Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. PARTICIPANTS: 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). INTERVENTIONS: Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

Development of an online intervention for the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) trial.

Background: Up to half of people hospitalised with COVID-19 report diverse and persistent symptoms affecting quality of life for months and sometimes years after discharge (long-COVID). We describe the development of an online group exercise and behavioural support intervention for people who continue to experience such physical and/or emotional health problems more than three months after hospital discharge. Methods: Intervention development was informed by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions. Our multidisciplinary team of academics, clinicians, and people with long-COVID, had collective expertise in the development and testing of complex interventions. We integrated a bio-psycho-social model of care drawing on rehabilitation literature for long-term health conditions and experiences from our pre-pilot study. Multiple stakeholder meetings were held to refine the intervention which was designed to be deliverable within the UK National Health Service. We adhere to TIDieR guidance for transparent and explicit reporting of telehealth interventions. Results: The final REGAIN online exercise and behavioural support intervention consisted of an initial 1:1 consultation with a trained practitioner, followed by eight online group exercise, and six group support, sessions delivered over eight weeks. Participants could also access an online library of on-demand exercise and support videos. Conclusions: The final REGAIN intervention, combining exercise and behavioural support, is fully manualised with clear pathways to delivery and implementation. It is currently being tested in a randomised controlled trial. The intervention, developed with extensive patient and stakeholder engagement, could be incorporated into existing NHS rehabilitation programmes, should it prove to be clinically and cost-effective for people with long-COVID. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 11466448: Rehabilitation exercise and psychological support after COVID-19 infection: REGAIN.

Long-COVID has many debilitating symptoms, such as breathlessness, muscle weakness and fatigue, which significantly affect peoples' physical and mental health and quality of life. Rehabilitation programmes can help people improve their quality of life in other medical conditions with similar symptoms. We developed a programme of physical and mental health rehabilitation, delivered online, specifically to support people with ongoing long-COVID symptoms more than three months after hospital discharge. The programme was developed by people with long-COVID along with clinicians and researchers. The programme described in this article is now being tested in a large research trial to see if it can help people with long-COVID.

Protocol update for a randomised controlled feasibility trial of exercise rehabilitation for people with postural tachycardia syndrome: the PULSE study.

BACKGROUND: The PULSE (PostUraL tachycardia Syndrome Exercise) study is a randomised controlled trial assessing the feasibility of conducting a multicentre RCT testing supervised exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (PoTS). The original trial protocol was published in BMC Pilot & Feasibility Studies (accessible at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-020-00702-1 ). The PULSE intervention consists of (1) individual assessment; (2) 12-week, twice-weekly, supervised exercise training; (3) behavioural and motivational support; and (4) guided lifestyle physical activity. The control intervention is best-practice usual care with a single 30-min, one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on safe and effective physical activity. Sixty-two people (aged 18-60 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of PoTS will be invited to enrol on a feasibility RCT with an embedded qualitative study. The primary outcome will be feasibility; process-related measures will include eligibility, recruitment, randomisation and withdrawal rates, along with indicators of exercise programme adherence and acceptability. Secondary physiological, clinical and health-related outcomes will be assessed. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, here we describe amendments to the trial protocol. METHODS: Restrictions imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic meant it was necessary to change the delivery of the PULSE and control interventions. These changes reflected the need to limit the risk of COVID-19 transmission in a clinical population, some of whom were at increased risk of contracting the virus and suffering serious illness. The major change was that the originally intended centre-based PULSE and control interventions would now be delivered remotely on-line. Subsequently, there were minor changes to the participant eligibility criteria. These decisions followed an on-line co-creation session with people affected by PoTS, and relevant public and professional stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: We present an update of the original trial protocol in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. No participants were recruited to the original protocol; thus, results will reflect the on-line delivery of the intervention. PULSE will be the first randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multi-centre RCT testing supervised on-line exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with PoTS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45323485 registered on 7 April 2020.

