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.

Real-world evidence: new opportunities for osteoporosis research. Recommendations from a Working Group from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

This narrative review summarises the recommendations of a Working Group of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) for the conduct and reporting of real-world evidence studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. PURPOSE: Vast amounts of data are routinely generated at every healthcare contact and activity, and there is increasing recognition that these real-world data can be analysed to generate scientific evidence. Real-world evidence (RWE) is increasingly used to delineate the natural history of disease, assess real-life drug effectiveness, understand adverse events and in health economic analysis. The aim of this work was to understand the benefits and limitations of this type of data and outline approaches to ensure that transparent and high-quality evidence is generated. METHODS: A ESCEO Working Group was convened in December 2022 to discuss the applicability of RWE to osteoporosis research and approaches to best practice. RESULTS: This narrative review summarises the agreed recommendations for the conduct and reporting of RWE studies with a focus on osteoporosis research. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative that research using real-world data is conducted to the highest standards with close attention to limitations and biases of these data, and with transparency at all stages of study design, data acquisition and curation, analysis and reporting to increase the trustworthiness of RWE study findings.

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

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

FDA/Arthritis Foundation osteoarthritis drug development workshop recap: Assessment of long-term benefit.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize proceedings of a workshop convened to discuss the current state of science in the disease of osteoarthritis (OA), identify the knowledge gaps, and examine the developmental and regulatory challenges in bringing these products to market. DESIGN: Summary of the one-day workshop held virtually on June 22nd, 2021. RESULTS: Speakers selected by the Planning Committee presented data on the current approach to assessment of OA therapies, biomarkers in OA drug development, and the assessment of disease progression and long-term benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Demonstrated by numerous failed clinical trials, OA is a challenging disease for which to develop therapeutics. The challenge is magnified by the slow time of onset of disease and the need for clinical trials of long duration and/or large sample size to demonstrate the effect of an intervention. The OA science community, including academia, pharmaceutical companies, regulatory agencies, and patient communities, must continue to develop and test better clinical endpoints that meaningfully reflect disease modification related to long-term patient benefit.

Burden of chronic low back pain: Association with pain severity and prescription medication use in five large European countries.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed associations between severity of, and prescription medication use for, chronic low back pain (CLBP) and health-related quality of life, health status, work productivity, and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilized SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and work productivity and activity impairment (WPAI) questionnaires, and visits to healthcare providers among adults with self-reported CLBP participating in the National Health and Wellness Survey in Germany, France, UK, Italy, and Spain. Respondents were stratified into four groups according to pain severity (mild or moderate/severe) and prescription medication use (Rx-treated or Rx-untreated). Differences between groups were estimated using generalized linear models controlling for sociodemographics and health characteristics. RESULTS: Of 2086 respondents with CLBP, 683 had mild pain (276 Rx-untreated, 407 Rx-treated) and 1403 had moderate/severe pain (781 Rx-untreated, 622 Rx-treated). Respondents with moderate/severe pain had significantly worse health-related quality of life (SF-12v2 physical component summary), health status (EQ-5D-5L), and both absenteeism and presenteeism compared with those with mild pain, including Rx-untreated (moderate/severe pain Rx-untreated vs. mild pain Rx-untreated, p ≤ 0.05) and Rx-treated (moderate/severe pain Rx-treated vs. mild pain Rx-treated, p ≤ 0.05) groups. Significantly more visits to healthcare providers in the last 6 months were reported for moderate/severe pain compared with mild pain for Rx-treated (least squares mean 13.01 vs. 10.93, p = 0.012) but not Rx-untreated (8.72 vs. 7.61, p = 0.072) groups. Health-related quality of life (SF-12v2 physical component summary) and health status (EQ-5D-5L), as well as absenteeism and presenteeism, were significantly worse, and healthcare utilization was significantly higher, in the moderate/severe pain Rx-treated group compared with all other groups (all p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: Greater severity of CLBP was associated with worse health-related quality of life, health status, and absenteeism and presenteeism, irrespective of prescription medication use. Greater severity of CLBP was associated with increased healthcare utilization in prescription medication users.

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

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

Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Benefit-Risk Assessment Across a Phase III Program.

