Non-pharmacological interventions for improving language and communication in people with primary progressive aphasia
Mandy Roheger,Steffen Riemann,Andreas Brauer,Ellen McGowan,Ulrike Grittner,Agnes Flöel,Marcus Meinzer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd015067.pub2
IF: 8.4
2024-05-30
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Primary progressive aphasia (PPA) accounts for approximately 43% of frontotemporal dementias and is mainly characterised by a progressive impairment of speech and communication abilities. Three clinical variants have been identified: (a) non‐fluent/agrammatic, (b) semantic, and (c) logopenic/phonological PPA variants. There is currently no curative treatment for PPA, and the disease progresses inexorably over time, with devastating effects on speech and communication ability, functional status, and quality of life. Several non‐pharmacological interventions that may improve symptoms (e.g. different forms of language training and non‐invasive brain stimulation) have been investigated in people with PPA. To assess the effects of non‐pharmacological interventions for people with PPA on word retrieval (our primary outcome), global language functions, cognition, quality of life, and adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's trial register, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), four other databases and two other trial registers. The latest searches were run on 26 January 2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of non‐pharmacological interventions in people with PPA. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. There were insufficient data available to conduct the network meta‐analyses that we had originally planned (due to trial data being insufficiently reported or not reported at all, as well as the heterogeneous content of the included interventions). Therefore, we provide a descriptive summary of the included studies and results. We included 10 studies, with a total of 132 participants, evaluating non‐pharmacological interventions. These were: transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as stand‐alone treatments (used by two and one studies, respectively); tDCS combined with semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training (five studies); tDCS combined with semantic word‐retrieval training (one study); and tDCS combined with phonological word‐retrieval training (one study). Results for our primary outcome of word retrieval were mixed. For the two studies that investigated the effects of tDCS as stand‐alone treatment compared to placebo ("sham") tDCS, we rated the results as having very low‐certainty evidence. One study found a significant beneficial effect on word retrieval after active tDCS; one study did not report any significant effects in favour of the active tDCS group. Five studies investigated tDCS administered to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, inferior frontal cortex, left frontotemporal region, or the temporoparietal cortex, combined with semantic and phonological word‐retrieval training. The most consistent finding was enhancement of word‐retrieval ability for trained items immediately after the intervention, when behavioural training was combined with active tDCS compared to behavioural training plus sham tDCS. We found mixed effects for untrained items and maintenance of treatment effects during follow‐up assessments. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low in all studies. One study investigated tDCS combined with semantic word‐retrieval training. Training was provided across 15 sessions with a frequency of three to five sessions per week, depending on the personal preferences of the participants. tDCS targeted the left frontotemporal region. The study included three participants: two received 1 mA stimulation and one received 2 mA stimulation. The study showed mixed results. We rated it as very low‐certainty evidence. One study investigated tDCS combined with phonological word‐retrieval training. Training was again provided across 15 sessions over a period of three weeks. tDCS targeted the left inferior frontal gyrus. This study showed a significantly more pronounced improvement for trained and untrained words in favour of the group that had received active tDCS, but we rated the certainty of the evidence as very low. One study compared active rTMS applied to an individually determined target site to active rTMS applied to a control site (vertex) for effects on participants' word retrieval. This study demonstrated better word retrieval for active rTMS administered to individually determined target brain regions than in the control intervention, but we rated the results as having a very low certainty of evidence. Four studies assessed overall language ability, three studies assessed cognition, five studies assessed potential adverse effects of brain stimulation, and one study investigated quality of life. There is currently no high‐certainty evidence to inform clinical decision‐making regarding non‐pharmacological treatment selection for people with PPA. Preliminary evidence suggests that the combination of active tDCS with specific language therapy may improve impai -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal