Summary 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. Funding National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

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.

ObjectiveTo determine whether robot-assisted training is cost-effective compared with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme or usual care.DesignEconomic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial.SettingFour 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.Participants770 participants aged 18 years or older with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation from first-ever stroke.InterventionsParticipants 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 measuresMean 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.ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsThe 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.Trial registration numberISRCTN69371850.

IntroductionNumbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice.Methods and analysisUK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery.Ethics and disseminationA favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication.Trial registration numberISRCTN13930454.

Background Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. Objectives To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. Design This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. Participants Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. Interventions Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. Main outcome measures The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. Results Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. Limitations The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. Conclusions The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. 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. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.