Search

Introduction: The absence of reliable prognostic markers poses a challenge to the management of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients with aggressive disease may not receive sufficient treatment with conventional 'step-up' therapy, whereas a top-down approach may expose patients with indolent disease to unnecessary treatment-related toxicity. The objective of the Nordic IBD treatment strategy trial (NORDTREAT) is to assess the feasibility of personalised therapy by stratifying patients according to a prognostic serum protein signature at diagnosis., Methods and Analysis: NORDTREAT is a multicentre, biomarker-strategy design, open-label controlled trial. After screening consent, eligible patients are randomised (1:1) into one of two groups: a group with access to the protein signature and a group without access. In the access to protein signature group, patients displaying a protein signature suggestive of an increased risk of an aggressive disease course will be treated in line with a top-down treatment algorithm (anti-tumour necrosis factor agent with/without an immunomodulator). In contrast, those with a protein signature indicative of indolent disease will be excluded from the trial. Patients not in the access group receive treatment based on clinical management. This traditional management involves a stepwise escalation of treatment as determined by the investigator after failure of first-line treatment. After 52 weeks, outcomes are assessed in the subgroup of patients with a protein profile indicating a potentially severe disease trajectory. The primary endpoint is a composite of the proportion of patients with corticosteroid-free clinical and endoscopic remission at week 52. Surgical intervention due to IBD during follow-up will be defined as treatment failure., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been obtained, and recruitment is underway at sites in four participating Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). Following trial completion and data analysis, the trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT05180175; Pre-results. EudraCT number: 2019-002942-19., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MR has served as a speaker or advisory board member for Jansen and Abbvie. MH has received investigator-initiated research grants from Takeda, Pfizer, Tillotts, Ferring and Janssen and has served as a speaker or advisory board member for Takeda, Tillotts, Ferring, Janssen, Pfizer, Galapagos, MSD, Lilly, Celltrion and AbbVie. JH has served as a speaker or advisory board member for AbbVie, Aqilion, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Dr. Falk Pharma and the Falk Foundation, Ferring, Galapagos, Gilead, Hospira, Index Pharma, Janssen, MEDA, Medivir, Merck, MSD, Olink Proteomics, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories Inc., Sandoz, Shire, Takeda, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Tillotts Pharma, Vifor Pharma and UCB and received grant support from Janssen, MSD and Takeda. JDF, LGD, AF, JDS, RC, VA, DR and JK: none., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, can be challenging to diagnose, and treatment outcomes are difficult to predict. In the NORDTREAT cohort study, a Nordic prospective multicentre study, we aim to identify novel molecular biomarkers of diagnostic value by assessing the diagnostic test accuracy (cross-sectionally), as well as the prognostic utility when used as prognostic markers in the long-term (cohort study). In the diagnostic test accuracy study, the primary outcome is a successful diagnosis using one or more novel index tests at baseline compared with the ECCO criteria as the reference standard. The composite outcome of the prognostic utility study is 'severe IBD' within 52 weeks from inclusion, defined as one or more of the following three events: IBD-related surgery, IBD-related hospitalisation or IBD-related death., Methods and Analysis: We aim to recruit 800 patients referred on suspicion of IBD to this longitudinal observational study, a collaboration between 11 inclusion sites in Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden. Inclusion will occur from February 2022 until December 2023 with screening and baseline visits for all participants and three outcome visits at weeks 12, 26 and 52 after baseline for IBD-diagnosed patients. Biological material (blood, faeces, biopsies, urine and hair), clinical data and lifestyle information will be collected during these scheduled visits., Ethics and Dissemination: This study will explore novel biomarkers to improve diagnostic accuracy and prediction of disease progression, thereby improving medical therapy and the quality of life for patients with IBD.The study is approved by the Ethics Committee (DK: S-20200051, v1.4, 16.10.2021; IS: VSNb2021070006/03.01, NO: 193064; SE: DNR 2021-05090) and the Danish Data Protecting Agency (20/54594). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, patient associations and presentations at international conferences., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT05414578; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: A feared complication after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is prosthetic joint infection (PJI), associated with high morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic antibiotics can reduce the risk of PJI. However, there is no consensus on the dosages and current recommendations are based on a low evidence level. The objective is to compare the effect of a single versus multiple doses of prophylactic antibiotics administered within 24 hours on PJI., Methods and Analysis: The study is designed as a cross-over, cluster randomised, non-inferiority trial. All clinical centres use both antibiotic practices (1 year of each intervention). All Danish orthopaedic surgery departments will be involved: Based on quality databases, 2-year cohorts of approximately 20 000 primary THAs conducted at 39 public and private hospitals, will be included., Inclusion Criteria: age ≥18 years, all indications for THA except patients operated due to acute or sequelae from proximal femoral or pelvic fractures or bone tumour or metastasis. The primary outcome is PJI within 90 days after primary THA. Secondary outcomes include (1) serious adverse events, (2) potential PJI, (3) length of hospitalisation stay, (4) cardiovascular events, (5) hospital-treated infections, (6) community-based antibiotic use, (7) opioid use and (8) use of acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. All outcome measures will be extracted from national databases. Analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority will be shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the OR is less than 1.32 for the single dose as compared with multiple doses. The results will establish best practice on antibiotic prophylaxis dosages in the future., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by Committees on Health Research Ethics for The Capital Region of Denmark (21069108) and The Danish Medicines Agency (2021091723). All results will be presented in peer-reviewed medical journals and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT05530551., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease, with a prevalence of insomnia disorders in up to 70%. Patients' experiences of participating in group-based cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) are sparsely explored, and CBT-I has not been evaluated in patients with RA until now. Therefore, the aim was to explore patients' experiences of CBT-I and how the components of CBT-I were incorporated in sleep management., Design: We conducted a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. The interview guide was developed based on CBT-I, with questions that explicitly explored the participants' experiences of sleep education and the behavioural components of CBT-I., Setting: Interviews were conducted one-to-one at Center for Rheumatology and Spine Diseases, Copenhagen., Participants: Patients with RA who had received CBT-I as intervention in a randomised controlled trial (N=11). The analysis was based on a reflexive thematic method., Results: Five themes were identified (1) When knowledge contributes to an altered perception of sleep , referring to the reduced misperception and increased motivation that followed sleep education, (2) Overcoming habits and perceptions to accelerate sleep onset , referring to barriers related to sleep behaviour and how stimulus control enabled them to find meaningful behaviour, (3) The sleep window of challenges in learning how to sleep right referring to that payoff from sleep restriction did not come easily or by magic, and commitment gave them confidence to continue, (4) Relaxation becomes a behavioural habit and goes beyond sleep , referring to a means to achieve a relaxed body and mind and how they thereby coped better with RA-related symptoms and (5) Break the cycle and regain control referring to how trust in one's own accomplishment was crucial to reducing worrying., Conclusion: The process towards eliminating insomnia was a bodily experience and involved a changed mindset that resulted in an alteration of behaviour and cognitions., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Pulmonary diseases are significant contributors to morbidity and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). RA-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) may be prevalent in up to 30% and clinically evident in 10% of patients with RA. Feasible methods to detect concomitant ILD in RA are warranted. Our objective is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic ultrasound (TUS) for ILD in patients with RA with respiratory symptoms, by using chest high-resolution CT (HRCT) as the reference standard. Further, we aim to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for the promising blood biomarkers surfactant protein-D and microfibrillar-associated protein 4 in the detection of ILD in this group of patients., Methods and Analysis: By use of a standardised 14 zone protocol patients suspected of having RA-ILD will undergo TUS as index test performed by a junior resident in rheumatology (BKS), who is certified by the European Respiratory Society in performing TUS assessments. Participants form a consecutive series of up to 80 individuals in total. The anonymised TUS images will be stored and scored by the junior resident as well as two senior rheumatologists, who have received training in TUS, and a TUS-experienced pulmonologist. HRCT will be used as the gold standard for ILD diagnosis (reference standard). The two basic measures for quantifying the diagnostic test accuracy of the TUS test are the sensitivity and specificity in comparison to the HRCT., Ethics and Dissemination: Data will be collected and stored in the Research Electronic Data Capture database. The study is approved by the Committees on Health Research Ethics