用于对帕金森病患者进行远程连续监测的设备:系统综述和成本效益分析。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health technology assessment Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.3310/YDSL3294
Edward Cox, Ros Wade, Robert Hodgson, Helen Fulbright, Thai Han Phung, Nicholas Meader, Simon Walker, Claire Rothery, Mark Simmonds
{"title":"用于对帕金森病患者进行远程连续监测的设备:系统综述和成本效益分析。","authors":"Edward Cox, Ros Wade, Robert Hodgson, Helen Fulbright, Thai Han Phung, Nicholas Meader, Simon Walker, Claire Rothery, Mark Simmonds","doi":"10.3310/YDSL3294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Parkinson's disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6-12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson's disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Edward Cox, Ros Wade, Robert Hodgson, Helen Fulbright, Thai Han Phung, Nicholas Meader, Simon Walker, Claire Rothery, Mark Simmonds\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/YDSL3294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Parkinson's disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6-12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson's disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12898,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331379/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health technology assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/YDSL3294\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/YDSL3294","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:帕金森病是一种脑部疾病,会导致逐渐丧失协调能力和运动障碍。在英国,约有 145,500 人患有帕金森病。左旋多巴是早期控制运动症状的最常用治疗药物。患者应每 6-12 个月接受一次专科医生的监测,以了解疾病的进展和不良反应的治疗情况。可穿戴设备可直接监测患者的运动迟缓、运动障碍、震颤和其他症状,从而提供一种新的管理方法。目标:确定可穿戴设备的临床和成本效益:确定五种帕金森病监测设备的临床和成本效益:目的:确定五种帕金森病监测设备的临床和成本效益:Personal KinetiGraph、Kinesia 360、KinesiaU、PDMonitor 和 STAT-ON:我们对有关这五种设备的所有证据进行了系统性回顾,结果包括:诊断准确性、对决策的影响、临床结果、患者和临床医生的意见以及经济结果。我们检索了截至 2022 年 2 月的 MEDLINE 和其他 12 个数据库/试验登记。对偏倚风险进行了评估。由于证据不足以进行荟萃分析,我们采用了叙述性综合法来总结所有已确认的证据。一项纳入的试验提供了个体层面的数据,并对其进行了重新分析。我们建立了一个全新的决策分析模型,以估算在 5 年的时间跨度内,在英国国家医疗服务体系中,与标准护理相比,Personal KinetiGraph 和 Kinesia 360 的成本效益。基础案例分析考虑了两种可供选择的监测策略:一次性使用和常规使用该设备:结果:共纳入了 57 项关于 Personal KinetiGraph、15 项关于 STAT-ON、3 项关于 Kinesia 360、1 项关于 KinesiaU 和 1 项关于 PDMonitor 的研究。有证据表明,Personal KinetiGraph 可以准确测量运动迟缓和运动障碍,从而对某些患者的治疗进行调整,并且在使用统一帕金森病评分量表进行测量时可能会改善临床疗效。STAT-ON 的证据表明,它可能具有诊断症状的价值,但目前还没有证据表明其临床影响。Kinesia 360、KinesiaU 和 PDMonitor 的证据不足,无法就其在临床实践中的价值得出结论。Personal KinetiGraph 与标准护理相比,一次性使用和常规使用的基础案例结果显示,每获得质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比分别为 67,856 英镑和 57,877 英镑,Personal KinetiGraph 对统一帕金森病分级量表 III 和 IV 级领域具有有利影响。Kinesia 360 与标准护理相比,一次性使用和常规使用的增量成本效益比结果分别为每质量调整生命年收益 38828 英镑和 67203 英镑:局限性:证据范围有限,且通常质量较低。对于除 Personal KinetiGraph 之外的所有设备,几乎没有关于该技术临床影响的证据:结论:Personal KinetiGraph 可以在实践中合理用于监测患者症状,并在必要时修改治疗方法。关于 STAT-ON、Kinesia 360、KinesiaU 或 PDMonitor 的证据太少,因此无法确信它们在临床上是否有用。远程监测的成本效益似乎在很大程度上是不利的,在一系列替代假设中,每质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比超过 30,000 英镑。成本效益的主要驱动因素是患者症状改善的持久性:本研究注册号为 PROSPERO CRD42022308597:该奖项由英国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)的证据综合项目(NIHR奖项编号:NIHR135437)资助,全文发表于《健康技术评估》(Health Technology Assessment)第28卷第30期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson's disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Parkinson's disease is a brain condition causing a progressive loss of co ordination and movement problems. Around 145,500 people have Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for managing motor symptoms in the early stages. Patients should be monitored by a specialist every 6-12 months for disease progression and treatment of adverse effects. Wearable devices may provide a novel approach to management by directly monitoring patients for bradykinesia, dyskinesia, tremor and other symptoms. They are intended to be used alongside clinical judgement.

Objectives: To determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of five devices for monitoring Parkinson's disease: Personal KinetiGraph, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU, PDMonitor and STAT-ON.

Methods: We performed systematic reviews of all evidence on the five devices, outcomes included: diagnostic accuracy, impact on decision-making, clinical outcomes, patient and clinician opinions and economic outcomes. We searched MEDLINE and 12 other databases/trial registries to February 2022. Risk of bias was assessed. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise all identified evidence, as the evidence was insufficient for meta-analysis. One included trial provided individual-level data, which was re-analysed. A de novo decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care in the UK NHS over a 5-year time horizon. The base-case analysis considered two alternative monitoring strategies: one-time use and routine use of the device.

Results: Fifty-seven studies of Personal KinetiGraph, 15 of STAT-ON, 3 of Kinesia 360, 1 of KinesiaU and 1 of PDMonitor were included. There was some evidence to suggest that Personal KinetiGraph can accurately measure bradykinesia and dyskinesia, leading to treatment modification in some patients, and a possible improvement in clinical outcomes when measured using the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale. The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical impact. The evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor is insufficient to draw any conclusions on their value in clinical practice. The base-case results for Personal KinetiGraph compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £67,856 and £57,877 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively, with a beneficial impact of the Personal KinetiGraph on Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale domains III and IV. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results for Kinesia 360 compared to standard of care for one-time and routine use were £38,828 and £67,203 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.

Limitations: The evidence was limited in extent and often low quality. For all devices, except Personal KinetiGraph, there was little to no evidence on the clinical impact of the technology.

Conclusions: Personal KinetiGraph could reasonably be used in practice to monitor patient symptoms and modify treatment where required. There is too little evidence on STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU or PDMonitor to be confident that they are clinically useful. The cost-effectiveness of remote monitoring appears to be largely unfavourable with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year across a range of alternative assumptions. The main driver of cost-effectiveness was the durability of improvements in patient symptoms.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42022308597.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Evidence Synthesis programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135437) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care tests for acute respiratory infection: a systematic review of reviews. The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT. Alitretinoin versus phototherapy as the first-line treatment in adults with severe chronic hand eczema: the ALPHA RCT. Transperineal biopsy devices in people with suspected prostate cancer - a systematic review and economic evaluation. Preventive drug treatments for adults with chronic migraine: a systematic review with economic modelling.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1