Validation of a prediction model for long-term outcome of aphasia after stroke.

BACKGROUND: About 30% of stroke patients suffer from aphasia. As aphasia strongly affects daily life, most patients request a prediction of outcome of their language function. Prognostic models provide predictions of outcome, but external validation is essential before models can be used in clinical practice. We aim to externally validate the prognostic model from the Sequential Prognostic Evaluation of Aphasia after stroKe (SPEAK-model) for predicting the long-term outcome of aphasia caused by stroke. METHODS: We used data from the Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study - 3 (RATS-3), a multicenter RCT with inclusion criteria similar to SPEAK, an observational prospective study. Baseline assessment in SPEAK was four days after stroke and in RATS-3 eight days. Outcome of the SPEAK-model was the Aphasia Severity Rating Scale (ASRS) at 1 year, dichotomized into good (ASRS-score of 4 or 5) and poor outcome (ASRS-score < 4). In RATS-3, ASRS-scores at one year were not available, but we could use six month ASRS-scores as outcome. Model performance was assessed with calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: We included 131 stroke patients with first-ever aphasia. At six months, 86 of 124 (68%) had a good outcome, whereas the model predicted 88%. Discrimination of the model was good with an area under the receiver operation characteristic curve of 0.87 (95%CI: 0.81-0.94), but calibration was unsatisfactory. The model overestimated the probability of good outcome (calibration-in-the-large α = - 1.98) and the effect of the predictors was weaker in the validation data than in the derivation data (calibration slope ß = 0.88). We therefore recalibrated the model to predict good outcome at six months. CONCLUSION: The original model, renamed SPEAK-12, has good discriminative properties, but needs further external validation. After additional external validation, the updated SPEAK-model, SPEAK-6, may be used in daily practice to discriminate between patients with good and patients with poor outcome of aphasia at six months after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RATS-3 was registered on January 13th 2012 in the Netherlands Trial Register: NTR3271 . SPEAK was not listed in a trial registry.

Screening tests for aphasia in patients with stroke: a systematic review.

Aphasia has a large impact on the quality of life and adds significantly to the costs of stroke care. Early recognition of aphasia in stroke patients is important for prognostication and well-timed treatment planning. We aimed to identify available screening tests for differentiating between aphasic and non-aphasic stroke patients, and to evaluate test accuracy, reliability, and feasibility. We searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for published studies on screening tests aimed at assessing aphasia in stroke patients. The reference lists of the selected articles were scanned, and several experts were contacted to detect additional references. Of each screening test, we estimated the sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio of a positive test, likelihood ratio of a negative test, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and rated the degree of bias of the validation method. We included ten studies evaluating eight screening tests. There was a large variation across studies regarding sample size, patient characteristics, and reference tests used for validation. Many papers failed to report on the consecutiveness of patient inclusion, time between aphasia onset and administration of the screening test, and blinding. Of the three studies that were rated as having an intermediate or low risk of bias, the DOR was highest for the Language Screening Test and ScreeLing. Several screening tools for aphasia in stroke are available, but many tests have not been verified properly. Methodologically sound validation studies of aphasia screening tests are needed to determine their usefulness in clinical practice.

Efficacy of early cognitive-linguistic treatment for aphasia due to stroke: A randomised controlled trial (Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study-3).

INTRODUCTION: One third of patients with acute stroke have aphasia. The majority receive speech and language therapy. There is evidence for a beneficial effect of speech and language therapy on restoring communication, but it is unknown whether and how efficacy of speech and language therapy is influenced by timing of treatment. We studied whether speech and language therapy early after stroke by way of intensive cognitive-linguistic treatment is more effective than no speech and language therapy in the Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study-3, a multicentre randomised single-blind trial. METHODS AND PATIENTS: Stroke patients with first-ever aphasia were randomised within 2 weeks of onset to either 4 weeks of early intensive cognitive-linguistic treatment (1 h/day) or no language treatment. Hereafter, both groups received regular speech and language therapy. Primary outcome was the score on the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test, measuring everyday verbal communication, 4 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test at 3 and 6 months. The study was powered to detect a clinically relevant difference of four points on the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test. RESULTS: Of the 152 included patients, 80 patients were allocated to intervention. Median treatment intensity in the intervention-group was 24.5 h. The adjusted difference between groups in mean Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test-scores 4 weeks after randomisation was 0.39, 95% confidence interval: [-2.70 to 3.47], p = 0.805. No statistically significant differences were found at 3 and 6 months after randomisation either. CONCLUSION: Four weeks of intensive cognitive-linguistic treatment initiated within 2 weeks of stroke is not more effective than no language treatment for the recovery of post-stroke aphasia. Our results exclude a clinically relevant effect of very early cognitive-linguistic treatment on everyday language.

