A multilevel model to estimate the within- and the between-center components of the exposure/disease association in the EPIC study

Infection after total joint replacement of the hip and knee: research programme including the INFORM RCT

Background

People with severe osteoarthritis, other joint conditions or injury may have joint replacement to reduce pain and disability. In the UK in 2019, over 200,000 hip and knee replacements were performed. About 1 in 100 replacements becomes infected, and most people with infected replacements require further surgery.

Objectives

To investigate why some patients are predisposed to joint infections and how this affects patients and the NHS, and to evaluate treatments.

Design

Systematic reviews, joint registry analyses, qualitative interviews, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses and a discrete choice questionnaire.

Setting

Our studies are relevant to the NHS, to the Swedish health system and internationally.

Participants

People with prosthetic joint infection after hip or knee replacement and surgeons.

Interventions

Revision of hip prosthetic joint infection with a single- or two-stage procedure.

Main outcome measures

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and reinfection. Cost-effectiveness of revision strategies over 18 months from two perspectives: health-care provider and Personal Social Services, and societal.

Data sources

National Joint Registry; literature databases; published cohort studies; interviews with 67 patients and 35 surgeons; a patient discrete choice questionnaire; and the INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) randomised trial.

Review methods

Systematic reviews of studies reporting risk factors, diagnosis, treatment outcomes and cost comparisons. Individual patient data meta-analysis.

Results

In registry analyses, about 0.62% and 0.75% of patients with hip and knee replacement, respectively, had joint infection requiring surgery. Rates were four times greater after aseptic revision. The costs of inpatient and day-case admissions in people with hip prosthetic joint infection were about five times higher than those in people with no infection, an additional cost of > £30,000. People described devastating effects of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and treatment. In the treatment of hip prosthetic joint infection, a two-stage procedure with or without a cement spacer had a greater negative impact on patient well-being than a single- or two-stage procedure with a custom-made articulating spacer. Surgeons described the significant emotional impact of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection and the importance of a supportive multidisciplinary team. In systematic reviews and registry analyses, the risk factors for hip and knee prosthetic joint infection included male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, high body mass index, poor physical status, diabetes, dementia and liver disease. Evidence linking health-care setting and surgeon experience with prosthetic joint infection was inconsistent. Uncemented fixation, posterior approach and ceramic bearings were associated with lower infection risk after hip replacement. In our systematic review, synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy for prosthetic joint infection. Systematic reviews and individual patient data meta-analysis showed similar reinfection outcomes in patients with hip or knee prosthetic joint infection treated with single- and two-stage revision. In registry analysis, there was a higher rate of early rerevision after single-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection, but, overall, 40% fewer operations are required as part of a single-stage procedure than as part of a two-stage procedure. The treatment of hip or knee prosthetic joint infection with early debridement and implant retention may be effective in > 60% of cases. In the INFORM randomised controlled trial, 140 patients with hip prosthetic joint infection were randomised to single- or two-stage revision. Eighteen months after randomisation, pain, function and stiffness were similar between the randomised groups (p = 0.98), and there were no differences in reinfection rates. Patient outcomes improved earlier in the single-stage than in the two-stage group. Participants randomised to a single-stage procedure had lower costs (mean difference –£10,055, 95% confidence interval –£19,568 to –£542) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval –0.07 to 0.18) than those randomised to a two-stage procedure. Single-stage was the more cost-effective option, with an incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year of £11,167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21,696). In a discrete choice questionnaire completed by 57 patients 18 months after surgery to treat hip prosthetic joint infection, the most valued characteristics in decisions about revision were the ability to engage in valued activities and a quick return to normal activity.

Limitations

Some research was specific to people with hip prosthetic joint infection. Study populations in meta-analyses and registry analyses may have been selected for joint replacement and specific treatments. The INFORM trial was not powered to study reinfection and was limited to 18 months’ follow-up. The qualitative study subgroups were small.

Conclusions

We identified risk factors, diagnostic biomarkers, effective treatments and patient preferences for the treatment of hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. The risk factors include male sex, diagnoses other than osteoarthritis, specific comorbidities and surgical factors. Synovial fluid alpha-defensin and leucocyte esterase showed high diagnostic accuracy. Infection is devastating for patients and surgeons, both of whom describe the need for support during treatment. Debridement and implant retention is effective, particularly if performed early. For infected hip replacements, single- and two-stage revision appear equally efficacious, but single-stage has better early results, is cost-effective at 18-month follow-up and is increasingly used. Patients prefer treatments that allow full functional return within 3–9 months.

Future work

For people with infection, develop information, counselling, peer support and care pathways. Develop supportive care and information for patients and health-care professionals to enable the early recognition of infections. Compare alternative and new treatment strategies in hip and knee prosthetic joint infection. Assess diagnostic methods and establish NHS diagnostic criteria.

