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.

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.

Modifiable prognostic factors of high costs related to healthcare utilization among older people seeking primary care due to back pain: an identification and replication study.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is an extensive burden to our healthcare system, yet few studies have explored modifiable prognostic factors associated with high costs related to healthcare utilization, especially among older back pain patients. The aims of this study were to identify modifiable prognostic factors for high costs related to healthcare utilization among older people seeking primary care with a new episode of back pain; and to replicate the identified associations in a similar cohort, in a different country. METHODS: Data from two cohort studies within the BACE consortium were used, including 452 and 675 people aged ≥55 years seeking primary care with a new episode of back pain. High costs were defined as costs in the top 25th percentile. Healthcare utilization was self-reported, aggregated for one-year of follow-up and included: primary care consultations, medications, examinations, hospitalization, rehabilitation stay and operations. Costs were estimated based on unit costs collected from national pricelists. Nine potential modifiable prognostic factors were selected based on previous literature. Univariable and multivariable binary logistic regression models were used to identify and replicate associations (crude and adjusted for selected covariates) between each modifiable prognostic factor and high costs related to healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Four modifiable prognostic factors associated with high costs related to healthcare utilization were identified and replicated: a higher degree of pain severity, disability, depression, and a lower degree of physical health-related quality of life. Kinesiophobia and recovery expectations showed no prognostic value. There were inconsistent results across the two cohorts with regards to comorbidity, radiating pain below the knee and mental health-related quality of life. CONCLUSION: The factors identified in this study may be future targets for intervention with the potential to reduce high costs related to healthcare utilization among older back pain patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04261309, 07 February 2020. Retrospectively registered.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection versus exercise therapy for shoulder pain in general practice: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SIX Study).

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is common and the prognosis is often unfavourable. Dutch guidelines on the treatment of shoulder pain in primary care recommend a corticosteroid injection or a referral to exercise therapy, if initial pain management fails and pain persists. However, evidence of the effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with exercise therapy, especially in the long term, is limited. This trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with physiotherapist-led exercise therapy over 12 months follow-up in patients with shoulder pain in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SIX Study is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised clinical trial in primary care. A total of 213 patients with shoulder pain, aged ≥18 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients will be randomised (1:1) into two groups: a corticosteroid injection or 12 sessions of physiotherapist-led exercise therapy. The effect of the allocated treatment will be assessed through questionnaires at 6 weeks and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome is patient's reported shoulder pain-intensity and function, measured with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, over 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost effectiveness, pain-intensity, function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, patient's global perceived effect, work absence, healthcare utilisation and adverse events. Between group differences will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. A cost-utility analysis will be performed to assess the cost effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years from a medical and societal perspective. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (MEC 2020-0300). All participants will give written informed consent prior to data collection. The results from this study will be disseminated in international journals and implemented in the primary care guidelines on shoulder pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Registry (NL8854).

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

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.

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.

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.

Trends in the prevalence, incidence and surgical management of carpal tunnel syndrome between 1993 and 2013: an observational analysis of UK primary care records.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence, incidence and surgical management of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), between 1993 and 2013, as recorded in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). DESIGN: We completed a series of cross-sectional epidemiological analyses to observe trends over time. SETTING: Primary care data collected between 1993 and 2013, stored in the CPRD. POPULATION: Individuals aged ≥18 years were selected. Prevalent and incident episodes of CTS and episodes of surgical intervention were identified using a list of preidentified Read codes. ANALYSIS: We defined incident episodes as those with no preceding diagnostic code for CTS in the past 2 years of data. Episodes of surgery were expressed as a percentage of the prevalent population during the same calendar year. Joinpoint regression was used to determine significant changes in the underlying trend. RESULTS: The prevalence of CTS increased over the study period, with a particular incline between 2000 and 2004 (annual percentage change 7.81). The female-to-male prevalence ratio reduced over time from 2.74 in 1993 to 1.93 in 2013. The median age of females and males with CTS were noted to increase from 49 and 53 years, respectively in 1993 to 54 and 59 years, respectively in 2013. Incidence was also noted to increase over time. After an initial increase between 1993 and 2007, the percentage of prevalent patients with a coded surgical episode began to decrease after 2007 to 27.41% in 2013 (annual percentage change -1.7). CONCLUSION: This study has demonstrated that the prevalence and incidence of CTS increased over the study period between 1993 and 2013. Rates of surgery for CTS also increased over the study period; however after 2007, the per cent of patients receiving surgery showed a statistically significant decline back to the rate seen in 2004.

Effectiveness and costs of a vocational advice service to improve work outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain in primary care: a cluster randomised trial (SWAP trial ISRCTN 52269669).

