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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimating the direct healthcare utilization and cost of musculoskeletal pain among people with comorbidity: a retrospective electronic health record study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pre-existing painful musculoskeletal conditions on healthcare utilization and costs among patients with five common conditions: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, cancer, dementia and pneumonia. METHODS: Using primary and secondary care services data from electronic health records, a negative binomial regression model was used to compare resource use while a two-part model was used to compare costs across the five conditions, between those with and without a pre-existing musculoskeletal pain. RESULTS: The study included 760,792 patients (144,870 with ACS, 121,208 with stroke, 231,702 with cancer, 134,638 with dementia, and 128,374 with pneumonia) in the complete case analysis. Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain had an incident rate ratio of above one for most healthcare resources over the follow-up period and an adjusted additional mean cumulative total healthcare costs per patient of £674.59 (95%CI 570.30 to 778.87) for ACS; £613.34 (95%CI 496.87 to 729.82) for stroke; £459.26 (95%CI 376.60 to 541.91) for cancer; and £766.23 (95%CI 655.06 to 877.39) for dementia over five years after diagnosis; and £200.85 (95%CI 104.16 to 297.55) for pneumonia over one year after diagnosis compared to those without musculoskeletal pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that individuals with painful musculoskeletal conditions have higher healthcare utiliszation and costs than those without painful musculoskeletal conditions. Given the high occurrence of musculoskeletal pain in patients with other conditions, effective management strategies are needed to reduce the burden on healthcare resources.

Risk-stratified monitoring for thiopurine toxicity in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: prognostic model development, validation, and, health economic evaluation.

Background: Patients established on thiopurines (e.g., azathioprine) are recommended to undergo three-monthly blood tests for the early detection of blood, liver, or kidney toxicity. These side-effects are uncommon during long-term treatment. We developed a prognostic model that could be used to inform risk-stratified decisions on frequency of monitoring blood-tests during long-term thiopurine treatment, and, performed health-economic evaluation of alternate monitoring intervals. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study set in the UK primary-care. Data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and Gold formed development and validation cohorts, respectively. People age ≥18 years, diagnosed with an immune mediated inflammatory disease, prescribed thiopurine by their general practitioner for at-least six-months between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2019 were eligible. The outcome was thiopurine discontinuation with abnormal blood-test results. Patients were followed up from six-months after first primary-care thiopurine prescription to up to five-years. Penalised Cox regression developed the risk equation. Multiple imputation handled missing predictor data. Calibration and discrimination assessed model performance. A mathematical model evaluated costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with lengthening the interval between blood-tests. Findings: Data from 5982 (405 events over 16,117 person-years) and 3573 (269 events over 9075 person-years) participants were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Fourteen candidate predictors (21 parameters) were included. The optimism adjusted R2 and Royston D statistic in development data were 0.11 and 0.76, respectively. The calibration slope and Royston D statistic (95% Confidence Interval) in the validation data were 1.10 (0.84-1.36) and 0.72 (0.52-0.92), respectively. A 2-year period between monitoring blood-test was most cost-effective in all deciles of predicted risk but the gain between monitoring annually or biennially reduced in higher risk deciles. Interpretation: This prognostic model requires information that is readily available during routine clinical care and may be used to risk-stratify blood-test monitoring for thiopurine toxicity. These findings should be considered by specialist societies when recommending blood monitoring during thiopurine prescription to bring about sustainable and equitable change in clinical practice. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Predictors of the likelihood that patients with rheumatoid arthritis will communicate information about rheumatoid arthritis risk to relatives: A quantitative assessment.

First-degree relatives (FDRs) of people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are increasingly recruited to prediction and prevention studies. Access to FDRs is usually via their proband with RA. Quantitative data on predictors of family risk communication are lacking. RA patients completed a questionnaire assessing likelihood of communicating RA risk information to their FDRs, demographic variables, disease impact, illness perceptions, autonomy preferences, interest in FDRs taking a predictive test for RA, dispositional openness, family functioning, and attitudes towards predictive testing. Ordinal regression examined associations between patients' characteristics and their median likelihood of communicating RA risk to FDRs. Questionnaires were completed by 482 patients. The majority (75.1%) were likely/extremely likely to communicate RA risk information to FDRs, especially their children. Decision-making preferences, interest in FDRs taking a predictive test, and beliefs that risk knowledge would increase people's empowerment over their health increased patients' odds of being likely to communicate RA risk information to FDRs. Beliefs that risk information would cause stress to their relatives decreased odds that patients would be likely to communicate RA risk. These findings will inform the development of resources to support family communication about RA risk.

