The clinical- and cost-effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation and ankle-foot orthoses for foot drop in Multiple Sclerosis: a multicentre randomized trial

Abstract

Objective:

To compare the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) and functional electrical stimulation (FES) over 12 months in people with Multiple Sclerosis with foot drop.

Design:

Multicentre, powered, non-blinded, randomized trial.

Setting:

Seven Multiple Sclerosis outpatient centres across Scotland.

Subjects:

Eighty-five treatment-naïve people with Multiple Sclerosis with persistent (>three months) foot drop.

Interventions:

Participants randomized to receive a custom-made, AFO (n = 43) or FES device (n = 42).

Outcome measures:

Assessed at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months; 5-minute self-selected walk test (primary), Timed 25 Foot Walk, oxygen cost of walking, Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29, Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12, Modified Fatigue Impact Scale, Euroqol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, Activities-specific Balance and Confidence Scale, Psychological Impact of Assistive Devices Score, and equipment and National Health Service staff time costs of interventions.

Results:

Groups were similar for age (AFO, 51.4 (11.2); FES, 50.4(10.4) years) and baseline walking speed (AFO, 0.62 (0.21); FES 0.73 (0.27) m/s). In all, 38% dropped out by 12 months (AFO, n = 21; FES, n = 11). Both groups walked faster at 12 months with device (P < 0.001; AFO, 0.73 (0.24); FES, 0.79 (0.24) m/s) but no difference between groups. Significantly higher Psychological Impact of Assistive Devices Scores were found for FES for Competence (P = 0.016; AFO, 0.85(1.05); FES, 1.53(1.05)), Adaptability (P = 0.001; AFO, 0.38(0.97); FES 1.53 (0.98)) and Self-Esteem (P = 0.006; AFO, 0.45 (0.67); FES 1 (0.68)). Effects were comparable for other measures. FES may offer value for money alternative to usual care.

Conclusion:

AFOs and FES have comparable effects on walking performance and patient-reported outcomes; however, high drop-outs introduces uncertainty.

Keywords

Multiple Sclerosis patient-centred outcome measure functional electrical stimulation walking orthoses

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Larocca

NG.

Impact of walking impairment in multiple sclerosis: perspectives of patients and care partners. Patient 2011; 4(3): 189–201.

Michael

Lower limb orthoses. In: Hsu

Michael

Fisk

(eds) AAOS atlas of orthoses and assistive devices. Philadelphia, PA: Mosby, 2008, pp.343–355.

Liberson

Holmquest

Scot

et al . Functional electrotherapy: stimulation of the peroneal nerve synchronized with the swing phase of the gait of hemiplegic patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1961; 42: 101–105.

Miller

McFadyen

Lord

et al . Functional electrical stimulation for foot drop in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect on gait speed. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 98(7): 1435–1452.

Sheffler

Hennessey

Knutson

et al . Functional effect of an ankle foot orthosis on gait in multiple sclerosis: a pilot study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2008; 87(1): 26–32.

Bregman

De Groot

Van Diggele

et al . Polypropylene ankle foot orthoses to overcome drop-foot gait in central neurological patients: a mechanical and functional evaluation. Prosthet Orthot Int 2010; 34(3): 293–304.

Sheffler

Bailey

Chae

Spatiotemporal and kinematic effect of peroneal nerve stimulation versus an ankle-foot orthosis in patients with multiple sclerosis: a case series. PM R 2009; 1(7): 604–611.

Street

Swain

Taylor

A comparison between ankle assisted orthotics and functional electrical stimulation: a feasibility study. Mult Scler 2014; 20: 1001.

Khurana

Beranger

Felix

ER.

Perceived exertion is lower when using a functional electrical stimulation neuroprosthesis compared with an ankle-foot orthosis in persons with multiple sclerosis: a preliminary study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2017; 96(3): 133–139.

10.

Taylor

Mann

Jolley

et al . Economic justification for the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator (ODFS). In: ISPO meeting, 3 November 2007, https://www.odstockmedical.com/sites/default/files/cost_benefit_paper_4.pdf

11.

Taylor

Humphreys

Swain

The long-term cost-effectiveness of the use of functional electrical stimulation for the correction of dropped foot due to upper motor neuron lesion. J Rehabil Med 2013; 45(2): 154–160.

12.

Kurtzke

JF.

Rating neurologic impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983; 33(11): 1444–1452.

13.

Nasreddine

Phillips

Bédirian

et al . The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53(4): 695–699.

14.

Neurostatus.net. www.neurostatus.net

15.

Day

Jutai

Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil 1996; 9(2): 159–168.

16.

Paul

Rafferty

Young

et al . The effect of functional electrical stimulation on the physiological cost of gait in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2008; 14(7): 954–961.

17.

Miller

Rafferty

Paul

et al . A comparison of the orthotic effect of the Odstock Dropped Foot Stimulator and the Walkaide functional electrical stimulation systems on energy cost and speed of walking in multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2015; 10(6): 482–485.

