Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care. METHODS: This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1-7 by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1-7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference -0.18; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1-7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).

Exploring Patients' Experiences of Internet-Based Self-Management Support for Low Back Pain in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: We explored patients' experiences of using Internet-based self-management support for low back pain (LBP) in primary care, with and without physiotherapist telephone guidance. DESIGN: Exploratory descriptive qualitative study using thematic analysis, nested within a randomized feasibility trial. METHODS: Patients with LBP who participated in a feasibility trial of the SupportBack Internet intervention (ISRCTN: 31034004) were invited to take part in semistructured telephone interviews after the three-month intervention period (a convenience sample from within the trial population). Fifteen participants took part (age range = 36-87 years, 66.7% female, characteristics representative of the trial population). Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Analysis resulted in the development of six themes (subthemes in parentheses): Perceptions of SupportBack's design (Clarity and ease of use, Variety and range of information provided, Need for specificity and flexibility), Engaging with the SupportBack intervention, Promoting positive thought processes (Reassurance, Awareness of self-management), Managing behavior with SupportBack (Motivation and goal setting, Using activity as a pain management strategy, Preferences for walking or gentle back exercises), Feeling supported by telephone physiotherapists (Provision of reassurances and clarity, Physiotherapists are motivating), Severity and comorbidity as barriers (Preexisting condition or severity acting as a barrier, Less useful for mild low back pain). CONCLUSIONS: The Internet intervention SupportBack appeared to feasibly support self-management of LBP. Reassurance and ongoing support to implement behavioral changes were central to reported benefits. The addition of physiotherapist telephone support further enhanced the patient experience and the potential utility of the intervention.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of corticosteroid injection versus night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome (INSTINCTS trial): an open-label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, the comparative effectiveness of commonly used conservative treatments for carpal tunnel syndrome has not been evaluated previously in primary care. We aimed to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of night splints with a corticosteroid injection with regards to reducing symptoms and improving hand function in patients with mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome. METHODS: We did this randomised, open-label, pragmatic trial in adults (≥18 years) with mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome recruited from 25 primary and community musculoskeletal clinics and services. Patients with a new episode of idiopathic mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome of at least 6 weeks' duration were eligible. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients (permutated blocks of two and four by site) with an online web or third party telephone service to receive either a single injection of 20 mg methylprednisolone acetate (from 40 mg/mL) or a night-resting splint to be worn for 6 weeks. Patients and clinicians could not be masked to the intervention. The primary outcome was the overall score of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) at 6 weeks. We used intention-to-treat analysis, with multiple imputation for missing data, which was concealed to treatment group allocation. The trial is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database, number 2013-001435-48, and ClinicalTrial.gov, number NCT02038452. FINDINGS: Between April 17, 2014, and Dec 31, 2016, 234 participants were randomly assigned (118 to the night splint group and 116 to the corticosteroid injection group), of whom 212 (91%) completed the BCTQ at 6 weeks. The BCTQ score was significantly better at 6 weeks in the corticosteroid injection group (mean 2·02 [SD 0·81]) than the night splint group (2·29 [0·75]; adjusted mean difference -0·32; 95% CI -0·48 to -0·16; p=0·0001). No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: A single corticosteroid injection shows superior clinical effectiveness at 6 weeks compared with night-resting splints, making it the treatment of choice for rapid symptom response in mild or moderate carpal tunnel syndrome presenting in primary care. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK.

Inflammatory biomarkers do not distinguish between patients with sciatica and referred leg pain within a primary care population: results from a nested study within the ATLAS cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the role of pro-inflammatory cytokines in the pathogenesis of sciatica and whether these could be potential targets for treatment. We sought to investigate serum biomarker levels in patients with low back-related leg pain, including sciatica. METHODS: Primary care consulters aged > 18 with low back-related leg pain were recruited to a cohort study (ATLAS). Participants underwent a standardised clinical assessment, lumbar spine MRI and a subsample (n = 119) had samples taken for biomarker analysis. Participants were classified having: a) clinically confirmed sciatica or referred leg pain, and then subdivided into those with (or without) MRI confirmed nerve root compression due to disc prolapse. Seventeen key cytokines, chemokines and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) implicated in sciatica pathogenesis including TNFα and IL-6, were assayed in duplicate using commercial multiplex detection kits and measured using a Luminex suspension array system. Median biomarker levels were compared between the groups using a Mann Whitney U test. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association between clinical measures and biomarker levels adjusted for possible confounders such as age, sex, and symptom duration. RESULTS: No difference was found in the serum level of any of the 17 biomarkers tested in patients with (n = 93) or without (n = 26) clinically confirmed sciatica, nor between those with (n = 44) or without (n = 49) sciatica and MRI confirmed nerve root compression. CONCLUSION: In this cohort, no significant differences in serum levels of TNFα, IL-6 or any other biomarkers were seen between patients with sciatica and those with back pain with referred leg pain. These results suggest that in patients with low back-related leg pain, serum markers associated with inflammation do not discriminate between patients with or without clinically confirmed sciatica or between those with or without evidence of nerve root compression on MRI.

