Individual patient data meta-analysis of trials investigating the effectiveness of intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis

Based on small to moderate effect sizes for the wide range of symptomatic treatments in osteoarthritis (OA), and on the heterogeneity of OA patients, treatment guidelines for OA have stressed the need for research on clinical predictors of response to different treatments. A meta-analysis to quantify the effect modified by the predictors using individual patient data (IPD) is suggested. The initiative to collect and analyze IPD in OA research is commenced by the OA Trial Bank. The study aims are therefore: to evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular glucocorticoids for knee or hip OA in specific subgroups of patients with severe pain and (mild) inflammatory signs, over both short-term and long-term follow-up, using IPD from existing studies; to reach consensus on the rules for cooperation in a consortium; and to develop and explore the methodological issues of meta-analysis with individual OA patient data. For the current IPD analysis we will collect and synthesize IPD from randomized trials studying the effect of intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in patients with hip or knee OA. Subgroup analyses will be performed for the primary outcome of pain at both short-term and long-term follow-up, in the subgroups of patients with and without severe pain and with and without inflammatory signs. This study protocol includes the first study of the OA Trial Bank, an international collaboration that initiates meta-analyses on predefined subgroups of OA patients from existing literature. This approach ensures a widely supported initiative and is therefore likely to be successful in data collection of existing trials. The collaboration developed (that is, the OA Trial Bank) may also lead to future IPD analyses on subgroups of patients with several intervention strategies applied in OA patients

What are the important components of the clinical assessment of hand problems in older adults in primary care? Results of a Delphi study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify clinical questions and assessments regarded by health care practitioners as important when assessing undifferentiated hand pain or problems in adults aged 50 years and over presenting to primary care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A purposively selected panel of 26 UK-based Health Care Practitioners comprising occupational therapists, physiotherapists, rheumatologists and general practitioners, were invited to take part in a consensus study involving three postal rounds of a Delphi questionnaire with accompanying case scenarios. Participants were asked to generate questions and assessments (round 1), rate their importance (round 2), and vote on which items were most important (round 3).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Sixteen Health Care Practitioners agreed to participate with 11 completing all three rounds. The first round of the Delphi study generated 156 questions and 143 assessments. After three rounds agreement was reached on the importance of 25 questions and 19 assessments. Questions were weighted towards current symptoms, but also included the history of previous hand problems, self-reported hand function, co-morbidity and general health. Observation and palpation of features predominated in the choice of assessment, but specific tests, grip strength, evaluation of sensation and hand function were also included.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A pool of clinical questions and assessments were generated by Health Care Practitioners, and those considered most important for assessing older adults presenting with undifferentiated hand pain and hand problems in primary care were identified. Further evaluation is required to establish the reliability and feasibility of using these questions and assessments in primary care. In particular, the relative contribution of these questions and assessments in evaluating the nature and severity of hand problems, assisting diagnosis, indicating appropriate management, and predicting future course requires further investigation.</p

The Osteoarthritis Thumb Therapy (OTTER) II Trial: a study protocol for a three-arm multi-centre randomised placebo controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and efficacy and cost-effectiveness of splints for symptomatic thumb base osteoarthritis

Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Introduction: The economic cost of osteoarthritis (OA) is high. At least 4.4 million people have hand OA in the UK. Symptomatic thumb base OA affects 20% of people over 55 years, causing more pain, work and functional disability than OA elsewhere in the hand. Most evidence-based guidelines recommend splinting for hand OA. Splints that support or immobilise the thumb base are routinely used despite there being limited evidence on their effectiveness. The potential effects of placebo interventions in OA are acknowledged, but few studies investigate the clinical efficacy of rehabilitation interventions nor the impact of any placebo effects associated with splints. Methods and analysis: Participants aged 30 years and over with symptomatic thumb base OA will be recruited into the trial from secondary care occupational therapy and physiotherapy centres. Following informed consent, participants will complete a baseline questionnaire and then be randomised into one of three treatment arms: a self-management programme, a self-management programme plus a verum thumb splint or a self-management programme plus a placebo thumb splint. The primary outcome is the Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) hand pain scale. The study endpoint is 8 weeks after baseline. Baseline assessments will be carried out prior to randomisation and outcomes collected at 4, 8 and 12 weeks. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted and individual qualitative interviews conducted with up to 40 participants after 8 weeks to explore perceptions and outcome expectations of verum and placebo splints and exercise. Ethics and dissemination: South Central—Oxford C Research Ethics Committee approved this study (16/SC/0188). The findings will be disseminated to health professional conferences, journals and lay publications for patient organisations. The research will contribute to improving the management of thumb base OA and help clinicians and patients make informed decisions about the value of different interventions. Trial registration number: ISRCTN54744256Arthritis Research U

The OA Trial Bank: Meta-analysis of individual patient data from knee and hip osteoarthritis trials show that patients with severe pain exhibit greater benefit from intra-articular glucocorticoids

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoids for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients with severe pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. Design: Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparation in patients with knee or hip OA, published from 1995 up to June 2012 were selected from the literature. IPD obtained from original trials included patient and disease characteristics and outcomes measured. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). The subgroup factors assessed included severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation (dichotomized in present or not) at baseline. Multilevel regression analyses were applied to estimate the magnitude of the effects in the subgroups with the individuals nested within each study. Results: Seven out of 43 published randomized clinical trials (n = 620) were included. Patients with severe baseline pain had a significantly larger reduction in short-term pain, but not in mid- and long-term pain, compared to those with less severe pain at baseline (Mean Difference 13.91; 95% Confidence Interval 1.50-26.31) when receiving IA glucocorticoid injection compared to placebo. No statistical significant interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo and to tidal irrigation at all follow-up points. Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with severe knee pain at baseline derive more benefit from IA glucocorticoid injection at short-term follow-up than those with less severe pain at baseline

