Better arthritis care; patients' expectations and priorities of the competencies that community health professionals need to improve the care of people with arthritis

Objective The aim of the present study was to identify the competencies that patients think non-specialist community-based nurses and allied health professionals (AHPs) need to enable them to assess, care for and manage arthritis appropriately. Methods Four face-to-face focus groups were held with a total of 16 women and nine men with arthritis, to discuss the care they received from community-based health professionals, the skills and knowledge they expected from community-based health professionals and what they prioritized. Results People with arthritis wanted health providers to have an understanding of the difference between inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA), of how serious OA can be, and of the unpredictability of IA and flares. They emphasized the need for nurses and AHPs to understand the psychosocial impact of arthritis on individuals, family and friends, and the psychological adjustment needed when diagnosed with IA. They wanted community-based health professionals to have some knowledge of the types of drug treatments that people with IA receive and the implications of taking immunosuppressive drugs. They also wanted them to understand the pain associated with arthritis, particularly OA, which participants felt was not taken seriously enough. They wanted nurses and AHPs in the community to be able to give basic advice on pacing and pain management, to make multidisciplinary referrals, to communicate effectively between referral points and to be able to signpost people to sources of help and good, reliable sources of education and information (especially for OA). They also wanted them to understand that patients who have had a diagnosis for a long time are the experts in their own disease. Other areas which were emphasized as being important were good communication skills and taking a holistic approach to caring for people with arthritis. Conclusions OA and IA differ significantly, both in their nature and their management. However, patients with arthritis want health professionals working in the community to be able to take a holistic approach to arthritis, with an understanding not just of the physical effects, but also their impact on the lives of patients, their family and their wider social circle, and on their ability to participate. People with OA want their condition to be taken seriously and to be offered appropriate management options, while people with IA want professionals to understand the unpredictability of their condition and to have a basic understanding of the drugs used for its treatment

Hip osteoarthritis: patients with complex comorbidities can make exceptional improvements following intensive exercise and education.

A 71-year-old man presenting with hip osteoarthritis, with a complex range of comorbidities was referred by his general practitioner to CHAIN (Cycling against Hip PAIN), a 6 week programme developed to aid self-management of hip osteoarthritis through exercise, education and advice, as defined by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Significant improvements were seen in Oxford hip score, the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) - function score, sit-to-stand test, timed up and go test, pain scores and hip flexion. There was also a weight loss of 2.1 kg. The man reported 'an amazing difference' in his affected hip and leg, and improved fitness. Many clinicians would have questioned the man's suitability for the programme due to his coexisting medical conditions. This case study shows that patients may be much more able than we think to achieve significant improvement with exercise

The contribution of musculoskeletal disorders in multimorbidity: Implications for practice and policy

People frequently live for many years with multiple chronic conditions (multimorbidity) that impair health outcomes and are expensive to manage. Multimorbidity has been shown to reduce quality of life and increase mortality. People with multimorbidity also rely more heavily on health and care services and have poorer work outcomes. Musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are ubiquitous in multimorbidity because of their high prevalence, shared risk factors, and shared pathogenic processes amongst other long-term conditions. Additionally, these conditions significantly contribute to the total impact of multimorbidity, having been shown to reduce quality of life, increase work disability, and increase treatment burden and healthcare costs. For people living with multimorbidity, MSDs could impair the ability to cope and maintain health and independence, leading to precipitous physical and social decline. Recognition, by health professionals, policymakers, non-profit organisations, and research funders, of the impact of musculoskeletal health in multimorbidity is essential when planning support for people living with multimorbidity

What impact does written information about fatigue have on patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases? : Findings from a qualitative study

Objectives Although fatigue is a common symptom for people with rheumatic diseases, limited support is available. This study explored the impact of written information about fatigue, focusing on a booklet, Fatigue and arthritis. Methods Thirteen patients with rheumatic disease and fatigue were recruited purposively from a rheumatology outpatient service. They were interviewed before and after receiving the fatigue booklet. Two patients, plus six professionals with relevant interests, participated in a focus group. Transcripts were analysed thematically and a descriptive summary was produced. Results Interviewees consistently reported that fatigue made life more challenging, and none had previously received any support to manage it. Reflecting on the booklet, most said that it had made a difference to how they thought about fatigue, and that this had been valuable. Around half also said that it had affected, or would affect, how they managed fatigue. No one reported any impact on fatigue itself. Comments from interviewees and focus group members alike suggested that the research process may have contributed to the changes in thought and behaviour reported. Its key contributions appear to have been: clarifying the booklet's relevance; prompting reflection on current management; and introducing accountability. Conclusions This study indicated that written information can make a difference to how people think about fatigue and may also prompt behaviour change. However, context appeared to be important: it seems likely that the research process played a part and that the impact of the booklet may have been less if read in isolation. Aspects of the research appearing to facilitate impact could be integrated into routine care, providing a pragmatic (relatively low-cost) response to an unmet need

