Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
The overall aim of this study is to establish the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of the arm-hand BOOST therapy when delivered on top of the usual care program in the sub-acute phase post stroke and to perform a process evaluation.
In this phase III RCT, 80 patients with stroke will be recruited from two inpatient stroke rehabilitation wards in Belgium and randomized to the experimental group receiving arm-hand BOOST therapy or the control group receiving the L-BOOST intervention, on top of their usual inpatient care program. The arm-hand BOOST program (1 hour/day, 5x/week, 4 weeks) consists of group exercises based on four key aspects, namely neurophysiology, sequences of reaching and grasping, de-weighting of the arm, and orientation of the hand towards objects. Additionally, technology-supported upper limb therapy will be provided two times 30 minutes per week. The L-BOOST intervention comprises a dose-matched program of lower limb exercises and general reconditioning. At baseline, after 4 weeks of training, 3 months after the intervention and at 12 months post stroke, outcome assessment will be performed. The primary outcome measure is the action research arm test (ARAT). Secondary outcomes include measures in the domain of upper limb function and capacity, independence, participation and quality of life. Multivariate ANOVA and sensitivity analyses will be used to compare change from baseline between groups. Information on medical costs will be collected to allow a health economic evaluation. Finally, a process evaluation will be performed to assist in identifying why arm-hand BOOST succeeds or fails unexpectedly or has unanticipated consequences, and how this can be optimized.
At the start of this study the investigators hypothesize that: (I) Aha BOOST will result in a significant greater improvement in arm-hand activity post-intervention, at follow-up and 12 months post stroke compared to control therapy (L-BOOST); (II) Aha BOOST will result in a significant greater improvement in upper limb function, performance, independence and activity of daily living, and participation post-intervention, at follow up and 12 months post stroke. (III) Investing in 24 hours of extra arm-hand therapy to subacute stroke patient in the inpatient rehabilitation setting can reduce the health-economic and societal cost 12 months post stroke.
Full description
Data collection and transfer:
Power calculation:
Statistical analysis:
Clinical data: Changes in ARAT-scores from baseline between patients in the experimental and control group will be compared. Change from baseline will be estimated in both groups based on a multivariate ANOVA model for the original ARAT scores, with time and treatment as main effects and with time by treatment interaction. As a further sensitivity analysis, the analysis will be repeated correcting for patient characteristics such as age, time post stroke, and cognitive impairments.
Secondary outcome measures: Multivariate ANOVA and sensitivity analyses, as described above.
Subgroup analyses: pre-specified subgroup analyses will be undertaken to explore the effects of the interventions in different types of stroke survivors, such as experiencing cognitive impairments, using appropriate caution about multiplicity in the interpretation of these results. If there appear to be different effects in different subgroups, this will be investigated using interaction or trend tests rather than the statistical significance of the result for the individual subgroup.
Health economic data: The economic evaluation will incorporate costs and health gains during the trial and follow-up period, adopting healthcare and societal perspectives. On the cost side, the evaluation will focus on the direct medical and non-medical costs, and on indirect costs depending on the perspective. The direct medical costs encompass all costs for treatment and follow-up from the healthcare perspective and all out-of-pocket contributions by the participant. Direct non-medical costs include transport costs, and home care help, whereas indirect costs include productivity loss (e.g. the number of days away from work). Productivity losses due to informal care will be documented and valued using the human capital approach. The effects are expressed in utilities, derived from the national values of the EQ-5D-5L.
The cost-effectiveness of the intervention will be expressed in incremental cost per QALY (quality-adjusted life years), using a decision-analytic model based on the trial data with a time horizon of one year and on a lifetime horizon. The incremental cost per QALY will be calculated as a ratio of (Cost Experimental-Cost Control) / (Outcome Experimental-Outcome Control). The robustness of the results will be analyzed by probabilistic sensitivity analyses on the cost as well as on the outcome.
Tornadodiagrams will be used to measure impact of individual components in healthcare utilization. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses by bootstrapping with replacement will be employed to test the robustness of the results, utilizing MS Excel, using a minimum of 1000 iterations to obtain 2.5% and 97.5% percentiles of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) distribution. In a second phase, the health economic model will be further extended from a one-year time horizon to a life-time horizon based on literature. A Markov-model is developed defining the health states in chronic stroke. Estimations on resource use and utilities for each health state are derived from international peer-reviewed literature. Special attention is paid to the transferability of the data to the Flemish healthcare context. This will done by validation checks within the research consortium and advisory board. Similar to the one-year model, probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be used to account for uncertainty around the input parameters
Process evaluation data: Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis (a deductive analysis based on the defined indicators) and thematic analysis (an inductive analysis where themes will be generated from the data by the researcher(s) using a generic qualitative approach). The aim is to interview +/- 16 interviewees to achieve meaning saturation per respondent group (patients, expert therapists and treating physicians). Approximately 48 interviews will be conducted, although the final numbers will be determined by saturation. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed at verbatim and analyzed in NVIVO. Different types of data-triangulation, by using different methods or data-sources to gain a more in depth understanding, will be applied: (1) methodological triangulation e.g. using a combination of interviews and observations; (2) data triangulation e.g. patients, Aha BOOST therapists and treating physicians; (3) theoretical triangulation e.g. involving researchers of different disciplines to look to the data from different perspectives; (4) investigator triangulation e.g. involving different researchers in data analysis.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
80 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Sarah Meyer, Dr.; Geert Verheyden, Professor
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal