Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Results of the COMPARE trial of Constraint-induced or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy compared with usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia

Miranda L. Rose*, Lyndsey Nickels, David Copland, Leanne Togher, Erin Godecke, Marcus Meinzer, Tapan Rai, Dominique A. Cadilhac, Joosup Kim, Melanie Hurley, Abby Foster, Marcella Carragher, Cassie Wilcox, John E. Pierce, Gillian Steel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

37 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number328422
Pages (from-to)573-581
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry
Volume93
Issue number6
Early online date8 Apr 2022
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2022

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2022. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • aphasia
  • randomised trials
  • rehabilitation
  • stroke

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Results of the COMPARE trial of Constraint-induced or Multimodality Aphasia Therapy compared with usual care in chronic post-stroke aphasia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this