and the Danish Data Protection Agency. The project is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05396469, pre-results) and data will be published in peer-reviewed journals., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the working environment, how we think of it and how it stands to develop into the future. Knowledge about how people have continued to work on-site and adjusted to working from home during the COVID-19 lockdown will be vital for planning work arrangements in the post-pandemic period. Our primary objective was to investigate experiences of working from home or having colleagues working from home during a late stage of the COVID-19 lockdown among researchers and healthcare providers in a hospital research setting. Second, we aimed to investigate researchers' productivity through changes in various proxy measures during lockdown as compared with pre-lockdown., Design: Mixed-method participatory Group Concept Mapping (GCM)., Setting and Participants: GCM, based on a mixed-method participatory approach, was applied involving researchers' and healthcare providers' online sorting and rating experiences working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. At a face-to-face meeting, participants achieved consensus on the number and labelling of domains-the basis for developing a conceptual model., Results: Through the GCM approach, 47 participants generated 125 unique statements of experiences related to working from home, which were organised into seven clusters. Using these clusters, we developed a conceptual model that illustrated the pros and cons of working from home., Conclusion: The future work setting, the role of the office and the overall work environment need to respond to workers' increased wish for flexible work arrangements and co-decision., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors all work at the study setting and have all been working from home during the study period in varied degrees. The authors have no financial or personal interests in the study results., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The purpose of the study is to assess the effectiveness of video consultations in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (DM) treated with insulin pumps in the outpatient clinic., Methods and Analysis: A 52 weeks' duration, open-label, randomised controlled trial will be conducted, enrolling 100 patients with type 1 DM currently treated with insulin pump.Patients will be recruited from the diabetes outpatient clinic at Hospital of Southern Jutland, Department of internal medicine, Sønderborg. Participants will be randomised to either video consultations (experimental intervention) or standard care (control comparator). Participants in the video consultation group will follow their standard care treatment but will have all of their scheduled and non-scheduled appointments by video consultation. The control group will follow their standard care treatment as usual, having all their appointments at the outpatient centre. Primary outcome will be change from baseline of time in range (3.9-10.0 mmol/L)., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the Regional Committe on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark, S-20200039G Acadre 20/12922. We will present the results of the trial at international conferences as well as publish the results of the trial in (a) peer-reviewed scientific journal(s)., Trial Registration Number: NCT04612933., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ANØS reports personal fees from OpenTeleHealth aps and a grant from Knud and Edith Eriksens Mindefond, outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The association between chronic widespread pain (CWP) and disability is well established. Although research support large interindividual differences in functional outcomes, limited studies are available on the socio-economic consequences of offering stratified treatment based on prognostic factors. Identification of predictors of long-term functional outcomes such as work disability as a critical consequence, could assist early and targeted personalised interventions. The primary objective of this cohort study is to identify prognostic factors for the primary endpoint work status (employed and working vs not working) in patients with CWP assessed 3 years from baseline, that is, at referral for specialist care., Methods and Analyses: Data are collected at the diagnostic unit at Department of Rheumatology, Frederiksberg Hospital. The first 1000 patients ≥ 18 years of age registered in a clinical research database (DANFIB registry) with CWP either 'employed and working' or 'not working' will be enrolled. Participants must meet the American College of Rheumatology 1990 definition of CWP, that is, pain in all four body quadrants and axially for more than 3 months and are additionally screened for fulfilment of criteria for fibromyalgia. Clinical data and patient-reported outcomes are collected at referral (baseline) through clinical assessment and electronic questionnaires. Data on the primary endpoint work status at baseline and 3 years from baseline will be extracted from the Integrated Labour Market Database, Statistics Denmark and the nationwide Danish DREAM database. Prognostic factor analysis will be based on multivariable logistic regression modelling with the dichotomous work status as dependent variable., Ethics and Dissemination: Sensitive personal data will be anonymised according to regulations by the Danish Data Protection Agency, and informed consent are obtained from all participants. Understanding and improving the prognosis of a health condition like CWP should be a priority in clinical research and practice. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT04862520., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MH: Advisory Board member at the Thuasne Group. LEK: received fees for speaking and/or consultancy from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, UCB, Celgene, BMS, Biogen, Sanofi, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals. PHD, HL, EEW, RC, KT, HB and KA: none., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is the leading cause for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although, being considered as the surgery of the century up to 23% of the patients report long-term pain, and deficits in physical function and muscle strength may persist after THA. Progressive resistance training (PRT) appears to improve multiple outcomes moderately in patients with hip OA. Current treatment selection is based on low-level evidence as no randomised controlled trials have compared THA to non-surgical treatment. The primary aim of this trial is to investigate whether THA followed by standard care is superior to 12 weeks of supervised PRT followed by 12 weeks of optional unsupervised PRT for improving hip pain and function in patients with severe hip OA., Methods and Analysis: This is a protocol for a multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted at four hospitals across three healthcare regions in Denmark. 120 patients aged ≥50 years with clinical and radiographic hip OA found eligible for THA by an orthopaedic surgeon will be randomised to THA followed by standard care, or 12 weeks of PRT (allocation 1:1). The primary outcome will be change in patient-reported hip pain and function, measured using the Oxford Hip Score, from baseline to 6 months after initiating the treatment. Key secondary outcomes will be change in the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, University of California Los Angeles Activity Score, 40 m fast-paced walk test, 30 s chair stand test and occurrence of serious adverse events. Patients declining participation in the trial will be invited into a prospective observational cohort study., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial has been approved by The Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (Project-ID: S-20180158). All results will be presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04070027)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Inflammatory arthritis (IA) conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, are characterised by inflammatory infiltration of the joints. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively, reduce the effects of proinflammatory cytokines and immune cells to ameliorate disease. However, immunosuppression can be associated with high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, and maybe an increased risk of malignancies and cardiovascular events. Currently, there is no empirical evidence on the extent to which contextual factors and risk of bias (RoB) domains may modify these harm signals in randomised trials., Methods and Analysis: We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed) for systematic reviews published since April 2015 and all Cochrane reviews. From these reviews, randomised trials will be eligible if they include patients with an IA condition with at least one group randomly allocated to bDMARD and/or tsDMARD treatments. A predefined form will be used for extracting data on population characteristics (eg, baseline characteristics or eligibility criteria, such as medication background) and specific harm outcome measures, such as number of withdrawals, numbers of patients discontinuing due to adverse events and number of patients having SAEs. RoB in individual trials will be assessed using a modified Cochrane RoB tool. We will estimate the potentially causal harm effects related to the experimental intervention compared with control comparator as risk ratios, and heterogeneity across randomised comparisons will be assessed statistically and evaluated as inconsistency using the I 2 Index. Our metaregression analyses will designate population and trial characteristics and each RoB domain as independent variables, whereas the three harm domains will serve as dependent variables., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required for this study. Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020171124., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are associated with reduced health-related quality of life (HRQol), increased risk of somatic and psychiatric comorbidities and reduced socioeconomic status. Individuals with one IMID have an increased risk for developing other IMIDs. The unmet needs in the care of patients with IMIDs may result from a lack of patient-centricity in the usual monodisciplinary siloed approach to these diseases. The advantages of novel interdisciplinary clinics towards the traditional therapeutic approach have not been investigated. The overall aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary combined clinic intervention compared with usual care in a population of patients with the IMIDs: psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis and inflammatory bowel disease. Our hypothesis is that an interdisciplinary combined clinic intervention will be more effective than usual care in improving clinical and patient-reported outcomes, and that a more effective screening and management of other IMIDs and comorbidities can be performed., Methods and Analysis: This is a randomised, usual care controlled, parallel-group pragmatic clinical trial. 