Patients' experience on pain outcomes after hip arthroplasty: insights from an information tool based on registry data.

BACKGROUND: Arthroplasty registries are rarely used to inform encounters between clinician and patient. This study is part of a larger one which aimed to develop an information tool allowing both to benefit from previous patients' experience after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study focuses on generating the information tool specifically for pain outcomes. METHODS: Data from the Geneva Arthroplasty Registry (GAR) about patients receiving a primary elective THA between 1996 and 2019 was used. Selected outcomes were identified from patient and surgeon surveys: pain walking, climbing stairs, night pain, pain interference, and pain medication. Clusters of patients with homogeneous outcomes at 1, 5, and 10 years postoperatively were generated based on selected predictors evaluated preoperatively using conditional inference trees (CITs). RESULTS: Data from 6,836 THAs were analysed and 14 CITs generated with 17 predictors found significant (p < 0.05). Baseline WOMAC pain score, SF-12 self-rated health (SRH), number of comorbidities, SF-12 mental component score, and body mass index (BMI) were the most common predictors. Outcome levels varied markedly by clusters whilst predictors changed at different time points for the same outcome. For example, 79% of patients with good to excellent SRH and less than moderate preoperative night pain reported absence of night pain at 1 year after THA; in contrast, for those with fair/poor SHR this figure was 50%. Also, clusters of patients with homogeneous levels of night pain at 1 year were generated based on SRH, Charnley, WOMAC night and pain scores, whilst those at 10 years were based on BMI alone. CONCLUSIONS: The information tool generated under this study can provide prospective patients and clinicians with valuable and understandable information about the experiences of "patients like them" regarding their pain outcomes.

Modelled cost-effectiveness analysis of the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement compared with usual care.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement compared with usual postoperative care. METHODS: Study design: A decision-analytic (cohort Markov) model was used for the simulation with time dependent annual transition probabilities and a time horizon of five years. SETTING: Patients treated by National Health Service (NHS) hospitals in England and Wales. STUDY POPULATION: Adults classified as having chronic pain three months after undergoing a total knee replacement. INTERVENTION: The STAR care pathway following a total knee replacement. COMPARATOR: Usual postoperative care following a total knee replacement. PERSPECTIVE: The study was undertaken from the perspective of the NHS. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality-adjusted life years and healthcare costs. Discounting: A rate of 3.5% for both costs and health utility. RESULTS: Model results indicate that the STAR intervention would dominate current practice by providing a gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.086 and a reduction of £375 (per person) in costs over the first five years. The incremental net monetary benefit of the STAR intervention was estimated at £2,086 (at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests the STAR intervention is likely to be cost-effective with a probability of 0.62. The results remain robust to changes in model assumptions on comparator utility and the timing of the start of the intervention. If hospital admission costs are assumed not to be reduced by the STAR intervention, it would no longer be cost saving, but it would likely be cost-effective based on probabilistic sensitivity analysis (0.59). CONCLUSION: Evidence from the economic model suggests that the STAR care pathway is likely to be cost-effective and potentially dominant from an NHS perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The STAR trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361.

Reverse total shoulder replacement versus anatomical total shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis: population based cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

OBJECTIVES: To answer a national research priority by comparing the risk-benefit and costs associated with reverse total shoulder replacement (RTSR) and anatomical total shoulder replacement (TSR) in patients having elective primary shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis. DESIGN: Population based cohort study using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England. SETTING: Public hospitals and publicly funded procedures at private hospitals in England, 2012-20. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 60 years or older who underwent RTSR or TSR for osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff tendons. Patients were identified from the National Joint Registry and linked to NHS Hospital Episode Statistics and civil registration mortality data. Propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to balance the study groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures included serious adverse events within 90 days, reoperations within 12 months, prolonged hospital stay (more than three nights), change in Oxford Shoulder Score (preoperative to six month postoperative), and lifetime costs to the healthcare service. RESULTS: The propensity score matched population comprised 7124 RTSR or TSR procedures (126 were revised), and the inverse probability of treatment weighted population comprised 12 968 procedures (294 were revised) with a maximum follow-up of 8.75 years. RTSR had a reduced hazard ratio of revision in the first three years (hazard ratio local minimum 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.59) with no clinically important difference in revision-free restricted mean survival time, and a reduced relative risk of reoperations at 12 months (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.25 to 0.83) with an absolute risk difference of -0.51% (95% confidence interval -0.89 to -0.13). Serious adverse events and prolonged hospital stay risks, change in Oxford Shoulder Score, and modelled mean lifetime costs were similar. Outcomes remained consistent after weighting. CONCLUSIONS: This study's findings provide reassurance that RTSR is an acceptable alternative to TSR for patients aged 60 years or older with osteoarthritis and intact rotator cuff tendons. Despite a significant difference in the risk profiles of revision surgery over time, no statistically significant and clinically important differences between RTSR and TSR were found in terms of long term revision surgery, serious adverse events, reoperations, prolonged hospital stay, or lifetime healthcare costs.

