The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method.

PURPOSE: Management of patients with persisting pain after spine surgery (PPSS) shows significant variability, and there is limited evidence from clinical studies to support treatment choice in daily practice. This study aimed to develop patient-specific recommendations on the management of PPSS. METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM), an international panel of 6 neurosurgeons, 6 pain specialists, and 6 orthopaedic surgeons assessed the appropriateness of 4 treatment options (conservative, minimally invasive, neurostimulation, and re-operation) for 210 clinical scenarios. These scenarios were unique combinations of patient characteristics considered relevant to treatment choice. Appropriateness had to be expressed on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate). A treatment was considered appropriate if the median score was ≥ 7 in the absence of disagreement (≥ 1/3 of ratings in each of the opposite sections 1-3 and 7-9). RESULTS: Appropriateness outcomes showed clear and specific patterns. In 48% of the scenarios, exclusively one of the 4 treatments was appropriate. Conservative treatment was usually considered appropriate for patients without clear anatomic abnormalities and for those with new pain differing from the original symptoms. Neurostimulation was considered appropriate in the case of (predominant) neuropathic leg pain in the absence of conditions that may require surgical intervention. Re-operation could be considered for patients with recurrent disc, spinal/foraminal stenosis, or spinal instability. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RUAM, an international multidisciplinary panel established criteria for appropriate treatment choice in patients with PPSS. These may be helpful to educate physicians and to improve consistency and quality of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Standardizing HIPEC and perioperative care for patients with ovarian cancer in the Netherlands using a Delphi-based consensus.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) is standard of care in the Netherlands in patients with stage III epithelial ovarian cancer following interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Differences in patient selection, technical aspects, and perioperative management exist between centers performing HIPEC. Standardization aims to reduce unwanted variation in clinical practice. As part of an implementation process, we aimed to standardize perioperative care for patients treated with CRS and HIPEC using a Delphi-based consensus approach. METHODS: We performed a two-phase modified Delphi method involving a multidisciplinary panel of 40 experts who completed a survey on CRS and HIPEC. During a consensus meeting, survey outcomes and available scientific evidence was discussed. Items without consensus (<75% agreement) were adjusted and evaluated in a second survey. RESULTS: Consensus was reached in the first round on 51% of items. After two rounds, consensus was reached on the majority of items (82%) including patient selection, preoperative workup, technical aspects of CRS and HIPEC, and postoperative care. No consensus was reached on the role of HIPEC in rare ovarian cancer types, preoperative bowel preparation, timing to create bowel anastomoses, and manipulation of the perfusate. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch experts reached consensus on most items regarding interval CRS and HIPEC for ovarian cancer. This consensus study may help to align treatment protocols and to minimize practice variation. Topics without consensus may be put on the research agenda of HIPEC for ovarian cancer.

Management of vertebral fragility fractures: a clinical care pathway developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Vertebral fragility fractures (VFFs), mostly due to osteoporosis, are very common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate management of patients with or suspected of having a VFF. PURPOSE: This work aimed at developing a comprehensive clinical care pathway (CCP) for VFF. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to develop patient-specific recommendations for the various components of the CCP. The study included two individual rating rounds and two plenary discussion sessions. METHODS: A multispecialty expert panel (orthopedic and neurosurgeons, interventional [neuro]radiologists and pain specialists) assessed the importance of 20 signs and symptoms for the suspicion of VFF, the relevance of 5 diagnostic procedures, the appropriateness of vertebral augmentation versus nonsurgical management for 576 clinical scenarios, and the adequacy of 6 aspects of follow-up care. RESULTS: The panel identified 10 signs and symptoms believed to be relatively specific for VFF. In patients suspected of VFF, advanced imaging was considered highly desirable, with MRI being the preferred diagnostic modality. Vertebral augmentation was considered appropriate in patients with positive findings on advanced imaging and in whom symptoms had worsened and in patients with 2 to 4 unfavorable conditions (eg, progression of height loss and severe impact on functioning), dependent on their relative weight. Time since fracture was considered less relevant for treatment choice. Follow-up should include evaluation of bone mineral density and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, a multispecialty expert panel established a comprehensive CCP for the management of VFF. The CCP may be helpful to support decision-making in daily clinical practice and to improve quality of care.

