ORCID Profile
0000-0002-9917-1269
Current Organisation
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 03-02-2023
DOI: 10.1302/2633-1462.42.BJO-2022-0149.R1
Abstract: To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to in idual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023 (2):72–78.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2022-063608
Abstract: Persistent, knee pain is a common cause of disability. Education and exercise treatment are advocated in all clinical guidelines however, the increasing prevalence of persistent knee pain presents challenges for health services regarding appropriate and scalable delivery of these treatments. Digital technologies may help address this, and this trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of two electronic-rehabilitation interventions: ‘My Knee UK’ and ‘Group E-Rehab’. This protocol describes a non-blinded, randomised feasibility trial with three parallel groups. The trial aims to recruit 90 participants (45 years or older) with a history of persistent knee pain consistent with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The ‘My Knee UK’ intervention arm will receive a self-directed unsupervised internet-based home exercise programme plus short message service support (targeting exercise behaviour change) for 12 weeks the ‘Group E-Rehab’ intervention arm will receive group-based physiotherapist-prescribed home exercises delivered via videoconferencing accompanied by internet-interactive educational sessions for 12 weeks the control arm will receive usual physiotherapy care or continue with their usual self-management (depending on their recruitment path). Feasibility variables, patient-reported outcomes and clinical findings measured at baseline, 3 and 9 months will be assessed and integrated with qualitative interview data from a subset of Group E-Rehab and My Knee UK participants. If considered feasible and acceptable, a definitive randomised controlled trial can be conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of one or both interventions with a view to implementation in routine care. The trial was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (Reference: 20/WS/0006). The results of the study will be disseminated to study participants, the study grant funder and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. ISRCTN15564385 .
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 06-2022
DOI: 10.3310/KODQ0769
Abstract: Joint replacement surgery has revolutionised the management of degenerative joint disease. Increasing demand for surgery and post-surgical reviews has overwhelmed orthopaedic services and, consequently, many centres have reduced or stopped follow-up. Such disinvestment is without an evidence base and raises questions regarding the consequences to patients. To produce evidence- and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Our research question was ‘Is it safe to disinvest in mid- to late-term follow-up of hip and knee replacement?’. The study comprised three complementary evidence synthesis work packages to inform a final consensus process. Work package 1 was a systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness literature. Work package 2 used routine national data sets (i.e. the Clinical Practice Research Datalink–Hospital Episode Statistics, Hospital Episode Statistics–National Joint Registry–patient-reported outcome measures) to identify pre, peri and postoperative predictors of mid- to late-term revision, and prospective data from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery. Work package 3 used a Markov model to simulate the survival, health-related quality of life and NHS costs of patients following hip or knee replacement surgery. Finally, evidence from work packages 1–3 informed a face-to-face consensus panel, which involved 32 stakeholders. Our overarching statements are as follows: (1) these recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up (2) the 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond 10 years and (3) in these recommendations, the term ‘complex cases’ refers to in idual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk of replacement failure. Our recommendations are as follows: for Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel 10A* (ODEP-10A*) minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided that there is rapid access to orthopaedic review (2) for ODEP-10A* minimum implants in complex cases or non-ODEP-10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years (3) at 10 years post hip and knee replacement, clinical and radiographic evaluation is recommended and (4) after 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment (note that ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required) [Stone M, Smith L, Kingsbury S, Czoski-Murray C, Judge A, Pinedo-Villanueva R, et al . Evidence-based follow-up recommendations following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (UK SAFE). Orthop Proc 2020 102 – B :13. 0.1302/1358-992X.2020.5.013 ]. The current absence of data beyond 10 years restricted the evidence base. For ODEP-10A* prostheses, the UK SAFE programme demonstrated that it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up in the 1- to 10-year period after non-complex hip and knee replacement. At 10 years, clinical and radiographic review is recommended. Complex cases, implants not meeting the 10A* criteria and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. The evidence base for follow-up after 10 years requires further evaluation. Further work should establish the most clinically effective and cost-effective model of delivering a rapid access service and evaluate alternative models for follow-up services, such as virtual clinics. Finally, the needs and outcomes of patients who are symptomatic but do not have appropriate follow-up should be investigated. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017053017. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research Vol. 10, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2021
DOI: 10.1016/J.JOCA.2021.03.008
