EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed. METHODS: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed. RESULTS: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

2023 EULAR classification criteria for hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to develop classification criteria for overall hand osteoarthritis (OA), interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA based on self-reported data and radiographic features. METHODS: The classification criteria sets were developed in three phases. In phase 1, we identified criteria that discriminated hand OA from controls. In phase 2, we used a consensus-based decision analysis approach to derive a clinician-based evaluation of the relative importance of the criteria. In phase 3, we refined the scoring system, determined the cut-offs for disease classification and compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) criteria with the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. RESULTS: In persons with hand symptoms and no other disease (including psoriasis) or acute injury that can explain the hand symptoms (mandatory criteria), hand OA can be classified based on age, duration of morning stiffness, number of joints with osteophytes and joint space narrowing, and concordance between symptoms and radiographic findings. Using a sum of scores based on each diagnostic element, overall hand OA can be classified if a person achieves 9 or more points on a 0-15 scale. The cut-off for interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA is 8 points. While the EULAR criteria demonstrated better sensitivity than the ACR criteria in the phase 1 data set, the performance of the two criteria sets was similar in two external cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: International experts developed the EULAR criteria to classify overall hand OA, interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA in clinical studies using a rigorous methodology.

Uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in adults with immune mediated inflammatory diseases: a UK wide observational study.

OBJECTIVE: The uptake and safety of pneumococcal vaccination in people with immune mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) is poorly understood. We investigated the UK wide pneumococcal vaccine uptake in adults with IMIDs and explored the association between vaccination and IMID flare. METHODS: Adults with IMIDs diagnosed on or before 01/09/2018, prescribed steroid-sparing drugs within the last 12 months and contributing data to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold were included. Vaccine uptake was assessed using a cross-sectional study design. Self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis investigated the association between pneumococcal vaccination and IMID flare. The SCCS observation period was up-to six-month before and after pneumococcal vaccination. This was partitioned into a 14-day pre-vaccination induction, 90-days post-vaccination exposed, and the remaining unexposed periods. RESULTS: We included 32 277 patients, 14 151 with RA, 13 631 with IBD, 3,804 with axial spondyloarthritis and 691 with SLE. Overall, 57% were vaccinated against pneumococcus. Vaccine uptake was lower in those younger than 45 years (32%), with IBD (42%), and without additional indication(s) for vaccination (46%). In the vaccine-safety study, data for 1,067, 935, and 451vaccinated patients with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare respectively were included. Vaccination against pneumococcal pneumonia was not associated with primary-care consultations for joint pain, AIRD flare and IBD flare in the exposed period with incidence rate ratios (95% Confidence Interval) 0.95 (0.83-1.09), 1.05 (0.92-1.19), and 0.83 (0.65-1.06) respectively. CONCLUSION: Uptake of pneumococcal vaccination in UK patients with IMIDs was suboptimal. Vaccination against pneumococcal disease was not associated with IMID flare.

Prognostic factors for colchicine prophylaxis-related adverse events when initiating allopurinol for gout: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Colchicine is commonly used to prevent flares when starting urate-lowering therapy for gout. Patients with gout are frequently concurrently prescribed other medications (such as statins) that may interact with colchicine, increasing the risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to describe potential prognostic factors for adverse events in patients prescribed colchicine when initiating allopurinol. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with colchicine (01/04/1997-30/11/2016) were included. Potential prognostic factors were defined, and the likelihood of adverse events, including diarrhoea, nausea or vomiting, myocardial infarction (MI), neuropathy, myalgia, myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and bone marrow suppression, were estimated. RESULTS: From 01/04/1997-30/11/2016, 13 945 people with gout initiated allopurinol with colchicine prophylaxis (mean age 63.9 (SD 14.7) years, 78.2% male). One quarter (26%, 95% CI 25% to 27%) were prescribed ≥1 potentially interacting medicines, most commonly statins (21%, 95% CI 20% to 22%). Statins were not associated with increased adverse events, although other drugs were associated with some adverse outcomes. Diarrhoea and MI were associated with more comorbidities and more severe CKD. CONCLUSION: People were given colchicine prophylaxis despite commonly having preexisting prescriptions for medications with potential to interact with colchicine. Adverse events were more common in people who had more comorbidities and certain potentially interacting medications. Our findings will provide much-needed information about prognostic factors for colchicine-related adverse events that can inform treatment decisions about prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol.

Patient and health professional views on risk-stratified monitoring of immune-suppressing treatment in adults with inflammatory diseases.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the acceptability of an individualised risk-stratified approach to monitoring for target-organ toxicity in adult patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases established on immune-suppressing treatment(s). METHODS: Adults (≥18 years) taking immune-suppressing treatment(s) for at-least six months, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with experience of either prescribing and/or monitoring immune-suppressing drugs were invited to participate in a single, remote, one-to-one, semi-structured interview. Interviews were conducted by a trained qualitative researcher and explored their views and experiences of current monitoring and acceptability of a proposed risk-stratified monitoring plan. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis in NVivo. RESULTS: Eighteen patients and 13 HCPs were interviewed. While participants found monitoring of immune-suppressing drugs with frequent blood-tests reassuring, the current frequency of these was considered burdensome by patients and HCPs alike, and to be a superfluous use of healthcare resources. Given abnormalities rarely arose during long-term treatment, most felt that monitoring blood-tests were not needed as often. Patients and HCPs found it acceptable to increase the interval between monitoring blood-tests from three-monthly to six-monthly or annually depending on the patients' risk profiles. Conditions of accepting such a change included: allowing for clinician and patient autonomy in determining an individuals' frequency of monitoring blood-tests, the flexibility to change monitoring frequency if someone's risk profile changed, and endorsement from specialist societies and healthcare providers such as the National Health Service. CONCLUSION: A risk-stratified approach to monitoring was acceptable to patients and HCPs. Guideline groups should consider these findings when recommending blood-test monitoring intervals.

Discontinuation of anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha treatment owing to blood test abnormalities, and cost-effectiveness of alternate blood monitoring strategies.

BACKGROUND: There is no evidence base to support the use of 6-monthly monitoring blood tests for the early detection of liver, blood and renal toxicity during established anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) treatment. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the incidence and risk factors of anti-TNFα treatment cessation owing to liver, blood and renal side-effects, and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of alternate intervals between monitoring blood tests. METHODS: A secondary care-based retrospective cohort study was performed. Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) were used. Patients with at least moderate psoriasis prescribed their first anti-TNFα treatment were included. Treatment discontinuation due to a monitoring blood test abnormality was the primary outcome. Patients were followed-up from start of treatment to the outcome of interest, drug discontinuation, death, 31 July 2021 or up to 5 years, whichever came first. The incidence rate (IR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of anti-TNFα discontinuation with monitoring blood test abnormality was calculated. Multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between risk factors and outcome. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) associated with increasing the length of time between monitoring blood tests during anti-TNFα treatment. RESULTS: The cohort included 8819 participants [3710 (42.1%) female, mean (SD) age 44.76 (13.20) years] that contributed 25 058 person-years (PY) of follow-up and experienced 125 treatment discontinuations owing to a monitoring blood test abnormality at an IR of 5.85 (95% CI 4.91-6.97)/1000 PY. Of these, 64 and 61 discontinuations occurred within the first year and after the first year of treatment start, at IRs of 8.62 (95% CI 6.74-11.01) and 3.44 (95% CI 2.67-4.42)/1000 PY, respectively. Increasing age (in years), diabetes and liver disease were associated with anti-TNFα discontinuation after a monitoring blood test abnormality [adjusted hazard ratios of 1.02 (95% CI 1.01-1.04), 1.68 (95% CI 1.00-2.81) and 2.27 (95% CI 1.26-4.07), respectively]. Assuming a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, no monitoring was most cost-effective, but all extended periods were cost-effective vs. 3- or 6-monthly monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNFα drugs were uncommonly discontinued owing to abnormal monitoring blood tests after the first year of treatment. Extending the duration between monitoring blood tests was cost-effective. Our results produce evidence for specialist society guidance to reduce patient monitoring burden and healthcare costs.