Progressive exercise compared with best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for rotator cuff disorders: the GRASP factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design). SETTING: Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment. LIMITATIONS: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The rotator cuff is a group of muscles and tendons that stabilise the shoulder and allow it to move. Problems with the rotator cuff are very common. Symptoms include pain, which can affect a person's ability to work, sleep well or perform daily tasks. It is not known which treatments work best for shoulder pain, how exactly they should be delivered and whether or not people do better if they are given a steroid injection. The GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial tested whether or not people with a rotator cuff disorder would do better after a progressive exercise programme (supervised by a physiotherapist over six appointments spread out over 16 weeks) compared with a one-off best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. The trial also tested whether or not giving a corticosteroid injection in the shoulder before starting either regime would help people recover more. We assessed the cost of delivering these treatments to the NHS. We recruited 708 people from 20 NHS-based musculoskeletal centres in the UK. People were allocated to one of four treatment groups at random: (1) progressive exercise (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (one physiotherapy session). Trial participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that asked about their level of shoulder pain and their ability to perform basic daily tasks before treatment, and then again at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. Participants' shoulder pain and function improved over time in each of the four treatment groups. The GRASP trial showed that there was no difference between the best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist and the more comprehensive exercise programme. Corticosteroid injection improved people's shoulder pain and function, but only by a small amount and in the short term. No serious side effects were observed during the 12-month follow-up period. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection is likely to be most cost-effective to the NHS.

Progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of patients with rotator cuff disorders (GRASP): a multicentre, pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy exercise programmes are commonly used to treat rotator cuff disorders but the treatments' effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme with a single session of best practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial (2 × 2 factorial), we recruited patients from 20 UK National Health Service trusts. We included patients aged 18 years or older with a rotator cuff disorder (new episode within the past 6 months). Patients were excluded if they had a history of significant shoulder trauma (eg, dislocation, fracture, or full-thickness tear requiring surgery), neurological disease affecting the shoulder, other shoulder conditions (eg, inflammatory arthritis, frozen shoulder, or glenohumeral joint instability), received corticosteroid injection or physiotherapy for shoulder pain in the past 6 months, or were being considered for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (centralised computer-generated system, 1:1:1:1) to progressive exercise (≤6 sessions), best practice advice (one session), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise, or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (statistical significance set at 1%). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ISRCTN16539266, and EuDRACT, 2016-002991-28. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2017, and May 2, 2019, we screened 2287 patients. 708 patients were randomly assigned to progressive exercise (n=174), best practice advice (n=174), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n=182), or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (n=178). Over 12 months, SPADI data were available for 166 (95%) patients in the progressive exercise group, 164 (94%) in the best practice advice group, 177 (97%) in the corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise group, and 175 (98%) in the corticosteroid injection then best practice advice group. We found no evidence of a difference in SPADI score between progressive exercise and best practice advice when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -0·66 [99% CI -4·52 to 3·20]). We also found no evidence of a difference between corticosteroid injection compared with no injection when analysed over 12 months (-1·11 [-4·47 to 2·26]). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best practice advice session with a physiotherapist in improving shoulder pain and function. Subacromial corticosteroid injection provided no long-term benefit in patients with rotator cuff disorders. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment Programme.

Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN' (REGAIN): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.

Development and implementation of the physiotherapy-led exercise interventions for the treatment of rotator cuff disorders for the 'Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain' (GRASP) trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain (GRASP) trial is a large-scale, multicentre, 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial investigating clinical and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme versus best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for treating people with rotator cuff disorders. Here we describe the development, implementation and details of the physiotherapy-led interventions. METHODS: Medical Research Council guidance for developing complex interventions were used, taking into account clinical guidelines, expert and patient opinion, research evidence, current practice variation, and deliverability. A stakeholder meeting of 26 experts, clinicians, researchers, and patient representatives was used to design key components of the interventions. Stakeholders prioritised strengthening posterior rotator cuff muscles and using practical, easy-to-do exercises. The interventions were designed to be deliverable across the UK National Health Service. RESULTS: Progressive exercise consists of up to six sessions with a physiotherapist over 16 weeks. The best-practice advice consists of one face-to-face session with a physiotherapist with substantially greater reliance on self-management. Both interventions include self-management advice, home-exercise instruction, and behaviour-change strategies to target exercise adherence. All participants receive a Participant Information Booklet. The best-practice advice intervention is a self-guided system of progressively challenging exercises, with demonstration videos and written materials. The progressive exercise intervention has a wider range of exercise options, and greater flexibility for tailoring, progression, supervised practice and feedback. CONCLUSION: GRASP has recruited 708 participants and will provide high quality evidence to inform management of people with shoulder pain due to a rotator cuff disorder. Results are anticipated in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16539266; EudraCT number:2016-002991-28.

Maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal arm pain: a randomised controlled trial.

Objectives: The epidemiology of distal arm pain and back pain are similar. However, management differs considerably: for back pain, rest is discouraged, whereas patients with distal arm pain are commonly advised to rest and referred to physiotherapy. We hypothesised that remaining active would reduce long-term disability and that fast-track physiotherapy would be superior to physiotherapy after time on a waiting list. Methods: Adults referred to community-based physiotherapy with distal arm pain were randomised to: advice to remain active while awaiting physiotherapy (typically delivered after 6-8 weeks); advice to rest while awaiting physiotherapy, or immediate treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis determined whether the probability of recovery at 26 weeks was greater among the active advice group, compared with those advised to rest and/or among those receiving immediate versus usually timed physiotherapy. Results: 538 of 1663 patients invited between February 2012 and February 2014 were randomised (active=178; rest=182; immediate physiotherapy=178). 81% provided primary outcome data, and complete recovery was reported by 60 (44%), 46 (32%) and 53 (35%). Those advised to rest experienced a lower probability of recovery (OR: 0.54; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90) versus advice to remain active. However, there was no benefit of immediate physiotherapy (0.64; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.07). Conclusions: Among patients awaiting physiotherapy for distal arm pain, advice to remain active results in better 26-week functional outcome, compared with advice to rest. Also, immediate physiotherapy confers no additional benefit in terms of disability, compared with physiotherapy delivered after 6-8 weeks waiting time. These findings question current guidance for the management of distal arm pain.

Current practice in the rehabilitation of complex regional pain syndrome: a survey of practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: International clinical guidelines for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome recommend a wide range and variation of rehabilitation therapies as the core treatment. It is likely that most therapists employ a range of approaches when managing people with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome but a recent Cochrane review identified little evidence relating to the effectiveness of multi-modal rehabilitation. There is need for up to date trials of rehabilitation for Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, but in order to develop a clear model of best practice that can be rigorously evaluated we need to understand current practice. METHOD: An electronic survey was disseminated internationally to clinicians involved in the rehabilitation of individuals with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. The survey aimed to establish which criteria are used for diagnosis and which modalities clinicians use to treat Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and which they consider ineffective or harmful. RESULTS: 132 valid responses were received. A third of participants did not use any established criteria to diagnose Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Current practice commonly included patient education, encouragement of self-management, and physical exercises. Cortically directed treatments such as graded motor imagery and psychological approaches were often incorporated into treatment whereas pain provocative therapies, splinting, contrast bathing, and cold and heat therapy were rarely used in the acute or chronic phase of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. CONCLUSION: A broad range of modalities are currently used in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome rehabilitation. Practice appears to be characterized by educational and exercise based interventions delivered in a pain-contingent manner which largely echoes recommendations in international clinical guidelines. Implications for Rehabilitation: Patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome suffer from a painful and disabling condition for which we still do not know the best treatment options. From our survey sample most clinicians use treatments recommended in the international guidelines. A large proportion of clinicians from our survey sample are not using internationally recognized diagnostic criteria and we therefore recommend that clinicians become familiar with these criteria and use them for all suspected Complex Regional Pain Syndrome cases.

Cost-utility of maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal arm pain: an economic evaluation of data from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Arm pain is common, costly to health services and society. Physiotherapy referral is standard management, and while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest, but the evidence base is weak. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of advice to remain active (AA) versus advice to rest (AR); and immediate physiotherapy (IP) versus usual care (waiting list) physiotherapy (UCP). METHODS: Twenty-six-week within-trial economic evaluation (538 participants aged ≥18 years randomized to usual care, i.e. AA (n = 178), AR (n = 182) or IP (n = 178). Regression analysis estimated differences in mean costs and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were generated. Primary analysis comprised the 193 patients with complete resource use (UK NHS perspective) and EQ-5D data. Sensitivity analysis investigated uncertainty. RESULTS: Baseline-adjusted cost differences were £88 [95% confidence interval (CI): -14, 201) AA versus AR; -£14 (95% CI: -87, 66) IP versus UCP. Baseline-adjusted QALY differences were 0.0095 (95% CI: -0.0140, 0.0344) AA versus AR; 0.0143 (95% CI: -0.0077, 0.0354) IP versus UCP. There was a 71 and 89% probability that AA (versus AR) and IP (versus UCP) were the most cost-effective option using a threshold of £20,000 per additional QALY.  The results were robust in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: The difference in mean costs and mean QALYs between the competing strategies was small and not statistically significant. However, decision-makers may judge that IP was not shown to be any more effective than delayed treatment, and was no more costly than delayed physiotherapy. AA is preferable to one that encourages AR, as it is more effective and more likely to be cost-effective than AR.

