EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: 2023 update.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are increasingly common with a significant impact on individuals and society. Non-pharmacological treatments are considered essential to reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee OA were published in 2013. Given the large number of subsequent studies, an update is needed. METHODS: The Standardised Operating Procedures for EULAR recommendations were followed. A multidisciplinary Task Force with 25 members representing 14 European countries was established. The Task Force agreed on an updated search strategy of 11 research questions. The systematic literature review encompassed dates from 1 January 2012 to 27 May 2022. Retrieved evidence was discussed, updated recommendations were formulated, and research and educational agendas were developed. RESULTS: The revised recommendations include two overarching principles and eight evidence-based recommendations including (1) an individualised, multicomponent management plan; (2) information, education and self-management; (3) exercise with adequate tailoring of dosage and progression; (4) mode of exercise delivery; (5) maintenance of healthy weight and weight loss; (6) footwear, walking aids and assistive devices; (7) work-related advice and (8) behaviour change techniques to improve lifestyle. The mean level of agreement on the recommendations ranged between 9.2 and 9.8 (0-10 scale, 10=total agreement). The research agenda highlighted areas related to these interventions including adherence, uptake and impact on work. CONCLUSIONS: The 2023 updated recommendations were formulated based on research evidence and expert opinion to guide the optimal management of hip and knee OA.

Longer-term quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implementing a model of care for osteoarthritis: A cluster-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness over 12 months after implementing a structured model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary healthcare as compared to usual care. DESIGN: In this pragmatic cluster-randomized, controlled trial with a stepped-wedge cohort design, we recruited 40 general practitioners (GPs), 37 physiotherapists (PTs), and 393 patients with symptomatic hip or knee OA from six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The model included the delivery of a 3-hour patient education and 8-12 weeks individually tailored exercise programs, and interactive workshops for GPs and PTs. At 12 months, the patient-reported quality of care was assessed by the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (16 items, pass rate 0-100%, 100%=best). Costs were obtained from patient-reported and national register data. Cost-effectiveness at the healthcare perspective was evaluated using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB). RESULTS: Of 393 patients, 109 were recruited during the control periods (control group) and 284 were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). At 12 months the intervention group reported statistically significant higher quality of care compared to the control group (59% vs. 40%; mean difference: 17.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.1, 24.0)). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the model of care resulted in quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost-savings compared to usual care with mean INMB €2020 (95% CI 611, 3492) over 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that implementing the model of care for OA in primary healthcare, improved quality of care and showed cost-effectiveness over 12 months compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Follow-Up of Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis in Specialist Health Care With Remote Monitoring and Self-Monitoring Compared With Regular Face-to-Face Follow-Up Visits (the ReMonit Study): Protocol for a Randomized, Controlled Open-Label Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic inflammatory joint diseases such as axial spondyloarthritis have traditionally received regular follow-up in specialist health care to maintain low disease activity. The follow-up has been organized as prescheduled face-to-face visits, which are time-consuming for both patients and health care professionals. Technology has enabled the remote monitoring of disease activity, allowing patients to self-monitor their disease and contact health care professionals when needed. Remote monitoring or self-monitoring may provide a more personalized follow-up, but there is limited research on how these follow-up strategies perform in maintaining low disease activity, patient satisfaction, safety, and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The Remote Monitoring in Axial Spondyloarthritis (ReMonit) study aimed to assess the effectiveness of digital remote monitoring and self-monitoring in maintaining low disease activity in patients with axial spondyloarthritis. METHODS: The ReMonit study is a 3-armed, single-site, randomized, controlled, open-label noninferiority trial including patients with axial spondyloarthritis with low disease activity (Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score <2.1) and on stable treatment with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Participants were randomized 1:1:1 to arm A (usual care, face-to-face visits every sixth month), arm B (remote monitoring, monthly digital registration of patient-reported outcomes), or arm C (patient-initiated care, self-monitoring, no planned visits during the study period). The primary end point was disease activity measured with the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months. We aimed to include 240 patients, 80 in each arm. Secondary end points included other measures of disease activity, patient satisfaction, safety, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The project is funded by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and Centre for the treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (REMEDY), Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Norway. Enrollment started in September 2021 and was completed with 242 patients by June 2022. The data collection will be completed in December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this trial will be among the first to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of remote digital monitoring and self-monitoring of patients with axial spondyloarthritis compared with usual care. Hence, the ReMonit study will contribute important knowledge to personalized follow-up strategies for patients with axial spondyloarthritis. These results may also be relevant for other patient groups with inflammatory joint diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05031767; hpps://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05031767. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/52872.

