Surgery, Needle Fasciotomy, or Collagenase Injection for Dupuytren Contracture : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery, needle fasciotomy, and collagenase injection are used to treat Dupuytren contracture. The treatment decision requires balancing initial morbidity and costs of surgery against its potential long-term benefits over needle fasciotomy and collagenase. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgery, needle fasciotomy, and collagenase injection at 3 months and 2 years (secondary time points of the trial). DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, outcome assessor-blinded, superiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03192020). SETTING: 6 public hospitals in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 302 persons with treatment-naive Dupuytren contracture (contracture angle <135°). INTERVENTION: Surgery (n = 101), needle fasciotomy (n = 101), or collagenase (n = 100). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the success rate, defined as greater than 50% contracture release and patients reaching the patient acceptable symptom state. Secondary outcomes included hand function, pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction, residual contracture angle, finger flexion, risk for retreatment, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 292 (97%) and 284 (94%) participants completed the 3-month and 2-year follow-ups. Success rates were similar at 3 months: 71% (95% CI, 62% to 80%) for surgery, 73% (CI, 64% to 82%) for needle fasciotomy, and 73% (CI, 64% to 82%) for collagenase. At 2 years, surgery had superior success rates compared with both needle fasciotomy (78% vs. 50%; adjusted risk difference [aRD], 0.30 [CI, 0.17 to 0.43]) and collagenase (78% vs. 65%; aRD, 0.13 [CI, 0.01 to 0.26]). Secondary analyses paralleled with the primary analysis. LIMITATION: Participants were not blinded. CONCLUSION: Initial outcomes are similar between the treatments, but at 2 years success rates were maintained in the surgery group but were lower with both needle fasciotomy and collagenase despite retreatments. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Research Council of Finland.

Systematic Review of Shoulder Imaging Abnormalities in Asymptomatic Adult Shoulders (SCRUTINY): Abnormalities of the glenohumeral joint.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine the population prevalence of glenohumeral joint imaging abnormalities in asymptomatic adults. METHOD: We systematically reviewed studies reporting the prevalence of X-ray, ultrasound (US), computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abnormalities in adults without shoulder symptoms (PROSPERO registration number CRD42018090041). This report presents the glenohumeral joint imaging findings. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to June 2023 and assessed risk of bias using a tool designed for prevalence studies. The primary analysis was planned for the general population. The certainty of evidence was assessed using a modified Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) for prognostic studies. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies (4 X-ray, 10 US, 20 MRI, 1 X-ray and MRI) reported useable prevalence data. Two studies were population-based (846 shoulders), 15 studies included miscellaneous study populations (1715 shoulders) and 18 included athletes (727 shoulders). All were judged to be at high risk of bias. Clinical diversity precluded pooling. Population prevalence of glenohumeral osteoarthritis ranged from 15% to 75% (2 studies, 846 shoulders, 1 X-ray, 1 X-ray and MRI; low certainty evidence). Prevalence of labral abnormalities, humeral head cysts and long head of biceps tendon abnormalities were 20%, 5%, 30% respectively (1 study, 20 shoulders, X-ray and MRI; very low certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: The population-based prevalence of glenohumeral joint imaging abnormalities in asymptomatic individuals remains uncertain, but may range between 30% and 75%. Better estimates are needed to inform best evidence-based management of people with shoulder pain.

Interpersonal Process of Dyadic Coping in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Perspective From the Australian Rheumatology Association Database.

OBJECTIVE: Dyadic coping, the process of coping that transpires between couples challenged by one partner's illness, is an important predictor of disease adjustment and patient well-being. However, the extent of dyadic coping in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) remains unclear. This study examines the effect of dyadic coping on psychological distress and relationship quality from the perspectives of both participants with RA and their spouses. METHODS: Participants and their spouses were invited to participate in an online survey study if they were aged ≥ 18 years and had lived together for more than a year. The survey included the Chronic Pain Grade Scale, Dyadic Coping Inventory, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, and Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Participants and spouses completed the survey independently. The actor-partner interdependence model was used to analyze the dyadic data. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-three couples participated. Our findings showed that participants who reported higher supportive dyadic coping reported lower depression, anxiety, and stress, and higher relationship quality, whereas participants who reported higher negative dyadic coping reported higher depression, anxiety, and stress, and lower relationship quality. Spouses who reported higher supportive dyadic coping reported higher relationship quality, but no effect on depression, anxiety, and stress was observed. In contrast, spouses who reported higher negative dyadic coping reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, and lower relationship quality. CONCLUSION: Participants' and spouses' perceptions of supportive and negative dyadic coping closely influenced their psychological distress and relationship quality. Further, having a partner with RA also seemed to affect the spouse, especially when there was a negative dyadic coping pattern.

