U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Devices for remote continuous monitoring of people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis

Health Technology Assessment, No. 28.30

, , , , , , , , and .

Author Information and Affiliations

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

About the Series

Health Technology Assessment
ISSN (Electronic): 2046-4924

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.

Copyright © 2024 Cox et al.

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.

Bookshelf ID: NBK605966DOI: 10.3310/YDSL3294

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (3.2M)

Other titles in this collection

Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...