FCET2EC (From controlled experimental trial to = 2 everyday communication): How effective is intensive integrative therapy for stroke-induced chronic aphasia under routine clinical conditions? A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Annette Baumgaertner, Tanja Grewe, Wolfram Ziegler, Agnes Floel, Luise Springer, Peter Martus, Caterina Breitenstein, Annette Baumgaertner, Tanja Grewe, Wolfram Ziegler, Agnes Floel, Luise Springer, Peter Martus, Caterina Breitenstein

Abstract

Background: Therapy guidelines recommend speech and language therapy (SLT) as the "gold standard" for aphasia treatment. Treatment intensity (i.e., ≥5 hours of SLT per week) is a key predictor of SLT outcome. The scientific evidence to support the efficacy of SLT is unsatisfactory to date given the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT), particularly with respect to chronic aphasia (lasting for >6 months after initial stroke). This randomized waiting list-controlled multi-centre trial examines whether intensive integrative language therapy provided in routine in- and outpatient clinical settings is effective in improving everyday communication in chronic post-stroke aphasia.

Methods/design: Participants are men and women aged 18 to 70 years, at least 6 months post an ischemic or haemorrhagic stroke resulting in persisting language impairment (i.e., chronic aphasia); 220 patients will be screened for participation, with the goal of including at least 126 patients during the 26-month recruitment period. Basic language production and comprehension abilities need to be preserved (as assessed by the Aachen Aphasia Test).Therapy consists of language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic exercises for at least 2 hours/day and at least 10 hours/week, plus at least 1 hour self-administered training per day, for at least three weeks. Contents of therapy are adapted to patients' individual impairment profiles.Prior to and immediately following the therapy/waiting period, patients' individual language abilities are assessed via primary and secondary outcome measures. The primary (blinded) outcome measure is the A-scale (informational content, or 'understandability', of the message) of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), a standardized measure of functional communication ability. Secondary (unblinded) outcome measures are language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic language screenings and questionnaires assessing life quality as viewed by the patient as well as a relative.The primary analysis tests for differences between the therapy group and an untreated (waiting list) control group with respect to pre- versus post 3-week-therapy (or waiting period, respectively) scores on the ANELT A-scale. Statistical between-group comparisons of primary and secondary outcome measures will be conducted in intention-to-treat analyses.Long-term stability of treatment effects will be assessed six months post intensive SLT (primary and secondary endpoints).

Trial registration: Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier NCT01540383.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial design.