Study registration

The INFORM randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN10956306. All systematic reviews were registered in PROSPERO (as CRD42017069526, CRD42015023485, CRD42018106503, CRD42018114592, CRD42015023704, CRD42017057513, CRD42015016559, CRD42015017327 and CRD42015016664).

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Extended two-stage designs for environmental research

BACKGROUND

The two-stage design has become a standard tool in environmental epidemiology to model multi-location data. However, its standard form is rather inflexible and poses important limitations for modelling complex risks associated with environmental factors. In this contribution, we illustrate multiple design extensions of the classical two-stage method, all implemented within a unified analytic framework.

METHODS

We extended standard two-stage meta-analytic models along the lines of linear mixed-effects models, by allowing location-specific estimates to be pooled through flexible fixed and random-effects structures. This permits the analysis of associations characterised by combinations of multivariate outcomes, hierarchical geographical structures, repeated measures, and/or longitudinal settings. The analytic framework and inferential procedures are implemented in the R package mixmeta.

RESULTS

The design extensions are illustrated in examples using multi-city time series data collected as part of the National Morbidity, Mortality and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS). Specifically, four case studies demonstrate applications for modelling complex associations with air pollution and temperature, including non-linear exposure-response relationships, effects clustered at multiple geographical levels, differential risks by age, and effect modification by air conditioning in a longitudinal analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The definition of several design extensions of the classical two-stage design within a unified framework, along with its implementation in freely-available software, will provide researchers with a flexible tool to address novel research questions in two-stage analyses of environmental health risks.

Centre effects and case-mix in early rheumatoid arthritis observational cohorts: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

Observational cohort studies in early RA are a key source of evidence, despite inconsistencies in methodological approaches. This narrative review assesses the spectrum of methodologies used in addressing centre-level effect and case-mix adjustment in early RA observational cohort studies.

METHODS

An electronic search was undertaken to identify observational prospective cohorts of >100 patients recruited from two or more centres, within 2 years of an RA or early inflammatory arthritis diagnosis. References and author publication lists of all studies from eligible cohorts were assessed for additional cohorts.

RESULTS

Thirty-four unique cohorts were identified from 204 studies. Seven percent of studies considered centre in their analyses, most commonly as a fixed effect in regression modelling. Reporting of case-mix variables in analyses varied widely. The number of variables considered in case-mix adjustment was higher following publication of the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement in 2007.

CONCLUSION

Centre effect is unreported or inadequately accounted for in the majority of RA observational cohorts, potentially leading to spurious inferences and obstructing comparisons between studies. Inadequate case-mix adjustment precludes meaningful comparisons between centres. Appropriate methodology to account for centre and case-mix adjustment should be considered at the outset of analyses.

Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement: an observational cohort study from England and Wales

Background

Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of knee replacement. The risk of developing a prosthetic joint infection is affected by patient, surgical, and health-care system factors. Existing evidence is limited by heterogeneity in populations studied, short follow-up, inadequate power, and does not differentiate early prosthetic joint infection, most likely related to the intervention, from late infection, more likely to occur due to haematogenous bacterial spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection following primary knee replacement.

Methods

In this cohort study, we analysed primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales and the procedures subsequently revised for prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data in England and the Patient Episode Database for Wales. Each primary replacement was followed for a minimum of 12 months until the end of the observation period (Dec 31, 2014) or until the date of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for another indication, or death (whichever occurred first). We analysed the data using Poisson and piecewise exponential multilevel models to assess the associations between patient, surgical, and health-care system factors and risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection.

Findings

Of 679 010 primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales, 3659 were subsequently revised for an indication of prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014, after a median follow-up of 4·6 years (IQR 2·6–6·9). Male sex (rate ratio [RR] for male vs female patients 1·8 [95% CI 1·7–2·0]), younger age (RR for age ≥80 years vs <60 years 0·5 [0·4–0·6]), higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] grade (RR for ASA grade 3–5 vs 1, 1·8 [1·6–2·1]), elevated body-mass index (BMI; RR for BMI ≥30 kg/m²vs <25 kg/m² 1·5 [1·3–1·6]), chronic pulmonary disease (RR 1·2 [1·1–1·3]), diabetes (RR 1·4 [1·2–1·5]), liver disease (RR 2·2 [1·6–2·9]), connective tissue and rheumatic diseases (RR 1·5 [1·3–1·7]), peripheral vascular disease (RR 1·4 [1·1–1·7]), surgery for trauma (RR 1·9 [1·4–2·6]), previous septic arthritis (RR 4·9 [2·7–7·6]) or inflammatory arthropathy (RR 1·4 [1·2–1·7]), operation under general anaesthesia (RR 1·1 [1·0–1·2]), requirement for tibial bone graft (RR 2·0 [1·3–2·7]), use of posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses (RR for posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses vs unconstrained fixed bearing prostheses 1·4 [1·3–1·5]) or constrained condylar prostheses (3·5 [2·5–4·7]) were associated with a higher risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. However, uncemented total, patellofemoral, or unicondylar knee replacement (RR for uncemented vs cemented total knee replacement 0·7 [95% CI 0·6–0·8], RR for patellofemoral vs cemented total knee replacement 0·3 [0·2–0·5], and RR for unicondylar vs cemented total knee replacement 0·5 [0·5–0·6]) were associated with lower risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Most of these factors had time-specific effects, depending on the time period post-surgery.