Barriers and facilitators in diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is frequently delayed for years after symptom onset. However, little is known about patient and healthcare professional (HCP) perspectives on barriers and facilitators in axSpA diagnosis. This study explored the experiences and perceptions of both groups regarding the factors affecting the timely diagnosis of axSpA. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with patients with axSpA and axSpA-interested HCPs from the United Kingdom (UK) were performed by telephone or Microsoft Teams and focussed on the individuals' perspective of the diagnostic journey for axSpA. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fourteen patients with axSpA (10 female, 4 male) and 14 UK based HCPs were recruited, the latter comprising of 5 physiotherapists, 4 General Practitioners, 3 rheumatologists, a nurse, and an occupational therapist. Barriers to diagnosis identified by patients and HCPs were: difficult to diagnose, a lack of awareness, unclear referral pathways, patient behaviour and patient/HCP communication. Patient-identified facilitators of diagnosis were patient advocacy, clear referral processes and pathways, increased awareness, and serendipity. HCPs identified promoting awareness as a facilitator of diagnosis, along with symptom recognition, improvements to healthcare practice and patient/HCP communications. CONCLUSION: Poor communication and a lack of understanding of axSpA in the professional and public spheres undermine progress towards timely diagnosis of axSpA. Improving communication and awareness for patients and HCPs, along with systemic changes in healthcare (such as improved referral pathways) could reduce diagnostic delay.

Co-development and testing of an extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis: protocol for a sequential, multi-methods study (PharmOA).

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis is a common, painful and disabling long-term condition. Delivery of high-quality guideline-informed osteoarthritis care that successfully promotes and maintains supported self-management is imperative. However, osteoarthritis care remains inconsistent, including under use of core non-pharmacological approaches of education, exercise and weight loss. Community pharmacies are an accessible healthcare provider. United Kingdom government initiatives are promoting their involvement in a range of long-term conditions, including musculoskeletal conditions. It is not known what an enhanced community pharmacy role for osteoarthritis care should include, what support is needed to deliver such a role, and whether it would be feasible and acceptable to community pharmacy teams. In this (PharmOA) study, we aim to address these gaps, and co-design and test an evidence-based extended community pharmacy model of service delivery for managing osteoarthritis. METHODS: Informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, Normalisation Process Theory, and the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing complex interventions, we will undertake a multi-methods study involving five phases: 1. Systematic review to summarise currently available evidence on community pharmacy roles in supporting adults with osteoarthritis and other chronic (non-cancer) pain. 2. Cross-sectional surveys and one-to-one qualitative interviews with patients, healthcare professionals and pharmacy staff to explore experiences of current, and potential extended community pharmacy roles, in delivering osteoarthritis care. 3. Stakeholder co-design to: a) agree on the extended role of community pharmacies in osteoarthritis care; b) develop a model of osteoarthritis care within which the extended roles could be delivered (PharmOA model of service delivery); and c) refine existing tools to support community pharmacies to deliver extended osteoarthritis care roles (PharmOA tools). 4. Feasibility study to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools to community pharmacy teams. 5. Final stakeholder workshop to: a) finalise the PharmOA model of service delivery and PharmOA tools, and b) if applicable, prioritise recommendations for its wider future implementation. DISCUSSION: This novel study paves the way to improving access to and availability of high-quality guideline-informed, consistent care for people with osteoarthritis from within community pharmacies.

Is Vaccination Against COVID-19 Associated With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Flare? Self-Controlled Case Series Analysis Using the UK CPRD.

INTRODUCTION: To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) flare. METHODS: Patients with IBD vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between December 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, were ascertained from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. IBD flares were identified using consultation and corticosteroid prescription records. Vaccinations were identified using product codes and vaccination dates. The study period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (vaccination date and 21 days immediately after), prevaccination (7 days immediately before vaccination), and the remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and IBD flares. Season-adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 1911 cases with IBD were included; 52% of them were female, and their mean age was 49 years. Approximately 63% of participants had ulcerative colitis (UC). COVID-19 vaccination was not associated with increased IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered (aIRR [95% CI] 0.89 [0.77-1.02], 0.79 [0.66-0.95], and 1.00 [0.79-1.27] in IBD overall, UC, and Crohn's disease, respectively). Analyses stratified to include only first, second, or third COVID-19 vaccinations found no significant association between vaccination and IBD flares in the vaccine-exposed period (aIRR [95% CI] 0.87 [0.71-1.06], 0.93 [0.75-1.15], and 0.86 [0.63-1.17], respectively). Similarly, stratification by COVID-19 before vaccination and by vaccination with vectored DNA or messenger RNA vaccine did not reveal an increased risk of flare in any of these subgroups. DISCUSSION: Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with IBD flares regardless of prior COVID-19 infection and whether messenger RNA or DNA vaccines were used.

