Incidence of shoulder dislocations in the UK, 1995-2015 : a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE: This cohort study evaluates the unknown age-specific and gender-specific incidence of primary shoulder dislocations in the UK. SETTING: UK primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were used to identify patients aged 16-70 years with a shoulder dislocation during 1995-2015. Coding of primary shoulder dislocations was validated using the CPRD general practitioner questionnaire service. PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 16 763 patients with shoulder dislocation aged 16-70 years during 1995-2015 were identified. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence rates per 100 000 person-years and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Correct coding of shoulder dislocation within CPRD was 89% (95% CI 83% to 95%), and confirmation that the dislocation was a 'primary' was 76% (95% CI 67% to 85%). Seventy-two percent of shoulder dislocations occurred in men. The overall incidence rate in men was 40.4 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI 40.4 to 40.4), and in women was 15.5 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI 15.5 to 15.5). The highest incidence was observed in men aged 16-20 years (80.5 per 100 000 person-years; 95% CI 80.5 to 80.6). Incidence in women increased with age to a peak of 28.6 per 100 000 person-years among those aged 61-70 years. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first time the incidence of shoulder dislocations has been studied using primary care data from a national database, and the first time the results for the UK have been produced. While most primary dislocations occurred in young men, an unexpected finding was that the incidence increased in women aged over 50 years, but not in men. The reasons for this are unknown. Further work is commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research to examine treatments and predictors for recurrent shoulder dislocation. STUDY REGISTRATION: The design of this study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (15_260) for the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

Quantitative assessment of barriers to the clinical development and adoption of cellular therapies:A pilot study

There has been a large increase in basic science activity in cell therapy and a growing portfolio of cell therapy trials. However, the number of industry products available for widespread clinical use does not match this magnitude of activity. We hypothesize that the paucity of engagement with the clinical community is a key contributor to the lack of commercially successful cell therapy products. To investigate this, we launched a pilot study to survey clinicians from five specialities and to determine what they believe to be the most significant barriers to cellular therapy clinical development and adoption. Our study shows that the main concerns among this group are cost-effectiveness, efficacy, reimbursement, and regulation. Addressing these concerns can best be achieved by ensuring that future clinical trials are conducted to adequately answer the questions of both regulators and the broader clinical community

Better post-operative prediction and management of chronic pain in adults after total knee replacement:the multidisciplinary STAR research programme including RCT

