Cost-effectiveness of physical fitness training for stroke survivors

Background Physical fitness is impaired after stroke, yet fitness training after stroke reduces disability. Several international guidelines recommend that fitness training be incorporated as part of stroke rehabilitation. However, information about cost-effectiveness is limited. Methods A decision tree model was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a fitness programme for stroke survivors vs. relaxation (control group). This was based on a published randomised controlled trial, from which evidence about quality of life was used to estimate Quality Adjusted Life Years. Costs were based on the cost of the provision of group fitness classes within local community centres and a cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year was calculated. Results The results of the base case analysis found an incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Year of £2,343. Conclusions Physical fitness sessions after stroke are a cost-effective intervention for stroke survivors. This information will help make the case for the development of new services

Skill acquisition in people with chronic upper limb spasticity after stroke

Background After a stroke, a considerable proportion of people experience upper limb (UL) impairments, which may affect their activities of daily living. Focal spasticity is common, for which botulinum toxin-type A (BTX-A) is used increasingly. However, published randomised controlled trials have not used valid outcome measures to assess the effects of BTX-A on spasticity and have hardly explored its impact on UL function. The primary aim of this thesis was to investigate whether task-specific UL practice in the form of an evidence-based, functional skill acquisition programme, administered after BTX-A, would have any differential effects on upper limb spasticity or functional UL activity in people more than six months after stroke. The prerequisites were to: 1) clarify the definition of spasticity, 2) pilot a novel biomechanical spasticity measurement device, 3) standardise the assessment of arm function, 4) systematically review the literature on the effects of BTX-A and 5) compile an evidence- and theory-based skill acquisition programme. Methods Design: randomised controlled feasibility study with four repeated measures and a blinded assessor. Fourteen participants (time after stroke: range 1.4 -11.0 years) gave informed consent and were randomised into either the experimental group (EG: BTX-A plus skill acquisition) or the placebo control group (CG: BTX-A plus inflatable arm splint). Outcome measures were: Action Research Arm Test, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, grip force of the affected hand, Stroke Impact Scale, EMG of the elbow flexors, biomechanically measured resistance to passive movement and Ashworth scale. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and weeks 4, 7 and 13 following BTX-A injection. Differences in change between the two groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Applying the Bonferroni correction for three repeated measures yielded a critical p-value of 0.017. Results At baseline, there were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the dependent variables. Compared to the CG, the EG improved in self-reported hand function between baseline and week 4 (median change 25%, range 0 to 30% vs. CG: median change 0%, range -10 to 0%; p=0.04). The EG also improved in arm function between baseline and week 7 (median ARA T change 4 points, range 1 to 8 points vs. CG: median change -1 point, range -3 to 0 points; p=0.003) as well as in self-reported ADL between baseline and week 13 (median change 11.3%, range 5 to 20% vs. CG: median change 0%, range -2.5 to 5%; p=0.02). Only the differential improvement in ARAT by the EG reached statistical significance. There were no significant differences between the two groups in any of the other outcome measures. Although the programme was perceived as intensive, most participants in the experimental group had found the intervention to be enjoyable. Conclusion The main finding of this study was that people with severe and chronic upper limb spasticity may still improve in functional activity involving their affected arm, using a combination of BTX-A and a functional skill acquisition programme - without exacerbating spasticity. BTX-A alone did not improve upper limb activity in this study. Implications for clinical practice and research were discussed.sub_phyunpub1256_ethesesunpu

Home-based Reach-to-Grasp training for people after stroke is feasible: A pilot randomised controlled trial