Safety of colchicine and NSAID prophylaxis when initiating urate-lowering therapy for gout: propensity score-matched cohort studies in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of adverse events associated with colchicine or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis when initiating allopurinol for gout. METHODS: We conducted two matched retrospective cohort studies in linked UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics datasets. Adults initiating allopurinol for gout with (1) colchicine or (2) NSAID prophylaxis were compared with those initiating without prophylaxis, individually matched by age, sex and propensity to receive the relevant prophylaxis. Weighted Cox proportional hazards models investigated associations between colchicine/NSAID and specified adverse events. RESULTS: 13 945 individuals prescribed colchicine were matched to 13 945 with no prophylaxis and 25 980 prescribed NSAID to 25 980 with no prophylaxis. Adverse event incidence rates were <200/10 000 patient-years except diarrhoea (784.4; 95% CI 694.0 to 886.5) and nausea (208.1; 95% CI 165.4 to 261.7) for colchicine and angina for NSAID (466.6; 95% CI 417.2 to 521.8). Diarrhoea (HR 2.22; 95% CI 1.83 to 2.69), myocardial infarction (MI) (1.55; 95% CI 1.10, 2.17), neuropathy (4.75; 95% CI 1.20 to 18.76), myalgia (2.64; 95% CI 1.45 to 4.81), bone marrow suppression (3.29; 95% CI 1.43 to 7.58) and any adverse event (1.91, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.20) were more common with colchicine than no prophylaxis, but not nausea/vomiting (1.34; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.85). Angina (1.60; 95% CI 1.37 to 1.86), acute kidney injury (1.56; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.03), MI (1.89; 95% CI 1.44 to 2.48), peptic ulcer disease (1.67; 95% CI 1.14 to 2.44) and any adverse event (1.63; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.85) were more common with NSAID than without. CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were more common when allopurinol was initiated with prophylaxis, particularly diarrhoea with colchicine. Other events were uncommon, providing reassurance for patients and clinicians to enable shared decision-making.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the PMR-Impact Scale: a new patient reported outcome measure for polymyalgia rheumatica.

OBJECTIVES: PMR causes pain, stiffness and disability in older adults. Measuring the impact of the condition from the patient's perspective is vital to high-quality research and patient-centred care, yet there are no validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for PMR. We set out to develop and psychometrically evaluate a PMR-specific PROM. METHODS: Two cross-sectional postal surveys of people with a confirmed diagnosis of PMR were used to provide data for field testing and psychometric evaluation. A total of 256 participants completed the draft PROM. Distribution of item responses was examined, and exploratory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to inform item reduction, formation of dimension structure and scoring system development. Some 179 participants completed the PROM at two time points, along with comparator questionnaires and anchor questions. Test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness were evaluated. RESULTS: Results from the field-testing study led to the formation of the PMR-Impact Scale (PMR-IS), comprising four domains (symptoms, function, psychological and emotional well-being, and steroid side effects). Construct validity and test-retest reliability met accepted quality criteria for each domain. There was insufficient evidence from this study to determine its ability to detect flares/deterioration, but the PMR-IS was responsive to improvements in the condition. CONCLUSION: The PMR-IS offers researchers a new way to assess patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies of PMR. It has been developed robustly, with patient input at every stage. It has good construct validity and test-retest reliability. Further work is needed to fully establish its responsiveness and interpretability parameters, and to assess its real-world clinical utility.

Is vaccination against COVID-19 associated with autoimmune rheumatic disease flare? A self-controlled case series analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and autoimmune rheumatic disease (AIRD) flare. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with AIRDs vaccinated against COVID-19 who consulted for disease flare between 1 December 2020 and 31 December 2021 were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (Aurum). AIRD flare was defined as consultation for AIRD with CS prescription on the same day or the next day. Vaccination was defined using date of vaccination and product code. The observation period was partitioned into vaccine-exposed (21 days after vaccination), pre-vaccination (7 days before vaccination) and remaining vaccine-unexposed periods. Participants contributed data with multiple vaccinations and outcomes. Season adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) and 95% CI were calculated using self-controlled case series analysis. RESULTS: Data for 3554 AIRD cases, 72% female, mean age 65 years and 68.3% with RA, were included. COVID-19 vaccination was associated with significantly fewer AIRD flares in the 21-day vaccine-exposed period when all vaccinations were considered [aIRR (95% CI) 0.89 (0.80, 0.98)]. Using dose-stratified analyses there was a statistically significant negative association in the 21 days after first COVID-19 vaccination but no association after the second or third COVID-19 vaccinations [aIRR (95% CI) 0.76 (0.66, 0.89), 0.94 (0.79, 1.11) and 1.01 (0.85, 1.20), respectively]. On AIRD-type stratified analyses, vaccination was not associated with disease flares. Vaccination without or after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, and with vectored DNA or mRNA vaccines, associated with comparable reduced risk of AIRD flares in the vaccine-exposed period after first COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination against COVID-19 was not associated with increased AIRD flares regardless of prior COVID-19, AIRD type, and whether mRNA or DNA vaccination technology were used.

