Long-term health conditions and UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Long-term health conditions can affect labour market outcomes. COVID-19 may have increased labour market inequalities, e.g. due to restricted opportunities for clinically vulnerable people. Evaluating COVID-19's impact could help target support. AIM: To quantify the effect of several long-term conditions on UK labour market outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare them to pre-pandemic outcomes. METHODS: The Understanding Society COVID-19 survey collected responses from around 20,000 UK residents in nine waves from April 2020-September 2021. Participants employed in January/February 2020 with a variety of long-term conditions were matched with people without the condition but with similar baseline characteristics. Models estimated probability of employment, hours worked and earnings. We compared these results with results from a two-year pre-pandemic period. We also modelled probability of furlough and home-working frequency during COVID-19. RESULTS: Most conditions (asthma, arthritis, emotional/nervous/psychiatric problems, vascular/pulmonary/liver conditions, epilepsy) were associated with reduced employment probability and/or hours worked during COVID-19, but not pre-pandemic. Furlough was more likely for people with pulmonary conditions. People with arthritis and cancer were slower to return to in-person working. Few effects were seen for earnings. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 had a disproportionate impact on people with long-term conditions' labour market outcomes.

A preoperative package of care for osteoarthritis, consisting of weight loss, orthotics, rehabilitation, and topical and oral analgesia (OPPORTUNITY): a two-centre, open-label, randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a major cause of disability worldwide. Non-operative treatments can reduce the morbidity but adherence is poor. We hypothesised that adherence could be optimised if behavioural change was established in the preoperative period. Therefore, we aimed to assess feasibility, acceptability, and recruitment and retention rates of a preoperative package of non-operative care in patients awaiting knee replacement surgery. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled, feasibility trial in two secondary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 15-85 years, on the waiting list for a knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis, and met at least one of the thresholds for one of the four components of the preoperative package of non-operative care intervention (ie, weight loss, exercise therapy, use of insoles, and analgesia adjustment). Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) to either the intervention group or the standard of care (ie, control) group. All four aspects of the intervention were delivered weekly over 12 weeks. Participants in the intervention group were reviewed regularly to assess adherence. The primary outcome was acceptability and feasibility of delivering the intervention, as measured by recruitment rate, retention rate at follow-up review after planned surgery, health-related quality of life, joint-specific scores, and adherence (weight change and qualitative interviews). This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN96684272. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, we screened 233 patients, of whom 163 (73%) were excluded and 60 (27%) were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=40) or the control group (n=20). 34 (57%) of 60 participants were women, 26 (43%) were men, and the mean age was 66·8 years (SD 8·6). Uptake of the specific intervention components varied: 31 (78%) of 40 had exercise therapy, 28 (70%) weight loss, 22 (55%) analgesia adjustment, and insoles (18 [45%]). Overall median adherence was 94% (IQR 79·5-100). At the final review, the intervention group lost a mean of 11·2 kg (SD 5·6) compared with 1·3 kg (3·8) in the control group (estimated difference -9·8 kg [95% CI -13·4 to -6·3]). A clinically significant improvement in health-related quality o life (mean change 0·078 [SD 0·195]) were reported, and joint-specific scores showed greater improvement in the intervention group than in the control group. No adverse events attributable to the intervention occurred. INTERPRETATION: Participants adhered well to the non-operative interventions and their health-related quality of life improved. Participant and health professional feedback were extremely positive. These findings support progression to a full-scale effectiveness trial. FUNDING: Versus Arthritis.

The usefulness of ultrasound in predicting outcomes in patients with shoulder pain: a prospective observational study.

