Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND: Few, if any estimates of cost-effectiveness for locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (SCI) are available. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (overground robotic locomotor tra...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pinto, Daniel, Heinemann, Allen W., Chang, Shuo-Hsiu, Charlifue, Susan, Field-Fote, Edelle C., Furbish, Catherine L., Jayaraman, Arun, Tefertiller, Candace, Taylor, Heather B., French, Dustin D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9867867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36681852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01134-7
_version_ 1784876432626810880
author Pinto, Daniel
Heinemann, Allen W.
Chang, Shuo-Hsiu
Charlifue, Susan
Field-Fote, Edelle C.
Furbish, Catherine L.
Jayaraman, Arun
Tefertiller, Candace
Taylor, Heather B.
French, Dustin D.
author_facet Pinto, Daniel
Heinemann, Allen W.
Chang, Shuo-Hsiu
Charlifue, Susan
Field-Fote, Edelle C.
Furbish, Catherine L.
Jayaraman, Arun
Tefertiller, Candace
Taylor, Heather B.
French, Dustin D.
author_sort Pinto, Daniel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Few, if any estimates of cost-effectiveness for locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (SCI) are available. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (overground robotic locomotor training versus conventional locomotor training) by injury status (complete versus incomplete) using a practice-based cohort. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a prospective, practice-based cohort from four participating Spinal Cord Injury Model System sites. Conventional locomotor training strategies (conventional training) were compared to overground robotic locomotor training (overground robotic training). Conventional locomotor training included treadmill-based training with body weight support, overground training, and stationary robotic systems. The outcome measures included the calculation of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D and therapy costs. We estimate cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost utility ratio and present results on the cost-effectiveness plane and on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Participants in the prospective, practice-based cohort with complete EQ-5D data (n = 99) qualified for the analysis. Both conventional training and overground robotic training experienced an improvement in QALYs. Only people with incomplete SCI improved with conventional locomotor training, 0.045 (SD 0.28), and only people with complete SCI improved with overground robotic training, 0.097 (SD 0.20). Costs were lower for conventional training, $1758 (SD $1697) versus overground robotic training $3952 (SD $3989), and lower for those with incomplete versus complete injury. Conventional overground training was more effective and cost less than robotic therapy for people with incomplete SCI. Overground robotic training was more effective and cost more than conventional training for people with complete SCI. The incremental cost utility ratio for overground robotic training for people with complete spinal cord injury was $12,353/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective locomotor training strategy for people with SCI differed based on injury completeness. Conventional training was more cost-effective than overground robotic training for people with incomplete SCI. Overground robotic training was more cost-effective than conventional training for people with complete SCI. The effect estimates may be subject to limitations associated with small sample sizes and practice-based evidence methodology. These estimates provide a baseline for future research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9867867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98678672023-01-23 Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury Pinto, Daniel Heinemann, Allen W. Chang, Shuo-Hsiu Charlifue, Susan Field-Fote, Edelle C. Furbish, Catherine L. Jayaraman, Arun Tefertiller, Candace Taylor, Heather B. French, Dustin D. J Neuroeng Rehabil Research BACKGROUND: Few, if any estimates of cost-effectiveness for locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (SCI) are available. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of locomotor training strategies following spinal cord injury (overground robotic locomotor training versus conventional locomotor training) by injury status (complete versus incomplete) using a practice-based cohort. METHODS: A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted using a prospective, practice-based cohort from four participating Spinal Cord Injury Model System sites. Conventional locomotor training strategies (conventional training) were compared to overground robotic locomotor training (overground robotic training). Conventional locomotor training included treadmill-based training with body weight support, overground training, and stationary robotic systems. The outcome measures included the calculation of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D and therapy costs. We estimate cost-effectiveness using the incremental cost utility ratio and present results on the cost-effectiveness plane and on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Participants in the prospective, practice-based cohort with complete EQ-5D data (n = 99) qualified for the analysis. Both conventional training and overground robotic training experienced an improvement in QALYs. Only people with incomplete SCI improved with conventional locomotor training, 0.045 (SD 0.28), and only people with complete SCI improved with overground robotic training, 0.097 (SD 0.20). Costs were lower for conventional training, $1758 (SD $1697) versus overground robotic training $3952 (SD $3989), and lower for those with incomplete versus complete injury. Conventional overground training was more effective and cost less than robotic therapy for people with incomplete SCI. Overground robotic training was more effective and cost more than conventional training for people with complete SCI. The incremental cost utility ratio for overground robotic training for people with complete spinal cord injury was $12,353/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The most cost-effective locomotor training strategy for people with SCI differed based on injury completeness. Conventional training was more cost-effective than overground robotic training for people with incomplete SCI. Overground robotic training was more cost-effective than conventional training for people with complete SCI. The effect estimates may be subject to limitations associated with small sample sizes and practice-based evidence methodology. These estimates provide a baseline for future research. BioMed Central 2023-01-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9867867/ /pubmed/36681852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01134-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Pinto, Daniel
Heinemann, Allen W.
Chang, Shuo-Hsiu
Charlifue, Susan
Field-Fote, Edelle C.
Furbish, Catherine L.
Jayaraman, Arun
Tefertiller, Candace
Taylor, Heather B.
French, Dustin D.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
title Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
title_full Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
title_short Cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
title_sort cost-effectiveness analysis of overground robotic training versus conventional locomotor training in people with spinal cord injury
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9867867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36681852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12984-023-01134-7
work_keys_str_mv AT pintodaniel costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT heinemannallenw costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT changshuohsiu costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT charlifuesusan costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT fieldfoteedellec costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT furbishcatherinel costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT jayaramanarun costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT tefertillercandace costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT taylorheatherb costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury
AT frenchdustind costeffectivenessanalysisofovergroundrobotictrainingversusconventionallocomotortraininginpeoplewithspinalcordinjury