Dataset Information

Economic evaluation of robot-assisted training versus an enhanced upper limb therapy programme or usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation due to stroke: results from the RATULS randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care.

Design

Economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Four National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK: Queen's Hospital, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust; Northwick Park Hospital, London Northwest Healthcare NHS Trust; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde; and North Tyneside General Hospital, Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust.

Participants

770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke.

Interventions

Participants randomised to one of three programmes provided over a 12-week period: robot-assisted training plus usual care; the EULT programme plus usual care or usual care.

Main economic outcome measures

Mean healthcare resource use; costs to the NHS and personal social services in 2018 pounds; utility scores based on EQ-5D-5L responses and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost-effectiveness reported as incremental cost per QALY and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results

At 6 months, on average usual care was the least costly option (£3785) followed by EULT (£4451) with robot-assisted training being the most costly (£5387). The mean difference in total costs between the usual care and robot-assisted training groups (£1601) was statistically significant (p<0.001). Mean QALYs were highest for the EULT group (0.23) but no evidence of a difference (p=0.995) was observed between the robot-assisted training (0.21) and usual care groups (0.21). The incremental cost per QALY at 6 months for participants randomised to EULT compared with usual care was £74 100. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves showed that robot-assisted training was unlikely to be cost-effective and that EULT had a 19% chance of being cost-effective at the £20 000 willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. Usual care was most likely to be cost-effective at all the WTP values considered in the analysis.

Conclusions

The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that neither robot-assisted training nor EULT, as delivered in this trial, were likely to be cost-effective at any of the cost per QALY thresholds considered.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN69371850.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez-Garcia C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8154983 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke.MethodsIn this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks.ResultsAt 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionsIn patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Project description:BackgroundLoss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.MethodsRATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850.FindingsBetween April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention.InterpretationRobot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:Upper limb recovery is one of the main goals of post-stroke rehabilitation due to its importance for autonomy in Activities of Daily Living (ADL). Although the efficacy of upper limb Robot-assisted Therapy (RT) is well established in literature, the impact of the initial status of the patient on the effects of RT is still understudied. This paper aims to identify whether demographic, clinical and motor characteristics of stroke patients may influence the ability to independently perform ADL after RT.A retrospective study was conducted on sixty stroke patients who conducted planar upper limb goal-directed tasks with the InMotion 2.0 robot. The RT was administered 5 days/week for 4 weeks and each session lasted 45 minutes. The primary outcome measure was the Modified Barthel Index (BI), dichotomized into favourable (BI ?75) and unfavourable (BI<75) outcomes. The potential predictors were the demographic and clinical records, and the following clinical assessment scores: Modified Ashworth Scale-Shoulder (MAS-S); Modified Ashworth Scale-Elbow (MAS-E); Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE); upper limb section of the Motricity Index (MIul); total passive Range Of Motion (pROM); and Box and Block Test (BBT).Statistical analysis showed that the BBT, FMA-UE and MIul scores were significant predictors of a favourable outcome in ADL. The cut-off scores of the independent variables were calculated (FMA-UE = 32; MIul = 48; BBT = 3) with respect to the dichotomic BI outcome. Their robustness was assessed with the Fragility Index (FMA-UE = 2; MIul = 3; BBT = 7), showing that BBT is the most robust predictor of favourable BI outcome. Moreover, subjects with all predictors higher than the cut-off scores had higher probability to increase their independence in ADL at the end of the therapy. Demographic records, spasticity and pROM were not identified as predictors.Stroke patients with greater manual dexterity and less impairment appear to have a higher probability of achieving clinically significant ADL outcomes after upper limb RT. The obtained results can help to optimise the management of RT treatment planning. Further studies on a larger number of patients with a long-term follow up are recommended in order to evaluate other potential predictors and to validate the results.

Project description:BackgroundIntensive robot-assisted training of the upper limb after stroke can reduce motor impairment, even at the chronic stage. However, the effectiveness of practice for recovery depends on the selection of the practised movements. We hypothesized that rehabilitation can be optimized by selecting the movements to be practiced based on the trainee's performance profile.MethodsWe present a novel principle ('steepest gradients') for performance-based selection of movements. The principle is based on mapping motor performance across a workspace and then selecting movements located at regions of the steepest transition between better and worse performance. To assess the benefit of this principle we compared the effect of 15 sessions of robot-assisted reaching training on upper-limb motor impairment, between two groups of people who have moderate-to-severe chronic upper-limb hemiparesis due to stroke. The test group (N = 7) received steepest gradients-based training, iteratively selected according to the steepest gradients principle with weekly remapping, whereas the control group (N = 9) received a standard "centre-out" reaching training. Training intensity was identical.ResultsBoth groups showed improvement in Fugl-Meyer upper-extremity scores (the primary outcome measure). Moreover, the test group showed significantly greater improvement (twofold) compared to control. The score remained elevated, on average, for at least 4 weeks although the additional benefit of the steepest-gradients -based training diminished relative to control.ConclusionsThis study provides a proof of concept for the superior benefit of performance-based selection of practiced movements in reducing upper-limb motor impairment due to stroke. This added benefit was most evident in the short term, suggesting that performance-based steepest-gradients training may be effective in increasing the rate of initial phase of practice-based recovery; we discuss how long-term retention may also be improved.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN65226825 , registered 12 June 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies have suggested that robot-assisted therapy (RT) is effective in treating impairment and that it may also improve individuals' participation.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of RT on the participation of individuals with limited upper limb functioning (PROSPERO: CRD42019133880). Data Sources: PEDro, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, AMED, and Compendex. Inclusion Criteria. We selected randomized or quasirandomized controlled studies comparing the effects of RT with minimal or other interventions on participation of individuals with limited upper limb functioning. Data Extraction and Synthesis. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the 0-10 PEDro scale, and effect estimates were reported using standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of the current evidence was assessed using the GRADE.ResultsTwelve randomized controlled studies involving 845 participants were included. The estimates of medium effects between RT and minimal intervention (MI) at a short-term follow-up were pooled, but there are no short-term effects between RT and OI. Standardized differences in means were as follows: 0.6 (95% CI 0.1 to 1.2) and 0.2 (95% CI -0.0 to 0.4). There were also no effects of additional RT in the short- or medium-term follow-up periods. Standardized differences in means were as follows: -0.6 (95% CI -1.1 to -0.1) and 0.2 (95% CI -0.3 to 0.8). The methodological quality of the included studies potentially compromised the effect estimates of RT. The existing evidence was very low-quality with many confounding variables between studies.ConclusionsFor patients with upper limb neurological dysfunction, low-quality evidence supports RT over MI in terms of improving individual participation in the short term. The existing low- to very low-quality evidence does not support RT over OI in either the short- or medium-term follow-up periods with respect to community participation.