Treating to a target of clinical remission or low disease activity is an important principle for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the availability of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), a substantial proportion of patients with RA do not achieve these treatment targets. Upadacitinib is a once-daily, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with increased selectivity for JAK1 over JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2. The SELECT phase III upadacitinib clinical program comprised five pivotal trials of approximately 4400 patients with RA, including inadequate responders (IR) to conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs or bDMARDs. This review aims to provide insights into the benefit-risk profile of upadacitinib in patients with RA. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy, achieved all primary and ranked secondary endpoints in the five pivotal trials across csDMARD-naïve, csDMARD-IR, and bDMARD-IR populations. Upadacitinib 15 mg also demonstrated significantly higher rates of remission and low disease activity in all five pivotal trials, compared with placebo, methotrexate, or adalimumab. Labeled warnings of JAK inhibitors include serious infections, herpes zoster, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, and venous thromboembolic events. Short- and long-term integrated analyses showed that upadacitinib 15 mg was associated with increased risk of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase elevations compared with methotrexate and adalimumab but otherwise had comparable safety with these active comparators. This review suggests that upadacitinib 15 mg had a favorable benefit-risk profile. The safety of upadacitinib will continue to be monitored in long-term extensions and post-marketing studies.

Are pain severity and current pharmacotherapies associated with quality of life, work productivity, and healthcare utilisation for people with osteoarthritis in five large European countries?

OBJECTIVES: Although the osteoarthritis (OA) burden is well-recognised, the benefit of currently available OA pharmacological therapy is not clear. This study aimed to assess whether the impact of OA pain on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), work, and healthcare resource utilisation (HRU) differed by both pain severity and prescription medication status. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used pooled data from the 2016/2017 European National Health and Wellness Survey. Respondents with self-reported physician-diagnosed OA and pain were included. Outcomes examined included HRQoL, health utility, health status, work productivity and activity impairment, and HRU. Groups derived from self-reported pain severity and prescription medication use were compared using chi-square tests, analysis of variance, and generalised linear models controlling for socio-demographics, health behaviours, and health status. RESULTS: Respondents with OA (n=2417) reported mild (40.4%, of which 44.9% prescription-treated) and moderate to severe pain (59.6%, of which 54.0% prescription-treated). HRQoL, health utility, health status, and work and activity impairment were substantially worse among the moderate/severe pain prescription-treated group compared to the rest (e.g. SF-12v2 physical component score [PCS] for moderate/severe pain prescription-treated=34.5 versus mild pain prescription-treated =39.3, moderate/severe pain prescription-untreated=40.6, and mild pain prescription-untreated=45.6; p<0.01). HRU such as the mean number of emergency room visits for >6 months was higher in the prescription-treated groups (0.51-0.52, 95% CI 0.437-0.71) than the prescription-untreated groups (0.30-0.34, 95% CI 0.21-0.46; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Persons with moderate to severe OA pain treated with available prescription medications have poor health status and HRQoL and increased HRU compared to those not receiving prescription medications.

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

BACKGROUND: Patients' pre-operative health and physical function is known to influence their post-operative outcomes. In patients with knee osteoarthritis, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are often not optimised prior to joint replacement. This results in some patients undergoing surgery when they are not as fit as they could be. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-operative package of non-operative care versus standard care prior to joint replacement. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Sixty patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1) to intervention or standard care arms. Data will be collected at baseline (before the start of the intervention), around the end of the intervention period and a minimum of 90 days after the planned date of surgery. Adherence will be reviewed each week during the intervention period (by telephone or in person). Participants will be randomised to a pre-operative package of non-operative care or standard care. The non-operative care will consist of (1) a weight-loss programme, (2) a set of exercises, (3) provision of advice on analgesia use and (4) provision of insoles. The intervention will be started as soon as possible after patients have been added to the waiting list for joint replacement surgery to take advantage of the incentive for behavioural change that this will create. The primary outcomes of this study are feasibility outcomes which will indicate whether the intervention and study protocol is feasible and acceptable and whether a full-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. The following will be measured and used to inform study feasibility: rate of recruitment, rate of retention at 90-day follow-up review after planned surgery date, and adherence to the intervention estimated through review questionnaires and weight change (for those receiving the weight-loss aspect of intervention). In addition the following information will be assessed qualitatively: analysis of qualitative interviews exploring acceptability, feasibility, adherence and possible barriers to implementing the intervention, and acceptability of the different outcome measures. DISCUSSION: The aims of the study specifically relate to testing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed effectiveness trial intervention and the feasibility of the trial methods. This study forms the important first step in developing and assessing whether the intervention has the potential to be assessed in a future fully powered effectiveness trial. The findings will also be used to refine the design of the effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96684272. Registered on 18 April 2018.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses. METHODS: Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs. RESULTS: These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

