Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the Big CACTUS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with aphasia may improve their communication with speech and language therapy many months/years after stroke. However, NHS speech and language therapy reduces in availability over time post stroke. OBJECTIVE: This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of self-managed computerised speech and language therapy to provide additional therapy. DESIGN: A pragmatic, superiority, single-blind, parallel-group, individually randomised (stratified block randomisation, stratified by word-finding severity and site) adjunct trial. SETTING: Twenty-one UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. PARTICIPANTS: People with post-stroke aphasia (diagnosed by a speech and language therapist) with long-standing (> 4 months) word-finding difficulties. INTERVENTIONS: The groups were (1) usual care; (2) daily self-managed computerised word-finding therapy tailored by speech and language therapists and supported by volunteers/speech and language therapy assistants for 6 months plus usual care (computerised speech and language therapy); and (3) activity/attention control (completion of puzzles and receipt of telephone calls from a researcher for 6 months) plus usual care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary outcomes - change in ability to find treated words of personal relevance in a bespoke naming test (impairment) and change in functional communication in conversation rated on the activity scale of the Therapy Outcome Measures (activity) 6 months after randomisation. A key secondary outcome was participant-rated perception of communication and quality of life using the Communication Outcomes After Stroke questionnaire at 6 months. Outcomes were assessed by speech and language therapists using standardised procedures. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using treatment costs and an accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, measuring quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 818 patients were assessed for eligibility and 278 participants were randomised between October 2014 and August 2016. A total of 240 participants (86 usual care, 83 computerised speech and language therapy, 71 attention control) contributed to modified intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months. The mean improvements in word-finding were 1.1% (standard deviation 11.2%) for usual care, 16.4% (standard deviation 15.3%) for computerised speech and language therapy and 2.4% (standard deviation 8.8%) for attention control. Computerised speech and language therapy improved word-finding 16.2% more than usual care did (95% confidence interval 12.7% to 19.6%; p < 0.0001) and 14.4% more than attention control did (95% confidence interval 10.8% to 18.1%). Most of this effect was maintained at 12 months (n = 219); the mean differences in change in word-finding score were 12.7% (95% confidence interval 8.7% to 16.7%) higher in the computerised speech and language therapy group (n = 74) than in the usual-care group (n = 84) and 9.3% (95% confidence interval 4.8% to 13.7%) higher in the computerised speech and language therapy group than in the attention control group (n = 61). Computerised speech and language therapy did not show significant improvements on the Therapy Outcome Measures or Communication Outcomes After Stroke scale compared with usual care or attention control. Primary cost-effectiveness analysis estimated an incremental cost per participant of £732.73 (95% credible interval £674.23 to £798.05). The incremental quality-adjusted life-year gain was 0.017 for computerised speech and language therapy compared with usual care, but its direction was uncertain (95% credible interval -0.05 to 0.10), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £42,686 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. For mild and moderate word-finding difficulty subgroups, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were £22,371 and £28,898 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, for computerised speech and language therapy compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: This trial excluded non-English-language speakers, the accessible EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, was not validated and the measurement of attention control fidelity was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Computerised speech and language therapy enabled additional self-managed speech and language therapy, contributing to significant improvement in finding personally relevant words (as specifically targeted by computerised speech and language therapy) long term post stroke. Gains did not lead to improvements in conversation or quality of life. Cost-effectiveness is uncertain owing to uncertainty around the quality-adjusted life-year gain, but computerised speech and language therapy may be more cost-effective for participants with mild and moderate word-finding difficulties. Exploring ways of helping people with aphasia to use new words in functional communication contexts is a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68798818. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Tavistock Trust for Aphasia provided additional support to enable people in the control groups to experience the intervention after the trial had ended.

Aphasia is a communication disorder that can be caused by a stroke. It affects a person's understanding of spoken words and their talking, reading and writing abilities. Communication may improve months, or years, after a stroke with speech and language therapy. Many patients want more speech and language therapy than the NHS can provide. The Big CACTUS (clinical and cost-effectiveness of aphasia computer treatment versus usual stimulation or attention control long term post-stroke) trial evaluated the use of speech and language therapy software for people with aphasia to practise finding words independently at home on their own computer or one loaned by the NHS. People with aphasia who had had a stroke at least 4 months previously were randomly allocated to one of three groups: usual speech and language therapy caredaily use of computerised speech and language therapy for 6 months, tailored by a speech and language therapist and supported by a volunteer or speech and language therapy assistantdaily completion of puzzles and supportive telephone calls from a researcher to mimic the activity/attention the computerised speech and language therapy group received. All groups received usual speech and language therapy. A total of 278 people with aphasia took part in this trial, from 21 UK NHS speech and language therapy departments. They had their strokes between 4 months and 36 years previously. Computerised speech and language therapy enabled more practice (28 hours on average) than usual speech and language therapy (3.8 hours). The computerised speech and language therapy group significantly improved their ability to say words they chose to practise compared with those in the usual speech and language therapy or puzzle book groups. Although computerised speech and language therapy can help people with aphasia to learn new words for years after stroke, no improvements in conversation or quality of life were seen. The cost-effectiveness for the NHS is still uncertain. However, our best estimate is that it is unlikely to be cost-effective for everyone with aphasia, but it may be cost-effective for people with mild and moderate word-finding difficulties. Next steps will focus on how to encourage use of new words in conversation to have an impact on quality of life.