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab for treating juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and economic evaluation

Background: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is characterised by joint pain, swelling and limitation of movement caused by inflammation. Subsequent joint damage can lead to disability and growth restriction. Treatment commonly includes disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARD) such as methotrexate. Clinical practice now favours newer drugs termed biologic DMARDs where indicated.Objective: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of four biologic DMARDs (etanercept, abatacept, adalimumab and tocilizumab - with or without methotrexate where indicated) for the treatment of JIA (systemic or oligoarticular JIA excluded).Data sources: Electronic bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and DARE were searched for published studies from inception to May 2015 for English language articles. Bibliographies of related papers, systematic reviews and company submissions were screened and experts were contacted to identify additional evidence.Review methods: Systematic reviews of clinical-effectiveness, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness were undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. A cost-utility decision analytic model was developed to compare estimated cost-effectiveness of biologic DMARDs versus methotrexate. The base case time horizon was 30 years and the model took a National Health Service (NHS) perspective, with costs and benefits discounted at 3.5%.Results: Four placebo-controlled RCTs met the inclusion criteria for the clinical-effectiveness review (one RCT evaluating each biologic DMARD). Only one RCT included UK participants. Participants had to achieve an American College of Rheumatology Pediatric (ACR Pedi) 30 response to open-label lead-in treatment in order to be randomised. An exploratory adjusted indirect comparison suggests that the four biologic DMARDs are similar with fewer disease flares and greater proportions with ACR Pedi 50 and 70 responses among participants randomised to continued biologic DMARD. However, confidence intervals were wide, the number of trials was low and there was clinical heterogeneity between trials. Open-label extensions of the trials showed that generally ACR responses remained constant or even increased after the double-blind phase. The proportions of adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar between treatment and placebo groups. Four economic evaluations of biologic DMARDs for patients with JIA were identified but all had limitations. Two quality of life studies were included, one of which informed the cost-utility model. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for adalimumab, etanercept and tocilizumab versus methotrexate was £38,127, £32,526 and £38,656 per QALY, respectively. The ICER for abatacept versus methotrexate as a second line biologic was £39,536 per QALY.Limitations: The model does not incorporate the natural history of JIA in terms of long-term disease progression, as the current evidence is limited. There are no head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs and clinical evidence for specific JIA subtypes is limited.Conclusions: Biologic DMARDs are superior to placebo (with methotrexate where permitted) in children with (predominantly) polyarticular course JIA, and an insufficient response to previous treatment. Randomised comparisons of biologic DMARDs with long-term efficacy and safety follow- are needed to establish comparative effectiveness. RCTs for JIA subtypes where evidence is lacking are also required.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. <br/

Building health research systems to achieve better health

Health research systems can link knowledge generation with practical concerns to improve health and health equity. Interest in health research, and in how health research systems should best be organised, is moving up the agenda of bodies such as the World Health Organisation. Pioneering health research systems, for example those in Canada and the UK, show that progress is possible. However, radical steps are required to achieve this. Such steps should be based on evidence not anecdotes. Health Research Policy and Systems (HARPS) provides a vehicle for the publication of research, and informed opinion, on a range of topics related to the organisation of health research systems and the enormous benefits that can be achieved. Following the Mexico ministerial summit on health research, WHO has been identifying ways in which it could itself improve the use of research evidence. The results from this activity are soon to be published as a series of articles in HARPS. This editorial provides an account of some of these recent key developments in health research systems but places them in the context of a distinguished tradition of debate about the role of science in society. It also identifies some of the main issues on which 'research on health research' has already been conducted and published, in some cases in HARPS. Finding and retaining adequate financial and human resources to conduct health research is a major problem, especially in low and middle income countries where the need is often greatest. Research ethics and agenda-setting that responds to the demands of the public are issues of growing concern. Innovative and collaborative ways are being found to organise the conduct and utilisation of research so as to inform policy, and improve health and health equity. This is crucial, not least to achieve the health-related Millennium Development Goals. But much more progress is needed. The editorial ends by listing a wide range of topics related to the above priorities on which we hope to feature further articles in HARPS and thus contribute to an informed debate on how best to achieve such progress

Subcutaneous Injection of Adalimumab Trial compared with Control (SCIATiC):a randomised controlled trial of adalimumab injection compared with placebo for patients receiving physiotherapy treatment for sciatica

Background Biological treatments such as adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) are antibodies targeting tumour necrosis factor alpha, released from ruptured intervertebral discs, which might be useful in sciatica. Recent systematic reviews concluded that they might be effective, but that a definitive randomised controlled trial was needed. Usual care in the NHS typically includes a physiotherapy intervention. Objectives To test whether or not injections of adalimumab plus physiotherapy are more clinically effective and cost-effective than injections of saline plus physiotherapy for patients with sciatica. Design Pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded participants and clinicians, and an outcome assessment and statistical analysis with concurrent economic evaluation and internal pilot. Setting Participants were referred from primary care and musculoskeletal services to outpatient physiotherapy clinics. Participants Adults with persistent symptoms of sciatica of 1–6 months’ duration and with moderate to high levels of disability. Eligibility was assessed by research physiotherapists according to clinical criteria for diagnosing sciatica. Interventions After a second eligibility check, trial participants were randomised to receive two doses of adalimumab (80 mg and then 40 mg 2 weeks later) or saline injections. Both groups were referred for a course of physiotherapy. Main outcome measures Outcomes were measured at the start, and after 6 weeks’ and 6 months’ follow-up. The main outcome measure was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Other outcomes: leg pain version of the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire, Sciatica Bothersomeness Index, EuroQol-5 Dimensions, 5-level version, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, resource use, risk of persistent disabling pain, pain trajectory based on a single question, Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia and adverse effects. Sample size To detect an effect size of 0.4 with 90% power, a 5% significance level for a two-tailed t-test and 80% retention rate, 332 participants would have needed to be recruited. Analysis plan The primary effectiveness analysis would have been linear mixed models for repeated measures to measure the effects of time and group allocation. An internal pilot study would have involved the first 50 participants recruited across all centres. The primary economic analysis would have been a cost–utility analysis. Results The internal pilot study was discontinued as a result of low recruitment after eight participants were recruited from two out of six sites. One site withdrew from the study before recruitment started, one site did not complete contract negotiations and two sites signed contracts shortly before trial closure. In the two sites that did recruit participants, recruitment was slow. This was partly because of operational issues, but also because of a low rate of uptake from potential participants. Limitations Although large numbers of invitations were sent to potential participants, identified by retrospective searches of general practitioner (GP) records, there was a low rate of uptake. Two sites planned to recruit participants during GP consultations but opened too late to recruit any participants. Conclusion The main failure was attributable to problems with contracts. Because of this we were not able to complete the internal pilot or to test all of the different methods for primary care recruitment we had planned. A trial of biological therapy in patients with sciatica still needs to be done, but would require a clearer contracting process, qualitative research to ensure that patients would be willing to participate, and simpler recruitment methods

GPs' attitudes, beliefs and behaviours regarding exercise for chronic knee pain: a questionnaire survey

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate general practitioners' (GPs) attitudes, beliefs and behaviours regarding the use of exercise for patients with chronic knee pain (CKP) attributable to osteoarthritis. SETTING: Primary care GPs in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 5000 GPs, randomly selected from Binley's database, were mailed a cross-sectional questionnaire survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs' attitudes and beliefs were investigated using attitude statements, and reported behaviours were identified using vignette-based questions. GPs were invited to report barriers experienced when initiating exercise with patients with CKP RESULTS: 835 (17%) GPs responded. Overall, GPs were positive about general exercise for CKP. 729 (87%) reported using exercise, of which, 538 (74%) reported that they would use both general and local (lower limb) exercises. However, only 92 (11% of all responding) GPs reported initiating exercise in ways aligning with best-evidence recommendations. 815 (98%) GPs reported barriers in using exercise for patients with CKP, most commonly, insufficient time in consultations (n=419; 51%) and insufficient expertise (n=337; 41%). CONCLUSIONS: While GPs' attitudes and beliefs regarding exercise for CKP were generally positive, initiation of exercise was often poorly aligned with current recommendations, and barriers and uncertainties were reported. GPs' use of exercise may be improved by addressing the key barriers of time and expertise, by developing a pragmatic approach that supports GPs to initiate individualised exercise, and/or by other professionals taking on this role