The FAME trial study protocol: In younger adults with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting, is ankle function not worse than those treated with surgical intervention?

Aims: Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient's ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care. Methods: This trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded pilot, and with 12 months clinical follow-up and parallel economic analysis. A surveillance study using routinely collected data will be performed annually to five years post-treatment. Adult patients, aged 60 years and younger, with unstable ankle fractures will be identified in daily trauma meetings and fracture clinics and approached for recruitment prior to their treatment. Treatments will be performed in trauma units across the UK by a wide range of surgeons. Details of the surgical treatment, including how the operation is done, implant choice, and the recovery programme afterwards, will be at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The non-surgical treatment will be close-contact casting performed under anaesthetic, a technique which has gained in popularity since the publication of the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial. In all, 890 participants (445 per group) will be randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment. Data regarding ankle function, QoL, complications, and healthcare-related costs will be collected at eight weeks, four and 12 months, and then annually for five years following treatment. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported ankle function at four months from treatment. Anticipated impact: The 12-month results will be presented and published internationally. This is anticipated to be the only pragmatic trial reporting outcomes comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment in unstable ankle fractures in younger adults (aged 60 years and younger), and, as such, will inform the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 'non-complex fracture' recommendations at their scheduled update in 2024. A report of long-term outcomes at five years will be produced by January 2027.

Physical activity and health-related quality of life of patients with chronic knee pain after total knee replacement: Analysis of the PEP-TALK trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major challenge for some people after total knee replacement (TKR). The changing impact of this complication during the first post-operative year remains unclear. This analysis aimed to examine how physical activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evolved over the first year after TKR for patients with and without post-operative chronic knee pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial (PEP-TALK), which tested the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention compared with usual rehabilitation after TKR. Mean UCLA Activity Score and EQ-5D-5L for participants with and without chronic knee pain (14 points or lower in the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale (OKS-PS) at six months post-TKR) were compared at six and 12 months post-TKR. RESULTS: Data from 83 participants were analysed. For those with chronic knee pain, UCLA Activity Score remained unchanged between baseline to six months (mean: 3.8 to 3.8), decreasing at 12 months (3.0). Those without post-operative chronic knee pain reported improved physical activity from baseline to six months (4.0 vs 4.9), plateauing at 12 months (4.9). Participants with chronic knee pain reported lower baseline HRQoL (0.28 vs 0.48). Both groups improved health utility over one year. Of those without chronic pain at six months, 8.5% returned to chronic pain by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring clinical outcomes after six months may be indicated for those at risk of chronic pain post-TKR. Further, sufficiently powered analyses are warranted to increase the generalisability of this exploratory analyses' results.

Applying Trial-Derived Treatment Effects to Real-World Populations: Generalizing Cost-Effectiveness Estimates When Modeling Complex Hazards.

