4.4 Article

Non-invasive Repeated Therapeutic Stimulation for Aphasia Recovery: A Multilingual, Multicenter Aphasia Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 751-758

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.10.021

Keywords

Aphasia; clinical trial; noninvasive brain stimulation; ischemic stroke; rehabilitation; speech and language therapy

Funding

  1. Canadian Institutes for Health Research [MOP125954]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Noninvasive brain stimulation such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) or transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) has been used in case series and small randomized controlled trials to improve recovery from poststroke aphasia in combination with speech and language therapy. Results of these studies suggest possible clinical efficacy and an excellent safety profile. Therefore, a larger international multicenter proof-of-concept trial was launched, to directly compare the safety and efficacy of rTMS, tDCS, and sham stimulation as adjuvant therapy to speech and language therapy in subacute poststroke aphasia. In the 4 participating centers, subacute stroke patients with aphasia are randomized between 5 and 30 days after ischemic stroke to either receive rTMS, tDCS, or sham stimulation in combination with a daily 45 minutes speech and language therapy session for 10 days. Efficacy is evaluated at 1 and 30 days after the last of the 10 treatment sessions using 3 outcome measures, validated in all participating languages: Boston naming test, Token test, and verbal fluency test. Additionally, adverse events are recorded to prove safety. In this study, a total of 90 patients will be recruited, and data analysis will be completed in 2016. This is the first multilingual and multinational randomized and controlled trial in poststroke aphasia and if positive, will add an effective new strategy for early stage poststroke aphasia rehabilitation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available