Exercise for rheumatoid arthritis of the hand.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is an inflammatory polyarthritis that frequently affects the hands and wrists. Hand exercises are prescribed to improve mobility and strength, and thereby hand function. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of hand exercise in adults with rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), OTseeker, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to July 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared hand exercise with any non-exercise therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as outlined by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies involving 841 people (aged 20 to 94 years) in the review. Most studies used validated diagnostic criteria and involved home programmes.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from one study indicated uncertainty about whether exercise improves hand function in the short term (< 3 months). On a 0 to 80 points hand function test (higher scores mean better function), the exercise group (n = 11) scored 76.1 points and control group (n = 13) scored 75 points.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that exercise compared to usual care probably slightly improves hand function (mean difference (MD) 4.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 7.42; n = 449) in the medium term (3 to 11 months) and in the long term (12 months or beyond) (MD 4.3, 95% CI 0.86 to 7.74; n = 438). The absolute change on a 0-to-100 hand function scale (higher scores mean better function) and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) were 5% (95% CI 2% to 7%); 8 (95% CI 5 to 20) and 4% (95% CI 1% to 8%); 9 (95% CI 6 to 27), respectively. A 4% to 5% improvement indicates a minimal clinical benefit.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pain (MD -27.98, 95% CI -48.93 to -7.03; n = 124) in the short term. The absolute change on a 0-to-100-millimetre scale (higher scores mean more pain) was -28% (95% CI -49% to -7%) and NNTB 2 (95% CI 2 to 11).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that there is probably little or no difference between exercise and usual care on pain in the medium (MD -2.8, 95% CI - 6.96 to 1.36; n = 445) and long term (MD -3.7, 95% CI -8.1 to 0.7; n = 437). On a 0-to-100 scale, the absolute changes were -3% (95% CI -7% to 2%) and -4% (95% CI -8% to 1%), respectively.Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from three studies (n = 141) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved grip strength in the short term. The standardised mean difference for the left hand was 0.44 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.78), re-expressed as 3.5 kg (95% CI 0.87 to 6.1); and for the right hand 0.46 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.8), re-expressed as 4 kg (95% CI 1.13 to 7).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean grip strength (in kg) of both hands in the medium term (MD 1.4, 95% CI -0.27 to 3.07; n = 400), relative change 11% (95% CI -2% to 13%); and in the long term (MD 1.2, 95% CI -0.62 to 3.02; n = 355), relative change 9% (95% CI -5% to 23%).Very low-quality evidence (due to risk of bias and imprecision) from two studies (n = 120) indicated uncertainty about whether exercise compared to no treatment improved pinch strength (in kg) in the short term. The MD and relative change for the left and right hands were 0.51 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.9) and 44% (95% CI 11% to 78%); and 0.82 (95% CI 0.43 to 1.21) and 68% (95% CI 36% to 101%).High-quality evidence from one study showed that exercise compared to usual care has little or no benefit on mean pinch strength of both hands in the medium (MD 0.3, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.74; n = 396) and long term (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.88; n = 351). The relative changes were 8% (95% CI -4% to 19%) and 10% (95% CI -2% to 22%).No study evaluated the American College of Rheumatology 50 criteria.Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study indicated that people who also received exercise with strategies for adherence were probably more adherent than those who received routine care alone in the medium term (risk ratio 1.31, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.48; n = 438) and NNTB 6 (95% CI 4 to 10). In the long term, the risk ratio was 1.09 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.28; n = 422).Moderate-quality evidence (due to risk of bias) from one study (n = 246) indicated no adverse events with exercising. The other six studies did not report adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether exercise improves hand function or pain in the short term. It probably slightly improves function but has little or no difference on pain in the medium and long term. It is uncertain whether exercise improves grip and pinch strength in the short term, and probably has little or no difference in the medium and long term. The ACR50 response is unknown. People who received exercise with adherence strategies were probably more adherent in the medium term than who did not receive exercise, but with little or no difference in the long term. Hand exercise probably does not lead to adverse events. Future research should consider hand and wrist function as their primary outcome, describe exercise following the TIDieR guidelines, and evaluate behavioural strategies.