The Patient Pathway Review: A New Method of Evaluating Clinical Practices to Understand the Complexities of Real-world Care.

Healthcare research has contributed to the good patient care that is delivered today. With the perpetual demand for higher quality, cost-effective care, the current approaches in research could be improved to answer important research questions related to actual healthcare practices. In this article, we introduce the concept of the patient pathway review, which focuses on the identification of what happens to patients based on clinical expertise and systematic evaluation. This approach can help understand real-world healthcare activities and explore reasons for clinically relevant patient events. The patient pathway is defined as a series of clinically relevant events. The patient pathway review begins with selection of the area which merits exploration. This is followed by the development of an "ideal" pathway, which defines what is expected to happen to most patients in the area. Through critical reasoning and detailed consideration of different possible activities or outcomes at each stage of the "ideal" pathway, the "real-world" pathways can be determined. To understanding the significance of the "real-world" pathway, descriptions from all the stakeholders involved are necessary. Typically, in the healthcare setting, these perspectives are the patient, clinician, health service, policy makers, and society who have variable interests the important clinical events. Finally, the pathways together with the perspectives are integrated into a discussion. We conclude that the patient pathway review is a novel approach, which has value to explain real-world events for patients and can enable identification of favorable paths, which can help guide the development of interventions to improve clinical practice.

Prevalence of osteoarthritis in lower middle- and low-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Evidence from the Global Burden of Disease studies suggests that osteoarthritis (OA) is a significant cause of disability globally; however, it is less clear how much of this burden exists in low-income and lower middle-income countries. This study aims to determine the prevalence of OA in people living in low-income and lower middle-income countries. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science) were systematically searched from inception to October 2018 for population-based studies. We included studies reporting the prevalence of OA among people aged 15 years and over in low-income and lower middle-income countries. The prevalence estimates were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Our study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018112870.The search identified 7414 articles, of which 356 articles were selected for full text assessment. 34 studies were eligible and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of OA was 16·05% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12·55-19·89), with studies demonstrating a substantial degree of heterogeneity (I2 = 99·50%). The pooled prevalence of OA was 16.4% (CI 11·60-21.78%) in South Asia, 15.7% (CI 5·31-30·25%) in East Asia and Pacific, and 14.2% (CI 7·95-21·89%) in Sub Saharan Africa. The meta-regression analysis showed that publication year, study sample size, risk of bias score and country-income categories were significantly associated with the variations in the prevalence estimates. The prevalence of OA is high in low-income and lower middle-income countries, with almost one in six of the study participants reported to have OA. With the changing population demographics and the shift to the emergence of non-communicable diseases, targeted public health strategies are urgently needed to address this growing epidemic in the aging population.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. DESIGN: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. FUTURE WORK: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sciatica is pain that spreads into the leg because of a trapped nerve in the lower back. It can be a very painful condition that affects everyday life and ability to work. People with sciatica usually see their general practitioner first; if they do not get better over time, they may be referred to a physiotherapist or, eventually, to a spinal specialist. It is difficult to know which sciatica patient will do well without much treatment and who might need to see a physiotherapist or spinal specialist sooner. Stratified care is an approach aiming to help decide, early on, which patients need to see which health professionals. It has previously been shown to be helpful for patients with lower-back pain. In a trial of 476 patients with sciatica a stratified care model was tested to see if it led to faster improvements in sciatica-related leg pain, when compared with usual care. Adults seeing their general practitioner with sciatica were invited to attend a research clinic. Those willing to take part were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care. Patients in the stratified care arm were referred either to physiotherapy for a short or a longer course of treatment, or to undergo magnetic resonance imaging and see a spinal specialist with the magnetic resonance imaging results within 4 weeks. Pain, function and quality-of-life data were collected over 12 months using text messages and questionnaires. Although patients in the stratified care arm improved slightly more quickly (2 weeks, on average), we did not find convincing evidence that stratified care led to better results than usual care. On average, most patients in both trial arms improved in a similar way over 12 months. The stratified care model tested in this trial did not lead to faster recovery for patients with sciatica than usual care.

Cohort profile: Oxford Pain, Activity and Lifestyle (OPAL) Study, a prospective cohort study of older adults in England.

PURPOSE: The 'Oxford Pain, Activity and Lifestyle' (OPAL) Cohort is a longitudinal, prospective cohort study of adults, aged 65 years and older, living in the community which is investigating the determinants of health in later life. Our focus was on musculoskeletal pain and mobility, but the cohort is designed with flexibility to include new elements over time. This paper describes the study design, data collection and baseline characteristics of participants. We also compared the OPAL baseline characteristics with nationally representative data sources. PARTICIPANTS: We randomly selected eligible participants from two stratified age bands (65-74 and 75 and over years). In total, 5409 individuals (42.1% of eligible participants) from 35 general practices in England agreed to participate between 2016 and 2018. The majority of participants (n=5367) also consented for research team to access their UK National Health Service (NHS) Digital and primary healthcare records. FINDINGS TO DATE: Mean participant age was 74.9 years (range 65-100); 51.5% (n=2784/5409) were women. 94.9% of participants were white, and 28.8% lived alone. Over 83.0% reported pain in at least one body area in the previous 6 weeks. Musculoskeletal symptoms were more prevalent in women (86.4%). One-third of participants reported having one or more falls in the last year. Most participants were confident in their ability to walk outside. The characteristics of OPAL Cohort participants were broadly similar to the general population of the same age. FUTURE PLANS: Postal follow-up of the cohort is being undertaken at annual intervals, with data collection ongoing. Linkage to NHS hospital admission data is planned. This English prospective cohort offers a large and rich resource for research on the longitudinal associations between demographic, clinical, and social factors and health trajectories and outcomes in community-dwelling older people.

Stratified care versus usual care for management of patients presenting with sciatica in primary care (SCOPiC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on individuals and society. Stratified care has been shown to lead to better outcomes among patients with non-specific low back pain, but it has not been tested for sciatica. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care versus non-stratified usual care for patients presenting with sciatica in primary care. METHODS: We did a two-parallel arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial across three centres in the UK (North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales, and Cheshire). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical diagnosis of sciatica, access to a mobile phone or landline number, were not pregnant, were not currently receiving treatment for the same problem, and had no previous spinal surgery. Patients were recruited from general practices and randomly assigned (1:1) by a remote web-based service to stratified care or usual care, stratified by centre and stratification group allocation. In the stratified care arm, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services were used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 was offered brief advice and support in up to two physiotherapy sessions; group 2 was offered up to six physiotherapy sessions; and group 3 was fast-tracked to MRI and spinal specialist assessment within 4 weeks of randomisation. The primary outcome was self-reported time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, defined as "completely recovered" or "much better" on a 6-point ordinal scale, collected via text messages or telephone calls. Analyses were by intention to treat. Health-care costs and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. This trial is registered on the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN75449581. FINDINGS: Between May 28, 2015, and July 18, 2017, 476 patients from 42 general practices around three UK centres were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89% (9467 of 10 601 text messages sent; 4688 [88%] of 5310 in the stratified care arm and 4779 [90%] of 5291 in the usual care arm). Median time to symptom resolution was 10 weeks (95% CI 6·4-13·6) in the stratified care arm and 12 weeks (9·4-14·6) in the usual care arm, with the survival analysis showing no significant difference between the arms (hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·89-1·46]). Stratified care was not cost-effective compared to usual care. INTERPRETATION: The stratified care model for patients with sciatica consulting in primary care was not better than usual care for either clinical or health economic outcomes. These results do not support a transition to this stratified care model for patients with sciatica. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Association between inactivated influenza vaccine and primary care consultations for autoimmune rheumatic disease flares: a self-controlled case series study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

