well designed, randomised controlled trials with improved methodology and reporting are needed to assess the efficacy and cost effectiveness of physiotherapy for treating Parkinson’s disease in the longer term

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: preliminary cost-consequence analysis of the PD COMM pilot randomised controlled trial

Additional file 1: Table S1. Speech and language therapy (SLT) set-up costs. Table S2. Derivation of unit costs: sources and assumptions. Table S3. Resource use per patient over 12 months (NHS and social care funded). Table S4. Mean medication costs by drug type over 12 months, per patient (2014/15 costs). Table S5. Resource use per patient over 12 months (privately funded). Table S6. Patient funded care costs and out of pocket expenses over 12 months, per patient. Table S7. Convergence between index scores of EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O dimensions (Spearman’s rank correlation). Table S8. Convergence between index scores of PDQ39 dimensions and ICECAP-O responses (Spearman’s rank correlation). Table S9. Convergence between index scores of PDQ39 dimensions and EQ-5D-3L responses (Spearman’s rank correlation

Headache determines quality of life in idiopathic intracranial hypertension

BACKGROUND: The effect of idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) on quality of life (QOL) is poorly understood. Our objectives were to compare QOL in IIH to the normal UK population; to investigate QOL changes with treatment of IIH, using a weight loss intervention, and to determine which clinical factors influence QOL. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort evaluation of QOL, using the 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) Health Survey questionnaire, before and after a therapeutic dietary intervention which resulted in significant reduction in body mass index (BMI), intracranial pressure (ICP), papilloedema, visual acuity, perimetric mean deviation (Humphrey 24–2) and headache (six-item headache impact test (HIT-6) and headache diary). Baseline QOL was compared to an age and gender matched population. The relationship between each clinical outcome and change in QOL was evaluated. RESULTS: At baseline, QOL was significantly lower in IIH compared to an age and gender matched population in most domains, p < 0.001. Therapeutic weight loss led to a significant improvement in 10 out of 11 QOL domains in conjunction with the previously published data demonstrating significant improvement in papilloedema, visual acuity, perimetry and headache (p < 0.001) and large effect size. Despite significant improvement in clinical measures only headache correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with improving QOL domains. CONCLUSIONS: QOL in IIH patients is significantly reduced. It improved with weight loss alongside significant improvement in clinical measures and headache. However, headache was the only clinical outcome that correlated with enhanced QOL. Effective headache management is required to improve QOL in IIH. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s10194-015-0521-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control for dysarthria in Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM):a UK, multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial

Objectives: We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy (SLT) approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: This was a pragmatic, UK-wide, multicentre, three-arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned using minimisation in a 1:1:1 ratio to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®), NHS SLT, or no SLT. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.Setting: The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings.Participants: Between September 2016 and March 2020, 388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria were randomised into the trial: 130 to LSVT LOUD®, 129 to NHS SLT, and 129 to no SLT.Interventions: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®) consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50-minute sessions each week delivered over 4 weeks. Home-based practice activities were set for up to 5 to 10 minutes daily on treatment days and 15 minutes twice daily on non-treatment days. NHS Speech and language therapy (NHS SLT) dosage was determined by the local therapist in response to individual participants’ needs. Prior research suggested that NHS SLT participants would receive an average of one session per week over 6 to 8 weeks. Local practices for NHS SLT were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD® protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the self-reported Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months.Results: People randomised to LSVT LOUD® reported lower VHI scores at 3 months post-randomisation than those who were randomised to no SLT (-8·0 points (99%CI: -13·3 to -2·6); p = 0·0001). There was no evidence of a difference in VHI scores between NHS SLT and no SLT (1·7 points; (99%Cl: -3·8 to 7·1); p = 0·43). Patients randomised to LSVT LOUD® also reported lower VHI scores than those randomised to NHS SLT (-9·6 points; (99%CI: -14·9 to -4·4); p &lt; 0.0001). There were 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) in the LSVT LOUD® group, 46 in the NHS SLT group, and none in the no SLT group. There were no serious adverse events. Conclusions: LSVT LOUD® was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than no SLT and NHS SLT. NHS SLT showed no evidence of benefit compared to no SLT. Trial registration: The completed trial registration is ISRCTN12421382. Funding: NIHR HTA Programme, project number HTA 10/135/02. <br/

Cost-effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors in Parkinson’s disease

Background: The PD MED study reported small but persistent benefits in patient‐rated mobility scores and quality of life from initiating therapy with levodopa compared with levodopa‐sparing therapies in early Parkinson's disease (PD). Objectives: The objective was to estimate the cost‐effectiveness of levodopa‐sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors compared with levodopa alone. Methods: PD MED is a pragmatic, open‐label randomized, controlled trial in which patients newly diagnosed with PD were randomly assigned between levodopa‐sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors ) and levodopa alone. Mean quality‐adjusted life‐years and costs were calculated for each participant. Differences in mean quality‐adjusted life‐years and costs between levodopa and levodopa‐sparing therapies and between dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors were estimated using linear regression. Results: Over a mean observation period of 4 years, levodopa was associated with significantly higher quality‐adjusted life‐years (difference, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05–0.30; P &lt; 0.01) and lower mean costs (£3390; £2671–£4109; P &lt; 0.01) than levodopa‐sparing therapies, the difference in costs driven by the higher costs of levodopa‐sparing therapies. There were no significant differences in the costs of inpatient, social care, and institutional care between arms. There was no significant difference in quality‐adjusted life‐years between those allocated dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (0.02; −0.17 to 0.13 in favor of dopamine agonists; P = 0.81); however costs were significantly lower for those allocated monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (£2321; £1628–£3015; P &lt; 0.01) because of the higher costs of dopamine agonists. There were no significant differences between arms for other costs. Conclusions: Initial treatment with levodopa is highly cost‐effective compared with levodopa‐sparing therapies. Monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors, as initial levodopa‐sparing therapy was more cost‐effective, with similar quality‐adjusted life‐years but lower costs than dopamine agonists

Rating the intelligibility of dysarthic speech amongst people with Parkinson’s Disease: a comparison of trained and untrained listeners

Intelligibility of speech is a key outcome in speech and language therapy (SLT) and research. SLT students frequently participate as raters of intelligibility but we lack information about whether they rate intelligibility in the same way as the general public. This paper aims to determine if there is a difference in the intelligibility ratings made by SLT students (trained in speech related topics) compared to individuals from the general public (untrained). The SLT students were in year 2 of a BSc programme or the first 6 months of a MSc programme. We recorded 10 speakers with Parkinson’s disease (PD) related speech reading aloud the words and sentences from the Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech. These speech recordings were rated for intelligibility by ‘trained’ raters and ‘untrained’ raters. The effort required to understand the speech was also reported. There were no significant differences in the measures of intelligibility from the trained and untrained raters for words or sentences after adjusting for speaker by including them as a covariate in the model. There was a slight increase in effort reported by the untrained raters for the sentences. This difference in reported effort was not evident with the words. SLT students can be recruited alongside individuals from the general public as naïve raters for evaluating intelligibility in people with speech disorders