References

    1. Teasell R, Meyer MJ, McClure A, Pan C, Murie-Fernandez M, Foley N, Salter K. Stroke rehabilitation: an international perspective. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2009;16:44–56. doi: 10.1310/tsr1601-44.
    1. Cherney LR, Patterson JP, Raymer A, Frymark T, Schooling T. Evidence-based systematic review: effects of intensity of treatment and constraint-induced language therapy for individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51:1282–1299. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2008/07-0206). An updated version of the original review dated October 2010 is available at .
    1. Salter K, Teasell R, Bhogal S, Zettler L, Foley N. Aphasia. Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation. 15. 2012. .
    1. Lesniak M, Bak T, Czepiel W, Seniow J, Czlonkowska A. Frequency and prognostic value of cognitive disorders in stroke patients. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2008;26:356–363. doi: 10.1159/000162262.
    1. Laska AC, Hellblom A, Murray V, Kahan T, Von Arbin M. Aphasia in acute stroke and relation to outcome. J Intern Med. 2001;249:413–422. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00812.x.
    1. Pedersen PM, Vinter K, Olsen TS. Aphasia after stroke: type, severity and prognosis. The Copenhagen aphasia study. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004;17:35–43.
    1. Ferro JM, Mariano G, Madureira S. Recovery from aphasia and neglect. Cerebrovasc Dis. 1999;9(Suppl 5):6–22.
    1. Hilari K, Northcott S, Roy P, Marshall J, Wiggins RD, Chataway J, Ames D. Psychological distress after stroke and aphasia: the first six months. Clin Rehabil. 2010;24:181–190. doi: 10.1177/0269215509346090.
    1. Hofgren C, Bjorkdahl A, Esbjornsson E, Sunnerhagen KS. Recovery after stroke: cognition, ADL function and return to work. Acta Neurol Scand. 2007;115:73–80.
    1. Kolominsky-Rabas PL, Heuschmann PU, Marschall D, Emmert M, Baltzer N, Neundörfer B, Schöffski O, Krobot KJ. Lifetime cost of ischemic stroke in Germany: results and national projections from a population-based stroke registry: the Erlangen stroke project. Stroke. 2006;37:1179–1183. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000217450.21310.90.
    1. Cherney LR. Aphasia treatment: intensity, dose parameters, and script training. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012;14:424–431. doi: 10.3109/17549507.2012.686629.
    1. Brady MC, Kelly H, Godwin J, Enderby P. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;5 CD000425.
    1. Bhogal SK, Teasell R, Speechley M. Intensity of aphasia therapy, impact on recovery. Stroke. 2003;34:987–993. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000062343.64383.D0.
    1. Frattali CM. Measuring Outcomes in Speech-Language Pathology. New York: Thieme; 1998.
    1. Dollaghan CA. The Handbook for Evidence-Based Practice in Communication Disorders. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Co.; 2007.
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. 2001.
    1. Springer L. In: Handbook of the Neuroscience of Language. 1. Stemmer B, Whitaker HA, editor. San Diego: Elsevier; 2008. Therapeutic approaches in aphasia rehabilitation; pp. 397–406.
    1. Byng S. Integrating therapies. Adv in Speech-Lang Pathol. 2001;3:67–71. doi: 10.3109/14417040109003713.
    1. Moriz M, Geißler M, Grewe T. In: ICF in der Sprachtherapie [ICF in Speech Therapy] Grötzbach H, Iven C, editor. Idstein: Schulz-Kirchner Verlag; 2009. ICF in der Stationären Aphasietherapie; pp. 39–59.
    1. Meinzer M, Elbert T, Wienbruch C, Djundja D, Barthel G, Rockstroh B. Intensive language training enhances brain plasticity in chronic aphasia. BMC Biol. 2004;2:20. doi: 10.1186/1741-7007-2-20.
    1. Barthel G, Meinzer M, Djundja D, Rockstroh B. Intensive language therapy in chronic aphasia: which aspects contribute most? Aphasiology. 2008;22:408–421. doi: 10.1080/02687030701415880.
    1. Meinzer M, Djundja D, Barthel G, Elbert T, Rockstroh B. Long-term stability of improved language functions in chronic aphasia after constraint-induced aphasia therapy. Stroke. 2005;36:1462–1466. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000169941.29831.2a.
    1. Bowen A, Bowen A, Hesketh A, Patchick E, Young A, Davies L, Vail A, Long AF, Watkins C, Wilkinson M, Pearl G, Ralph MA, Tyrrell P. Effectiveness of enhanced communication therapy in the first four months after stroke for aphasia and dysarthria: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2012;345:e4407. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4407.
    1. de Jong-Hagelstein M, van de Sandt-Koenderman WME, Prins ND, Dippel DWJ, Koudstaal PJ, Visch-Brink EG. Efficacy of early cognitive–linguistic treatment and communicative treatment in aphasia after stroke: a randomised controlled trial (RATS-2) J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011;82:399–404. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2010.210559.
    1. Laska AC, Kahan T, Hellbolm A, Murray V, von Arbin M. A randomized controlled trial on very early speech and language therapy in acute stroke patients with aphasia. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2011;1:66–74. doi: 10.1159/000329835.
    1. Hansson L, Hedner T, Dahlöf B. Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study. A novel design for intervention trials. Blood Press. 1992;1:113–119. doi: 10.3109/08037059209077502.
    1. Huber W, Poeck K, Weniger D, Willmes K. Aachener Aphasie Test. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1983.
    1. Blomert L, Kean ML, Koster C, Schokker J. Amsterdam Nijmegen everyday language test construction, reliability and validity. Aphasiology. 1994;8:381–407. doi: 10.1080/02687039408248666.
    1. Hilari K, Byng S, Lamping DL, Smith SC. Stroke and aphasia quality of life scale-39 (SAQOL-39): evaluation of acceptability, reliability, and validity. Stroke. 2003;34:1944–1950. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000081987.46660.ED.
    1. Lomas J, Pickard L, Bester S, Elbard H, Finlayson A, Zoghaib C. The communicative effectiveness index: development and psychometric evaluation of a functional communication measure for adult aphasia. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54:113–124.
    1. van der Meulen I, van de Sandt-Koenderman WM, Duivenvoorden HJ, Ribbers GM. Measuring verbal and non-verbal communication in aphasia: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the scenario test. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2010;45:424–435. doi: 10.3109/13682820903111952.
    1. Blomert L, Koster C. Amsterdam-Nijmegen Test Voor Alledaagse Taalvaardigheden - Handleiding. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hogrefe; 2008.
    1. van Buuren S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton, USA: CRC Press, Francis & Taylor Group; 2012.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever