Dataset Information

Combining rTMS With Intensive Language-Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: Neuromodulation technologies, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), are promising tools for neurorehabilitation, aphasia therapy included, but not yet in common clinical use. Combined with behavioral techniques, in particular treatment-efficient Intensive Language-Action Therapy (ILAT, previously CIAT or CILT), TMS could substantially amplify the beneficial effect of such behavioral therapy alone (Thiel et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2014; Mendoza et al., 2016; Kapoor, 2017). In this randomized study of 17 subjects with post-stroke aphasia in the chronic stage, we studied the combined effect of ILAT and 1-Hz placebo-controlled navigated repetitive TMS (rTMS) to the right-hemispheric inferior frontal cortex-that is, to the anterior part of the non-dominant hemisphere's homolog Broca's area (pars triangularis). Patients were randomized to groups A and B. Patients in group A received a 2-week period of rTMS during naming training where they named pictures displayed on the screen once every 10 s, followed by 2 weeks of rTMS and naming combined with ILAT. Patients in group B received the same behavioral therapy but TMS was replaced by sham stimulation. The primary outcome measures for changes in language performance were the Western Aphasia Battery's aphasia quotient AQ; the secondary outcome measures were the Boston naming test (BNT) and the Action naming test (Action BNT, ANT). All subjects completed the study. At baseline, no statistically significant group differences were discovered for age, post-stroke time or diagnosis. ILAT was associated with significant improvement across groups, as documented by both primary and secondary outcome measures. No significant effect of rTMS could be documented. Our results agree with previous results proving ILAT's ability to improve language in patients with chronic aphasia. In contrast with earlier claims, however, a beneficial effect of rTMS in chronic post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation was not detected in this study. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03629665.

SUBMITTER: Heikkinen PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6369187 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combining rTMS With Intensive Language-Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Heikkinen Paula H PH Pulvermüller Friedemann F Mäkelä Jyrki P JP Ilmoniemi Risto J RJ Lioumis Pantelis P Kujala Teija T Manninen Riitta-Leena RL Ahvenainen Antti A Klippi Anu A

Frontiers in neuroscience 20190204

Neuromodulation technologies, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), are promising tools for neurorehabilitation, aphasia therapy included, but not yet in common clinical use. Combined with behavioral techniques, in particular treatment-efficient <i>Intensive Language-Action Therapy</i> (ILAT, previously CIAT or CILT), TMS could substantially amplify the beneficial effect of such behavioral therapy alone (Thiel et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2014; Mendoza et al., 2016; Kapoor, 2017). In ...[more]

PMID: 30778280

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSmall clinical trials have reported that low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) might improve language recovery in patients with aphasia after stroke. However, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses studies have investigated the effect of rTMS on aphasia. The objective of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of studies that explored the effects of low-frequency rTMS on aphasia in stroke patients.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, ScienceDirect, and Journals@Ovid for randomized controlled trials published between January 1965 and October 2013 using the keywords "aphasia OR language disorders OR anomia OR linguistic disorders AND repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation OR rTMS". We used fixed- and random-effects models to estimate the standardized mean difference (SMD) and a 95% CI for the language outcomes.ResultsSeven eligible studies involving 160 stroke patients were identified in this meta-analysis. A significant effect size of 1.26 was found for the language outcome severity of impairment (95% CI = 0.80 to 1.71) without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%, P = 0.44). Further analyses demonstrated prominent effects for the naming subtest (SMD = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.87), repetition (SMD = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.92), writing (SMD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.22), and comprehension (the Token test: SMD = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.09) without heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). The SMD of AAT and BDAE comprehension subtests was 0.32 (95% CI = -0.08 to 0.72) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 32%,P = 0.22). The effect size did not change significantly even when any one trial was eliminated. None of the patients from the 7 included articles reported adverse effects from rTMS.ConclusionsLow-frequency rTMS with a 90% resting motor threshold that targets the triangular part of the right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) has a positive effect on language recovery in patients with aphasia following stroke. Further well-designed studies with larger populations are required to ascertain the long-term effects of rTMS in aphasia treatment.

Project description:Upper limb (UL) deficits in children with unilateral cerebral palsy (uCP) have traditionally been targeted with motor execution treatment models, such as modified Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy (mCIMT). However, new approaches based on a neurophysiological model such as Action-Observation Training (AOT) may provide new opportunities for enhanced motor learning. The aim of this study is to describe a randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocol investigating the effects of an intensive treatment model, combining mCIMT and AOT compared to mCIMT alone on UL function in children with uCP. Additionally, the role of neurological factors as potential biomarkers of treatment response will be analysed.An evaluator-blinded RCT will be conducted in 42 children aged between 6 and 12 years. Before randomization, children will be stratified according to their House Functional Classification Scale, age and type of corticospinal tract wiring. A 2-week day-camp will be set up in which children receive intensive mCIMT therapy for 6 hours a day on 9 out of 11 consecutive days (54 h) including AOT or control condition (15 h). During AOT, these children watch video sequences showing goal-directed actions and subsequently execute the observed actions with the more impaired UL. The control group performs the same actions after watching computer games without human motion. The primary outcome measure will be the Assisting Hand Assessment. Secondary outcomes comprise clinical assessments across body function, activity and participation level of the International Classification of Function, Disability and Health. Furthermore, to quantitatively evaluate UL movement patterns, a three-dimensional motion analysis will be conducted. UL function will be assessed at baseline, immediately before and after intervention and at 6 months follow up. Brain imaging comprising structural and functional connectivity measures as well as Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) to evaluate corticospinal tract wiring will be acquired before the intervention.This paper describes the methodology of an RCT with two main objectives: (1) to evaluate the added value of AOT to mCIMT on UL outcome in children with uCP and (2) to investigate the role of neurological factors as potential biomarkers of treatment response.NCT03256357 registered on 21st August 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Project description:BackgroundAphasia is an acquired language impairment following brain damage that affects some or all language modalities: expression and understanding of speech, reading, and writing. Approximately one third of people who have a stroke experience aphasia.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of speech and language therapy (SLT) for aphasia following stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 9 September 2015), CENTRAL (2015, Issue 5) and other Cochrane Library Databases (CDSR, DARE, HTA, to 22 September 2015), MEDLINE (1946 to September 2015), EMBASE (1980 to September 2015), CINAHL (1982 to September 2015), AMED (1985 to September 2015), LLBA (1973 to September 2015), and SpeechBITE (2008 to September 2015). We also searched major trials registers for ongoing trials including ClinicalTrials.gov (to 21 September 2015), the Stroke Trials Registry (to 21 September 2015), Current Controlled Trials (to 22 September 2015), and WHO ICTRP (to 22 September 2015). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we also handsearched the International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders (1969 to 2005) and reference lists of relevant articles, and we contacted academic institutions and other researchers. There were no language restrictions.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SLT (a formal intervention that aims to improve language and communication abilities, activity and participation) versus no SLT; social support or stimulation (an intervention that provides social support and communication stimulation but does not include targeted therapeutic interventions); or another SLT intervention (differing in duration, intensity, frequency, intervention methodology or theoretical approach).Data collection and analysisWe independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of included trials. We sought missing data from investigators.Main resultsWe included 57 RCTs (74 randomised comparisons) involving 3002 participants in this review (some appearing in more than one comparison). Twenty-seven randomised comparisons (1620 participants) assessed SLT versus no SLT; SLT resulted in clinically and statistically significant benefits to patients' functional communication (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 0.49, P = 0.01), reading, writing, and expressive language, but (based on smaller numbers) benefits were not evident at follow-up. Nine randomised comparisons (447 participants) assessed SLT with social support and stimulation; meta-analyses found no evidence of a difference in functional communication, but more participants withdrew from social support interventions than SLT. Thirty-eight randomised comparisons (1242 participants) assessed two approaches to SLT. Functional communication was significantly better in people with aphasia that received therapy at a high intensity, high dose, or over a long duration compared to those that received therapy at a lower intensity, lower dose, or over a shorter period of time. The benefits of a high intensity or a high dose of SLT were confounded by a significantly higher dropout rate in these intervention groups. Generally, trials randomised small numbers of participants across a range of characteristics (age, time since stroke, and severity profiles), interventions, and outcomes.Authors' conclusionsOur review provides evidence of the effectiveness of SLT for people with aphasia following stroke in terms of improved functional communication, reading, writing, and expressive language compared with no therapy. There is some indication that therapy at high intensity, high dose or over a longer period may be beneficial. HIgh-intensity and high dose interventions may not be acceptable to all.

Project description:BackgroundTherapy guidelines recommend speech and language therapy (SLT) as the "gold standard" for aphasia treatment. Treatment intensity (i.e., ≥5 hours of SLT per week) is a key predictor of SLT outcome. The scientific evidence to support the efficacy of SLT is unsatisfactory to date given the lack of randomized controlled trials (RCT), particularly with respect to chronic aphasia (lasting for >6 months after initial stroke). This randomized waiting list-controlled multi-centre trial examines whether intensive integrative language therapy provided in routine in- and outpatient clinical settings is effective in improving everyday communication in chronic post-stroke aphasia.Methods/designParticipants are men and women aged 18 to 70 years, at least 6 months post an ischemic or haemorrhagic stroke resulting in persisting language impairment (i.e., chronic aphasia); 220 patients will be screened for participation, with the goal of including at least 126 patients during the 26-month recruitment period. Basic language production and comprehension abilities need to be preserved (as assessed by the Aachen Aphasia Test).Therapy consists of language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic exercises for at least 2 hours/day and at least 10 hours/week, plus at least 1 hour self-administered training per day, for at least three weeks. Contents of therapy are adapted to patients' individual impairment profiles.Prior to and immediately following the therapy/waiting period, patients' individual language abilities are assessed via primary and secondary outcome measures. The primary (blinded) outcome measure is the A-scale (informational content, or 'understandability', of the message) of the Amsterdam-Nijmegen Everyday Language Test (ANELT), a standardized measure of functional communication ability. Secondary (unblinded) outcome measures are language-systematic and communicative-pragmatic language screenings and questionnaires assessing life quality as viewed by the patient as well as a relative.The primary analysis tests for differences between the therapy group and an untreated (waiting list) control group with respect to pre- versus post 3-week-therapy (or waiting period, respectively) scores on the ANELT A-scale. Statistical between-group comparisons of primary and secondary outcome measures will be conducted in intention-to-treat analyses.Long-term stability of treatment effects will be assessed six months post intensive SLT (primary and secondary endpoints).Trial registrationRegistered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier NCT01540383.

Dataset Information

Combining rTMS With Intensive Language-Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Combining rTMS With Intensive Language-Action Therapy in Chronic Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets