The STAR care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective intervention found to improve pain outcomes over one year for people with chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). We followed up STAR trial participants to evaluate the longer-term clinical- and cost-effectiveness of this care pathway. METHODS: Participants who remained enrolled on the trial at one year were contacted by post at a median of four years after randomisation and invited to complete a questionnaire comprising the same outcomes collected during the trial. We captured pain (co-primary outcome using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales; scored 0-10, best to worst), function, neuropathic characteristics, emotional aspects of pain, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction. Electronic hospital informatics data on hospital resource use for the period of one to four years post-randomisation were collected from participating hospital sites. The economic evaluation took an National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective, with a four-year time horizon. RESULTS: Overall, 226/337 (67%) of participants returned completed follow-up questionnaires, yielding adjusted between-group differences in BPI means of -0.42 (95% confidence interval, CI (-1.07, 0.23); p = 0.20) for pain severity and - 0.64 (95% CI -1.41, 0.12); p = 0.10) for pain interference. Analysis using a multiple imputed data set (n = 337) showed an incremental net monetary benefit in favour of the STAR care pathway of £3,525 (95% CI -£990 to £8,039) at a £20,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, leading to a probability that the intervention was cost-effective of 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the longer-term benefits of the STAR care pathway are uncertain due to attrition of trial participants; however, there is a suggestion of some degree of sustained clinical benefit at four years. The care pathway remained cost-effective at four years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 92,545,361.

Prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain in people with chronic post-surgical pain after total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain over one year in a cohort of patients with chronic post-surgical pain at three months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Between 2016 and 2019, 363 patients with troublesome pain, defined as a score of ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale, three months after TKA from eight UK NHS hospitals, were recruited into the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) clinical trial. Self-reported neuropathic pain and postoperative pain was assessed at three, nine, and 15 months after surgery using the painDETECT and Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) questionnaires collected by postal survey. Results: Symptoms of neuropathic pain were common among patients reporting chronic pain at three months post-TKA, with half reporting neuropathic pain on painDETECT (191/363; 53%) and 74% (267/359) on DN4. Of those with neuropathic pain at three months, half continued to have symptoms over the next 12 months (148/262; 56%), one-quarter had improved (67/262; 26%), and for one-tenth their neuropathic symptoms fluctuated over time (24/262; 9%). However, a subgroup of participants reported new, late onset neuropathic symptoms (23/262; 9%). Prevalence of neuropathic symptoms was similar between the screening tools when the lower cut-off painDETECT score (≥ 13) was applied. Overall, mean neuropathic pain scores improved between three and 15 months after TKA. Conclusion: Neuropathic pain is common in patients with chronic pain at three months after TKA. Although neuropathic symptoms improved over time, up to half continued to report painful neuropathic symptoms at 15 months after TKA. Postoperative care should include screening, assessment, and treatment of neuropathic pain in patients with early chronic postoperative pain after TKA.

Clinical outcomes and adverse events of bariatric surgery in adults with severe obesity in Scotland: the SCOTS observational cohort study.