Practical guidance for engaging patients in health research, treatment guidelines and regulatory processes: results of an expert group meeting organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

There is increasing emphasis on patient-centred research to support the development, approval and reimbursement of health interventions that best meet patients' needs. However, there is currently little guidance on how meaningful patient engagement may be achieved. An expert working group, representing a wide range of stakeholders and disciplines, was convened by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through a structured, collaborative process the group generated practical guidance to facilitate optimal patient engagement in clinical development and regulatory decisions. Patient engagement is a relational process. The principles outlined in this report were based on lessons learned through applied experience and on an extensive dialogue among the expert participants. This practice guidance forms a starting point from which tailoring of the approach to suit different chronic diseases may be undertaken.

Validity of a two-component imaging-derived disease activity score for improved assessment of synovitis in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Imaging of joint inflammation provides a standard against which to derive an updated DAS for RA. Our objectives were to develop and validate a DAS based on reweighting the DAS28 components to maximize association with US-assessed synovitis. METHODS: Early RA patients from two observational cohorts (n = 434 and n = 117) and a clinical trial (n = 59) were assessed at intervals up to 104 weeks from baseline; all US scans were within 1 week of clinical exam. There were 899, 163 and 183 visits in each cohort. Associations of combined US grey scale and power Doppler scores (GSPD) with 28 tender joint count and 28 swollen joint count (SJC28), CRP, ESR and general health visual analogue scale were examined in linear mixed model regressions. Cross-validation evaluated model predictive ability. Coefficients learned from training data defined a re-weighted DAS28 that was validated against radiographic progression in independent data (3037 observations; 717 patients). RESULTS: Of the conventional DAS28 components only SJC28 and CRP were associated with GSPD in all three development cohorts. A two-component model including SJC28 and CRP outperformed a four-component model (R2 = 0.235, 0.392, 0.380 vs 0.232, 0.380, 0.375, respectively). The re-weighted two-component DAS28CRP outperformed conventional DAS28 definitions in predicting GSPD (Δtest log-likelihood <-2.6, P < 0.01), Larsen score and presence of erosions. CONCLUSION: A score based on SJC28 and CRP alone demonstrated stronger associations with synovitis and radiographic progression than the original DAS28 and should be considered in research on pathophysiological manifestations of early RA. Implications for clinical management of RA remain to be established.

OMERACT Filter 2.1: Elaboration of the Conceptual Framework for Outcome Measurement in Health Intervention Studies.

OBJECTIVE: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0 framework was developed in 2014 to aid core outcome set development by describing the full universe of "measurable aspects of health conditions" from which core domains can be selected. This paper provides elaborations and updated concepts (OMERACT Filter 2.1). METHODS: At OMERACT 2018, we discussed challenges in the framework application caused by unclear or ambiguous wording and terms and incompletely developed concepts. RESULTS: The updated OMERACT Filter 2.1 framework makes benefits and harms explicit, clarifies concepts, and improves naming of various terms. CONCLUSION: We expect that the Filter 2.1 framework will improve the process of core set development.

Improving Benefit-harm Assessment of Therapies from the Patient Perspective: OMERACT Premeeting Toward Consensus on Core Sets for Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases. METHODS: Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings. RESULTS: Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged. CONCLUSION: Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient's perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tight Control of Inflammation in Early Psoriatic Arthritis: Economic Analysis of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Treat-to-target approaches have proved to be effective in rheumatoid arthritis, but have not been studied in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study was undertaken to examine the cost-effectiveness of tight control (TC) of inflammation in early PsA compared to standard care. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK-based, open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Taking the perspective of the health care sector, effectiveness was measured using the 3-level EuroQol 5-domain, which allows for the calculation of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented, which represent the additional cost per QALY gained over a 48-week time horizon. Sensitivity analyses are presented assessing the impact of variations in the analytical approach and assumptions on the cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: The mean cost and QALYs were higher in the TC group: £4,198 versus £2,000 and 0.602 versus 0.561. These values yielded an ICER of £53,948 per QALY. Bootstrapped uncertainty analysis suggests that the TC has a 0.07 probability of being cost-effective at a £20,000 threshold. Stratified analysis suggests that with certain costs being controlled, an ICER of £24,639 can be calculated for patients with a higher degree of disease severity. CONCLUSION: A tight control strategy to treat PsA is an effective intervention in the treatment pathway; however, this study does not find tight control to be cost-effective in most analyses. Lower drug prices, targeting polyarthritis patients, or reducing the frequency of rheumatology visits may improve value for money metrics in future studies.

