Clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Osteoarthritis is the single most common cause of pain and disability in older adults. This review addresses the question of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, DARE, HTA and NHS EED databases were searched from inception to 02 May 2020. Search terms related to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions were used. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified and key data were extracted. Random effect meta-analysis was conducted for pain, physical function and range of motion (ROM). RESULTS: In total, 1467 studies were identified. Of these, 26 studies were included; methodological quality of most studies was adequate. Physiotherapy interventions were more effective than control for function, SMD - 0.166 [95% Confidence Interval (CI) - 0.420 to 0.088.] and ROM, SMD - 0.219 [95% CI - 0.465 to 0.028] for a follow-up of 2 or 3 months. Patients in the intervention group showed improvement in pain at 12-13 weeks, SMD - 0.175 [95% CI - 0.416 to 0.067]. No evidence on the pooled estimate of cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions was found. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis that has examined the clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following TKR. The findings of this review suggest that physiotherapy interventions were effective for improving physical function, ROM and pain in a short-term follow-up following TKR. Insufficient evidence exists to establish the benefit of physiotherapy in the long term for patient with TKR. Further study should examine the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of physiotherapeutic interventions for low back pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Due to the rapid increase in healthcare costs of low back pain (LBP), it is important to provide clinically effective and cost-effective interventions to individuals with the condition. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate all recent economic evaluations of physiotherapeutic interventions for patients with LBP. DATA SOURCES: A literature search of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment and Database of Abstracts of Review of Effects (January 2008 to October 2018) was undertaken. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that assessed the cost- effectiveness of physiotherapeutic interventions on patients with LBP compared with a control group were included in this review. A Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist was used to assess the quality of studies. DATA EXTRACTION/DATA SYNTHESIS: Two authors extracted data independently. A descriptive synthesis was conducted to summarise the data. RESULTS: In total, 1531 articles were identified and 11 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. The total number of study participants in this review was 2633 and their ages ranged from 18 to 80 years. The duration of LBP in these patients ranged from 3 weeks to 1 year. Excluding one study, all studies reported that the physiotherapeutic intervention was cost-effective compared with the control arm. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity of the studies. CONCLUSION: Although most studies in this review suggested that physiotherapeutic interventions were cost-effective, it is difficult to pool their results for conclusive evidence. Systematic review registration number CRD: 42018089773.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To examine the reported clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions following total hip replacement (THR). A systematic review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus, DARE, HTA, and NHS EED databases were searched for studies on clinical and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy in adults with THR published up to March 2020. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified and key data were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and a Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS). Data were summarised and combined using random-effect meta-analysis. A total of 1263 studies related to the aim of the review were identified, from which 20 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. These studies were conducted in Australia (n = 3), Brazil (n = 1), United States of America (USA) (n = 2), France (n = 2), Italy (n = 2), Germany (n = 3), Ireland (n = 1), Norway (n = 2), Canada (n = 1), Japan (n = 1), Denmark (n = 1), and United Kingdom (UK) (n = 1). The duration of follow-up of the included studies was ranged from 2 weeks to 12 months. Physiotherapy interventions were found to be clinically effective for functional performance, hip muscle strength, pain, and range of motion flexion. From the National Health Service perspective, an accelerated physiotherapy programme following THR was cost-effective. The findings of the review suggest that physiotherapy interventions were clinically effective for people with THR. However, questions remain on the pooled cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy interventions, and further research is required to examine this in patients with THR. Future studies are required to examine the cost-effectiveness of these interventions from patients, caregivers, and societal perspectives.Registration Prospero (ID: CRD42018096524).

The 2000 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part one--therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for the therapy of hypertension in adults. OPTIONS: For patients with hypertension, there are a number of lifestyle manoeuvres and antihypertensive agents that may control blood pressure. Randomized trials evaluating first- line therapy with thiazides, beta-adrenergic antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, centrally acting agents or angiotensin II receptor antagonists were reviewed. OUTCOMES: The health outcomes considered were changes in blood pressure, cardiovascular morbidity, and cardiovascular and/or all-cause mortality rates. Economic outcomes were not considered due to insufficient evidence. EVIDENCE: Medline searches were conducted from the period of the last revision of the Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension (May 1998 to October 2000). Reference lists were scanned, experts were polled, and the personal files of the subgroup members and authors were used to identify other studies. All relevant articles were reviewed and appraised, using prespecified levels of evidence, by content experts and methodological experts. VALUES: A high value was placed on the avoidance of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Various lifestyle manoeuvres and antihypertensive agents reduce the blood pressure of patients with sustained hypertension. In certain settings, and for specific classes of drugs, blood pressure lowering has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and/or mortality. RECOMMENDATIONS: The present document contains detailed recommendations pertaining to all aspects of the therapy of patients with hypertension, including lifestyle modifications proven to lower blood pressure, treatment thresholds, target blood pressures, choice of agents in various settings and strategies to enhance adherence. Lower thresholds for blood pressure treatment are advocated for people with other cardiovascular risk factors or established hypertensive target organ damage. Implicit in the recommendations for therapy is the principle that treatment should be individualized for each patient and the choice of agent should be dictated by coexistent conditions. For the treatment of uncomplicated essential hypertension, thiazides, beta-adrenergic antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers may be appropriate, depending on individual circumstances. VALIDATION: All recommendations were graded according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the Canadian Hypertension Recommendations Working Group. Only those recommendations achieving high levels of consensus are reported here. These guidelines will be updated annually.

Choosing a first-line drug in the management of elevated blood pressure: what is the evidence? 3: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors.

Elevated blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular illness and death. Efforts to reduce that risk have led to recommendations for a wide array of nondrug and drug therapies. Choosing the optimal first-line drug for hypertensive patients should address a hierarchy of treatment goals: decrease in morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, decrease in blood pressure and other surrogate markers, good tolerance, dosing convenience and low cost. This article examines the evidence for angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors as a class of first-line antihypertensive drugs in light of these treatment goals. Overall, the evidence does not support the use of ACE inhibitors as first-line drugs in the management of most patients with hypertension, although they have proven benefit as second-line drugs for the treatment of congestive heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction secondary to myocardial infarction.

Choosing a first-line drug in the management of elevated blood pressure: what is the evidence? 1: Thiazide diuretics.

Elevated blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular illness and death. Efforts to reduce that risk have led to recommendations for a wide array of nondrug and drug therapies. Choosing the optimal first-line drug for hypertensive patients should address a hierarchy of treatment goals: decrease in morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, decrease in blood pressure, lack of effect on patients' quality of life, dosing convenience and low cost. This article examines the evidence for thiazide diuretics as a class of first-line antihypertensive drugs in light of these treatment goals. The evidence indicates that low-dose thiazides are preferable to high-dose thiazides and that low-dose thiazides are better than or equivalent to other antihypertensive drugs for each of the goals of therapy.

Choosing a first-line drug in the management of elevated blood pressure: what is the evidence? 2: Beta-blockers.

Elevated blood pressure is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular illness and death. Efforts to reduce that risk have led to recommendations for a wide array of nondrug and drug therapies. Choosing the optimal first-line drug for hypertensive patients should address a hierarchy of treatment goals: decrease in morbidity and mortality associated with hypertension, decrease in blood pressure, good tolerance, dosing convenience and low cost. This article examines the evidence for beta-blockers as a class of first-line antihypertensive drugs in light of these treatment goals. The evidence indicates that beta-blockers are probably not as effective in reducing morbidity and mortality as low-dose thiazide diuretics and that there may be significant differences in effectiveness among various beta-blockers.