Uptake of the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: a survey of older adults with joint pain

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability. NICE OA guidelines (2008) recommend that patients with OA should be offered core treatments in primary care. Assessments of OA management have identified a need to improve primary care of people with OA, as recorded use of interventions concordant with the NICE guidelines is suboptimal in primary care. The aim of this study was to i) describe the patient-reported uptake of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and ii) determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. Methods A cross-sectional survey mailed to adults aged ≥45 years (n = 28,443) from eight general practices in the UK as part of the MOSAICS study. Respondents who reported the presence of joint pain, a consultation in the previous 12 months for joint pain, and gave consent to medical record review formed the sample for this study. Results Four thousand fifty-nine respondents were included in the analysis (mean age 65.6 years (SD 11.2), 2300 (56.7%) females). 502 (12.4%) received an OA diagnosis in the previous 12 months. More participants reported using pharmacological treatments (e.g. paracetamol (31.3%), opioids (40.4%)) than non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. exercise (3.8%)). Those with an OA diagnosis were more likely to use written information (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.26,1.96), paracetamol (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05,1.62) and topical NSAIDs (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04,1.62) than those with a joint pain code. People aged ≥75 years were less likely to use written information (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40,0.79) and exercise (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25,0.55) and more likely to use paracetamol (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.38,2.65) than those aged < 75 years. Conclusion The cross-sectional population survey was conducted to examine the uptake of the treatments that are recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and to determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. Non-pharmacological treatment was suboptimal compared to pharmacological treatment. Implementation of NICE guidelines needs to examine why non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, remain under-used especially among older people

Effect of a model consultation informed by guideline on recorded quality of care of osteoarthritis (MOSAICS): a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care

Objective To determine the effect of a model osteoarthritis (OA) consultation (MOAC) informed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommendations compared with usual care on recorded quality of care of clinical OA in general practice. Design Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Eight general practices in Cheshire, Shropshire, or Staffordshire UK. Participants General practitioners and nurses with patients consulting with clinical OA. Intervention Following six-month baseline period practices were randomised to intervention (n = 4) or usual care (n = 4). Intervention practices delivered MOAC (enhanced initial GP consultation, nurse-led clinic, OA guidebook) to patients aged ≥45 years consulting with clinical OA. An electronic (e-)template for consultations was used in all practices to record OA quality care indicators. Outcomes Quality of OA care over six months recorded in the medical record. Results 1851 patients consulted in baseline period (1015 intervention; 836 control); 1960 consulted following randomisation (1118 intervention; 842 control). At baseline wide variations in quality of care were noted. Post-randomisation increases were found for written advice on OA (4–28%), exercise (4–22%) and weight loss (1–15%) in intervention practices but not controls (1–3%). Intervention practices were more likely to refer to physiotherapy (10% vs 2%, odds ratio 5.30; 95% CI 2.11, 13.34), and prescribe paracetamol (22% vs 14%, 1.74; 95% CI 1.27, 2.38). Conclusions The intervention did not improve all aspects of care but increased core NICE recommendations of written advice on OA, exercise and weight management. There remains a need to reduce variation and uniformly enhance improvement in recorded OA care

Serum Neurofilament Light is elevated in COVID-19 Positive Adults in the ICU and is associated with Co-Morbid Cardiovascular Disease, Neurological Complications, and Acuity of Illness

In critically ill COVID-19 patients, the risk of long-term neurological consequences is just beginning to be appreciated. While recent studies have identified that there is an increase in structural injury to the nervous system in critically ill COVID-19 patients, there is little known about the relationship of COVID-19 neurological damage to the systemic inflammatory diseases also observed in COVID-19 patients. The purpose of this pilot observational study was to examine the relationships between serum neurofilament light protein (NfL, a measure of neuronal injury) and co-morbid cardiovascular disease (CVD) and neurological complications in COVID-19 positive patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). In this observational study of one-hundred patients who were admitted to the ICU in Tucson, Arizona between April and August 2020, 89 were positive for COVID-19 (COVID-pos) and 11 was COVID-negative (COVID-neg). A healthy control group (n=8) was examined for comparison. The primary outcomes and measures were subject demographics, serum NfL, presence and extent of CVD, diabetes, sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA), presence of neurological complications, and blood chemistry panel data. COVID-pos patients in the ICU had significantly higher mean levels of Nfl (229.6 ± 163 pg/ml) compared to COVID-neg ICU patients (19.3 ± 5.6 pg/ml), Welch's t-test, p =.01 and healthy controls (12.3 ± 3.1 pg/ml), Welch's t-test p =.005. Levels of Nfl in COVID-pos ICU patients were significantly higher in patients with concomitant CVD and diabetes (n=35, log Nfl 1.6±.09), and correlated with higher SOFA scores (r=.5, p =.001). These findings suggest that in severe COVID-19 disease, the central neuronal and axonal damage in these patients may be driven, in part, by the level of systemic cardiovascular disease and peripheral inflammation. Understanding the contributions of systemic inflammatory disease to central neurological degeneration in these COVID-19 survivors will be important to the design of interventional therapies to prevent long-term neurological and cognitive dysfunction

Women’s pelvic floor muscle strength and urinary and anal incontinence after childbirth: a cross-sectional study

Abstract OBJECTIVE To analyse pelvic floor muscle strength (PFMS) and urinary and anal incontinence (UI and AI) in the postpartum period. METHOD Cross-sectional study carried out with women in their first seven months after child birth. Data were collected through interviews, perineometry (Peritron™), and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Short Form (ICIQ-SF). RESULTS 128 women participated in the study. The PFMS mean was 33.1 (SD=16.0) cmH2O and the prevalence of UI and AI was 7.8% and 5.5%, respectively. In the multiple analyses, the variables associated with PFMS were type of birth and cohabitation with a partner. Newborn’s weight, previous pregnancy, UI during pregnancy, and sexual activity showed an association with UI after child birth. Only AI prior to pregnancy was associated with AI after childbirth. CONCLUSION Vaginal birth predisposes to the reduction of PFMS, and caesarean section had a protective effect to its reduction. The occurrence of UI during pregnancy is a predictor of UI after childbirth, and women with previous pregnancies and newborns with higher weights are more likely to have UI after childbirth.AI prior to pregnancy is the only risk factor for its occurrence after childbirth. Associations between PFMS and cohabitation with a partner, and between UI and sexual activity do not make possible to conclude that these variables are directly associated

The clinical and cost effectiveness of steroid injection compared with night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome: the INSTINCTS randomised clinical trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with idiopathic mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) are usually managed in primary care and commonly treated with night splints and/or corticosteroid injection. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions has not been reliably established nor investigated in the medium and long term. The primary objective of this trial is to investigate whether corticosteroid injection is effective in reducing symptoms and improving hand function in mild to moderate CTS over 6 weeks when compared with night splints. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of corticosteroid injection over 6 and 24 months. METHOD/DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, parallel group, clinical pragmatic trial will recruit 240 adults aged ≥18 years with mild to moderate CTS from GP Practices and Primary-Secondary Care Musculoskeletal Interface Clinics. Diagnosis will be by standardised clinical assessment. Participants will be randomised on an equal basis to receive either one injection of 20 mg Depo-Medrone or a night splint to be worn for 6 weeks. The primary outcome is the overall score of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes are the BCTQ symptom severity and function status subscales, symptom intensity, interrupted sleep, adherence to splinting, perceived benefit and satisfaction with treatment, work absence and reduction in work performance, EQ-5D-5L, referral to surgery and health utilisation costs. Participants will be assessed at baseline and followed up at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary analysis will use an intention to treat (ITT) approach and multiple imputation for missing data. The sample size was calculated to detect a 15 % greater improvement in the BTCQ overall score in the injection group compared to night-splinting at approximately 90 % power, 5 % two-tailed significance and allows for 15 % loss to follow-up. DISCUSSION: The trial makes an important contribution to the evidence base available to support effective conservative management of CTS in primary care. No previous trials have directly compared these treatments for CTS in primary care populations, reported on clinical effectiveness at more than 6 months nor compared cost effectiveness of the interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: EudraCT 2013-001435-48 (registered 05/06/2013), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02038452 (registered 16/1/2014), and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09392969 (retrospectively registered 01/05/2014)

Cost-utility analysis of interventions to improve effectiveness of exercise therapy for adults with knee osteoarthritis: The BEEP trial

© The Author(s) 2018. Objectives. Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of enhancing physical therapy exercise programmes in order to improve outcomes for patients with knee OA remains unclear. This study investigates the cost-effectiveness of two enhanced physical therapy interventions compared with usual physical therapy care (UC) for adults with knee OA. Methods. A trial-based cost-utility analysis of individually tailored exercise (ITE) or targeted exercise adherence (TEA) compared with UC was undertaken over a period of 18 months. Patient-level costs were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a base-case UK health-care perspective. Results. The UC group was associated with lower National Health Service (NHS) costs [ITE-UC: £273.30, 95% CI: £-62.10 to £562.60; TEA-UC: £141.80, 95% CI: £-135.60 to £408.10)] and slightly higher QALY gains (ITE-UC: -0.015, 95% CI: -0.057 to 0.026; TEA-UC: -0.003, 95% CI: -0.045 to 0.038). In the base case, UC was the most likely cost-effective option (probability < 40% of ITE or TEA cost-effective at £20 000/QALY). Differences in total costs were attributable to intervention costs, number of visits to NHS consultants and knee surgery, which were higher in both ITE and TEA groups. Conclusion. This is the first economic evaluation comparing usual physical therapy care vs enhanced exercise interventions for knee OA that involves greater exercise individualization, supervision and progression or that focuses on exercise and physical activity adherence over the longer term. Our findings show that UC is likely to be the most cost-effective option.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research (grant number: RP-PG-0407-10386) and the Arthritis Research UK Centre in Primary Care grant (grant number: 18139). Time from E.L.H. was supported, in part, by the NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands and time from M.A.H. was supported, in part, by the NIHR School for Primary Care Research. N.E.F. was supported through an NIHR Research Professorship (NIHR-RP-011-015). N.E.F. and E.M.H. are NIHR Senior Investigators. The NIHR Clinical Research Network West Midlands (previously PCRN West Midlands North) and North Staffordshire Primary Care Research Consortium provided additional funding for GP and physical therapy Research Facilitators to support engagement of NHS providers in the BEEP trial; NIHR PCRN West Midlands North funded NHS service support costs for the delivery of the trial

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of corticosteroid injection versus night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome (INSTINCTS trial): an open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial

Background To our knowledge, the comparative effectiveness of commonly used conservative treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome has not been evaluated previously in primary care. We aimed to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of night splints with a corticosteroid injection with regards to reducing symptoms and improving hand function in patients with mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome. Methods We did this randomised, open-label, pragmatic trial in adults (≥18 years) with mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome recruited from 25 primary and community musculoskeletal clinics and services. Patients with a new episode of idiopathic mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome of at least 6 weeks' duration were eligible. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients (permutated blocks of two and four by site) with an online web or third party telephone service to receive either a single injection of 20 mg methylprednisolone acetate (from 40 mg/mL) or a night-resting splint to be worn for 6 weeks. Patients and clinicians could not be masked to the intervention. The primary outcome was the overall score of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) at 6 weeks. We used intention-to-treat analysis, with multiple imputation for missing data, which was concealed to treatment group allocation. The trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2013-001435-48, and ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT02038452. Findings Between April 17, 2014, and Dec 31, 2016, 234 participants were randomly assigned (118 to the night splint group and 116 to the corticosteroid injection group), of whom 212 (91%) completed the BCTQ at 6 weeks. The BCTQ score was significantly better at 6 weeks in the corticosteroid injection group (mean 2·02 [SD 0·81]) than the night splint group (2·29 [0·75]; adjusted mean difference −0·32; 95% CI −0·48 to −0·16; p=0·0001). No adverse events were reported. Interpretation A single corticosteroid injection shows superior clinical effectiveness at 6 weeks compared with night-resting splints, making it the treatment of choice for rapid symptom response in mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome presenting in primary care

