Barriers and facilitators to engaging with a digital self-management programme for painful distal upper limb musculoskeletal disorders: A qualitative exploratory study.

INTRODUCTION: People living with a painful distal upper limb musculoskeletal disorder (DUL-MSD) often experience pain, difficulty in doing everyday tasks and a reduced quality of life. Currently, there are challenges in the treatment of DUL-MSDs, highlighting the need to develop innovative approaches to rehabilitation. A potential solution is to develop and implement a digital self-management rehabilitation programme focussing on optimising recovery, improving function and reducing pain. Before developing this programme, we aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators to using a digital health intervention (DHI) for self-management of DUL-MSDs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the potential barriers and facilitators to using a DHI with people living with DUL-MSDs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A qualitative exploratory study was carried out with purposely selected participants consisting of 15 participants with DUL-MSDs and 13 HCPs. Three focus groups (FGs) and four semistructured interviews with DUL-MSD participants and semistructured interviews with 13 HCPs were conducted. FGs and interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: To address challenges in the care and management of DUL-MSDs, both HCPs and people living with a DUL-MSD welcomed the development of a DHI. This study identified several barriers and facilitators that would influence engagement with a digital intervention. Findings suggest that in developing a DHI, attention needs to be paid to digital design features, usability, tailoring, personalisation and consideration of how well usual care could be replicated digitally without direct HCP involvement. CONCLUSION: The identified digital design features of importance to participants will inform the design of a digital self-management rehabilitation programme for people living with DUL-MSDs. Addressing the barriers and facilitators to engagement with a DHI is essential in ensuring its relevance and acceptability to those who will use it. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) was integral throughout the study. PPIE members contributed to the development and planning of this study, checked and confirmed the relevance of the findings and are involved in the dissemination plans.

The efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose combination of apocynin and paeonol, APPA, in symptomatic knee OA: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Apocynin (AP) and paeonol (PA) are low molecular weight phenolic compounds with a broad array of anti-inflammatory and immunoregulatory effects. This study assessed of a fixed-dose combination of APPA in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2a trial enrolled participants with radiographic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence, KL, grades 2-3) and pain ≥40/100 on WOMAC pain subscale, and evaluated the efficacy and safety of oral APPA over a 28-day period. APPA 800 mg or matching placebo was administered twice daily in a 1:1 ratio. Post-hoc analyses explored the response to APPA in sub-groups with more severe pain and structural severity. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable at baseline; 152 subjects were enrolled and 148 completed the trial. There was no statistically significant difference between groups with respect to the primary outcome, WOMAC pain (mean difference between groups was -0.89, 95% CI: -5.62, 3.84, p = 0.71), nor WOMAC function or WOMAC total. However, predefined subgroup analyses of subjects with symptoms compatible with nociplastic/neuropathic pain features showed a statistically significant effect of APPA compared to placebo. Adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) were mild to moderate. CONCLUSION: Treatment with APPA 800 mg twice daily for 28 days in subjects with symptomatic knee OA was not associated with significant symptom improvement compared to placebo. The treatment was well-tolerated and safe. While the study was not powered for such analysis, pre-planned subgroup analyses showed a significant effect of APPA in subjects with nociplastic pain/severe OA, indicating that further research in the effects of APPA in appropriate patients is warranted.

Effectiveness and safety of polyacrylamide hydrogel injection for knee osteoarthritis: results from a 12-month follow up of an open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: There are few effective osteoarthritis (OA) therapies. A novel injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) previously demonstrated efficacy and safety up to week 26 in an open-label study of knee OA. Here we report longer-term effectiveness and safety data. METHODS: This multi-centre, open-label study included patients with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA. Primary outcome was WOMAC pain (0-100 scale) at 13 weeks, and patients continued to 26 weeks before entering a further 26-week extension phase. Secondary efficacy outcomes included WOMAC stiffness and function subscales, Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: 49 participants (31 women, mean age 70) received an ultrasound-guided, intra-articular injection of 6 ml iPAAG; 46 completed the extension phase to 52 weeks. There was a significant reduction in the WOMAC pain score from baseline to 52 weeks (- 17.7 points (95% CI - 23.1; - 12.4); p < 0.0001). Similar sustained improvements were observed for WOMAC stiffness (11.0 points; 95% CI - 17.0; - 4.9), physical function (18.0 points; 95% CI - 19.1; - 10.6), and PGA (16.3 points; 95% CI - 23.1; - 9.4). At 52 weeks 62.2% of patients were OMERACT-OARSI responders. From 26 to 52 weeks, 8 adverse effects (AE), including 1 serious AE (cerebrovascular accident) were reported in 5 subjects. None of the new adverse events were thought to be device related. CONCLUSION: This open-label study suggests persistent benefits and safety of iPAAG through 52 weeks after a single injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04179552.