18.

Miller

Rafferty

Paul

et al . The impact of walking speed on the effects of functional electrical stimulation for foot drop in people with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2016; 11(6): 478–483.

19.

Cutter

Baier

Rudick

et al . Development of a multiple sclerosis functional composite as a clinical trial outcome measure. Brain 1999; 122(Pt 5): 871–882.

20.

McLaughlan

King

Howley

et al . Validation of the COSMED K4 b2 portable metabolic system. Int J Sports Med 2001; 22: 280–284.

21.

Hobart

Lamping

Fitzpatrick

et al . The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain 2001; 124(Pt 5): 962–973.

22.

Hobart

Measuring the impact of MS on walking ability. Neurology 2003; 60(1): 31–36.

23.

Fisk

Pontefract

Ritvo

et al . The impact of fatigue on patients with multiple sclerosis. Can J Neurol Sci 1994; 21: 9–14.

24.

Powell

Myers

AM.

The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 1995; 50A(1): M28–M34.

25.

Brazier

Ratcliffe

Tsuchiya

et al . Measuring and valuing health benefits for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007

26.

Day

Jutai

Campbell

KA.

Development of a scale to measure the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: lessons learned and the road ahead. Disabil Rehabil 2002; 24(1–3): 31–37.

27.

National Health Service. Quality improvement Scotland, best practice statement: use of ankle-foot orthoses following stroke. Edinburgh; Glasgow: National Health Service, Quality Improvement Scotland, 2009, pp.1–60.

28.

NICE. ‘The guidelines manual’: process and methods. November 2012, https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg6/chapter/assessing-cost-effectiveness

29.

Devlin

Shah

Feng

et al . Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 2017; 27(1): 7–22.

30.

NICE. Carrying NICE over the threshold. NICE, 19 February 2015, https://www.nice.org.uk/news/blog/carrying-nice-over-the-threshold

31.

Perera

Mody

Woodman

et al . Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006; 54(5): 743–749.

32.

Prenton

Hollands

Kenney

LPJ

et al . Functional electrical stimulation and ankle foot orthoses provide equivalent therapeutic effects on foot drop: a meta-analysis providing direction for future research. J Rehabil Med 2018; 50(2): 129–139.

33.

Barr

Patritti

Bowes

et al . Orthotic and therapeutic effect of functional electrical stimulation on fatigue induced gait patterns in people with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2017; 12(6): 560–572.

34.

Barrett

Mann

Taylor

et al . A randomized trial to investigate the effects of functional electrical stimulation and therapeutic exercise on walking performance for people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2009; 15(4): 493–504.

35.

Street

Taylor

Swain

The effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation on walking speed, functional walking category, and clinically meaningful changes for people with multiple sclerosis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015; 96(4): 667–672.

36.

Taylor

Burridge

Dunkerly

et al . Clinical use of the Odstock dropped foot stimulator: its effect on the speed and effort of walking. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999; 80(12): 1577–1583.

37.

van der Linden

Hooper

Cowan

et al . Habitual functional electrical stimulation therapy improves gait kinematics and walking performance, but not patient-reported functional outcomes, of people with multiple sclerosis who present with foot-drop. PLoS ONE 2014; 9(8): e103368.

38.

Stein

Everaert

Thompson

et al . Long-term therapeutic and orthotic effects of a foot drop stimulator on walking performance in progressive and nonprogressive neurological disorders. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2010; 24(2): 152–167.

39.

Taylor

Wilkinson Hart

Khan

et al . Correction of foot drop due to multiple sclerosis using the STIMuSTEP implanted dropped foot stimulator. Int J MS Care 2016; 18(5): 239–247.

40.

Jutai

Day

Psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale: the assessment of assistive technology outcomes, effects and costs. Technol Disabil 2002; 14(3): 107–111.

41.

Verza

Carvalho

Battaglia

et al . An interdisciplinary approach to evaluating the need for assistive technology reduces equipment abandonment. Mult Scler 2006; 12(1): 88–93.

42.

Squires

Williams

Morrison

VL.

Matching and accepting assistive technology in multiple sclerosis: a focus group study with people with multiple sclerosis, carers and occupational therapists. J Health Psychol 2019; 24: 480–494.

43.

Centre for Evidence-based Purchasing. Economic report: functional electrical stimulation for drop foot of central neurological origin (CEP 10012). NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, http://www.cedar.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/documents/1091/CEP10012%20FES%20econ%20report.pdf

44.

Hróbjartsson

Thomsen

Emanuelsson

et al . Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome. BMJ 2012; 27(344): e1119.

45.

Chen

Hong

Wang

et al . Kinematic features of rear-foot motion using anterior and posterior ankle-foot orthoses in stroke patients with hemiplegic gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010; 91(12): 1862–1868.

46.

Andreopoulou

Mercer

van der Linden

ML.

Walking measures to evaluate assistive technology for foot drop in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of psychometric properties. Gait Posture 2018; 61: 55–66.