OBJECTIVES: Shoulder pain is common but current clinical classification has limited utility. We aimed to determine whether groups of ultrasound-based shoulder pathologies exist and to evaluate outcomes according to identified groups and individual pathologies. METHODS: Prospective study of a community-based cohort with shoulder pain referred for their first ultrasound scan at a single radiology unit, with subsequent routine clinical care. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline, 2 weeks and 6 months; standardised ultrasound reporting was employed. Latent class analysis (LCA) identified ultrasound pathology-based groups. Multiple linear regression analysis explored associations between baseline pathologies, subsequent treatment and shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI). Short-term response to corticosteroid injections was investigated. RESULTS: Of 500 participants (mean age 53.6; 52% female), 330 completed follow-up. LCA identified 4 groups: bursitis with (33%) or without (27%) acromioclavicular joint degeneration, rotator cuff tear (21%), no bursitis/tear (19%). Total SPADI was higher at baseline for cuff tears (mean 55.1 vs 49.7-51.3; overall p= 0.005), but accounting for this, groups did not differ at 6 months (43.5 vs 38.5-40.5; p= 0.379). Baseline SPADI was the only predictor of 6-month SPADI retained by penalised modelling; neither LCA-derived US groups nor individual pathologies were selected. Response to baseline injection at week 2 did not differ between groups (mean SPADI 40.1-43.8; p= 0.423). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-based classification (groups or individual pathologies) of shoulder pain did not predict medium-term outcomes using current treatments. The role of routine diagnostic ultrasound for shoulder pain needs consideration; it may be useful if evidence-based therapies for specific pathologies are established.

Mid- to late-term follow-up of primary hip and knee arthroplasty: the UK SAFE evidence-based recommendations.

To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation.

Association between outpatient follow-up and incidence of revision after knee and hip replacements: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery. METHODS: Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department ('Follow-up' group), and those without ('No follow-up' group). RESULTS: A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]). CONCLUSION: Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists.

How does arthritis affect employment? Longitudinal evidence on 18,000 British adults with arthritis compared to matched controls.

INTRODUCTION: One in ten working age people in the UK live with arthritis or a similar condition affecting their joints. This impacts their quality of life, including through their work. But little is known about how arthritis affects labour market outcomes and the types of people most likely to be affected. METHODS: Data from three population-representative household panel surveys (BHPS, ELSA, UKHLS) collected in 2001-2019 was harmonised. Propensity score matching was used to match 18,014 UK adults aged 18-80 who have arthritis with comparable adults without arthritis. The relationship between arthritis and employment, and earnings and work hours conditional on employment, were assessed using multilevel regression modelling. Heterogeneity in these relationships were assessed by age, gender, degree-level education status, NS-SEC job classification and employer type. RESULTS: On average, arthritis was associated with a 3 percentage point reduction in the probability of employment. The effect size varied over people's life course and was larger amongst females, people without a degree, and those in routine or intermediate occupations (when compared to those in professional occupations) or working for small private companies (when compared to large private companies and non-private employers). Our models predict, for instance, that arthritis is associated with an 11 percentage point reduction in the probability of employment among 50-year-old women without a degree. This contrasts with a 5 percentage point reduction among 50-year-old men without a degree. If employed, men with a degree earned less if they had arthritis, whereas others (including women with a degree and men without a degree) had similar earnings regardless of their arthritis status. Those in professional occupations with arthritis also earnt less, especially if they were women aged over 40, with indications that this was driven by reduced work hours. CONCLUSION: Policy interventions to support people with arthritis who wish to remain in work might be designed with people in routine work in mind, and targeted at those working in smaller private firms. More research on the cost-effectiveness of those interventions is needed.

