Melodic Intonation Therapy in subacute aphasia

Melodic Intonation Therapy (MIT) is based on the observation that persons with severe nonfluent aphasia are often able to sing words or even short phrases they cannot produce during speech. MIT uses the melodic elements of speech, such as intonation and rhythm, to facilitate and improve language production. Although clinicians disagree about the usefulness of MIT, it has been translated into several languages and is frequently applied worldwide. Many studies have reported successful application of MIT. However, most studies are case-studies without control condition in chronic patients. Hence, the level of evidence for MIT is low and little is known about its effect in earlier phases post stroke, when treatment interacts with processes of spontaneous recovery. We examined MIT in the subacute phase post stroke. The purpose of this multicenter study was threefold. First, we evaluated the efficacy of MIT in the subacute phase. Further, we examined the effect of the timing of MIT in this early phase post stroke. Thirdly, we investigated potential determinants influencing therapy outcome

Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study (RATS) - 3: " The efficacy of intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy in the acute stage of aphasia"; design of a randomised controlled trial

Background: Aphasia is a severely disabling condition occurring in 20 to 25% of stroke patients. Most patients with aphasia due to stroke receive speech and language therapy. Methodologically sound randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of specific interventions for patients with aphasia following stroke are scarce.

Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy versus Intensive Semantic Treatment in Fluent Aphasia

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of two intensive therapy methods: Constraint- 4 Induced Aphasia Therapy (CIAT) and semantic therapy (BOX). Method: Nine patients with chronic fluent aphasia participated in a therapy programme 6 to establish behavioral treatment outcomes. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups (CIAT or BOX). Results: Intensive therapy significantly improved verbal communication. However, BOX 9 treatment showed a more pronounced improvement on two communication measures, namely on a standardized assessment for verbal communication, the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (Blomert, Koster, & Kean, 1995) and on a subjective rating scale, the Communicative Effectiveness Index (Lomas et al., 1989). All 13 participants significantly improved on one (or more) subtests of the Aachen Aphasia Test (Graetz et al., 1992), an impairment-focused assessment. There was a treatment-specific effect. Therapy with BOX had a significant effect on language comprehension and on semantics, while of CIAT affected language production and phonology. Conclusion: The findings indicate that in patients with fluent aphasia (1) intensive treatment has a significant effect on language and verbal communication, (2) intensive therapy results in selective treatment effects and (3) an intensive semantic treatment shows a more striking mean improvement on verbal communication in comparison to communication-based CIAT-treatment

A systematic review of aphasia therapy provided in the early period of post-stroke recovery

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to examine the effects of aphasia therapy on language and/or communication outcome measures when treatment was initiated within four months post-onset. The review evaluated the methodological quality of relevant studies and summarised the findings of the high-quality studies according to three clinical questions about the provision of aphasia treatment in the early period of recovery: (1) Is treatment better than no treatment? (2) Is one type of treatment more effective than another? (3) Do different treatment intensities result in different outcomes? Methods: A literature search was performed for articles in which aphasia treatments were initiated fewer than four months post-aphasia onset and evaluated with a control or comparison group. Two authors rated the studies on defined methodological quality criteria and extracted data for addressing the clinical questions. Results: A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen of the studies received high-quality ratings. Nine studies provided data addressing clinical question 1; however, only four of them were considered as high-quality studies. Results from the high-quality studies were mixed: two studies demonstrated treatment efficacy for early aphasia therapy, and two studies found no differences in outcome measures between participants who received treatment and a no-treatment control. Eleven studies provided data addressing clinical question 2; six of them were considered as high-quality. None of the eleven treatment-comparison studies found that one type of treatment resulted in greater gains compared to another type of treatment on primary outcome measures. Finally, six studies contributed data for addressing clinical question 3; all of them were considered as high-quality studies. Five studies found no significant difference in outcomes between participants assigned to lower- and higher-intensive weekly treatment schedules, and one study reported superior findings in outcomes when participants received less intensive treatment. Conclusion: This review found mixed results across studies that examined whether early aphasia treatment improved language/communication outcomes more than no treatment. The review also found that when different types of aphasia treatments were compared, no treatment was more efficacious than another treatment and that increasing the weekly intensity of treatment beyond 2–5 hours did not improve outcomes on language/communication measures. The review highlights the need for additional research on the effects of early aphasia therapy. We suggest that future research considers participant characteristics that might influence how a person will respond to a specific therapeutic approach and intensity