OBJECTIVES: Generalizability of trial-based cost-effectiveness estimates to real-world target populations is important for decision making. In the context of independent aggregate time-to-event baseline and relative effects data, complex hazards can make modeling of data for use in economic evaluation challenging. Our article provides an overview of methods that can be used to apply trial-derived relative treatment effects to external real-world baselines when faced with complex hazards and follows with a motivating example. METHODS: Approaches for applying trial-derived relative effects to real-world baselines are presented in the context of complex hazards. Appropriate methods are applied in a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a previously published study assessing the real-world cost-effectiveness of a treatment for carcinoma of the head and neck as a motivating example. RESULTS: Lack of common hazards between the trial and target real-world population, a complex baseline hazard function, and nonproportional relative effects made the use of flexible models necessary to adequately estimate survival. Assuming common distributions between trial and real-world reference survival substantially affected survival and cost-effectiveness estimates. Modeling time-dependent vs proportional relative effects affected estimates to a lesser extent, dependent on assumptions used in cost-effectiveness modeling. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriately capturing reference treatment survival when attempting to generalize trial-derived relative treatment effects to real-world target populations can have important impacts on cost-effectiveness estimates. A balance between model complexity and adequacy for decision making should be considered where multiple data sources with complex hazards are being evaluated.

Shoulder replacement surgery's rising demand, inequality of provision, and variation in outcomes: cohort study using Hospital Episode Statistics for England.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to forecast future patient demand for shoulder replacement surgery in England and investigate any geographic and socioeconomic inequalities in service provision and patient outcomes. METHODS: For this cohort study, all elective shoulder replacements carried out by NHS hospitals and NHS-funded care in England from 1999 to 2020 were identified using Hospital Episode Statistics data. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older. Shoulder replacements for malignancy or acute trauma were excluded. Population estimates and projections were obtained from the Office for National Statistics. Standardised incidence rates and the risks of serious adverse events (SAEs) and revision surgery were calculated and stratified by geographical region, socioeconomic deprivation, sex, and age band. Hospital costs for each admission were calculated using Healthcare Resource Group codes and NHS Reference Costs based on the National Reimbursement System. Projected rates and hospital costs were predicted until the year 2050 for two scenarios of future growth. RESULTS: A total of 77,613 elective primary and 5847 revision shoulder replacements were available for analysis. Between 1999 and 2020, the standardised incidence of primary shoulder replacements in England quadrupled from 2.6 to 10.4 per 100,000 population, increasing predominantly in patients aged over 65 years. As many as 1 in 6 patients needed to travel to a different region for their surgery indicating inequality of service provision. A temporal increase in SAEs was observed: the 30-day risk increased from 1.3 to 4.8% and the 90-day risk increased from 2.4 to 6.0%. Patients from the more deprived socioeconomic groups appeared to have a higher risk of SAEs and revision surgery. Shoulder replacements are forecast to increase by up to 234% by 2050 in England, reaching 20,912 procedures per year with an associated annual cost to hospitals of £235 million. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a rising incidence of shoulder replacements, regional disparities in service provision, and an overall increasing risk of SAEs, especially in more deprived socioeconomic groups. These findings highlight the need for better healthcare planning to match local population demand, while more research is needed to understand and prevent the increase observed in SAEs.

Impact of fragility fractures on activities of daily living and productivity in community-dwelling women: a multi-national study.

We estimated the short-term impact of fragility fractures on community-dwelling women in five countries. Women with fragility fractures reported significantly more difficulties performing activities of daily living and significantly higher levels of lost productivity and caregiver support than those without fractures; results highlight the multi-country indirect burden of fragility fractures. INTRODUCTION: To estimate the impact of fragility fractures on activities of daily living (ADL), productivity loss and caregiver support in women with a recent fragility fracture. METHODS: This multi-centre cross-sectional study enrolled community-dwelling women aged ≥ 50 years in South Korea, Spain, Germany, Australia and the United States. The fragility fracture cohort consisted of women with an index fragility fracture in the past 12 months; the fracture free cohort consisted of women with no fracture in the 18 months prior to study enrolment. Study participants completed three validated questionnaires: Lawton Instrumental ADL (IADL), Physical Self-Maintenance Scale (PSMS) and iMTA Productivity Cost Questionnaire (iPCQ). RESULTS: In total, 1,253 participants from 41 sites across the five countries were included. Compared with the fracture free cohorts, fragility fracture cohorts had significantly lower function and were more dependent on support (p < 0.05 in all countries for Lawton IADL, and in South Korea, Spain, Australia and the United States for PSMS), significantly higher hours of paid absenteeism (p < 0.05, Spain, Germany, Australia), significantly higher unpaid lost productivity (p < 0.05, South Korea, Spain, Germany), significantly more days of paid help received in the home (p < 0.05 South Korea, Spain and the United States), and significantly more days of unpaid help from family members or friends (p < 0.05, all countries). CONCLUSION: In this multi-national study, fragility fractures in community-dwelling ≥ 50 years women were associated with several outcomes indicating higher indirect burden and lower quality of life, including more difficulties performing ADL and higher levels of lost productivity and caregiver support.

Association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery using data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics for England: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between surgeon volume and patient outcomes after elective shoulder replacement surgery to improve patient outcomes and inform future resource planning for joint replacement surgery. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Public and private hospitals in the United Kingdom, 2012-20. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 18 years or older who had shoulder replacement surgery, identified in the National Joint Registry, with linkage of participants in England to Hospital Episode Statistics data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was revision surgery. Secondary outcome measures were reoperation within 12 months, serious adverse events, and prolonged hospital stay (>3 nights) after shoulder replacement surgery. RESULTS: 39 281 shoulder replacement procedures undertaken by 638 consultant surgeons at 416 surgical units met the inclusion criteria and were available for analysis. Multilevel mixed effects models and restricted cubic splines were fit to examine the association between a surgeon's mean annual volume and risk of adverse patient outcomes, with a minimum volume threshold of 10.4 procedures yearly identified. Below this threshold the risk of revision surgery was significantly increased, as much as twice that of surgeons with the lowest risk (hazard ratio 1.94, 95% confidence interval 1.27 to 2.97). A greater mean annual surgical volume was also associated with a significantly lower risk of reoperations, fewer serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stay, with no thresholds identified. Annual variation in surgeon volume was not associated with any of the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSIONS: In the healthcare system represented by these registry data, an association was found between surgeons who averaged more than 10.4 shoulder replacements yearly and lower rates of revision surgery and reoperation, lower risk of serious adverse events, and shorter hospital stays. These findings should inform resource planning for surgical services and joint replacement surgery waiting lists and improve patient outcomes after shoulder replacement surgery.

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.

Association between outpatient follow-up and incidence of revision after knee and hip replacements: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery. METHODS: Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department ('Follow-up' group), and those without ('No follow-up' group). RESULTS: A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]). CONCLUSION: Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists.

Patient-reported outcomes measures of X-linked hypophosphataemia participants: findings from a prospective cohort study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: X-linked hypophosphataemia (XLH) is a rare genetic condition passed on through the X chromosome which causes multiple symptoms including weakened teeth, bones, and muscles. Due to the rarity of the condition, little is known about the health outcomes as reported by people with the disease. The objectives of this study were threefold: to characterise key patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with XLH, to identify clusters of symptom-severity groups based on PROMs, and to analyse the longitudinal progression of available PROMs. METHODS: Data from 48 participants from the Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases cohort Study (RUDY) was used to analyse both cross-sectional and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes. We analysed data for health-related quality of life (HRQL): EuroQol 5 dimensions-5 levels (EQ-5D-5L), Short-form 36 (SF-36) Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF-36 Mental Component Score (MCS), sleep: Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness scale (ESS), fatigue: Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and Functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F), pain: Short form McGill pain questionnaire version 2 (SF-MPQ-2) and PainDETECT, and mental well-being: Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) anxiety and depression. Summary statistics, tests of mean differences, mixed-effects models, and cluster analysis were used to describe and examine the various health dimensions of individuals with XLH. RESULTS: Overall mean scores were EQ-5D-5L = 0.65, SF-36-PCS = 32.7, and SF-36-MCS = 48.4 for HRQL, ESS = 5.9 and PSQI = 8.9 for sleep, FSS = 32.8 and FACIT-F = 104.4 for fatigue, SF-MPQ-2 = 1.9 for pain, and HADS-depression = 4.7 and HADS-anxiety = 6.2 for mental well-being. 7% reported neuropathic pain (PainDETECT). Whilst many adults with XLH reported good outcomes, extreme or severe problems were reported across all outcomes. Cluster analysis identified that adults with XLH could be divided into two distinct groups, one reporting worse (35.3%) and the other better outcomes (64.7%) (less pain, fatigue, depression, and higher levels of sleep). Longitudinal analysis showed that FACIT-F and HADS-anxiety scores worsened slightly over two years with statistically significant (p < 0.05) time coefficients (b = - 2.135 and b = 0.314, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although about two thirds of adult participants of the RUDY cohort with XLH report good health outcomes, for a considerable third much worse outcomes are reported. More research is needed to examine why some experience good and others poor health outcomes and the characteristics which identify them.

Expected Benefits and Budget Impact From a Microsimulation Model Support the Prioritization and Implementation of Fracture Liaison Services.

Osteoporotic-related fractures cause significant patient disability, leading to a growing burden on health care systems. Effective secondary fracture prevention can be delivered by fracture liaison services (FLSs), but these are not available in most countries. A major barrier is insufficient policy prioritization, helped by the lack of economic assessments using national data and providing estimates of patient outcomes alongside health care resource use and cost impacts. The aim of this study was to develop an economic model to estimate the benefits and budget impact of FLSs and support their wider international implementation. Five interconnected stages were undertaken: establishment of a generic patient pathway; model design; identification of model inputs; internal validation and output generation; and scenario analyses. A generic patient pathway including FLS activities was built to underpin the economic model. A state-based microsimulation model was developed to estimate the impact of FLSs compared with current practice for men and women aged 50 years or older with a fragility fracture. The model provides estimates for health outcomes (subsequent fractures avoided and quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]), resource use, and health and social care costs, including those necessary for FLSs to operate, over 5 years. The model was run for an exemplar country the size of the United Kingdom. FLSs were estimated to lead to a reduction of 13,149 subsequent fractures and a gain of 11,709 QALYs. Hospital-bed days would be reduced by 120,989 and surgeries by 6455, while 3556 person-years of institutional social care would be avoided. Expected costs per QALY gained placed FLSs as highly cost-effective at £8258 per QALY gained over the first 5 years. Ten different scenarios were modeled using different configurations of FLSs. Further work to develop country-specific models is underway to delivery crucial national level data to inform the prioritization of FLSs by policy makers. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Mapping the Oxford Shoulder Score onto the EQ-5D utility index.

PURPOSE: In order to enable cost-utility analysis of shoulder pain conditions and treatments, this study aimed to develop and evaluate mapping algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D health index from the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) when health outcomes are only assessed with the OSS. METHODS: 5437 paired OSS and EQ-5D questionnaire responses from four national multicentre randomised controlled trials investigating different shoulder pathologies and treatments were split into training and testing samples. Separate EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L analyses were undertaken. Transfer to utility (TTU) regression (univariate linear, polynomial, spline, multivariable linear, two-part logistic-linear, tobit and adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models) and response mapping (ordered logistic regression and seemingly unrelated regression (SUR)) models were developed on the training sample. These were internally validated, and their performance evaluated on the testing sample. Model performance was evaluated over 100-fold repeated training-testing sample splits. RESULTS: For the EQ-5D-3L analysis, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest mean square error (MSE) of 0.0415. The SUR model had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.136. Model performance was greatest in the mid-range and best health states, and lowest in poor health states. For the EQ-5D-5L analyses, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest MSE (0.0241-0.0278) while the SUR models had the lowest MAE (0.105-0.113). CONCLUSION: The developed models now allow accurate estimation of the EQ-5D health index when only the OSS responses are available as a measure of patient-reported health outcome.

Primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions: a comparison between patients with and without chronic pain after total knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of patients experience chronic pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The impact of chronic pain after TKR on primary care services in the UK is currently unknown. The aim of this study was to compare primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions between patients with and without chronic pain after TKR. METHODS: Data from 5,055 patients who received TKR between 2009 and 2016 with anonymised linked data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold (CPRD) and English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme were analysed. The exposure time was from 10 years pre-operative to eight years post-operative. Patients with a score ≤ 14 on the Oxford Knee Score pain component scale at 6 months post-operative were classified as having chronic pain after TKR. Primary care consultations and prescribed pain medicines were quantified, and costs calculated based on national cost data. RESULTS: 721 patients (14%) had chronic pain after TKR. The prevalence and costs of primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions per year were consistently higher for patients with chronic pain after TKR compared with those without chronic pain after TKR; these differences were observed both before and after surgery. There was a substantial and sustained increase in the cost of opioid prescriptions after surgery for patients with chronic pain after TKR, peaking at seven years post-operative. CONCLUSIONS: Increased primary care consultations and pain medicine prescriptions associated with chronic pain after TKR represent a considerable financial cost to primary care services. Evaluation of interventions to reduce the risk of developing this pain condition and improve the early management of pain after TKR are needed to improve outcomes for patients and reduce costs to healthcare services.