Analgesic prescribing in patients with inflammatory arthritis in England: observational studies in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

OBJECTIVES: Despite little evidence that analgesics are effective in inflammatory arthritis (IA), studies report substantial opioid prescribing. The extent this applies to other analgesics is uncertain. We undertook a comprehensive evaluation of analgesic prescribing in patients with IA in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum to evaluate this. METHODS: From 2004 to 2020, cross-sectional analyses evaluated analgesic prescription annual prevalence in RA, PsA and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), stratified by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and geography. Joinpoint regression evaluated temporal prescribing trends. Cohort studies determined prognostic factors at diagnosis for chronic analgesic prescriptions using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Analgesic prescribing declined over time but remained common: 2004 and 2020 IA prescription prevalence was 84.2/100 person-years (PY) (95% CI 83.9, 84.5) and 64.5/100 PY (64.2, 64.8), respectively. In 2004, NSAIDs were most prescribed (56.1/100 PY; 55.8, 56.5), falling over time. Opioids were most prescribed in 2020 (39.0/100 PY; 38.7, 39.2). Gabapentinoid prescribing increased: 2004 prevalence 1.1/100 PY (1.0, 1.2); 2020 prevalence 9.9/100 PY (9.7, 10.0). Most opioid prescriptions were chronic (2020 prevalence 23.4/100 PY [23.2, 23.6]). Non-NSAID analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA, older people, females and deprived areas/northern England. Conversely, NSAID prescribing was commoner in axSpA/males, varying little by deprivation/geography. Peri-diagnosis was high-risk for starting chronic opioid/NSAID prescriptions. Prognostic factors for chronic opioid/gabapentinoid and NSAID prescriptions differed, with NSAIDs having no consistently significant association with deprivation (unlike opioids/gabapentinoids). CONCLUSION: IA analgesic prescribing of all classes is widespread. This is neither evidence-based nor in line with guidelines. Peri-diagnosis is an opportune moment to reduce chronic analgesic prescribing.

Factors associated with change in health-related quality of life in people with gout: a 3-year prospective cohort study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe factors associated with change in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in people living with gout in primary care. METHODS: In a UK prospective cohort study, adults with a diagnosis of gout registered with 20 general practices completed the Gout Impact Scale (GIS; scale 0-100), 36-item Short Form Physical Function subscale (PF-10; 0-100) and HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI; 0-3) via postal questionnaires at baseline and 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. Linear mixed modelling was used to investigate factors associated with changes in HRQOL over 3 years. RESULTS: A total of 1184 participants responded at baseline (adjusted response 65.6%); 990 (83.6%) were male, with a mean age of 65.6 years (s.d. 12.5). A total of 818, 721, 696 and 605 responded at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months, respectively. Factors associated with worse disease-specific and generic HRQOL over 3 years were flare frequency (five or more flares; GIS subscales, PF-10), oligo/polyarticular flares (GIS subscales, PF-10, HAQ-DI), worse pain (GIS subscales, PF-10, HAQ-DI), body pain (GIS subscales, PF-10, HAQ-DI) and more severe depression (GIS subscales, PF-10, HAQ-DI) (P ≤ 0.05). More severe anxiety was associated with worse disease-specific HRQOL only (GIS subscales). Older age (PF-10), being female (PF-10, HAQ-DI) and BMI (HAQ-DI) were associated with worse generic HRQOL (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Gout-specific, comorbid and sociodemographic factors were associated with change in HRQOL over a 3-year period, highlighting people at risk of worse outcomes who could be targeted for interventions.