Association of state-level prescription drug monitoring program implementation with opioid prescribing transitions in primary care in Australia.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate whether voluntary and mandatory prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) use in Victoria, Australia, had an impact on prescribing behaviour, focusing on individual patients' prescribed opioid doses and transition to prescribing of nonmonitored medications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using routinely collected primary healthcare data. A 90-day moving average prescribed opioid dose in oral morphine equivalents was used to estimate opioid dosage. A Markov transition matrix was used to describe how patients prescribed medications transitioned between opioid dose groups and other nonopioid treatment options during 3 transition periods: transition between 2 control periods prior to PDMP implementation (T1 to T2); during the voluntary PDMP implementation (T2 to T3); and during mandatory PDMP implementation (T3 to T4). RESULTS: Among patients prescribed opioids in our study, we noted an increased probability of transitioning to not being prescribed opioids during the mandatory PDMP period (T3 to T4). This increase was attributed mainly to the ceasing of low-dose opioid prescribing. Membership in an opioid dose group remained relatively stable for most patients who were prescribed high opioid doses. For those who were only prescribed nonmonitored medications initially, the probability of being prescribed opioids increased during the mandatory PDMP when compared to other transition periods. CONCLUSION: The introduction of PDMP mandates appeared to have an impact on the prescribing for patients who were prescribed low-dose opioids, while its impact on individuals prescribed higher opioid doses was comparatively limited.

Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Factors influencing the implementation of early discharge hospital at home and admission avoidance hospital at home: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Worldwide there is an increasing demand for Hospital at Home as an alternative to hospital admission. Although there is a growing evidence base on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Hospital at Home, health service managers, health professionals and policy makers require evidence on how to implement and sustain these services on a wider scale. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home, from the perspective of multiple stakeholders, including policy makers, health service managers, health professionals, patients and patients' caregivers. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings relate to, and help to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention reviews of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus and Scopus until 17 November 2022. We also applied reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies. We searched for studies in any language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies and mixed-methods studies with qualitative data collection and analysis methods examining the implementation of new or existing Hospital at Home services from the perspective of different stakeholders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted study characteristics and intervention components, assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Appraisal Skills Checklist (CASP) and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). We applied thematic synthesis to synthesise the data across studies and identify factors that may influence the implementation of Hospital at Home. MAIN RESULTS: From 7535 records identified from database searches and one identified from citation tracking, we included 52 qualitative studies exploring the implementation of Hospital at Home services (31 Early Discharge, 16 Admission Avoidance, 5 combined services), across 13 countries and from the perspectives of 662 service-level staff (clinicians, managers), eight systems-level staff (commissioners, insurers), 900 patients and 417 caregivers. Overall, we judged 40 studies as having minor methodological concerns and we judged 12 studies as having major concerns. Main concerns included data collection methods (e.g. not reporting a topic guide), data analysis methods (e.g. insufficient data to support findings) and not reporting ethical approval. Following synthesis, we identified 12 findings graded as high (n = 10) and moderate (n = 2) confidence and classified them into four themes: (1) development of stakeholder relationships and systems prior to implementation, (2) processes, resources and skills required for safe and effective implementation, (3) acceptability and caregiver impacts, and (4) sustainability of services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Implementing Admission Avoidance and Early Discharge Hospital at Home services requires early development of policies, stakeholder engagement, efficient admission processes, effective communication and a skilled workforce to safely and effectively implement person-centred Hospital at Home, achieve acceptance by staff who refer patients to these services and ensure sustainability. Future research should focus on lower-income country and rural settings, and the perspectives of systems-level stakeholders, and explore the potential negative impact on caregivers, especially for Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home, as this service may become increasingly utilised to manage rising visits to emergency departments.

Models for delivery and co-ordination of primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in aged care facilities.

