Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 255
14
Directions
Since cognitive rehabilitation therapy (CRT) was first described in
published literature, its clinical application and efforts to document ef-
ficacy of CRT treatments through research have been ongoing. Innovative
interventions aimed to address specific cognitive impairments and whole-
person functioning have been characteristic of this field. However, limited
empirical research and inadequate standardization currently restrict the
ability to formulate evidence-based practices. This current state of knowl-
edge will therefore, benefit from increased organization and funding of both
interventional studies and observational analyses. Both approaches, to be
optimally productive, must address the challenges in obtaining more useful
and interpretable data on the patients treated or enrolled in studies, on the
CRT treatments they receive, and on the outcomes they experience.
SYNTHESIS OF EVIDENCE REVIEW
The committee found published data signaling the benefit of some
forms of CRT for traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the evidence for
the therapeutic value of CRT is variable across cognitive domains and is
currently insufficient overall to provide definitive guidance for translation
into clinical practice guidelines, particularly with respect to selecting the
most effective treatment(s) for a particular patient. This limitation results
from the heterogeneity of TBI as well as a lack of operational definitions
of different forms of CRT, small samples typical of most CRT studies, and
the variety of premorbid conditions, comorbidities, and environmental
factors that may moderate the value of a given form of CRT. Table 14-1
255
OCR for page 256
256
TABLE 14-1 Overall Conclusions by Cognitive Domain and Multi-Modal/Comprehensive CRT
Language
and Social Multi-Modal/
Domain Attention Executive Function Communication Memory Comprehensive CRT
Non-
Subdomain Awareness Awareness
TBI Moderate- Moderate-
Severity Moderate-Severe Moderate-Severe Moderate-Severe Mild Moderate-Severe Severe Mild Severe
Recovery
Phase Subacute Chronic Chronic Chronic Chronic Subacute Chronic
Approach R R R R/IC/EC R IC EC R IC EC M M M
Patient-
Centered 0 + 0 + 0 0 N/A 0 + ++ 0 + 0
Outcomes
Long-Term
Treatment + 0 0 0 + + N/A 0 + N/A 0 + 0
Effect
Immediate
Treatment + + + + ++ + N/A 0 ++ ++ 0 + 0
Benefit
NOTES: EC = external compensatory strategy; IC = internal compensatory strategy; M = mixture of treatment approaches; R = restorative strategy;
Evidence Grades: 0 no or not informative, + limited, ++ modest, +++ strong. Multiple treatments intended to target cognitive (non-awareness) aspects
of executive function were examined in single studies. The treatments varied in their approach from more restorative (e.g., categorization training)
to internal compensatory (e.g., Goal Management Training) to external compensatory (e.g., neutral alerting tones). The evidence grading reflects
the lack of replication of any single approach.
OCR for page 257
257
DIRECTIONS
provides an overview of the committee’s conclusions based on the review
of literature of modular, domain-specific treatments as well as multimodal/
comprehensive CRT programs.
In most cases the evidence provides limited, and in some cases modest,
support for the efficacy of CRT interventions. The committee defined lim-
ited evidence as “Interpretable results from a single study or mixed results
from two or more studies” and modest evidence as “Two or more studies
reporting interpretable, informative, and largely similar results” (see Box
6-2 for all evidence grades and definitions). The committee emphasizes that
conclusions based on the limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of
CRT does not indicate that the effectiveness of CRT treatments are “lim-
ited”; the limitations of the evidence do not rule out meaningful benefit. In
fact, the committee supports the ongoing clinical application of CRT in-
terventions for individuals with cognitive and behavioral deficits due to
TBI. To acquire more specific and meaningful results from future research
the committee has laid out a comprehensive research agenda to overcome
challenges in determining efficacy and effectiveness. One way policy could
reflect the provision of CRT is to facilitate the application of best-supported
techniques in TBI patients in the chronic phase (where natural recovery is
less of a confound), with the proviso that objectively measurable functional
goals are articulated and tracked and that treatment continues only so long
as gains are noted.
In reviewing the evidence regarding the efficacy and effectiveness of
CRT, the committee found no studies addressing cognitive deficits in the
acute phase of recovery following TBI, few studies addressing cognitive
treatment for individuals with mild injuries—those that did were only
in the chronic phase; and few studies addressing treatment of those with
moderate to severe injuries in the subacute phase. Table 14-2 provides the
committee’s definitions for acute, subacute, and chronic recovery phases.