ObjectivesTo examine the association between inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) administration and primary care consultation for joint pain, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) flare, corticosteroid prescription, vasculitis and unexplained fever in people with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). METHODS: We undertook within-person comparisons using self-controlled case-series methodology. AIRD cases who received the IIV and had an outcome of interest in the same influenza cycle were ascertained in Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The influenza cycle was partitioned into exposure periods (1-14 days prevaccination and 0-14, 15-30, 31-60 and 61-90 days postvaccination), with the remaining time-period classified as non-exposed. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and 95% CI for different outcomes were calculated. RESULTS: Data for 14 928 AIRD cases (69% women, 80% with RA) were included. There was no evidence for association between vaccination and primary care consultation for RA flare, corticosteroid prescription, fever or vasculitis. On the contrary, vaccination associated with reduced primary care consultation for joint pain in the subsequent 90 days (IRR 0.91 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.94)). CONCLUSION: This study found no evidence for a significant association between vaccination and primary care consultation for most surrogates of increased disease activity or vaccine adverse-effects in people with AIRDs. It adds to the accumulating evidence to support influenza vaccination in AIRDs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Routine Anxiety and Depression Screening in Patients Consulting for Osteoarthritis: Results From a Clinical, Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness (cost-utility) of introducing general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression in patients consulting for osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial-based economic evaluation to assess general practitioners screening for anxiety and depression symptoms in patients consulting for OA compared to usual care (screening for pain intensity) was undertaken over a 12-month period from a UK National Health Service and societal perspective. Patient-level mean costs and mean quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves controlling for cluster-level data were constructed. The base-case analysis used the net benefit regressions approach. The 2-stage nonparametric sampling technique was explored in a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The base-case analysis demonstrated that the intervention was as costly as, and less effective than, the control (QALY differential -0.029 [95% confidence interval -0.062, 0.003]). In the base-case analyses, general practitioner screening for anxiety and depression was unlikely to be a cost-effective option (probability <5% at £20,000/QALY). Similar results were observed in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Prompting general practitioners to routinely screen and manage comorbid anxiety and depression in patients presenting with OA is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research is needed to explore clinically effective and cost-effective models of managing anxiety and depression in patients presenting with clinical OA.

Gout Severity, Socioeconomic Status, and Work Absence: A Cross-Sectional Study in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between gout severity and socioeconomic status (SES) and gout severity and work absence. METHODS: Postal questionnaires were sent to adult patients who were registered with 20 general practices and who had consultations regarding gout or had been prescribed allopurinol or colchicine in the preceding 2 years. Gout severity was defined using the following proxy measures: number of attacks, history of oligoarticular/polyarticular attacks, disease duration, and allopurinol use. SES was defined using the English index of multiple deprivation (area level) and using self-reported educational attainment (individual level). Work absence was defined as taking time off from work in the past 6 months because of gout. Adjusted odds ratios (ORadj ; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs]) were calculated using logistic regression models (adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, gout severity, and comorbidities). RESULTS: A total of 1,184 completed questionnaires were returned. The mean age of patients was 65.6 years, and 84% were male. Not having attended further education ("further education" is defined as attendance after the statutory minimum school-leaving age of 16 years) was associated with having had ≥2 gout attacks in the last year (ORadj 0.54 [95% CI 0.36-0.81]) and oligoarticular/polyarticular attacks (ORadj 0.72 [95% CI 0.50-1.05]). Lower area-level deprivation was associated with fewer attacks (≥2) (ORadj 0.71 [95% CI 0.51-0.98]). Work absence was associated with having had ≥2 gout attacks in the last year (ORadj 2.91 [95% CI 1.22- 6.92]), oligoarticular/polyarticular attacks (ORadj 3.10 [95% CI 1.46-6.61]), and shorter disease duration (>18 years) (ORadj 0.13 [95% CI 0.03-0.50]). CONCLUSION: Gout severity was associated with individual-level deprivation, countering the historic and negative perception of gout as a "rich man's disease." The association of gout severity with work absence reinforces the argument for earlier urate-lowering therapy to prevent attacks from becoming frequent and debilitating.

An Economic Evaluation of TENS in Addition to Usual Primary Care Management for the Treatment of Tennis Elbow: Results from the TATE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The TATE trial was a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial of supplementing primary care management (PCM)-consisting of a GP consultation followed by information and advice on exercises-with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), to reduce pain intensity in patients with tennis elbow. This paper reports the health economic evaluation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Adults with new diagnosis of tennis elbow were recruited from 38 general practices in the UK, and randomly allocated to PCM (n = 120) or PCM plus TENS (n = 121). Outcomes included reduction in pain intensity and quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) based on the EQ5D and SF6D. Two economic perspectives were evaluated: (i) healthcare-inclusive of NHS and private health costs for the tennis elbow; (ii) societal-healthcare costs plus productivity losses through work absenteeism. Mean outcome and cost differences between the groups were evaluated using a multiple imputed dataset as the base case evaluation, with uncertainty represented in cost-effectiveness planes and through probabilistic cost-effectiveness acceptability curves). Incremental healthcare cost was £33 (95%CI -40, 106) and societal cost £65 (95%CI -307, 176) for PCM plus TENS. Mean differences in outcome were: 0.11 (95%CI -0.13, 0.35) for change in pain (0-10 pain scale); -0.015 (95%CI -0.058, 0.029) for QALYEQ5D; 0.007 (95%CI -0.022, 0.035) for QALYSF6D (higher score differences denote greater benefit for PCM plus TENS). The ICER (incremental cost effectiveness ratio) for the main evaluation of mean difference in societal cost (£) relative to mean difference in pain outcome was -582 (95%CI -8666, 8113). However, incremental ICERs show differences in cost-effectiveness of additional TENS, according to the outcome being evaluated. CONCLUSION: Our findings do not provide evidence for or against the cost-effectiveness of TENS as an adjunct to primary care management of tennis elbow.