Home-Based Health Care Interventions for People Aged 75 Years and Above With Chronic, Noninflammatory Musculoskeletal Pain: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Chronic, noninflammatory musculoskeletal pain is common in the aged population and management can be challenging for older people due to multimorbidity, social isolation, and physical frailty. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize and discuss the evidence related to home-based health care interventions for older adults, with chronic, musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: A review of the literature using 8 electronic databases (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Physiotherapy Evidence Database [PEDro], Scopus, and Web of Science) was performed, following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. English language published studies that assessed home-based health care intervention/s, in men and women 75 years and older, with chronic, noninflammatory musculoskeletal pain where included. Two authors independently reviewed the articles and extracted data into a preformulated chart. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The database search identified 4722 studies of which 7 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 7 studies were randomized controlled trials and 5 studies focused on a single-site pain. The type of home-based interventions in the included studies was physical therapy (n = 2), psychotherapy (n = 3), and multimodal therapy (combination of multiple therapies) (n = 2). Participation completion rate was more than 74% in 6 out of 7 studies. Most studies used pain and/or physical function as their primary outcome (n = 6). Music therapy showed a statistically significant reduction in visual analog scale score for pain, and there was a trend toward improvement of pain and function in the physical therapy studies. No significant differences in outcomes between intervention and control groups were observed in the multimodal studies. CONCLUSION: This review highlights the scarcity of evidence related to home-based health interventions in older people 75 years and older, living with chronic, noninflammatory musculoskeletal pain. The findings were that physical, psychotherapeutic, and multimodal interventions are usually well tolerated and can be delivered as a safe self-management option. There remains a substantial need for more high-quality research with wider range of home-based interventions and comprehensive assessment of outcomes for this age group.

Evaluation of two electronic-rehabilitation programmes for persistent knee pain: protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent, knee pain is a common cause of disability. Education and exercise treatment are advocated in all clinical guidelines; however, the increasing prevalence of persistent knee pain presents challenges for health services regarding appropriate and scalable delivery of these treatments. Digital technologies may help address this, and this trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of two electronic-rehabilitation interventions: 'My Knee UK' and 'Group E-Rehab'. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a non-blinded, randomised feasibility trial with three parallel groups. The trial aims to recruit 90 participants (45 years or older) with a history of persistent knee pain consistent with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The 'My Knee UK' intervention arm will receive a self-directed unsupervised internet-based home exercise programme plus short message service support (targeting exercise behaviour change) for 12 weeks; the 'Group E-Rehab' intervention arm will receive group-based physiotherapist-prescribed home exercises delivered via videoconferencing accompanied by internet-interactive educational sessions for 12 weeks; the control arm will receive usual physiotherapy care or continue with their usual self-management (depending on their recruitment path). Feasibility variables, patient-reported outcomes and clinical findings measured at baseline, 3 and 9 months will be assessed and integrated with qualitative interview data from a subset of Group E-Rehab and My Knee UK participants. If considered feasible and acceptable, a definitive randomised controlled trial can be conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of one or both interventions with a view to implementation in routine care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (Reference: 20/WS/0006). The results of the study will be disseminated to study participants, the study grant funder and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15564385.

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national datasets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after knee replacement?

OBJECTIVE: To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of knee replacement (KR) to inform targeted follow-up. DESIGN: Analysis of linked national datasets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD), National Joint Registry (NJR), English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)). PARTICIPANTS: Primary elective KRs aged ≥18 years. EVENT OF INTEREST: Revision surgery ≥5 years (mid-late term) postprimary KR. STATISTICAL METHODS: Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HRs and 95% CIs assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision. RESULTS: NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 188 509 KR. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 378 KR. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. Age and gender distribution were similar across datasets; mean age 70 years, 57% female. In NJR, there were 8607 (4.6%) revisions, median time-to-revision postprimary surgery 1.8 years (range 0-8.8), with 1055 (0.6%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 877 (5.1%) revisions, median time-to-revision 4.2 years (range 0.02-18.3), with 352 (2.0%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of revision after 5 years was associated with older age (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.96), obesity (0.70; 0.56 to 0.88), living in deprived areas (0.71; 0.58 to 0.87), non-white ethnicity (0.58; 0.43 to 0.78), better preoperative pain and functional limitation (0.42; 0.33 to 0.53), better 6-month postoperative pain and function (0.33; 0.26 to 0.41) or moderate anxiety/depression (0.73; 0.63 to 0.83) at primary surgery.Increased risk was associated with male gender (1.32; 1.04 to 1.67); when anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin) (1.58; 1.01 to 2.47) or opioids (1.36; 1.08 to 1.71) were required prior to primary surgery.No implant factors were identified. CONCLUSION: The risk of mid-late term KR revision is very low. Increased risk of revision is associated with patient case-mix factors, and there is evidence of sociodemographic inequality.