Matching treatment options for risk sub-groups in musculoskeletal pain: a consensus groups study.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) pain represents a considerable worldwide healthcare burden. This study aimed to gain consensus from practitioners who work with MSK pain patients, on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for subgroups of patients based on prognostic risk of persistent disabling pain. Agreement was sought on treatment options for the five most common MSK pain presentations: back, neck, knee, shoulder and multisite pain, across three risk subgroups: low, medium and high. METHODS: Three consensus group meetings were conducted with multi-disciplinary groups of practitioners (n = 20) using Nominal Group Technique, a systematic approach to building consensus using structured in-person meetings of stakeholders which follows a distinct set of stages. RESULTS: For all five pain presentations, "education and advice" and "simple oral and topical pain medications" were agreed to be appropriate for all subgroups. For patients at low risk, across all five pain presentations "review by primary care practitioner if not improving after 6 weeks" also reached consensus. Treatment options for those at medium risk differed slightly across pain-presentations, but all included: "consider referral to physiotherapy" and "consider referral to MSK-interface-clinic". Treatment options for patients at high risk also varied by pain presentation. Some of the same options were included as for patients at medium risk, and additional options included: "opioids"; "consider referral to expert patient programme" (across all pain presentations); and "consider referral for surgical opinion" (back, knee, neck, shoulder). "Consider referral to rheumatology" was agreed for patients at medium and high risk who have multisite pain. CONCLUSION: In addressing the current lack of robust evidence on the effectiveness of different treatment options for MSK pain, this study generated consensus from practitioners on the most appropriate primary care treatment options for MSK patients stratified according to prognostic risk. These findings can help inform future clinical decision-making and also influenced the matched treatment options in a trial of stratified primary care for MSK pain patients.

Uptake of the NICE osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: a survey of older adults with joint pain.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability. NICE OA guidelines (2008) recommend that patients with OA should be offered core treatments in primary care. Assessments of OA management have identified a need to improve primary care of people with OA, as recorded use of interventions concordant with the NICE guidelines is suboptimal in primary care. The aim of this study was to i) describe the patient-reported uptake of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and ii) determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey mailed to adults aged ≥45 years (n = 28,443) from eight general practices in the UK as part of the MOSAICS study. Respondents who reported the presence of joint pain, a consultation in the previous 12 months for joint pain, and gave consent to medical record review formed the sample for this study. RESULTS: Four thousand fifty-nine respondents were included in the analysis (mean age 65.6 years (SD 11.2), 2300 (56.7%) females). 502 (12.4%) received an OA diagnosis in the previous 12 months. More participants reported using pharmacological treatments (e.g. paracetamol (31.3%), opioids (40.4%)) than non-pharmacological treatments (e.g. exercise (3.8%)). Those with an OA diagnosis were more likely to use written information (OR 1.57; 95% CI 1.26,1.96), paracetamol (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.05,1.62) and topical NSAIDs (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.04,1.62) than those with a joint pain code. People aged ≥75 years were less likely to use written information (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.40,0.79) and exercise (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25,0.55) and more likely to use paracetamol (OR 1.91; 95% CI 1.38,2.65) than those aged < 75 years. CONCLUSION: The cross-sectional population survey was conducted to examine the uptake of the treatments that are recommended in the NICE OA guidelines in older adults with a self-reported consultation for joint pain and to determine whether patient characteristics or OA diagnosis impact uptake. Non-pharmacological treatment was suboptimal compared to pharmacological treatment. Implementation of NICE guidelines needs to examine why non-pharmacological treatments, such as exercise, remain under-used especially among older people.

