Search

Background: High-intensity Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) and Multi-Modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) are effective interventions for chronic post-stroke aphasia but challenging to provide in clinical practice. Providing these interventions may be more feasible at lower intensities, but comparative evidence is lacking. We therefore explored feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the treatments at a lower intensity. Methods: A multisite, single-blinded, randomized Phase II trial was conducted within the Phase III COMPARE trial. Groups of participants with chronic aphasia from the usual care arm of the COMPARE trial were randomized to M-MAT or CIAT-Plus, delivered at the same dose as the COMPARE trial but at lower intensity (6 hours/week × 5 weeks rather than 15 hours/week × 2 weeks). Blinded assessors measured aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient), word retrieval, connected speech, multimodal communication, functional communication, and quality of life immediately post interventions and after 12 weeks. Feasibility and acceptability were explored. Results: Of 70 eligible participants, 77% consented to the trial; 78% of randomized participants completed intervention and 98% of assessment visits were conducted. Fatigue and distress ratings were low with no related withdrawals. Adverse events related to the trial (n = 4) were mild in severity. Statistically significant treatment effects were demonstrated on word retrieval and functional communication and both interventions were equally effective. Conclusions: Low–moderateintensity CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were feasible and acceptable. Both interventions show preliminary efficacy at a low–moderate intensity. These results support a powered trial investigating these interventions at a low–moderate intensity.

Background: While meta-analyses confirm treatment for chronic post-stroke aphasia is effective, a lack of comparative evidence for different interventions limits prescription accuracy. We investigated whether Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-plus) and/or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT) provided greater therapeutic benefit compared with usual community care and were differentially effective according to baseline aphasia severity. Methods: We conducted a three-arm, multicentre, parallel group, open-label, blinded endpoint, phase III, randomised-controlled trial. We stratified eligible participants by baseline aphasia on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ). Groups of three participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 30 hours of CIAT-Plus or M-MAT or to usual care (UC). Primary outcome was change in aphasia severity (WAB-R-AQ) from baseline to therapy completion analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included word retrieval, connected speech, functional communication, multimodal communication, quality of life and costs. Results: We analysed 201 participants (70 in CIAT-Plus, 70 in M-MAT and 61 in UC). Aphasia severity was not significantly different between groups at postintervention: 1.05 points (95% CI -0.78 to 2.88; p=0.36) UC group vs CIAT-Plus; 1.06 points (95% CI -0.78 to 2.89; p=0.36) UC group vs M-MAT; 0.004 points (95% CI -1.76 to 1.77; p=1.00) CIAT-Plus vs M-MAT. Word retrieval, functional communication and communication-related quality of life were significantly improved following CIAT-Plus and M-MAT. Word retrieval benefits were maintained at 12-week follow-up. Conclusions: CIAT-Plus and M-MAT were effective for word retrieval, functional communication, and quality of life, while UC was not. Future studies should explore predictive characteristics of responders and impacts of maintenance doses. Trial registration number: ACTRN 2615000618550.

Introduction: Despite higher incidence of brain injury among Aboriginal compared with non-Aboriginal Australians, suboptimal engagement exists between rehabilitation services and Aboriginal brain injury survivors. Aboriginal patients often feel culturally insecure in hospital and navigation of services post discharge is complex. Health professionals report feeling ill-equipped working with Aboriginal patients. This study will test the impact of a research-informed culturally secure intervention model for Aboriginal people with brain injury. Methods and Analysis: Design: Stepped wedge cluster randomised control trial design; intervention sequentially introduced at four pairs of healthcare sites across Western Australia at 26-week intervals. Recruitment: Aboriginal participants aged ≥18 years within 4 weeks of an acute stroke or traumatic brain injury. Intervention: (1) Cultural security training for hospital staff and (2) local, trial-specific, Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinators supporting participants. Primary outcome: Quality-of-life using EuroQOL-5D-3L (European Quality of Life scale, five dimensions, three severity levels) Visual Analogue Scale score at 26 weeks post injury. Recruitment of 312 participants is estimated to detect a difference of 15 points with 80% power at the 5% significance level. A linear mixed model will be used to assess the between-condition difference. Secondary outcome measures: Modified Rankin Scale, Functional Independence Measure, Modified Caregiver Strain Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 12 and 26 weeks post injury, rehabilitation occasions of service received, hospital compliance with minimum care processes by 26 weeks post injury, acceptability of Intervention Package, feasibility of Aboriginal Brain Injury Coordinator role. Evaluations: An economic evaluation will determine the potential cost-effectiveness of the intervention. Process evaluation will document fidelity to study processes and capture changing contexts

