Design and methods of a randomized controlled trial on early speech and language therapy in patients with acute stroke and aphasia. Efficacy of early cognitive-linguistic treatment and communicative treatment in aphasia after stroke: a randomised controlled trial (RATS-2). Very early poststroke aphasia therapy: a pilot randomized controlled efficacy trial. A prospective, randomized, parallel group, controlled study of the effect of intensity of speech and language therapy on early recovery from poststroke aphasia. Constraint-induced therapy of chronic aphasia after stroke. Rehabilitation of limb apraxia improves daily life activities in patients with stroke. Treatment of acquired aphasia: speech therapists and volunteers compared. Comparative trial of volunteer and professional treatments of dysphasia after stroke. Effectiveness of speech therapy for aphasic stroke patients. A randomised controlled trial.
Most clinicians would recommend speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasic patients. The question of when and for how long SLT should be administered still remains controversial. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of early SLT in patients with acute stroke and aphasia in a randomized controlled trial. This report will present design and methods and discuss feasibility.
                Consecutive patients with first ever ischemic stroke and aphasia are assessed by the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT) and a short version of the Norsk Grunntest for Afasi. The treatment is language enrichment therapy, and the therapy is given 45 min/day for 15 weekdays. The primary outcome is the difference in the degree of aphasia between the SLT treated group and the control group measured by ANELT at 3 weeks.
                Around 10% of acute consecutive patients with aphasia are included. Of the first 79 included patients, 86% have completed the study according to protocol. We intend to include 125 patients, which provide sufficient statistical power to detect a clinically significant difference in the degree of aphasia.
                It is feasible to conduct a randomized controlled study on very early SLT for acute aphasic patients. The two main approaches in aphasia treatment are cognitive-linguistic treatment (CLT), aimed at restoring the linguistic levels affected, semantics, phonology or syntax, and communicative treatment, aimed at optimising information transfer by training compensatory strategies and use of residual language skills. The hypothesis that CLT is more effective than communicative treatment in the early stages after stroke was tested in this study.
                In this multicentre, randomised, parallel group trial with blinded outcome assessment, 80 patients with aphasia after stroke were included within 3 weeks post-stroke. Patients received 6 months of CLT, comprising semantic and/or phonological training, or communicative treatment for at least 2 h per week. They were assessed before treatment and at 3 and 6 months with the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT-A, primary outcome) and semantic and phonological tests (secondary outcomes). The intervention effect was evaluated by means of analysis of covariance, with adjustment for baseline scores.
                There was no difference between the mean ANELT-A score of the CLT group (n=38) and the communicative treatment group (n=42), at 3 months (adjusted difference 1.5, 95% CI -2.6 to 5.6) or at 6 months (adjusted difference 1.6, 95% CI -2.3 to 5.6) post-stroke. On two of six specific semantic and phonological tests, the mean scores differed significantly, both in favour of CLT.
                This study does not confirm the hypothesis that patients with aphasia after stroke benefit more from CLT, aimed at activation of the underlying semantic and phonologic processes, than from general, non-specific communicative treatment (ISRCTN67723958 Current Controlled Trials). Early stroke rehabilitation has shown benefits over spontaneous recovery. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the benefits of early aphasia intervention. We hypothesized that daily aphasia therapy would show better communication outcomes than usual care (UC) in early poststroke recovery.
                This prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial was conducted in three acute-care hospitals in Perth, Australia, each with over 200 stroke admissions annually. Patients with acute stroke causing moderate to severe aphasia were recruited at a median of three-days (range: 0-10 days) to receive daily aphasia therapy or usual care therapy. Individually tailored, impairment-based intervention was provided for the acute hospital stay or intervention phase (median: 19 days; range: 5-76). Primary outcome measures were the aphasia quotient and functional communication profile at acute hospital discharge or four-weeks poststroke, whichever came first. A random-number generator and sealed envelopes were used to randomize participants. Assessments were completed by a blinded assessor.
                Fifty-nine participants were recruited, with six withdrawals (10%) and seven deaths (12%) at six-months. Ninety percent had ischemic strokes, with 56·5% experiencing a total anterior circulation stroke. The group mean (± SD) age was 69·1 (± 13·9) years. Six participants (18·75%) in the daily aphasia therapy group did not complete the minimum (150 min) therapy required for this study. The daily aphasia therapy intervention phase mean therapy session time was 45 min (range: 30-80) and the total mean amount of therapy for the daily aphasia therapy participants was 331 min (range: 30-1415). Four (15%) participants in the usual care group received therapy. The collective total therapy provided to these participants was 295 min over seven sessions. Usual care participants received an average of 10·5 min of therapy per week during the intervention phase. At the primary end point, a generalized estimating equations model demonstrated that after controlling for initial aphasia severity, participants receiving daily aphasia therapy scored 15·1 more points (P = 0·010) on the aphasia quotient and 11·3 more points (P = 0·004) on the functional communication profile than those receiving usual care therapy.