Musculoskeletal pain is a common cause of work absence, and early intervention is advocated to prevent the adverse health and economic consequences of longer-term absence. This cluster randomised controlled trial investigated the effect of introducing a vocational advice service into primary care to provide occupational support. Six general practices were randomised; patients were eligible if they were consulting their general practitioner with musculoskeletal pain and were employed and struggling at work or absent from work <6 months. Practices in the intervention arm could refer patients to a vocational advisor embedded within the practice providing a case-managed stepwise intervention addressing obstacles to working. The primary outcome was number of days off work, over 4 months. Participants in the intervention arm (n = 158) had fewer days work absence compared with the control arm (n = 180) (mean 9.3 [SD 21·7] vs 14·4 [SD 27·7]) days, incidence rate ratio 0·51 (95% confidence interval 0·26, 0·99), P = 0·048). The net societal benefit of the intervention compared with best care was £733: £748 gain (work absence) vs £15 loss (health care costs). The addition of a vocational advice service to best current primary care for patients consulting with musculoskeletal pain led to reduced absence and cost savings for society. If a similar early intervention to the one tested in this trial was implemented widely, it could potentially reduce days absent over 12 months by 16%, equating to an overall societal cost saving of approximately £500 million (US $6 billion) and requiring an investment of only £10 million.

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).

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.

Comparison of clinical burden between patients with erosive hand osteoarthritis and inflammatory arthritis in symptomatic community-dwelling adults: the Keele clinical assessment studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate in the general population the clinical impact of erosive OA in interphalangeal joints (IPJs) compared with symptomatic radiographic hand OA and inflammatory arthritis. METHODS: Standardized assessments with hand radiographs were performed in participants of two population-based cohorts in North Staffordshire with hand symptoms lasting ≥1 day in the past month. Erosive OA was defined as the presence of an eroded or remodelled phase in ≥1 IPJ using the Verbruggen-Veys method. Radiographic hand OA was defined as the presence of ≥1 IPJ/first carpometacarpal joint with a Kellgren-Lawrence score of ≥2. Diagnoses of inflammatory arthritis were based on medical records. Hand pain and disability were assessed with the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN). Linear regression analyses were used to compare clinical determinants between groups and calculate mean differences with 95% CIs, adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: Of 1076 participants with hand symptoms [60% women, mean age 64.8 years (s.d. 8.3 years)]; 80 persons (7.4%) had erosive OA. The population prevalence of erosive OA in ≥1 IPJ was 2.4% (95% CI 1.8, 3.0). Persons with erosive OA reported more pain and disability than persons with symptomatic radiographic hand OA [adjusted mean difference 1.3 (95% CI 0.3, 2.3) and 2.3 (95% CI 0.4, 4.2), respectively]. Individuals with inflammatory arthritis (n = 44) reported more pain and disability than those with erosive OA [adjusted mean difference 1.7 (95% CI 0.05, 3.4) and 6.3 (95% CI 2.8, 9.9), respectively]. CONCLUSION: While erosive OA has a greater impact than symptomatic radiographic hand OA in the general population, it is not as severe in terms of hand pain and disability as inflammatory RA.

Clinical course, characteristics and prognostic indicators in patients presenting with back and leg pain in primary care. The ATLAS study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Low-back related leg pain with or without nerve root involvement is associated with a poor prognosis compared to low back pain (LBP) alone. Compared to the literature investigating prognostic indicators of outcome for LBP, there is limited evidence on prognostic factors for low back-related leg pain including the group with nerve root pain. This 1 year prospective consultation-based observational cohort study will describe the clinical, imaging, demographic characteristics and health economic outcomes for the whole cohort, will investigate differences and identify prognostic indicators of outcome (i.e. change in disability at 12 months), for the whole cohort and, separately, for those classified with and without nerve root pain. In addition, nested qualitative studies will provide insights on the clinical consultation and the impact of diagnosis and treatment on patients' symptom management and illness trajectory. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over consulting their General Practitioner (GP) with LBP and radiating leg pain of any duration at (n = 500) GP practices in North Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, UK will be invited to participate. All participants will receive a standardised assessment at the clinic by a study physiotherapist and will be classified according to the clinically determined presence or absence of nerve root pain/involvement. All will undergo a lumbar spine MRI scan. All participants will be managed according to their clinical need. The study outcomes will be measured at 4 and 12 months using postal self-complete questionnaires. Data will also be collected each month using brief postal questionnaires to enable detailed description of the course of low back and leg pain over time. Clinical observations and patient interviews will be used for the qualitative aspects of the study. DISCUSSION: This prospective clinical observational cohort will combine self-reported data, comprehensive clinical and MRI assessment, together with qualitative enquiries, to describe the course, health care usage, patients' experiences and prognostic indicators in an adult population presenting in primary care with LBP and leg pain with or without nerve root involvement.

Measuring practitioner/therapist effects in randomised trials of low back pain and neck pain interventions in primary care settings.