The effects of implementing a point-of-care electronic template to prompt routine anxiety and depression screening in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (the Primary Care Osteoarthritis Trial): A cluster randomised trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate whether prompting general practitioners (GPs) to routinely assess and manage anxiety and depression in patients consulting with osteoarthritis (OA) improves pain outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 45 English general practices. In intervention practices, patients aged ≥45 y consulting with OA received point-of-care anxiety and depression screening by the GP, prompted by an automated electronic template comprising five questions (a two-item Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depression, a two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 questionnaire for anxiety, and a question about current pain intensity [0-10 numerical rating scale]). The template signposted GPs to follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guidelines for anxiety, depression, and OA and was supported by a brief training package. The template in control practices prompted GPs to ask the pain intensity question only. The primary outcome was patient-reported current pain intensity post-consultation and at 3-, 6-, and 12-mo follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain-related disability, anxiety, depression, and general health. During the trial period, 7,279 patients aged ≥45 y consulted with a relevant OA-related code, and 4,240 patients were deemed potentially eligible by participating GPs. Templates were completed for 2,042 patients (1,339 [31.6%] in the control arm and 703 [23.1%] in the intervention arm). Of these 2,042 patients, 1,412 returned questionnaires (501 [71.3%] from 20 intervention practices, 911 [68.0%] from 24 control practices). Follow-up rates were similar in both arms, totalling 1,093 (77.4%) at 3 mo, 1,064 (75.4%) at 6 mo, and 1,017 (72.0%) at 12 mo. For the primary endpoint, multilevel modelling yielded significantly higher average pain intensity across follow-up to 12 mo in the intervention group than the control group (adjusted mean difference 0.31; 95% CI 0.04, 0.59). Secondary outcomes were consistent with the primary outcome measure in reflecting better outcomes as a whole for the control group than the intervention group. Anxiety and depression scores did not reduce following the intervention. The main limitations of this study are two potential sources of bias: an imbalance in cluster size (mean practice size 7,397 [intervention] versus 5,850 [control]) and a difference in the proportion of patients for whom the GP deactivated the template (33.6% [intervention] versus 27.8% [control]). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed no beneficial effect on pain outcomes of prompting GPs to routinely screen for and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with symptoms due to OA, with those in the intervention group reporting statistically significantly higher average pain scores over the four follow-up time points than those in the control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN40721988.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581).

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of 'wait and see' for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75449581 , date: 20.11.2014.

Reliability among clinicians diagnosing low back-related leg pain.

PURPOSE: To investigate agreement and reliability among clinicians when diagnosing low back-related leg pain (LBLP) in primary care consulters. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were assessed by one of six physiotherapists and diagnosed as having either leg pain due to nerve root involvement (sciatica) or referred leg pain. Assessments were video recorded. In part one, the physiotherapists each viewed videos of six patients they had not assessed. In part two, videos were viewed by another six health professionals. All clinicians made an independent differential diagnosis and rated their confidence with diagnosis (range 50-100 %). RESULTS: In part one agreement was 72 % with fair inter-rater reliability (K = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.07, 0.63). Results for part two were almost identical (K = 0.34, 95 % CI 0.02, 0.69). Agreement and reliability indices improved as diagnostic confidence increased. CONCLUSION: Reliability was fair among clinicians from different backgrounds when diagnosing LBLP but improved substantially with high confidence in clinical diagnosis.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of steroid injection compared with night splints for carpal tunnel syndrome: the INSTINCTS randomised clinical trial study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with idiopathic mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) are usually managed in primary care and commonly treated with night splints and/or corticosteroid injection. The comparative effectiveness of these interventions has not been reliably established nor investigated in the medium and long term. The primary objective of this trial is to investigate whether corticosteroid injection is effective in reducing symptoms and improving hand function in mild to moderate CTS over 6 weeks when compared with night splints. Secondary objectives are to determine specified comparative clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness of corticosteroid injection over 6 and 24 months. METHOD/DESIGN: A multicentre, randomised, parallel group, clinical pragmatic trial will recruit 240 adults aged ≥18 years with mild to moderate CTS from GP Practices and Primary-Secondary Care Musculoskeletal Interface Clinics. Diagnosis will be by standardised clinical assessment. Participants will be randomised on an equal basis to receive either one injection of 20 mg Depo-Medrone or a night splint to be worn for 6 weeks. The primary outcome is the overall score of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire (BCTQ) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes are the BCTQ symptom severity and function status subscales, symptom intensity, interrupted sleep, adherence to splinting, perceived benefit and satisfaction with treatment, work absence and reduction in work performance, EQ-5D-5L, referral to surgery and health utilisation costs. Participants will be assessed at baseline and followed up at 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months. The primary analysis will use an intention to treat (ITT) approach and multiple imputation for missing data. The sample size was calculated to detect a 15 % greater improvement in the BTCQ overall score in the injection group compared to night-splinting at approximately 90 % power, 5 % two-tailed significance and allows for 15 % loss to follow-up. DISCUSSION: The trial makes an important contribution to the evidence base available to support effective conservative management of CTS in primary care. No previous trials have directly compared these treatments for CTS in primary care populations, reported on clinical effectiveness at more than 6 months nor compared cost effectiveness of the interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: EudraCT 2013-001435-48 (registered 05/06/2013), ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02038452 (registered 16/1/2014), and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN09392969 (retrospectively registered 01/05/2014).

