Search

Background: Many people with aphasia have word‐finding difficulties, with some showing particular difficulties with verbs. Picture‐naming therapy is often used to improve naming, but gains are usually limited to therapy items and do not transfer to conversation. Therapy where words are produced in sentences and in real‐life activities may be more effective. Aims: The current pilot study investigated whether an activity‐oriented therapy approach would be accepted and viable if implemented in a community setting, and whether communicating whilst cooking was more beneficial than using paper‐based activities. If successful, it would be expected that verb production would improve in structured and unstructured tasks in both naming and narrative tasks. Methods & Procedures: The study employed a case‐series repeated‐measures design, with testing of treated and control items. Seven adults with anomia participated, although only five completed the full programme. Participants were divided into two groups and each group completed both treatments, but in different orders. Each treatment was employed for six 2‐h sessions over a 3‐week period. Outcomes & Results: Naming of both treated and untreated verbs showed a statistically significant improvement following both treatments and this continued into the maintenance phase. There was a numerical but not statistically significant gain in the variety of verbs used in spoken narratives. Participants predominantly chose positive terms to describe their experience of the programme, but did not prefer one therapy over the other. Conclusions & Implications: Preliminary findings suggest that an activity‐oriented therapy approach, whether it involves carrying out tasks or paper‐based activities, can result in clinically meaningful improvements for people with chronic aphasia. Further research using a randomized control trial is required to determine whether cooking therapy alone is effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate whether neonates at risk for neurodevelopmental impairment have improved neurodevelopment after docosahexaenoic acid, choline, and uridine-5-monophosphate supplementation versus controls.Method: Recruitment was from UK neonatal units. Eligible for inclusion were infants born at less than 31 weeks' gestation with a weight less than the ninth centile; infants born at less than 31 weeks' gestation with a grade II or higher intraventricular haemorrhage/preterm white matter injury; infants born between 31 weeks' and 40 weeks' gestation plus 28 days with a grade II or higher intraventricular haemorrhage/preterm white matter injury, moderate or severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy, or defined neuroimaging abnormalities. Treatment/control supplementation was for 2 years (double-blind, randomized, controlled design). Infants were stratified according to sex, gestation, and brain injury severity. Primary outcome was cognitive composite score (CCS) of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III at 24mo). Secondary outcomes were language composite score (LCS) of the Bayley-III, motor composite score (MCS) of the Bayley-III, and Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scales, Second Edition (VABS-II) score.Results: Sixty-two neonates were recruited, 59 were randomized (34 males, 25 females). Fifty-three started supplementation. Most families found supplementation acceptable. The treatment group CCS-Bayley-III scores were non-significantly higher than controls (mean score difference at 24mo: 9.0; 95% confidence interval -0.2 to 18.2). Language and VABS-II scores, but not motor score, were non-significantly higher in the treatment group.Interpretation: Most families found supplementation feasible. Improved neurodevelopmental outcomes in the treatment group were not statistically significant. A larger multicentre trial exploration is warranted.What This Paper Adds: Dietary supplementation of neonates at risk of neurodevelopmental impairment is feasible. No statistically significant neurodevelopmental advantages were identified for the treatment group compared to controls. Treatment group cognitive and language advantage are of a clinically meaningful magnitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate whether docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), choline, and uridine-5-monophosphate (UMP) supplementation improves neurodevelopmental outcome in infants with suspected cerebral palsy (CP) versus a comparison group of children.Method: Infants aged 1 to 18 months with suspected CP were recruited from UK child development centres. Participants received daily treatment or control supplementation for 2 years (double-blind randomized control design). Stratification was by age, sex, predominant pattern of motor involvement (four limbs or other), and visual impairment (or not). The primary outcome was the cognitive composite score of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (CCS-Bayley-III). Secondary outcomes included language composite and motor composite scores of the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition (Bayley-III).Results: Forty infants were recruited; 35 began supplementation, 29 completed 1 to 2 years' supplementation. The treatment group CCS-Bayley-III was non-significantly higher than the comparison group (mean 77.7 [SD 19.2] and 72.2 [SD 19.8] respectively, mean modelled difference 4.4 [-2.8, 11.6]). The treatment group language scores, but not motor scores, were non-significantly higher than for the comparison group.Interpretation: Most families found supplementation feasible. No statistically significant differences in neurodevelopmental outcome between the treatment and comparison groups were identified. Further investigation of neurodevelopmental outcome after supplementation with DHA, choline, and UMP of infants with suspected CP is warranted.What This Paper Adds: This was the first trial of phosphatidylcholine precursor supplementation in infants with suspected cerebral palsy (CP). Families of infants with suspected CP found 2-year nutritional supplementation feasible. There was no statistically significant neurodevelopmental advantage for the treatment group versus the comparison group. However, treatment group cognitive and language advantage were of clinically meaningful magnitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The primary goals in conducting clinical trials of treatments for alcohol use disorders ( AUDs) are to identify efficacious treatments and determine which treatments are most efficacious for which patients. Accurate reporting of study design features and results is imperative to enable readers of research reports to evaluate to what extent a study has achieved these goals. Guidance on quality of clinical trial reporting has evolved substantially over the past 2 decades, primarily through the publication and widespread adoption of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. However, there is room to improve the adoption of those standards in reporting the design and findings of treatment trials for AUD. Methods This paper provides a narrative review of guidance on reporting quality in AUD treatment trials. Results Despite improvements in the reporting of results of treatment trials for AUD over the past 2 decades, many published reports provide insufficient information on design or methods. Conclusions The reporting of alcohol treatment trial design, analysis, and results requires improvement in 4 primary areas: (i) trial registration, (ii) procedures for recruitment and retention, (iii) procedures for randomization and intervention design considerations, and (iv) statistical methods used to assess treatment efficacy. Improvements in these areas and the adoption of reporting standards by authors, reviewers, and editors are critical to an accurate assessment of the reliability and validity of treatment effects. Continued developments in this area are needed to move AUD treatment research forward via systematic reviews and meta-analyses that maximize the utility of completed studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Buprenorphine was registered in Australia as a maintenance and detoxification agent for the management of opioid dependence in November, 2000, and became widely available in August, 2001. This paper provides an overview of key developments in the introduction of buprenorphine treatment in Australia, with an emphasis upon the delivery of services in community-based (primary care) settings. A central study in this work was the Buprenorphine Implementation Trial (BIT), a randomized, controlled trial comparing buprenorphine and methadone maintenance treatment delivered under naturalistic conditions by specialist and community-based service providers (general practitioners and community pharmacists) in 139 subjects across nineteen treatment sites. In addition to conventional patient outcome measures (treatment retention, drug use, psychosocial functioning, and cost effectiveness), the BIT study also involved the development and evaluation of clinical guidelines, training programs for clinicians, and client literature, which are described here. Integration of treatment systems (methadone with buprenorphine, specialist and primary-care programs) and factors thought to be important in the uptake of buprenorphine treatment in Australia since registration are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]