Abstract: Autoantibodies (AutoAbs) have been observed in osteoarthritis (OA) with broad antigenicity, although their prevalence and role remain unclear. Post-translational modification (PTMs) of proteins (oxidation, carbamylation, citrullination) is associated with synovitis and can lead to AutoAb development. Given the prevalence of synovitis, we explored whether AutoAbs to PTM-antigens are common in OA compared with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Serum (n = 895) was obtained from healthy controls, OA and RA patients and arthritic synovial fluid (SF, n = 290). ELISAs were used to quantify anti-citrullinated peptide (ACPA), anti-carbamylated protein (anti-CarP), anti-oxidized collagen (anti-ROS-CI/CII) antibodies. In sera, positivity for PTM-antigens AutoAbs was observed at a lower frequency in OA with 64.1% (95%CI: 57.2-70.1%) more ACPA+ and 29.8% (21.0-37.3%) more anti-CarP + patients in RA (both P < 0.0001). Levels of ACPA, anti-CarP were also lower in OA (P < 0.0001). Anti-ROS-CII positivity was lower in OA compared to RA (16.6%, 4.8-28.6%) less frequent, P = 0.033) but not anti-native-CII. There was no impact of age/gender on AutoAbs associations with diseases either looking at positivity or levels. In SF, OA patients were often ACPA+ (45.9%) although less frequently than in RA (P = 0.004). Anti-CarP were rarely observed (<5% all s les). All collagen AutoAbs were more frequent in RA compared to OA (all P < 0.010) but only levels of anti-CII and anti-ROS-CII were significantly higher in they RA (P < 0.050). Although the frequency of AutoAbs for PTM proteins were lower in OA sera compared to RA, a higher proportion of OA SF were positive. The relative retention of AutoAbs in the OA joint requires further investigation.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 06-01-2021
DOI: 10.1093/RHEUMATOLOGY/KEAA892
Abstract: To assess whether modern management of RA has reduced the prescription of oral corticosteroids and NSAIDs and to evaluate use of pharmacological prophylaxis strategies. Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we explored long-term (≥3/12 months ≥6/12 in sub-analyses) DMARD, corticosteroid and NSAID prescribing (annually, in the year post-diagnosis and across the patient’s life course to 15 years post-diagnosis), annual proportion with co-prescribing for prophylaxis of associated bone (corticosteroids, women only) and gastrointestinal (NSAIDs) comorbidity. Reported incidence of RA was 5.98 (0.37) per 10 000 person-years and prevalence was 0.91% (0.014) in 2017. In 71 411 RA patients, long-term DMARD prescribing initially rose post-diagnosis from 41.6% in 1998 to 67.9% in 2009. Corticosteroid prescribing changed little, overall [22.2% in 1998, 19.1% in 2016 incident risk ratio (IRR) 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.03] and across the life course from the first to fifteenth year (22.2% to 16.9%). NSAID prescribing declined from 57.7% in 1998, and significantly so from 2008, to 27.1% in 2016 (IRR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.56). This continued across the life course (41.2% to 28.4%). Bone prophylaxis increased to 68.1% in 2008 before declining to 56.4% in 2017 gastrointestinal prophylaxis increased from 11.5% in 1998 to 62.6% in 2017. Sub-analyses showed consistent patterns. Despite modern treatment strategies, corticosteroid prescribing in RA patients remains substantial and persists beyond 6 months once initiated. Rheumatologists need to determine causes and develop strategies to reduce corticosteroid use to minimize adverse event occurrence.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 09-09-2021
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-07-2022
DOI: 10.1002/MSC.1580
Abstract: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are common musculoskeletal conditions. Treatment is usually conservative, making self‐management a priority. We developed and trialled an OA peer mentorship intervention to support self‐management in older people. Our objectives were to gain understanding of the perceived challenges of living with OA and explore how a peer mentorship intervention can support tackling these challenges and to explore mentees' experiences of receiving the intervention to understand how this affected their OA self‐management. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews focussing on acceptability and feasibility of being in the study were conducted with mentees. Transcribed interviews were double coded and subject to framework analysis. To address the objectives of this paper, three main themes were subject to focused analysis: mentees' experiences of OA, experience of peer mentorship support and factors influencing self‐management. Seventeen mentees participated in an interview following completion of the peer support intervention. Themes emerging from focused analysis were the following: tackling the challenges of living with OA pre‐ and post‐intervention and the interplay of the peer mentorship intervention and self‐management. Key elements of the latter theme are enabling factors provided by peer mentorship, and mentees' readiness to self‐manage. To effectively support OA self‐management, peer mentorship interventions should include core educational components and focus on strategies that enhance key enablers of self‐management. Paying attention to the mentor–mentee relationship and timing of intervention engagement can maximise opportunities for older people to adjust and transition from supported to independent self‐management.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-07-2018
DOI: 10.1002/MSC.1353
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 03-12-2019
DOI: 10.1007/S00296-019-04486-3
Abstract: This prospective study aimed to determine the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) cut-off for the patient reported outcome measure shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI), and evaluate predictors of PASS achievement following standard shoulder care. Patients with shoulder pain, referred for shoulder ultrasound were recruited from a community cohort. Patients completed both SPADI (scored 0–130) and a question on symptom state and followed-up at 6 months. PASS was calculated from Rasch-transformed scores using 2 methods: the 75th percentile of the cumulative response curve and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with PASS. 304 participants (169 females, mean age 57.2 years) were included. At 6 months, 193 (63%) reported PASS. The association between SPADI at 6 months and PASS depended on baseline SPADI (interaction p = 0.036). Those with higher baseline scores had higher 6 months PASS cut-offs. Using the 75th percentile method, the 6 months total SPADI cut-off was 49.2 in those starting in the highest tertile at baseline compared to 39.4 in the lowest tertile: 46.4 vs. 36.7 for pain, 46.8 vs. 25.1 for disability. The ROC method yielded similar results. We have shown for the first time that the PASS cut-off for SPADI is dependent on baseline severity scores. Understanding the SPADI PASS threshold is important for clinical research to allow standardised reporting of shoulder intervention success at the patient level.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Sarah Kingsbury.