BACKGROUND: The number of older people is increasing worldwide and public expenditure on residential aged care facilities (ACFs) is expected to at least double, and possibly triple, by 2050. Co-ordinated and timely care in residential ACFs that reduces unnecessary hospital transfers may improve residents' health outcomes and increase satisfaction with care among ACF residents, their families and staff. These benefits may outweigh the resources needed to sustain the changes in care delivery and potentially lead to cost savings. Our systematic review comprehensively and systematically presents the available evidence of the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of alternative models of providing health care to ACF residents. OBJECTIVES: Main objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of alternative models of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) to older adults living in ACFs. Secondary objective To assess the cost-effectiveness of the alternative models. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov) on 26 October 2022, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised trials, and cost/cost-effectiveness data collected alongside eligible effectiveness studies. Eligible study participants included older people who reside in an ACF as their place of permanent abode and healthcare professionals delivering or co-ordinating the delivery of healthcare at ACFs. Eligible interventions focused on either ways of delivering primary or secondary health care (or both) or ways of co-ordinating the delivery of this care. Eligible comparators included usual care or another model of care. Primary outcomes were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions and adverse effects (defined as infections, falls and pressure ulcers). Secondary outcomes included adherence to clinical guideline-recommended care, health-related quality of life of residents, mortality, resource use, access to primary or specialist healthcare services, any hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, satisfaction with the health care by residents and their families, work-related satisfaction and work-related stress of ACF staff. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any alternative model of care versus usual care. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised trials (21,787 participants; three studies only reported number of beds) in this review. Included trials evaluated alternative models of care aimed at either all residents of the ACF (i.e. no specific health condition; 11 studies), ACF residents with mental health conditions or behavioural problems (12 studies), ACF residents with a specific condition (e.g. residents with pressure ulcers, 13 studies) or residents requiring a specific type of care (e.g. residents after hospital discharge, four studies). Most alternative models of care focused on 'co-ordination of care' (n = 31). Three alternative models of care focused on 'who provides care' and two focused on 'where care is provided' (i.e. care provided within ACF versus outside of ACF). Four models focused on the use of information and communication technology. Usual care, the comparator in all studies, was highly heterogeneous across studies and, in most cases, was poorly reported. Most of the included trials were susceptible to some form of bias; in particular, performance (89%), reporting (66%) and detection (42%) bias. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the proportion of residents with at least one emergency department visit (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.20; 7 trials, 1276 participants; low-certainty evidence), but may reduce the proportion of residents with at least one unplanned hospital admission (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99, I2 = 53%; 8 trials, 1263 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of alternative models of care on adverse events (proportion of residents with a fall: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.60, I² = 74%; 3 trials, 1061 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and adherence to guideline-recommended care (proportion of residents receiving adequate antidepressant medication: RR 5.29, 95% CI 1.08 to 26.00; 1 study, 65 participants) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may have little or no effect on the health-related quality of life of ACF residents (MD -0.016, 95% CI -0.036 to 0.004; I² = 23%; 12 studies, 4016 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably make little or no difference to the number of deaths in residents of ACFs (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 24 trials, 3881 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). We did not pool the cost-effectiveness or cost data as the specific costs associated with the various alternative models of care were incomparable, both across models of care as well as across settings. Based on the findings of five economic evaluations (all interventions focused on co-ordination of care), we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care compared to usual care as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to usual care, alternative models of care may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits but may reduce unplanned hospital admissions. We are uncertain of the effect of alternative care models on adverse events (i.e. falls, pressure ulcers, infections) and adherence to guidelines compared to usual care, as the certainty of the evidence is very low. Alternative models of care may have little or no effect on health-related quality of life and probably have no effect on mortality of ACF residents compared to usual care. Importantly, we are uncertain of the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of care due to the limited, disparate data available.