Progression of chronic pain and associated health-related quality of life and healthcare resource use over 5 years after total knee replacement: evidence from a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the STAR Programme, a comprehensive study exploring long-term pain after surgery, we investigated how pain and function, health-related quality of life (HRQL), and healthcare resource use evolved over 5 years after total knee replacement (TKR) for those with and without chronic pain 1 year after their primary surgery. METHODS: We used data from the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study prospective cohort study, which followed patients undergoing TKR from two English hospitals for 5 years. Chronic pain was defined using the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale (OKS-PS) where participants reporting a score of 14 or lower were classified as having chronic pain 1-year postsurgery. Pain and function were measured with the OKS, HRQL using the EuroQoL-5 Dimension, resource use from yearly questionnaires, and costs estimated from a healthcare system perspective. We analysed the changes in OKS-PS, HRQL and resource use over a 5-year follow-up period. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. RESULTS: Chronic pain was reported in 70/552 operated knees (12.7%) 1 year after surgery. The chronic pain group had worse pain, function and HRQL presurgery and postsurgery than the non-chronic pain group. Those without chronic pain markedly improved right after surgery, then plateaued. Those with chronic pain improved slowly but steadily. Participants with chronic pain reported greater healthcare resource use and costs than those without, especially 1 year after surgery, and mostly from hospital readmissions. 64.7% of those in chronic pain recovered during the following 4 years, while 30.9% fluctuated in and out of chronic pain. CONCLUSION: Although TKR is often highly beneficial, some patients experienced chronic pain postsurgery. Although many fluctuated in their pain levels and most recovered over time, identifying people most likely to have chronic pain and supporting their recovery would benefit patients and healthcare systems.

Neuropathic-like Pain in Fibrous Dysplasia/McCune-Albright Syndrome.

CONTEXT: Pain is a major symptom in adults with fibrous dysplasia/McCune-Albright syndrome (FD/MAS) and response to current treatments, including bisphosphonates and standard analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opiates) is unpredictable. No studies have explored whether the type of pain is variable in this patient group. OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of neuropathic-like pain in patients with FD/MAS. DESIGN: Retrospective, dual registry study. SETTING: Community. PATIENTS: FD/MAS online registries: the US-based Familial Dysautonomia Foundation (FDF) and the UK-based Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (RUDY) study. INTERVENTION: Subjects completed questionnaires to evaluate the presence of features of neuropathic-like pain (painDETECT) and the impact on sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index) and mental health (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the prevalence and associated burden of neuropathic-like pain. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of neuropathic, nociceptive, and unclear pain. RESULTS: Of 249 participants, one third experienced neuropathic-like pain. This group had statistically significantly (P < 0.001) worse mental well-being and sleep in comparison to those with predominately nociceptive pain. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic-like pain is common in patients with FD/MAS and associated with worse quality of life. Evaluation of pain in patients with FD/MAS should include assessment of neuropathic-like pain to guide personalized approaches to treatment and inform future research.

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national datasets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after knee replacement?

OBJECTIVE: To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of knee replacement (KR) to inform targeted follow-up. DESIGN: Analysis of linked national datasets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD), National Joint Registry (NJR), English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)). PARTICIPANTS: Primary elective KRs aged ≥18 years. EVENT OF INTEREST: Revision surgery ≥5 years (mid-late term) postprimary KR. STATISTICAL METHODS: Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HRs and 95% CIs assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision. RESULTS: NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 188 509 KR. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 378 KR. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. Age and gender distribution were similar across datasets; mean age 70 years, 57% female. In NJR, there were 8607 (4.6%) revisions, median time-to-revision postprimary surgery 1.8 years (range 0-8.8), with 1055 (0.6%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 877 (5.1%) revisions, median time-to-revision 4.2 years (range 0.02-18.3), with 352 (2.0%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of revision after 5 years was associated with older age (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.96), obesity (0.70; 0.56 to 0.88), living in deprived areas (0.71; 0.58 to 0.87), non-white ethnicity (0.58; 0.43 to 0.78), better preoperative pain and functional limitation (0.42; 0.33 to 0.53), better 6-month postoperative pain and function (0.33; 0.26 to 0.41) or moderate anxiety/depression (0.73; 0.63 to 0.83) at primary surgery.Increased risk was associated with male gender (1.32; 1.04 to 1.67); when anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin) (1.58; 1.01 to 2.47) or opioids (1.36; 1.08 to 1.71) were required prior to primary surgery.No implant factors were identified. CONCLUSION: The risk of mid-late term KR revision is very low. Increased risk of revision is associated with patient case-mix factors, and there is evidence of sociodemographic inequality.

