Outcomes after hip or knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis: A prospective cohort study comparing patients quality of life before and after surgery with age-related population norms

Objective: To compare the health-related quality of life of people with osteoarthritis before and after primary total hip and knee replacement surgery with that of the general Australian population. Design: A prospective cohort study. Setting: Three Sydney hospitals, public and private. Participants: Patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary total hip (n = 59) and knee (n = 92) joint replacement surgery. Main outcome measure: Medical Outcomes Study Short Form (SF-36) scores before and 12 months after joint replacement surgery (compared with population norms). Results: Patients in each age group showed a significant improvement in health-related quality of life after joint replacement surgery in most scales of the SF-36, particularly physical function, role physical and bodily pain. SF-36 scores for the 42 hip-replacement patients aged 55-74 years improved to equal or exceed the population norm on all scales. SF-36 scores of the 52 knee replacement patients aged 55-74 years improved, but physical function and bodily pain scores remained significantly worse than the population norm. SF-36 scores for both hip (n = 17) and knee (n= 40) replacement patients aged 75 years and over improved significantly, becoming similar to population norms for this age group. Conclusions: Total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis significantly improves patient health and well-being at 12 months after surgery. Age alone should not be a barrier to surgery

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Intersecting Cultures in Deaf Mental Health : An Ethnographic Study of NHS Professionals Diagnosing Autism in D/deaf Children

Autism assessments for children who are deaf are particularly complex for a number of reasons, including overlapping cultural and clinical factors. We capture this in an ethnographic study of National Health Service child and adolescent mental health services in the United Kingdom, drawing on theoretical perspectives from transcultural psychiatry, which help to understand these services as a cultural system. Our objective was to analyse how mental health services interact with Deaf culture, as a source of cultural-linguistic identity. We ground the study in the practices and perceptions of 16 professionals, who have conducted autism assessments for deaf children aged 0–18. We adopt a framework of intersectionality to capture the multiple, mutually enforcing factors involved in this diagnostic process. We observed that professionals working in specialist Deaf services, or with experience working with the Deaf community, had intersectional understandings of assessments: the ways in which cultural, linguistic, sensory, and social factors work together to produce diagnoses. Working with a diagnostic system that focuses heavily on ‘norms’ based on populations from a hearing culture was a key source of frustration for professionals. We conclude that recognising the intersectionality of mental health and Deaf culture helps professionals provide sensitive diagnoses that acknowledge the multiplicity of D/deaf experiences

Ursodeoxycholic acid in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy

Background: Ursodeoxycholic acid is commonly used to treat intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, yet its largest trial detected minimal benefit for a composite outcome (stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal unit admission). We aimed to examine whether ursodeoxycholic acid affects specific adverse perinatal outcomes. Methods: In this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Health, MIDIRS, and Cochrane without language restrictions for relevant articles published between database inception, and Jan 1, 2020, using search terms referencing intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, ursodeoxycholic acid, and perinatal outcomes. Eligible studies had 30 or more study participants and reported on at least one individual with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and bile acid concentrations of 40 μmol/L or more. We also included two unpublished cohort studies. Individual participant data were collected from the authors of selected studies. The primary outcome was the prevalence of stillbirth, for which we anticipated there would be insufficient data to achieve statistical power. Therefore, we included a composite of stillbirth and preterm birth as a main secondary outcome. A mixed-effects meta-analysis was done using multi-level modelling and adjusting for bile acid concentration, parity, and multifetal pregnancy. Individual participant data analyses were done for all studies and in different subgroups, which were produced by limiting analyses to randomised controlled trials only, singleton pregnancies only, or two-arm studies only. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019131495. Findings: The authors of the 85 studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria were contacted. Individual participant data from 6974 women in 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 4726 (67·8%) took ursodeoxycholic acid. Stillbirth occurred in 35 (0·7%) of 5097 fetuses among women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy treated with ursodeoxycholic acid and in 12 (0·6%) of 2038 fetuses among women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy not treated with ursodeoxycholic acid (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·35–3·07; p=0·95). Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment also had no effect on the prevalence of stillbirth when considering only randomised controlled trials (aOR 0·29, 95% CI 0·04–2·42; p=0·25). Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment had no effect on the prevalence of the composite outcome in all studies (aOR 1·28, 95% CI 0·86–1·91; p=0·22), but was associated with a reduced composite outcome when considering only randomised controlled trials (0·60, 0·39–0·91; p=0·016). Interpretation: Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment had no significant effect on the prevalence of stillbirth in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, but our analysis was probably limited by the low overall event rate. However, when considering only randomised controlled trials, ursodeoxycholic acid was associated with a reduction in stillbirth in combination with preterm birth, providing evidence for the clinical benefit of antenatal ursodeoxycholic acid treatment. Funding: Tommy's, the Wellcome Trust, ICP Support, and the National Institute for Health Research.</p

Ursodeoxycholic acid in intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Background: Ursodeoxycholic acid is commonly used to treat intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, yet its largest trial detected minimal benefit for a composite outcome (stillbirth, preterm birth, and neonatal unit admission). We aimed to examine whether ursodeoxycholic acid affects specific adverse perinatal outcomes. Methods: In this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Health, MIDIRS, and Cochrane without language restrictions for relevant articles published between database inception, and Jan 1, 2020, using search terms referencing intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, ursodeoxycholic acid, and perinatal outcomes. Eligible studies had 30 or more study participants and reported on at least one individual with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and bile acid concentrations of 40 μmol/L or more. We also included two unpublished cohort studies. Individual participant data were collected from the authors of selected studies. The primary outcome was the prevalence of stillbirth, for which we anticipated there would be insufficient data to achieve statistical power. Therefore, we included a composite of stillbirth and preterm birth as a main secondary outcome. A mixed-effects meta-analysis was done using multi-level modelling and adjusting for bile acid concentration, parity, and multifetal pregnancy. Individual participant data analyses were done for all studies and in different subgroups, which were produced by limiting analyses to randomised controlled trials only, singleton pregnancies only, or two-arm studies only. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019131495. Findings: The authors of the 85 studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria were contacted. Individual participant data from 6974 women in 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis, of whom 4726 (67·8%) took ursodeoxycholic acid. Stillbirth occurred in 35 (0·7%) of 5097 fetuses among women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy treated with ursodeoxycholic acid and in 12 (0·6%) of 2038 fetuses among women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy not treated with ursodeoxycholic acid (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·35–3·07; p=0·95). Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment also had no effect on the prevalence of stillbirth when considering only randomised controlled trials (aOR 0·29, 95% CI 0·04–2·42; p=0·25). Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment had no effect on the prevalence of the composite outcome in all studies (aOR 1·28, 95% CI 0·86–1·91; p=0·22), but was associated with a reduced composite outcome when considering only randomised controlled trials (0·60, 0·39–0·91; p=0·016). Interpretation: Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment had no significant effect on the prevalence of stillbirth in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, but our analysis was probably limited by the low overall event rate. However, when considering only randomised controlled trials, ursodeoxycholic acid was associated with a reduction in stillbirth in combination with preterm birth, providing evidence for the clinical benefit of antenatal ursodeoxycholic acid treatment. Funding: Tommy's, the Wellcome Trust, ICP Support, and the National Institute for Health Research