Characterizing Osteophyte Formation in Knee Osteoarthritis: Application of Machine Learning Quantification of a Computerized Tomography Cohort: Implications for Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Osteophytes are commonly used to diagnose and guide knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, but their causes are unclear. Although they are not typically the focus of knee arthroplasty surgeons, they can predict case difficulty and length. Furthermore, their extent and location may yield much information about the knee joint status. The aims of this computed tomography-based study in patients awaiting total or partial knee arthroplasty were to: (1) measure osteophyte volume in anatomical subregions and relative change as total volume increases; (2) determine whether medial and/or lateral OA affects osteophyte distribution; and (3) explore relationships between osteophytes and OA severity. METHODS: Data were obtained from 4,928 computed tomography scans. Machine-learning-based imaging analyses enabled osteophyte segmentation and quantification, divided into anatomical regions. Mean three-dimensional joint space narrowing was assessed in medial and lateral compartments. A Bayesian model assessed the uniformity of osteophyte distribution. We correlated femoral osteophyte volumes with B-scores, a validated OA status measure. RESULTS: Total tibial (25%) and femoral osteophyte volumes (75%) within each knee correlated strongly (R2 = 0.85). Medial osteophytes (65.3%) were larger than lateral osteophytes (34.6%), with similar proportions in both the femur and tibia. Osteophyte growth was found in all compartments, and as total osteophyte volume increased, the relative distribution of osteophytes between compartments did not markedly change. No evidence of variation was found in the regional distribution of osteophyte volume between knees with medial, lateral, both, or no three-dimensional joint space narrowing in the femur or tibia. There was a direct relationship between osteophyte volume and OA severity. CONCLUSIONS: Osteophyte volume increased in both medial and lateral compartments proportionally with total osteophyte volume, regardless of OA location. The peripheral position of femoral osteophytes does not appear to contribute to load-bearing. This suggests that osteophytic growth represents a 'whole-knee'/global response. This work may have broad applications for knee OA, both surgically and nonoperatively.

Use of patient-reported global assessment measures in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: ACTTION systematic review and considerations.

ABSTRACT: Establishing clinically meaningful changes in pain experiences remains important for clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Regulatory guidance and pain measurement initiatives have recommended including patient-reported global assessment measures (eg, Patient-Global Impression of Change [PGIC]) to aid interpretation of within-patient differences in domain-specific clinical trial outcomes (eg, pain intensity). The objectives of this systematic review were to determine the frequency of global assessment measures inclusion, types of measures, domains assessed, number and types of response options, and how measures were analyzed. Of 4172 abstracts screened across 6 pain specialty journals, we reviewed 96 clinical trials of chronic pain treatments. Fifty-two (54.2%) studies included a global assessment measure. The PGIC was most common (n = 28; 53.8%), with relatively infrequent use of other measures. The majority of studies that used a global assessment measure (n = 31; 59.6%) assessed change or improvement in an unspecified domain. Others assessed overall condition severity (n = 9; 17.3%), satisfaction (n = 8; 15.4%), or overall health status/recovery (n = 5; 9.6%). The number, range, and type of response options were variable and frequently not reported. Response options and reference periods even differed within the PGIC. Global assessment measures were most commonly analyzed as continuous variables (n = 24; 46.2%) or as dichotomous variables with positive categories combined to calculate the proportion of participants with a positive response to treatment (n = 18; 34.6%). This review highlights the substantial work necessary to clarify measurement and use of patient global assessment in chronic pain trials and provides short- and long-term considerations for measure selection, reporting and analysis, and measure development.