The cost-effectiveness of adding an ultrasound corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence for the comparative cost-effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroid injection in people with hip osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of best current treatment (BCT) comprising advice and education plus a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection (USGI) of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 ml 1% lidocaine hydrochloride (BCT+US-T) versus BCT alone. METHODS: A trial-based cost-utility analysis of BCT+US-T compared with BCT was undertaken over 6 months. Patient-level cost data were obtained, and effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), allowing the calculation of cost per QALY gained from a United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS) perspective. RESULTS: BCT+US-T was associated with lower mean NHS costs (BCT+US-T minus BCT: £-161.6, 95% CI: £-583.95 to £54.18) and small but significantly higher mean QALYs than BCT alone over 6 months (BCT+US-T minus BCT: 0.0487, 95% CI: 0.0091, 0.0886). In the base case, BCT+US-T was the most cost-effective and dominated BCT alone. Differences in total costs were driven by number of visits to NHS consultants, private physiotherapists, and chiropractors, and hip surgery, which were more common with BCT alone than BCT+US-T. CONCLUSION: Intra-articular corticosteroid injection plus BCT (BCT+US-T) for patients with hip OA results in lower costs and better outcomes, and is highly cost-effective, compared with BCT alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2014-003412-37 (August 8, 2015) and registered with Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN 50550256 (July 28, 2015). TRIAL PROTOCOL: Full details of the trial protocol can be found in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0#citeas. DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2153-0.

The impact of COVID-19 on the patient, clinician, healthcare services and society: A patient pathway review.

The spread of COVID-19 infection has changed the world. Population-based studies of COVID-19 are limited because it is unknown why events happen or why certain outcomes occur. An alternative approach called the patient pathway review evaluates what happens to individuals in detail. In the "ideal" pathway patients with COVID-19 will seek medical attention and COVID-19 will be identified and they will either be admitted to hospital, managed in the community or they will self-care. However, in the "real-world" pathway, patients may delay seeking medical attention and it is variable who the patient decides to seek help from and some patients may be initially misdiagnosed. The eventual outcome will be recovery from the acute infection or death but there may be a spectrum of healthcare needs for patients from those who care for themselves in the community to those who are hospitalized and require intensive care. The patients may or may not have short- and long-term adverse effects. People infected with COVID-19 can take on different paths which depend on the patient's decision making, clinical decision making, and the patient's response to the infection. Desirable pathways are those where patients have good outcomes and also limit the transmission of the virus.

Analgesic prescribing in patients with inflammatory arthritis in England: an observational study using electronic healthcare record data.

OBJECTIVES: International data suggest inflammatory arthritis (IA) pain management frequently involves opioid prescribing, despite little evidence of efficacy, and potential harms. We evaluated analgesic prescribing in English National Health Service-managed patients with IA. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional analyses in the Consultations in Primary Care Archive (primary care consultation and prescription data in nine general practices from 2000 to 2015) evaluated the annual prevalence of analgesic prescriptions in: (i) IA cases (RA, PsA or axial spondyloarthritis [SpA]), and (ii) up to five age-, sex- and practice-matched controls. Analgesic prescriptions were classified into basic, opioids, gabapentinoids and oral NSAIDs, and sub-classified into chronic and intermittent (≥3 and 1-2 prescriptions per calendar year, respectively). RESULTS: In 2000, there were 594 cases and 2652 controls, rising to 1080 cases and 4703 controls in 2015. In all years, most (65.3-78.5%) cases received analgesics, compared with fewer (37.5-41.1%) controls. Opioid prescribing in cases fell between 2000 and 2015 but remained common with 45.4% (95% CI: 42.4%, 48.4%) and 32.9% (95% CI: 29.8%, 36.0%) receiving at least 1 and ≥3 opioid prescriptions, respectively, in 2015. Gabapentinoid prescription prevalence in cases increased from 0% in 2000 to 9.5% (95% CI: 7.9%, 11.4%) in 2015, and oral NSAID prescription prevalence fell from 53.7% (95% CI: 49.6%, 57.8%) in 2000 to 25.0% (95% CI: 22.4%, 27.7%) in 2015. Across years, analgesic prescribing was commoner in RA than PsA/axial SpA, and 1.7-2.0 times higher in cases than controls. CONCLUSIONS: Analgesic prescribing in IA is common. This is at variance with existing evidence of analgesic efficacy and risks, and guidelines. Interventions are needed to improve analgesic prescribing in this population.

