The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson’s disease: the PD COMM RCT
Authors: Sackley Catherine M , Rick Caroline , Brady Marian C , Burton Christopher , Jowett Sue , Patel Smitaa , Woolley Rebecca , Masterson-Algar Patricia , Nicoll Avril , Smith Christina H , Abdali Zainab , Ives Natalie , Beaton Gillian , Dickson Sylvia , Ottridge Ryan , Nankervis Helen , Clarke Carl E 
Published: October 2024

Background

Speech impairments are common with Parkinson’s disease (reported prevalence 68%), increasing conversational demands, reliance on family and social withdrawal.

Objective(s)

The PD COMM trial compared the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two speech and language therapy approaches: Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD and National Health Service speech and language therapy for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with Parkinson’s disease to no speech and language therapy (control) and against each other.

Design

PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 : 1 ratio to control, National Health Service speech and language therapy or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations were conducted.

Setting

United Kingdom outpatient and home settings.

Participants

People with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, with self-reported or carer-reported speech or voice problems. We excluded people with dementia, laryngeal pathology and those within 24 months of previous speech and language therapy.

Interventions

The Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD intervention included maximum effort drills and high-effort speech production tasks delivered over four 50-minute therapist-led personalised sessions per week, for 4 weeks with prescribed daily home practice. National Health Service speech and language therapy content and dosage reflected local non-Lee Silverman Voice Treatment speech and language therapy practices, usually 1 hour, once weekly, for 6 weeks. Trained, experienced speech and language therapists or assistants provided interventions. The control was no speech and language therapy until the trial was completed.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes: Voice Handicap Index subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5L; ICEpop Capabilities Measure for Older Adults; Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire – Carers; resource utilisation; and adverse events. Assessments were completed pre-randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation.

Results

Three hundred and eighty-eight participants were randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD (n = 130), National Health Service speech and language therapy (n = 129) and control (n = 129). The impact of voice problems at 3 months after randomisation was lower for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD participants than control [−8.0 (99% confidence interval: −13.3, −2.6); p = 0.001]. There was no evidence of improvement for those with access to National Health Service speech and language therapy when compared to control [1.7 (99% confidence interval: −3.8, 7.1); p = 0.4]. Participants randomised to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD reported a lower impact of their voice problems than participants randomised to National Health Service speech and language therapy [99% confidence interval: −9.6 (−14.9, −4.4); p < 0.0001]. There were no reports of serious adverse events. Staff were confident with the trial interventions; a range of patient and therapist enablers of implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD were identified. The economic evaluation results suggested Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was more expensive and more effective than control or National Health Service speech and language therapy but was not cost-effective with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £197,772 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and £77,017 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.

Limitations

The number of participants recruited to the trial did not meet the pre-specified power.

Conclusions

People that had access to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD described a significantly greater reduction in the impact of their Parkinson’s disease-related speech problems 3 months after randomisation compared to people that had no speech and language therapy. There was no evidence of a difference between National Health Service speech and language therapy and those that received no speech and language therapy. Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD resulted in a significantly lower impact of voice problems compared to National Health Service speech and language therapy 3 months after randomisation which was still present after 12 months; however, Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD was not found to be cost-effective.

Future work

Implementing Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD in the National Health Service and identifying alternatives to Lee Silverman Voice Treatment LOUD for those who cannot tolerate it. Investigation of less costly alternative options for Lee Silverman Voice Treatment delivery require investigation, with economic evaluation using a preference-based outcome measure that captures improvement in communication.

Study registration

This study is registered as ISRCTN12421382.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/135/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 58. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.