Individual Differences in Response to Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation With Language Therapy in Subacute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) can be used to improve post-stroke aphasia. However, given the mixed evidence for its efficacy, individual differences may moderate the relative benefit of this strategy. In planned exploratory subgroup analyses, we examined whether age, education, sex, brain-derived neurotrophic factor status, and baseline performance individually impacted improvement in picture naming between baseline and 1 week after the end of the therapy, then whether the combination of factors that predicted recovery of naming and discourse differed for those who received concurrent tDCS. OBJECTIVE: Examine whether individual differences influenced the effect of tDCS on language recovery. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, efficacy study of tDCS combined with language therapy for subacute post-stroke aphasia, patients completed an evaluation including the Philadelphia Naming Test and Cookie Theft picture description, which was analyzed for Content Units (CU) and Syllables/CU. Individual factors were examined using linear models including the interaction between treatment group and subgroup. RESULTS: Significant interactions were observed between tDCS group and both age and education. The predictors of a positive response to tDCS differed from the predictors of a positive response to language treatment alone. While baseline performance was an important predictor of future performance regardless of treatment group, responses to treatment without tDCS were influenced by age whereas responses to treatment with tDCS were not. CONCLUSIONS: Age and education influence the efficacy of different treatment strategies. Refinement of treatment selection is important to the overall individualization and optimization of post-stroke patient care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02674490.

Transcranial Direct-Current Stimulation in Subacute Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Transcranial direct-current stimulation (tDCS) is a promising adjunct to therapy for chronic aphasia. METHODS: This single-center, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled efficacy trial tested the hypothesis that anodal tDCS augments language therapy in subacute aphasia. Secondarily, we compared the effect of tDCS on discourse measures and quality of life and compared the effects on naming to previous findings in chronic stroke. Right-handed English speakers with aphasia <3 months after left hemisphere ischemic stroke were included, unless they had prior neurological or psychiatric disease or injury or were taking certain medications (34 excluded; final sample, 58). Participants were randomized 1:1, controlling for age, aphasia type, and severity, to receive 20 minutes of tDCS (1 mA) or sham-tDCS in addition to fifteen 45-minute sessions of naming treatment (plus standard care). The primary outcome variable was change in naming accuracy of untrained pictures pretreatment to 1-week posttreatment. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the tDCS (N=30) and sham (N=28) groups: patients were 65 years old, 53% male, and 2 months from stroke onset on average. In intent-to-treat analysis, the adjusted mean change from baseline to 1-week posttreatment in picture naming was 22.3 (95% CI, 13.5-31.2) for tDCS and 18.5 (9.6-27.4) for sham and was not significantly different. Content and efficiency of picture description improved more with tDCS than sham. Groups did not differ in quality of life improvement. No patients were withdrawn due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: tDCS did not improve recovery of picture naming but did improve recovery of discourse. Discourse skills are critical to participation. Future research should examine tDCS in a larger sample with richer functional outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02674490.

Predicting Outcomes of Language Rehabilitation: Prognostic Factors for Immediate and Long-Term Outcomes After Aphasia Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Aphasia therapy is an effective approach to improve language function in chronic aphasia. However, it remains unclear what prognostic factors facilitate therapy response at the individual level. Here, we utilized data from the POLAR (Predicting Outcomes of Language Rehabilitation in Aphasia) trial to (a) determine therapy-induced change in confrontation naming and long-term maintenance of naming gains and (b) examine the extent to which aphasia severity, age, education, time postonset, and cognitive reserve predict naming gains at 1 week, 1 month, and 6 months posttherapy. METHOD: A total of 107 participants with chronic (≥ 12 months poststroke) aphasia underwent extensive case history, cognitive-linguistic testing, and a neuroimaging workup prior to receiving 6 weeks of impairment-based language therapy. Therapy-induced change in naming performance (measured as raw change on the 175-item Philadelphia Naming Test [PNT]) was assessed 1 week after therapy and at follow-up time points 1 month and 6 months after therapy completion. Change in naming performance over time was evaluated using paired t tests, and linear mixed-effects models were constructed to examine the association between prognostic factors and therapy outcomes. RESULTS: Naming performance was improved by 5.9 PNT items (Cohen's d = 0.56, p < .001) 1 week after therapy and by 6.4 (d = 0.66, p < .001) and 7.5 (d = 0.65, p < .001) PNT items at 1 month and 6 months after therapy completion, respectively. Aphasia severity emerged as the strongest predictor of naming improvement recovery across time points; mild (ß = 5.85-9.02) and moderate (ß = 9.65-11.54) impairment predicted better recovery than severe (ß = 1.31-3.37) and very severe (ß = 0.20-0.32) aphasia. Age was an emergent prognostic factor for recovery 1 month (ß = -0.14) and 6 months (ß = -0.20) after therapy, and time postonset (ß = -0.05) was associated with retention of naming gains at 6 months posttherapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that therapy-induced naming improvement is predictable based on several easily measurable prognostic factors. Broadly speaking, these results suggest that prognostication procedures in aphasia therapy can be improved and indicate that personalization of therapy is a realistic goal in the near future. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22141829.

Individualized response to semantic versus phonological aphasia therapies in stroke.

Attempts to personalize aphasia treatment to the extent where it is possible to reliably predict individual response to a particular treatment have yielded inconclusive results. The current study aimed to (i) compare the effects of phonologically versus semantically focussed naming treatment and (ii) examine biographical and neuropsychological baseline factors predictive of response to each treatment. One hundred and four individuals with chronic post-stroke aphasia underwent 3 weeks of phonologically focussed treatment and 3 weeks of semantically focussed treatment in an unblinded cross-over design. A linear mixed-effects model was used to compare the effects of treatment type on proportional change in correct naming across groups. Correlational analysis and stepwise regression models were used to examine biographical and neuropsychological predictors of response to phonological and semantic treatment across all participants. Last, chi-square tests were used to explore the association between treatment response and phonological and semantic deficit profiles. Semantically focussed treatment was found to be more effective at the group-level, independently of treatment order (P = 0.041). Overall, milder speech and language impairment predicted good response to semantic treatment (r range: 0.256-0.373) across neuropsychological tasks. The Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Spontaneous Speech score emerged as the strongest predictor of semantic treatment response (R 2 = 0.188). Severity of stroke symptoms emerged as the strongest predictor of phonological treatment response (R 2 = 0.103). Participants who showed a good response to semantic treatment were more likely to present with fluent speech compared to poor responders (P = 0.005), whereas participants who showed a good response to phonological treatment were more likely to present with apraxia of speech (P = 0.020). These results suggest that semantic treatment may be more beneficial to the improvement of naming performance in aphasia than phonological treatment, at the group-level. In terms of personalized predictors, participants with relatively mild impairments and fluent speech responded better to semantic treatment, while phonological treatment benefitted participants with more severe impairments and apraxia of speech.

Developing, Implementing, and Improving Assessment and Treatment Fidelity in Clinical Aphasia Research.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to describe the development and implementation of a fidelity program for an ongoing, multifacility, aphasia intervention study and to explain how initial fidelity measures are being used to improve study integrity. Method A Clinical Core team developed and incorporated a fidelity plan in this study. The aims of the Clinical Core team were to (a) supervise data collection and data management at each clinical site, (b) optimize and monitor assessment fidelity, and (c) optimize and monitor treatment fidelity. Preliminary data are being used to guide ongoing efforts to preserve and improve the fidelity of this intervention study. Results Preliminary results show that specific recruitment strategies help to improve appropriate referrals and that accommodations to participants and their families help to maintain excellent retention. A streamlined and centralized training program assures the reliability of assessors and raters for the study's assessment and treatment protocols. Ongoing monitoring of both assessment and treatment tasks helps to maintain study integrity. Less-than-optimal interrater reliability data for the raters of some of the discourse measures guided the Clinical Core team to address the training and coding inconsistencies in a timely manner. Conclusions The creation of a Clinical Core team is instrumental in developing and implementing a fidelity plan for improved assessment and treatment fidelity. Intentional planning and assignment of study staff to implement and monitor ongoing fidelity measures assures that clinical data are reliable and valid. Ongoing review of the plan shows areas of strengths and weaknesses for continuing adjustments and improvement of study fidelity.