A Web-Based Training Resource for Therapists to Deliver an Evidence-Based Exercise Program for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (iSARAH): Design, Development, and Usability Testing.

BACKGROUND: The Strengthening and Stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH) is a tailored, progressive exercise program for people having difficulties with wrist and hand function due to rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The program was evaluated in a large-scale clinical trial and was found to improve hand function, was safe to deliver, and was cost-effective. These findings led to the SARAH program being recommended in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines for the management of adults with RA. To facilitate the uptake of this evidence-based program by clinicians, we proposed a Web-based training program for SARAH (iSARAH) to educate and train physiotherapists and occupational therapists on delivering the SARAH program in their practice. The overall iSARAH implementation project was guided by the 5 phases of the analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE) system design model. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to conduct the first 3 phases of the model in the development of the iSARAH project. METHODS: Following publication of the trial, the SARAH program materials were made available to therapists to download from the trial website for use in clinical practice. A total of 35 therapists who downloaded these materials completed an online survey to provide feedback on practice trends in prescribing hand exercises for people with RA, perceived barriers and facilitators to using the SARAH program in clinical practice, and their preferences for the content and Web features of iSARAH. The development and design of iSARAH were further guided by a team of multidisciplinary health professionals (n=17) who took part in a half-day development meeting. We developed the preliminary version of iSARAH and tested it among therapists (n=10) to identify and rectify usability issues and to produce the final version. RESULTS: The major recommendations made by therapists and the multidisciplinary team were having a simple Web design and layout, clear exercise pictures and videos, and compatibility of iSARAH on various browsers and devices. We rectified all usability issues in the preliminary version to develop the final version of iSARAH, which included 4 short modules and additional sections on self-assessment, frequently asked questions, and a resource library. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the ADDIE design model and engagement of end users in the development and evaluation phases have rendered iSARAH a convenient, easy-to-use, and effective Web-based learning resource for therapists on how to deliver the SARAH program. There is also huge potential for adapting iSARAH across different cultures and languages, thus opening more opportunities for wider uptake and application of the SARAH program into practice.

The Impact of Participation in Online Cancer Communities on Patient Reported Outcomes: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, the question of how patients' participating in online communities affects various patient reported outcomes (PROs) has been investigated in several ways. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to systematically review all relevant literature identified using key search terms, with regard to, first, changes in PROs for cancer patients who participate in online communities and, second, the characteristics of patients who report such effects. METHODS: A computerized search of the literature via PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO (5 and 4 stars), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ScienceDirect was performed. Last search was conducted in June 2017. Studies with the following terms were included: (cancer patient) and (support group or health communities) and (online or Internet). A total of 21 studies were included and independently assessed by 2 investigators using an 11-item quality checklist. RESULTS: The methodological quality of the selected studies varied: 12 were of high quality, eight were of adequate quality, and only one was of low quality. Most of the respondents were women (about 80%), most with breast cancer; their mean age was 50 years. The patients who were active in online support groups were mostly younger and more highly educated than the nonusers. The investigated PROs included general well-being (ie, mood and health), anxiety, depression, quality of life, posttraumatic growth, and cancer-related concerns. Only marginal effects-that is, PRO improvements-were found; in most cases they were insignificant, and in some cases they were contradictory. CONCLUSIONS: The main shortcoming of this kind of study is the lack of methodological instruments for reliable measurements. Furthermore, some patients who participate in online communities or interact with peers via Internet do not expect to measure changes in their PROs. If cancer survivors want to meet other survivors and share information or get support, online communities can be a trustworthy and reliable platform to facilitate opportunities or possibilities to make this happen.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of rotator cuff disorders: protocol for a 2x2 factorial randomised controlled trial (the GRASP trial).

