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

Oral and written picture description in individuals with aphasia

Aim: To explore the differences between the oral and written description of a picture in individuals with chronic aphasia (IWA) and healthy controls. Descriptions were controlled for productivity, efficiency, grammatical organization, substitution behavior and discourse organization. Method: 50 IWA and 50 healthy controls matched for age, gender and education, provided an oral and written description of a black and white situational drawing from the Dutch version of the Comprehensive Aphasia Test. Between- and within-group analyses were carried out and the reliability of the test instrument was assessed. Results: The language samples of the healthy controls were more elaborate, more efficient, syntactically richer, more coherent and consisted of fewer spoken and written language errors than the samples of the IWA. Within-group comparisons showed that connected writing is more sensitive than connected speech to capture aphasic symptoms. Conclusion: The analysis of both modalities (speech and writing) at discourse level allows to simultaneously assess microlinguistic and macrolinguistic skills and their potential interrelations in a given IWA. Connected writing appears to be more sensitive in discriminating IWA from healthy controls than connected speech. This method for analyzing language samples should, however, be used in conjunction with other assessment tools

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 Brady et al. 2016 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

Cross-linguistic adaptations of The Comprehensive Aphasia Test: Challenges and solutions

Comparative research on aphasia and aphasia rehabilitation is challenged by the lack of comparable assessment tools across different languages. In English, a large array of tools is available, while in most other languages, the selection is more limited. Importantly, assessment tools are often simple translations and do not take into consideration specific linguistic and psycholinguistic parameters of the target languages. As a first step in meeting the needs for comparable assessment tools, the Comprehensive Aphasia Test is currently being adapted into a number of languages spoken in Europe. In this article, some key challenges encountered in the adaptation process and the solutions to ensure that the resulting assessment tools are linguistically and culturally equivalent, are proposed. Specifically, we focus on challenges and solutions related to the use of imageability, frequency, word length, spelling-to-sound regularity and sentence length and complexity as underlying properties in the selection of the testing material

Protocol for the development of the international population registry for aphasia after stroke (I-PRAISE)

Background: We require high-quality information on the current burden, the types of therapy and resources available, methods of delivery, care pathways and long-term outcomes for people with aphasia. Aim: To document and inform international delivery of post-stroke aphasia treatment, to optimise recovery and reintegration of people with aphasia. Methods & Procedures: Multi-centre, prospective, non-randomised, open study, employing blinded outcome assessment, where appropriate, including people with post-stroke aphasia, able to attend for 30 minutes during the initial language assessment, at first contact with a speech and language therapist for assessment of aphasia at participating sites. There is no study-mandated intervention. Assessments will occur at baseline (first contact with a speech and language therapist for aphasia assessment), discharge from Speech and Language Therapy (SLT), 6 and 12-months post-stroke. Our primary outcome is changed from baseline in the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT/Scenario Test for participants with severe verbal impairments) at 12-months post-stroke. Secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months include the Therapy Outcome Measure (TOMS), Subjective Index of Physical and Social Outcome (SIPSO), Aphasia Severity Rating Scale (ASRS), Western Aphasia Battery Aphasia Quotient (WAB-AQ), stroke and aphasia quality of life scale (SAQoL-39), European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D), lesion description, General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), resource use, and satisfaction with therapy provision and success. We will collect demography, clinical data, and therapy content. Routine neuroimaging and medication administration records will be accessed where possible; imaging will be pseudonymised and transferred to a central reading centre. Data will be collected in a central registry. We will describe demography, stroke and aphasia profiles and therapies available. International individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses will examine treatment responder rates based on minimal detectable change & clinically important changes from baseline for primary and secondary outcomes at 6 and 12 months. Multivariable meta-analyses will examine associations between demography, therapy, medication use and outcomes, considering service characteristics. Where feasible, costs associated with treatment will be reported. Where available, we will detail brain lesion size and site, and examine correlations with SLT and language outcome at 12 months. Conclusion: International differences in care, resource utilisation and outcomes will highlight avenues for further aphasia research, promote knowledge sharing and optimise aphasia rehabilitation delivery. IPD meta-analyses will enhance and expand understanding, identifying cost-effective and promising approaches to optimise rehabilitation to benefit people with aphasia

Measuring communication as a core outcome in aphasia trials: Results of the ROMA-2 international core outcome set development meeting