300 consecutively enrolled participants with co-occurrence of at least two IMIDs are randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to either treatment in the interdisciplinary combined clinic or usual care. The study will consist of a 6-month active intervention period and a 6-month follow-up period where no intervention or incentives will be provided by the trial. The primary outcome is the change from baseline to 24 weeks on the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Physical Component Summary. Additional patient-reported outcome measures and clinical measures are assessed as secondary outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval of this study protocol was established by the institutional review board of the study site. The findings from this trial will be disseminated via conference presentations and publications in peer-reviewed journals, and by engagement with patient organisations., Trial Registration Number: NCT04200690., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AD has received speaking fees from Pfizer. AGL has been a consultant and advisor for the following companies: AbbVie, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB and has received speaking fees from: AbbVie, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. JA has been consultant, advisory board member or speaker for the following companies: AbbVie, MSD, Bristol Meyer Squibb, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Janssen-Cilag and Takeda. KFH has been a consultant and advisor for the following companies: AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Novartis and has received speaking fees from: AbbVie, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen, CSL Behring. LI has served as a consultant and/or paid speaker for and/or participated in clinical trials sponsored by: AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Centocor, Eli Lilly, Janssen Cilag, Kyowa, Leo Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, UCB. LFMø has been advisory board member for Janssen and has received speaking fees from LEO Pharma. Robin Christensen reports no conflicts of interest. TBL has been a consultant and advisor for UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Obesity increases the risk of comorbidities and diabetes-related complications and, consequently, efforts to prevent and reduce excess weight in people with type 1 diabetes are essential. The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis is to assess the effect of adjunctive glucose-lowering drugs on body weight and other important health outcomes in people with type 1 diabetes., Methods and Analysis: This systematic review and network meta-analysis will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of adjunctive glucose-lowering drugs for treatment of people with type 1 diabetes. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched from inception to present. Key eligibility criteria include: RCT study design; adult participants with type 1 diabetes; treatment with a glucose-lowering drug for ≥24 weeks; and comparison of the intervention to placebo, usual care or another glucose-lowering drug. The primary outcome is change in body weight. Other major outcomes include change in HbA1c and total daily insulin dose and risk of hypoglycaemia and other adverse events. Dual study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed. Results from the meta-analysis will be presented as weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored by subgroup and sensitivity analysis. A network meta-analysis for the primary outcome will be performed using an arm-based random-effects model based on the Bayesian framework while assessing for transitivity across studies and consistency between direct and indirect estimates. The overall quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for each outcome., Ethics and Dissemination: No ethical assessment is required. The results of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020158676., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CL, AGR, SS, LNR, ON and RC have nothing to disclose. KN owns shares in Novo Nordisk and has received research grants and fees for lecturing from Novo Nordisk and Zealand Pharma. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The main study aim was to examine the applicability of a novel method to assess the criterion of values and preferences within the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation evidence to decision framework. The group concept mapping (GCM) approach was applied to identify, organise and prioritise values and preferences in the example of health professionals' choice of analgesia for patients with acute trauma pain., Setting: Prehospital and emergency care centres in the Nordic countries of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland., Participants: Acute care health professionals with qualifications to administer analgesic agents to patients in emergency and prehospital settings, including advanced ambulance assistants, rescue officers, paramedics, emergency physicians and emergency nurses, participated in an online survey in