                Daily aphasia therapy in very early stroke recovery improved communication outcomes in people with moderate to severe aphasia.
                © 2011 The Authors. International Journal of Stroke © 2011 World Stroke Organization. To examine whether the amount of speech and language therapy influences the recovery from poststroke aphasia.
                A hospital stroke unit and community.
                A prospective, randomized controlled trial.
                Aphasic stroke patients were randomly allocated to receive 5 hours (intensive therapy group, n=51) or 2 hours (standard therapy group) of speech and language therapy per week for 12 consecutive weeks starting as soon as practicable after the stroke. Another 19 patients were recruited for 2 hours per week of therapy and were treated by National Health Service (NHS) staff (NHS group). OUTCOME MEASURE AND ASSESSMENT: The Western Aphasia Battery. Assessments were made blind to randomization at baseline and 4, 8, 12 and 24 weeks after the start of therapy. Data were analysed by intention to treat.
                The mean (SD) Western Aphasia Battery score at week 12 for the intensive, standard and NHS groups was 70.3 (26.9), 66.2 (26.2) and 58.1 (33.7), respectively. There was no treatment effect of intensive therapy (P > 0.05), but there was a statistically significant difference between the standard study and the NHS groups (P = 0.002 at week 12 and 0.01 at week 24).
                Intensive speech and language therapy (as delivered in this study) did not improve the language impairment significantly more than the ;standard' therapy which averaged 1.6 hours/week. The improvement in aphasia was least in patients who were in the NHS group. These patients received 0.57 (0.49) hours of therapy per week. Patients with chronic aphasia were assigned randomly to a group to receive either conventional aphasia therapy or constraint-induced (CI) aphasia therapy, a new therapeutic technique requiring intense practice over a relatively short period of consecutive days. CI aphasia therapy is realized in a communicative therapeutic environment constraining patients to practice systematically speech acts with which they have difficulty. Patients in both groups received the same amount of treatment (30 to 35 hours) as 10 days of massed-practice language exercises for the CI aphasia therapy group (3 hours per day minimum; 10 patients) or over a longer period of approximately 4 weeks for the conventional therapy group (7 patients). CI aphasia therapy led to significant and pronounced improvements on several standard clinical tests, on self-ratings, and on blinded-observer ratings of the patients' communicative effectiveness in everyday life. Patients who received the control intervention failed to achieve comparable improvements. Data suggest that the language skills of patients with chronic aphasia can be improved in a short period by use of an appropriate massed-practice technique that focuses on the patients' communicative needs. We randomly assigned 33 patients with left hemisphere stroke, limb apraxia, and aphasia to an apraxia or a control (aphasia) treatment group. Before and after each treatment, patients underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological testing battery and a caregiver evaluation of patient's activities of daily life (ADL) independence. Apraxia severity was related with ADL independence. Control (aphasia) treatment improved patients' language and intelligence performance. Apraxia treatment specifically improved praxic function and ADL. This paper reports on a multicentre trial comparing the effects of speech therapists and untrained volunteers on recovery from aphasia following stroke. One hundred and fifty-five patients entered the study and 96 completed it. Patients in both treatment groups improved, and there were no differences overall in the amount of progress made. A small subgroup of patients who started treatment much later had equivalent initial scores and made almost as much progress as those who started earlier. It is suggested that the improvement in communication which occurred during treatment may be due both to the appropriate stimulation which was based on detailed and accurate speech therapy assessment, and to the regular support and encouragement provided within the therapeutic relationship. A study of the treatment of dysphasia after stroke compared the progress of two groups of disabled patients. One received conventional treatment from qualified speech therapists and the other from non-professional volunteers. Methods of assessing communication difficulties were also compared and the impact of aphasic illness on families examined. No important differences in the results of treatment were seen between the two groups. The volunteers, however, often had to assume some of the responsibilities of social workers, and transport to hospital created practical and economic problems. It is concluded that the two forms of treatment provide essentially the same benefit, although doubt must still remain because relatively few patients were studied. Aphasic stroke patients were randomly allocated to either a speech therapy group receiving treatment twice a week for 24 weeks or a no-treatment control group. Patients in both groups improved and there were no significant differences in language recovery between the 104 patients allocated to the treatment group and the 87 allocated to the no-treatment group. This treatment regimen, which is representative of clinical practice, is ineffective for most aphasic stroke patients.
Our review provides some evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, receptive and expressive language. However, some trials were poorly reported. The potential benefits of intensive SLT over conventional SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout from intensive SLT. More participants also withdrew from social support than SLT interventions. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion regarding the effectiveness of any one specific SLT approach over another.