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national data sets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after hip replacement? Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of hip replacement to inform targeted follow-up. DESIGN: Analysis of linked national data sets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD-GOLD); National Joint Registry (NJR); English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES); Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)). PARTICIPANTS: Primary elective total hip replacement (THR) aged≥18. EVENT OF INTEREST: Revision surgery≥5 years (mid-late term) after primary THR. STATISTICAL METHODS: Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HR and 95% CI assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision. RESULTS: NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 142 275 THR; mean age 70.0 years and 61.9% female. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 047 THR; mean age 68.4 years, 61.8% female. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. In NJR-HES-PROMS data, there were 3582 (2.5%) revisions, median time-to-revision after primary surgery 1.9 years (range 0.01-8.7), with 598 (0.4%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 982 (5.8%) revisions, median time-to-revision 5.3 years (range 0-20), with 520 (3.1%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of mid-late term revision was associated with older age at primary surgery (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.96); better 6-month postoperative pain/function scores (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.46); use of ceramic-on-ceramic (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.00) bearing surfaces.Increased risk of mid-late term revision was associated with the use of antidepressants (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.59), glucocorticoid injections (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.67) and femoral head size≥44 mm (HR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.09 to 6.02)No association of gender, obesity or Index of Multiple Deprivation was observed. CONCLUSION: The risk of mid-late term THR is associated with age at primary surgery, 6-month postoperative pain and function and implant factors. Further work is needed to explore the associations with prescription medications observed in our data.

Importance of Time Point-Specific Indirect Treatment Comparisons of Osteoporosis Treatments: A Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analyses.

PURPOSE: The efficacy comparison of osteoporosis treatments can be hindered by the absence of head-to-head trials; instead, network meta-analyses (NMAs) have been used to determine comparative effectiveness. This study was the first to investigate the impact of time point-specific NMAs of osteoporosis treatments on variability in treatments' onset of action caused by their different mechanisms of actions and trial designs. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, including romosozumab (ROMO), teriparatide (TPTD), abaloparatide (ABL), alendronate (ALN), risedronate (RIS), ibandronate (IB), zoledronic acid/zoledronate (ZOL), denosumab (DEN), and raloxifene (RLX), on at least 1 fracture or bone mineral density (BMD) outcome. Of 100 RCTs identified in 5 databases, 27 RCTs were included for NMAs of new vertebral, nonvertebral, and hip fracture outcomes at 12, 24, and 36 months, and 47 RCTs were included for NMAs of BMD outcomes at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck to compare the relative efficacy of osteoporosis treatments. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. FINDINGS: For vertebral fractures, TPTD (83.63%), ABL (69.11%), and ROMO/ALN (78.70%) had the highest probability to be the most effective treatment at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. ROMO/ALN had the highest probability (54.4%, 64.69%, and 90.29%, respectively) to be the most effective treatment for nonvertebral fractures at 12, 24, and 36 months. For hip fractures, ROMO/ALN (46.31%), ABL (61.1%), and DEN (55.21%) had the highest probability to be the most effective treatment at 12, 24, and 36 months, respectively. ROMO had the highest probability (76.06%, 44.19%, and 51.78%, respectively) to be the most effective treatment for BMD outcomes at lumbar spine, total hip, and femoral neck. IMPLICATIONS: The importance of indirectly comparing available osteoporosis treatments using time point-specific NMAs was confirmed because indirect comparison results differed substantially across time points.