The Knee Clinical Assessment Study – CAS(K). A prospective study of knee pain and knee osteoarthritis in the general population: baseline recruitment and retention at 18 months

BACKGROUND: Selective non-participation at baseline (due to non-response and non-consent) and loss to follow-up are important concerns for longitudinal observational research. We investigated these matters in the context of baseline recruitment and retention at 18 months of participants for a prospective observational cohort study of knee pain and knee osteoarthritis in the general population. METHODS: Participants were recruited to the Knee Clinical Assessment Study – CAS(K) – by a multi-stage process involving response to two postal questionnaires, consent to further contact and medical record review (optional), and attendance at a research clinic. Follow-up at 18-months was by postal questionnaire. The characteristics of responders/consenters were described for each stage in the recruitment process to identify patterns of selective non-participation and loss to follow-up. The external validity of findings from the clinic attenders was tested by comparing the distribution of WOMAC scores and the association between physical function and obesity with the same parameters measured directly in the target population as whole. RESULTS: 3106 adults aged 50 years and over reporting knee pain in the previous 12 months were identified from the first baseline questionnaire. Of these, 819 consented to further contact, responded to the second questionnaire, and attended the research clinics. 776 were successfully followed up at 18 months. There was evidence of selective non-participation during recruitment (aged 80 years and over, lower socioeconomic group, currently in employment, experiencing anxiety or depression, brief episode of knee pain within the previous year). This did not cause significant bias in either the distribution of WOMAC scores or the association between physical function and obesity. CONCLUSION: Despite recruiting a minority of the target population to the research clinics and some evidence of selective non-participation, this appears not to have resulted in significant bias of cross-sectional estimates. The main effect of non-participation in the current cohort is likely to be a loss of precision in stratum-specific estimates e.g. in those aged 80 years and over. The subgroup of individuals who attended the research clinics and who make up the CAS(K) cohort can be used to accurately estimate parameters in the reference population as a whole. The potential for selection bias, however, remains an important consideration in each subsequent analysis

The Clinical Assessment Study of the Hand (CAS-HA): a prospective study of musculoskeletal hand problems in the general population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain in the hand affects an estimated 12–21% of the population, and at older ages the hand is one of the most common sites of pain and osteoarthritis. The association between symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and disability in everyday life has not been studied in detail, although there is evidence that older people with hand problems suffer significant pain and disability. Despite the high prevalence of hand problems and the limitations they cause in older adults, little attention has been paid to the hand by health planners and policy makers. We plan to conduct a prospective, population-based, observational cohort study designed in parallel with our previously reported cohort study of knee pain, to describe the course of musculoskeletal hand problems in older adults and investigate the relative merits of different approaches to classification and defining prognosis.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>All adults aged 50 years and over registered with two general practices in North Staffordshire will be invited to take part in a two-stage postal survey. Respondents to the survey who indicate that they have experienced hand pain or problems within the previous 12 months will be invited to attend a research clinic for a detailed assessment. This will consist of clinical interview, hand assessment, screening test of lower limb function, digital photography, plain x-rays, anthropometric measurement and brief self-complete questionnaire. All consenting clinic attenders will be followed up by (i) general practice medical record review, (ii) repeat postal questionnaire at 18-months, and (iii) repeat postal questionnaire at 3 years.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper describes the protocol for the Clinical Assessment Study of the Hand (CAS-HA), a prospective, population-based, observational cohort study of community-dwelling older adults with hand pain and hand problems based in North Staffordshire.</p

Research priorities for non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal problems: nationally and internationally agreed recommendations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Musculoskeletal problems such as low back pain, neck, knee and shoulder pain are leading causes of disability and activity limitation in adults and are most frequently managed within primary care. There is a clear trend towards large, high quality trials testing the effectiveness of common non-pharmacological interventions for these conditions showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. This paper summarises the main lessons learnt from recent trials of the effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal conditions in primary care and provides agreed research priorities for future clinical trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Consensus development using nominal group techniques through national (UK) and international workshops. During a national Clinical Trials Thinktank workshop in April 2007 in the UK, a group of 30 senior researchers experienced in clinical trials for musculoskeletal conditions and 2 patient representatives debated the possible explanations for the findings of recent high quality trials of non-pharmacological interventions. Using the qualitative method of nominal group technique, these experts developed and ranked a set of priorities for future research, guided by the evidence from recent trials of treatments for common musculoskeletal problems. The recommendations from the national workshop were presented and further ranked at an international symposium (hosted in Canada) in June 2007.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>22 recommended research priorities were developed, of which 12 reached consensus as priorities for future research from the UK workshop. The 12 recommendations were reduced to 7 agreed priorities at the international symposium. These were: to increase the focus on implementation (research into practice); to develop national musculoskeletal research networks in which large trials can be sited and smaller trials supported; to use more innovative trial designs such as those based on stepped care and subgrouping for targeted treatment models; to routinely incorporate health economic analysis into future trials; to include more patient-centred outcome measures; to develop a core set of outcomes for new trials of interventions for musculoskeletal problems; and to focus on studies that advance methodological approaches for clinical trials in this field.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A set of research priorities for future trials of non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal conditions has been developed and agreed through national (UK) and international consensus processes. These priorities provide useful direction for researchers and research funders alike and impetus for improvement in the quality and methodology of clinical trials in this field.</p