The dearth of evidence in these areas is multi-factorial, but the committee
recognized specific practical and methodological limitations. One limitation
is that objective measures sensitive to the cognitive complaints of patients
with mild TBI are lacking in many instances and the use of subjective self-
report measures as an alternative is problematic when studying treatments
that cannot be blinded. Also, studies of subacute treatments require rela-
TABLE 14-2 Definitions of Acute, Subacute, and Chronic TBI Recovery
Mild TBI Moderate-Severe TBI
Acute < 3 months Acute hospital care
Subacute > 3 months < 6 months Inpatient rehabilitation
Chronic > 6 months < 12 months Outpatient rehabilitation
OCR for page 258
258 COGNITIVE REHABILITATION THERAPY FOR TBI
tively large samples because the ability to gauge the impact of a treatment
regimen in individual patients is diminished in the context of rapid and
variable natural recovery. Thus, in practice clinicians may defer substantial
resource investment in CRT to later stages of TBI when it becomes clear
which problems and impairments will persist long term.
Evidence supporting the efficacy of CRT in the chronic phase of TBI
for patients with moderate-severe injuries varies by cognitive domain and
specific CRT treatment modality. Of note, patients with moderate to severe
injuries in the chronic phase typically have deficits that can be objectively
measured and have a slower rate of natural recovery. These patients are
unlikely to improve substantially without intervention; thus, observations
of clinical outcomes in the chronic phase of TBI are a more useful source
of evidence than in more variable, earlier phases of recovery. However, cur-
rently even the most promising treatments lack sufficiently powered trials to
answer important practical questions, including (1) which patient charac-
teristics are associated with best response from a given treatment, (2) what
are the lasting benefits of treatments that have initially positive results, and
(3) to what degree does generalization occur of trained tasks to real-world
tasks (for modular treatments) or to global impact on community integra-
tion and quality of life (for comprehensive treatment programs).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Considering the dearth of conclusive evidence identified to date, the
committee recommends an investment in research to further develop CRT.
The committee interpreted its charge as assessing the current state of the
evidence. The committee was not asked to develop policy guidelines or
make clinical practice recommendations, but to reach evidence-based con-
clusions that would inform policy decisions. In most cases the evidence
provides limited, and in some cases modest, support for the efficacy of
CRT interventions. However, the limitations of the evidence do not rule
out meaningful benefit. In fact, the committee supports the ongoing clini-
cal application of CRT interventions for individuals with cognitive and
behavioral deficits due to TBI. To acquire more specific/meaningful results
from future research the committee has laid out a comprehensive research
agenda to overcome challenges in determining efficacy and effectiveness.
However, these recommendations are possible because the evidence review
signals some promise. Compared to pharmacological studies, which are
more conducive to controlled environments, the committee acknowledges
the difficulties associated with research for all forms of rehabilitation.
Complexity of patient, injury or disease, and environmental characteristics,
among other factors, require variability in possible treatment approaches;
these complexities create inherent challenges with rehabilitation research in
OCR for page 259
259
DIRECTIONS
general. Therefore, the committee did not identify methodological issues in
this report to hold CRT research to a higher standard than rehabilitation
research at large; it serves merely as a overt discussion of the issues that
cloud determination of efficacy and effectiveness. To improve future evalu-
ations of efficacy and effectiveness of CRT for TBI, larger sample sizes and
volume of data are required, particularly to answer questions about which
patients benefit most from which treatment(s). This requires more exten-
sive funding of experimental trials and a commitment to “mining” clinical
practice data in the most rigorous way possible. For such approaches to
be most informative, the variables that characterize patient heterogeneity,
the outcomes that are used to measure impact of treatment, and the treat-
ments themselves need to be defined and standardized. In addition, more
rigorous review of potential harm or adverse events related to specific CRT
treatments is necessary.
