ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3452-3382
Current Organisations
University of Southampton
,
University of Oxford
,
University of London
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: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 14-06-2019
DOI: 10.1038/S41584-019-0237-3
Abstract: The classification and monitoring of in iduals with early knee osteoarthritis (OA) are important considerations for the design and evaluation of therapeutic interventions and require the identification of appropriate outcome measures. Potential outcome domains to assess for early OA include patient-reported outcomes (such as pain, function and quality of life), features of clinical examination (such as joint line tenderness and crepitus), objective measures of physical function, levels of physical activity, features of imaging modalities (such as of magnetic resonance imaging) and biochemical markers in body fluid. Patient characteristics such as adiposity and biomechanics of the knee could also have relevance to the assessment of early OA. Importantly, research is needed to enable the selection of outcome measures that are feasible, reliable and validated in in iduals at risk of knee OA or with early knee OA. In this Perspectives article, potential outcome measures for early symptomatic knee OA are discussed, including those measures that could be of use in clinical practice and/or the research setting.
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: 07-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.REHAB.2021.101619
Abstract: In osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials, reliable and responsive outcome measures to document physical and functional improvements are limited. This study aimed to assess whether the use of an activity tracker in an OA clinical trial is a responsive measurement tool. Secondary objectives assessed feasibility and validity. We recruited 65 participants in a prospective cohort study nested in a placebo-controlled clinical trial of platelet-rich plasma injection in knee OA. Participants wore an activity tracker (Fitbit Flex 2), and a smartphone was preloaded with a mobile application (OApp) designed to monitor load rates as a surrogate of knee loading. Participants used the systems for 7 days at baseline and for 7 days before the 2-month follow-up assessment. Effect size (ES) and standardised response mean (SRM) were calculated for change in step count and knee loading rate and regularly used knee OA outcome measures. Correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to examine the strength of the association between outcome measures. . Step count showed a trivial ES and SRM and mean knee loading rate measurements a moderate ES and SRM. We found a weak but significant correlation between change in mean steps per day and global improvement overall (r= 0.28) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function (r = -0.28). Compliance was high with the activity trackers. Despite good feasibility, this study did not show significant responsiveness or validity of the activity trackers as compared with currently recommended outcome measures in OA clinical trials. The main challenge is the lack of a gold standard outcome measure to validate against, and because of the complex interplay between pain and measured function, a lack of correlation does not necessarily represent a failed validation in this context. ACTRN12617000853347. This trial is a substudy of the "Platelet-rich plasma as a symptom-and disease-modifying treatment for knee osteoarthritis - the RESTORE trial".
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 24-08-2020
DOI: 10.1007/S00296-020-04687-1
Abstract: Progressive hand interphalangeal joint (IPJ) osteoarthritis is associated with pain, reduced function and impaired quality of life. However, the evidence surrounding risk factors for IPJ osteoarthritis progression is unclear. Identifying risk factors for IPJ osteoarthritis progression may inform preventative strategies and early interventions to improve long-term outcomes for in iduals at risk of IPJ osteoarthritis progression. The objectives of the study were to describe methods used to measure the progression of IPJ osteoarthritis and identify risk factors for IPJ osteoarthritis progression. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 19th February 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42019121034). Eligible studies assessed potential risk factor/s associated with IPJ osteoarthritis progression. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified QUIPS Tool, and a best evidence synthesis was performed. Of eight eligible studies, all measured osteoarthritis progression radiographically, and none considered symptoms. Eighteen potential risk factors were assessed. Diabetes (adjusted mean difference between 2.06 and 7.78), and larger finger epiphyseal index in males (regression coefficient β = 0.202) and females ( β = 0.325) were identified as risk factors (limited evidence). Older age in men and women showed mixed results 13 variables were not risk factors (all limited evidence). Patients with diabetes and larger finger epiphyseal index might be at higher risk of radiographic IPJ osteoarthritis progression, though evidence is limited and studies are biased. Studies assessing symptomatic IPJ osteoarthritis progression are lacking.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 11-2021
DOI: 10.3310/HTA25660
Abstract: Although routine NHS data potentially include all patients, confounding limits their use for causal inference. Methods to minimise confounding in observational studies of implantable devices are required to enable the evaluation of patients with severe systemic morbidity who are excluded from many randomised controlled trials. Stage 1 – replicate the Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT), a surgical randomised controlled trial comparing unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement using propensity score and instrumental variable methods. Stage 2 – compare the risk benefits and cost-effectiveness of unicompartmental knee replacement with total knee replacement surgery in patients with severe systemic morbidity who would have been ineligible for TOPKAT using the validated methods from stage 1. This was a cohort study. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry database and linked to hospital inpatient (Hospital Episode Statistics) and patient-reported outcome data. Stage 1 – people undergoing unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery who met the TOPKAT eligibility criteria. Stage 2 – participants with an American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of ≥ 3. The patients were exposed to either unicompartmental knee replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery. The primary outcome measure was the postoperative Oxford Knee Score. The secondary outcome measures were 90-day postoperative complications (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and prosthetic joint infection) and 5-year revision risk and mortality. The main outcome measures for the health economic analysis were health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions) and NHS hospital costs. In stage 1, propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting replicated the results of TOPKAT. Propensity score adjustment, propensity score matching and instrumental variables did not. Stage 2 included 2256 unicompartmental knee replacement patients and 57,682 total knee replacement patients who had severe comorbidities, of whom 145 and 23,344 had linked Oxford Knee Scores, respectively. A statistically significant but clinically irrelevant difference favouring unicompartmental knee replacement was observed, with a mean postoperative Oxford Knee Score difference of 2 points using propensity score stratification no significant difference was observed using inverse probability weighting. Unicompartmental knee replacement more than halved the risk of venous thromboembolism [relative risk 0.33 (95% confidence interval 0.15 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification relative risk 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.96) using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement was not associated with myocardial infarction or prosthetic joint infection using either method. In the long term, unicompartmental knee replacement had double the revision risk of total knee replacement [hazard ratio 2.70 (95% confidence interval 2.15 to 3.38) using propensity score stratification hazard ratio 2.60 (95% confidence interval 1.94 to 3.47) using inverse probability weighting], but half of the mortality [hazard ratio 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.74) using propensity score stratification insignificant effect using inverse probability weighting]. Unicompartmental knee replacement had lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year gains than total knee replacement for stage 2 participants. Although some propensity score methods successfully replicated TOPKAT, unresolved confounding may have affected stage 2. Missing Oxford Knee Scores may have led to information bias. Propensity score stratification and inverse probability weighting successfully replicated TOPKAT, implying that some (but not all) propensity score methods can be used to evaluate surgical innovations and implantable medical devices using routine NHS data. Unicompartmental knee replacement was safer and more cost-effective than total knee replacement for patients with severe comorbidity and should be considered the first option for suitable patients. Further research is required to understand the performance of propensity score methods for evaluating surgical innovations and implantable devices. This trial is registered as EUPAS17435. 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. 25, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-02-2021
DOI: 10.1007/S40520-020-01762-2
Abstract: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic joint disease, with increasing global burden of disability and healthcare utilisation. Recent meta-analyses have shown a range of effects of OA on mortality, reflecting different OA definitions and study methods. We seek to overcome limitations introduced when using aggregate results by gathering in idual participant-level data (IPD) from international observational studies and standardising methods to determine the association of knee OA with mortality in the general population. Seven community-based cohorts were identified containing knee OA-related pain, radiographs, and time-to-mortality, six of which were available for analysis. A two-stage IPD meta-analysis framework was applied: (1) Cox proportional hazard models assessed time-to-mortality of participants with radiographic OA (ROA), OA-related pain (POA), and a combination of pain and ROA (PROA) against pain and ROA-free participants (2) hazard ratios (HR) were then pooled using the Hartung–Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis. 10,723 participants in six cohorts from four countries were included in the analyses. Multivariable models (adjusting for age, sex, race, BMI, smoking, alcohol consumption, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) showed a pooled HR, compared to pain and ROA-free participants, of 1.03 (0.83, 1.28) for ROA, 1.35 (1.12, 1.63) for POA, and 1.37 (1.22, 1.54) for PROA. Participants with POA or PROA had a 35–37% increased association with reduced time-to-mortality, independent of confounders. ROA showed no association with mortality, suggesting that OA-related knee pain may be driving the association with time-to-mortality. Versus Arthritis Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis and Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2021.09.020
Abstract: We aimed to study 19-year body mass index (BMI) patterns and their (1) bidirectional relationship with musculoskeletal pain and (2) mortality risk. We used data from the Chingford study and group-based trajectory modelling to define 19-year BMI patterns. We investigated whether baseline back, hand, hip, and knee pain (as single- and multi-site) predicted 19-year BMI trajectory, and whether 19-year BMI patterns predicted pain in year 20. We explored BMI trajectories and mortality risk over 25 years (life expectancy). We included 938 women (mean age: year-1=54, year-20=72) and found seven distinct 19-year BMI trajectories: two normal-weighted (reference), slightly overweight, lower and upper overweight-to-obese, lower and upper obese. BMI patterns capturing the increase overweight-to-obese (BMI 27-34 overtime) were bidirectionally related to knee and multi-site pain. The lower obese pattern (BMI 33-38) was unidirectionally associated with lower limb pain. Women with BMI above 40 had an increased all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk. For most postmenopausal women, the overweight WHO category was a transition. Two patterns capturing increase overweight-to-obese were mutually related to musculoskeletal pain, i.e., knee and multi-site pain contributed to becoming obese, and trajectories of becoming obese increased the odds of experiencing pain later.
