Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the UK. For women who have early-stage oestrogen-receptor positive (ER+ve) disease, daily oral adjuvant endocrine therapy reduces risk of recurrence. Recently, CDK4/6 inhibitors, a form of biological therapy, have been approved for use alongside endocrine therapy. However, trial data suggest there may be challenges with adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors. This study aims to explore the experiences of adherence and support needs of women who have been prescribed CDK4/6 inhibitors for early ER+ve breast cancer. It will also co-develop an intervention to support women with adherence to these drugs alongside endocrine therapy through an evidence-based, theory-informed and patient-centred approach.

The SWEET-PLUS study has three phases. Phase I uses semi-structured interviews or focus groups to explore the experiences of women with early breast cancer who have been prescribed CDK4/6 inhibitors. It will also explore their support needs and experiences of adherence. Phase II involves interviews or focus groups with healthcare professionals who support CDK4/6 inhibitor prescription and associated care to understand the existing support and unmet needs. Phase I and II findings will inform phase III, which comprises workshops and user testing interviews to co-develop an intervention to support women with adherence to CDK4/6 inhibitors alongside endocrine therapy. This will be delivered as an additional module prototype designed for future integration into the existing HT&Me intervention, which supports women with adherence to endocrine therapy.

Data from phases I and II will be analysed using a framework approach-based thematic analysis. Phase III data will be analysed through content analysis.

SWEET-PLUS received ethical approval from the National Health Services (NHS) Health Research Authority (Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee (25/EE/0220)). Research findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and via international and national conferences. Further dissemination will be guided by patient and public involvement.

To summarise the evidence on long-term and infrequent harms following selected spinal and paraspinal injections and denervation procedures for chronic non-cancer spine pain.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to October 2023.

Non-randomised studies reporting on harms of selected interventional procedures administered to adults living with chronic axial or radicular non-cancer spine pain with ≥4 weeks of follow-up.

A parallel guideline panel provided input on the scope, design and interpretation of this systematic review, including selection of adverse events for consideration. Systematic literature screening, data abstraction and risk of bias appraisal were conducted independently and in duplicate by pairs of reviewers. We used random-effects models for all meta-analyses and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

We included 60 longitudinal studies (56 non-comparative, 4 comparative) that enrolled 4966 patients with chronic non-cancer spine-related pain. 31 studies investigated radiofrequency ablation or denervation, 22 epidural injections and 11 joint injections or nerve blocks. Low certainty evidence suggests that joint targeted steroid injection and epidural steroid injection for chronic spine pain may result in temporary altered level of consciousness (incidence: 2.1%; 95% CI 1.1% to 4.0%), joint radiofrequency nerve ablation, joint targeted steroid injection and epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids may result in deep infection (incidence: 0.7%; 95% CI 0.3% to 2.0%), epidural steroid injection, joint radiofrequency nerve ablation and joint targeted injection of local anaesthetic and steroids may result in dural puncture (incidence: 1.4%; 95% CI 0.5% to 4.3%), and dorsal root ganglion radiofrequency and joint radiofrequency nerve ablation with or without joint-targeted injection of steroids may result in prolonged pain or stiffness (incidence: 8.6%; 95% CI 6.3% to 11.6%). Several interventional procedures may result in metabolic complications and prolonged sensory deficits, but the supporting evidence was only very low certainty. Most complications resolved spontaneously or with conservative management.

Low certainty evidence suggests that several common interventional procedures for chronic spine pain show risk of deep infection, dural puncture, temporary altered level of consciousness and prolonged pain or stiffness. Other harms are uncertain due to very low certainty evidence, and catastrophic outcomes were not reported in the small studies that contributed to our analyses.