Exercise and physical activity in older adults with knee pain: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and explore current exercise and physical activity behaviour in older adults with knee pain in the UK. METHODS: A survey was mailed to 2234 adults ≥50 years of age registered with one general practice within the UK to determine the presence and severity of knee pain and levels of physical activity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 questionnaire responders with knee pain. RESULTS: The questionnaire response rate was 59% (n = 1276) and 611 respondents reported knee pain. Only ∼40% of individuals with knee pain were sufficiently active to meet physical activity recommendations. Interviews revealed individual differences in the type and setting of physical activity completed and some self-monitored their symptoms in response to physical activity in order to guide future behaviour. CONCLUSION: Innovative interventions that can be adapted to suit individual needs and preferences are required to help older adults with knee pain become more physically active.

Joint protection and hand exercises for hand osteoarthritis: an economic evaluation comparing methods for the analysis of factorial trials.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of joint protection and hand exercises for the management of hand OA is not well established. The primary aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of these management options. In addition, given the absence of consensus regarding the conduct of economic evaluation alongside factorial trials, we compare different analytical methodologies. METHODS: A trial-based economic evaluation to assess the cost-utility of joint protection only, hand exercises only and joint protection plus hand exercises compared with leaflet and advice was undertaken over a 12 month period from a UK National Health Service perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each trial arm. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. The base case analysis used a within-the-table analysis methodology. Two further methods were explored: the at-the-margins approach and a regression-based approach with or without an interaction term. RESULTS: Mean costs (QALYs) were £58.46 (s.d. 0.662) for leaflet and advice, £92.12 (s.d. 0.659) for joint protection, £64.51 (s.d. 0.681) for hand exercises and £112.38 (s.d. 0.658) for joint protection plus hand exercises. In the base case, hand exercises were the cost-effective option, with an ICER of £318 per QALY gained. Hand exercises remained the most cost-effective management strategy when adopting alternative methodological approaches. CONCLUSION: This is the first trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of occupational therapy-supported approaches to self-management for hand OA. Our findings showed that hand exercises were the most cost-effective option.

Quality of care for OA: the effect of a point-of-care consultation recording template.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine the feasibility of introducing a computerized template for identifying quality of care during an OA consultation, describe quality of OA care in practices in which the template was introduced and assess the effect of the template on routinely recorded clinician behaviour in those practices. METHODS: A computerized template to assist the recording of care in consultations for patients with OA was installed in eight general practices. Eligible patients were those ≥45 years of age consulting for clinical OA during a 6 month period. The main outcomes were frequency of template triggering, achievement of quality indicators during the consultation (assessment of pain and function, assessment for first-line analgesics, provision of information, exercise advice, consideration of physiotherapy referral, weight loss advice) and change in routinely recorded clinician behaviour (diagnostic coding, prescribing, referral, use of radiography, weight records) compared with the 12 months prior to template installation. RESULTS: The template was triggered for 1730 patients. Achievement of indicators ranged from 36% (for consideration of physiotherapy referral) to 63% (for pain assessment), with substantial variability between clinicians. There was an increase in prescription of recommended first-line analgesics following the template installation: paracetamol [odds ratio (OR) 1.49 (95% CI 1.22, 1.82) compared with pre-template] and topical NSAIDs [OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.61, 2.35)]. CONCLUSION: This new template is a feasible tool for capturing data during OA consultations to aid assessment of quality of care. It was associated with significant improvements in recommended care processes. However, strategies are needed to ensure consistent approaches between clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN06984617/mosaics.

