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

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

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/

The feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of physiotherapy for adults with joint hypermobility syndrome

© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2016. Background: Joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) is a heritable disorder associated with laxity and pain in multiple joints. Physiotherapy is the mainstay of treatment, but there is little research investigating its clinical effectiveness. Objectives: To develop a comprehensive physiotherapy intervention for adults with JHS; to pilot the intervention; and to conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine the feasibility of conducting a future definitive RCT. Design: Patients’ and health professionals’ perspectives on physiotherapy for JHS were explored in focus groups (stage 1). A working group of patient research partners, clinicians and researchers used this information to develop the physiotherapy intervention. This was piloted and refined on the basis of patients’ and physiotherapists’ feedback (stage 2). A parallel two-arm pilot RCT compared ‘advice’ with ‘advice and physiotherapy’ (stage 3). Random allocation was via an automated randomisation service, devised specifically for the study. Owing to the nature of the interventions, it was not possible to blind clinicians or patients to treatment allocation. Setting: Stage 1 – focus groups were conducted in four UK locations. Stages 2 and 3 – piloting of the intervention and the pilot RCT were conducted in two UK secondary care NHS trusts. Participants: Stage 1 – patient focus group participants (n = 25, three men) were aged > 18 years, had a JHS diagnosis and had received physiotherapy within the preceding 12 months. The health professional focus group participants (n = 16, three men; 14 physiotherapists, two podiatrists) had experience of managing JHS. Stage 2 – patient participants (n = 8) were aged > 18 years, had a JHS diagnosis and no other musculoskeletal conditions causing pain. Stage 3 – patient participants for the pilot RCT (n = 29) were as for stage 2 but the lower age limit was 16 years. Intervention: For the pilot RCT (stage 3) the advice intervention was a one-off session, supplemented by advice booklets. All participants could ask questions specific to their circumstances and receive tailored advice. Participants were randomly allocated to ‘advice’ (no further advice or physiotherapy) or ‘advice and physiotherapy’ (an additional six 30-minute sessions over 4 months). The physiotherapy intervention was supported by a patient handbook and was delivered on a one-to-one patient–therapist basis. It aimed to increase patients’ physical activity through developing knowledge, understanding and skills to better manage their condition. Main outcome measures: Data from patient and health professional focus groups formed the main outcome from stage 1. Patient and physiotherapist interview data also formed a major component of stages 2 and 3. The primary outcome in stage 3 related to the feasibility of a future definitive RCT [number of referrals, recruitment and retention rates, and an estimate of the value of information (VOI) of a future RCT]. Secondary outcomes included clinical measures (physical function, pain, global status, self-reported joint count, quality of life, exercise self-efficacy and adverse events) and resource use (to estimate cost-effectiveness). Outcomes were recorded at baseline, 4 months and 7 months. Results: Stage 1 – JHS is complex and unpredictable. Physiotherapists should take a long-term holistic approach rather than treating acutely painful joints in isolation. Stage 2 – a user-informed physiotherapy intervention was developed and evaluated positively. Stage 3 – recruitment to the pilot RCT was challenging, primarily because of a perceived lack of equipoise between advice and physiotherapy. The qualitative evaluation provided very clear guidance to inform a future RCT, including enhancement of the advice intervention. Some patients reported that the advice intervention was useful and the physiotherapy intervention was again evaluated very positively. The rate of return of questionnaires was low in the advice group but reasonable in the physiotherapy group. The physiotherapy intervention showed evidence of promise in terms of primary and secondary clinical outcomes. The advice arm experienced more adverse events. The VOI analysis indicated the potential for high value from a future RCT. Such a trial should form the basis of future research efforts. Conclusion: A future definitive RCT of physiotherapy for JHS seems feasible, although the advice intervention should be made more robust to address perceived equipoise and subsequent attrition. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29874209. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Pathways to understanding the genomic aetiology of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a common, complex disease with no curative therapy. In this review, we summarize current knowledge on disease aetiopathogenesis and outline genetics and genomics approaches that are helping catalyse a much-needed improved understanding of the biological underpinning of disease development and progression