Jacqueline Murphy

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair [the UK Rotator Cuff Surgery (UKUFF) randomised trial]

BACKGROUND Uncertainty exists regarding the best management of patients with degenerative tears of the rotator cuff. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair in patients aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. DESIGN Two parallel-group randomised controlled trial. SETTING Nineteen teaching and district general hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS Patients (n = 273) aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears. INTERVENTIONS Arthroscopic surgery and open rotator cuff repair, with surgeons using their usual and preferred method of arthroscopic or open repair. Follow-up was by telephone questionnaire at 2 and 8 weeks after surgery and by postal questionnaire at 8, 12 and 24 months after randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the shoulder was made at 12 months after surgery to assess the integrity of the repair. RESULTS The mean OSS improved from 26.3 [standard deviation (SD) 8.2] at baseline to 41.7 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (SD 8.0) at baseline to 41.5 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for open surgery. When effect sizes are shown for the intervention, a negative sign indicates that an open procedure is favoured. For the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no statistical difference between the groups, the difference in OSS score at 24 months was -0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452] and the CI excluded the predetermined clinically important difference in the OSS of 3 points. There was also no statistical difference when the groups were compared per protocol (difference in OSS score -0.46, 95% CI -5.30 to 4.39; p = 0.854). The questionnaire response rate was > 86%. At 8 months, 77% of participants reported that shoulder problems were much or slightly better, and at 24 months this increased to 85%. There were no significant differences in mean cost between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group for any of the component resource-use categories, nor for the total follow-up costs at 24 months. The overall treatment cost at 2 years was £2567 (SD £176) for arthroscopic surgery and £2699 (SD £149) for open surgery, according to intention-to-treat analysis. For the per-protocol analysis there was a significant difference in total initial procedure-related costs between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group, with arthroscopic repair being more costly by £371 (95% CI £135 to £607). Total quality-adjusted life-years accrued at 24 months averaged 1.34 (SD 0.05) in the arthroscopic repair group and 1.35 (SD 0.05) in the open repair group, a non-significant difference of 0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10). The rate of re-tear was not significantly different across the randomised groups (46.4% and 38.6% for arthroscopic and open surgery, respectively). The participants with tears that were impossible to repair had the lowest OSSs, the participants with re-tears had slightly higher OSSs and the participants with healed repairs had the most improved OSSs. These findings were the same when analysed per protocol. CONCLUSION In patients aged > 50 years with a degenerative rotator cuff tear there is no difference in clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness between open repair and arthroscopic repair at 2 years for the primary outcome (OSS) and all other prespecified secondary outcomes. Future work should explore new methods to improve tendon healing and reduce the high rate of re-tears observed in this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97804283. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (UKUFF): a randomised controlled trial

AIMS The appropriate management for patients with a degenerative tear of the rotator cuff remains controversial, but operative treatment, particularly arthroscopic surgery, is increasingly being used. Our aim in this paper was to compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic with open repair of the rotator cuff. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 273 patients were recruited to a randomised comparison trial (136 to arthroscopic surgery and 137 to open surgery) from 19 teaching and general hospitals in the United Kingdom. The surgeons used their usual preferred method of repair. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), two years post-operatively, was the primary outcome measure. Imaging of the shoulder was performed at one year after surgery. The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN97804283. RESULTS The mean OSS improved from 26.3 (standard deviation (sd) 8.2) at baseline, to 41.7 (sd 7.9) two years post-operatively for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (sd 8.0) to 41.5 (sd 7.9) for open surgery. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed no statistical difference between the groups at two years (difference in OSS score -0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452). The confidence interval excluded the pre-determined clinically important difference in the OSS of three points. The rate of re-tear was not significantly different between the two groups (46.4% for arthroscopic and 38.6% for open surgery; 95% CI -6.9 to 25.8; p = 0.256). Healed repairs had the most improved OSS. These findings were the same when analysed per-protocol. CONCLUSION There is no evidence of difference in effectiveness between open and arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tears. The rate of re-tear is high in both groups, for all sizes of tear and ages and this adversely affects the outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:107-15.

One-year costs of bilateral or single internal mammary grafts in the Arterial Revascularisation Trial.