Increasing Capacity for the Treatment of Common Musculoskeletal Problems: A Non-Inferiority RCT and Economic Analysis of Corticosteroid Injection for Shoulder Pain Comparing a Physiotherapist and Orthopaedic Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Role substitution is a strategy employed to assist health services manage the growing demand for musculoskeletal care. Corticosteroid injection is a common treatment in this population but the efficacy of its prescription and delivery by physiotherapists has not been established against orthopaedic standards. This paper investigates whether corticosteroid injection given by a physiotherapist for shoulder pain is as clinically and cost effective as that from an orthopaedic surgeon. METHODS: A double blind non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was conducted in an Australian public hospital orthopaedic outpatient service, from January 2013 to June 2014. Adults with a General Practitioner referral to Orthopaedics for shoulder pain received subacromial corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection prescribed and delivered independently by a physiotherapist or a consultant orthopaedic surgeon. The main outcome measure was total Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score at baseline, six and 12 weeks, applying a non-inferiority margin of 15 points. Secondary outcomes tested for superiority included pain, shoulder movement, perceived improvement, adverse events, satisfaction, quality of life and costs. RESULTS: 278 participants were independently assessed by the physiotherapist and the orthopaedic surgeon, with 64 randomised (physiotherapist 33, orthopaedic surgeon 31). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Non-inferiority of injection by the physiotherapist was declared from total SPADI scores at 6 and 12 weeks (upper limit of the 95% one-sided confidence interval 13.34 and 7.17 at 6 and 12 weeks, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between groups on any outcome measures at 6 or 12 weeks. From the perspective of the health funder, the physiotherapist was less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid injection for shoulder pain, provided by a suitably qualified physiotherapist is at least as clinically effective, and less expensive, compared with similar care delivered by an orthopaedic surgeon. Policy makers and service providers should consider implementing this model of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12612000532808.

Assessment of physical function and participation in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT/OMERACT recommendations.

Although pain reduction is commonly the primary outcome in chronic pain clinical trials, physical functioning is also important. A challenge in designing chronic pain trials to determine efficacy and effectiveness of therapies is obtaining appropriate information about the impact of an intervention on physical function. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a meeting to consider assessment of physical functioning and participation in research on chronic pain. The primary purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence on the scope of physical functioning to inform work on refining physical function outcome measurement. We address issues in assessing this broad construct and provide examples of frequently used measures of relevant concepts. Investigators can assess physical functioning using patient-reported outcome (PRO), performance-based, and objective measures of activity. This article aims to provide support for the use of these measures, covering broad aspects of functioning, including work participation, social participation, and caregiver burden, which researchers should consider when designing chronic pain clinical trials. Investigators should consider the inclusion of both PROs and performance-based measures as they provide different but also important complementary information. The development and use of reliable and valid PROs and performance-based measures of physical functioning may expedite development of treatments, and standardization of these measures has the potential to facilitate comparison across studies. We provide recommendations regarding important domains to stimulate research to develop tools that are more robust, address consistency and standardization, and engage patients early in tool development.

The prevalence, impact and management of musculoskeletal disorders in older people living in care homes: a systematic review.

The aim was to systematically review the literature describing the prevalence, impact and current management of musculoskeletal pain in older people living in care homes. Published literature (AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, psycINFO, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library) and unpublished literature (OpenGrey, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials, UK National Research Register Archive) were searched on 1 March 2015. All studies assessing the prevalence, impact and management of musculoskeletal disorders in older people living in care homes were included. Literature was appraised using the CASP cohort and qualitative critical appraisal tools. Data were analysed using descriptive statistical approaches, meta-analysis and meta-ethnography techniques. Twenty-four papers reporting the results of 263,775 care home residents in 12 countries were identified. The evidence base was moderate in quality. Prevalence of musculoskeletal pain for people in care homes was 30.2 % (95 % confidence intervals 29.9-30.5 %; n = 105,463). Care home residents reported that musculoskeletal pain had a significant impact on their perceived independence and overall ability to participate in everyday activities of daily living. Three papers which presented data on interventions demonstrated that whilst multi-component assessment and management packages did not significantly change clinical outcomes, these empowered care home staff to feel more confident in managing these patients. Musculoskeletal pain is a common problem in care homes worldwide, and residents report significant impact on their lives. However, there is uncertainty regarding how to assess and manage such pain. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42014009824.