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.

Exploring the Effects of Ixekizumab on Pain in Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis Based on Objective Measures of Inflammation: Post Hoc Analysis from a Large Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the improvement in spinal pain with ixekizumab, placebo, and adalimumab based on objective measures of inflammation response in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: The COAST-V 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial examined the efficacy of ixekizumab in patients with active AS; adalimumab was used as an active reference arm. Treatment effects on reduction in pain were assessed by objective measures of controlled and persisting inflammation (defined by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], C-reactive protein [CRP], or MRI + CRP status). Pathway analysis was used to analyze treatment effect that was not attributable to reduction in inflammation biomarkers. RESULTS: In patients with AS, when inflammation was controlled as assessed by MRI, patients treated with ixekizumab experienced a reduction in spinal pain at night (SP-N, numeric rating scale, ixekizumab mean = - 3.9, p < 0.001, adalimumab mean = - 2.6, p < 0.05) compared to placebo (mean = - 1.6) at week 16. When inflammation was controlled as assessed by MRI + CRP, ixekizumab and adalimumab had numerically greater reductions at week 16 in SP-N versus placebo. All ixekizumab groups had further improvements at week 52. When inflammation was persisting as assessed by MRI + CRP, ixekizumab-treated patients had significant reduction in SP-N (mean = - 3.7, p < 0.001) versus placebo (mean = - 1.7), improvement with adalimumab did not reach significance (mean = - 2.6, p = 0.06). In the pathway analysis at week 16, ixekizumab had a greater effect on pain outcomes compared to adalimumab. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis is supportive of the hypothesis that ixekizumab reduces pain in AS by additional mechanisms other than the reduction of measurable inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02696785.

Effect size varies based on calculation method and may affect interpretation of treatment effect: an illustration using randomised clinical trials in osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: To illustrate how (standardised) effect sizes (ES) vary based on calculation method and to provide considerations for improved reporting. METHODS: Data from three trials of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis were analyzed. ES of tanezumab versus comparator for WOMAC Pain (outcome) was defined as least squares difference between means (mixed model for repeated measures analysis) divided by a pooled standard deviation (SD) of outcome scores. Three approaches to computing the SD were evaluated: Baseline (the pooled SD of WOMAC Pain values at baseline [pooled across treatments]); Endpoint (the pooled SD of these values at the time primary endpoints were assessed); and Median (the median pooled SD of these values based on the pooled SDs across available timepoints). Bootstrap analyses were used to compute 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: ES (95% CI) of tanezumab 2.5 mg based on Baseline, Endpoint, and Median SDs in one study were - 0.416 (- 0.796, - 0.060), - 0.195 (- 0.371, - 0.028), and - 0.196 (- 0.373, - 0.028), respectively; negative values indicate pain improvement. This pattern of ES differences (largest with Baseline SD, smallest with Endpoint SD, Median SD similar to Endpoint SD) was consistent across all studies and doses of tanezumab. CONCLUSION: Differences in ES affect interpretation of treatment effect. Therefore, we advocate clearly reporting individual elements of ES in addition to its overall calculation. This is particularly important when ES estimates are used to determine sample sizes for clinical trials, as larger ES will lead to smaller sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02697773, NCT02709486, and NCT02528188.

