Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
  • Temporal trends and regional variation in the rate of arthroscopic knee surgery in England: analysis of over 1.7 million procedures between 1997 and 2017. Has practice changed in response to new evidence?

    15 October 2018

    OBJECTIVES: We investigated trends and regional variation in the rate of arthroscopic knee surgery performed in England from 1997-1998 to 2016-2017. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of the national hospital episode statistics (HES) for England. METHODS: All hospital episodes for patients undergoing a knee arthroscopy between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 2017 were extracted from HES by procedure code. Age and sex-standardised rates of surgery were calculated using Office for National Statistic population data as the denominator. Trends in the rate of surgery were analysed by procedure both nationally and by Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). RESULTS: A total of 1 088 872 arthroscopic partial meniscectomies (APMs), 326 600 diagnostic arthroscopies, 308 618 knee washouts and 252 885 chondroplasties were identified (1 759 467 hospital admissions; 1 447 142 patients). The rate of APM increased from a low of 51/100 000 population (95% CI 51 to 52) in 1997-1998 to a peak at 149/100 000 (95% CI 148 to 150) in 2013-2014; then, after 2014-2015, rates declined to 120/100 000 (95% CI 119 to 121) in 2016-2017. Rates of arthroscopic knee washout and diagnostic arthroscopy declined steadily from 50/100 000 (95% CI 49 to 50) and 47/100 000 (95% CI 46 to 47) respectively in 1997-1998, to 4.8/100 000 (95% CI 4.6 to 5.0) and 8.1/100 000 (95% CI 7.9 to 8.3) in 2016-2017. Rates of chondroplasty have increased from a low of 3.2/100 000 (95% CI 3.0 to 3.3) in 1997-1998 to 51/100 000 (95% CI 50.6 to 51.7) in 2016-2017. Substantial regional and age-group variation in practice was detected. In 2016-2017, between 11% (22/207) and 16% (34/207) of CCGs performed at least double the national average rate of each procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 20 years, and likely in response to new evidence, rates of arthroscopic knee washout and diagnostic arthroscopy have declined by up to 90%. APM rates increased about 130% overall but have declined recently. Rates of chondroplasty increased about 15-fold. There is significant variation in practice, but the appropriate population intervention rate for these procedures remains unknown.

  • Development of a core outcome set for disease modification trials in mild to moderate dementia: a systematic review, patient and public consultation and consensus recommendations.

    3 July 2018

    BACKGROUND: There is currently no disease-modifying treatment available to halt or delay the progression of the disease pathology in dementia. An agreed core set of the best-available and most appropriate outcomes for disease modification would facilitate the design of trials and ensure consistency across disease modification trials, as well as making results comparable and meta-analysable in future trials. OBJECTIVES: To agree a set of core outcomes for disease modification trials for mild to moderate dementia with the UK dementia research community and patient and public involvement (PPI). DATA SOURCES: We included disease modification trials with quantitative outcomes of efficacy from (1) references from related systematic reviews in workstream 1; (2) searches of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group study register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature and PsycINFO on 11 December 2015, and clinical trial registries [International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) and] on 22 and 29 January 2016; and (3) hand-searches of reference lists of relevant systematic reviews from database searches. REVIEW METHODS: The project consisted of four workstreams. (1) We obtained related core outcome sets and work from co-applicants. (2) We systematically reviewed published and ongoing disease modification trials to identify the outcomes used in different domains. We extracted outcomes used in each trial, recording how many used each outcome and with how many participants. We divided outcomes into the domains measured and searched for validation data. (3) We consulted with PPI participants about recommended outcomes. (4) We presented all the synthesised information at a conference attended by the wider body of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) dementia researchers to reach consensus on a core set of outcomes. RESULTS: We included 149 papers from the 22,918 papers screened, referring to 125 individual trials. Eighty-one outcomes were used across trials, including 72 scales [31 cognitive, 12 activities of daily living (ADLs), 10 global, 16 neuropsychiatric and three quality of life] and nine biological techniques. We consulted with 18 people for PPI. The conference decided that only cognition and biological markers are core measures of disease modification. Cognition should be measured by the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) or the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale - Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog), and brain changes through structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in a subset of participants. All other domains are important but not core. We recommend using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory for neuropsychiatric symptoms: the Disability Assessment for Dementia for ADLs, the Dementia Quality of Life Measure for quality of life and the Clinical Dementia Rating scale to measure dementia globally. LIMITATIONS: Most of the trials included participants with Alzheimer's disease, so recommendations may not apply to other types of dementia. We did not conduct economic analyses. The PPI consultation was limited to members of the Alzheimer's Society Research Network. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive outcomes and biological markers form the core outcome set for future disease modification trials, measured by the MMSE or ADAS-Cog, and structural MRI in a subset of participants. FUTURE WORK: We envisage that the core set may be superseded in the future, particularly for other types of dementia. There is a need to develop an algorithm to compare scores on the MMSE and ADAS-Cog. STUDY REGISTRATION: The project was registered with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials [ (accessed 7 April 2016)]. The systematic review protocol is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027346. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

  • Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial).

    3 July 2018

    BACKGROUND: Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING: Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI -£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

  • Insulin use and Excess Fracture Risk in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: A Propensity-Matched cohort analysis.

    27 June 2018

    Despite normal to high bone mineral density, patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) have an increased fracture risk. T2DM medications could partially account for this excess risk. The aim of this study was to assess the association between insulin use and bone fracture risk in T2DM patients. A population-based matched cohort study based on a primary care records database validated for research use (Catalonia, Spain) was performed. Propensity score (PS) for insulin use was calculated using logistic regression including predefined predictors of fractures. A total of 2,979 insulin users and 14,895 non-users were observed for a median of 1.42 and 4.58 years respectively. Major fracture rates were 11.2/1,000 person-years for insulin users, compared with 8.3/1,000 among non-users. Matched models confirmed a significant association, with an adjusted subhazard ratio (adj SHR) of 1.38 [95% CI 1.06 to 1.80] for major fractures. No differences between types of insulin or different regimens were found. Estimated number needed to harm (fracture) was 82 (95% CI 32 to 416). Insulin use appears to be associated with a 38% excess fracture risk among T2DM patients in the early stages of the disease. Fracture risk should be included among the considerations to initiate insulin treatment.

  • Fracture during oral bisphosphonate therapy is associated with deteriorated bone material strength index.

    27 June 2018

    BACKGROUND: Some patients experience fractures while receiving oral bisphosphonates (BPs) treatment. Clinical risk factors, advanced bone density loss, and microarchitecture deterioration have been associated with such fractures but bone tissue properties other than bone mineral density (BMD) have not been assessed. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study of postmenopausal women on bisphosphonates for at least 4years with good adherence to treatment, 21 patients with incident fractures were compared with 18 treated patients without new fractures. Demographic and clinical variables, BMD, laboratory tests, and bone material strength index (BMSi) assessed by impact microindentation at the tibial diaphysis were recorded for all participants. RESULTS: Clinical and laboratory results did not differ between patients taking BPs with incident fractures and those without new fractures. However, BMSi was significantly lower (mean±SD) in those who fractured (73.76±6.49) than in no-fracture patients (81.64±6.26; p=0.001). Lumbar spine (LS) BMD was also lower in fractured patients (p=0.03). Adjusted models including age, body mass index, years on BP treatment, and LS-BMD confirmed an increase in fracture risk per BMSi standard deviation decrease: adjusted OR 23.5 [95% CI 2.16 to 255.66], p=0.01. ROC analyses showed an area under the curve of 0.82 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) for BMSi, higher than that for BMD at any location, which ranged from 0.64 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.82) for femoral neck (FN) BMD to 0.71 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.87) for LS-BMD. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who fracture while receiving BPs treatment have worse BMSi scores than BP-treated patients without fractures. The potential for BMSi to provide an additional osteoporosis treatment target should be explored.

  • Clinical and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of rotator cuff disorders: protocol for a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial (the GRASP trial).

    3 July 2018

    INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is very common, with around 70% of cases due to disorders of the rotator cuff. Despite widespread provision of physiotherapy, there is uncertainty about which type of exercise and delivery mechanisms are associated with best outcomes. There is also uncertainty around the long-term benefits and harms of corticosteroid injection therapy, which is often used in addition to physiotherapy. The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of individually tailored, progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a large multicentre randomised controlled trial (2×2 factorial design). We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to a rotator cuff disorder as per British Elbow and Shoulder Society guidelines, not currently receiving physiotherapy or being considered for surgery, from at least eight UK National Health Service primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=704) will be randomised (centralised computer-generated 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio) to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (≤6 physiotherapy sessions); (2) best practice advice (one physiotherapy session); (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (≤6 sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (one session). The primary outcome is the mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are: pain and function SPADI subdomains; health-related quality of life (Five-Level version of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L); sleep disturbance; return to activity; global impression of change; health resource use; out-of-pocket expenses; work disability. A parallel within-trial economic evaluation will be conducted. The primary analysis will be intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee approval (REC: 16/SC/0508) has been obtained. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16539266; EudraCT number: 2016-002991-28.