Search results
Found 30962 matches for
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.
The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical repair of partial rotator cuff tears in patients with subacromial shoulder pain: a comparison of surgical repair versus surgery with no repair. Partial Rotator Cuff Repair Trial (PRoCuRe Trial)
Aims and objectives: To assess if surgical repair of partial rotator cuff tears is effective in patients with persistent shoulder pain despite physiotherapy and steroid injection. Background: Rotator cuff tears are shoulder tendon tears causing pain, weakness and loss of movement, leading to problems with daily activities, work, recreation and sleep. Tears can be full thickness (whole tendon) or partial. Patients who do not get better with non-operative treatments may choose surgery. Although rotator cuff tears cause pain and disability, it is not known which surgery is best or if repairing partial tears prevents full tears and worsening problems. Methods: We planned a randomised controlled trial across 20 UK NHS hospitals . Between July 2021 and August 2022 we aimed to recruit 376 patients over 18 years of age suffering persistent shoulder pain and partial rotator cuff tears . Eligible patients received arthroscopic (keyhole) surgery to either debride (shave away inflamed tissue, rough tear edges and bone spurs) and repair the tear, or debride only without repair. Patients were followed up using questionnaires. Key findings: This study of an elective surgical procedure was severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, especially staff shortages, sickness and redeployment. Changes post pandemic to the patient pathway and national surgical prioritisation processes had a major impact on identifying eligible patients with partial tears. All these factors effected site set-up and patient recruitment. The study closed early due to slow recruitment. Only 10 patients from 9 NHS Trusts were randomised, precluding any meaningful analysis . Patient and public involvement: Patients were involved in the study design, set up and monitoring. Conclusions and future plans: The impact of the pandemic prevented trial progression and this research question is now likely to remain unanswered. Detailed post-pandemic feasibility work is needed before attempting a similar study.
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.
Prevalence and Mortality of Individuals With X-Linked Hypophosphatemia: A United Kingdom Real-World Data Analysis.
BACKGROUND: X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH) is a rare multisystemic disease with a prominent musculoskeletal phenotype. We aim here to improve understanding of the prevalence of XLH across the life course and of overall survival among people with XLH. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using a large primary care database in the United Kingdom (UK) from 1995 to 2016. XLH cases were matched by age, gender, and practice to up to 4 controls. Trends in prevalence over the study period were estimated (stratified by age) and survival among cases was compared with that of controls. FINDINGS: From 522 potential cases, 122 (23.4%) were scored as at least possible XLH, while 62 (11.9%) were classified as highly likely or likely (conservative definition). In main analyses, prevalence (95% CI) increased from 3.1 (1.5-6.7) per million in 1995-1999 to 14.0 (10.8-18.1) per million in 2012-2016. Corresponding estimates using the conservative definition were 3.0 (1.4-6.5) to 8.1 (5.8-11.4). Nine (7.4%) of the possible cases died during follow-up, at median age of 64 years. Fourteen (2.9%) of the controls died at median age of 72.5 years. Mortality was significantly increased in those with possible XLH compared with controls (hazard ratio [HR] 2.93; 95% CI, 1.24-6.91). Likewise, among those with likely or highly likely XLH (HR 6.65; 1.44-30.72). CONCLUSIONS: We provide conservative estimates of the prevalence of XLH in children and adults within the UK. There was an unexpected increase in mortality in later life, which may have implications for other fibroblast growth factor 23-related disorders.
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.