The association of gout with socioeconomic status in primary care: a cross-sectional observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the association between gout and socioeconomic status (SES). Inequalities in rheumatology provision associated with SES may need to be addressed by health care planners. The aim of this study is to investigate the association of gout and SES in the community at both the individual and area levels. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to all patients older than age 50 years who were registered with eight general practices in North Staffordshire. Data on individual SES were collected by questionnaire while area SES was measured using the Index of Multiple Deprivation derived from respondents' postcodes. Responders reported their occupation, education and the adequacy of their income; their medical records were searched for consultations for gout. RESULTS: Of the 348 consultations for gout in this period, at the individual level there was a significant association between gout and income. An association of gout with education was seen only in the unadjusted analyses. No association was found between gout and area level deprivation. CONCLUSION: Gout is associated with some aspects of individual level but not area level deprivation. More extensive musculoskeletal services may need to be provided in low income areas, although further research is needed.

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

The objective was to develop evidence -based recommendations and a research and educational agenda for the non-pharmacological management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). The multidisciplinary task force comprised 21 experts: nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, rheumatologists, orthopaedic surgeons, general practitioner, psychologist, dietician, clinical epidemiologist and patient representatives. After a preliminary literature review, a first task force meeting and five Delphi rounds, provisional recommendations were formulated in order to perform a systematic review. A literature search of Medline and eight other databases was performed up to February 2012. Evidence was graded in categories I-IV and agreement with the recommendations was determined through scores from 0 (total disagreement) to 10 (total agreement). Eleven evidence-based recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were developed, concerning the following nine topics: assessment, general approach, patient information and education, lifestyle changes, exercise, weight loss, assistive technology and adaptations, footwear and work. The average level of agreement ranged between 8.0 and 9.1. The proposed research agenda included an overall need for more research into non-pharmacological interventions for hip OA, moderators to optimise individualised treatment, healthy lifestyle with economic evaluation and long-term follow-up, and the prevention and reduction of work disability. Proposed educational activities included the required skills to teach, initiate and establish lifestyle changes. The 11 recommendations provide guidance on the delivery of non-pharmacological interventions to people with hip or knee OA. More research and educational activities are needed, particularly in the area of lifestyle changes.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for the management of tennis elbow: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial: the TATE trial (ISRCTN 87141084).

BACKGROUND: Tennis elbow is a common and often extremely painful musculoskeletal condition, which has considerable impact on individuals as well as economic implications for healthcare utilization and absence from work. Many management strategies have been studied in clinical trials. Whilst corticosteroid injections offer short term pain relief, this treatment is unpleasant and is used with caution due to an associated high risk of pain recurrence in the long term. Systematic reviews conclude that there is no clear and effective treatment for symptoms of pain in the first 6 weeks of the condition. There is a clear need for an intervention that is acceptable to patients and provides them with effective short-term pain relief without increasing the risk of recurrence. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an inexpensive, non-invasive, non-pharmacological form of analgesia that is commonly used in the treatment of pain. TENS has very few contraindications and is simple to apply. It also benefits from being patient controlled, thereby promoting self-management. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, in terms of pain relief, and cost-effectiveness of a self-management package of treatment that includes TENS. METHODS/DESIGN: The design of the study will be a two-group pragmatic randomized clinical trial. 240 participants aged 18 years and over with tennis elbow will be recruited from 20-30 GP practices in Staffordshire, UK. Participants are to be randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive either primary care management (standard GP consultation, medication, advice and education) or primary care management with the addition of TENS, over 6 weeks. Our primary outcome measure is average intensity of elbow pain in the past 24 hours (0-10 point numerical rating scale) at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes include pain and limitation of function, global assessment of change, days of sick leave, illness perceptions, and overall health status. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed. Patient adherence and satisfaction data will be collected at 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months by postal questionnaire. A diary will also be completed for the first 2 weeks of treatment. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analyses will be carried out using an intention-to-treat approach as the primary analysis. DISCUSSION: This paper presents detail on the rationale, design, methods and operational aspects of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials. ISRCTN87141084.