Background: The treatment of osteoarthritis with knee replacement aims to reduce pain and disability. However, some people experience chronic pain. Objectives: To improve outcomes for people with chronic pain after knee replacement by identifying post-surgical predictors and effective interventions, characterising patient pathways and resource use, developing and evaluating a new care pathway, and exploring non-use of services. Design: The programme comprised systematic reviews, national database analyses, a cohort study, intervention development, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses, qualitative studies and stakeholder engagement. Extensive and meaningful patient and public involvement underpinned all studies. Setting: NHS, secondary care, primary care. Participants: People with, or at risk of, chronic pain after knee replacement and health-care professionals involved in the care of people with pain. Interventions: A care pathway for the management of people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement. Main outcome measures: Patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Data sources: Literature databases, the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, patient- reported outcomes, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study, the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial, interviews with 90 patients and 14 health-care professionals, and stakeholder events. Review methods: Systematic reviews of cohort studies or randomised trials, using meta-analysis or narrative synthesis. Results: In the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study cohort, 14% of people experienced chronic pain 1 year after knee replacement. By 5 years, 65% reported no pain, 31% fluctuated and 4% remained in chronic pain. People with chronic pain had a worse quality of life, higher primary care costs, and more frequent analgesia prescriptions, particularly for opioids, than those not in chronic pain. People with chronic pain after knee replacement who made little or no use of services often felt nothing more could be done, or that further treatments may have no benefit or cause harm. People described a feeling of disconnection from their replaced knee. Analysis of UK databases identified risk factors for chronic pain after knee replacement. Pre- operative predictors were mild knee pain, smoking, deprivation, body mass index between 35 and 40 kg/m2 and knee arthroscopy. Peri- and post-operative predictors were mechanical complications, infection, readmission, revision, extended hospital stay, manipulation under anaesthetic and use of opioids or antidepressants. In systematic reviews, pre-operative exercise and education showed no benefit in relation to chronic pain. Peri-operative interventions that merit further research were identified. Common peri- operative treatments were not associated with chronic pain. There was no strong evidence favouring specific post-operative physiotherapy content. We evaluated the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement care pathway in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. We randomised 363 people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement from eight NHS Trusts in England and Wales. At 12 months’ follow-up, the intervention group had lower mean pain severity (adjusted difference –0.65, 95% confidence interval –1.17 to -0.13; p = 0.014) and pain interference (adjusted difference –0.68, 95% confidence interval –1.29 to -0.08; p = 0.026), as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory subscales (scale 0–10). People receiving the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway had lower NHS and Personal Social Services costs (–£724, 95% confidence interval –£150 to £51) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.06) than those with usual care. The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway was cost-effective with an incremental net monetary benefit at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold of £1256 (95% confidence interval £164 to £2348), indicating a 98.79% probability that the intervention is the cost-effective option. Participants found the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway acceptable, with opportunities to receive information and discuss concerns while ensuring further treatment and support. In systematic reviews considering treatments for chronic pain after surgery we identified some unifactorial interventions that merit further research after knee replacement. Health-care professionals delivering and implementing the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway valued its focus on neuropathic pain and psychosocial issues, enhanced patient care, formalised referrals, and improved pain management. Stakeholders supported pathway implementation. Limitations: Database analyses were limited to factors recorded in data sets. Pain was only measured 6 months after surgery. However, analyses including large numbers of centres and patients should be generalisable across the NHS. In many studies found in systematic reviews, long-term pain was not a key outcome. Conclusions: The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway is a clinically effective and cost-effective, acceptable intervention for the management of chronic pain after knee replacement. Unifactorial interventions merit further study before inclusion in patient care. People with pain should be empowered to seek health care, with the support of health-care professionals. Future work: Future work should include research relating to the implementation of the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway into the NHS, an assessment of its long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and wider application, and an evaluation of new interventions for incorporation in the pathway. It will also be important to design and conduct research to improve communication between patients and health-care professionals before surgery; explore whether or not education and support can enable earlier recognition of chronic pain; consider research that may identify how to support people’s feelings of disconnectedness from their new knee; and design and evaluate a pre-surgical intervention based on risk factors. Study registration: All systematic reviews were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42015015957, CRD42016041374 and CRD42017041382). The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial was registered as ISRCTN92545361. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Health-related quality of life and a cost-utility simulation of adults in the UK with osteogenesis imperfecta, X-linked hypophosphatemia and fibrous dysplasia.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life of adults with osteogenesis imperfecta (OI), fibrous dysplasia (FD) and X-linked hypophosphatemia (XLH) remains poorly described. The aim of this study was to describe the HRQoL of adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, fibrous dysplasia and X-linked hypophophataemia and perform a cost-utility simulation to calculate the maximum cost that a health care system would be willing to pay for a hypothetical treatment of a rare bone disease. RESULTS: Participants completed the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire between September 2014 and March 2016. For the economic simulation, we considered a hypothetical treatment that would be applied to OI participants in the lower tertile of the health utility score. A total of 109 study participants fully completed the EQ-5D-5 L questionnaire (response rate 63%). Pain/discomfort was the most problematic domain for participants with all three diseases (FD 31%, XLH 25%, OI 16%). The economic simulation identified an expected treatment impact of +2.5 QALYs gained per person during the 10-year period, which led to a willing to pay of £14,355 annually for a health care system willing to pay up to £50,000 for each additional QALY gained by an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to quantitatively measure and compare the HRQoL of adults with OI, FD and XLH and the first to use such data to conduct an economic simulation leading to healthcare system willingness-to-pay estimates for treatment of musculoskeletal rare diseases at various cost-effectiveness thresholds

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: An expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO)

Background: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. Objectives: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. Methods: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. Results: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. Conclusions: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness

Modelling cost-effectiveness of tenofovir for prevention of mother to child transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in South Africa