Self-managed, computerised speech and language therapy for patients with chronic aphasia post-stroke compared with usual care or attention control (Big CACTUS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-stroke aphasia might improve over many years with speech and language therapy; however speech and language therapy is often less readily available beyond a few months after stroke. We assessed self-managed computerised speech and language therapy (CSLT) as a means of providing more therapy than patients can access through usual care alone. METHODS: In this pragmatic, superiority, three-arm, individually randomised, single-blind, parallel group trial, patients were recruited from 21 speech and language therapy departments in the UK. Participants were aged 18 years or older and had been diagnosed with aphasia post-stroke at least 4 months before randomisation; they were excluded if they had another premorbid speech and language disorder caused by a neurological deficit other than stroke, required treatment in a language other than English, or if they were currently using computer-based word-finding speech therapy. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to either 6 months of usual care (usual care group), daily self-managed CSLT plus usual care (CSLT group), or attention control plus usual care (attention control group) with the use of computer-generated stratified blocked randomisation (randomly ordered blocks of sizes three and six, stratified by site and severity of word finding at baseline based on CAT Naming Objects test scores). Only the outcome assessors and trial statistician were masked to the treatment allocation. The speech and language therapists who were doing the outcome assessments were different from those informing participants about which group they were assigned to and from those delivering all interventions. The statistician responsible for generating the randomisation schedule was separate from those doing the analysis. Co-primary outcomes were the change in ability to retrieve personally relevant words in a picture naming test (with 10% mean difference in change considered a priori as clinically meaningful) and the change in functional communication ability measured by masked ratings of video-recorded conversations, with the use of Therapy Outcome Measures (TOMs), between baseline and 6 months after randomisation (with a standardised mean difference in change of 0·45 considered a priori as clinically meaningful). Primary analysis was based on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included randomly assigned patients who gave informed consent and excluded those without 6-month outcome measures. Safety analysis included all participants. This trial has been completed and was registered with the ISRCTN, number ISRCTN68798818. FINDINGS: From Oct 20, 2014, to Aug 18, 2016, 818 patients were assessed for eligibility, of which 278 (34%) participants were randomly assigned (101 [36%] to the usual care group; 97 [35%] to the CSLT group; 80 [29%] to the attention control group). 86 patients in the usual care group, 83 in the CSLT group, and 71 in the attention control group contributed to the mITT. Mean word finding improvements were 1·1% (SD 11·2) in the usual care group, 16·4% (15·3) in the CSLT group, and 2·4% (8·8) in the attention control group. Word finding improvement was 16·2% (95% CI 12·7 to 19·6; p<0·0001) higher in the CSLT group than in the usual care group and was 14·4% (10·8 to 18·1) higher than in the attention control group. Mean changes in TOMs were 0·05 (SD 0·59) in the usual care group (n=84), 0·04 (0·58) in the CSLT group (n=81), and 0·10 (0·61) in the attention control group (n=68); the mean difference in change between the CSLT and usual care groups was -0·03 (-0·21 to 0·14; p=0·709) and between the CSLT and attention control groups was -0·01 (-0·20 to 0·18). The incidence of serious adverse events per year were rare with 0·23 events in the usual care group, 0·11 in the CSLT group, and 0·16 in the attention control group. 40 (89%) of 45 serious adverse events were unrelated to trial activity and the remaining five (11%) of 45 serious adverse events were classified as unlikely to be related to trial activity. INTERPRETATION: CSLT plus usual care resulted in a clinically significant improvement in personally relevant word finding but did not result in an improvement in conversation. Future studies should explore ways to generalise new vocabulary to conversation for patients with chronic aphasia post-stroke. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Tavistock Trust for Aphasia.

What speech and language therapy do community dwelling stroke survivors with aphasia receive in the UK?

BACKGROUND: Speech and language therapy provision for aphasia (a language disorder) post stroke has been studied over time through surveys completed by speech and language therapists. This paper revisits provision based on what was received by 278 patients in 21 UK speech and language therapy departments in 2014-2016. AIMS: To explore the speech and language therapy received by community dwelling people with post stroke aphasia in the UK. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A quantitative content analysis was conducted by two speech and language therapist researchers. Therapy goals recorded were coded into categories and subcategories. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the frequency with which goal categories were targeted, average therapy time received, length and frequency of therapy sessions, personnel involved and mode of delivery. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Forty-five percent of participants were in receipt of therapy in the three month window observed. Six goal categories were identified. Rehabilitation was the most frequent (60%) followed by enabling (17.2%), review (4.3%), assessment (3.6%), supportive (3.5%) and activity to support therapy (2.8%). The median amount of therapy received in three months was 6.3 hours at an average of one 60-minute session every two weeks. Seventy-seven percent of therapy sessions were delivered by qualified speech and language therapists and 23% by assistants. Ninety percent of sessions were one to one, face to face sessions whilst 9.5% were group sessions. DISCUSSION: In line with previous reports, speech and language therapy for community dwelling stroke survivors with aphasia is restricted. Rehabilitation is a large focus of therapy but the intensity and dose with which it is provided is substantially lower than that required for an effective outcome. Despite this, one to one face to face therapy is favoured. More efficient methods to support more therapeutic doses of therapy are not commonly used in routine clinical services.