Treatment of Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fractures: Applicability of Appropriateness Criteria in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate treatment choice for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCF) is challenging due to patient heterogeneity. Using the RAND/UCLA method, an international multidisciplinary expert panel established patient-specific criteria for the choice between non-surgical management (NSM), vertebroplasty (VP), and balloon kyphoplasty (BKP). OBJECTIVES: To assess the applicability of the appropriateness criteria in real-life practice. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Eight practices of experts who participated in the panel study, including 2 interventional radiologists, one internal medicine specialist, 2 neurosurgeons, and 3 orthopedic/trauma surgeons. Practices were located in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. METHODS: Using an online data capture program, participants documented the clinical profile (age, gender, previous VCFs, time since fracture, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings, evolution of symptoms, impact of symptoms on quality of life, spinal deformity, ongoing fracture process, and presence of pulmonary dysfunction) and treatment choice for consecutive patients who consulted them for OVCF. RESULTS: In total 426 patients were included. BKP was the most frequently chosen treatment option (49%), followed by VP (34%) and NSM (14%). When compared with the panel recommendations, inappropriate treatment choices were rare (5% for NSM, 2% for VP, none for BKP). Treatment choice was strongly associated with the clinical variables used in the panel study. Differences in treatment decisions between interventional radiologists and surgeons were largely determined by differences in patient characteristics, with time of clinical presentation being the dominant factor. LIMITATION: The study population was restricted to the practices of the participants of the panel study. CONCLUSION: This international, multi-specialty utilization review showed excellent applicability of, and good adherence with RAND/UCLA-based recommendations on treatment choice in OVCF.

Appropriate management of symptomatic GORD in primary care: has expert opinion changed between 2001 and 2005?

OBJECTIVE: To determine current opinions of clinical experts on the appropriate management of symptomatic GORD in primary care, and to compare these opinions with those from a similar study conducted in 2001. METHODS: In 2001, a panel of 6 Belgian general practitioners and 6 gastroenterologists assessed the appropriateness of referral versus short-term anti-secretory medication for 768 different patient profiles, using the RAND/UCLA method. Applying a similar methodology, the same panel repeated these assessments in 2005. In addition, panellists were asked to indicate the preferred type of medication for all patient profiles. RESULTS: Agreement between the results of 2001 and 2005 was high. Appropriateness ratings on referral versus medication were similar in 79% of patient profiles (weighted kappa value 0.77). Higher age and use of NSAIDs remained the dominant factors in favour of referral. Medication preference (not measured in 2001) showed marked differences between general practitioners and gastroenterologists. Gastroenterologists showed a higher preference for PPI high dose, whereas general practitioners more frequently chose for PPI low dose. H2-receptor antagonists were preferred in only few cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that expert opinion on the appropriateness of referral for endoscopy in patients with symptomatic GORD has only slightly changed over the past few years. Preferences for low and high dose PPIs varied between the two groups of physicians, which is most likely to be ascribed to the different patient populations seen in either primary or specialised care.

The valuation of the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) for use in economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVE: Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of Benign Prostatic Obstruction (BPO) cause a reduction in quality of life, but the magnitude of that reduction cannot be estimated empirically. This is because survey instruments currently available merely sum the symptoms found, but do not value their impact on quality of life. It is therefore difficult to determine whether the effects of treatments for LUTS suggestive of BPO justify the costs. This complicates economic evaluations. METHODS: We valued the impact on quality of life of patients with LUTS suggestive of BPO, by valuing health states defined by the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) using the time trade-off (TTO). TTO values ranged from 1.0 for perfect health to 0.0 for the value of death, and can be used to calculate Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), the preferred outcome measure in health economics. RESULTS: We reduced the number of health states defined by the IPSS using factor analysis. The resulting nine health states were valued by a representative sample of the general public (N=170) using TTO. The worst IPSS health state was valued at 0.87. CONCLUSION: The values for health states defined by the IPSS revealed that LUTS suggestive of BPO has a mild impact on quality of life. The valuation of the IPSS facilitates economic evaluations of treatments for LUTS suggestive of BPO, because QALYs (the preferred outcome measure in health economics) can be determined empirically.