Nascent efforts at standardization are underway across multiple ci-
vilian and military funding agencies. These efforts should take place in
collaboration. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) common data ele-
ment (CDE) initiative, a National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR)–supported center on treatment definition, and several
practice-based evidence studies are helping to better characterize TBI pa-
tients, treatments, and relevant outcomes. Practice-based evidence studies
include the Congressionally Mandated Longitudinal Study on TBI (e.g., 15
Year Longitudinal Study of TBI Incurred by Members of the Armed Forces
in OIF/OEF), DVBIC Study on Cognitive Rehabilitation Effectiveness for
Mild TBI (SCORE!), Millennium, and TBI Model Systems. These cohorts
involve collaborative efforts between the U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) via the Defense and
Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC). Furthermore, the recently funded
Federal Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury Research (FITBIR) database
will be collecting uniform and high-quality data on traumatic brain injury,
including brain imaging scans and neurological test results. The commit-
tee recognizes the ongoing emphasis from both government agencies to
enhance collaboration on TBI and improve psychological health of service
members and veterans through the VA/DoD Joint Executive Council Strate-
gic Plan to integrate health care services (VA/DoD 2009). This collaboration
is especially important in evaluating transitions in care and long-term treat-
ment for injured soldiers as they move out of the Military Health System
(MHS) and into the Veterans Health System, run by the VA. For example,
it will be important to study how CRT may benefit aging veterans who
experience long-term outcomes of TBI, such as cognitive decline associated
with dementia.
Because CRT is not a single therapy, questions of efficacy and effec-
tiveness need to be answered for each cognitive domain and by treatment
OCR for page 260
260 COGNITIVE REHABILITATION THERAPY FOR TBI
approach. Nevertheless, within a specific cognitive domain, there must be
sufficient research and replication for conclusions to be drawn. Standard
definitions for intervention type, content, and key ingredients will be criti-
cal to developing evidence-based practice standards. The documentation
of interventions in practice and more frequent use of manual-based inter-
ventions in research will help validate measures of treatment fidelity. For
example, while there is evidence from controlled trials that internal memory
strategies are useful for improving recall on decontextulized, standard tests
of memory, there is limited evidence that these benefits translate into mean-
ingful changes in patients’ everyday memory either for specific tasks/activi-
ties or for avoiding memory failures. Therefore, an increased emphasis on
functional patient-centered outcomes would allow for a more meaningful
translation from cognitive domain to patient functioning. The committee
acknowledges that efforts are underway to facilitate manualization of treat-
ments, including the “Cognitive Rehabilitation Treatment Manual” by the
Brain Injury Special Interest Group of the American Congress of Rehabili-
tation Medicine, and the “Executive Plus” treatment manual developed by
the Mount Sinai Brain Injury Research Center. These are promising efforts
to build upon, an effort this report supports.
The committee recommends the Department of Defense (DoD) under-
take the following:
• nclude measures in experimental and observational data sets that
I
characterize important dimensions of patient heterogeneity and
factors affecting recovery and response to CRT;
• mprove standardization of CRT treatments as well as TBI patient
I
characteristics and relevant outcome measures in clinical practice
and research;
• evelop a common registry or linked registries encompassing de-
D
identified data of large numbers of consenting patients to facilitate
data mining and the rationale for testing new interventions; and
• rospectively follow any policy changes in coverage for CRT in the
P
Military Health System.
Due to the pressing nature of the problem—TBI affects many thousands
of individuals, particularly U.S. service members, every year—these efforts
should take advantage of current momentum in TBI research to improve the
field of CRT research via existing cohorts. The committee developed and
designed the layout of these recommendations systematically, to sequen-
tially address fundamental flaws in CRT research. For example, developing
a common registry to prospectively facilitate data mining should not be un-
dertaken before there are agreed-upon definitions of patient characteristics,
outcome measures, and CRT interventions, which cannot be accomplished
OCR for page 261
261
DIRECTIONS
without accounting for and recognizing TBI-related heterogeneity, factors
affecting recovery, and response to CRT.
Recognize Heterogeneity, Factors Affecting Recovery,
and Response to CRT
An individual’s response to CRT may be affected by preinjury status,
comorbid conditions, environmental factors, injury severity, impairment
severity, and mechanism of injury. For example, it may be that certain types
of memory remediation work best for individuals with moderate-severe
injury, focal memory impairments, and a supportive home environment.
Or, treatment impact may vary with the presence of a sleep disturbance or
the extent of family support to enhance participation in or reinforcement
of the intervention. Researchers and clinical providers should collaborate to
identify the many variables that influence response to therapy interventions.
Relatively large samples are therefore necessary to ascertain the interven-
tions that are most effective for specific patients and their special needs
and circumstances. To enhance the understanding of the optimal treatment
candidates for various forms of CRT, and their relative value in affecting
different outcome targets, DoD should collaborate with other rehabilita-
tion research organizations to capture relevant patient characteristics and
outcome measures, which can facilitate comparison of results across studies
and treatments and support formal meta-analyses.
Categorizing participants by injury severity and recovery phase may
be important to create useful categories, group studies, and draw related
conclusions. However, in research or treatment of cognitive deficits follow-
ing TBI, clinicians and researchers are generally more attentive to severity
of the deficit rather than severity of injury. Likewise, in application and
research, clinicians and researchers focus more on clinical indicators of
treatment need and readiness for treatment than the absolute time since
injury. Therefore, in some cases, the severity of injury classification does
not correspond with the severity of deficit requiring rehabilitation. For ex-
ample, a moderate or severe TBI can result in chronic but mild, moderate
or severe cognitive impairments. Likewise, a mild TBI can result in mild
but very disabling cognitive impairments that interfere with one’s ability to
participate in society.
Environmental and social factors, particularly family support, are es-
pecially influential in recovery from TBI. Engaging and mobilizing the
patient’s family may be accomplished by a range of efforts. Caregivers are
directly affected by their family members’ disability and play key roles
in motivation, treatment participation, compliance, and follow-up. Thus,
education and support for family members and other caregivers are essen-
tial in CRT treatment. However, the roles of family and caregivers in CRT
OCR for page 262
262 COGNITIVE REHABILITATION THERAPY FOR TBI
treatments for TBI are rarely defined systematically and vary by interven-
tion, study, and rehabilitation program. DoD should encourage family or
caregiver involvement, especially where interventions or rehabilitation pro-
grams may require significant support for the treated individual within or
beyond the treatment facility. Investigators should consider the important
role of caregivers as interventions or rehabilitation programs are tested in
controlled environments. DoD should consider the incurred costs of CRT
to family members, in part related to the burdens of taking time away
from work and traveling to rehabilitation facilities, and thus may want
to increase support for families/caretakers as part of the recovery process.
Promote Standardization and Operationalization of Patient
Characteristics, Outcome Measures, and CRT Interventions
Research to document efficacy of CRT will benefit from greater opera-
tional definition of the CRT interventions being evaluated. Given that no
current treatment taxonomy is sufficiently mature to allow feasible coding
of treatment A versus B versus C in practice, the most realistic short-term
approach to defining and standardizing specific CRT interventions is to de-
velop treatment manuals and adherence measures to verify that the defined
treatment is being administered to patients. Developers of CRT treatments
and others experienced in their use, along with civilian and military funding
agencies, should collaborate to codify and make widely available these op-
erationally defined treatments (e.g., specific manual-based forms of CRT),
which can be tested in clinical trials. Likewise, collaboration should achieve
consensus for recommendations on variables that describe patient char-
acteristics and clinical outcomes. To enforce newly established standards,
funders can promote these standardized practices by requiring research
uniformity in research proposals. Likewise, professional organizations may
consider providing continuing education only to those practitioners and
providers meeting standard criteria.
Recommendation 14-1: DoD should work with other rehabilitation
research and funding organizations to
1. Identify and select uniform data elements characterizing TBI
patients including cognitive impairments (to supplement mea-
sures of injury severity) and key premorbid conditions, comor-
bidities, and environmental factors that may influence recovery
and treatment response;
2. Identify and select uniform TBI outcome measures, includ-
ing standard measures of cognitive and global/functional out-
comes; and
OCR for page 263
263
DIRECTIONS
3. Create a plan of action to
a. Identify currently feasible methods of measuring the deliv-
ery of CRT interventions,
b. Advance the development of a taxonomy for CRT inter-
ventions that can be used for this purpose in the future,
and
c. Advance the operationalization of promising CRT ap-
proaches in the form of treatment manuals and associated
adherence measures.
Advancing the evidence about CRT requires enlarging the sample size
of patients studied in similar ways, by investing in larger studies or ensuring
the collection of comparable data across multiple smaller studies and obser-
vational data sets. The necessary data include variables that capture charac-
teristics of patients that are relevant to predicting their outcomes and their
response to treatment, variables that capture a range of outcomes that shed
light on the impact of CRT, and variables that capture the type and dose of
CRT interventions that patients receive. Measures of many of the relevant
patient characteristics are already available, but comparable measures are
not being collected across studies. Measures of the relevant outcomes are
also available, and the NIH’s CDE effort has already made some progress in
suggesting specific consensus outcome measures for patients with TBI. Out-
come measures incorporated into CRT research remain variable. Therefore,
in the areas of patient characteristics and outcomes, progress can be made
by striving for consensus on the available measures that are most useful to
incorporate into CRT data collection efforts over time.
In the case of variables that define CRT interventions received, how-
ever, the field is not nearly as well developed. There is no current taxonomy
that defines or names in standardized fashion different forms of CRT in
ways that are likely to map onto their efficacy and effectiveness, and thus
no straightforward process for recommending treatment-related variables
for incorporation into studies and registries. Thus, advancing the process
of standardized treatment data collection will evolve over time and may
involve (1) considering what measures are currently available that are likely
to be useful in this effort, (2) developing a consensus agenda of the work
needed to advance CRT treatment definition, and (3) distilling promising
forms of CRT into treatment manuals with associated adherence measures,
so that the delivery of these well-defined packages can be documented. As
a way to make these improvements, the committee recommends that DoD
convene a conference to achieve consensus among multiple agencies and
professional organizations providing or endorsing CRT. The conference
participants should be given specific goals to finalize the selection of patient
OCR for page 264
264 COGNITIVE REHABILITATION THERAPY FOR TBI
characteristics and outcome variables to be included in experimental and
observational CRT research, and to plan a strategy to advance the common
definition and operationalization of CRT interventions.
Recommendation 14-2: DoD should convene a conference to achieve
consensus among a multiagency (e.g., VA, NIH, and NIDRR), multi-
disciplinary team of clinicians and researchers to finalize the selection
of patient characteristics and outcome variables to be included in ex-
perimental and observational CRT research, and to plan a strategy
to advance the common definition and operationalization of CRT
interventions.
In addition, researchers and clinicians should reach consensus on the
appropriate timing of CRT in the course of recovery following TBI. Current
data examine the application of CRT in subacute and chronic phases of
mild or moderate/severe TBI, with no parallel identified evidence base for
review of CRT delivered during the acute stage. This may in part be due to
spontaneous resolution of short-term impairments without rehabilitation.
Formal analyses to identify early predictors of spontaneous recovery should
be undertaken to best identify patients who are at risk for long-term impair-
ments and who are good candidates for CRT. Data are needed to enforce
or dispel the current idea that rehabilitation programs should ideally begin
treatment only in subacute and chronic phases of TBI.
Develop a Registry Among Existing Cohorts
The treatment and time course of TBI among military personnel, in-
cluding its sequelae and recovery, prompt the cooperative engagement of
government agencies and other research organizations to advance evidence-
based decision making pertaining to the value of specific interventions for
TBI, particularly within the military setting. Ongoing research provides an
opportunity to bridge substantial knowledge gaps that require continual
compilation and analyses of the results as well as publication of interim
findings and data sharing.
Throughout its deliberations, the committee had the opportunity to
hear from researchers actively engaged in studies of CRT for the treatment
of individuals with TBI. Ongoing and new studies provide an opportunity
to increase standardization, identify factors that characterize the course of
TBI and factors that may affect recovery, and evaluate individual CRT ap-
proaches compared to comprehensive or multi-modal treatments. Further-
more, such studies provide an opportunity for DoD and allied agencies (e.g.,
NIDRR, NIH, VA) to better understand the evolving field of CRT and make
judgments regarding efficacy of both modular and comprehensive treatments.
OCR for page 265
265
DIRECTIONS
Longitudinal patient registries represent an evolving resource that will
make observational studies of comparative effectiveness more feasible and
informative. Such deidentified but coded registries go beyond administrative
claims data, which typically lack sufficient clinical data about disease se-
verity. Larger integrated health care delivery systems are creating registries
with the aid of electronic medical records that link administrative claims
data with clinical, pharmacy, and laboratory data, and, increasingly, with
patient-reported data that are collected in a systematic fashion. Clinical
trials are typically of relatively short duration but contain a wealth of well-
characterized data and should be included in the proposed longitudinal
registries.
