The Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP)

June 15, 2022 updated by: Leora Cherney, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

The Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP): A Randomized Clinical Trial

The purpose of this study is to conduct a randomized clinical trial that assesses the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of an Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP), specifically focusing on the variable of intensity. Half of the participants will receive 60 hours of intensive treatment over three weeks, while the other half will receive the same amount and type of comprehensive treatment distributed over 15 weeks.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Detailed Description

Recent research has emphasized the need for intensive aphasia treatment in order to make the long-term neuroplastic changes associated with recovery and rehabilitation following a stroke. Furthermore, studies have indicated that intensive aphasia treatment is more efficacious than less intensive treatment. Rather than being influenced by such evidence, the reality is that public and private payers are drastically reducing services to persons with aphasia (PWA). Legislation has seriously curtailed the amount of treatment a PWA may receive after hospitalization. Often patients are eligible for only a limited number of treatment sessions over a limited period of time. In some cases, they may not receive any treatment for their communication disorder following their acute hospitalization. Reduced resources (e.g. transportation difficulties, therapist shortages in rural areas) also may severely limit available services.

The Intensive Comprehensive Aphasia Program (ICAP) may be a creative, cost-effective and sustainable option for delivering meaningful and necessary aphasia services. Despite the growing numbers of ICAPs, there is little evidence about their efficacy, effectiveness, or cost-effectiveness. All stakeholders need this evidence. Funding agencies require evidence to make decisions about their investments in aphasia rehabilitation. People with aphasia and their families should have evidence prior to investing their money and time into such programs, and speech and language pathologists have an ethical obligation to provide evidence-based practices.

Based on evidence regarding treatment intensity that has translated principles of neuroplasticity from animal models to stroke recovery, the investigators hypothesize that 60 hours of comprehensive treatment will result in significant improvements in (a) performance-based, (b) client-reported, and (c) surrogate-reported assessments of communication skills, community participation, and health-related quality of life. They also hypothesize that when 60 hours of comprehensive treatment is provided intensively over 3 weeks, the magnitude and rate of improvement as well as the extent to which improvements are maintained will be greater than when the 60 hours of comprehensive treatment is distributed over 15 weeks. Because the investigators hypothesize that the magnitude and rate of improvement will be greater with the intensive ICAP than with the distributed ICAP, they further hypothesize that the intensive ICAP will be more cost-effective than the distributed ICAP.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

56

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

    • Illinois
      • Chicago, Illinois, United States, 60611
        • Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

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 and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. diagnosis of an aphasia subsequent to a left-hemisphere infarct that is confirmed by CT scan or MRI
  2. an Aphasia Quotient score on the Western Aphasia Battery of 20-85.
  3. 6 months post injury
  4. premorbidly fluent in English
  5. receiving no concomitant speech-language therapy

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. diagnosis of Global aphasia
  2. any other neurological condition (other than cerebral vascular disease) that could potentially affect cognition or speech, such as Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's disease and other dementias, or traumatic brain injury
  3. any significant psychiatric history prior to the stroke, such as severe major depression or psychotic disorder requiring hospitalization (subjects with mood disorders who are currently stable on treatment will be considered)
  4. active substance abuse.

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 Comprehensive Aphasia Program
60 hours of comprehensive speech and language therapy applied intensively, 4 hours per day, 5 days a week for three weeks.

Includes:

  • one hour of individual therapy using a multimodality treatment called Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) that simultaneously targets semantics (word retrieval) and syntax (sentence construction);
  • one hour of constraint induced language therapy (CILT) where participants are paired and practice requesting and providing specific information using only spoken language;
  • one hour in the computer lab working on programs called Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA) and AphasiaScripts; and
  • one hour in a conversation group that emphasizes multimodality communication
Active Comparator: Distributed Comprehensive Aphasia Tx
60 hours of comprehensive speech and language therapy distributed over 15 weeks (i.e. two 2-hour visits per week).

Includes:

  • one hour of individual therapy using a multimodality treatment called Verb Network Strengthening Treatment (VNeST) that simultaneously targets semantics (word retrieval) and syntax (sentence construction);
  • one hour of constraint induced language therapy (CILT) where participants are paired and practice requesting and providing specific information using only spoken language;
  • one hour in the computer lab working on programs called Oral Reading for Language in Aphasia (ORLA) and AphasiaScripts; and
  • one hour in a conversation group that emphasizes multimodality communication

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Language Quotient of the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R LQ)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
Includes a measure of auditory comprehension, oral expression, reading and written expression skills. Change from baseline to post-treatment and follow-up is reported.
Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Language Quotient of the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised (WAB-R LQ)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
Includes a measure of auditory comprehension, oral expression, reading and writing
Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
A pictographic self-report measure designed to assess outcomes associated with the impact of aphasia on daily life.
Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
A pictographic self-report measure designed to assess outcomes associated with the impact of aphasia on daily life.
Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
The Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
Self-reported measure that assesses perceived confidence in a variety of different communication situations and with different people. Scores range from 0 - 40, with higher scores indicating greater perceived confidence.
Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
The Communication Confidence Rating Scale for Aphasia (CCRSA)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
Self-reported measure that assesses perceived confidence in a variety of different communication situations and with different people. Scores range from 0 - 40, with higher scores indicating greater perceived confidence.
Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
The Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
A proxy-reported 16 visual analogue scale items that assess areas of functional communication in the participant's living environment. Scores range from 0 - 100, with higher scores indicating better communication effectiveness.
Change from pre-treatment to post-treatment (i.e. following completion of 60 hours of treatment at 3 weeks or 15 weeks depending on group assignment)
The Communicative Effectiveness Index (CETI)
Time Frame: Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up
A proxy-reported 16 visual analogue scale items that assess areas of functional communication in the participant's living environment. Scores range from 0 - 100, with higher scores indicating better communication effectiveness.
Change from pre-treatment to 3 month follow-up

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Collaborators

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Leora Cherney, PhD, Shirley Ryan AbilityLab

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 (Actual)

July 15, 2015

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 1, 2019

Study Completion (Actual)

June 1, 2022

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 17, 2018

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 30, 2018

First Posted (Actual)

May 2, 2018

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

June 21, 2022

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 15, 2022

Last Verified

June 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

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 Speech and Language Therapy

3
Subscribe