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.

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

Rose, M. L., Rai, T., Copland, D., Nickels, L., Togher, L., Meinzer, M., ... Carragher, M. (2021). Statistical analysis plan for the COMPARE trial: A 3-arm randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of constraint-induced aphasia therapy plus and multi-modality aphasia therapy to usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia (COMPARE). Trials, 22, article 303. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-021-05238-0

Rose, M. L., Copland, D., Nickels, L., Togher, L., Meinzer, M., Rai, T., ... Godecke, E. (2019). Constraint-induced or multi-modal personalized aphasia rehabilitation (COMPARE): A randomized controlled trial for stroke-related chronic aphasia. International Journal of Stroke, 14(9), 972-976 Available here