Appraisal of quality and analysis of the similarities and differences between osteoarthritis Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aim to support management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), but recommendations are often conflicting and implementation is poor, contributing to evidence-to-practice gaps. This systematic review investigated the contextual and methodological factors contributing to conflicting recommendations for hip and knee OA. METHOD: Our systematic review appraised CPGs for managing hip and knee OA in adults ≥18 years (PROSPERO CRD42021276635). We used AGREE-II and AGREE-REX to assess quality and extracted data on treatment gaps, conflicts, biases, and consensus. Heterogeneity of recommendations was determined using Weighted Fleiss Kappa (K). The relationship between (K) and AGREE-II/AGREE-REX scores was explored. RESULTS: We identified 25 CPGs across eight countries and four international organisations. The ACR, EULAR, NICE, OARSI and RACGP guidelines scored highest for overall AGREE-II quality (83%). The highest overall AGREE-REX scores were for BMJ Arthroscopy (80%), RACGP (78%) and NICE (76%). CPGs with the least agreement for pharmacological recommendations were ESCEO and NICE (-0.14), ACR (-0.08), and RACGP (-0.01). The highest agreements were between RACGP and NICE (0.53), RACGP and ACR (0.61), and NICE and ACR (0.91). Decreased internal validity determined by low-quality AGREE scores(<60%) in editorial independence were associated with less agreement for pharmacological recommendations. CONCLUSION: There were associations between guideline quality and agreement scores. Future guideline development should be informed by robust evidence, editorial independence and methodological rigour to ensure a harmonisation of recommendations. End-users of CPGs must recognise the contextual factors associated with the development of OA CPGs and balance these factors with available evidence.

Enhancing current guidance for psoriatic arthritis and its comorbidities: recommendations from an expert consensus panel.

OBJECTIVES: Existing guidelines for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) cover many aspects of management. Some gaps remain relating to routine practice application. An expert group aimed to enhance current guidance and develop recommendations for clinical practice that are complementary to existing guidelines. METHODS: A steering committee comprising experienced, research-active clinicians in rheumatology, dermatology and primary care agreed on themes and relevant questions. A targeted literature review of PubMed and Embase following a PICO framework was conducted. At a second meeting, recommendations were drafted and subsequently an extended faculty comprising rheumatologists, dermatologists, primary care clinicians, specialist nurses, allied health professionals, non-clinical academic participants and members of the Brit-PACT patient group, was recruited. Consensus was achieved via an online voting platform when 75% of respondents agreed in the range of 7-9 on a 9-point scale. RESULTS: The guidance comprised 34 statements covering four PsA themes. Diagnosis focused on strategies to identify PsA early and refer appropriately, assessment of diagnostic indicators, use of screening tools and use of imaging. Disease assessment centred on holistic consideration of disease activity, physical functioning and impact from a patient perspective, and on how to implement shared decision-making. For comorbidities, recommendations included specific guidance for high-impact conditions such as depression and obesity. Management statements (which excluded extant guidance on pharmacological therapies) covered multidisciplinary team working, implementation of lifestyle modifications and treat-to-target strategies. Minimising corticosteroid use was recommended where feasible. CONCLUSION: The consensus group have made evidence-based best practice recommendations for the management of PsA to enhance the existing guidelines.

Toward designing human intervention studies to prevent osteoarthritis after knee injury: A report from an interdisciplinary OARSI 2023 workshop.

Objective: The global impact of osteoarthritis is growing. Currently no disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs/therapies exist, increasing the need for preventative strategies. Knee injuries have a high prevalence, distinct onset, and strong independent association with post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Numerous groups are embarking upon research that will culminate in clinical trials to assess the effect of interventions to prevent knee PTOA despite challenges and lack of consensus about trial design in this population. Our objectives were to improve awareness of knee PTOA prevention trial design and discuss state-of-the art methods to address the unique opportunities and challenges of these studies. Design: An international interdisciplinary group developed a workshop, hosted at the 2023 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Congress. Here we summarize the workshop content and outputs, with the goal of moving the field of PTOA prevention trial design forward. Results: Workshop highlights included discussions about target population (considering risk, homogeneity, and possibility of modifying osteoarthritis outcome); target treatment (considering delivery, timing, feasibility and effectiveness); comparators (usual care, placebo), and primary symptomatic outcomes considering surrogates and the importance of knee function and symptoms other than pain to this population. Conclusions: Opportunities to test multimodal PTOA prevention interventions across preclinical models and clinical trials exist. As improving symptomatic outcomes aligns with patient and regulator priorities, co-primary symptomatic (single or aggregate/multidimensional outcome considering function and symptoms beyond pain) and structural/physiological outcomes may be appropriate for these trials. To ensure PTOA prevention trials are relevant and acceptable to all stakeholders, future research should address critical knowledge gaps and challenges.

