0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Lee Silverman voice treatment versus NHS speech and language therapy versus control for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease (PD COMM): pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To assess the clinical effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches versus no speech and language therapy for dysarthria in people with Parkinson’s disease.

          Design

          Pragmatic, UK based, multicentre, three arm, parallel group, unblinded, randomised controlled trial.

          Setting

          The speech and language therapy interventions were delivered in outpatient or home settings between 26 September 2016 and 16 March 2020.

          Participants

          388 people with Parkinson’s disease and dysarthria.

          Interventions

          Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (1:1:1): 130 to Lee Silverman voice treatment (LSVT LOUD), 129 to NHS speech and language therapy, and 129 to no speech and language therapy. LSVT LOUD consisted of four, face-to-face or remote, 50 min sessions each week delivered over four weeks. Home based practice activities were set for up to 5-10 mins daily on treatment days and 15 mins twice daily on non-treatment days. Dosage for the NHS speech and language therapy was determined by the local therapist in response to the participants’ needs (estimated from prior research that NHS speech and language therapy participants would receive an average of one session per week over six to eight weeks). Local practices for NHS speech and language therapy were accepted, except for those within the LSVT LOUD protocol. Analyses were based on the intention to treat principle.

          Main outcome measures

          The primary outcome was total score at three months of self-reported voice handicap index.

          Results

          People who received LSVT LOUD reported lower voice handicap index scores at three months after randomisation than those who did not receive speech and language therapy (−8.0 points (99% confidence interval −13.3 to −2.6); P<0.001). No evidence suggests a difference in voice handicap index scores between NHS speech and language therapy and no speech and language therapy (1.7 points (−3.8 to 7.1); P=0.43). Patients in the LSVT LOUD group also reported lower voice handicap index scores than did those randomised to NHS speech and language therapy (−9.6 points (−14.9 to −4.4); P<0.001). 93 adverse events (predominately vocal strain) were reported in the LSVT LOUD group, 46 in the NHS speech and language therapy group, and none in the no speech and language therapy group. No serious adverse events were recorded.

          Conclusions

          LSVT LOUD was more effective at reducing the participant reported impact of voice problems than was no speech and language therapy and NHS speech and language therapy. NHS speech and language therapy showed no evidence of benefit compared with no speech and language therapy.

          Trial registration

          ISRCTN registry ISRCTN12421382.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)

          Purpose This article introduces the new 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) health status measure. Methods EQ-5D currently measures health using three levels of severity in five dimensions. A EuroQol Group task force was established to find ways of improving the instrument’s sensitivity and reducing ceiling effects by increasing the number of severity levels. The study was performed in the United Kingdom and Spain. Severity labels for 5 levels in each dimension were identified using response scaling. Focus groups were used to investigate the face and content validity of the new versions, including hypothetical health states generated from those versions. Results Selecting labels at approximately the 25th, 50th, and 75th centiles produced two alternative 5-level versions. Focus group work showed a slight preference for the wording ‘slight-moderate-severe’ problems, with anchors of ‘no problems’ and ‘unable to do’ in the EQ-5D functional dimensions. Similar wording was used in the Pain/Discomfort and Anxiety/Depression dimensions. Hypothetical health states were well understood though participants stressed the need for the internal coherence of health states. Conclusions A 5-level version of the EQ-5D has been developed by the EuroQol Group. Further testing is required to determine whether the new version improves sensitivity and reduces ceiling effects.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Parkinsonism: onset, progression, and mortality

            M Hoehn, M Yahr (1967)
            Neurology, 17(5), 427-427
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review of levodopa dose equivalency reporting in Parkinson's disease.

              Interpretation of clinical trials comparing different drug regimens for Parkinson's disease (PD) is complicated by the different dose intensities used: higher doses of levodopa and, possibly, other drugs produce better symptomatic control but more late complications. To address this problem, conversion factors have been calculated for antiparkinsonian drugs that yield a total daily levodopa equivalent dose (LED). LED estimates vary, so we undertook a systematic review of studies reporting LEDs to provide standardized formulae. Electronic database and hand searching of references identified 56 primary reports of LED estimates. Data were extracted and the mean and modal LEDs calculated. This yielded a standardized LED for each drug, providing a useful tool to express dose intensity of different antiparkinsonian drug regimens on a single scale. Using these conversion formulae to report LEDs would improve the consistency of reporting and assist the interpretation of clinical trials comparing different PD medications. © 2010 Movement Disorder Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: professor of rehabilitation research
                Role: associate professor of clinical trials
                Role: professor
                Role: senior medical statistician
                Role: professor of health services research
                Role: senior medical statistician
                Role: lecturer in health sciences
                Role: research fellow
                Role: associate professorRole: and clinical lead
                Role: professor of health economics
                Role: reader in clinical trials
                Role: lead speech and language therapist
                Role: research fellow
                Role: trial management team leader
                Role: patient
                Role: senior research associate
                Role: professor of clinical neurology and honorary consultant neurologist
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2024
                10 July 2024
                : 386
                : e078341
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Health Science, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
                [2 ]NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre  
                [3 ]Population Health Sciences, Addison House, King’s College London, Guy’s Campus, London, UK
                [4 ]Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Applied Health Research Building, University Park, Nottingham, UK
                [5 ]Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [6 ]Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
                [7 ]School of Allied and Public Health Professions, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK
                [8 ]School of Medical and Health Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, UK
                [9 ]Division of Psychology and Language Science, Faculty of Brain Sciences, University College London, London, UK
                [10 ]NHS Lothian
                [11 ]Health Economics Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [12 ]Queen Elizabeth Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Glasgow, UK
                [13 ]Institute for Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
                [14 ]Department of Neurology, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: C Rick caroline.rick@ 123456nottingham.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7713-9834
                Article
                bmj-2023-078341.R1 sacc078341
                10.1136/bmj-2023-078341
                11232530
                315fe052-68ea-47ff-838d-d4761f1a369e
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 09 May 2024
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article