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

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

Robot-assisted training compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care for upper limb functional limitation after stroke: the RATULS three-group RCT

Background Loss of arm function is common after stroke. Robot-assisted training may improve arm outcomes. Objective The objectives were to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted training, compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy programme and with usual care. Design This was a pragmatic, observer-blind, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Setting The trial was set in four NHS trial centres. Participants Patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years following first stroke, were recruited. Interventions Robot-assisted training using the Massachusetts Institute of Technology-Manus robotic gym system (InMotion commercial version, Interactive Motion Technologies, Inc., Watertown, MA, USA), an enhanced upper limb therapy programme comprising repetitive functional task practice, and usual care. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was upper limb functional recovery ‘success’ (assessed using the Action Research Arm Test) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes at 3 and 6 months were the Action Research Arm Test results, upper limb impairment (measured using the Fugl-Meyer Assessment), activities of daily living (measured using the Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index), quality of life (measured using the Stroke Impact Scale), resource use costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Results A total of 770 participants were randomised (robot-assisted training, n = 257; enhanced upper limb therapy, n = 259; usual care, n = 254). Upper limb functional recovery ‘success’ was achieved in the robot-assisted training [103/232 (44%)], enhanced upper limb therapy [118/234 (50%)] and usual care groups [85/203 (42%)]. These differences were not statistically significant; the adjusted odds ratios were as follows: robot-assisted training versus usual care, 1.2 (98.33% confidence interval 0.7 to 2.0); enhanced upper limb therapy versus usual care, 1.5 (98.33% confidence interval 0.9 to 2.5); and robot-assisted training versus enhanced upper limb therapy, 0.8 (98.33% confidence interval 0.5 to 1.3). The robot-assisted training group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale) than the usual care group at 3 and 6 months. The enhanced upper limb therapy group had less upper limb impairment (as measured by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment motor subscale), better mobility (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale mobility domain) and better performance in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the usual care group, at 3 months. The robot-assisted training group performed less well in activities of daily living (as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale activities of daily living domain) than the enhanced upper limb therapy group at 3 months. No other differences were clinically important and statistically significant. Participants found the robot-assisted training and the enhanced upper limb therapy group programmes acceptable. Neither intervention, as provided in this trial, was cost-effective at current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence willingness-to-pay thresholds for a quality-adjusted life-year. Conclusions Robot-assisted training did not improve upper limb function compared with usual care. Although robot-assisted training improved upper limb impairment, this did not translate into improvements in other outcomes. Enhanced upper limb therapy resulted in potentially important improvements on upper limb impairment, in performance of activities of daily living, and in mobility. Neither intervention was cost-effective. Future work Further research is needed to find ways to translate the improvements in upper limb impairment seen with robot-assisted training into improvements in upper limb function and activities of daily living. Innovations to make rehabilitation programmes more cost-effective are required. Limitations Pragmatic inclusion criteria led to the recruitment of some participants with little prospect of recovery. The attrition rate was higher in the usual care group than in the robot-assisted training or enhanced upper limb therapy groups, and differential attrition is a potential source of bias. Obtaining accurate information about the usual care that participants were receiving was a challenge. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN69371850. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 54. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Evaluation of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke trial: descriptive analysis of intervention fidelity, goal selection and goal achievement

Objective: To report the fidelity of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after stroke (RATULS) randomized controlled trial, the types of goals selected and the proportion of goals achieved. Design: Descriptive analysis of data on fidelity, goal selection and achievement from an intervention group within a randomized controlled trial. Setting: Out-patient stroke rehabilitation within four UK NHS centres. Subjects: 259 participants with moderate-severe upper limb activity limitation (Action Research Arm Test 0–39) between one week and five years post first stroke. Intervention: The enhanced upper limb therapy programme aimed to provide 36 one-hour sessions, including 45 minutes of face-to-face therapy focusing on personal goals, over 12 weeks. Results: 7877/9324 (84%) sessions were attended; a median of 34 [IQR 29–36] per participant. A median of 127 [IQR 70–190] repetitions were achieved per participant per session attended. Based upon the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, goal categories were: self-care 1449/2664 (54%); productivity 374/2664 (14%); leisure 180/2664 (7%) and ‘other’ 661/2664 (25%). For the 2051/2664 goals for which data were available, 1287 (51%) were achieved, ranging between 27% by participants more than 12 months post stroke with baseline Action Research Arm Test scores 0–7, and 88% by those less than three months after stroke with scores 8–19. Conclusions: Intervention fidelity was high. Goals relating to self-care were most commonly selected. The proportion of goals achieved varied, depending on time post stroke and baseline arm activity limitation

Validation of epidermal AMBRA1 and loricrin (AMBLor) as a prognostic biomarker for nonulcerated American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I/II cutaneous melanoma

\ua9 2023 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.Background: Combined expression of the autophagy-regulatory protein AMBRA1 (activating molecule in Beclin1-regulated autophagy) and the terminal differentiation marker loricrin in the peritumoral epidermis of stage I melanomas can identify tumour subsets at low risk of -metastasis. Objectives: To validate the combined expression of peritumoral AMBRA1 and loricrin (AMBLor) as a prognostic biomarker able to identify both stage I and II melanomas at low risk of tumour recurrence. Methods: Automated immunohistochemistry was used to analyse peritumoral AMBRA1 and loricrin expression in geographically distinct discovery (n = 540) and validation (n = 300) cohorts of nonulcerated American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage I and II melanomas. AMBLor status was correlated with clinical outcomes in the discovery and validation cohorts separately and combined. Results: Analysis of AMBLor in the discovery cohort revealed a recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate of 95.5% in the AMBLor low-risk group vs. 81.7% in the AMBLor at-risk group (multivariate log-rank, P &lt; 0.001) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.0%. In the validation cohort, AMBLor analysis revealed a RFS rate of 97.6% in the AMBLor low-risk group vs. 78.3% in the at-risk group (multivariate log-rank, P &lt; 0.001) and a NPV of 97.6%. In a multivariate model considering AMBLor, Breslow thickness, age and sex, analysis of the combined discovery and validation cohorts showed that the estimated effect of AMBLor was statistically significant, with a hazard ratio of 3.469 (95% confidence interval 1.403-8.580, P = 0.007) and an overall NPV of 96.5%. Conclusions: These data provide further evidence validating AMBLor as a prognostic biomarker to identify nonulcerated AJCC stage I and II melanoma tumours at low risk of disease recurrence

Robot assisted training for the upper limb after stroke (RATULS): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background Loss 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. Methods RATULS 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. Findings Between 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. Interpretation Robot-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