Recommendation 14-3: DoD should incorporate the selected measures
of patient characteristics, outcomes, and defined CRT interventions
into ongoing studies (e.g., DVBIC: SCORE trial, Millennium, TBI
Model Systems) and develop a comprehensive registry encompassing
the existing cohorts and deidentified MHS medical records to allow
ongoing evaluation of CRT interventions.
There are many strategies for establishing a registry, but existing stud-
ies or cohorts that might be adapted for this purpose include the Con-
gressionally Mandated Longitudinal Study on TBI, DVBIC SCORE trial,
Millennium, and TBI Model Systems. CRT for TBI ideally would take into
account subgroup-level results, given the heterogeneity of populations and
forthcoming advances in disease mechanisms/markers (Kent et al. 2010).
Randomized trials large enough to conduct such analyses will be expensive
and take years; a prospectively designed registry could potentially yield
results on subgroups more rapidly to help the inform research community
about who would most benefit from CRT. A registry could be used to ana-
lyze current implementation of CRT as well as the associated outcomes.
This information should prospectively capture additional data elements.
The registry should include data from (1) operationally defined categories
or taxonomy of CRT treatments (as described in Recommendations 14-1
and 14-2), and (2) providers of CRT-consistent care, such as physical thera-
pists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, or others.
The different labels and billing codes currently used by various provid-
ers (e.g., occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language
pathologists) makes it difficult or impossible to identify and track current
CRT usage patterns. Operationally defined CRT treatments (i.e., manual-
based interventions) will not clear up the ambiguity of services provided
via occupational therapy (such as “dressing training”) versus CRT. How-
ever, operationally defined CRT treatments will improve identification and
tracking of (1) restorative programs (these treatments usually involve “ar-
OCR for page 266
266 COGNITIVE REHABILITATION THERAPY FOR TBI
tificial” tasks so they cannot be labeled as “dressing training”), and (2)
large, organized programs of compensatory CRT treatments. Once a more
comprehensive taxonomy of rehabilitation treatments is available, embed-
ded CRT activities provided via occupational therapy, physical therapy,
or speech-language pathology will be easier to identify due to the services
provided (e.g., training, learning, adapting, and compensating).
Recommendation 14-4: Using these data sources, DoD should plan to
prospectively evaluate the impact of any policy changes related to CRT
delivery and payment within the MHS with respect to outcomes and
cost-effectiveness.
Prospectively planned analyses of clinically rich data sets are increas-
ingly used to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of
clinical and policy interventions in health care. These registries provide the
opportunity to reassess effectiveness—including both benefits and harms—
of interventions as they move into routine care from settings and popula-
tions in which they have been tested for efficacy. Because little research
exists on dissemination of evidence-based CRT therapies, DoD should
evaluate the impact of policy changes about evidence-based CRT interven-
tions delivered in the MHS. DoD can shape and monitor implementation
rollout, and plan a prospective evaluation of the utilization, health, and
financial impacts of any coverage policy change.
Advance Current Research
To continue efforts to document efficacy and effectiveness of CRT,
research should be designed to address the effects of CRT across various
levels of TBI severity and recovery among individuals capable of participat-
ing in this therapy, especially service members and veterans. Current efforts
should provide valuable information about CRT efficacy and effectiveness.
For example, the ongoing SCORE! trial includes four arms. The treatment
group (with CRT) will be compared to a no-treatment group (to determine
efficacy) and other forms of CRT group (to determine effectiveness). As dis-
cussed previously, the potential moderating effects of premorbid conditions
(e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], learning disabilities),
comorbidities (e.g., posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], depression), and
social environmental context (e.g., family support) on response to CRT
should be studied. Investigative attention should be devoted to evaluating
the generalization of the effects of CRT across various settings, as well as
the persistence of any improvements over time. There are several promising
efforts under way or planned, as indicated by the table of ongoing or re-
OCR for page 267
267
DIRECTIONS
cently completed clinical trials found in Appendix C of this report. Ideally,
study designs will include
• an emphasis on functional patient-centered outcomes;
• d
efined control groups of ideally wait-list or usual care compari-
sons; and
• s
ample sizes sufficiently large to inform analyses of the impact of
heterogeneities (covariates) within the TBI population on treatment
outcome; or
• novel, adaptive designs (to surmount sample size issues).
