No evidence for stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Economic evaluation alongside cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A stratified approach to exercise therapy may yield superior clinical and economic outcomes, given the large heterogeneity of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up of a model of stratified exercise therapy compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA, from a societal and healthcare perspective. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA (n = 335), comparing subgroup-specific exercise therapy for a 'high muscle strength subgroup', 'low muscle strength subgroup', and 'obesity subgroup' supplemented by a dietary intervention for the 'obesity subgroup' (experimental group), with usual ('non-stratified') exercise therapy (control group). Clinical outcomes included quality-adjusted life years - QALYs (EuroQol-5D-5 L), knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in daily living). Costs were measured by self-reported questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Data were analyzed through linear regression. Bootstrapping techniques were applied to estimate statistical uncertainty. RESULTS: During 12-month follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. The total societal costs of the experimental group were on average lower compared to the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: € 405 [-1728, 918]), albeit with a high level of uncertainty. We found a negligible difference in QALYs between groups (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.006 [-0.011, 0.023]). The probability of stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy from the societal perspective was around 73%, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, this probability decreased substantially to 50% (willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000/QALY) when using the healthcare perspective. Similar results were found for knee pain and physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence that stratified exercise therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA. However, results should be interpreted with caution as the study power was lower than intended, due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Evaluation of Allied Healthcare in Patients Recovering from Covid-19: Study Protocol and Baseline Data of s National Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the study protocol and baseline characteristics of a prospective cohort study to evaluate longitudinal recovery trajectories of patients recovering from COVID-19 who have visited a primary care allied health professional. DESIGN: Report of the protocol and baseline characteristics for a prospective cohort study with a mixed-methods approach. PATIENTS: Patients recovering from COVID-19 treated by primary care dietitians, exercise therapists, occupational therapists, physical therapists and/or speech and language therapists in the Netherlands. METHODS: The prospective study will measure primary outcome domains: participation, health-related quality of life, fatigue, physical functioning, and costs, at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Interviews, on the patients' experiences with allied healthcare, will be held with a subsample of patients and allied health professionals. RESULTS: The cohort comprises 1,451 patients (57% female, mean age 49 (standard deviation 13) years). Preliminary results for the study cohort show that 974 (67%) of the participants reported mild/moderate severity symptoms during the infection period and patients reported severe restrictions in activities of daily living compared with previous research in other patient populations. Both quantitative and qualitative, will provide insight into the recovery of patients who are treated by allied health professionals. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this will be the first comprehensive study to longitudinally evaluate the recovery trajectories and related costs of patients recovering from COVID-19 who are treated by allied health professionals in the Netherlands. This study will provide evidence for the optimal strategy to treat patients recovering from COVID-19 infection, including which patients benefit, and to what extent, from treatment, and which factors might impact their recovery course over time. The preliminary results of this study demonstrated the severity of restrictions and complaints at the start of therapy are substantial.

Optimizing orthopedic trauma care delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic. A closed-loop audit of implementing a virtual fracture clinic and fast-track pathway in a Dutch level 2 trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines concerning outpatient management of patients during the coronavirus pandemic required minimized face-to-face follow-up and increased remote care. In response, we established a virtual fracture clinic (VFC) review for emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal injuries, meaning patients are reviewed 'virtually' the next workday by a multidisciplinary team, instead of routine referral for face-to-face fracture clinic review. Patients wait at home and are contacted afterwards to discuss treatment. Based on VFC review, patients with minor injuries are discharged, while for other patients an extensive treatment plan is documented using injury-specific care pathways. Additionally, we established an ED orthopedic trauma fast-track to reduce waiting time. This study aimed to evaluate the extent to which our workflow supported adherence to national coronavirus-related guidelines and effects on ED waiting time. METHODS: A closed-loop audit was performed during two 4-week periods using predefined standards: (1) all eligible ED orthopedic trauma patients are referred for VFC review; (2) reached afterwards; and follow-up is (3) patient initiated, or (4) performed remotely, whenever possible. Total ED waiting time, time to review, time for review, and time after review were assessed during both audit periods and compared with previous measurements. RESULTS: During both audits, the majority of eligible ED patients were referred for VFC review (1st: n=162 (88.0%); 2nd: n=302 (98.4%)), and reached afterwards (1st: 98.1%; 2nd: 99.0%). Of all referred patients, 17.9% and 13.6% were discharged 'virtually' during first and second audits, respectively, while 45.0% and 41.1% of scheduled follow-up appointments were remote. Median total ED waiting time was reduced (1st: -36 minutes (p<0.001); 2nd: -33 minutes (p<0.001)). During the second audit, median ED time to review was reduced by -13 minutes (p<0.001), as well as time for review: -10 minutes (p=0.019). DISCUSSION: In line with national guidelines, our VFC review allowed time-effective review and triage of the majority of ED orthopedic trauma patients, supporting patient-initiated and remote follow-up, whenever possible. ED waiting time was reduced after implementing the VFC review and orthopedic trauma fast-track. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.