Interpretation

We have identified several risk factors for revision for prosthetic joint infection following knee replacement. Some of these factors are modifiable, and the use of targeted interventions or strategies could lead to a reduced risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Non-modifiable factors and the time-specific nature of the effects we have observed will allow clinicians to appropriately counsel patients preoperatively and tailor follow-up regimens.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

Risk factors associated with revision for prosthetic joint infection after hip replacement: a prospective observational cohort study

Background

The risk of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by patient, surgical, and health-care factors. Existing evidence is based on short-term follow-up. It does not differentiate between factors associated with early onset caused by the primary intervention from those associated with later onset more likely to result from haematogenous spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to PJI after primary total hip replacement.

Methods

We did a prospective observational cohort study analysing 623 253 primary hip procedures performed between April 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2013, in England and Wales and recorded the number of procedures revised because of PJI. We investigated the associations between risk factors and risk of revision for PJI across the overall follow-up period using Poisson multilevel models. We reinvestigated the associations by post-operative time periods (0–3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–24 months, >24 months) using piece-wise exponential multilevel models with period-specific effects. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data.

Findings

2705 primary procedures were subsequently revised for an indication of PJI between 2003 and 2014, after a median (IQR) follow up of 4·6 years (2·6–7·0). Among the factors associated with an increased revision due to PJI there were male sex (1462 [1·2‰] of 1 237 170 male-years vs 1243 [0·7‰] of 1 849 691 female-years; rate ratio [RR] 1·7 [95% CI 1·6–1·8]), younger age (739 [1·1‰] of 688 000 person-years <60 years vs 242 [0·6‰] of 387 049 person-years ≥80 years; 0·7 [0·6–0·8]), elevated body-mass index (BMI; 941 [1·8‰] 517 278 person-years with a BMI ≥30 kg/m²vs 272 [0·9‰] of 297 686 person-years with a BMI <25 kg/m²; 1·9 [1·7–2·2]), diabetes (245 [1·4‰] 178 381 person-years with diabetes vs 2120 [1·0‰] of 2 209 507 person-years without diabetes; 1·4 [1·2–1·5]), dementia (5 [10·1‰] of 497 person-years with dementia at 3 months vs 311 [2·6‰] of 120 850 person-years without dementia; 3·8 [1·2–7·8]), previous septic arthritis (22 [7·2‰] of 3055 person-years with previous infection vs 2683 [0·9‰] of 3 083 806 person-years without previous infection; 6·7 [4·2–9·8]), fractured neck of femur (66 [1·5‰] of 43 378 person-years operated for a fractured neck of femur vs 2639 [0·9‰] of 3 043 483 person-years without a fractured neck of femur; 1·8 [1·4–2·3]); and use of the lateral surgical approach (1334 [1·0‰] of 1 399 287 person-years for lateral vs 1242 [0·8 ‰] of 1 565 913 person-years for posterior; 1·3 [1·2–1·4]). Use of ceramic rather than metal bearings was associated with a decreased risk of revision for PJI (94 [0·4‰] of 239 512 person-years with ceramic-on-ceramic bearings vs 602 [0·5‰] of 1 114 239 peron-years with metal-on-polyethylene bearings at ≥24 months; RR 0·6 [0·4–0·7]; and 82 [0·4‰] of 190 884 person-years with ceramic-on-polyethyene bearings vs metal-on-polyethylene bearings at ≥24 months; 0·7 [0·5–0·9]). Most of these factors had time-specific effects. The risk of revision for PJI was marginally or not influenced by the grade of the operating surgeon, the absence of a consultant surgeon during surgey, and the volume of procedures performed by hospital or surgeon.

Interpretation

Several modifiable and non-modifiable factors are associated with the risk of revision for PJI after primary hip replacement. Identification of modifiable factors, use of targeted interventions, and beneficial modulation of some of these factors could be effective in reducing the incidence of PJI. It is important for clinicians to consider non-modifiable factors and factors that exhibit time-specific effects on the risk of PJI to counsel patients appropriately preoperatively.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.