INTRODUCTION: Shoulder pain is very common, with around 70% of cases due to disorders of the rotator cuff. Despite widespread provision of physiotherapy, there is uncertainty about which type of exercise and delivery mechanisms are associated with best outcomes. There is also uncertainty around the long-term benefits and harms of corticosteroid injection therapy, which is often used in addition to physiotherapy. The Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain trial will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of individually tailored, progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a large multicentre randomised controlled trial (2×2 factorial design). We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to a rotator cuff disorder as per British Elbow and Shoulder Society guidelines, not currently receiving physiotherapy or being considered for surgery, from at least eight UK National Health Service primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=704) will be randomised (centralised computer-generated 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio) to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (≤6 physiotherapy sessions); (2) best practice advice (one physiotherapy session); (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (≤6 sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (one session). The primary outcome is the mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are: pain and function SPADI subdomains; health-related quality of life (Five-Level version of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L); sleep disturbance; return to activity; global impression of change; health resource use; out-of-pocket expenses; work disability. A parallel within-trial economic evaluation will be conducted. The primary analysis will be intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee approval (REC: 16/SC/0508) has been obtained. Results of the main trial and secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16539266; EudraCT number: 2016-002991-28.

Hand exercises for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an extended follow-up of the SARAH randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Stretching And strengthening for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH) randomised controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of a hand exercise programme and demonstrated it was clinically effective and cost-effective at 12 months. The aim of this extended follow-up was to evaluate the effects of the SARAH programme beyond 12 months. METHODS: Using postal questionnaires, we collected the Michigan Hand Questionnaire hand function (primary outcome), activities of daily living and work subscales, pain troublesomeness, self-efficacy and health-related quality of life. All participants were asked how often they performed hand exercises for their rheumatoid arthritis. Mean difference in hand function scores were analysed by a linear model, adjusted for baseline score. RESULTS: Two-thirds (n=328/490, 67%) of the original cohort provided data for the extended follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 26 months (range 19-40 months).There was no difference in change in hand function scores between the two groups at extended follow-up (mean difference (95% CI) 1.52 (-1.71 to 4.76)). However, exercise group participants were still significantly improved compared with baseline (p=0.0014) unlike the best practice usual care group (p=0.1122). Self-reported performance of hand exercises had reduced substantially. CONCLUSIONS: Participants undertaking the SARAH exercise programme had improved hand function compared with baseline >2 years after randomisation. This was not the case for the control group. However, scores were no longer statistically different between the groups indicating the effect of the programme had diminished over time. This reduction in hand function compared with earlier follow-up points coincided with a reduction in self-reported performance of hand exercises. Further intervention to promote long-term adherence may be warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN89936343; Results.

Group exercise and self-management for older adults with osteoarthritis: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition expected to be the fourth leading cause of disability by the year 2020. Treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is problematic in older adults (>75 years) where the presence of comorbidities is more prevalent. Exercise has been recommended irrespective of age and comorbidity. The purpose of this project was to develop a combined exercise and self-management intervention to help older adults with OA to manage their comorbidities. METHODS: Literature reviews were conducted to inform the development of an intervention followed by a pilot study to assess feasibility and test outcome measures. Participant interviews and session observation were used to evaluate the pilot study. RESULTS: Evidence from the literature reviews suggested that a combined intervention consisting of behavioural change/self-management education and exercise was the most appropriate. Each component was developed and then tested as a combined package in a pilot study which comprised 12 sessions delivered over six weeks. Four males and six females aged between 75 and 92 years took part. The average attendance was 89%. Most participants reported some benefit and satisfaction with the programme along with changes in physical ability. The majority of participants continued with some form of exercise at three months. CONCLUSION: The intervention was well received and has encouraged 80% of participants to continue exercising after the programme. The small but positive changes seen in comorbidities, benefit of the intervention, satisfaction and general health are promising. Randomised controlled trial evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness is needed before such interventions can be recommended.