Willingness, perceived facilitators and barriers to use remote care among healthcare professionals - a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Remote care has the potential of improving access to timely care for people with inflammatory joint diseases (IJD), but there is limited knowledge on how this approach is regarded by healthcare professionals (HCP). This study aimed to examine willingness, perceived facilitators, and barriers to use remote care among HCP. METHODS: Employees at 20 rheumatology departments in Norway received a digital survey containing 16 statements regarding willingness, perceived facilitators and barriers to use remote care. Statements were scored using numeric rating scales (NRS, 0-10, 10 = strongly agree), and analysed in linear regression models. Open-ended responses with participant-defined facilitators and barriers were analysed using qualitative manifest analysis. RESULTS: A total of 130 participants from 17 departments completed the survey. The majority of participants were 45 years or older (n = 84, 54%), 54 (42%) were medical doctors, 48 (37%) nurses, and 27 (21%) were allied healthcare professionals, clinical leaders, or secretaries. A high willingness to use remote care was observed (median NRS: 9, IQR 8-10). The facilitator statement with the highest score was that patients save time and costs by using remote care, whereas the barrier statement with the highest score was the lack of physical examination. Willingness to use remote care was positively associated with the belief that patients wish to use it (ß: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.34), that patients in remission need less hospital visits (ß: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.43), and if remote care is widely adopted by co-workers (ß: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.15, 0.39). Willingness was negatively associated with mistrust in the technical aspects of remote care (ß: -0.26, 95% CI:-0.40, -0.11), and lack of physical examination (ß: -0.24, 95% CI: -0.43, -0.06). The open-ended responses showed that technological equipment, eligible patients, user-friendly software, adequate training and work flow could be facilitators, but also that lack of these factors were considered barriers to use remote care. CONCLUSION: This study showed that HCP have a high willingness to use remote care, and provides important new knowledge on perceived facilitators and barriers among HCP relevant for implementation of remote care for eligible patients with IJD.

The efficacy of strength or aerobic exercise on quality of life and knee function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. A multi-arm randomized controlled trial with 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of strength exercise or aerobic exercise compared to usual care on knee-related quality of life (QoL) and knee function at 4 months and 1 year in individuals with knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: A three-arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared 12 weeks of strength exercise or aerobic exercise (stationary cycling) to usual care supervised by physiotherapists in primary care. We recruited 168 participants aged 35-70 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) QoL at 1 year. Secondary outcomes were self-reported function, pain, and self-efficacy, muscle strength and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) at 4 months and 1 year. RESULTS: There were no differences between strength exercise and usual care on KOOS QoL (6.5, 95% CI -0.9 to 14), or for aerobic exercise and usual care (5.0, 95% CI -2.7 to 12.8), at 1 year. The two exercise groups showed better quadriceps muscle strength, and VO2max at 4 months, compared to usual care. CONCLUSION: This trial found no statistically significant effects of two exercise programs compared to usual care on KOOS QoL at 1 year in individuals with symptomatic and radiographic knee osteoarthritis, but an underpowered sample size may explain lack of efficacy between the intervention groups and the usual care group. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01682980.

Is multimodal occupational therapy in addition to usual care cost-effective in people with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis? A cost-utility analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of a 3-month multimodal occupational therapy intervention in addition to usual care in patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC1 OA). METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed alongside a multicentre randomised controlled trial including three rheumatology departments in Norway. A total of 180 patients referred to surgical consultation due to CMC1 OA were randomised to either multimodal occupational therapy including patient education, hand exercises, assistive devices and orthoses (n=90), or usual care receiving only information on OA (n=90). The outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) derived from the generic questionnaire EQ-5D-5L over a 2-year period. Resource use and health-related quality of life of the patients were prospectively collected at baseline, 4, 18 and 24 months. Costs were estimated by taking a healthcare and societal perspective. The results were expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis with 1000 replications following intention-to-treat principle was done to account for uncertainty in the analysis. RESULTS: During the 2-year follow-up period, patients receiving multimodal occupational therapy gained 0.06 more QALYs than patients receiving usual care. The mean (SD) direct costs were €3227 (3546) in the intervention group and €4378 (5487) in the usual care group, mean difference €-1151 (95% CI -2564, 262). The intervention was the dominant treatment with a probability of 94.5% being cost-effective given the willingness-to-pay threshold of €27 500. CONCLUSIONS: The within-trial analysis demonstrated that the multimodal occupational therapy in addition to usual care was cost-effective at 2 years in patients with CMC1 OA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01794754.

Patient-Reported Quality of Care for Osteoarthritis in General Practice in South Tyrol, Italy: Protocol for Translation, Validation and Assessment of the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator Questionnaire (OA-QI).