Publisher: Korean Society of Epidemiology
Date: 19-10-2021
Abstract: OBJECTIVES: The BRAIN-Q is a tool aimed at maximising the accuracy and minimising measurement error for retrospectively assessing concussions. This paper reports the agreement of the BRAIN-Q tool when compared to extant questionnaire questions, and its reproducibility when compared with its telephonic version (tBRAIN-Q).METHODS: The BRAIN-Q entails a 3-stage process: defining a concussion, creating a visual timeline with life events, and establishing detailed characteristics for each reported concussion. It was designed to be administered in-person by trained personnel, and was used in the BRAIN study. Its performance was compared with the MSK study, which previously collected a few questions in a broader self-administered questionnaire, and with the tBRAIN-Q Recall, its telephonic version.RESULTS: In total, 101 participants were included, of whom 9 were re-assessed with the tBRAIN-Q. The agreement of the BRAIN-Q with the muscle skeletal-questionnaire for rugby-related concussion was 86.7% (κ=0.6). Rugby-related concussion with loss of consciousness showed lower agreement (82.0% κ=0.6). The comparison between the BRAIN-Q and the tBRAIN-Q showed good reproducibility.CONCLUSIONS: The BRAIN-Q is a relatively easy tool to administer in face-to-face assessments, and it showed optimal reproducibility. It includes a well-established definition of concussion, and is used to collect detailed information on each concussion, allowing for a number of subgroup analyses (e.g., by severity, age, or context). The BRAIN-Q is easily adaptable to other sporting settings.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 22-04-2021
DOI: 10.1007/S00296-021-04823-5
Abstract: A correction to this paper has been published: 0.1007/s00296-021-04823-5
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 15-01-2019
Abstract: To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA). An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including in iduals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary. Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 in iduals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient’s global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention. The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 04-2020
DOI: 10.3310/HTA24200
Abstract: Late-stage medial compartment knee osteoarthritis can be treated using total knee replacement or partial (unicompartmental) knee replacement. There is high variation in treatment choice and insufficient evidence to guide selection. To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement in patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The findings are intended to guide surgical decision-making for patients, surgeons and health-care providers. This was a randomised, multicentre, pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial that included an expertise component. The target s le size was 500 patients. A web-based randomisation system was used to allocate treatments. Twenty-seven NHS hospitals (68 surgeons). Patients with medial compartment knee osteoarthritis. The trial compared the overall management strategy of partial knee replacement treatment with total knee replacement treatment. No specified brand or subtype of implant was investigated. The Oxford Knee Score at 5 years was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included activity scores, global health measures, transition items, patient satisfaction (Lund Score) and complications (including reoperation, revision and composite ‘failure’ – defined by minimal Oxford Knee Score improvement and/or reoperation). Cost-effectiveness was also assessed. A total of 528 patients were randomised (partial knee replacement, n = 264 total knee replacement, n = 264). The follow-up primary outcome response rate at 5 years was 88% and both operations had good outcomes. There was no significant difference between groups in mean Oxford Knee Score at 5 years (difference 1.04, 95% confidence interval –0.42 to 2.50). An area under the curve analysis of the Oxford Knee Score at 5 years showed benefit in favour of partial knee replacement over total knee replacement, but the difference was within the minimal clinically important difference [mean 36.6 (standard deviation 8.3) ( n = 233), mean 35.1 (standard deviation 9.1) ( n = 231), respectively]. Secondary outcome measures showed consistent patterns of benefit in the direction of partial knee replacement compared with total knee replacement although most differences were small and non-significant. Patient-reported improvement (transition) and reflection (would you have the operation again?) showed statistically significant superiority for partial knee replacement only, but both of these variables could be influenced by the lack of blinding. The frequency of reoperation (including revision) by treatment received was similar for both groups: 22 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 28 out of 269 for total knee replacement patients. Revision rates at 5 years were 10 out of 245 for partial knee replacement and 8 out of 269 for total knee replacement. There were 28 ‘failures’ of partial knee replacement and 38 ‘failures’ of total knee replacement (as defined by composite outcome). Beyond 1 year, partial knee replacement was cost-effective compared with total knee replacement, being associated with greater health benefits (measured using quality-adjusted life-years) and lower health-care costs, reflecting lower costs of the index surgery and subsequent health-care use. It was not possible to blind patients in this study and there was some non-compliance with the allocated treatment interventions. Surgeons providing partial knee replacement were relatively experienced with the procedure. Both total knee replacement and partial knee replacement are effective, offer similar clinical outcomes and have similar reoperation and complication rates. Some patient-reported measures of treatment approval were significantly higher for partial knee replacement than for total knee replacement. Partial knee replacement was more cost-effective (more effective and cost saving) than total knee replacement at 5 years. Further (10-year) follow-up is in progress to assess the longer-term stability of these findings. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN03013488 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01352247. 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. 24, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.3310/HTA23320
Abstract: There is no good evidence to support the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in setting preoperative thresholds for referral for hip and knee replacement surgery. Despite this, the practice is widespread in the NHS. Can clinical outcome tools be used to set thresholds for hip or knee replacement? What is the relationship between the choice of threshold and the cost-effectiveness of surgery? A systematic review identified PROMs used to assess patients undergoing hip/knee replacement. Their measurement properties were compared and supplemented by analysis of existing data sets. For each candidate score, we calculated the absolute threshold (a preoperative level above which there is no potential for improvement) and relative thresholds (preoperative levels above which in iduals are less likely to improve than others). Owing to their measurement properties and the availability of data from their current widespread use in the NHS, the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) were selected as the most appropriate scores to use in developing the Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE) tool. The change in score and the probability of an improvement were then calculated and modelled using preoperative and postoperative OKS/OHSs and PROM scores, thereby creating the ACHE tool. Markov models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of total hip/knee arthroplasty in the NHS for different preoperative values of OKS/OHSs over a 10-year period. The threshold values were used to model how the ACHE tool may change the number of referrals in a single UK musculoskeletal hub. A user group was established that included patients, members of the public and health-care representatives, to provide stakeholder feedback throughout the research process. From a shortlist of four scores, the OHS and OKS were selected for the ACHE tool based on their measurement properties, calculated preoperative thresholds and cost-effectiveness data. The absolute threshold was 40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS using the preferred improvement criterion. A range of relative thresholds were calculated based on the relationship between a patient’s preoperative score and their probability of improving after surgery. For ex le, a preoperative OHS of 35 or an OKS of 30 translates to a 75% probability of achieving a good outcome from surgical intervention. The economic evaluation demonstrated that hip and knee arthroplasty cost of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for patients with any preoperative score below the absolute thresholds (40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS). Arthroplasty was most cost-effective for patients with lower preoperative scores. The ACHE tool supports but does not replace the shared decision-making process required before an in idual decides whether or not to undergo surgery. The OHS and OKS can be used in the ACHE tool to assess an in idual patient’s suitability for hip/knee replacement surgery. The system enables evidence-based and informed threshold setting in accordance with local resources and policies. At a population level, both hip and knee arthroplasty are highly cost-effective right up to the absolute threshold for intervention. Our stakeholder user group felt that the ACHE tool was a useful evidence-based clinical tool to aid referrals and that it should be trialled in NHS clinical practice to establish its feasibility. Future work could include (1) a real-world study of the ACHE tool to determine its acceptability to patients and general practitioners and (2) a study of the role of the ACHE tool in supporting referral decisions. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Publisher: The Journal of Rheumatology
Date: 03-2727
Abstract: To assess the uptake of the OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology- Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core outcome set (COS) domains in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials. There were 382 trials of hip and/or knee OA identified from the ClinicalTrial.gov registry from 1997 to 2017. Frequency of COS adoption was assessed by year and per 5-yearly phases. COS adoption decreased from 61% between 1997 and 2001 to 38% between 2012 and 2016. Pain (95%) and physical function (86%) were most consistently adopted. Patient’s global assessment (48%) was the principal missing domain. Limited adoption of the COS domains indicates that further consideration to improve uptake is required.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
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 Nigel Arden.