CITATION: Mokaya, J., et al. 2019. Modelling cost-effectiveness of tenofovir for prevention of mother to child transmission of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in South Africa. BMC Public Health, 19:829, doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7095-4.The original publication is available at https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.comBackground: International sustainable development goals for the elimination of viral hepatitis as a public health problem by 2030 highlight the need to optimize strategies for prevention, diagnosis and treatment of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. An important priority for Africa is to have affordable, accessible and sustainable prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) programmes, delivering screening and treatment for antenatal women and implementing timely administration of HBV vaccine for their babies. Methods: We developed a decision-analytic model simulating 10,000 singleton pregnancies to assess the costeffectiveness of three possible strategies for deployment of tenofovir in pregnancy, in combination with routine infant vaccination: S1: no screening nor antiviral therapy; S2: screening and antiviral prophylaxis for all women who test HBsAg-positive; S3: screening for HBsAg, followed by HBeAg testing and antiviral prophylaxis for women who are HBsAg-positive and HBeAg-positive. Our outcome was cost per infant HBV infection avoided and the analysis followed a healthcare perspective. Results: Based on 10,000 pregnancies, S1 predicts 45 infants would be HBV-infected at six months of age, compared to 21 and 28 infants in S2 and S3, respectively. Relative to S1, S2 had an incremental cost of $3940 per infection avoided. S3 led to more infections and higher costs. Conclusion: Given the long-term health burden for individuals and economic burden for society associated with chronic HBV infection, screening pregnant women and providing tenofovir for all who test HBsAg+ may be a costeffective strategy for South Africa and other low/middle income settings.https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-019-7095-4Publisher's versio

Mapping the Oxford hip score onto the EQ-5D utility index

PURPOSE: To assess different mapping methods for the estimation of a group's mean EQ-5D score based on responses to the Oxford hip score (OHS) questionnaire. METHODS: Four models were considered: a) linear regression using total OHS as a continuous regressor; b) linear regression employing responses to the twelve OHS questions as categorical predictors; c) two-part approach combining logistic and linear regression; and d) response mapping. The models were internally validated on the estimation data set, which included OHS and EQ-5D scores for total hip replacements, both before and six months after procedure for 1,759 operations. An external validation was also performed. RESULTS: All models estimated the mean EQ-5D score within 0.005 of an observed health-state utility estimate, ordinary least squares (OLS) continuous being the most accurate and OLS categorical the most consistent. Age, gender and deprivation did not improve the models. More accurate estimations at the individual level were achieved for higher scores of observed OHS and EQ-5D. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, when EQ-5D scores are not available, answers to the OHS questionnaire can be used to estimate a group's mean EQ-5D with a high degree of accuracy

Mapping the Oxford hip score onto the EQ-5D utility index

PURPOSE: To assess different mapping methods for the estimation of a group's mean EQ-5D score based on responses to the Oxford hip score (OHS) questionnaire. METHODS: Four models were considered: a) linear regression using total OHS as a continuous regressor; b) linear regression employing responses to the twelve OHS questions as categorical predictors; c) two-part approach combining logistic and linear regression; and d) response mapping. The models were internally validated on the estimation data set, which included OHS and EQ-5D scores for total hip replacements, both before and six months after procedure for 1,759 operations. An external validation was also performed. RESULTS: All models estimated the mean EQ-5D score within 0.005 of an observed health-state utility estimate, ordinary least squares (OLS) continuous being the most accurate and OLS categorical the most consistent. Age, gender and deprivation did not improve the models. More accurate estimations at the individual level were achieved for higher scores of observed OHS and EQ-5D. CONCLUSION: Based on these results, when EQ-5D scores are not available, answers to the OHS questionnaire can be used to estimate a group's mean EQ-5D with a high degree of accuracy

A reference case for economic evaluations in osteoarthritis: An expert consensus article from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: General recommendations for a reference case for economic studies in rheumatic diseases were published in 2002 in an initiative to improve the comparability of cost-effectiveness studies in the field. Since then, economic evaluations in osteoarthritis (OA) continue to show considerable heterogeneity in methodological approach. OBJECTIVES: To develop a reference case specific for economic studies in OA, including the standard optimal care, with which to judge new pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions. METHODS: Four subgroups of an ESCEO expert working group on economic assessments (13 experts representing diverse aspects of clinical research and/or economic evaluations) were charged with producing lists of recommendations that would potentially improve the comparability of economic analyses in OA: outcome measures, comparators, costs and methodology. These proposals were discussed and refined during a face-to-face meeting in 2013. They are presented here in the format of the recommendations of the recently published Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, so that an initiative on economic analysis methodology might be consolidated with an initiative on reporting standards. RESULTS: Overall, three distinct reference cases are proposed, one for each hand, knee and hip OA; with diagnostic variations in the first two, giving rise to different treatment options: interphalangeal or thumb-based disease for hand OA and the presence or absence of joint malalignment for knee OA. A set of management strategies is proposed, which should be further evaluated to help establish a consensus on the "standard optimal care" in each proposed reference case. The recommendations on outcome measures, cost itemisation and methodological approaches are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: The ESCEO group proposes a set of disease-specific recommendations on the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations in OA that could help the standardisation and comparability of studies that evaluate therapeutic strategies of OA in terms of costs and effectiveness