Characteristics of patients with low back and leg pain seeking treatment in primary care: baseline results from the ATLAS cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with back pain radiating to the leg(s) report worse symptoms and poorer recovery than those with back pain alone. Robust evidence regarding their epidemiological profile is lacking from primary care, the setting where most of these patients will present and be managed. Our objective was to describe the characteristics of patients with back and leg pain, including sciatica, seeking treatment in primary care. METHODS: Adults visiting their general practitioner with back and leg pain, of any duration and severity, were invited to participate. Participants completed questionnaires, underwent clinical assessments and received MRI scans. Characteristics of the sample are described, and differences between patients diagnosed with referred leg pain and those with sciatica are analysed. RESULTS: Six hundred nine patients participated; 62.6 % were female, mean (SD) age 50.2 (13.9). 67.5 % reported pain below the knee, 60.7 % were in paid employment with 39.7 % reporting time off work. Mean disability (RMDQ) was 12.7 (5.7) and mean pain intensity was 5.6 (2.2) and 5.2 (2.4) for back and leg respectively. Mean sciatica bothersomeness index (SBI) was 14.9 (5.1). Three quarters (74.2 %) were clinically diagnosed as having sciatica. In the sciatica group, leg pain intensity, neuropathic pain, pain below the knee, leg pain worse than back pain, SBI and positive MRI findings were significantly higher as compared to patients with referred leg pain. CONCLUSIONS: This primary care cohort reported high levels of disability and pain. This is the first epidemiological study of unselected primary care patients seeking healthcare for back and leg pain. Follow-up of this cohort will investigate the prognostic value of their baseline characteristics. This new information will contribute to our understanding of the characteristics and clinical features of this population, and will underpin future research aimed at defining prognostic subgroups to enable better targeting of health care provision.

Effect of stratified care for low back pain in family practice (IMPaCT Back): a prospective population-based sequential comparison.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician's clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. METHODS: The IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: The 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8-3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended.

Subacromial impingement syndrome and pain: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of exercise and corticosteroid injection (the SUPPORT trial).

BACKGROUND: Subacromial impingement syndrome is the most frequent cause of shoulder problems which themselves affect 1 in 3 adults. Management commonly includes exercise and corticosteroid injection. However, the few existing trials of exercise or corticosteroid injection for subacromial impingement syndrome are mostly small, of poor quality, and focus only on short-term results. Exercise packages tend to be standardised rather than individualised and progressed. There has been much recent interest in improving outcome from corticosteroid injections by using musculoskeletal ultrasound to guide injections. However, there are no high-quality trials comparing ultrasound-guided and blind corticosteroid injection in subacromial impingement syndrome. This trial will investigate how to optimise the outcome of subacromial impingement syndrome from exercise (standardised advice and information leaflet versus physiotherapist-led exercise) and from subacromial corticosteroid injection (blind versus ultrasound-guided), and provide long-term follow-up data on clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: The study design is a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial. 252 adults with subacromial impingement syndrome will be recruited from two musculoskeletal Clinical Assessment and Treatment Services at the primary-secondary care interface in Staffordshire, UK. Participants will be randomised on a 1:1:1:1 basis to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet, (3) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and a physiotherapist-led exercise programme, or (4) blind subacromial corticosteroid injection and an advice and exercise leaflet. The primary intention-to-treat analysis will be the mean differences in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores at 6 weeks for the comparison between injection interventions and at 6 months for the comparison between exercise interventions. Although independence of treatment effects is assumed, the magnitude of any interaction effect will be examined (but is not intended for the main analyses). Secondary outcomes will include comparison of long-term outcomes (12 months) and cost-effectiveness. A secondary per protocol analysis will also be performed. DISCUSSION: This protocol paper presents detail of the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the SUPPORT trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN42399123.

A multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of three physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: the BEEP trial protocol (ISRCTN: 93634563).

BACKGROUND: Exercise is consistently recommended for older adults with knee pain related to osteoarthritis. However, the effects from exercise are typically small and short-term, likely linked to insufficient individualisation of the exercise programme and limited attention to supporting exercise adherence over time. The BEEP randomised trial aims to improve patients' short and long-term outcomes from exercise. It will test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two physiotherapy-led exercise interventions (Individually Tailored Exercise and Targeted Exercise Adherence) to improve the individual tailoring of, and adherence to exercise, compared with usual physiotherapy care. METHODS/DESIGN: Based on the learning from a pilot study (ISRCTN 23294263), the BEEP trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with embedded longitudinal qualitative interviews. 500 adults in primary care, aged 45 years and over with knee pain will be randomised to 1 of 3 treatment groups delivered by fully trained physiotherapists in up to 6 NHS services. These are: Usual Physiotherapy Care (control group consisting of up to 4 treatment sessions of advice and exercise), Individually Tailored Exercise (an individualised, supervised and progressed lower-limb exercise programme) or Targeted Exercise Adherence (supporting patients to adhere to exercise and to engage in general physical activity over the longer-term). The primary outcomes are pain and function as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis index. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes are also included. Outcomes are measured at 3, 6 (primary outcome time-point), 9, 18 and 36 months. Data on adverse events will also be collected. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a subsample of 30 participants (10 from each treatment group) will be undertaken at two time-points (end of treatment and 12 to 18 months later) and analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: This trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of older adults with knee pain attributable to osteoarthritis in primary care. The findings will have important implications for healthcare commissioners, general practitioners and physiotherapy service providers and it will inform future education of healthcare practitioners. It may also serve to delay or prevent some individuals from becoming surgical candidates. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN: ISRCTN93634563.