Early effect of intra-arterial treatment in ischemic stroke on aphasia recovery in MR CLEAN.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of intra-arterial treatment (IAT) on early recovery from aphasia in acute ischemic stroke. We hypothesized that the early effect of IAT on aphasia is smaller than the effect on motor deficits. METHODS: We included patients with aphasia from the Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke in the Netherlands (MR CLEAN), in which 500 patients with a proximal anterior circulation stroke were randomized to usual care plus IAT (<6 hours after stroke, mainly stent retrievers) or usual care alone. We estimated the effect of IAT on the shift on the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) item language and the NIHSS item motor arm at 24 hours and 1 week after stroke with multivariable ordinal logistic regression as a common odds ratio, adjusted for prognostic variables (acOR). Differences between the effect of IAT on aphasia and on motor deficits were tested in a multilevel model with a multiplicative interaction term. RESULTS: Of the 288 patients with aphasia, 126 were assigned to IAT and 162 to usual care alone. The acOR for improvement of language score at 24 hours was 1.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-2.60), and at 1 week 1.86 (95% CI 1.18-2.94). The acOR for improvement of motor deficit at 24 hours was 2.44 (95% CI 1.54-3.88), and at 1 week 2.32 (95% CI 1.43-3.77). The effect of IAT on language deficits was significantly different from the effect on motor deficits at 24 hours and 1 week (p = 0.005 and p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: IAT results in better early recovery from aphasia than usual care alone. The early effect of IAT on aphasia is smaller than the effect on motor deficits. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for patients with acute ischemic stroke IAT increases early recovery from aphasia and that the early effect on aphasia, as measured by the NIHSS, is smaller than the effect on motor deficits.

Optimal timing of speech and language therapy for aphasia after stroke: more evidence needed.

Aphasia due to stroke affects communication and quality of life. Most stroke survivors with aphasia receive speech and language therapy. Although an early start of treatment is advocated in clinical practice, evidence for "The earlier, the better" in aphasia rehabilitation is weak. Hence, clinicians are faced with the dilemma of when to initiate intensive treatment: as early as possible, when most of the spontaneous recovery occurs but when patients are often ill, or later, when the patients' condition is more stabilized. Here we discuss whether aphasia outcome is affected by timing of treatment in relation to stroke onset and whether there is evidence for an optimal window of time during which language therapy should be provided. Findings from various rehabilitation research fields are discussed and combined to provide principles for future research.

Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study (RATS)-3: "The efficacy of intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy in the acute stage of aphasia"; design of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Aphasia is a severely disabling condition occurring in 20 to 25% of stroke patients. Most patients with aphasia due to stroke receive speech and language therapy. Methodologically sound randomised controlled trials investigating the effect of specific interventions for patients with aphasia following stroke are scarce. The currently available evidence suggests that intensive speech and language therapy is beneficial for restoration of communication, but the optimal timing of treatment is as yet unclear.In the Rotterdam Aphasia Therapy Study-3 we aim to test the hypothesis that patients with aphasia due to stroke benefit more from early intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy than from deferred regular language therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: In a single blinded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial, 150 patients with first ever aphasia due to stroke will be randomised within two weeks after stroke to either early intensive cognitive-linguistic therapy (Group A) or deferred regular therapy (Group B). Group A will start as soon as possible, at the latest two weeks after stroke, with a four week period of one hour a day treatment with cognitive-linguistic therapy. In Group B professional speech and language therapy is deferred for four weeks. After this period, patients will follow the conventional procedure of speech and language therapy. Participants will be tested with an extensive linguistic test battery at four weeks, three months and six months after inclusion. Primary outcome measure is the difference in score between the two treatment groups on the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test, a measure of everyday verbal communication, four weeks after randomisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered in the Dutch Trial Register (http://www.trialregister.nl), NTR3271.