Methotrexate for juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common rheumatic disease in childhood. Methotrexate has broad immunomodulatory properties and is the most commonly used disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD). This is an update of a 2001 Cochrane review. It supports a living guideline for children and young people with JIA. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of methotrexate for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. SEARCH METHODS: The Australian JIA Living Guideline Working Group created a registry of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of JIA by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. The date of the most recent search of online databases was 1 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for RCTs that compared methotrexate with placebo, no treatment, or another DMARD (with or without concomitant therapies) in children and young people (aged up to 18 years) with JIA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. The main comparison was methotrexate versus placebo. Our outcomes were treatment response, sustained clinically inactive disease, function, pain, participant global assessment of well-being, serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three new trials in this update, bringing the total number of included RCTs to five (575 participants). Three trials evaluated oral methotrexate versus placebo, one evaluated methotrexate plus intra-articular glucocorticoid (IAGC) therapy versus IAGC therapy alone, and one evaluated methotrexate versus leflunomide. Doses of methotrexate ranged from 5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week in four trials, and participants in the methotrexate group of the remaining trial received 0.5 mg/kg/week. Trial size varied from 31 to 226 participants. The average age of participants ranged from four to 10 years. Most participants were females and most had nonsystemic JIA. The study that evaluated methotrexate plus IAGC therapy versus IAGC therapy alone recruited children and young people with the oligoarticular disease subtype of JIA. Two placebo-controlled trials and the trial of methotrexate versus leflunomide were adequately randomised and blinded, and likely not susceptible to important biases. One placebo-controlled trial may have been susceptible to selection bias due to lack of adequate reporting of randomisation methods. The trial investigating the addition of methotrexate to IAGC therapy was susceptible to performance and detection biases. Methotrexate versus placebo Methotrexate compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people who achieve treatment response up to six months (absolute difference of 163 more per 1000 people; risk ratio (RR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.31; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 328 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, methotrexate compared with placebo may have little or no effect on pain as measured on an increasing scale of 0 to 100 (mean difference (MD) -1.10 points, 95% CI -9.09 to 6.88; 1 trial, 114 participants), improvement in participant global assessment of well-being (absolute difference of 92 more per 1000 people; RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.72; 1 trial, 176 participants), occurrence of serious adverse events (absolute difference of 5 fewer per 1000 people; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.04 to 8.97; 3 trials, 328 participants), and withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 3.46, 95% CI 0.60 to 19.79; 3 trials, 328 participants) up to six months. We could not estimate the absolute difference for withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the placebo group. All outcomes were reported within six months of randomisation. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low for all outcomes due to indirectness (suboptimal dosing of methotrexate and diverse outcome measures) and imprecision (few participants and low event rates). No trials reported function or the number of participants with sustained clinically inactive disease. Serious adverse events included liver derangement, abdominal pain, and inadvertent overdose. Methotrexate plus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy versus intra-articular corticosteroid therapy alone Methotrexate plus IAGC therapy compared with IAGC therapy alone may have little or no effect on the probability of sustained clinically inactive disease or the rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to 12 months in children and young people with the oligoarticular subtype of JIA (low-certainty evidence). We could not calculate the absolute difference in withdrawals due to adverse events because there were no withdrawals in the control group. We are uncertain if there is any difference between the interventions in the risk of severe adverse events, because none were reported. The study did not report treatment response, function, pain, or participant global assessment of well-being. Methotrexate versus an alternative disease-modifying antirheumatic drug Methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on the probability of treatment response or on function, participant global assessment of well-being, risk of serious adverse events, and rate of withdrawals due to adverse events up to four months. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for all outcomes to low due to imprecision. The study did not report pain or sustained clinically inactive disease. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Oral methotrexate (5 mg/m2/week to 15 mg/m2/week) compared with placebo may increase the number of children and young people achieving treatment response but may have little or no effect on pain or participant global assessment of well-being. Oral methotrexate plus IAGC injections compared to IAGC injections alone may have little or no effect on the likelihood of sustained clinically inactive disease among children and young people with oligoarticular JIA. Similarly, methotrexate compared with leflunomide may have little or no effect on treatment response, function, and participant global assessment of well-being. Serious adverse events due to methotrexate appear to be rare. We will update this review as new evidence becomes available to inform the living guideline.

How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tests carry significant risks, and communications are needed to help lay people consider these. The development of communications has been hindered by poor knowledge about how lay people understand and negotiate testing risks. We examined lay Australians' perceptions of diagnostic testing risks and how these risks are managed. METHOD: We completed 12 semistructured online focus groups with 61 Australian adults (18+) between April and June 2022. Participants were divided into younger/older (> 50 years) and male/female groups. Using semistructured discussion and exploring two hypothetical scenarios, we examined attitudes to diagnostic tests, their risks and how test risks were managed. Themes were identified, subanalysed to identify age and gender differences and mapped to the COM-B model of behaviour change. RESULTS: The six themes provided detailed accounts of how participants considered themselves able, empowered and assertive when negotiating testing risks and of complex ways in which relationships with health workers, personal experiences and structural factors influenced negotiating testing risks. COM-B identified multiple opportunities for leveraging these lay beliefs in health promotion. It also identified barriers, including narrow concepts of testing risks, challenges during shared decision-making and overestimation of personal influence on testing decisions. SIGNIFICANCE: Our findings matter because they are a novel, detailed account of testing risk beliefs, linked to a model for behaviour change. This will directly inform development of test risk/benefit communications, which are a research priority. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study design enabled participants to influence the discussion agenda, and they could comment on the analysis. Participants contributed insights about their needs, beliefs and experiences related to medical testing, and these will be used to shape future patient-centred decision tools.

Clinical care standards for the management of low back pain: a scoping review.

The objective of this study is to compare and contrast the quality statements and quality indicators across clinical care standards for low back pain. Searches were performed in Medline, guideline databases, and Google searches to identify clinical care standards for the management of low back pain targeting a multidisciplinary audience. Two independent reviewers reviewed the search results and extracted relevant information from the clinical care standards. We compared the quality statements and indicators of the clinical care standards to identify the consistent messages and the discrepancies between them. Three national clinical care standards from Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom were included. They provided from 6 to 8 quality statements and from 12 to 18 quality indicators. The three standards provide consistent recommendations in the quality statements related to imaging, and patient education/advice and self-management. In addition, the Canadian and Australian standards also provide consistent recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. However, the three clinical care standards differ in the statements related to psychological assessment, opioid analgesics, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies. The three national clinical care standards provide consistent recommendations on imaging and patient education/advice, self-management of the condition, and two standards (Canadian and Australian) agree on recommendations regarding comprehensive assessment, psychological support, and review and patient referral. The standards differ in the quality statements related to psychological assessment, opioid prescription, non-opioid analgesics, and non-pharmacological therapies.

Clinical indicators to monitor health care in low back pain: a scoping review.

Clinical care indicators for low back pain can be used to monitor healthcare practices and consequently be used to evaluate success of strategies to improve care quality. The aim of this study was to identify the clinical care indicators that have been used to measure appropriateness of health care for patients with low back pain. We conducted a systematic search of five electronic databases and Google to identify clinical care indicators that have been used to measure any aspect of care for people with low back pain. Care indicators were narratively described according to their type (i.e. structure, process, or outcomes) and categorized by their purpose (e.g. to measure aspects related to assessment, imaging requests, treatment/prevention, and outcomes). A total of 3562 and 2180 records were retrieved from electronic databases and Google searches, respectively. We identified 280 indicators related to low back pain care from 40 documents and publications. Most quality indicators were process indicators (n = 213, 76%), followed by structure (n = 41, 15%) and outcome indicators (n = 26, 9%). The most common indicators were related to imaging requests (n = 41, 15%), referral to healthcare providers (n = 30, 11%), and shared decision-making (n = 21, 7%). Our review identified a range of clinical care indicators that have been used to measure the quality of health care for people with low back pain. Our findings will support a Delphi study to reach international consensus on what would be the most important and feasible indicators for a minimum dataset to be collected globally.

Prioritisation of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers: an inter-disciplinary modified Delphi study by the Australia & New Zealand musculoskeletal clinical trials network.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to increase the capacity and capability of musculoskeletal researchers to design, conduct, and report high-quality clinical trials. The objective of this study was to identify and prioritise clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Findings will be used to inform development of an e-learning musculoskeletal clinical trials course. METHODS: A two-round online modified Delphi study was conducted with an inter-disciplinary panel of musculoskeletal researchers from Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, representing various career stages and roles, including clinician researchers and consumers with lived experience of musculoskeletal conditions. Round 1 involved panellists nominating 3-10 topics about musculoskeletal trial design and conduct that they believe would be important to include in an e-learning course about musculoskeletal clinical trials. Topics were synthesised and refined. Round 2 asked panellists to rate the importance of all topics (very important, important, not important), as well as select and rank their top 10 most important topics. A rank score was calculated whereby higher scores reflect higher rankings by panellists. RESULTS: Round 1 was completed by 121 panellists and generated 555 individual topics describing their musculoskeletal trial learning needs. These statements were grouped into 37 unique topics for Round 2, which was completed by 104 panellists. The topics ranked as most important were: (1) defining a meaningful research question (rank score 560, 74% of panellists rated topic as very important); (2) choosing the most appropriate trial design (rank score 410, 73% rated as very important); (3) involving consumers in trial design through to dissemination (rank score 302, 62% rated as very important); (4) bias in musculoskeletal trials and how to minimise it (rank score 299, 70% rated as very important); and (5) choosing the most appropriate control/comparator group (rank score 265, 65% rated as very important). CONCLUSIONS: This modified Delphi study generated a ranked list of clinical trial learning needs of musculoskeletal researchers. Findings can inform training courses and professional development to improve researcher capabilities and enhance the quality and conduct of musculoskeletal clinical trials.

How Much Physiotherapy, Chiropractic, and Osteopathy Care Do Compensated Australian Workers with Low Back Pain Receive? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence and frequency of physiotherapy, chiropractic, and/or osteopathy care in Australians with workers' compensation claims for low back pain (LBP). METHODS: We included workers with accepted workers' compensation claims longer than 2 weeks from the Australian states of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia. Workers were grouped by whether they attended physiotherapy, chiropractic, and/or osteopathy in the first 2 years of their claim. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to describe differences between groups. Descriptive statistics and negative binomial regression were used to describe differences in the number of attendances in each group. RESULTS: Most workers had at least one physical therapy attendance during the period of their claim (n = 23,619, 82.0%). Worker state, socioeconomic status, and remoteness were the largest contributing factors to likelihood of physical therapy attendance. Most workers only attended physiotherapy (n = 21,035, 89.1%, median of 13 times). Far fewer only attended chiropractic (n = 528, 2.2%, median of 8 times) or only osteopathy (n = 296, 1.3%, median of 10 times), while 1,750 (7.5%) attended for care with more than one type of physical therapy (median of 31 times). CONCLUSION: Most Australian workers with workers' compensation time loss claims for LBP attend physiotherapy at least once during their claims. State of claim is the strongest predictor of which physical therapy profession they attend, possibly due to regional availability. Workers who see a physiotherapist have significantly more attendances. Future research should explore the relationship between these patterns of care and claimant outcomes, including work disability duration.

Utility of common investigations for suspected inflammatory arthritis in adults.

Inflammatory arthritis may be the principal feature or one component of an inflammatory rheumatological disease. It is a clinical diagnosis, principally made based on the patient's history and examination. Specific investigations, such as rheumatoid factor and human leucocyte antigen B27 gene, may support the diagnosis in the context of a suggestive clinical presentation, but a diagnosis cannot be made based on these tests alone because positive results may also be seen in healthy individuals. To reduce the likelihood of false positive results, laboratory and radiological investigations should be tailored to the suspected diagnosis based on pretest probability. While musculoskeletal symptoms are a common presentation in general practice, specific features that increase suspicion of an inflammatory arthritis include prolonged morning stiffness (more than 1 hour) that is improved by exercise or movement. A broad 'rheumatological panel' increases the likelihood of false positive results and should be avoided to prevent unnecessary further investigations and treatment, and unwarranted anxiety in both the patient and the doctor.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of short-stay programmes for total hip and knee replacement, focusing on safety and optimal patient selection.

BACKGROUND: Short-stay joint replacement programmes are used in many countries but there has been little scrutiny of safety outcomes in the literature. We aimed to systematically review evidence on the safety of short-stay programmes versus usual care for total hip (THR) and knee replacement (KR), and optimal patient selection. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies including a comparator group reporting on 14 safety outcomes (hospital readmissions, reoperations, blood loss, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, neurovascular injury, other complications, periprosthetic fractures, postoperative falls, venous thromboembolism, wound complications, dislocation, stiffness) within 90 days postoperatively in adults ≥ 18 years undergoing primary THR or KR were included. Secondary outcomes were associations between patient demographics or clinical characteristics and patient outcomes. Four databases were searched between January 2000 and May 2023. Risk of bias and certainty of the evidence were assessed. RESULTS: Forty-nine studies were included. Based upon low certainty RCT evidence, short-stay programmes may not reduce readmission (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.12-7.43); blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.27-11.36); neurovascular injury (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01-7.92); other complications (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.26-1.53); or stiffness (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53-2.05). For registry studies, there was no difference in readmission, infection, neurovascular injury, other complications, venous thromboembolism, or wound complications but there were reductions in mortality and dislocations. For interrupted time series studies, there was no difference in readmissions, reoperations, blood loss volume, emergency department visits, infection, mortality, or neurovascular injury; reduced odds of blood transfusion and other complications, but increased odds of periprosthetic fracture. For other observational studies, there was an increased risk of readmission, no difference in blood loss volume, infection, other complications, or wound complications, reduced odds of requiring blood transfusion, reduced mortality, and reduced venous thromboembolism. One study examined an outcome relevant to optimal patient selection; it reported comparable blood loss for short-stay male and female participants (p = 0.814). CONCLUSIONS: There is low certainty evidence that short-stay programmes for THR and KR may have non-inferior 90-day safety outcomes. There is little evidence on factors informing optimal patient selection; this remains an important knowledge gap.

Mortality estimates and excess mortality in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To determine long-term (20 year) survival in RA patients enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). METHODS: ARAD patients with RA and data linkage consent who were diagnosed from 1995 onwards were included. Death data were obtained through linkage to the Australian National Death Index. Results were compared with age-, gender- and calendar year-matched Australian population mortality rates. Analysis included both the standardized mortality ratio (SMR) and relative survival models. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 20 years was calculated as a measure of life lost. Cause-specific SMRs (CS-SMRs) were estimated for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision cause of death classifications. RESULTS: A total of 1895 RA patients were included; 74% were female, baseline median age 50 years (interquartile range 41-58), with 204 deaths. There was no increase in mortality over the first 10 years of follow up, but at 20 years the SMR was 1.49 (95% CI 1.30, 1.71) and the relative survival was 94% (95% CI 91, 97). The difference between observed (18.41 years) and expected (18.68 years) RMST was 4 months. Respiratory conditions were an important underlying cause of death in RA, primarily attributable to pneumonia [CS-SMR 5.2 (95% CI 2.3, 10.3)] and interstitial lung disease [CS-SMR 7.6 (95% CI 3.0, 14.7)], however, coronary heart disease [CS-SMR 0.82 (95% CI 0.42, 1.4)] and neoplasms [CS-SMR 1.2 (95% CI 0.89, 1.5)] were not. CONCLUSION: Mortality risk in this RA cohort accrues over time and is moderately increased at 20 years of follow-up. Respiratory diseases may have supplanted cardiovascular diseases as a major contributor to this mortality gap.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients: serial surveys from a large longitudinal national Australian cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To determine COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy rates in inflammatory arthritis patients and identify factors associated with changing vaccine hesitancy over time. METHODS: This investigation was a prospective cohort study of inflammatory arthritis patients from community and public hospital outpatient rheumatology clinics enrolled in the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). Two surveys were conducted, one immediately prior to (pre-pandemic) and another approximately 1 year after the start of the pandemic (follow-up). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy was measured at follow-up, and general vaccine hesitancy was inferred pre-pandemic; these were used to identify factors associated with fixed and changing vaccine beliefs, including sources of information and broader beliefs about medication. RESULTS: Of the 594 participants who completed both surveys, 74 (12%) were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. This was associated with pre-pandemic beliefs about medications being harmful (P < 0.001) and overused (P = 0.002), with stronger beliefs resulting in vaccine hesitancy persistent over two time points (P = 0.008, P = 0.005). For those not vaccine hesitant pre-pandemic, the development of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with a lower likelihood of seeking out vaccine information from health-care professionals (P < 0.001). COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was not associated with new influenza vaccine hesitancy (P = 0.138). CONCLUSION: In this study of vaccine beliefs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, factors associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in inflammatory arthritis patients varied, depending on vaccine attitudes immediately prior to the start of the pandemic. Fixed beliefs reflected broader views about medications, while fluid beliefs were highly influenced by whether they sought out information from health-care professionals, including rheumatologists.

