Optimising the implementation of evidence-based osteoarthritis guidelines in primary care: Development of a Knowledge Mobilisation Toolkit.

OBJECTIVE: Implementing clinical guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care is complex. Whilst international guidelines detail what best practice for OA looks like, little is known about how this is best implemented. Limited resources are available to guideline developers, practitioners, researchers, or the public to facilitate implementation. Set in the context of a larger research project which sought to understand the factors that influence knowledge mobilisation (KM) in implementation for OA guidelines, this study reports the development of a toolkit to optimise KM for the implementation of evidence-based OA guidelines in primary care. DESIGN: Triangulation of three qualitative data sets was conducted, followed by a stakeholder consensus exercise. Public contributors were involved in dedicated meetings (n = 3) to inform the content, design, and KM plans for the toolkit. RESULTS: From data triangulation, 53 key findings were identified, which were refined into 30 draft recommendation statements, within six domains: approaches to KM; the knowledge mobiliser role; understanding context; implementation planning; the nature of the intervention; and appealing to a range of priorities. Stakeholder voting (n = 27) demonstrated consensus with the recommendations and informed the wording of the final toolkit. CONCLUSIONS: Factors that optimise KM for OA guideline implementation in primary care were identified. Empirical data, practice-based evidence, implementation practice, and stakeholder (including patient and public) engagement have informed a toolkit comprising several overarching principles of KM, which are suitable for use in primary care. Consideration of equitable access when implementing evidence-based OA care among diverse populations is recommended when using the toolkit. Further research is needed to evaluate the toolkit's utility and transferability.

Patients' preferences for fracture risk communication: the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study.

The RICO study indicated that most patients would like to receive information regarding their fracture risk but that only a small majority have actually received it. Patients globally preferred a visual presentation of fracture risk and were interested in an online tool showing the risk. PURPOSE: The aim of the Risk Communication in Osteoporosis (RICO) study was to assess patients' preferences regarding fracture risk communication. METHODS: To assess patients' preferences for fracture risk communication, structured interviews with women with osteoporosis or who were at risk for fracture were conducted in 11 sites around the world, namely in Argentina, Belgium, Canada at Hamilton and with participants from the Osteoporosis Canada Canadian Osteoporosis Patient Network (COPN), Japan, Mexico, Spain, the Netherlands, the UK, and the USA in California and Washington state. The interviews used to collect data were designed on the basis of a systematic review and a qualitative pilot study involving 26 participants at risk of fracture. RESULTS: A total of 332 women (mean age 67.5 ± 8.0 years, 48% with a history of fracture) were included in the study. Although the participants considered it important to receive information about their fracture risk (mean importance of 6.2 ± 1.4 on a 7-point Likert scale), only 56% (i.e. 185/332) had already received such information. Globally, participants preferred a visual presentation with a traffic-light type of coloured graph of their FRAX® fracture risk probability, compared to a verbal or written presentation. Almost all participants considered it important to discuss their fracture risk and the consequences of fractures with their healthcare professionals in addition to receiving information in a printed format or access to an online website showing their fracture risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant communication gap between healthcare professionals and patients when discussing osteoporosis fracture risk. The RICO study provides insight into preferred approaches to rectify this communication gap.

Improving patients' experiences of diagnosis and treatment of vertebral fracture: co-production of knowledge sharing resources.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis involves changes to bones that makes them prone to fracture. The most common osteoporotic fracture is vertebral, in which one or more spinal vertebrae collapse. People with vertebral fracture are at high risk of further fractures, however around two-thirds remain undiagnosed. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends bone protection therapies to reduce this risk. This study aimed to co-produce a range of knowledge sharing resources, for healthcare professionals in primary care and patients, to improve access to timely diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: This study comprised three stages: 1. In-depth interviews with primary care healthcare professionals (n = 21) and patients with vertebral fractures (n = 24) to identify barriers and facilitators to diagnosis and treatment. 2. A taxonomy of barriers and facilitators to diagnosis were presented to three stakeholder groups (n = 18), who suggested ways of identifying, diagnosing and treating vertebral fractures. Fourteen recommendations were identified using the nominal group technique. 3. Two workshops were held with stakeholders to co-produce and refine the prototype knowledge sharing resources (n = 12). RESULTS: Stage 1: Factors included lack of patient information about symptoms and risk factors, prioritisation of other conditions and use of self-management. Healthcare professionals felt vertebral fractures were harder to identify in lower risk groups and mistook them for other conditions. Difficulties in communication between primary and secondary care meant that patients were not always informed of their diagnosis, or did not start treatment promptly. Stage 2: 14 recommendations to improve management of vertebral fractures were identified, including for primary care healthcare professionals (n = 9) and patients (n = 5). Stage 3: The need for allied health professionals in primary care to be informed about vertebral fractures was highlighted, along with ensuring that resources appealed to under-represented groups. Prototype resources were developed. Changes included help-seeking guidance and clear explanations of medical language. CONCLUSIONS: The study used robust qualitative methods to co-produce knowledge sharing resources to improve diagnosis. A co-production approach enabled a focus on areas stakeholders thought to be beneficial to timely and accurate diagnosis and treatment. Dissemination of these resources to a range of stakeholders provides potential for substantial reach and spread.

Using Twitter (X) to mobilise knowledge for First Contact Physiotherapists: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Twitter (now X) is a virtual social network commonly used by healthcare professionals. Little is known about whether it helps healthcare professionals to share, mobilise and co-create knowledge, or reduce the time between research knowledge being created and used in clinical practice (the evidence-to-practice gap). Musculoskeletal First Contact Physiotherapists (FCPs) are primary care specialists who diagnose and treat people with musculoskeletal conditions without needing to see their General Practitioner (family physician) first. They often work as a sole FCP in practice, hence are an ideal healthcare professional group with whom to explore knowledge mobilisation using Twitter. OBJECTIVE: To explore how Twitter is, and can be used to mobilise knowledge, including research findings, to inform FCP clinical practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of FCPs with experience of working in English primary care. FCPs were purposively sampled based on employment arrangements and Twitter use. Recruitment was via known FCP networks and Twitter, supplemented by snowball sampling. Online interviews used a topic guide exploring FCP's perceptions and experiences of accessing knowledge, via Twitter, for clinical practice. Data were analysed thematically and informed by the knowledge mobilisation mindlines model. Public contributors were involved throughout. RESULTS: Nineteen FCPs consented to interview (Twitter users n=14, female n=9). Three themes were identified: 1) How Twitter meets the needs of FCPs, 2) Twitter and a journey of knowledge to support clinical practice and 3) Factors impeding knowledge sharing on Twitter. FCPs described needs relating to isolated working practice, time demands and role uncertainty. Twitter provided rapid access to succinct knowledge, opportunity to network and peer reassurance regarding clinical cases, evidence and policy. FCPs took a journey of knowledge exchange on Twitter, including scrolling for knowledge, filtering for credibility and adapting knowledge for in-service training and clinical practice. Participants engaged best with images and infographics. FCPs described misinformation, bias, echo chambers, unprofessionalism, hostility, privacy concerns and blurred personal boundaries as factors impeding knowledge sharing on Twitter. Consequently, many did not feel confident to actively participate with Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores how Twitter is, and can be used to mobilise knowledge to inform FCP clinical practice. Twitter can meet knowledge needs of FCPs through rapid access to succinct knowledge, networking opportunities and professional reassurance. The journey of knowledge exchange from Twitter to clinical practice can be explained by considering the mindlines model, which describes how FCPs exchange knowledge in online and offline contexts. Findings demonstrate that Twitter can be a useful adjunct to FCP practice although several factors impeded knowledge sharing on the platform. We recommend social media training and enhanced governance guidance from professional bodies to support the use of Twitter for knowledge mobilisation.

Daily Pain Severity but Not Vertebral Fractures Is Associated With Lower Physical Activity in Postmenopausal Women With Back Pain.