Objective Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) may improve survival over CABG using single internal mammary arteries (SIMA), but may be surgically more complex (and therefore costly) and associated with impaired sternal wound healing. We report, for the first time, a detailed comparison of healthcare resource use and costs over 12 months, as part of the Arterial Revascularisation (ART) Trial. Methods 3102 patients in 28 hospitals in seven countries were randomised to CABG surgery using BIMA (n=1548) or SIMA (n=1554). Detailed resource use data were collected covering surgery, the initial hospital episode, and for 12 months post randomisation. Using UK unit costs, total costs were calculated and compared between trial arms and for subgroups. Results Patients randomised to BIMA spent 20 min longer in theatre (95% CI 15 to 25, p<0.001) and also required more treatment for sternal wound problems. Mean (SD) total costs per patient at 12 months were £13 839 (£10 534) for BIMA and £12 717 (£9719) for SIMA (mean cost difference £1122, 95% CI £407 to £1838, p=0.002). No tests for interaction between subgroups and treatment allocation were significant. Conclusions At 12 months from randomisation, mean costs were approximately 9% higher in BIMA than SIMA patients, primarily due to longer time in theatre and in-hospital stay, and slightly higher costs related to sternal wound problems during follow-up. Follow-up to the primary trial endpoint of 10 years will reveal whether longer-term differences emerge in graft patency or in overall survival. Trial registration number Controlled-trials.com (ISRCTN46552265).

Costs, quality of life and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open repair for rotator cuff tears

AIMS A trial-based comparison of the use of resources, costs and quality of life outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgical management for rotator cuff tears in the United Kingdom NHS was performed using data from the United Kingdom Rotator Cuff Study (UKUFF) randomised controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Using data from 273 patients, healthcare-related use of resources, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated at 12 months and 24 months after surgery on an intention-to-treat basis with adjustment for covariates. Uncertainty about the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for arthroscopic versus open management at 24 months of follow-up was incorporated using bootstrapping. Multiple imputation methods were used to deal with missing data. RESULTS There were no significant differences between the arthroscopic and open groups in terms of total mean use and cost of resources or QALYs at any time post-operatively. Open management dominated arthroscopic management in 59.8% of bootstrapped cost and effect differences. The probability that arthroscopic management was cost-effective compared with open management at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained was 20.9%. CONCLUSION There was no significant overall difference in the use or cost of resources or quality of life between arthroscopic and open management in the trial. There was uncertainty about which strategy was most cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:1648-55.

Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement: a systematic review protocol

Introduction Hip and knee replacement represents a significant burden to the UK healthcare system. ‘Enhanced recovery’ pathways have been introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement, with the aim of improving outcomes and timely recovery after surgery. To support policymaking, there is a need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways across jurisdictions. Our aim is to systematically summarise the published cost-effectiveness evidence on enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement, both as a whole and for each of the various components of enhanced recovery pathways. Methods and analysis A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Separate search strategies were developed for each database including terms relating to hip and knee replacement/arthroplasty, economic evaluations, decision modelling and quality of life measures. We will extract peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2017 reporting economic evaluations of preoperative, perioperative or postoperative enhanced recovery interventions within hip or knee replacement. Economic evaluations alongside cohort studies or based on decision models will be included. Only studies with patients undergoing elective replacement surgery of the hip or knee will be included. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice guidelines for economic evaluation, decision modelling and model validation. Our primary outcome will be the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery (entire pathway and individual components) in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented, focussing on cost-effectiveness results, study design, quality and validation status. Ethics and dissemination This systematic review is exempted from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal and at conferences. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017059473.

Cost-effectiveness of the faecal immunochemical test at a range of positivity thresholds compared with the guaiac faecal occult blood test in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England

Objectives Through the National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), men and women in England aged between 60 and 74 years are invited for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening every 2 years using the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT). The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost–utility of the faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) compared with gFOBT for a cohort beginning screening aged 60 years at a range of FIT positivity thresholds. Design We constructed a cohort-based Markov state transition model of CRC disease progression and screening. Screening uptake, detection, adverse event, mortality and cost data were taken from BCSP data and national sources, including a recent large pilot study of FIT screening in the BCSP. Results Our results suggest that FIT is cost-effective compared with gFOBT at all thresholds, resulting in cost savings and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained over a lifetime time horizon. FIT was cost-saving (p<0.001) and resulted in QALY gains of 0.014 (95% CI 0.012 to 0.017) at the base case threshold of 180 µg Hb/g faeces. Greater health gains and cost savings were achieved as the FIT threshold was decreased due to savings in cancer management costs. However, at lower thresholds, FIT was also associated with more colonoscopies (increasing from 32 additional colonoscopies per 1000 people invited for screening for FIT 180 µg Hb/g faeces to 421 additional colonoscopies per 1000 people invited for screening for FIT 20 µg Hb/g faeces over a 40-year time horizon). Parameter uncertainty had limited impact on the conclusions. Conclusions This is the first published economic analysis of FIT screening in England using data directly comparing FIT with gFOBT in the NHS BSCP. These results for a cohort starting screening aged 60 years suggest that FIT is highly cost-effective at all thresholds considered. Further modelling is needed to estimate economic outcomes for screening across all age cohorts simultaneously.