This work was produced by Cox et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This is an Open Access publication distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For attribution the title, original author(s), the publication source – NIHR Journals Library, and the DOI of the publication must be cited.
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Abstract
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.
Plain language summary
Parkinson’s disease is a brain condition causing loss of co-ordination and movement problems. Levodopa is the most prescribed treatment for early disease. Patients should be seen by a specialist every 6–12 months to assess their treatment needs. Wearable devices (like smart watches) may aid management by directly monitoring patients for disease symptoms including tremor and slowness of movement (bradykinesia), or side effects of treatment like involuntary movement (dyskinesia).
This assessment considered the clinical and economic value of five wearable devices: Personal KinetiGraph, STAT-ON, Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor. We searched medical databases to find all studies of the five devices. We assessed the quality of these studies and reviewed their results.
We found 77 studies of the devices. 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 symptoms.
The evidence for STAT-ON suggested it may be of value for diagnosing symptoms, but there is currently no evidence on its clinical value. There was insufficient evidence for Kinesia 360, KinesiaU and PDMonitor to draw any conclusions.
An economic analysis was conducted to investigate whether using any of these technologies is economically viable. The economic analysis found that the quality-of-life benefits generated by remote monitoring devices were small relative to the additional costs of implementing them in the NHS. As such, none of the remote monitoring devices were good value for money when compared with the current standard of care.
Contents
- Scientific summary
- Chapter 1. Background and definition of the decision problem
- Chapter 2. Assessment of clinical effectiveness
- Chapter 3. Results of the review of clinical effectiveness
- Chapter 4. Assessment of existing cost-effectiveness evidence
- Methodology of the cost-effectiveness review of remote continuous monitoring devices for people with Parkinson’s disease
- Results of the cost-effectiveness review for remote continuous monitoring devices
- Methodology of the review of decision models evaluating interventions used in Parkinson’s disease
- Results of the systematic review of decision models evaluating interventions in Parkinson’s disease
- Conclusions of the assessment of existing cost-effectiveness evidence
- Chapter 5. Independent economic assessment: York model
- Chapter 6. Results of the independent economic assessment
- Personal KinetiGraph base-case scenario
- Personal KinetiGraph scenario results
- Kinesia 360 base-case results
- Kinesia 360 scenario results
- Incremental analysis of Personal KinetiGraph and Kinesia 360
- KinesiaU, STAT-ON and PDMonitor base-case results
- Sensitivity analyses
- Discussion of the independent economic assessment
- Chapter 7. Discussion
- Chapter 8. Conclusions
- Additional information
- References
- Appendix 1. Literature search strategies
- Appendix 2. Excluded studies with rationale
- Appendix 3. Ongoing studies
- Appendix 4. Data extraction tables
- Appendix 5. Further results from Woodrow individual participant data analysis
- Glossary
- List of abbreviations
About the Series
Article history
The research reported in this issue of the journal was commissioned and funded by the Evidence Synthesis Programme on behalf of NICE as award number NIHR135437. The protocol was agreed in March 2022. The draft manuscript began editorial review in August 2022 and was accepted for publication in March 2023. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ manuscript and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this article.
Last reviewed: August 2022; Accepted: March 2023.
- NLM CatalogRelated NLM Catalog Entries
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for advanced heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation.[Health Technol Assess. 2024]Clinical and cost-effectiveness of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy for advanced heart failure: systematic review and economic evaluation.Beese S, Avşar TS, Price M, Quinn D, Lim HS, Dretzke J, Ogwulu CO, Barton P, Jackson L, Moore D. Health Technol Assess. 2024 Aug; 28(38):1-237.
- The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT.[Health Technol Assess. 2024]The effect of two speech and language approaches on speech problems in people with Parkinson's disease: the PD COMM RCT.Sackley CM, Rick C, Brady MC, Burton C, Jowett S, Patel S, Woolley R, Masterson-Algar P, Nicoll A, Smith CH, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct; 28(58):1-141.
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Parkinson's KinetiGraph and clinical assessment in the management of Parkinson's disease.[J Med Econ. 2022]Cost-effectiveness analysis of the Parkinson's KinetiGraph and clinical assessment in the management of Parkinson's disease.Chaudhuri KR, Hand A, Obam F, Belsey J. J Med Econ. 2022 Jan-Dec; 25(1):774-782.
- Review Automated devices for identifying peripheral arterial disease in people with leg ulceration: an evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness analysis.[Health Technol Assess. 2024]Review Automated devices for identifying peripheral arterial disease in people with leg ulceration: an evidence synthesis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Boyers D, Cruickshank M, Aucott L, Kennedy C, Manson P, Bachoo P, Brazzelli M. Health Technol Assess. 2024 Aug; 28(37):1-158.
- Review A cloud-based medical device for predicting cardiac risk in suspected coronary artery disease: a rapid review and conceptual economic model.[Health Technol Assess. 2024]Review A cloud-based medical device for predicting cardiac risk in suspected coronary artery disease: a rapid review and conceptual economic model.Westwood M, Armstrong N, Krijkamp E, Perry M, Noake C, Tsiachristas A, Corro-Ramos I. Health Technol Assess. 2024 Jul; 28(31):1-105.
- Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson’s disease: a s...Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis
- Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening ...Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...