In psychological health treatment studies it has been shown that differences between therapists account for some of the non-specific effect of treatment but this phenomenon has not so far systematically been investigated in musculoskeletal disorders. In this study we evaluated and compared the size and potential influence of the 'practitioner effect' (or 'therapist effect') in three randomised treatment trials of low back pain and neck pain patients in primary care. We calculated the proportion of variance in outcomes attributable to differences across practitioners, i.e. the practitioner-variance partition coefficient (p-vpc). As measures of outcome, we focused on self-reported disability as the primary outcome, but we also investigated assessed psychological outcomes. The p-vpc for the disability measures ranged from 2.6% to 7.1% across trials and time points (post treatment and follow up). Estimates differed between treatment subgroups within trials; being highest in treatment subgroups assigned to psychosocial-based interventions. A 'practitioner effect' does exist and is more pronounced in treatments involving greater psychosocial emphasis. This has implications for both practice and research in this clinical area. It highlights the importance of patient-practitioner interactions, and the need to address practitioner effects in designing and analysing outcome studies in low back pain and neck pain in primary care.

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.

Research priorities for non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal problems: nationally and internationally agreed recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal problems such as low back pain, neck, knee and shoulder pain are leading causes of disability and activity limitation in adults and are most frequently managed within primary care. There is a clear trend towards large, high quality trials testing the effectiveness of common non-pharmacological interventions for these conditions showing, at best, small to moderate benefits. This paper summarises the main lessons learnt from recent trials of the effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal conditions in primary care and provides agreed research priorities for future clinical trials. METHODS: Consensus development using nominal group techniques through national (UK) and international workshops. During a national Clinical Trials Thinktank workshop in April 2007 in the UK, a group of 30 senior researchers experienced in clinical trials for musculoskeletal conditions and 2 patient representatives debated the possible explanations for the findings of recent high quality trials of non-pharmacological interventions. Using the qualitative method of nominal group technique, these experts developed and ranked a set of priorities for future research, guided by the evidence from recent trials of treatments for common musculoskeletal problems. The recommendations from the national workshop were presented and further ranked at an international symposium (hosted in Canada) in June 2007. RESULTS: 22 recommended research priorities were developed, of which 12 reached consensus as priorities for future research from the UK workshop. The 12 recommendations were reduced to 7 agreed priorities at the international symposium. These were: to increase the focus on implementation (research into practice); to develop national musculoskeletal research networks in which large trials can be sited and smaller trials supported; to use more innovative trial designs such as those based on stepped care and subgrouping for targeted treatment models; to routinely incorporate health economic analysis into future trials; to include more patient-centred outcome measures; to develop a core set of outcomes for new trials of interventions for musculoskeletal problems; and to focus on studies that advance methodological approaches for clinical trials in this field. CONCLUSION: A set of research priorities for future trials of non-pharmacological therapies for common musculoskeletal conditions has been developed and agreed through national (UK) and international consensus processes. These priorities provide useful direction for researchers and research funders alike and impetus for improvement in the quality and methodology of clinical trials in this field.

Low back pain in general practice: cost-effectiveness of a minimal psychosocial intervention versus usual care.

An intervention that can prevent low back pain (LBP) becoming chronic, may not only prevent great discomfort for patients, but also save substantial costs for the society. Psychosocial factors appear to be of importance in the transition of acute to chronic LBP. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of an intervention aimed at psychosocial factors to usual care in patients with (sub)acute LBP. The study design was an economic evaluation alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial, conducted from a societal perspective with a follow-up of 1 year. Sixty general practitioners in 41 general practices recruited 314 patients with non-specific LBP of less than 12 weeks' duration. General practitioners in the minimal intervention strategy (MIS) group explored and discussed psychosocial prognostic factors. Usual care (UC) was not protocolized. Clinical outcomes were functional disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (EuroQol). Cost data consisted of direct and indirect costs and were measured by patient cost diaries and general practitioner registration forms. Complete cost data were available for 80% of the patients. Differences in clinical outcomes between both the groups were small and not statistically significant. Differences in cost data were in favor of MIS. However, the complete case analysis and the sensitivity analyses with imputed cost data were inconsistent with regard to the statistical significance of this difference in cost data. This study presents conflicting points of view regarding the cost-effectiveness of MIS. We conclude that (Dutch) general practitioners, as yet, should not replace their usual care by this new intervention.

Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, an increasing number of systematic reviews have been published in which the measurement properties of health status questionnaires are compared. For a meaningful comparison, quality criteria for measurement properties are needed. Our aim was to develop quality criteria for design, methods, and outcomes of studies on the development and evaluation of health status questionnaires. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Quality criteria for content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility, longitudinal validity, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability were derived from existing guidelines and consensus within our research group. RESULTS: For each measurement property a criterion was defined for a positive, negative, or indeterminate rating, depending on the design, methods, and outcomes of the validation study. CONCLUSION: Our criteria make a substantial contribution toward defining explicit quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Our criteria can be used in systematic reviews of health status questionnaires, to detect shortcomings and gaps in knowledge of measurement properties, and to design validation studies. The future challenge will be to refine and complete the criteria and to reach broad consensus, especially on quality criteria for good measurement properties.