Mid- to late-term follow-up of primary hip and knee arthroplasty: the UK SAFE evidence-based recommendations.

To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation.

Factors influencing symptom appraisal and help-seeking of older adults with possible cancer: a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The cancer burden falls predominantly on older (≥65 years) adults. Prompt presentation to primary care with cancer symptoms could result in earlier diagnosis. However, patient symptom appraisal and help-seeking decisions involving cancer symptoms are complex and may be further complicated in older adults. AIM: To explore the effect of older age on patients' appraisal of possible cancer symptoms and their decision to seek help for these symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods systematic review. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, ASSIA, the ISRCTN registry, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were searched for studies on symptom appraisal and help-seeking decisions for cancer symptoms by adults aged ≥65 years. Studies were analysed using thematic synthesis and according to the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines. RESULTS: Eighty studies were included with a total of 32 995 participants. Studies suggested a possible association between increasing age and prolonged symptom appraisal interval. Reduced knowledge of cancer symptoms and differences in symptom interpretation may contribute to this prolonged interval. In contrast, in the current study a possible association was found between increasing age and prompt help-seeking. Themes affecting help-seeking in older adults included the influence of family and carers, competing priorities, fear, embarrassment, fatalism, comorbidities, a desire to avoid doctors, a perceived need to not waste doctors' time, and patient self-management of symptoms. CONCLUSION: This review suggests that increasing age is associated with delayed cancer symptom appraisal. When symptoms are recognised as potentially serious, increasing age was associated with prompt help-seeking although other factors could prolong this. Policymakers, charities, and GPs should aim to ensure older adults are able to recognise potential symptoms of cancer and seek help promptly.

Long-term impact of adult WHO grade II or III gliomas on health-related quality of life: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Glioma diagnosis can be devastating and result in a range of symptoms. Relatively little is known about the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) challenges faced by these patients. Establishing the impact of diagnosis on HRQOL could help positively tailor clinical decision making regarding patient support and treatment. The aim of this review is to identify the long-term HRQOL issues reported at least 2 years following diagnosis of WHO grade II/III glioma. METHOD: Systematic literature searches were carried out using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection. Searches were designed to identify patient self-reports on HRQOL aspects defined as physical, mental, or social issues. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Narrative synthesis was used to collate findings. RESULTS: The search returned 8923 articles. Two hundred seventy-eight titles remained after title and abstract screening, with 21 full-text articles included in the final analysis. The majority of studies used quantitative methods, with 3 articles reporting mixed methodology. Negative emotional/psychological/cognitive changes were the most commonly reported. Physical complaints included fatigue, seizures, and restricted daily activity. Social challenges included strained social relationships and financial problems. Patient coping strategies were suggested to influence patient's survival quality. CONCLUSION: The consequences of a glioma diagnosis and treatment can have substantial implications for patients' long-term HRQOL and daily functioning. Findings from this review lay the groundwork for efforts to improve patient HRQOL in long-term survivorship.

Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Older age and frailty increase the risk of morbidity and mortality from cancer surgery and intolerance of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The effect of old age on diagnostic intervals is unknown; however, older adults need a balanced approach to the diagnosis and management of cancer symptoms, considering the benefits of early diagnosis, patient preferences, and the likely prognosis of a cancer. AIM: To examine the association between older age and diagnostic processes for cancer, and the specific factors that affect diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic literature review. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched for studies of patients aged >65 years presenting with cancer symptoms to primary care considering diagnostic decisions. Studies were analysed using thematic synthesis and according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines. RESULTS: Data from 54 studies with 230 729 participants were included. The majority of studies suggested an association between increasing age and prolonged diagnostic interval or deferral of a decision to investigate cancer symptoms. Thematic synthesis highlighted three important factors that resulted in uncertainty in decisions involving older adults: presence of frailty, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment. Data suggested patients wished to be involved in decision making, but the presence of cognitive impairment and the need for additional time within a consultation were significant barriers. CONCLUSION: This systematic review has highlighted uncertainty in the management of older adults with cancer symptoms. Patients and their family wished to be involved in these decisions. Given the uncertainty regarding optimum management of this group of patients, a shared decision-making approach is important.

Towards UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): protocol for an evaluation of the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up, and the production of consensus-based recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective. METHODS: Given the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) - NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership - confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of common mental disorders in people with non-communicable diseases in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental and physical comorbidities is unknown in South Asia, as estimates of mental ill health in patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs) have predominantly come from studies based in the United States, Europe and Australasia. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises evidence and provides pooled estimates of the prevalence of common mental disorders in adults with non-communicable diseases in South Asia. METHODS: We included prevalence studies of depression and anxiety in adults with diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and chronic respiratory conditions in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, published from 1990 onwards in international and country-specific databases. RESULTS: Out of 96 included studies, 83 provided data for random effects meta-analyses. The pooled prevalence of depression was 44% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 26 to 62) for patients with COPD, 40% (95% CI = 34 to 45) for diabetes, 39% (95% CI = 23 to 56) for stroke, 38% (95% CI = 32 to 45) for hypertension, and 37% (95% CI = 30 to 45) for cancer. The pooled prevalence of anxiety based on 28 studies was 29% (95% CI = 22 to 36). Many quality issues were identified in a critical appraisal of included studies, mostly relating to the sampling frame and selection process, the description of the methods and basic data, and the description of non-responders. CONCLUSIONS: Depression and anxiety are prevalent and underdiagnosed in people with physical comorbidities in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan.

Opioids combined with antidepressants or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Combining antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs with opioids has resulted in increased pain relief when used for neuropathic pain in non-cancer conditions. However, evidence to support their effectiveness in cancer pain is lacking. AIM: To determine if there is additional benefit when opioids are combined with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs for cancer pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised control trials comparing opioid analgesia in combination with antidepressant or antiepileptic drugs versus opioid monotherapy were sought. Data on pain and adverse events were extracted. Data were pooled using DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analyses, and heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS: Seven randomised controlled trials that randomised 605 patients were included in the review. Patients' pain was described as neuropathic cancer pain, cancer bone pain and non-specific cancer pain. Four randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis in which opioid in combination with either gabapentin or pregabalin was compared with opioid monotherapy. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.16 (95% confidence interval, -0.19, 0.51) showing no significant difference in pain relief between the groups. Adverse events were more frequent in the combination arms. Data on amitriptyline, fluvoxamine and phenytoin were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Combining opioid analgesia with gabapentinoids did not significantly improve pain relief in patients with tumour-related cancer pain compared with opioid monotherapy. Due to the heterogeneity of patient samples, benefit in patients with definite neuropathic cancer pain cannot be excluded. Clinicians should balance the small likelihood of benefit in patients with tumour-related cancer pain against the increased risk of adverse effects of combination therapy.