Clinical and cost-effectiveness of bracing in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis management: protocol for a multicentre, primary care, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Brace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: North West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28555470.

Subgrouping and TargetEd Exercise pRogrammes for knee and hip OsteoArthritis (STEER OA): a systematic review update and individual participant data meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Therapeutic exercise is a recommended core treatment for people with knee and hip OA, however, the observed effect sizes for reducing pain and improving physical function are small to moderate. This may be due to insufficient targeting of exercise to subgroups of people who are most likely to respond and/or suboptimal content of exercise programmes. This study aims to identify: (1) subgroups of people with knee and hip OA that do/do not respond to therapeutic exercise and to different types of exercise and (2) mediators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function. This will enable optimal targeting and refining the content of future exercise interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analyses. A previous comprehensive systematic review will be updated to identify randomised controlled trials that compare the effects of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and hip OA on pain and physical function to a non-exercise control. Lead authors of eligible trials will be invited to share individual participant data. Trial-level and participant-level characteristics (for baseline variables and outcomes) of included studies will be summarised. Meta-analyses will use a two-stage approach, where effect estimates are obtained for each trial and then synthesised using a random effects model (to account for heterogeneity). All analyses will be on an intention-to-treat principle and all summary meta-analysis estimates will be reported as standardised mean differences with 95% CI. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical or governance approval is exempt as no new data are being collected and no identifiable participant information will be shared. Findings will be disseminated via national and international conferences, publication in peer-reviewed journals and summaries posted on websites accessed by the public and clinicians. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017054049.

Cost-effectiveness of a transplantation strategy compared to melphalan and prednisone in younger patients with multiple myeloma.

High dose chemotherapy with autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) improves outcomes in patients 65 years of age or less with multiple myeloma. Survival and costs in a cohort of 16 patients who received melphalan and prednisone as part of a clinical trial were compared with those of 36 patients referred to our centre for consideration of ASCT. In the transplant group, survival and costs were extrapolated to match the period of observation in the melphalan and prednisone group. Patient-specific and average costs were calculated from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health. Costs and survival were varied by 50% in the sensitivity analysis. Transplantation improved life expectancy by 19.3 months with a cost difference of 30,517 Canadian dollars. The incremental cost-effectiveness of transplantation compared with melphalan and prednisone was 25,710 Canadian dollars per life-year gained when additional pamidronate and follow-up costs were considered. Discounting costs and survival at 3 and 5% did not result in important differences. The sensitivity analysis resulted in best and worse case scenarios for transplantation compared with melphalan and prednisone of 13,049 dollars and 63,954 dollars per life-year gained respectively. In comparison with melphalan and prednisone, ASCT appears to be cost-effective in patients 65 years old or younger with myeloma.