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national data sets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after hip replacement? Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of hip replacement to inform targeted follow-up. DESIGN: Analysis of linked national data sets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD-GOLD); National Joint Registry (NJR); English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES); Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)). PARTICIPANTS: Primary elective total hip replacement (THR) aged≥18. EVENT OF INTEREST: Revision surgery≥5 years (mid-late term) after primary THR. STATISTICAL METHODS: Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HR and 95% CI assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision. RESULTS: NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 142 275 THR; mean age 70.0 years and 61.9% female. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 047 THR; mean age 68.4 years, 61.8% female. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. In NJR-HES-PROMS data, there were 3582 (2.5%) revisions, median time-to-revision after primary surgery 1.9 years (range 0.01-8.7), with 598 (0.4%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 982 (5.8%) revisions, median time-to-revision 5.3 years (range 0-20), with 520 (3.1%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of mid-late term revision was associated with older age at primary surgery (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.96); better 6-month postoperative pain/function scores (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.46); use of ceramic-on-ceramic (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.00) bearing surfaces.Increased risk of mid-late term revision was associated with the use of antidepressants (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.59), glucocorticoid injections (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.67) and femoral head size≥44 mm (HR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.09 to 6.02)No association of gender, obesity or Index of Multiple Deprivation was observed. CONCLUSION: The risk of mid-late term THR is associated with age at primary surgery, 6-month postoperative pain and function and implant factors. Further work is needed to explore the associations with prescription medications observed in our data.

Understanding peer mentorship in supporting self-management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of mentees' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are common musculoskeletal conditions. Treatment is usually conservative, making self-management a priority. We developed and trialled an OA peer mentorship intervention to support self-management in older people. Our objectives were to gain understanding of the perceived challenges of living with OA and explore how a peer mentorship intervention can support tackling these challenges; and to explore mentees' experiences of receiving the intervention to understand how this affected their OA self-management. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews focussing on acceptability and feasibility of being in the study were conducted with mentees. Transcribed interviews were double coded and subject to framework analysis. To address the objectives of this paper, three main themes were subject to focused analysis: mentees' experiences of OA, experience of peer mentorship support and factors influencing self-management. RESULTS: Seventeen mentees participated in an interview following completion of the peer support intervention. Themes emerging from focused analysis were the following: tackling the challenges of living with OA pre- and post-intervention; and the interplay of the peer mentorship intervention and self-management. Key elements of the latter theme are enabling factors provided by peer mentorship, and mentees' readiness to self-manage. CONCLUSION: To effectively support OA self-management, peer mentorship interventions should include core educational components and focus on strategies that enhance key enablers of self-management. Paying attention to the mentor-mentee relationship and timing of intervention engagement can maximise opportunities for older people to adjust and transition from supported to independent self-management.

A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. METHODS: Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as 'Planned' or 'Unplanned' revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. CONCLUSION: Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59-67.

Exploring the feasibility, acceptability and value of volunteer peer mentors in supporting self-management of osteoarthritis: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) affect a large and growing proportion of the population. Treatment options are typically conservative making self-management a priority. Using trained peers to support individuals with OA has potential to improve self-management. PURPOSE: To explore the process of engaging and training volunteers to become peer mentors; and to qualitatively evaluate the feasibility, acceptability and value of being a peer mentor to support others' self-management of OA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative evaluation of a peer mentorship support intervention reporting the processes of recruitment and training; and semi-structured interviews conducted with nine active peer mentors. Transcribed interviews were coded and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: It was possible to recruit, train and retain volunteers with OA to become peer mentors. The peer mentors benefitted from their training and felt equipped to deliver the intervention. They enjoyed social elements of the mentorship intervention and gained satisfaction through delivering valued support to mentees. Peer mentors perceived the mentorship intervention to have a positive impact on self-management of OA for mentees. CONCLUSION: Training volunteers with OA to become peer mentors was feasible and acceptable. Peer mentors perceived their support benefitted others with OA. They positively rated their experience of providing mentorship support.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONThis study demonstrates that it is possible to recruit, train and engage older volunteers to become peer mentors for people with osteoarthritis.Training should highlight the significance of employing key self-management techniques such as goal-setting.Peer mentors acknowledged that they benefitted from training and delivering the mentorship intervention, and this impacted positively on their own osteoarthritis self-management.Careful consideration of matching mentors and mentees appears to enhance the success of mentorship support.Recognising the impact of mentorship support on mentees' self-management is central to peer mentors' sustained engagement with the intervention.

Changes in ankylosing spondylitis incidence, prevalence and time to diagnosis over two decades.

OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) incidence, prevalence and time to diagnosis, between 1998 and 2017. METHODS: Using UK GP data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we identified patients diagnosed with AS between 1998 and 2017. We estimated the annual AS incidence, prevalence and length of time from first recorded symptom of back pain to rheumatology referral and diagnosis. RESULTS: We identified 12 333 patients with AS. The incidence declined from 0.72 (±0.14) per 10 000 patient-years in 1998 to 0.39 (±0.06) in 2007, with this decline significant only in men, then incidence rose to 0.57 (±0.11) in 2017. By contrast, prevalence increased between 1998 and 2017 (from 0.13%±0.006 to 0.18%±0.006), rising steeply among women (from 0.06%±0.05 to 0.10%±0.06) and patients aged ≥60 (from 0.14%±0.01 to 0.26%±0.01). The overall median time from first symptom to rheumatology referral was 4.87 years (IQR=1.42-10.23). The median time from first symptom to diagnosis rose between 1998 and 2017 (from 3.62 years (IQR=1.14-7.07) to 8.31 (IQR=3.77-15.89)) and was longer in women (6.71 (IQR=2.30-12.36)) than men (5.65 (IQR=1.66-11.20)). CONCLUSION: AS incidence declined significantly between 1998 and 2007, with an increase between 2007 and 2017 that may be explained by an improvement in the recognition of AS or confidence in diagnosing AS over time, stemming from increased awareness of inflammatory back pain and the importance of early treatment. The rising AS prevalence may indicate improved patient survival. The persisting delay in rheumatology referral and diagnosis remains of concern, particularly in women.

Cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine versus placebo for hand osteoarthritis: economic evaluation of the HERO trial.

Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost-utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time horizon, using evidence from 248 participants included in the HERO trial, conducted in England. Patient-level data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period, using participant-completed questionnaires and investigator forms, to collect healthcare utilisation, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L. The base-case analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation methods to deal with missing data. Results were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (incremental cost per QALY) and net health benefit, with uncertainty surrounding the findings explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The base-case analysis estimated slightly lower costs on average (-£11.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) -£15.60 to -£8.00) and marginally fewer QALYs (-0.0052; 95% CI -0.0057 to -0.0047) for participants in the hydroxychloroquine group versus placebo group at 12 months. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,267 per QALY lost indicated that although costs were saved, health-related quality of life was lost. Even assuming symmetrical preferences regarding losses and gains for health benefits, the findings do not fall within the cost-effective region. Similar findings arose for analyses conducted from the societal perspective and using complete cases only. Conclusions: This economic evaluation indicates that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide a cost-effective pain relief option for improving health-related quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe hand osteoarthritis.