Background While high-quality meta-analyses have confirmed the effectiveness of aphasia therapy after stroke, there is limited evidence for the comparative effectiveness of different aphasia interventions. Two commonly used interventions, Constraint-induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT Plus) and Multi-modality Aphasia Therapy (M-MAT), are hypothesised to rely on diverse underlying neural mechanisms for recovery and may be differentially responsive to aphasia severity. COMPARE is a prospective randomised open-blinded end-point trial designed to determine whether, in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia living in the community, CIAT Plus and M-MAT provide greater therapeutic benefit compared to usual care, are differentially effective according to aphasia severity, and are cost-effective. This paper details the statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial developed prior to data analysis. Methods Participants (n = 216) are randomised to one of three arms, CIAT Plus, M-MAT or usual care, and undertake therapy with a study trained speech pathologist in groups of three participants stratified by aphasia severity. Therapy occurs for 3 h blocks per day for 10 days across 2 weeks. The primary clinical outcome is aphasia severity as measured by the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ) immediately post intervention. Secondary outcomes include WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up, and functional communication, discourse efficiency, multimodal communication, and health-related quality of life immediately post intervention and at 12-week follow-up. Results Linear mixed models (LMMs) will be used to analyse differences between M-MAT and UC, and CIAT-Plus and UC on each outcome measure immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention. The LMM for WAB-R-AQ will assess the differences in efficacy between M-MAT and CIAT-Plus. All analyses will control for baseline aphasia severity (fixed effect) and for the clustering effect of treatment groups (random effect). Discu

Background Effectiveness of early intensive aphasia rehabilitation after stroke is unknown. The Very Early Rehabilitation for SpEech trial (VERSE) aimed to determine whether intensive aphasia therapy, beginning within 14 days after stroke, improved communication recovery compared to usual care. Methods Prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial conducted at 17 acute-care hospitals across Australia/New Zealand from 2014 to 2018. Participants with aphasia following acute stroke were randomized to receive usual care (direct usual care aphasia therapy), or one of two higher intensity regimens (20 sessions of either non-prescribed (usual care-plus or prescribed (VERSE) direct aphasia therapy). The primary outcome was improvement of communication on the Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (AQ) at 12 weeks after stroke. Our pre-planned intention to treat analysis combined high intensity groups for the primary outcome. Findings Among 13,654 acute stroke patients screened, 25% (3477) had aphasia, of whom 25% (866) were eligible and 246 randomized to usual care (n = 81; 33%), usual care-plus (n = 82; 33%) or VERSE (n = 83; 34%). At 12 weeks after stroke, the primary outcome was assessed in 217 participants (88%); 14 had died, 9 had withdrawn, and 6 were too unwell for assessment. Communication recovery was 50.3% (95% CI 45.7–54.8) in the high intensity group (n = 147) and 52.1% (95% CI 46.1–58.1) in the usual care group (n = 70; difference −1.8, 95% CI −8.7–5.0). There was no difference between groups in non-fatal or fatal adverse events (p = 0.72). Interpretation Early, intensive aphasia therapy did not improve communication recovery within 12 weeks post stroke compared to usual care.

Background Limited evidence exists to support very early intensive aphasia rehabilitation after stroke. VERSE is a PROBE trial designed to determine whether two types of intensive aphasia therapy, beginning within 14 days of acute stroke, provide greater therapeutic and cost-effectiveness than usual care. Objective To publish the detailed statistical analysis plan for the VERSE trial prior to unblinding. This statistical analysis plan was based on the published and registered VERSE trial protocol and was developed by the blinded steering committee and management team, led by the trial statistician. This plan was developed using outcome measures and trial data collection forms. Results The VERSE statistical analysis plan is consistent with reporting standards for clinical trials and provides for clear and open reporting. Conclusions Publication of a statistical analysis plan serves to reduce potential trial reporting bias and outlines transparent pre-specified analyses. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) Registration number: ACTRN12613000776707; Universal Trial Number (UTN) is U1111-1145-4130.

This article considers the risk of disclosure in linked databases when statistical analysis of micro-data is permitted. The risk of disclosure needs to be balanced against the utility of the linked data. The current work specifically considers the disclosure risks in permitting regression analysis to be performed on linked data. A new attack based on partitioning of the database is presented.