Predictors of interest in predictive testing for rheumatoid arthritis among first degree relatives of rheumatoid arthritis patients.

OBJECTIVES: There is increasing interest in prediction and prevention of RA. It is important to understand the views of those at risk to inform the development of effective approaches. First-degree relatives (FDRs) of RA patients are at increased risk of RA. This study assessed predictors of their interest in predictive testing for RA. METHODS: Questionnaires were completed by RA patients (provided with their questionnaire by a healthcare professional) and their FDRs (provided with their questionnaire by their RA proband). FDR surveys assessed interest in taking a predictive test, demographic variables, perceived RA risk, attitudes about predictive testing, autonomy preferences, illness perceptions, avoidance coping and health anxiety. Patient surveys included demographic variables, disease impact, RA duration and treatment. Ordinal logistic regression examined the association between FDRs' characteristics and their interest in predictive testing. Generalized estimating equations assessed associations between patient characteristics and FDRs' interest in predictive testing. RESULTS: Three hundred and ninety-six FDRs responded. Paired data from the RA proband were available for 292. The proportion of FDRs interested in predictive testing was 91.3%. Information-seeking preferences, beliefs that predictive testing can increase empowerment over health and positive attitudes about risk knowledge were associated with increased interest. Beliefs that predictive testing could cause psychological harm predicted lower interest. Patient characteristics of the proband were not associated with FDRs' interest. CONCLUSIONS: FDRs' interest in predictive testing for RA was high, and factors associated with interest were identified. These findings will inform the development of predictive strategies and informational resources for those at risk.

Development and validation of a prognostic model for leflunomide discontinuation with abnormal blood tests during long-term treatment: cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a prognostic model for LEF discontinuation with abnormal blood test results. METHODS: Data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Gold and Aurum were used for model development and external validation, respectively. Participants prescribed LEF between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2019 were followed up from 6 months after the first general practitioner prescription to the earliest of date of outcome, death, 5 year follow-up or 31 December 2019. Candidate prognostic factors were ascertained using theory and data-driven approaches. Penalized Cox regression was performed to develop the risk equation, followed by internal validation using 500 bootstraps to correct for optimism. Multiple imputation was applied to handle missing data. Model performance was assessed in terms of calibration and discrimination. RESULTS: Data for 1487 and 2329 participants contributing 3140 and 5246 person-years follow-up were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Thirteen candidate predictors were included in the model. Epilepsy and either cytopenia or elevated liver enzymes during the first 6 months of shared-care LEF prescription were strong predictors of drug discontinuation with a hazard ratio of 4.39 (95% CI 1.74, 11.06) and 3.06 (2.15, 4.35), respectively. The unadjusted and optimism-adjusted calibration slope in development data was 1.00 (95% CI 0.75, 1.25) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.47, 0.97), respectively. The calibration slope in validation data was 0.91 (95% CI 0.74, 1.07). The model showed prognostic separation with an optimism-adjusted Royston D statistic of 0.73 (95% CI 0.44, 1.02). CONCLUSION: We have developed and externally validated an easy-to-use prognostic model that may be used to risk stratify monitoring for LEF toxicity and to make informed choices about risks when choosing treatments.

Burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries and to identify factors associated with burnout. Methods: We systematically searched nine databases up to February 2022 to identify studies investigating burnout in primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries. There were no language limitations and we included observational studies. Two independent reviewers completed screening, study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate overall burnout prevalence as assessed using the Maslach Burnout Inventory subscales of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and personal accomplishment. We narratively report factors associated with burnout. Findings: The search returned 1568 articles. After selection, 60 studies from 20 countries were included in the narrative review and 31 were included in the meta-analysis. Three studies collected data during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic but provided limited evidence on the impact of the disease on burnout. The overall single-point prevalence of burnout ranged from 2.5% to 87.9% (43 studies). In the meta-analysis (31 studies), the pooled prevalence of a high level of emotional exhaustion was 28.1% (95% confidence interval, CI: 21.5-33.5), a high level of depersonalization was 16.4% (95% CI: 10.1-22.9) and a high level of reduced personal accomplishment was 31.9% (95% CI: 21.7-39.1). Conclusion: The substantial prevalence of burnout among primary health-care professionals in low- and middle-income countries has implications for patient safety, care quality and workforce planning. Further cross-sectional studies are needed to help identify evidence-based solutions, particularly in Africa and South-East Asia.