Back pain lifetime incidence is 60%-70%, while 12%-20% of older women have vertebral fractures (VFs), often with back pain. We aimed to provide objective evidence, currently lacking, regarding whether back pain and VFs affect physical activity (PA). We recruited 69 women with recent back pain (age 74.5 ± 5.4 years). Low- (0.5 < g < 1.0), medium- (1.0 ≤ g < 1.5), and high-impact (g ≥ 1.5) PA and walking time were measured (100 Hz for 7 days, hip-worn accelerometer). Linear mixed-effects models assessed associations between self-reported pain and PA, and group differences (VFs from spine radiographs/no-VF) in PA. Higher daily pain was associated with reduced low (ß = -0.12, 95% confidence interval, [-0.22, -0.03], p = .013) and medium-impact PA (ß = -0.11, 95% confidence interval, [-0.21, -0.01], p = .041), but not high-impact PA or walking time (p > .11). VFs were not associated with PA (all p > .2). Higher daily pain levels but not VFs were associated with reduced low- and medium-impact PA, which could increase sarcopenia and falls risk in older women with back pain.

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.

Research priorities regarding the use of bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a UK priority setting exercise.

PURPOSE: Worldwide, many people who would benefit from osteoporosis drugs are not offered or receiving them, resulting in an osteoporosis care gap. Adherence with bisphosphonates is particularly low. This study aimed to identify stakeholder research priorities relating to bisphosphonate treatment regimens for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. METHODS: A three-step approach based on the James Lind Alliance methodology for identification and prioritisation of research questions was used. Research uncertainties were gathered from a large programme of related research studies about bisphosphonate regimens and from recent published international clinical guidelines. Clinical and public stakeholders refined the list of uncertainties into research questions. The third step prioritised the questions using a modified nominal group technique. RESULTS: In total, 34 draft uncertainties were finalised into 33 research questions by stakeholders. The top 10 includes questions relating to which people should be offered intravenous bisphosphonates first line (1); optimal duration of treatment (2); the role of bone turnover markers in treatment breaks (3); support patient need for medicine optimisation (4); support primary care practitioner need regarding bisphosphonates (5); comparing zoledronate given in community vs hospital settings (6); ensuring quality standards are met (7); the long-term model of care (8); best bisphosphonate for people aged under 50 (9); and supporting patient decision-making about bisphosphonates (10). CONCLUSION: This study reports, for the first time, topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate osteoporosis treatment regimens. These findings have implications for research into implementation to address the care gap and education of healthcare professionals. Using James Lind Alliance methodology, this study reports prioritised topics of importance to stakeholders in the research of bisphosphonate treatment in osteoporosis. The priorities address how to better implement guidelines to address the care gap, understanding patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, and how to optimise long-term care.

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient-clinician collaboration to make care fit. METHODS: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. RESULTS: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient-clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient-clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). DISCUSSION: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient-clinician collaboration.

Applying the consolidated framework for implementation research to evaluate the community rapid intervention service.

BACKGROUND: Developed in 2019, the Community Rapid Intervention Service (CRIS) is a community intervention service aiming to prevent hospital admissions. CRIS provides a response within two hours to patients with sub-acute medical needs in their usual place of residence. This evaluation aimed to identify challenges and facilitators to implementation of the service, with a view to informing future service development, optimising patient care and disseminating learning to other areas looking to implement similar services. METHODS: This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as an evaluation framework. We conducted semi-structured interviews with local healthcare system leaders, clinicians that worked within the CRIS, and clinicians who interfaced with the CRIS. The CFIR was used to guide data collection and analysis. Two Community of Practice (CoP) meetings were held to gather stakeholders' perspectives of the evaluation. RESULTS: Three key themes were identified from the analysis of 13 interviews: contextual factors influencing implementation, service identity and navigating complexity. Contextual factors such the influence of the Covid 19 pandemic upon health services and the expansion of the CRIS were discussed by participants. The adaptability of the service was deemed both a facilitator and challenge of implementation. Ways to build-on and improve the existing CRIS model were suggested. CONCLUSION: This evaluation has shown that the CRIS may need to be redefined with clarity provided as to how the service interfaces with other urgent and planned care offered in acute, primary, community and social services. Structuring the evaluation around the CFIR was helpful in identifying facilitators and challenges that influenced the implementation of the CRIS.