Active Treatment for Idiopathic Adolescent Scoliosis (ACTIvATeS): a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: The feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercises (SSEs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre trial of SSE treatment for patients with AIS, in comparison with standard care, and to refine elements of the study design. The objectives were to (1) update a systematic review of controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of SSE in AIS; (2) survey UK orthopaedic surgeons and physiotherapists to determine current practice, patient populations and equipoise; (3) randomise 50 adolescents to a feasibility trial of either usual care or SSE interventions across a range of sites; (4) develop, document and assess acceptability and adherence of interventions; (5) assess and describe training requirements of physiotherapists; and (6) gain user input in all relevant stages of treatment and protocol design. DESIGN: Multicomponent feasibility study including UK clinician survey, systematic literature review and a randomised feasibility trial. SETTING: The randomised feasibility study involved four secondary care NHS trusts providing specialist care for patients with AIS. PARTICIPANTS: The randomised feasibility study recruited people aged 10-16 years with mild AIS (Cobb angle of < 50°). INTERVENTIONS: The randomised study allocated participants to standard practice of advice and education or a physiotherapy SSE programme supported by a home exercise plan. Our choice of intervention was informed by a systematic review of exercise interventions for AIS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was feasibility of recruitment to the randomised study. Other elements were to inform choice of outcomes for a definitive trial and included curve severity, quality of life, requirement for surgery/brace, adverse events, psychological symptoms, costs and health utilities. RESULTS: A UK survey of orthopaedic consultants and physiotherapists indicated a wide variation in current provision of exercise therapy through physiotherapy services. It also found that clinicians from at least 15 centres would be willing to have their patients involved in a full study. A systematic review update found five new studies that were generally of low quality but showed some promise of effectiveness of SSE. The randomised study recruited 58 patients from four NHS trusts over 11 months and exceeded the pre-specified target recruitment rate of 1.4 participants per centre per month, with acceptable 6-month follow-up (currently 73%). Adherence to treatment was variable (56% of participants completed treatment offered). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be highly acceptable. We learnt important lessons from patient and public involvement during the study in terms of study and intervention presentation, as well as practical elements such as scheduling of intervention sessions. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive RCT evaluating clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SSE for idiopathic scoliosis is warranted and feasible. Such a RCT is a priority for future work in the area. There is a sufficiently large patient base, combined with willingness to be randomised within specialist UK centres. Interventions developed during the feasibility study were acceptable to patients, families and physiotherapists and can be given within the affordability envelope of current levels of physiotherapy commissioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90480705. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 55. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Strengthening And stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand (SARAH). A randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of exercise for improving hand and wrist function in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The study aims were (1) to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding an optimised exercise programme for hands and upper limbs to standard care for patients with RA; and (2) to qualitatively describe the experience of participants in the trial with a particular emphasis on acceptability of the intervention, exercise behaviours and reasons for adherence/non-adherence. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentred, individually randomised controlled trial with an embedded qualitative study. Outcome assessors were blind to group assignment and independent of treatment delivery. SETTING: Seventeen NHS trusts in England comprising 21 rheumatology and therapy departments. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with RA who had pain and dysfunction of the hands and/or wrists and had been on stable medication for at least 3 months. Patients were excluded if they were under 18 years old, had undergone upper limb surgery/fracture in the last 6 months, were on a waiting list for upper limb surgery or were pregnant. INTERVENTIONS: Usual care or usual care plus an individualised exercise programme. Usual care consisted of joint protection education, general exercise advice and functional splinting if required. The exercise programme consisted of six sessions of strengthening and stretching exercises with a hand therapist, daily home exercises and strategies to maximise adherence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) overall hand function subscale score at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included the full MHQ, pain, health-related quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items), impairment (grip strength, dexterity and range of motion) and self-efficacy. European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions, medication and health-care use were collected for the health economics evaluation. Follow-up was at 4 and 12 months post randomisation. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: We randomised 490 patients (244 to usual care, 246 to exercise programme). Compliance with the treatments was very good (93% of usual care participants and 75% of exercise programme participants completed treatment). Outcomes were obtained for 89% of participants at 12 months (222 for usual care, 216 for exercise programme). There was a statistically significant difference in favour of the exercise programme for the primary outcome at 4 and 12 months [mean difference 4.6 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 7.0 points; and mean difference 4.4 points, 95% CI 1.6 to 7.1 points, respectively]. There were no significant differences in pain scores or adverse events. The estimated difference in mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) accrued over 12 months was 0.01 greater (95% CI -0.03 to 0.05) in the exercise programme group. Imputed analysis produced incremental cost-effectiveness ratio estimates of £17,941 (0.59 probability of cost-effectiveness at willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per QALY). The qualitative study found the exercise programme to be acceptable and highlighted the importance of the therapist in enabling patients to establish a routine and incorporate the exercises into their lives. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the Strengthening And stretching for Rheumatoid Arthritis of the Hand trial suggest that the addition of an exercise programme for RA hands/wrists to usual care is clinically effective and cost-effective when compared with usual care alone. No adverse effects were associated with the exercise programme. The economic analysis suggests that the intervention is likely to be cost-effective. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 89936343.