Intensive speech and language therapy in patients with chronic aphasia after stroke: a randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, controlled trial in a health-care setting.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines for aphasia recommend intensive speech and language therapy for chronic (≥6 months) aphasia after stroke, but large-scale, class 1 randomised controlled trials on treatment effectiveness are scarce. We aimed to examine whether 3 weeks of intensive speech and language therapy under routine clinical conditions improved verbal communication in daily-life situations in people with chronic aphasia after stroke. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel group, superiority, open-label, blinded-endpoint, randomised controlled trial, patients aged 70 years or younger with aphasia after stroke lasting for 6 months or more were recruited from 19 inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation centres in Germany. An external biostatistician used a computer-generated permuted block randomisation method, stratified by treatment centre, to randomly assign participants to either 3 weeks or more of intensive speech and language therapy (≥10 h per week) or 3 weeks deferral of intensive speech and language therapy. The primary endpoint was between-group difference in the change in verbal communication effectiveness in everyday life scenarios (Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test A-scale) from baseline to immediately after 3 weeks of treatment or treatment deferral. All analyses were done using the modified intention-to-treat population (those who received 1 day or more of intensive treatment or treatment deferral). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01540383. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 158 patients between April 1, 2012, and May 31, 2014. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 156 patients (78 per group). Verbal communication was significantly improved from baseline to after intensive speech and language treatment (mean difference 2·61 points [SD 4·94]; 95% CI 1·49 to 3·72), but not from baseline to after treatment deferral (-0·03 points [4·04]; -0·94 to 0·88; between-group difference Cohen's d 0·58; p=0·0004). Eight patients had adverse events during therapy or treatment deferral (one car accident [in the control group], two common cold [one patient per group], three gastrointestinal or cardiac symptoms [all intervention group], two recurrent stroke [one in intervention group before initiation of treatment, and one before group assignment had occurred]); all were unrelated to study participation. INTERPRETATION: 3 weeks of intensive speech and language therapy significantly enhanced verbal communication in people aged 70 years or younger with chronic aphasia after stroke, providing an effective evidence-based treatment approach in this population. Future studies should examine the minimum treatment intensity required for meaningful treatment effects, and determine whether treatment effects cumulate over repeated intervention periods. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the German Society for Aphasia Research and Treatment.

The prevalence of apraxia of speech in chronic aphasia after stroke: A bayesian hierarchical analysis.

Apraxia of speech is a motor speech disorder that occurs after lesions to the left cerebral hemisphere, most often concomitant with aphasia. It requires specific approaches in the study of its physiological and neuroanatomical basis and special expertise in clinical care. Knowing its prevalence in patients with aphasia after stroke is therefore relevant for planning specific resources in clinical research and in health care provision. Systematic studies of the frequency of this condition are lacking. We examined the frequency of apraxia of speech in a representative sample of 156 patients with chronic post-stroke aphasia. Three experts classified the patients' speech by best-practice auditory-perceptual methods. Bayesian hierarchical models were fitted to obtain probability distributions for prevalence estimates. A prior distribution was calculated in two steps, including Bayesian models for published frequency data (step 1) and prevalence estimates from experienced clinicians (step 2). Separate models were fitted for different severity ranges. Overall, a prevalence rate of .44 [.30, .58] was obtained. When only moderate and severe cases were taken into account, the rate was .35 [.23, .49]. After a further restriction to only severe impairment, prevalence dropped to .22 [.12, .34]. Patients identified with apraxia of speech had suffered more severe strokes according to clinical criteria and had more severe aphasias. The presence of apraxia of speech was predicted by the articulation/prosody and syntax rating scales of the Aachen Aphasia Test. Lower prevalence estimates published earlier are probably biased by low sensitivity of assessment instruments for mild speech impairment.