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.

Intraparenchymal hemorrhages occur in a proportion of severe traumatic brain injury TBI patients, but the role of surgery in their treatment is unclear. This international multi-center, patient-randomized, parallel-group trial compared early surgery (hematoma evacuation within 12 h of randomization) with initial conservative treatment (subsequent evacuation allowed if deemed necessary). Patients were randomized using an independent randomization service within 48 h of TBI. Patients were eligible if they had no more than two intraparenchymal hemorrhages of 10 mL or more and did not have an extradural or subdural hematoma that required surgery. The primary outcome measure was the traditional dichotomous split of the Glasgow Outcome Scale obtained by postal questionnaires sent directly to patients at 6 months. The trial was halted early by the UK funding agency (NIHR HTA) for failure to recruit sufficient patients from the UK (trial registration: ISRCTN19321911). A total of 170 patients were randomized from 31 of 59 registered centers worldwide. Of 82 patients randomized to early surgery with complete follow-up, 30 (37%) had an unfavorable outcome. Of 85 patients randomized to initial conservative treatment with complete follow-up, 40 (47%) had an unfavorable outcome (odds ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.35, 1.21; p=0.17), with an absolute benefit of 10.5% (CI, −4.4–25.3%). There were significantly more deaths in the first 6 months in the initial conservative treatment group (33% vs. 15%; p=0.006). The 10.5% absolute benefit with early surgery was consistent with the initial power calculation. However, with the low sample size resulting from the premature termination, we cannot exclude the possibility that this could be a chance finding. A further trial is required urgently to assess whether this encouraging signal can be confirmed.

Background and Purpose— There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. Methods— EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were individually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Results— Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285; usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, –0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: –£311 (–$450 [95% CI, −£3292 to £2787; −$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]). At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay (£20 000 [$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Conclusions— EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN45203373.

IMPORTANCE Rapid thrombolysis treatment for acute ischemic stroke reduces disability among patients who are carefully selected, but service delivery is challenging. OBJECTIVE To determine whether an enhanced Paramedic Acute Stroke Treatment Assessment (PASTA) intervention increased hospital thrombolysis rates. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial took place between December 2015 and July 2018 in 3 ambulance services and 15 hospitals. Clusters were paramedics based within ambulance stations prerandomized to PASTA or standard care. Patients attended by study paramedics were enrolled after admission if a hospital specialist confirmed a stroke and paramedic assessment started within 4 hours of onset. Allocation to PASTA or standard care reflected the attending paramedic's randomization status. INTERVENTIONS The PASTA intervention included additional prehospital information collection, a structured hospital handover, practical assistance up to 15 minutes after handover, a predeparture care checklist, and clinician feedback. Standard care reflected national guidelines. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving thrombolysis. Secondary outcomes included time intervals and day 90 health (with poor status defined as a modified Rankin Score >2, to represent dependency or death). RESULTS A total of 11 478 patients were screened following ambulance transportation; 1391 were eligible and approached, but 177 did not consent. Of 1214 patients enrolled (mean [SD] age, 74.7 [13.2] years; 590 women [48.6%]), 500 were assessed by 242 paramedics trained in the PASTA intervention and 714 were assessed by 355 paramedics continuing with standard care. The paramedics trained in the PASTA intervention took a mean of 13.4 (95% CI, 9.4-17.4) minutes longer (P < .001) to complete patient care episodes. There was less thrombolysis among the patients in the PASTA group, but this was not significant (PASTA group, 197 of 500 patients [39.4%] vs the standard care group, 319 of 714 patients [44.7%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.61-1.08]; P = .15). Time from a paramedic on scene to thrombolysis was a mean of 8.5 minutes longer in the PASTA group (98.1 [37.6] minutes) vs the standard care group (89.4 [31.1] minutes; P = .01). Poor health outcomes did not differ significantly but occurred less often among patients in the PASTA group (313 of 489 patients [64.0%]) vs the standard care group (461 of 690 patients [66.8%]; adjusted odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.60-1.20]; P = .39). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE An enhanced paramedic assessment did not facilitate thrombolysis delivery. The unexpected combination of thrombolysis and health outcomes suggests possible alternative influences on treatment decisions by the intervention, requiring further evaluation.

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.