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based recommendations for a core outcome set (COS; minimum set of outcomes) for aphasia treatment research have been developed (the Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia-ROMA, COS). Five recommended core outcome constructs: communication, language, quality of life, emotional well-being and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment, were identified through three international consensus studies. Constructs were paired with outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) during an international consensus meeting (ROMA-1). Before the current study (ROMA-2), agreement had not been reached on OMIs for the constructs of communication or patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment. AIM: To establish consensus on a communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Research methods were based on recommendations from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative. Participants with expertise in design and conduct of aphasia trials, measurement instrument development/testing and/or communication outcome measurement were recruited through an open call. Before the consensus meeting, participants agreed on a definition of communication, identified appropriate OMIs, extracted their measurement properties and established criteria for their quality assessment. During the consensus meeting they short-listed OMIs and participants without conflicts of interest voted on the two most highly ranked instruments. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by ≥ 70% of participants. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: In total, 40 researchers from nine countries participated in ROMA-2 (including four facilitators and three-panel members who participated in pre-meeting activities only). A total of 20 OMIs were identified and evaluated. Eight short-listed communication measures were further evaluated for their measurement properties and ranked. Participants in the consensus meeting (n = 33) who did not have conflicts of interest (n = 29) voted on the top two ranked OMIs: The Scenario Test (TST) and the Communication Activities of Daily Living-3 (CADL-3). TST received 72% (n = 21) of 'yes' votes and the CADL-3 received 28% (n = 8) of 'yes' votes. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Consensus was achieved that TST was the preferred communication OMI for inclusion in the ROMA COS. It is currently available in the original Dutch version and has been adapted into English, German and Greek. Further consideration must be given to the best way to measure communication in people with mild aphasia. Development of a patient-reported measure for satisfaction with/impact of treatment and multilingual versions of all OMIs of the COS is still required. Implementation of the ROMA COS would improve research outcome measurement and the quality, relevance, transparency, replicability and efficiency of aphasia treatment research. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject International consensus has been reached on five core constructs to be routinely measured in aphasia treatment studies. International consensus has also been established for OMIs for the three constructs of language, quality of life and emotional well-being. Before this study, OMIs for the constructs of communication and patient-reported satisfaction/impact of treatment were not established. What this paper adds to existing knowledge We gained international consensus on an OMI for the construct of communication. TST is recommended for inclusion in the ROMA COS for routine use in aphasia treatment research. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The ROMA COS recommends OMIs for a minimum set of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phases I-IV aphasia treatment research. Although not intended for clinical use, clinicians may employ the instruments of the ROMA COS, considering the quality of their measurement properties. The systematic inclusion of a measure of communication, such as TST, in clinical practice could ultimately support the implementation of research evidence and best practices

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

The Naming Assessment in Multicultural Europe (NAME): Development and Validation in a Multicultural Memory Clinic

Objective: Traditional naming tests are unsuitable to assess naming impairment in diverse populations, given the influence of culture, language, and education on naming performance. Our goal was therefore to develop and validate a new test to assess naming impairment in diverse populations: the Naming Assessment in Multicultural Europe (NAME). Method: We carried out a multistage pilot study. First, we generated a list of 149 potentially suitable items - e.g. from published cross-linguistic word lists and other naming tests - and selected those with a homogeneous age of acquisition and word frequency across languages. We selected three to four colored photographs for each of the 73 remaining items; 194 controls selected the most suitable photographs. Thirteen items were removed after a pilot study in 15 diverse healthy controls. The final 60-item test was validated in 39 controls and 137 diverse memory clinic patients with subjective cognitive impairment, neurological/neurodegenerative disease or psychiatric disorders in the Netherlands and Turkey (mean age: 67, SD: 11). Patients were from 15 different countries; the majority completed primary education or less (53%). Results: The NAME showed excellent reliability (Spearman-Brown coefficient: 0.95; Kuder-Richardson coefficient: 0.94) and robust correlations with other language tests (rho = .35-.73). Patients with AD/mixed dementia obtained lower scores on most (48/60) NAME items, with an area under the curve of 0.88. NAME scores were correlated with age and education, but not with acculturation or sex. Conclusions: The NAME is a promising tool to assess naming impairment in culturally, educationally, and linguistically diverse individuals