Keele Aches and Pains Study Protocol: validity, acceptability and feasibility of the Keele STarT MSK Tool for subgrouping musculoskeletal patients in primary care

Musculoskeletal conditions represent a considerable burden worldwide, and are predominantly managed in primary care. Evidence suggests that many musculoskeletal conditions share similar prognostic factors. Systematically assessing patient’s prognosis, and matching treatments based on prognostic subgroups (stratified care), has been shown to be clinically and cost effective. This study (Keele Aches and Pains Study: KAPS) aims to refine and examine the validity of a brief questionnaire (Keele STarT MSK Tool), designed to enable risk-stratification of primary care patients with the five most common musculoskeletal pain presentations. We will also describe the subgroups of patients, and explore the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool, and how the tool is best implemented in clinical practice. The study design is mixed methods: a prospective, quantitative observational cohort study with a linked qualitative focus group and interview study. Patients who have consulted their General Practitioner or Healthcare Practitioner (GP/HCP) about a relevant musculoskeletal condition will be recruited from General practice. Participating patients will complete a baseline questionnaire (shortly after consultation), plus questionnaires 2 and 6 months later. A sub-sample of patients, along with participating GPs and HCPs, will be invited to take part in qualitative focus groups and interviews. The Keele STarT MSK Tool will be refined based on face, discriminant, construct and predictive validity at baseline and 2 months, and validated using data from 6 month follow-up. Patient and clinician perspectives about using the tool will be explored. This study will provide a validated prognostic tool (the Keele STarT MSK Tool) with established cut-points to stratify patients with the five most common musculoskeletal presentations into low, medium and high risk subgroups. The qualitative analysis of patient and healthcare perspectives will inform how to embed the tool into clinical practice using established general practice IT systems and clinician support packages

Clinical Examination, Ultrasound and MRI Imaging of The Painful Elbow in Psoriatic Arthritis and Rheumatoid Arthritis: Which is Better, Ultrasound or MR, for Imaging Enthesitis?

Introduction: The purpose of the current study was to examine the painful elbow, and in particular enthesitis, in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) using clinical examination, ultrasonography (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: Patients with elbow pain (11 with PsA and 9 with RA) were recruited. Clinical examination, US and MRI studies were performed on the same day. For enthesitis, the common extensor and flexor insertions and the triceps insertion were imaged (20 patients, giving a total of 60 sites with comparative data). Imaging was performed with the radiologists blinded to the diagnosis and clinical findings. US was used to assess ‘inflammatory activity’ (Power Doppler signal, oedema, tendon thickening and bursal swelling) and ‘damage’ (erosions, cortical roughening and enthesophytes). MRI was used to assess ‘inflammation’ (fluid in paratenon, peri-entheseal soft-tissue oedema, entheseal enhancement with gadolinium, entheseal oedema and bone oedema) and ‘damage’ (erosion, cortical roughening and enthesophyte). Results: Complete scan data were not available for all patients as one patient could not tolerate the MRI examination. No significant differences in imaging scores were found between PsA and RA. Analysis of damage scores revealed complete agreement between US and MRI data in 43/55 (78%) comparisons; in 10/55 (18%) cases the US data were abnormal but the MRI data normal; in 2/55 (4%) cases, the MRI data were abnormal and the US data normal. Analysis of the inflammation scores revealed complete agreement between US and MRI data in 33/55 (60%) comparisons; in 3/55 (5%) cases US data were abnormal but MRI data normal; in 19/55 (35%) cases the MRI data were abnormal and the US data normal. There was a poor relationship between assessments based on clinical examination and imaging studies. Readers could not accurately identify the disease from imaging findings. Conclusion: Based on our results, at the elbow, US and MR have different roles in assessing enthesitis, with US apparently the better diagnostic tool for assessing damage and MR the better tool for assessing inflammation. In this study enthesitis and synovitis in the painful elbow were found equally in cases of established RA and PsA