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis are similar internationally. Nevertheless, clinical practice varies across countries. Instruments for measuring quality have been developed to improve health care through targeted interventions. Studies on health service quality must consider the structural and cultural characteristics of countries, because each of their strengths and weaknesses differ. However, such instruments for health-related patient-reported outcomes for osteoarthritis have not yet been validated in German and Italian languages. OBJECTIVES: In order to be able to set targeted measures for the improvement of prevention and non-surgical treatment of osteoarthritis in South Tyrol, Italy, the quality of care must be recorded. Therefore, the aim of the project is to update, translate, and validate the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator (OA-QI) questionnaire version 2, an established and validated questionnaire in Norwegian and English, for Germany and Italy. The second aim is to determine the quality of care for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee in a sample of patients who consult general practice in South Tyrol, and for comparison with patients who are admitted to rehabilitative spa-treatments for osteoarthritis in the state of Salzburg, Austria. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will enable the identification and closure of gaps in osteoarthritis care. Although it is expected that body weight and exercise will play special roles, other areas of nonsurgical care might also be involved.

Interventions for osteoarthritis pain: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of existing Cochrane reviews.

Objective: To conduct a network meta-analysis comparing all treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the Cochrane Library. Design: The Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about treatments for hip and knee OA. We constructed 17 broad categories, comprising drug treatments, exercise, surgery, herbs, orthotics, passive treatments, regenerative medicine, diet/weight loss, combined treatments, and controls. In addition to a full network analysis, we compared the direct/indirect effects, and studies with shorter-/longer follow-up. CINeMA software was used for assessing confidence in network meta-analysis estimates. Results: We included 35 systematic reviews including 445 RCTs. There were 153 treatments for OA. In total, 491 comparisons were related to knee OA, less on hip OA, and only nine on hand OA. Six treatment categories showed clinically significant effects favoring treatment over control on pain. "Diet/weight loss" and "Surgery" had effect sizes close to zero. The network as a whole was not coherent. Of 136 treatment comparisons, none were rated as high confidence, six as moderate, 13 as low, and 117 as very low. Conclusions: Direct comparison of different available treatment options for OA is desirable, however not currently feasible in practice, due to heterogeneous study populations and lack of clear descriptions of control interventions. We found that many treatments were effective, but since the network as a whole was not coherent and lacked high confidence in the treatment comparisons, we could not produce a ranking of effects.

Effect of a mHealth exercise intervention compared with supervised exercise therapy in osteoarthritis management: protocol of the DigiOA trial.

INTRODUCTION: Soaring prevalence of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) inflicts high costs on the healthcare system. A further rise in the OA incidence is expected, generating increased demand of care potentially challenging accessibility and threatening to overwhelm the healthcare system. Innovative solutions that may improve accessibility to recommended OA care for patients in primary care and maintain healthcare sustainability are warranted. Digitalising home exercise therapy may be one such solution. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile health app providing digitalised home exercises, compared with supervised exercise therapy in patients with OA. Second, we will evaluate the cost-efficiency of the intervention and explore potential differences in outcome and adherence to exercises in the experimental treatment group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-armed non-inferiority randomised controlled trial will be conducted. In total, 156 patients with hip and/or knee OA will be recruited from physiotherapy clinics in primary care in Norway. Following patient education, patients will be randomised to either 6 weeks of standard treatment (2 weekly sessions of supervised exercise therapy) or experimental treatment (home exercises via the Virtual Training (VT) app). Primary outcome is the proportion of Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responders at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes include physical performance, patient-reported outcomes related to pain, fatigue, disease activity, physical function, mental health, health related quality of life, self-efficacy, utilisation of healthcare services and medication, digital competence and use of apps. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Patients will sign an informed consent form before participating in the trial. Approval has been granted by the Regional Ethics Committee (201105) and Data Protection Officer at Diakonhjemmet Hospital (00221). Patient research partners will contribute in all parts of the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04767854.

2022 EULAR points to consider for remote care in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases.

BACKGROUND: Remote care and telehealth have the potential to expand healthcare access, and the COVID-19 pandemic has called for alternative solutions to conventional face-to-face follow-up and monitoring. However, guidance is needed on the integration of telehealth into clinical care of people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMD). OBJECTIVE: To develop EULAR points to consider (PtC) for the development, prioritisation and implementation of telehealth for people with RMD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary EULAR task force (TF) of 30 members from 14 European countries was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures for development of PtC were followed. A systematic literature review was conducted to support the TF in formulating the PtC. The level of agreement among the TF was established by anonymous online voting. RESULTS: Four overarching principles and nine PtC were formulated. The use of telehealth should be tailored to patient's needs and preferences. The healthcare team should have adequate equipment and training and have telecommunication skills. Telehealth can be used in screening for RMD as preassessment in the referral process, for disease monitoring and regulation of medication dosages and in some non-pharmacological interventions. People with RMD should be offered training in using telehealth, and barriers should be resolved whenever possible.The level of agreement to each statement ranged from 8.5 to 9.8/10. CONCLUSION: The PtC have identified areas where telehealth could improve quality of care and increase healthcare access. Knowing about drivers and barriers of telehealth is a prerequisite to successfully establish remote care approaches in rheumatologic clinical practice.