Rationale, design and methods of the Study of Work and Pain (SWAP): a cluster randomised controlled trial testing the addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients with musculoskeletal pain (ISRCTN 52269669).

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal pain is a major contributor to short and long term work absence. Patients seek care from their general practitioner (GP) and yet GPs often feel ill-equipped to deal with work issues. Providing a vocational case management service in primary care, to support patients with musculoskeletal problems to remain at or return to work, is one potential solution but requires robust evaluation to test clinical and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol describes a cluster randomised controlled trial, with linked qualitative interviews, to investigate the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into general practice, to provide a structured approach to managing work related issues in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain who are absent from work or struggling to remain in work. General practices (n = 6) will be randomised to offer best current care or best current care plus a vocational advice service. Adults of working age who are absent from or struggling to remain in work due to a musculoskeletal pain problem will be invited to participate and 330 participants will be recruited. Data collection will be through patient completed questionnaires at baseline, 4 and 12 months. The primary outcome is self-reported work absence at 4 months. Incremental cost-utility analysis will be undertaken to calculate the cost per additional QALY gained and incremental net benefits. A linked interview study will explore the experiences of the vocational advice service from the perspectives of GPs, nurse practitioners (NPs), patients and vocational advisors. DISCUSSION: This paper presents the rationale, design, and methods of the Study of Work And Pain (SWAP) trial. The results of this trial will provide evidence to inform primary care practice and guide the development of services to provide support for musculoskeletal pain patients with work-related issues. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52269669.

Subacromial impingement syndrome--effectiveness of physiotherapy and manual therapy.

BACKGROUND: The subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) includes the rotator cuff syndrome, tendonitis and bursitis of the shoulder. Treatment includes surgical and non-surgical modalities. Non-surgical treatment is used to reduce pain, to decrease the subacromial inflammation, to heal the compromised rotator cuff and to restore satisfactory function of the shoulder. To select the most appropriate non-surgical intervention and to identify gaps in scientific knowledge, we explored the effectiveness of the interventions used, concentrating on the effectiveness of physiotherapy and manual therapy. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, PEDro and CINAHL were searched for relevant systematic reviews and randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality. A best-evidence synthesis was used to summarise the results. RESULTS: Two reviews and 10 RCTs were included. One RCT studied manual therapy as an add-on therapy to self-training. All other studies studied the effect of physiotherapy: effectiveness of exercise therapy, mobilisation as an add-on therapy to exercises, ultrasound, laser and pulsed electromagnetic field. Moderate evidence was found for the effectiveness of hyperthermia compared to exercise therapy or ultrasound in the short term. Hyperthermia and exercise therapy were more effective in comparison to controls or placebo in the short term (moderate evidence). For the effectiveness of hyperthermia, no midterm or long-term results were studied. In the midterm, exercise therapy gave the best results (moderate evidence) compared to placebo or controls. For other interventions, conflicting, limited or no evidence was found. CONCLUSIONS: Some physiotherapeutic treatments seem to be promising (moderate evidence) to treat SIS, but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as adjunct to primary care management for tennis elbow: pragmatic randomised controlled trial (TATE trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Can transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), as a patient controlled adjunct to primary care management for tennis elbow, provide superior pain relief to primary care management alone. SUMMARY ANSWER: TENS conferred no additional clinical benefit over primary care management consisting of information and advice on analgesia and exercise for patients with tennis elbow, probably partly owing to poor adherence to treatment recommendations. WHAT IS KNOWN AND WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: A need exists for safe, self administered interventions to provide pain relief for patients with tennis elbow. TENS as an adjunct to primary care management failed to show any additional pain relief compared with primary care management alone.