Constraint-induced or multi-modal personalized aphasia rehabilitation (COMPARE): A randomized controlled trial for stroke-related chronic aphasia

Rose, ML; Copland, D; Nickels, L; Togher, L; Meinzer, M; Rai, T; Cadilhac, DA; Kim, J; Foster, A; Carragher, M; Hurley, M; Godecke, E

Constraint-induced or multi-modal personalized aphasia rehabilitation (COMPARE): A randomized controlled trial for stroke-related chronic aphasia

Rose, ML

Copland, D Nickels, L

Togher, L

Meinzer, M Rai, T

Cadilhac, DA

Kim, J Foster, A

Carragher, M Hurley, M Godecke, E

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: International Journal of Stroke, 2019, 14 (9), pp. 972 - 976
Issue Date:: 2019-12-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Accepted Manuscript VersionAdobe PDF (338.86 kB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Rose, ML https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8892-0965	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Copland, D	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Nickels, L https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0311-3524	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Togher, L https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4518-6748	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Meinzer, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Rai, T https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1610-8983	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cadilhac, DA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-682X	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kim, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Foster, A https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7787-8765	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Carragher, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hurley, M	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Godecke, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7210-1295	en_US
dc.date.issued	2019-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	International Journal of Stroke, 2019, 14 (9), pp. 972 - 976	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1747-4930	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/135899
dc.description.abstract	© 2019 World Stroke Organization. Rationale: The comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of constraint-induced and multi-modality aphasia therapy in chronic stroke are unknown. Aims and hypotheses: In the COMPARE trial, we aim to determine whether Multi-Modal Aphasia Treatment (M-MAT) and Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) are superior to usual care (UC) for chronic post-stroke aphasia. Primary hypothesis: CIAT-Plus and M-MAT will reduce aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ)) compared with UC: CIAT-Plus superior for moderate aphasia; M-MAT superior for mild and severe aphasia. Sample size estimates: A total of 216 participants (72 per arm) will provide 90% power to detect a 5-point difference on the WAB-R-AQ between CIAT-Plus or M-MAT and UC at α = 0.05. Methods and design: Prospective, randomized, parallel group, open-label, assessor blinded trial. Participants: Stroke >6 months; aphasia severity categorized using WAB-R-AQ. Computer-generated blocked and stratified randomization by aphasia severity (mild, moderate, and severe), to 3 arms: CIAT-Plus, M-MAT (both 30 h therapy over two weeks); UC (self-reported usual community care). Study outcomes: WAB-R-AQ immediately post-intervention. Secondary outcomes: WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up; naming scores, discourse measures, Communicative Effectiveness Index, Scenario Test, and Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with UC at 12 weeks. Discussion: This trial will determine whether CIAT-Plus and M-MAT are superior and more cost-effective than UC in chronic aphasia. Participant subgroups with the greatest response to CIAT-Plus and M-MAT will be described.	en_US
dc.relation	http://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/
dc.relation.ispartof	International Journal of Stroke	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1747493019870401	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Neurology & Neurosurgery	en_US
dc.title	Constraint-induced or multi-modal personalized aphasia rehabilitation (COMPARE): A randomized controlled trial for stroke-related chronic aphasia	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	9	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	14	en_US
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	1109 Neurosciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/DVC (Research)/Graduate Research School
utslib.copyright.status	open_access
pubs.issue	9	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	14	en_US

Abstract:

© 2019 World Stroke Organization. Rationale: The comparative efficacy and cost-effectiveness of constraint-induced and multi-modality aphasia therapy in chronic stroke are unknown. Aims and hypotheses: In the COMPARE trial, we aim to determine whether Multi-Modal Aphasia Treatment (M-MAT) and Constraint-Induced Aphasia Therapy Plus (CIAT-Plus) are superior to usual care (UC) for chronic post-stroke aphasia. Primary hypothesis: CIAT-Plus and M-MAT will reduce aphasia severity (Western Aphasia Battery-Revised Aphasia Quotient (WAB-R-AQ)) compared with UC: CIAT-Plus superior for moderate aphasia; M-MAT superior for mild and severe aphasia. Sample size estimates: A total of 216 participants (72 per arm) will provide 90% power to detect a 5-point difference on the WAB-R-AQ between CIAT-Plus or M-MAT and UC at α = 0.05. Methods and design: Prospective, randomized, parallel group, open-label, assessor blinded trial. Participants: Stroke >6 months; aphasia severity categorized using WAB-R-AQ. Computer-generated blocked and stratified randomization by aphasia severity (mild, moderate, and severe), to 3 arms: CIAT-Plus, M-MAT (both 30 h therapy over two weeks); UC (self-reported usual community care). Study outcomes: WAB-R-AQ immediately post-intervention. Secondary outcomes: WAB-R-AQ at 12-week follow-up; naming scores, discourse measures, Communicative Effectiveness Index, Scenario Test, and Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39 g immediately and at 12 weeks post-intervention; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios compared with UC at 12 weeks. Discussion: This trial will determine whether CIAT-Plus and M-MAT are superior and more cost-effective than UC in chronic aphasia. Participant subgroups with the greatest response to CIAT-Plus and M-MAT will be described.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/135899