DoD should continue to facilitate development of existing, early stage
research. Early research may be most efficiently compared to no treatment
or a wait-list control, since this does not require design of plausible but
inert comparison treatments, and avoids the risk of comparing two effec-
tive treatments. Once a treatment is shown to be superior to no treatment,
research designs may include increasingly precise comparisons to define the
ingredients that account for impact. Such treatments should be distilled into
treatment protocols or manuals in consultation with their original develop-
ers and/or researchers and clinicians experienced in these approaches, and
accompanied by adherence measures that ensure these treatments’ faithful
delivery.
Once a set of effective modular treatments is assembled, a compre-
hensive program could then be built from the set. The protocol would
ideally incorporate assessment and treatment selection criteria to determine
which patients should receive which modules, as well as assessment of the
impact of the program on important aspects of activity and participation.
A research program of this magnitude requires substantial and sustained
investment, and most likely a multicenter research system to recruit suf-
ficient patients for study.
Recommendation 14-5: DoD should collaborate with other research
and funding organizations to foster all phases of research and develop-
ment of CRT treatments for TBI, from pilot phase, to early efficacy
research (safety, dose, duration and frequency of exposure, and durabil-
ity), to large-scale randomized clinical trials, and ultimately, effective-
ness and comparative effectiveness studies.
Modeling, observational studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs),
and systematic reviews are the types of research approaches used for com-
parative effectiveness and implementation research. Well-controlled trials
of CRT will help provide more definitive evaluations of CRT efficacy in
OCR for page 268
268 COGNITIVE REHABILITATION THERAPY FOR TBI
ameliorating cognitive deficits due to TBI, as will large observational stud-
ies that capitalize on existing registries and cohorts, including long-term
follow-up of clinical trial populations. Observational studies are potentially
less expensive to perform than RCTs; however, observational studies re-
quire sufficient sample size and duration to account for variability of injury
severity and other factors that influence treatment choice and outcomes.
The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute, established in 2011,
includes a Methodology Committee charged with identifying areas of meth-
odological research to improve the quality of findings from comparative
effectiveness studies, particularly observational study designs. Meaningful
analysis requires accounting for these factors and comparing outcomes of
different treatment approaches. Periodic evaluation of accrued evidence
should accompany efforts to improve the size and quality of studies, since
the value of a systematic review of evidence depends on the quality of stud-
ies being assessed.
CONCLUSION
Members of the military and civilians commonly experience TBI, which
often results in significant cognitive, physical, or psychosocial deficits re-
quiring rehabilitation. These recommendations aim to assist DoD and al-
lied agencies in addressing this increasing and significant problem for U.S.
society. Conclusive evidence of efficacy, and particularly effectiveness, is
lacking for all forms of CRT even though some forms have modest amounts
of evidence.
In reviewing the evidence, the committee found no studies addressing
cognitive deficits in the acute phase of recovery following TBI, few studies
addressing treatment of those with moderate-severe injuries in the subacute
phase, and few studies addressing cognitive treatment for individuals with
mild injuries overall. Evidence supporting the efficacy of CRT in the chronic
phase of TBI for patients with moderate-severe injuries varies by cognitive
domain and specific CRT treatment modality. Because the noted limitations
of the evidence often were secondary to the methodological shortcomings
of the studies reviewed, and do not rule out meaningful benefit of CRT for
TBI, the committee supports the ongoing clinical application of CRT inter-
ventions for individuals with cognitive and behavioral deficits due to TBI.
With thoughtful consideration of the challenges it faced throughout the
study process, and in light of the lack of conclusive evidence, the commit-
tee has identified these recommendations as a way forward for the Military
Health System.
OCR for page 269
269
DIRECTIONS
REFERENCES
Kent, D. M., P. M. Rothwell, J. P. Ioannidis, D. G. Altman, and R. A. Hayward. 2010. As-
sessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: A proposal.
Trials 11:85.
VA/DoD (U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense). 2009. VA/DoD
Joint Executive Council Strategic Plan: Fiscal years 2009–2011. Washington, DC; Alex-
andria, VA: VA/DoD Joint Executive Council.
OCR for page 270