Polyacrylamide gel versus hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess non-inferiority of intra-articular injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) to hyaluronic acid (HA) on symptomatic benefit in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial recruited adults with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA from 3 clinical rheumatology sites in Denmark; two private clinics and one public hospital department. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a single intra-articular 6 mL injection of either HA or iPAAG on an outpatient basis. Primary outcome was change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscales, patients' global assessment of disease impact, EuroQoL-5D-5L, and proportion of positive OMERACT-OARSI responders after 26 and 52 weeks. RESULTS: 239 adults were randomised: 120 to HA and 119 to iPAAG. For the primary outcome, the least squares mean changes in WOMAC pain were -14.8 (95% CI: -18.0 to -11.7) for HA and -18.5 (95% CI: -21.7 to -15.4) for iPAAG; group difference: 3.7 (95% CI: -0.7 to 8.1). The lower boundary of the 95% CI respected the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 9 WOMAC pain points. No statistically significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. For HA, 9 participants (7.6%) reported 13 adverse device effects (ADEs). For iPAAG, 35 participants (28.9%) reported 41 ADEs. All ADEs were mild/moderate, with no serious ADEs reported. CONCLUSIONS: iPAAG was found to be as effective and safe as HA for treatment of knee OA symptoms for at least 1 year after a single injection.

Increasing uptake through collaboration in the development of core outcome sets: Lessons learned at OMERACT 2023.

OBJECTIVE: This manuscript highlights the importance of enhancing the uptake of Core Outcome Sets (COS) by building partnerships with Collaborators and addressing their needs in COS development. METHODS AND SETTING: This session was structured as a simulation, resembling a format akin to a classic television game show. The moderator posed a series of questions to eight different Collaborator groups who briefly described the importance of COS within their areas of interest. Previous studies examining the uptake of individual core outcomes revealed disparities in uptake rates. The Identified barriers to the uptake of COS include the lack of recommendations for validated instruments for each domain, insufficient involvement of patients and key Collaborator groups in COS development, and a lack of awareness regarding the existence of COS. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis underscores the need for COS development approaches that prioritize the inclusion of patients and diverse Collaborator groups at every stage. While current studies on COS uptake are limited, future research should explore the broader implementation of COS across diverse disease categories and delve into the factors that hinder or facilitate their uptake such as, the importance of COS developers extending their work to recommending domains with well validated instruments. Embracing patient leadership and multifaceted engagement is essential for advancing the relevance and impact of COS in clinical research.

Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

The OMERACT whole-body MRI scoring system for inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses (WIPE) in spondyloarthritis - reference image atlas for the knee region.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reference image atlas for the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology whole-body MRI scoring system for inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses (OMERACT MRI-WIPE) of the knee region. METHODS: Image examples of each pathology, location and grade, were collected and discussed at web-based, interactive meetings within the OMERACT MRI in Arthritis Working Group. Subsequently, reference images were selected by consensus. RESULTS: Reference images for each grade, pathology and location are depicted, along with definitions, reader rules and recommended MRI-sequences. CONCLUSION: The atlas guides scoring whole-body MRIs for inflammation in joints and entheses of the knee region according to MRI-WIPE methodology in clinical trials and cohorts.

Hip and pelvis region MRI reference image atlas for scoring inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses according to the OMERACT-MRI WIPE scoring system in patients with spondyloarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reference image atlas for scoring the hip/pelvis region according to the OMERACT whole-body MRI scoring system for inflammation in peripheral joints and entheses (MRI-WIPE). METHODS: We collected image examples of each pathology, location and grade, discussed them at web-based, interactive meetings and, finally, selected reference images by consensus. RESULTS: Reference images for each grade and location of osteitis, synovitis and soft tissue inflammation are provided, as are definitions, reader rules and recommended MRI-sequences. CONCLUSION: A reference image atlas was created to guide scoring whole-body MRIs for arthritis and enthesitis in the hip/pelvis region in spondyloarthritis/psoriatic arthritis clinical trials and cohorts.

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.

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.