© The Author(s) 2016. Objective: To determine feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of home-based Reach-to-Grasp training after stroke. Design: single-blind parallel group RCT. Participants: Residual arm deficit less than 12 months post-stroke. Interventions: Reach-to-Grasp training in 14 one-hour therapist's visits over 6 weeks, plus one hour self-practice per day (total 56 hours). Control: Usual care. Main Measures: Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), pre-randomisation, 7, 12, 24 weeks post-randomisation. Results: Forty-seven participants (Reach-to-Grasp=24, usual care=23) were randomised over 17 months. Reach-to-Grasp participants received a median (IQR) 14 (13,14) visits, and performed 157 (96,211) repetitions per visit; plus 30 minutes (22,45) self-practice per day. Usual care participants received 10.5 (5,14) therapist visits, comprising 38.6 (30,45) minutes of arm therapy with 16 (6,24) repetitions of functional tasks per visit. Median ARAT scores in the reach-to-grasp group were 8.5 (3.0,24.0) at baseline and 14.5 (3.5,26.0) at 24 weeks compared to median of 4 at both time points (IQR: baseline (3.0,14.0), 24 weeks (3.0,30.0)) in the usual-care group. Median WMFT tasks completed at baseline and 24 weeks were 6 (3.0,11.5) and 8.5 (4.5,13.5) respectively in the reach-to-grasp group and 4 (3.0,10.0), 6 (3.0,14.0) in the usual care group. Incidence of arm pain was similar between groups. The study was stopped before 11 patients reached the 24 weeks assessment. Conclusions: An RCT of home-based Reach-to-Grasp training after stroke is feasible and safe. With ARAT being our preferred measure it is estimated that 240 participants will be needed for a future two armed trial

The effect of bovine colostrum supplementation on intestinal injury and circulating intestinal bacterial DNA following exercise in the heat

Purpose Exercise-induced changes in intestinal permeability are exacerbated in the heat. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of 14 days of bovine colostrum (Col) supplementation on intestinal cell damage (plasma intestinal fatty acid-binding protein, I-FABP) and bacterial translocation (plasma bacterial DNA) following exercise in the heat. Methods In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, 12 males completed two experimental arms (14 days of 20 g/day supplementation with Col or placebo, Plac) consisting of 60 min treadmill running at 70% maximal aerobic capacity (30 ??C, 60% relative humidity). Blood samples were collected pre-exercise (Pre-Ex), post-exercise (Post-Ex) and 1 h post-exercise (1 h Post-Ex) to determine plasma I-FABP concentration, and bacterial DNA (for an abundant gut species, Bacteroides). Results Two-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed an arm ?~ time interaction for I-FABP (P = 0.005, with greater Post- Ex increase in Plac than Col, P = 0.01: Plac 407 ?} 194% of Pre-Ex vs Col, 311 ?} 134%) and 1 h Post-Ex (P = 0.036: Plac 265 ?} 80% of Pre-Ex vs Col, 229 ?} 56%). There was no interaction (P = 0.904) but there was a main effect of arm (P = 0.046) for plasma Bacteroides/total bacterial DNA, with lower overall levels evident in Col. Conclusion This is the first investigation to demonstrate that Col can be effective at reducing intestinal injury following exercise in the heat, but exercise responses (temporal pattern) of bacterial DNA were not influenced by Col (although overall levels may be lower).publishersversionPeer reviewe

Task-specific reach-to-grasp training after stroke: Development and description of a home-based intervention

© The Author(s) 2015. This series of articles for rehabilitation in practice aims to cover a knowledge element of the rehabilitation medicine curriculum. Nevertheless they are intended to be of interest to a multidisciplinary audience. The competency addressed in this article is to transparently describe the process of developing a complex intervention for people after stroke as part of a feasibility randomised controlled trial. Objective: To describe and justify the development of a home-based, task-specific upper limb training intervention to improve reach-to-grasp after stroke and pilot it for feasibility and acceptability prior to a randomized controlled trial. Intervention description: The intervention is based on intensive practice of whole reach-to-grasp tasks and part-practice of essential reach-to-grasp components. A 'pilot' manual of activities covering the domains of self-care, leisure and productivity was developed for the feasibility study. The intervention comprises 14 hours of therapist-delivered sessions over six weeks, with additional self-practice recommended for 42 hours (i.e. one hour every day). As part of a feasibility randomized controlled trial, 24 people with a wide range of upper limb impairment after stroke experienced the intervention to test adherence and acceptability. The median number of repetitions in one-hour therapist-delivered sessions was 157 (interquartile range IQR 96-211). The amount of self-practice was poorly documented. Where recorded, the median amount of practice was 30 minutes (interquartile range 22-45) per day. Findings demonstrated that the majority of participants found the intensity, content and level of difficulty of the intervention acceptable, and the programme to be beneficial. Comments on the content and presentation of the self-practice material were incorporated in a revised 'final' intervention manual. Discussion: A comprehensive training intervention to improve reach-to-grasp for people living at home after stroke has been described in accordance with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guidelines. The intervention has been piloted, and found to be acceptable and feasible in the home setting. Trial registration: ISRCTN5671658