Background: Bariatric surgery is a common procedure worldwide for the treatment of severe obesity and associated comorbid conditions but there is a lack of evidence as to medium-term safety and effectiveness outcomes in a United Kingdom setting. Objective: To establish the clinical outcomes and adverse events of different bariatric surgical procedures, their impact on quality of life and the effect on comorbidities. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: National Health Service secondary care and private practice in Scotland, United Kingdom. Participants: Adults (age >16 years) undergoing their first bariatric surgery procedure. Main outcome measures: Change in weight, hospital length of stay, readmission and reoperation rate, mortality, diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, medications), quality of life, anxiety, depression. Data sources: Patient-reported outcome measures, hospital records, national electronic health records (Scottish Morbidity Record 01, Scottish Care Information Diabetes, National Records Scotland, Prescription Information System). Results: Between December 2013 and February 2017, 548 eligible patients were approached and 445 participants were enrolled in the study. Of those, 335 had bariatric surgery and 1 withdrew from the study. Mean age was 46.0 (9.2) years, 74.7% were female and the median body mass index was 46.4 (42.4; 52.0) kg/m2. Weight was available for 128 participants at 3 years: mean change was -19.0% (±14.1) from the operation and -24.2% (±12.8) from the start of the preoperative weight-management programme. One hundred and thirty-nine (41.4%) participants were readmitted to hospital in the same or subsequent 35 months post surgery, 18 (5.4% of the operated cohort) had a reoperation or procedure considered to be related to bariatric surgery gastrointestinal complications or revisions. Fewer than five participants (<2%) died during follow-up. HbA1c was available for 93/182 and diabetes medications for 139/182 participants who had type 2 diabetes prior to surgery; HbA1c mean change was -5.72 (±16.71) (p = 0.001) mmol/mol and 65.5% required no diabetes medications (p < 0.001) at 3 years post surgery. Physical quality of life, available for 101/335 participants, improved in the 3 years post surgery, mean change in Rand 12-item Short Form Survey physical component score 8.32 (±8.95) (p < 0.001); however, there was no change in the prevalence of anxiety or depression. Limitations: Due to low numbers of bariatric surgery procedures in Scotland, recruitment was stopped before achieving the intended 2000 participants and follow-up was reduced from 10 years to 3 years. Conclusions: Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective treatment for obesity. Patients in Scotland, UK, appear to be older and have higher body mass than international comparators, which may be due to the small number of procedures performed. Future work: Intervention studies are required to identify the optimal pre- and post surgery pathway to maximise safety and cost-effectiveness. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN47072588. Funding details: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bariatric surgery is performed on the stomach and small bowel to help people living with obesity lose weight. Our research study has looked at who is getting bariatric surgery, if they are having problems afterwards, how much weight they lose and if their medical conditions improve. A total of 444 people who were attending bariatric surgery services in Scotland, UK, agreed to take part and 336 had surgery. One hundred and eighty-nine of them completed a questionnaire before their surgery and 85 of them after 3 years, to tell us about how they were feeling physically and mentally. We looked at their computer hospital records to see how long they spent in hospital, any medical problems and changes to diabetes medicines and tests. One in five people taking part did not have surgery after all; they changed their mind or the hospital teams did not think it would be safe or work well for the patient. Those who had surgery lost 19% of their body weight and those with type 2 diabetes needed less or no medication 3 years after the surgery. The effect of physical symptoms on day-to-day activities improved but mental health did not. Compared to other countries, the people taking part were older, heavier and sicker. They spent longer in hospital after surgery and were more likely to be readmitted to hospital. How many appointments they had or what type of health professional they saw before or after surgery did not change these results. We had hoped to have far more people in this study and be able to answer more questions, but not enough people were getting bariatric surgery in Scotland for us to ask them to take part. Further research is needed to find the best ways to care for people living with obesity who would benefit from bariatric surgery.

Protocol update for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of exercise rehabilitation for people with pulmonary hypertension: the SPHERe trial.

BACKGROUND: The SPHERe (Supervised Pulmonary Hypertension Exercise Rehabilitation) trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise rehabilitation with psychosocial and motivational support compared to best-practice usual care for people with pulmonary hypertension (PH). The original protocol was published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine (accessible online). We randomised our first participant in January 2020. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was stopped in March 2020. In person delivery of the SPHERe intervention to a vulnerable population was not possible during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe here how trial procedures and intervention delivery were adapted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinically vulnerable PH population meant that trial delivery was changed from a centre-based rehabilitation programme to remotely delivered group online sessions. This led to minor alterations to the eligibility criteria. These changes followed a consultation process with stakeholders and people with PH and were approved by the funder and independent trial committees. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the modified SPHERe trial protocol in response to restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic. SPHERe is the first randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online group rehabilitation programme for people with PH compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN no. 10608766. Prospectively registered on 18th March 2019, updated 16th August 2023.

Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. PARTICIPANTS: 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). INTERVENTIONS: Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

Pain with neuropathic characteristics after surgically treated lower limb fractures: Cost analysis and pain medication use.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is prevalent among people after lower limb fracture surgery and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disability. This study estimates the financial cost and pain medication use associated with neuropathic pain in this group. Methods: A secondary analysis using pain data collected over six postoperative months from participants randomised in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) trial. Pain states were classified as pain-free, chronic non-neuropathic pain (NNP) or chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Cost associated with each pain state from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective were estimated by multivariate models based on multiple imputed data. Pain medication usage was analysed by pain state. Results: A total of 934 participants who provided either 3- or 6-months pain data were included. Compared to participants with NP, those with NNP (adjusted mean difference -£730, p = 0.38, 95% CI -2368 to 908) or were pain-free (adjusted mean difference -£716, p = 0.53, 95% CI -2929 to 1497) had lower costs from the NHS and PSS perspective in the first three postoperative months. Over the first three postoperative months, almost a third of participants with NP were prescribed opioids and 8% were prescribed NP medications. Similar trends were observed by 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion: This study found healthcare costs were higher amongst those with chronic NP compared to those who were pain-free or had chronic NNP. Opioids, rather than neuropathic pain medications, were commonly prescribed for NP over the first six postoperative months, contrary to clinical guidelines.