Global Burden of Disease Study 2019: an opportunity to understand the growing prevalence and impact of hip, knee, hand and other osteoarthritis in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Understanding population-level trends in osteoarthritis (OA) is critical for planning health services and disease prevention initiatives. AIM: To examine trends in the burden of hip, knee, hand and other OA related conditions in Australia from 1990 to 2019 and consider the OA burden in the context of other common conditions associated with older age. METHODS: Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 data for Australia on OA prevalence, OA-related years lived with disability (YLDs) and OA-related YLDs attributable to high body mass index (BMI) were sourced for 1990-2019. Age-standardised YLD data for ischaemic heart disease, stroke, dementia, type 2 diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were obtained for comparison. RESULTS: Overall, 3.20 million Australians were estimated to have OA in 2019, with substantial growth in the prevalence of hip (+171%), knee (+126%), hand (+110%) and other types of OA (+130%) from 1990 to 2019. Age-standardised prevalence rates reflect the contribution of population ageing. Concomitant growth in OA-related YLDs was also evident; knee OA and hand OA demonstrated the highest disease burden in 2019 (59 684 and 41 893 YLDs respectively). The proportion of knee OA burden attributable to high BMI was 36% in 2019. In 2019, age-standardised YLD rates were higher for OA (313 per 100 000 population) than other common conditions (range: 47 per 100 000 (ischaemic heart disease) to 284 per 100 000 (type 2 diabetes)). CONCLUSIONS: OA is an increasingly prevalent, impactful condition with a high non-fatal disease burden relative to other health conditions. Growth in OA populations and OA-related disability underscore the need for enhanced investment in prevention and management.

Australian recommendations on perioperative use of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery.

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are effective treatments for inflammatory arthritis but carry an increased risk of infection. For patients undergoing surgery, there is a need to consider the trade-off between a theoretical increased risk of infection with continuation of DMARDs perioperatively versus an increased risk of disease flare if they are temporarily withheld. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to develop recommendations for perioperative use of DMARDs for people with inflammatory arthritis undergoing elective surgery. The recommendations form part of the National Health and Medical Research Council-endorsed Australian Living Guideline for the Pharmacological Management of Inflammatory Arthritis. Conditional recommendations were made against routinely discontinuing conventional synthetic and biologic (b) DMARDs in the perioperative period but to consider temporary discontinuation of bDMARDs in individuals with a high risk of infection or where the impact of infection would be severe. A conditional recommendation was made in favour of temporary discontinuation of targeted synthetic DMARDs in the perioperative period.

Stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs: results from a national cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The capacity to meet anticipated growth in joint replacement demand requires safe, efficient models of care. While short-stay joint replacement programs are being used internationally, they have not been widely implemented in many countries. Importantly, the critical challenges that need to be addressed ahead of large-scale program implementation remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs, including perceived barriers and enablers to implementation and sustainability, and understand current practices in Australia. METHODS: Four key stakeholder groups were invited to participate in this national study: (1) health professionals who provide joint replacement care; (2) hospital administrators involved in joint replacement provision; (3) patients with recent joint replacement; and (4) carers of people with recent joint replacement. Data on perceived feasibility (0 (not at all feasible) - 10 (highly feasible), appeal (0 (not at all appealing) - 10 (highly appealing), current practices, and barriers and enablers were collected using visual analogue scales, multiple response option and open-ended questions, via an online platform. Descriptive analysis and free-text content analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Data were available from 1,445 participants including 360 health professionals, 20 hospital administrators, 1,034 patients, and 31 carers. Short-stay program implementation was considered moderately feasible by health professionals (median 6, interquartile range (IQR) 3-8) and hospital administrators (median 5, IQR 5-6). Short-stay programs were moderately appealing to patients (median 7, IQR 2-9) but of little appeal to carers (median 3, IQR 1-7). Prominent implementation barriers included perceived limited appropriateness of short-stay programs, inadequate home supports, and issues around reimbursement models or program funding. Not having daily physiotherapy access and concerns about pain and mobility at home were common barriers for patients. Concern about patients' ability to manage daily activities was the most common barrier for carers. Access to post-discharge services, better funding models, improved staffing, and consistent protocols and national care standards were prominent enablers. CONCLUSIONS: This national study has uniquely captured multiple stakeholder perspectives on short-stay joint replacement programs. The findings can guide future quality improvement and implementation initiatives and the development of resources to best support patients, carers, clinicians, and hospitals.