Clinicians' views of prescribing oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for osteoporosis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonate medications, including alendronate, ibandronate and risedronate administered orally and zoledronate, administered intravenously, are commonly prescribed for the treatment of osteoporosis based on evidence that, correctly taken, bisphosphonates can improve bone strength and lead to a reduction in the risk of fragility fractures. However, it is currently unclear how decisions to select between bisphosphonate regimens, including intravenous regimen, are made in practice and how clinicians support patients with different treatments. METHODS: This was an interpretivist qualitative study. 23 semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with a sample of general practitioners (GPs), secondary care clinicians, specialist experts as well as those providing and leading novel treatments including participants from a community intravenous (IV) zoledronate service. Data analysis was undertaken through a process of iterative categorisation. RESULTS: The results report clinicians varying experiences of making treatment choices, as well as wider aspects of osteoporosis care. Secondary care and specialist clinicians conveyed some confidence in making treatment choices including on selecting IV treatment. This was aided by access to diagnostic testing and medication expertise. In contrast GPs reported a number of challenges in prescribing bisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis and uncertainty about treatment choice. Results also highlight how administering IV zoledronate was seen as an opportunity to engage in broader care practices. CONCLUSION: Approaches to making treatment decisions and supporting patients when prescribing bisphosphonates for osteoporosis vary in practice. This study points to the need to co-ordinate osteoporosis treatment and care across different care providers.

Acceptability and engagement amongst patients on oral and intravenous bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is common in older adults leading to fragility fractures at enormous individual and economic cost. Improving long-term adherence with bisphosphonate treatments reduces fracture risk, but adherence rates for first-line oral bisphosphonate alendronate remains low. Although alternative treatment regimens, including annual intravenous infusions are available, patient acceptability remains unclear. Therefore, understanding patients' acceptability and engagement in different bisphosphonate regimens is important to ensure optimal treatment benefits. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 78 patients with a mean age of 69.9 years, who had taken or received bisphosphonates for osteoporosis within the last 24 months. Data analysis included iterative categorisation and used the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) to compare the acceptability of treatments regimens. RESULTS: Treatment acceptability and engagement were influenced by the extent to which patients understood the prescribed treatment, and evidence of the treatment working. Acceptability and engagement were compromised when treatment was perceived as burdensome, personal costs were incurred, and patients' values were incompatible with the regimen. The balancing of these factors contributed to patients' ability to cope with the treatment and their emotional responses. Intravenous treatment was generally perceived as easier to understand, more effective, less burdensome with fewer opportunity costs, and a preferable regimen compared with oral bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: Annual intravenous zoledronate bisphosphonate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients, perceived as more straightforward to engage in, although a small portion of patients on oral bisphosphonates were satisfied with treatment. Further research is needed to identify how acceptability and engagement can be optimised.

A clinical tool to identify older women with back pain at high risk of osteoporotic vertebral fractures (Vfrac): a population-based cohort study with exploratory economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: osteoporotic vertebral fractures (OVFs) identify people at high risk of future fractures, but despite this, less than a third come to clinical attention. The objective of this study was to develop a clinical tool to aid health care professionals decide which older women with back pain should have a spinal radiograph. METHODS: a population-based cohort of 1,635 women aged 65+ years with self-reported back pain in the previous 4 months were recruited from primary care. Exposure data were collected through self-completion questionnaires and physical examination, including descriptions of back pain and traditional risk factors for osteoporosis. Outcome was the presence/absence of OVFs on spinal radiographs. Logistic regression models identified independent predictors of OVFs, with the area under the (receiver operating) curve calculated for the final model, and a cut-point was identified. RESULTS: mean age was 73.9 years and 209 (12.8%) had OVFs. The final Vfrac model comprised 15 predictors of OVF, with an AUC of 0.802 (95% CI: 0.764-0.840). Sensitivity was 72.4% and specificity was 72.9%. Vfrac identified 93% of those with more than one OVF and two-thirds of those with one OVF. Performance was enhanced by inclusion of self-reported back pain descriptors, removal of which reduced AUC to 0.742 (95% CI: 0.696-0.788) and sensitivity to 66.5%. Health economic modelling to support a future trial was favourable. CONCLUSIONS: the Vfrac clinical tool appears to be valid and is improved by the addition of self-reported back pain symptoms. The tool now requires testing to establish real-world clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Acceptability of, and preferences for, remote consulting during COVID-19 among older patients with two common long-term musculoskeletal conditions: findings from three qualitative studies and recommendations for practice.

BACKGROUND: Guidance for choosing face-to-face vs remote consultations (RCs) encourages clinicians to consider patient preferences, however, little is known about acceptability of, and preferences for RCs, particularly amongst patients with musculoskeletal conditions. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of, and preferences for, RC among patients with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: Three UK qualitative studies, exploring patient experiences of accessing and receiving healthcare, undertaken during the pandemic, with people with osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis. Study team members agreed a consistent approach to conduct rapid deductive analysis using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) on transcripts from each data set relating to RC, facilitated by group meetings to discuss interpretations. Findings from the three studies were pooled. RESULTS: Findings from 1 focus group and 64 interviews with 35 people were included in the analysis. Participants' attitudes to RC, views on fairness (ethicality) and sense-making (intervention coherence) varied according to their needs within the consultation and views of the pandemic. Some participants valued the reduced burden associated with RC, while others highly valued non-verbal communication and physical examination associated with face-to-face consults (opportunity costs). Some participants described low confidence (self-efficacy) in being able to communicate in RCs and others perceived RCs as ineffective, in part due to suboptimal communication. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of, and preferences for RC appear to be influenced by societal, healthcare provider and personal factors and in this study, were not condition-dependant. Remote care by default has the potential to exacerbate health inequalities and needs nuanced implementation.

Strong, steady and straight: UK consensus statement on physical activity and exercise for osteoporosis.

Exercise and physical activity can improve bone strength and the risk of falls, which may offer benefits in the prevention and management of osteoporosis. However, uncertainty about the types of exercise that are safe and effective instigates lack of confidence in people with osteoporosis and health professionals. Existing guidelines leave some questions unresolved. This consensus statement aimed to determine the physical activity and exercise needed to optimise bone strength, reduce fall and fracture risk, improve posture and manage vertebral fracture symptoms, while minimising potential risks in people with osteoporosis. The scope of this statement was developed following stakeholder consultation. Meta-analyses were reviewed and where evidence was lacking, individual studies or expert opinion were used to develop recommendations. A multidisciplinary expert group reviewed evidence to make recommendations, by consensus when evidence was not available. Key recommendations are that people with osteoporosis should undertake (1) resistance and impact exercise to maximise bone strength; (2) activities to improve strength and balance to reduce falls; (3) spinal extension exercise to improve posture and potentially reduce risk of falls and vertebral fractures. For safety, we recommend avoiding postures involving a high degree of spinal flexion during exercise or daily life. People with vertebral fracture or multiple low trauma fractures should usually exercise only up to an impact equivalent to brisk walking. Those at risk of falls should start with targeted strength and balance training. Vertebral fracture symptoms may benefit from exercise to reduce pain, improve mobility and quality of life, ideally with specialist advice to encourage return to normal activities. Everyone with osteoporosis may benefit from guidance on adapting postures and movements. There is little evidence that physical activity is associated with significant harm, and the benefits, in general, outweigh the risks.

Vertebral fracture as a risk factor for self-harm: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The prevention of self-harm is an international public health priority. It is vital to identify at-risk populations, particularly as self-harm is a risk factor for suicide. This study aims to examine the risk of self-harm in people with vertebral fractures. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. Patients with vertebral fracture were identified within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and matched to patients without fracture by sex and age. Incident self-harm was defined by primary care record codes following vertebral fracture. Overall incidence rates (per 10,000 person-years (PY)) were reported. Cox regression analysis determined risk (hazard ratios (HR), 95 % confidence interval (CI)) of self-harm compared to the matched unexposed cohort. Initial crude analysis was subsequently adjusted and stratified by median age and sex. RESULTS: The number of cases of vertebral fracture was 16,293, with a matched unexposed cohort of the same size. Patients were predominantly female (70.1 %), median age was 76.3 years. Overall incidence of self-harm in the cohort with vertebral fracture was 12.2 (10.1, 14.8) /10,000 PY. There was an initial crude association between vertebral fracture and self-harm, which remained after adjustment (HR 2.4 (95 %CI 1.5, 3.6). Greatest risk of self-harm was found in those with vertebral fractures who were aged below 76.3 years (3.2(1.8, 5.7)) and male (3.9(1.8, 8.5)). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care patients with vertebral fracture are at increased risk of self-harm compared to people without these fractures. Male patients aged below 76 years of age appear to be at greatest risk of self-harm. Clinicians need to be aware of the potential for self-harm in this patient group.

Exercise Interventions for Preventing and Treating Low Bone Mass in the Forearm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of exercises for improving forearm bone mass. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched from their inception until December 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Eligibility included adults undertaking upper limb exercise interventions (≥12wk) to improve bone mass. DATA EXTRACTION: Screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts and data extraction were undertaken independently by pairs of reviewers. Included studies were quality appraised using Cochrane risk of bias tool. DATA SYNTHESIS: Exercise interventions were classified into "resistance training" of high or low intensity (HIRT/LIRT, respectively) or "impact." Random-effects meta-analysis of the percentage change in forearm bone mass from baseline was conducted. Twenty-six studies were included in the review, of which 21 provided suitable data for meta-analysis. Methodological quality ranged from "low" to "unclear" risk of bias. Exercise generally led to increases (moderate-quality evidence) in forearm bone mass (standard mean difference [SMD], 1.27; 95% CI, 0.66-1.88; overall effect Z value=4.10; P<.001). HIRT (SMD, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.37-1.62; Z value=3.11; P=.002), and LIRT (SMD, 2.36; 95% CI, 0.37-4.36; Z value=2.33; P<.001) led to moderate increases in forearm bone mass. Improvements resulting from impact exercises (SMD, 1.12; 95% CI, -1.27 to 3.50; Z value=0.92; P=.36) were not statistically significant (low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that exercise is effective for improving forearm bone mass. There is moderate-quality evidence that upper body resistance exercise (HIRT/LIRT) promotes forearm bone mass but low-quality evidence for impact exercise. Current evidence is equivocal regarding which exercise is most effective for improving forearm bone mass.

Risk of fracture among patients with polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are associated with increased fracture risk and are the mainstay of treatment in polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) and giant cell arteritis (GCA). However, fracture risk in these conditions has not been previously quantified. The aim of this study was to quantify the risk of fracture among patients with PMR and GCA. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using primary care records from the UK-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Individuals aged 40 years and over, with incident diagnoses of PMR or GCA were separately identified from 1990-2004 and followed up until 2015. For each exposed individual, four age-, sex- and practice-matched controls were randomly selected. Incidence rates of fracture per 10,000 person-years were calculated for each disease group and hazard rates were compared to the unexposed using Cox regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 12,136 and 2673 cases of PMR and GCA, respectively, were identified. The incidence rate of fracture was 148.05 (95% CI 141.16-155.28) in PMR and 147.15 (132.91-162.91) in GCA per 10,000 person-years. Risk of fracture was increased by 63% in PMR (adjusted hazard ratio 1.63, 95% CI 1.54-1.73) and 67% in GCA (1.67, 1.49-1.88) compared to the control populations. Fewer than 13% of glucocorticoid-treated cases were prescribed bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports, for the first time, a similar increase in fracture risk for patients with PMR and GCA. More needs to be done to improve adherence to guidelines to co-prescribe bisphosphonates. Further research needs to identify whether lower glucocorticoid starting doses and/or aggressive dose reduction reduces fracture risk.

EULAR recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis.

Pain is the predominant symptom for people with inflammatory arthritis (IA) and osteoarthritis (OA) mandating the development of evidence-based recommendations for the health professional's approach to pain management. A multidisciplinary task force including professionals and patient representatives conducted a systematic literature review of systematic reviews to evaluate evidence regarding effects on pain of multiple treatment modalities. Overarching principles and recommendations regarding assessment and pain treatment were specified on the basis of reviewed evidence and expert opinion. From 2914 review studies initially identified, 186 met inclusion criteria. The task force emphasised the importance for the health professional to adopt a patient-centred framework within a biopsychosocial perspective, to have sufficient knowledge of IA and OA pathogenesis, and to be able to differentiate localised and generalised pain. Treatment is guided by scientific evidence and the assessment of patient needs, preferences and priorities; pain characteristics; previous and ongoing pain treatments; inflammation and joint damage; and psychological and other pain-related factors. Pain treatment options typically include education complemented by physical activity and exercise, orthotics, psychological and social interventions, sleep hygiene education, weight management, pharmacological and joint-specific treatment options, or interdisciplinary pain management. Effects on pain were most uniformly positive for physical activity and exercise interventions, and for psychological interventions. Effects on pain for educational interventions, orthotics, weight management and multidisciplinary treatment were shown for particular disease groups. Underpinned by available systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these recommendations enable health professionals to provide knowledgeable pain-management support for people with IA and OA.

Cost-effectiveness of a model consultation to support self-management in patients with osteoarthritis.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a model OA consultation for OA to support self-management compared with usual care. Methods: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the three-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire was undertaken from a UK National Health Service perspective alongside a two-arm cluster-randomized controlled trial. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: Differences in health outcomes between the model OA consultation and usual care arms were not statistically significant. On average, visits to the orthopaedic surgeon were lower in the model OA consultation arm by -0.28 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.06). The cost-utility analysis indicated that the model OA consultation was associated with a non-significant incremental cost of £-13.11 (95% CI: -81.09 to 54.85) and an incremental quality adjusted life year (QALY) of -0.003 (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.02), with a 44% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained. The percentage of participants who took time off and the associated productivity cost were lower in the model OA consultation arm. Conclusion: Implementing National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines using a model OA consultation in primary care does not appear to lead to increased costs, but health outcomes remain very similar to usual care. Even though the intervention seems to reduce the demand for orthopaedic surgery, overall it is unlikely to be cost-effective.

Risk of fragility fracture among patients with gout and the effect of urate-lowering therapy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies that quantified the risk of fracture among patients with gout and assessed the potential effect of urate-lowering therapy have provided conflicting results. Our study aims to provide better estimates of risk by minimizing the effect of selection bias and confounding on the observed association. METHODS: We used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, which records primary care consultations of patients from across the United Kingdom. We identified patients with incident gout from 1990 to 2004 and followed them up until 2015. Each patient with gout was individually matched to 4 controls on age, sex and general practice. We calculated absolute rate of fracture and hazard ratios (HRs) using Cox regression models. Among patients with gout, we assessed the impact of urate-lowering therapy on fracture, and used landmark analysis and propensity score matching to account for immortal time bias and confounding by indication. RESULTS: We identified 31 781 patients with incident gout matched to 122 961 controls. The absolute rate of fracture was similar in both cases and controls (absolute rate = 53 and 55 per 10 000 person-years, respectively) corresponding to an HR of 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.92-1.02). Our finding remained unchanged when we stratified our analysis by age and sex. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the risk of fracture among those prescribed urate-lowering therapy within 1 and 3 years after gout diagnosis. INTERPRETATION: Overall, gout was not associated with an increased risk of fracture. Urate-lowering drugs prescribed early during the course of disease had neither adverse nor beneficial effect on the long-term risk of fracture.