Cost-Utility Analysis of Total Ankle Replacement Compared with Ankle Arthrodesis for Patients Aged 50-85 Years with End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: The TARVA Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis suffer from reduced mobility and quality of life and the main surgical treatments are total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to calculate the mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of TAR compared with AF in patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, over 52 weeks and over the patients' lifetime. METHOD: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 282 participants from 17 UK centres recruited to a randomised controlled trial (TARVA). QALYs were calculated using index values from EQ-5D-5L. Resource use information was collected from case report forms and self-completed questionnaires. Primary analysis was within-trial analysis from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective, while secondary analyses were within-trial analysis from wider perspective and long-term economic modelling. Adjustments were made for baseline resource use and index values. RESULTS: Total cost at 52 weeks was higher in the TAR group compared with the AF group, from the NHS and PSS perspective (mean adjusted difference £2539, 95% confidence interval [CI] £1142, £3897). The difference became very small from the wider perspective (£155, 95% CI -  £1947, £2331). There was no significant difference between TAR and AF in terms of QALYs (mean adjusted difference 0.02, 95% CI -  0.015, 0.05) at 52 weeks post-operation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £131,999 per QALY gained 52 weeks post-operation. Long-term economic modelling resulted in an ICER of £4200 per QALY gained, and there is a 69% probability of TAR being cost effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: TAR does not appear to be cost effective over AF 52 weeks post-operation. A decision model suggests that TAR can be cost effective over the patients' lifetime but there is a need for longer-term prospectively collected data. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT.

Background: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery. Results: Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime. Limitations: This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible. Conclusions: Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling. Future work: We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Each year, over 29,000 patients with ankle osteoarthritis seek a specialist opinion, of whom 4000 undergo NHS surgical treatment. The main surgical treatments for severe ankle osteoarthritis are total ankle replacement or arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion). Both are known to be good treatments to relieve pain, and each has its advantages. Total ankle replacement is a more popular patient choice than ankle fusion. When deciding whether to undergo ankle replacement or fusion, patients consult various sources, but the majority of them rely on the advice of their surgeon to make a final decision. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatments and there are no published guidelines on the most suitable management. In this study, 303 patients were randomised to a type of ankle surgery: 138 in the total ankle replacement arm and 144 in the ankle fusion arm received surgery. We found that both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' walking ability, but we did not find a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms based on our primary outcome measure at 1 year. When we considered the type of total ankle replacement implant, we found that the implant most commonly used in the NHS (a fixed-bearing two-component implant) had better outcomes at 1 year than ankle fusion. Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion appear to be safe. However, there were more wound-healing issues and nerve injuries in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. Twelve per cent of patients experienced bone non-union in the ankle fusion arm, but only 7.1% experienced symptoms. We estimate that there is a 69% chance that total ankle replacement would be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime. This study provides the NHS with important information that could help to obtain the best possible outcome for patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Total Ankle Replacement Versus Arthrodesis for End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: End-stage ankle osteoarthritis causes severe pain and disability. There are no randomized trials comparing the 2 main surgical treatments: total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVE: To determine which treatment is superior in terms of clinical scores and adverse events. DESIGN: A multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 60672307). SETTING: 17 National Health Service trusts across the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, aged 50 to 85 years, and suitable for either procedure. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to TAR or AF surgical treatment. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores between baseline and 52 weeks after surgery. No blinding was possible. RESULTS: Between 6 March 2015 and 10 January 2019, a total of 303 patients were randomly assigned; mean age was 68 years, and 71% were men. Twenty-one patients withdrew before surgery, and 281 clinical scores were analyzed. At 52 weeks, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved for both groups. The adjusted difference in the change in MOXFQ-W/S scores from baseline was -5.6 (95% CI, -12.5 to 1.4), showing that TAR improved more than AF, but the difference was not considered clinically or statistically significant. The number of adverse events was similar between groups (109 vs. 104), but there were more wound healing issues in the TAR group and more thromboembolic events and nonunion in the AF group. The symptomatic nonunion rate for AF was 7%. A post hoc analysis suggested superiority of fixed-bearing TAR over AF (-11.1 [CI, -19.3 to -2.9]). LIMITATION: Only 52-week data; pragmatic design creates heterogeneity of implants and surgical techniques. CONCLUSION: Both TAR and AF improve MOXFQ-W/S and had similar clinical scores and number of harms. Total ankle replacement had greater wound healing complications and nerve injuries, whereas AF had greater thromboembolism and nonunion, with a symptomatic nonunion rate of 7%. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Health and Care Research Heath Technology Assessment Programme.

BNT162b2 vaccine uptake and effectiveness in UK healthcare workers - a single centre cohort study.

In this single centre cohort study we assessed BNT162B2 vaccine uptake and effectiveness among UK healthcare workers (HCWs) during a time of high community COVID-19 prevalence. Early uptake among HCWs was 62.3% (1409/2260), however there were significant differences in uptake between age groups, ethnic origins, and job roles. Uptake increased to 72.9% after a vaccine hesitancy working group implemented specific measures. In the 42 days after vaccination, 49 new cases of COVID-19 were identified, of which 7 (14.3%) occurred in HCWs who were beyond 10 days of vaccination. Kaplan-Meier curves for partially vaccinated and unvaccinated groups were congruent until day 14 and continued to diverge up to 42 days. Cox regression analysis showed a 70.0% (95%CI 6.0-91.0; p=0.04) risk reduction for COVID-19 infection in partially vaccinated HCWs. Here we report early vaccination rates among HCWs are generally high although uptake is lower in certain groups. It is possible to improve vaccine uptake and efforts should focus on this, however, significant resource is required. The BNT162B2 vaccine is effective from 14 days post-vaccination in a frontline clinical setting and protection continues beyond 21 days post 1st dose without a 2nd dose, being given.

The use of assistive technology in shoulder exercise rehabilitation - a qualitative study of acceptability within a pilot project.

BACKGROUND: Painful shoulders pose a substantial socioeconomic burden accounting for 2.4% of all primary care consultations in the UK. There is a strong evidence to indicate that the majority of this shoulder pain can be managed successfully with exercise based treatments and that common surgical procedures provide no extra benefit. Patient adherence and engagement is cited as an important factor in gaining positive outcomes. The MUJO System has been designed to help target the rehabilitation of the rotator cuff muscles which are commonly recommended for the management of shoulder pain. The purpose of this qualitative study was to evaluate the acceptability of the MUJO System amongst clinicians and patients. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken to look at the usability of the MUJO System both from clinicians' and patients' perspectives. Patients with shoulder problems were identified by an experienced physiotherapist using the study eligibility criteria. and invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were performed with patients and clinicians to explore factors surrounding its acceptability and feasibility of use. The study was designed using Normalisation Process Theory as a theoretical basis for the inquiry. RESULTS: Seven physiotherapists and ten patients were interviewed in the study. The Internal and External Devices were seen as having the potential to rehabilitate the rotator cuff however it posed limitations towards more functional based exercises. Patients and clinicians found the visual feedback from the Patient App enhanced the rehabilitation experience. The Internal and External Devices were acceptable to all for rehabilitation providing the devices were available for use by the patients in the community. CONCLUSION: Patients and clinicians found the MUJO System acceptable as a modality to perform shoulder exercises. For the MUJO System to be taken up as a routine part of clinical practice patients need to be able to access the devices in the community. For the MUJO System to be taken up in clinical practice it needs to be workable within the context of the treatment pathway and not interfere with standard processes.