The BSR-PsA:study protocol for the British Society for Rheumatology psoriatic arthritis register

Acknowledgements We acknowledge contribution of BSR-PsA study staff, under the supervision of KFK: Maureen Heddle, Barry Morris, Jonathan Lock and Jane Brady. We also acknowledge the support from the Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials (CHaRT) at the University of Aberdeen, especially Mark Forrest and Brian Taylor, for database and IT support. We would like to thank Professor Iain McInnes from the University of Glasgow, and our International Advisory Committee (Professors Merete Hetland, Oliver Fitzgerald and Philip Mease), for their comments when developing the protocol and for advice in harmonising data collection with other international studies, and the staff at the British Society for Rheumatology, in particular Alan Roach, Ross Matthews, Chris Hiley and Debbie MacDonald. Finally, we are indebted to the staff at all participating NHS trusts (details of which are available from www.abdn.ac.uk/bsr-psa) and especially the NIHR Clinical Research Network research nurses for their assistance with participant recruitment and data collection. Funding The BSR-PsA is funded by the BSR as part of its rheumatology registers portfolio and, in turn, receives funding for this from pharmaceutical companies. At the time of publication, only Amgen (previously Celgene) have contributed to the funding of the BSR-PsA. Pharmaceutical companies providing funds to BSR do not participant in the conduct or oversight of the study. However, they do receive advance notice of publications on which they are able to comment. Companies contributing to the funding of the register can request anonymised data on clinically confirmed serious adverse events and some events of special interest (e.g. pregnancy) among participants prescribed the specific bDMARD or tsDMARD agents that they manufacture. Other than this information, they do not have access to any raw data. They may, however, request specific analyses to be performed, for which a pre-specific analysis plan is discussed, and additional funds are provided.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The incidence of arthropathy adverse events in efalizumab-treated patients is low and similar to placebo and does not increase with long-term treatment: pooled analysis of data from Phase III clinical trials of efalizumab

A large-scale, pooled analysis of safety data from five Phase III clinical trials (including open-label extensions of two of these studies) and two Phase III open-label clinical trials of efalizumab was conducted to explore whether arthropathy adverse events (AEs) were associated with efalizumab treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Data from patients who received subcutaneous injections of efalizumab or placebo were stratified for analysis into phases according to the nature and duration of treatment. These included: the ‘first treatment’ phase (0–12-week data from patients who received either efalizumab, 1 mg/kg once weekly, or placebo in the five placebo-controlled studies); the ‘extended treatment’ phase (13–24-week data from seven trials for all efalizumab-treated patients); and the ‘long-term treatment’ phase (data from efalizumab-treated patients who received treatment for up to 36 months in two long-term trials). Descriptive statistics were performed and the incidence of arthropathy AEs per patient-year was calculated using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). During the first treatment phase, a similar proportion of patients had an arthropathy AE in the efalizumab group (3.3%; 58/1740 patients) compared with the placebo group (3.5%; 34/979 patients); the incidence of arthropathy AEs per patient-year was 0.15 in the efalizumab group (95% CI 0.11–0.19) and 0.16 in the placebo group (95% CI 0.11–0.22). Analysis of first treatment phase data from one study (n = 793) showed that the incidence of psoriatic arthropathy per patient-year was lower in efalizumab-treated patients (0.10; 95% CI 0.05–0.18) than in those given placebo (0.17; 95% CI 0.08–0.30). During the extended treatment phase, the incidence of arthropathy remained low (0.17; 95% CI 0.14–0.22). Data from two long-term studies showed that there was no increase in the incidence of arthropathy AEs over time in patients treated with efalizumab for up to 36 months. Patients who had an arthropathy AE during treatment with efalizumab appeared to be more likely to have a history of arthropathy prior to treatment. Efalizumab does not appear to increase the risk of arthropathy AEs compared with placebo

Psoriatic Arthritis and Burden of Disease: Patient Perspectives from the Population-Based Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) Survey

Introduction: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is underdiagnosed and has a substantial impact on quality of life, disability, and work productivity. The population-based Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) survey examined the impact of PsA on patients’ activities of daily living and unmet treatment needs. Methods: This large-scale, random digit dialing, telephone survey of patients self-reporting a diagnosis of psoriasis and/or PsA was conducted in North America and Europe. Results: In all, 3426 patients participated in the survey, including 712 (21%) who identified themselves as having PsA. Over half of the patients reported severe PsA involving more than four joints. Eighty-three percent of patients with PsA visited a health-care provider within the past 12 months. Approximately one-quarter saw their primary care provider or dermatologist most often for their disease; 37% responded that their rheumatologist was the health-care provider seen most often for PsA. Patients with PsA reported a substantial impact of disease on physical function. One-third of patients with PsA reported missing work because of their disease and PsA impacted their ability to work full time. Over half of the patients with PsA (58%) reported receiving no treatment or topical therapy only, leaving their joint disease untreated. Factors associated with lack of adherence were perceived lack of efficacy and concerns about long-term safety. Conclusions: The MAPP survey confirms that PsA has a significant impact on physical function and activities of daily living. Undertreatment of PsA suggests a need for improved screening and diagnosis as well as education about treatment options and adherence

The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) outcome questionnaire: longitudinal construct validity and measuring self-rated health change after surgery

BACKGROUND: The disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire is a self-administered region-specific outcome instrument developed as a measure of self-rated upper-extremity disability and symptoms. The DASH consists mainly of a 30-item disability/symptom scale, scored 0 (no disability) to 100. The main purpose of this study was to assess the longitudinal construct validity of the DASH among patients undergoing surgery. The second purpose was to quantify self-rated treatment effectiveness after surgery. METHODS: The longitudinal construct validity of the DASH was evaluated in 109 patients having surgical treatment for a variety of upper-extremity conditions, by assessing preoperative-to-postoperative (6–21 months) change in DASH score and calculating the effect size and standardized response mean. The magnitude of score change was also analyzed in relation to patients' responses to an item regarding self-perceived change in the status of the arm after surgery. Performance of the DASH as a measure of treatment effectiveness was assessed after surgery for subacromial impingement and carpal tunnel syndrome by calculating the effect size and standardized response mean. RESULTS: Among the 109 patients, the mean (SD) DASH score preoperatively was 35 (22) and postoperatively 24 (23) and the mean score change was 15 (13). The effect size was 0.7 and the standardized response mean 1.2. The mean change (95% confidence interval) in DASH score for the patients reporting the status of the arm as "much better" or "much worse" after surgery was 19 (15–23) and for those reporting it as "somewhat better" or "somewhat worse" was 10 (7–14) (p = 0.01). In measuring effectiveness of arthroscopic acromioplasty the effect size was 0.9 and standardized response mean 0.5; for carpal tunnel surgery the effect size was 0.7 and standardized response mean 1.0. CONCLUSION: The DASH can detect and differentiate small and large changes of disability over time after surgery in patients with upper-extremity musculoskeletal disorders. A 10-point difference in mean DASH score may be considered as a minimal important change. The DASH can show treatment effectiveness after surgery for subacromial impingement and carpal tunnel syndrome. The effect size and standardized response mean may yield substantially differing results

Day-case open reduction for developmental dysplasia of the hip.

AIMS: Open reduction in developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is regularly performed despite screening programmes, due to failure of treatment or late presentation. A protocol for open reduction of DDH has been refined through collaboration between surgical, anaesthetic, and nursing teams to allow same day discharge. The objective of this study was to determine the safety and feasibility of performing open reduction of DDH as a day case. METHODS: A prospectively collected departmental database was visited. All consecutive surgical cases of DDH between June 2015 and March 2020 were collected. Closed reductions, bilateral cases, cases requiring corrective osteotomy, and children with comorbidities were excluded. Data collected included demographics, safety outcome measures (blood loss, complications, readmission, reduction confirmation), and feasibility for discharge according to the Face Legs Activity Cry Consolidability (FLACC) pain scale. A satisfaction questionnaire was filled by the carers. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. RESULTS: Out of 168 consecutive DDH cases, 16 patients fit the inclusion criteria (age range 10 to 26 months, 13 female). Intraoperative blood loss ranged from "minimal" to 120 ml, and there were no complications or readmissions. The FLACC score was 0 for all patients. The carers satisfaction questionnaire expressed high satisfaction from the experience with adequate information and support provided. CONCLUSION: Open reduction in DDH, without corrective osteotomy, is safe and feasible to be managed as a day case procedure. It requires a clear treatment pathway, analgesia, sufficient counselling, and communication with carers. It is even more important during the COVID-19 pandemic when reduced length of hospital stay is likely to be safer for both patient and their parents. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(4):271-277

The prevalence, patterns of usage and people's attitude towards complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among the Indian community in Chatsworth, South Africa

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine, among the Indian community of Chatsworth, South Africa, the prevalence and utilisation patterns of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), attitudes associated with CAM use and communication patterns of CAM users with their primary care doctors. METHODS: Face-to-face structured interviews were conducted in Chatsworth, a suburb of Durban in which South Africans of Indian origin predominantly reside. Participants were 200 randomly selected adult English-speaking Indian residents. RESULTS: The prevalence of CAM usage for period 2000/2001 was 38.5% (95% confidence interval 31.7% to 45.6%). Spiritual healing and herbal/natural medicines, including vitamins were the most common types of CAM used, accounting for 42.8% and 48.1% respectively of overall CAM usage. People used CAM to treat conditions including diabetes mellitus, headaches, arthritis and joint pains, stress, skin disorders, backaches, hypertension and nasal disorders. Half of the CAM users used allopathic medicines concurrently. The cost of CAM utilization over this 1-year period, incurred by 80.5% of users for the duration of therapy for their most troublesome condition was below R500 (approximately US$50). Age, sex, marital status, religion, level of education and income were shown not to influence the use of CAM. Greater than half (51.9%) of CAM users did so either upon the advice of someone they knew, or after noticing a CAM advertisement in the local press. Seventy-nine percent of CAM users indicated that they had positive outcomes with their treatments. Fifty four percent of CAM users (excluding those using spiritual healing only) failed to inform their doctors that they used CAM. The main reason given by half of this group was that informing their doctors did not seem necessary. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of CAM in Chatsworth is similar to findings in other parts of the world. Although CAM was used to treat many different ailments, this practice could not be attributed to any particular demographic profile. The majority of CAM users were satisfied with the effects of CAM. Findings support a need for greater integration of allopathic medicine and CAM, as well as improved communication between patients and caregivers regarding CAM usage

A systematic review of the evidence for single stage and two stage revision of infected knee replacement

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic infection about the knee is a devastating complication that may affect between 1% and 5% of knee replacement. With over 79 000 knee replacements being implanted each year in the UK, periprosthetic infection (PJI) is set to become an important burden of disease and cost to the healthcare economy. One of the important controversies in treatment of PJI is whether a single stage revision operation is superior to a two-stage procedure. This study sought to systematically evaluate the published evidence to determine which technique had lowest reinfection rates. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was undertaken using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases with the aim to identify existing studies that present the outcomes of each surgical technique. Reinfection rate was the primary outcome measure. Studies of specific subsets of patients such as resistant organisms were excluded. RESULTS: 63 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The majority of which (58) were reports of two-stage revision. Reinfection rated varied between 0% and 41% in two-stage studies, and 0% and 11% in single stage studies. No clinical trials were identified and the majority of studies were observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for both one-stage and two-stage revision is largely of low quality. The evidence basis for two-stage revision is significantly larger, and further work into direct comparison between the two techniques should be undertaken as a priority