No Added Value of Duloxetine in Patients With Chronic Pain due to Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis:A Cluster-Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost‐effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives. METHODS: We conducted an open‐label, cluster‐randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0–20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data. RESULTS: In total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference –0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference –0.26 [95% CI –1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference –0.32 [95% CI –2.32, 1.67]). CONCLUSION: We found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results

The importance of job control for workers with decreased work ability to remain productive at work

Purpose: Workers with decreased work ability are at greater risk of reduced productivity at work. We hypothesized that work-related characteristics play an important role in supporting workers to remain productive despite decreased work ability. Methods: The study population consisted of 10,542 workers in 49 different companies in the Netherlands in 2005-2009. Productivity loss at work was defined on a 10-point scale by asking how much work was actually performed during regular hours on the last regular workday when compared with normal. Independent variables in the logistic regression analysis were individual characteristics, work-related factors, and the work ability index. Additive interactions between work-related factors and decreased work ability were evaluated by the relative excess risk due to interaction (RERI). Results: The odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the likelihood of productivity loss at work were 2.03 (1.85-2.22), 3.50 (3.10-3.95), and 5.54 (4.37-7.03) for a good, moderate, and poor work ability, compared with an excellent work ability (reference group). Productivity loss at work was associated with lack of job control, poor skill discretion, and high work demands. There was a significant interaction between decreased work ability and lack of job control (RERI = 0.63 95% CI 0.11-1.16) with productivity loss at work. Conclusion: The negative effects on work performance of decreased work ability may be partly counterbalanced by increased job control. This suggests that interventions among workers with (chronic) disease that cause a decreased work ability should include enlargement of possibilities to plan and pace their own activities at work

Ankles back in randomized controlled trial (ABrCt): braces versus neuromuscular exercises for the secondary prevention of ankle sprains. Design of a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ankle sprains are the most common sports and physical activity related injury. There is extensive evidence that there is a twofold increased risk for injury recurrence for at least one year post injury. In up to 50% of all cases recurrences result in disability and lead to chronic pain or instability, requiring prolonged medical care. Therefore ankle sprain recurrence prevention in athletes is essential. This RCT evaluates the effect of the combined use of braces and neuromuscular training (e.g. proprioceptive training/sensorimotor training/balance training) against the individual use of either braces or neuromuscular training alone on ankle sprain recurrences, when applied to individual athletes after usual care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study was designed as three way randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up. Healthy individuals between 12 and 70 years of age, who were actively participating in sports and who had sustained a lateral ankle sprain in the two months prior to inclusion, were eligible for inclusion. After subjects had finished ankle sprain treatment by means of usual care, they were randomised to any of the three study groups. Subjects in group 1 received an eight week neuromuscular training program, subjects in group 2 received a sports brace to be worn during all sports activities for the duration of one year, and group 3 received a combination of the neuromuscular training program and a sports brace to be worn during all sports activities for the duration of eight weeks. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and every month for 12 months therafter. The primary outcome measure was incidence of ankle sprain recurrences. Secondary outcome measures included the direct and indirect costs of recurrent injury, the severity of recurrent injury, and the residual complaints during and after the intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The ABrCt is the first randomized controlled trial to directly compare the secondary preventive effect of the combined use of braces and neuromuscular training, against the use of either braces or neuromuscular training as separate secondary preventive measures. This study expects to identify the most effective and cost-efficient secondary preventive measure for ankle sprains. The study results could lead to changes in the clinical guidelines on the prevention of ankle sprains, and they will become available in 2012.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2157">NTR2157</a></p

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease, causing pain and functional impairments. According to international guidelines, exercise therapy has a short-term effect in reducing pain/functional impairments in knee OA and is therefore also generally recommended for hip OA. Because of its high prevalence and clinical implications, OA is associated with considerable (healthcare) costs. However, studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of common exercise therapy in hip OA are lacking. Therefore, this randomised controlled trial is designed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in conjunction with the general practitioner's (GP) care, compared to GP care alone, for patients with hip OA.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Patients aged ≥ 45 years with OA of the hip, who consulted the GP during the past year for hip complaints and who comply with the American College of Rheumatology criteria, are included. Patients are randomly assigned to either exercise therapy in addition to GP care, or to GP care alone. Exercise therapy consists of (maximally) 12 treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, and home exercises. These are followed by three additional treatment sessions in the 5th, 7th and 9th month after the first treatment session. GP care consists of usual care for hip OA, such as general advice or prescribing pain medication. Primary outcomes are hip pain and hip-related activity limitations (measured with the Hip disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS]), direct costs, and productivity costs (measured with the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire). These parameters are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. To detect a 25% clinical difference in the HOOS pain score, with a power of 80% and an alpha 5%, 210 patients are required. Data are analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Effectiveness is evaluated using linear regression models with repeated measurements. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and an incremental cost-utility analysis will also be performed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this trial will provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of adding exercise therapy to GPs' care in the treatment of OA of the hip. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry <url>http://www.trialregister.nl</url>: trial number <a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1462">NTR1462</a>.</p

Cost-effectiveness of postural exercise therapy versus physiotherapy in computer screen-workers with early non-specific work-related upper limb disorders (WRULD); a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Exercise therapies generate substantial costs in computer workers with non-specific work-related upper limb disorders (WRULD).</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>To study if postural exercise therapy is cost-effective compared to regular physiotherapy in screen-workers with early complaints, both from health care and societal perspective.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective randomized trial including cost-effectiveness analysis; one year follow-up. Participants: Eighty-eight screen-workers with early non-specific WRULD; six drop-outs. Interventions: A ten week postural exercise program versus regular physiotherapy. Outcome measures: Effectiveness measures: Pain: visual analogous scale (VAS), self-perceived WRULD (yes/no). Functional outcome: Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand- Dutch Language Version (DASH-DLV). Quality of life outcome: EQ-5D.</p> <p>Economic measures: health care costs including patient and family costs and productivity costs resulting in societal costs. Cost-effectiveness measures: health care costs and societal costs related to the effectiveness measures. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline; three, six and twelve months after baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At baseline both groups were comparable for baseline characteristics except scores on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale and comparable for costs. No significant differences between the groups concerning effectiveness at one year follow-up were found. Effectiveness scores slightly improved over time. After one year 55% of participants were free of complaints. After one year the postural exercise group had higher mean total health care costs, but lower productivity costs compared to the physiotherapy group. Mean societal costs after one year (therefore) were in favor of postural exercise therapy [- €622; 95% CI -2087; +590)]. After one year, only self- perceived WRULD seemed to result in acceptable cost-effectiveness of the postural exercise strategy over physiotherapy; however the probability of acceptable cost-effectiveness did not exceed 60%.</p> <p>Considering societal costs related to QALYs, postural exercise therapy had a probability of over 80% to be cost-effective over a wide range of cost-effectiveness ceiling ratios; however based on a marginal QALY-difference of 0.1 over a 12 month time frame.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although our trial failed to find significant differences in VAS, QALYs and ICERs based on VAS and QALYs at one-year follow-up, CEACs suggest that postural exercise therapy according to Mensendieck/Cesar has a higher probability of being cost-effective compared to regular physiotherapy; however further research is required.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN 15872455</p

Cost-utility of a visiting service for older widowed individuals: Randomised trial

Background. Despite a growing understanding of the effectiveness of bereavement interventions and the groups that benefit most from them, we know little about the cost-effectiveness of bereavement interventions. Methods. We conducted a cost-utility analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial on a visiting service for older widowed individuals (n = 110) versus care as usual (CAU; n = 106). The visiting service is a selective bereavement intervention that offers social support to lonely widows and widowers by a trained volunteer. Participants were contacted 6-9 months post-loss. Eleven percent of all contacted persons responded and eight percent participated in the trial. The primary outcome measure was quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained (assessed with the EQ-5D), which is a generic measure of health status. Costs were calculated from a societal perspective excluding costs arising from productivity losses. Using the bootstrap method, we obtained the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR), projected these on a cost-utility plane and presented as an acceptability curve. Results. Overall, the experimental group demonstrated slightly better results against slightly higher costs. Whether the visiting service is acceptable depends on the willingness to pay: at a willingness to pay equal to zero per QALY gained, the visiting service has a probability of 31% of being acceptable; beyond €20,000, the visiting service has a probability of 70% of being more acceptable than CAU. Conclusion. Selective bereavement interventions like the visiting service will not produce large benefits from the health economic point of view, when targeted towards the entire population of all widowed individuals. We recommend that in depth analyses are conducted to identify who benefits most from this kind of interventions, and in what subgroups the incremental cost-utility is best. In the future bereavement interventions are then best directed to these groups. Trial registration. Controlled trials ISRCTN17508307. © 2008 Onrust et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Cost-effectiveness of an integrated 'fast track' rehabilitation service for multi-trauma patients involving dedicated early rehabilitation intervention programs: design of a prospective, multi-centre, non-randomised clinical trial

Contains fulltext : 79649.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In conventional multi-trauma care service (CTCS), patients are admitted to hospital via the accident & emergency room. After surgery they are transferred to the IC-unit followed by the general surgery ward. Ensuing treatment takes place in a hospital's outpatient clinic, a rehabilitation centre, a nursing home or the community. Typically, each of the CTCS partners may have its own more or less autonomous treatment perspective. Clinical evidence, however, suggests that an integrated multi-trauma rehabilitation approach ('Supported Fast-track multi-Trauma Rehabilitation Service': SFTRS), featuring: 1) earlier transfer to a specialised trauma rehabilitation unit; 2) earlier start of 'non-weight-bearing' training and multidisciplinary treatment; 3) well-documented treatment protocols; 4) early individual goal-setting; 5) co-ordination of treatment between trauma surgeon and physiatrist, and 6) shorter lengths-of-stay, may be more (cost-)effective.This paper describes the design of a prospective cohort study evaluating the (cost-) effectiveness of SFTRS relative to CTCS. METHODS/DESIGN: The study population includes multi-trauma patients, admitted to one of the participating hospitals, with an Injury Severity Scale score > = 16, complex multiple injuries in several extremities or complex pelvic and/or acetabulum fractures. In a prospective cohort study CTCS and SFTRS will be contrasted. The inclusion period is 19 months. The duration of follow-up is 12 months, with measurements taken at baseline, and at 3,6,9 and 12 months post-injury.Primary outcome measures are 'quality of life' (SF-36) and 'functional health status' (Functional Independence Measure). Secondary outcome measures are the Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale, the Mini-Mental State Examination as an indicator of cognitive functioning, and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure measuring the extent to which individual ADL treatment goals are met. Costs will be assessed using the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire and a cost questionnaire. DISCUSSION: The study will yield results on the efficiency of an adapted care service for multi-trauma patients (SFTRS) featuring earlier (and condensed) involvement of specialised rehabilitation treatment. Results will show whether improved SFTRS logistics, combined with shorter stays in hospital and rehabilitation clinic and specialised early rehabilitation training modules are more (cost-) effective, relative to CTCS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials register (ISRCTN68246661) and Netherlands Trial Register (NTR139)

Prevention of recurrent sickness absence among employees with common mental disorders: design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial with cost-benefit and effectiveness evaluation

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders, such as depression, anxiety disorder, and adjustment disorder, have emerged as a major public and occupational health problem in many countries. These disorders can have severe consequences such as absenteeism and work disability. Different interventions have been developed to improve the return-to-work of employees with common mental disorders, but still a large proportion of employees experiences health and work problems after their return-to-work. For this reason, the SHARP-at work intervention is developed to prevent a relapse of sickness absence among employees who have returned to work after a period of sickness absence because of common mental disorders. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, cost-benefit and process of the intervention compared to care as usual. METHODS/DESIGN: The study is designed as a cluster-randomised controlled trial with randomisation at the level of the occupational physician. Employees who have returned to work after a period of sickness absence because of a common mental disorder are included in the study. Employees in the intervention group will receive the SHARP-at work intervention. The intervention focusses on active guidance of employees by occupational physicians during the first weeks of work after sickness absence. Employees in the control group will receive care as usual. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome is cumulative recurrent sickness absence days. Secondary outcome measures are mental health, work functioning, and coping. Adherence to the protocol, communication between stakeholders, and satisfaction with the treatment are the process measures assessed in both study groups. Cost-benefit is calculated from a societal perspective. Finally, prognostic factors for a relapse of sickness absence are investigated. DISCUSSION: This study goes beyond return-to-work by focussing on the prevention of recurrent sickness absence. The study incorporates not only outcomes on sickness absence and mental health but also on health-related work functioning. The results of this study can contribute to a further development of practice guidelines and the promotion of sustainable work participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR1963

The 2BFit study: is an unsupervised proprioceptive balance board training programme, given in addition to usual care, effective in preventing ankle sprain recurrences? Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is strong evidence that athletes have a twofold risk for re-injury after a previous ankle sprain, especially during the first year post-injury. These ankle sprain recurrences could result in disability and lead to chronic pain or instability in 20 to 50% of these cases. When looking at the high rate of ankle sprain recurrences and the associated chronic results, ankle sprain recurrence prevention is important.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To evaluate the effect of a proprioceptive balance board training programme on ankle sprain recurrences, that was applied to individual athletes after rehabilitation and treatment by usual care.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial with a follow-up of one year. Healthy individuals between 12 and 70 years of age, who were actively participating in sports and who had sustained a lateral ankle sprain up to two months prior to inclusion, were eligible for inclusion in the study. The intervention programme was compared to usual care. The intervention programme consisted of an eight-week proprioceptive training, which started after finishing usual care and from the moment that sports participation was again possible. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and every month for 12 months. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of recurrent ankle injuries in both groups within one year after the initial sprain. Secondary outcomes were severity and etiology of re-injury and medical care. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a societal perspective. A process evaluation was conducted for the intervention programme.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The 2BFit trial is the first randomized controlled trial to study the effect of a non-supervised home-based proprioceptive balance board training programme in addition to usual care, on the recurrence of ankle sprains in sports. Results of this study could possibly lead to changes in practical guidelines on the treatment of ankle sprains. Results will become available in 2009.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISTRCN34177180.</p