Repetitive arm functional tasks after stroke (RAFTAS): a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background Repetitive functional task practise (RFTP) is a promising treatment to improve upper limb recovery following stroke. We report the findings of a study to determine the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate this intervention. Methods A pilot randomised controlled trial was conducted. Patients with new reduced upper limb function were recruited within 14 days of acute stroke from three stroke units in North East England. Participants were randomised to receive a four week upper limb RFTP therapy programme consisting of goal setting, independent activity practise, and twice weekly therapy reviews in addition to usual post stroke rehabilitation, or usual post stroke rehabilitation. The recruitment rate; adherence to the RFTP therapy programme; usual post stroke rehabilitation received; attrition rate; data quality; success of outcome assessor blinding; adverse events; and the views of study participants and therapists about the intervention were recorded. Results Fifty five eligible patients were identified, 4-6% of patients screened at each site. Twenty four patients participated in the pilot study. Two of the three study sites met the recruitment target of 1-2 participants per month. The median number of face to face therapy sessions received was 6 [IQR 3-8]. The median number of daily repetitions of activities recorded was 80 [IQR 39-80]. Data about usual post stroke rehabilitation were available for 18/24 (75%). Outcome data were available for 22/24 (92%) at one month and 20/24 (83%) at three months. Outcome assessors were unblinded to participant group allocation for 11/22 (50%) at one month and 6/20 (30%) at three months. Four adverse events were considered serious as they resulted in hospitalisation. None were related to study treatment. Feedback from patients and local NHS therapists about the RFTP programme was mainly positive. Conclusions A multi-centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate an upper limb RFTP therapy programme provided early after stroke is feasible and acceptable to patients and therapists, but there are issues which needed to be addressed when designing a Phase III study. A Phase III study will need to monitor and report not only recruitment and attrition but also adherence to the intervention, usual post stroke rehabilitation received, and outcome assessor blinding

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

Study design and methods of the BoTULS trial: a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical effect and cost effectiveness of treating upper limb spasticity due to stroke with botulinum toxin type A

Background Following a stroke, 55–75% of patients experience upper limb problems in the longer term. Upper limb spasticity may cause pain, deformity and reduced function, affecting mood and independence. Botulinum toxin is used increasingly to treat focal spasticity, but its impact on upper limb function after stroke is unclear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of botulinum toxin type A plus an upper limb therapy programme in the treatment of post stroke upper limb spasticity. Methods Trial design : A multi-centre open label parallel group randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation. Participants : Adults with upper limb spasticity at the shoulder, elbow, wrist or hand and reduced upper limb function due to stroke more than 1 month previously. Interventions : Botulinum toxin type A plus upper limb therapy (intervention group) or upper limb therapy alone (control group). Outcomes : Outcome assessments are undertaken at 1, 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome is upper limb function one month after study entry measured by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Secondary outcomes include: spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale); grip strength; dexterity (Nine Hole Peg Test); disability (Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index); quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale, Euroqol EQ-5D) and attainment of patient-selected goals (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure). Health and social services resource use, adverse events, use of other antispasticity treatments and patient views on the treatment will be compared. Participants are clinically reassessed at 3, 6 and 9 months to determine the need for repeat botulinum toxin type A and/or therapy. Randomisation : A web based central independent randomisation service. Blinding : Outcome assessments are undertaken by an assessor who is blinded to the randomisation group. Sample size : 332 participants provide 80% power to detect a 15% difference in treatment successes between intervention and control groups. Treatment success is defined as improvement of 3 points for those with a baseline ARAT of 0–3 and 6 points for those with ARAT of 4–56