Effectiveness of Intensive Aphasia Therapy Under Routine Clinical Conditions (FCET2EC)

April 24, 2026 updated by: University Hospital Muenster

From Controlled Experimental Trial to Everyday Communication: How Effective is Intensive Aphasia Therapy Under Routine Clinical Conditions?

The purpose of this study is to examine whether 3 weeks of intensive language therapy provided in clinical in- and outpatient settings is effective in improving everyday communication in postacute/chronic post-stroke aphasia, as measured by performance on the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT).

Study Overview

Detailed Description

Aims of the study:

This multicenter randomized placebo-controlled study aims to examine whether integrative intensive (> 10 hours/week for at least 3 weeks) language and communication therapy administered under routine clinical conditions translates into a statistically significant functional improvement of everyday communication in patients with chronic aphasia (i.e., aphasia persisting for 6 or more months after the stroke). A further aim is to examine whether therapy-induced improvements are still maintained over a period of six months. The study's results may lead to more targeted treatment regimens and thus to an enhancement of health-related quality of life in persons with chronic aphasia. The data will further provide evidence-based guidelines of best practice in the rehabilitation of persons with chronic aphasia.

Methods:

Fourteen in- and outpatient rehabilitation centres across Germany participate in the study. Via a digital randomization procedure, patients are allocated to one of two groups: an experimental group, starting as soon as feasible with treatment lasting 3 to 6 weeks, and a waiting list control group, whose therapy begins after a three-week delay. Both groups receive a combination of language systematic and communicative-pragmatic language therapy. Everyday language ability will be examined with a standardized outcome measure, and compared between groups at several points: immediately before as well as immediately after and 6 months after completion of (3-6 weeks) intensive language therapy.

Statistical analyses:

The primary analysis compares the changes in functional communication ability (as indicated by changes of pre- to post-therapy functional communication scores on the primary outcome measure, the ANELT) between the experimental and the waiting list control group in an intention-to-treat (ITT) design. To balance for unequal treatment durations across patient ("naturalistic treatment setting"), the critical pre- to post therapy interval is fixed at three weeks, with the option of extension of therapy (provided it is granted by the sickness fund) and re-test after termination of therapy. The long-term stability of potential treatment gains will be re-evaluated 6 months post therapy.

Further exploratory analyses will examine therapy-induced changes in secondary outcome measures (see below) in the experimental compared to the waiting list control group.

Considering that age, gender, time post stroke onset, aphasia type (fluent, non-fluent), aphasia severity (based on the Aachen Aphasia Test [AAT] profile score), baseline cognitive status, the total hours of therapy provided, type of stroke (cortical strokes with or without subcortical involvement), the amount of therapy-concomitant self-administered language practice (e.g. computer-aided practice), and concurrent physio- and neuropsychological therapies might influence functional outcome, the above factors will be included in a multivariate analysis with variable selection. The amount of outpatient therapy provided after discharge from intensive treatment will be statistically controlled by covariate analyses.

Finally, the investigators expect that therapy effects in the waiting list control group will be comparable to those of the experimental group. Thus, after initiation of therapy in the control group after a three-week delay, outcome data will be collected in analogy to the experimental group, and will serve to replicate potential effects of intensive language therapy under routine clinical conditions.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

156

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • North Rhine-Westfalia
      • Münster, North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany, 48149
        • University of Muenster

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 70 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • presence of aphasia for at least 6 months after non-hemorrhagic or hemorrhagic cortical or subcortical-cortical stroke
  • native language German
  • participant's comprehension ability needs to be sufficiently high to give informed consent
  • participant's language abilities have to allow the administration of the Aachen Aphasia Test (AAT)

Exclusion Criteria:

  • aphasia due to non-vascular etiology
  • no evidence for aphasia (based on AAT subtests 'Token Test' and 'Written Language'
  • severe untreated medical conditions which prohibit participation in intensive language therapy
  • severe vision or hearing problems (uncorrected)
  • participation in another interventional or language therapy study within four weeks before potential enrollment

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Intensive aphasia therapy group
Group starts intensive integrative aphasia therapy within 3 workdays (or as soon as possible) after baseline exam
Intensive language therapy (3 weeks, 5 days/week, >=2 hours/day) provided in regular clinical setting and consisting of a combination of language systematic and communicative-pragmatic treatment
Other: Waiting list control group
Group starts intensive integrative aphasia therapy after a waiting period of at least three weeks
Control group starts intensive language therapy after a 3-week waiting period.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Changes on the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) - A-scale
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
Mean gain in ANELT understandability scores (ANELT A-scale; using the parallel versions ANELT-I and ANELT-II)
Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
morbidity measure: changes in language-systematic aphasia screening (SAPS)
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores on:

a (yet unpublished) test to assess language performance in 2 language modalities (perception, production) and 3 language levels (phonological, lexical, morphosyntactic). There are 3 different levels of complexity for each combination of modality and language level. Performance is thus assessed in 18 language domains (2x3x3).

Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
morbidity measure: changes in communicative-pragmatic screening (KOPS)
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores on:

an (yet unpublished) test measuring verbal and nonverbal performance in daily life communicative activities of increasing complexity

Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
morbidity measure: changes in Modified Rankin Scale
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores in:

the degree of disability or dependence in daily activities

Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
quality of life measure: changes in German version of the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 (SAQOL-39)
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores on:

Health-related quality of life questionnaire adapted for persons with aphasia

Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
quality of life measure: changes in Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI) and the ANELT partner communication questionnaire
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy.

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores on:

ratings of functional communication ability by relatives of persons with aphasia

Baseline is compared to performance 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy.
morbidity measure: changes in nonverbal cognitive functions
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores on:

  • Nonverbal Learning Test (NVLT)
  • Trail Making Test
  • Verbal Fluency Test
Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
quality of life measure: changes in Visual analog mood scales (VAMS)
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Changes from pre- to post therapy of scores on:

assessment of mood visual analog scales (adapted for persons with aphasia)

Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
changes in Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) - B-scale
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
Mean gain in ANELT intelligibility scores (ANELT B-scale; using the parallel versions ANELT-I and ANELT-II)
Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
changes in Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) - syntactic rating
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
Mean gain in syntactic rating scores (syntax rating criteria based on AAT subtest "spontaneous speech") for the ANELT scenarios (using the parallel versions ANELT-I and ANELT-II)
Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
changes in Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) - nonverbal communication rating
Time Frame: Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)
Mean gain in nonverbal rating scores (criteria based on "Scenario Test") for the ANELT scenarios (using the parallel versions ANELT-I and ANELT-II)
Baseline is compared to performance immediately and 6 months post 3 weeks of intensive language therapy. Patients with at least 5 weeks of therapy, performance will also be assessed after therapy completion (on average 6 weeks)

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Annette Baumgaertner, PhD, Hochschule Fresenius University of Applied Science
  • Principal Investigator: Caterina Breitenstein, PhD, Neurology, University of Muenster
  • Study Director: Agnes Floel, MD, Neurology, Universitätsmedizin Charite, CCM, Berlin
  • Principal Investigator: Wolfram Ziegler, PhD, Clinical Neuropsychology Research Group (EKN), Klinikum Bogenhausen, München
  • Principal Investigator: Tanja Grewe, PhD, Hochschule Fresenius University of Applied Sciences

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

April 1, 2012

Primary Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2015

Study Completion (Actual)

January 1, 2015

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 6, 2012

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 22, 2012

First Posted (Estimated)

February 28, 2012

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

April 30, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 24, 2026

Last Verified

April 1, 2026

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Stroke

Clinical Trials on Intensive integrative aphasia therapy

Subscribe