Aims Recent studies have suggested that corticosteroid injections into the knee may harm the joint resulting in cartilage loss and possibly accelerating the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee who receive intra-articular corticosteroid injections have an increased risk of requiring arthroplasty. Methods We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicentre observational cohort study that followed 4,796 patients with, or at risk of developing, osteoarthritis of the knee on an annual basis with follow-up available up to nine years. Increased risk for symptomatic OA was defined as frequent knee symptoms (pain, aching, or stiffness) without radiological evidence of OA and two or more risk factors, while OA was defined by the presence of both femoral osteophytes and frequent symptoms in one or both knees. Missing data were imputed with multiple imputations using chained equations. Time-dependent propensity score matching was performed to match patients at the time of receving their first injection with controls. The effect of corticosteroid injections on the rate of subsequent (total and partial) knee arthroplasty was estimated using Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses. Results After removing patients lost to follow-up, 3,822 patients remained in the study. A total of 249 (31.3%) of the 796 patients who received corticosteroid injections, and 152 (5.0%) of the 3,026 who did not, had knee arthroplasty. In the matched cohort, Cox proportional-hazards regression resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 1.81; p < 0.001) and each injection increased the absolute risk of arthroplasty by 9.4% at nine years’ follow-up compared with those who did not receive injections. Conclusion Corticosteroid injections seem to be associated with an increased risk of knee arthroplasty in patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic OA of the knee. These findings suggest that a conservative approach regarding the treatment of these patients with corticosteroid injections should be recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):586–592.

Sentinel lymph node mapping is the most cost-effective strategy for patients with low-and intermediate-risk endometrial cancer • Sentinel lymph node mapping is more costly than risk factor assessment, but the costs stay below the willingness-to-pay threshold. • Sentinel lymph node mapping is dominant compared to lymph node dissection.

ObjectivesWith the increasing interest in personalised medicine, the use of subgroup analyses is likely to increase. Subgroup analyses are challenging and often misused, possibly leading to false interpretations of the effect. It remains unclear to what extent key organisations warn for such pitfalls and translate current methodological research to detect these effects into research guidelines. The aim of this scoping review is to determine and evaluate the current guidance used by organisations for exploring, confirming and interpreting subgroup effects.DesignScoping review.Eligibility criteriaWe identified four types of key stakeholder organisations: industry, health technology assessment organisations (HTA), academic/non-profit research organisations and regulatory bodies. After literature search and expert consultation, we identified international and national organisations of each type. For each organisation that was identified, we searched for official research guidance documents and contacted the organisation for additional guidance.ResultsTwenty-seven (45%) of the 60 organisations that we included had relevant research guidance documents. We observed large differences between organisation types: 18% (n=2) of the industry organisations, 64% (n=9) of the HTA organisations, 38% (n=8) of academic/non-profit research organisations and 57% (n=8) of regulatory bodies provided guidance documents. The majority of the documents (n=33, 63%) mentioned one or more challenges in subgroup analyses, such as false positive findings or ecological bias with variations across the organisation types. Statistical recommendations were less common (n=19, 37%) and often limited to a formal test of interaction.ConclusionsAlmost half of the organisations included in this scoping review provided guidance on subgroup effect research in their guidelines. However, there were large differences between organisations in the amount and level of detail of their guidance. Effort is required to translate and integrate research findings on subgroup analysis to practical guidelines for decision making and to reduce the differences between organisations and organisation types.

Front-of-package food labeling (FoPFL) is increasingly advocated as an effective intervention to facilitate behavior changes toward healthier food purchasing and consumption, particularly in relation to products with added sugar. The present study assessed the potential caries-related impacts of FoPFL, using Germany as an example. The outcomes of interest were caries lesions prevented, dental treatment costs avoided, productivity loss reductions, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted. The baseline consumption of added sugar was derived from the German National Nutrition Survey. The reduction in sugar intake due to FoPFL was modeled according to estimates from a recent meta-analysis. Microsimulations were performed for 500,000 individuals and over a time horizon of 10 y. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to check the robustness of results. For the period from 2017 to 2027, FoPFL was identified to prevent 2,370,715 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2,062,730–2,678,700) caries lesions and avert 677.62 (95% CI, 589.59–765.65) DALYs. Treatment cost savings amounted to €175.67 million (95% CI, €152.85–€198.49), and productivity losses reduced by €27.33 million (95% CI, €23.78–€30.88). Sensitivity analyses showed that the magnitude of the effects is highly dependent on consumers’ response to FoPFL. Our findings suggest that FoPFL has the potential to substantially reduce caries increment, caries-related morbidity, and economic burden. In addition, our study allows for the inclusion of oral health estimates in overall health estimates for sugar-related food labeling. Before prioritizing a strategy to tackle sugar consumption, decision makers should carefully consider all relevant context-specific factors and implementation costs.

ObjectiveTo develop a prioritisation framework to support priority setting for elective surgeries after COVID-19 based on the impact on patient well-being and cost.DesignWe developed decision analytical models to estimate the consequences of delayed elective surgical procedures (eg, total hip replacement, bariatric surgery or septoplasty).SettingThe framework was applied to a large hospital in the Netherlands.Outcome measuresQuality measures impacts on quality of life and costs were taken into account and combined to calculate net monetary losses per week delay, which quantifies the total loss for society expressed in monetary terms. Net monetary losses were weighted by operating times.ResultsWe studied 13 common elective procedures from four specialties. Highest loss in quality of life due to delayed surgery was found for total hip replacement (utility loss of 0.27, ie, 99 days lost in perfect health); the lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (utility loss of 0.05, ie, 18 days lost in perfect health). Costs of surgical delay per patient were highest for bariatric surgery (€31/pp per week) and lowest for arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (−€2/pp per week). Weighted by operating room (OR) time bariatric surgery provides most value (€1.19/pp per OR minute) and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy provides the least value (€0.34/pp per OR minute). In a large hospital the net monetary loss due to prolonged waiting times was €700 840 after the first COVID-19 wave, an increase of 506% compared with the year before.ConclusionsThis surgical prioritisation framework can be tailored to specific centres and countries to support priority setting for delayed elective operations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, both in and between surgical disciplines. In the long-term, the framework can contribute to the efficient distribution of OR time and will therefore add to the discussion on appropriate use of healthcare budgets. The online framework can be accessed via: https://stanwijn.shinyapps.io/priORitize/.