Peer mentorship to improve self-management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: a randomised feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a peer mentorship intervention to improve self-management of osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Six-month parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: One secondary care and one primary care UK National Health Service Trust. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty adults aged ≥55 years old with hip and/or knee OA. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated 1:1 to the intervention or control group using an online randomisation service. Intervention group participants received usual care (information resources) and up to eight community-based self-management support sessions delivered by a peer mentor (trained volunteer with hip and/or knee OA). Control group participants received usual care only. OUTCOME MEASURES: Key feasibility outcomes were participant and peer mentor recruitment and attrition, intervention completion and the sample size required for a definitive RCT. Based on these feasibility outcomes, four success criteria for proceeding to a definitive RCT were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were collected via questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: Ninety-six individuals were screened, 65 were eligible and 50 were randomised (25 per group). Of the 24 participants who commenced the intervention, 20 completed it. Four participants did not complete the 6-month questionnaire. Twenty-one individuals were eligible for the peer mentor role, 15 were trained and 5 withdrew prior to being matched with a participant. No intervention-related harms occurred. Allowing for 20% attrition, the sample size required for a definitive RCT was calculated as 170 participants. The intervention group showed improvements in self-management compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility outcomes achieved the prespecified criteria for proceeding to an RCT. The exploratory analyses suggest peer mentorship may improve OA self-management. An RCT of the OA peer mentorship intervention is therefore warranted with minor modifications to the intervention and trial procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN:50675542.

Changes in the pharmacological management of rheumatoid arthritis over two decades.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether modern management of RA has reduced the prescription of oral corticosteroids and NSAIDs and to evaluate use of pharmacological prophylaxis strategies. METHODS: Using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, we explored long-term (≥3/12 months; ≥6/12 in sub-analyses) DMARD, corticosteroid and NSAID prescribing (annually, in the year post-diagnosis and across the patient's life course to 15 years post-diagnosis), annual proportion with co-prescribing for prophylaxis of associated bone (corticosteroids, women only) and gastrointestinal (NSAIDs) comorbidity. RESULTS: Reported incidence of RA was 5.98 (0.37) per 10 000 person-years and prevalence was 0.91% (0.014) in 2017. In 71 411 RA patients, long-term DMARD prescribing initially rose post-diagnosis from 41.6% in 1998 to 67.9% in 2009. Corticosteroid prescribing changed little, overall [22.2% in 1998, 19.1% in 2016; incident risk ratio (IRR) 0.92, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.03] and across the life course from the first to fifteenth year (22.2% to 16.9%). NSAID prescribing declined from 57.7% in 1998, and significantly so from 2008, to 27.1% in 2016 (IRR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.56). This continued across the life course (41.2% to 28.4%). Bone prophylaxis increased to 68.1% in 2008 before declining to 56.4% in 2017; gastrointestinal prophylaxis increased from 11.5% in 1998 to 62.6% in 2017. Sub-analyses showed consistent patterns. CONCLUSION: Despite modern treatment strategies, corticosteroid prescribing in RA patients remains substantial and persists beyond 6 months once initiated. Rheumatologists need to determine causes and develop strategies to reduce corticosteroid use to minimize adverse event occurrence.

Correction to: Osteoarthritis Preoperative Package for care of Orthotics, Rehabilitation, Topical and oral agent Usage and Nutrition to Improve ouTcomes at a Year (OPPORTUNITY); a feasibility study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

After publication of our article [1] we have been notified that two of the author names have been mistakenly removed from the authorship list: Colin R. Howie and Nicholas D. Clement.

Understanding patterns of care for musculoskeletal patients using routinely collected National Health Service data from general practices in England.

Musculoskeletal conditions are extremely common and represent a costly and growing problem in the United Kingdom. Understanding patterns of care and how they vary between individual patients and patient groups is necessary for effective and efficient disease management. In this article, we present a novel approach to understanding patterns of care for musculoskeletal patients in which trajectories are constructed from clinical and administrative data that are routinely collected by clinicians and healthcare professionals. Our approach is applied to routinely collected National Health Service data for musculoskeletal patients who were registered to a set of general practices in England and highlights both known and previously unreported variations in the prescribing of opioid analgesics by gender and presence of pre-existing depression. We conclude that the application of our approach to routinely collected National Health Service data can extend the dimensions over which patterns of care can be understood for musculoskeletal patients and for patients with other long-term conditions.