which statements were generated (n=40) and structured (n=11) and finally analysed and interpreted in a validation meeting (n=4)., Results: Using GCM, ideas were generated and structured through online participation. Results were interpreted at a validation meeting. In total, 111 unique ideas were identified and organised into seven clusters: drug profile, administration, context, health professionals' preferences and logistics, safety profile, patient's medical history and acute clinical situation., Conclusions: Based on GCM, a conceptual model was developed, and values and preferences around choice of analgesia in emergency care were revealed. Health professionals within acute care can apply the conceptual model to support their decision-making when choosing the best available treatment for pain for their patients in emergency care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The Global Burden of Disease 2010 study ranked osteoarthritis (OA) as a leading cause of years lived with disability. With an ageing population, increasing body weight and sedentary lifestyle, a substantial increase especially in knee OA (KOA) is expected. Management strategies for KOA include non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical interventions. Meanwhile, over-the-counter pain medications have been discredited as they are associated with several risks with long-term usage. By consequence, the use of exercise and all sorts of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for joint pain has increased. The available self-management strategies are plenty, but there is no overview of their use at a population level and whether they are used along with doctors' prescriptions or replace these. The aim of this study is to estimate the population incidence of developing knee symptoms and analyse the association between (and impact of) the use of self-reported preventive measures and knee symptoms., Methods and Analysis: This prospective cohort study pragmatically recruits individuals from the municipality of Frederiksberg, Denmark. All citizens aged 60-69 years old will be contacted annually for 10 years and asked to participate in a web-based survey. The major outcomes are self-reported knee symptoms and their association with use of various management strategies, including use of non-pharmacological treatments and CAM. Secondary outcomes include the influence of treatments on use of healthcare system and surgical procedures. Descriptive and analytic statistics (eg, logistic regression) will be used to provide summaries about the sample and observations made and the associations between self-management and development of knee symptoms., Ethics and Dissemination: This study can be implemented without permission from the Health Research Ethics Committee. Permission has been obtained from the Danish Data Protection Agency. Study findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT03472300., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The The BIOlogical Dose OPTimisation (BIODOPT) trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label, parallel-group, equivalence study designed to evaluate tapering of biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) in sustained clinical remission or low disease activity (LDA). Traditionally, these patients maintain standard dosage of bDMARD lifelong; however, recent studies indicate that a significant proportion of patients in sustained remission or LDA can taper their bDMARD and maintain stable disease activity. Thus, this trial aims to evaluate whether a disease activity-guided tapering strategy for bDMARDs will enable a significant dosage reduction while maintaining disease activity compared with usual care. From the individual patient's standpoint as well as from a societal perspective, it would be advantageous if bDMARDs could be reduced or even discontinued while maintaining disease activity., Methods and Analysis: A total of 180 patients with RA, PsA or axSpA treated with bDMARDs and in clinical remission/LDA during the past 12 months will be enrolled from four centres in Denmark. Patients will be randomised in a ratio of 2:1 to either disease activity-guided tapering of bDMARDs (intervention group) or continuation of bDMARDs as usual care (control group).The primary objective is the difference between the two groups in the proportion of patients who have reduced their inclusion dosage of bDMARDs to 50% or less while maintaining stable disease activity at 18 months follow-up., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is approved by the ethics committee of Northern Jutland, Denmark (N-20170073) and by the Danish Medicine Agency. Patient research partner KHH contributed to refinement of the protocol and approved the final manuscript. Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: 2017-001970-41; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: LU has received speaker honoraria from Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Novartis (not related to the submitted work). SK has received speaker honoraria from Novartis and Eli Lilly (not related to the submitted work). AS has received speaker honoraria from MSD and Eli Lilly (not related to the submitted work). LD has received speaker honoraria from UCB, MSD, Eli Lilly and Janssen Pharmaceutica (not related to the submitted work)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: With an increasing prevalence of citizens of older age and with overweight, the health issues related to knee osteoarthritis (OA) will intensify. Weight loss is considered a primary management strategy in patients with concomitant overweight and knee OA. However, there are no widely available and feasible methods to sustain weight loss in patients with overweight and knee OA. The present protocol describes a randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide in a 3 mg/day dosing in patients with overweight and knee OA., Methods and Analysis: 150 volunteer adult patients with overweight or obesity and knee OA will participate in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and single-centre trial. The participants will partake in a run-in diet intervention phase (week -8 to 0) including a low calorie diet and dietetic counselling. At week 0, patients will be randomised to either liraglutide 3 mg/day or liraglutide placebo 3 mg/day for 52 weeks as an add-on to dietetic guidance on re-introducing regular foods and a focus on continued motivation to engage in a healthy lifestyle. The co-primary outcomes are changes in body weight and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale from week 0 to week 52., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial has been approved by the regional ethics committee in the Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Data Protection Agency. An external monitoring committee (The Good Clinical Practice Unit at Copenhagen University Hospitals) will oversee the trial. The results will be presented at international scientific meetings and through publications in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Numbers: 2015-005163-16, NCT02905864, U1111-1171-4970 BASED ON PROTOCOL VERSION: V.6; 30 January 2017, 15:30 hours., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HG has received speaker fees from Pfizer and MSD. MB has received speaker fees from Esaote, AbbVie and UCB. FKKK has received lecture fees from, participated in advisory boards of and/or consulted for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD/Merck, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi and Zealand Pharma. AA is member of advisory boards/consultant for Acino, Switzerland, BioCare Copenhagen, DK, Gelesis, USA, Groupe Éthique et Santé, France, McCain Foods Limited, USA, Novo Nordisk, DK, Pfizer, USA, Saniona, DK, Weight Watchers, USA and Zaluvida, Switzerland. He is recipient of travel grants and honoraria as speaker for a wide range of Danish and international concerns. Commercial interests: co-owner and member of the Board of the consultancy company Dentacom Aps, Denmark (2005). Co-founder and co-owner of UCPH spin-outs Mobile Fitness A/S (2005), Flaxslim ApS (were also member of Board, 2015, and Personalized Weight Management Research Consortium ApS (Gluco-diet.dk, 2017). Co-inventor of a number of patents owned by UCPH, in accordance with Danish law. AA is not advocate or activist for specific diets, and is not strongly committed to any specific diet, for example, veganism, Atkins diet, gluten-free diet, high animal protein diet or dietary supplements. LEK has received fees for speaking and consultancy from Pfizer, AbbVie, Amgen, Sanofi, UCB, Celgene, BMS, Biogen, Novo Nordisk, MSD, Novartis, Eli Lilly and Janssen Pharmaceuticals., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of low back and leg pain in the elderly and affects both physical activity and quality of life. First-line treatments are non-surgical options but if unsuccessful, surgery is advocated. The literature is not clear as to the outcome of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment, and the optimal time for surgery is not explicit. This observational study is designed to investigate the course of treatment, compare effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and identify prognostic factors for outcome in the context of current clinical practice., Materials and Analysis: Prospectively registered data on treatment, outcome and patient characteristics are collected from nationwide registers on health and social issues, a clinical registry of people with chronic back pain and hospital medical records. Primary outcome is change in physical function measured by the Zurich Claudication Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are changes in symptom severity, pain-related function, health-related quality of life and general self-efficacy. Outcomes are assessed at baseline and 6 and 12 months. Outcomes at 12 months will be compared for patients who undergo surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis and patients managed non-surgically, using different analytical approaches. Prespecified prognostic factors of interest at baseline include treatment allocation, back and leg pain intensity, comorbidity, duration of symptoms, pretreatment function, self-rated health, income, general self-efficacy and MRI-graded severity of central stenosis., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been evaluated by the Regional Committees on Health Research for Southern Denmark (S-20172000-200) and notified to the Danish Data Protection Agency (18/22336). All participants provide consent. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national and international conferences according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Prognosis Research Strategy statements. Potential sources of bias will be addressed using Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions., Trial Registration Number: NCT03548441; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TM and BS-C have nothing to disclose. HAB reports unrestricted grants from the University of Southern Denmark, the Region of Southern Denmark, the University College of Southern Denmark and non-financial support from Spine Centre of Southern Denmark, during the conduct of the study. RC reports non-financial support from Board membership, grants from Consultancy (AbbVie, Amgen, Axellus A/S, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, MSD, Norpharma, Novartis, Orkla Health, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Takeda), personal fees from Employment (Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark), non-financial support from Expert testimony, grants from grants/grants pending (Axellus A/S, AbbVie, Cambridge Weight Plan, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis and Roche), grants from payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus (Abbott, Amgen, Axellus, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Ipsen, Janssen, Laboratoires Expanscience, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, Sobi and Wyeth), grants from payment for manuscript preparation (Axellus, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Cambridge Weight Plan, Aleris-Hamlet (via Norpharma)), non-financial support from Patents (planned, pending or issued), non-financial support from Royalties, grants from payment for development of educational presentations (Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer), non-financial support from stock/stock options, grants from travel/accommodations/meeting expenses unrelated to activities listed (Abbott, AbbVie, Axellus, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Laboratoires Expanscience, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus and Wyeth), non-financial support from Other (err on the side of full disclosure), outside the submitted work and is involved in many healthcare initiatives and research that could benefit from wide uptake of this publication (including Cochrane, OMERACT, IDEOM, RADS and the GRADE Working Group). Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, The Parker Institute is grateful for the financial support received from public and private foundations, companies and private individuals over the years. The Parker Institute is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation; The Oak Foundation is a group of philanthropic organisations that, since its establishment in 1983, has given grants to not-for-profit organisations around the world., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: An unbalanced intestinal microbiota may mediate activation of the inflammatory pathways seen in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). A randomised, placebo-controlled trial of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) infused into the small intestine of patients with PsA with active peripheral disease who are non-responsive to methotrexate (MTX) treatment will be conducted. The objective is to explore clinical aspects associated with FMT performed in patients with PsA., Methods and Analysis: This trial is a randomised, two-centre stratified, double-blind (patient, care provider and outcome assessor), placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. Eighty patients will be included and randomised (1:1) to either placebo (saline) or FMT provided from an anonymous healthy donor. Throughout the study, both groups will continue the weekly self-administered subcutaneous MTX treatment, remaining on the preinclusion dosage (15-25 mg/week). The clinical measures of psoriasis and PsA disease activity used include the Short (2-page) Health Assessment Questionnaire, the Dermatology Quality of Life Index, the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Enthesitis Index, the Psoriasis Area Severity Index, a dactylitis digit count, a swollen/tender joint count (66/68), plasma C reactive protein as well as visual analogue scales for pain, fatigue and patient and physician global assessments. The primary end point is the proportion of patients who experience treatment failure during the 6-month trial period. The number of adverse events will be registered throughout the study., Ethics and Dissemination: This is a proof-of-concept clinical trial and will be performed in agreement with Good Clinical Practice standards. Approvals have been obtained from the local Ethics Committee (DK-S-20150080) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (15/41684). The study has commenced in May 2017. Dissemination will be through presentations at national and international conferences and through publications in international peer-reviewed journal(s)., Trial Registration Number: NCT03058900; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Chronic inflammatory diseases (CIDs) are frequently treated with biological medications, specifically tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi)). These medications inhibit the pro-inflammatory molecule TNF alpha, which has been strongly implicated in the aetiology of these diseases. Up to one-third of patients do not, however, respond to biologics, and lifestyle factors are assumed to affect treatment outcomes. Little is known about the effects of dietary lifestyle as a prognostic factor that may enable personalised medicine. The primary outcome of this multidisciplinary collaborative study will be to identify dietary lifestyle factors that support optimal treatment outcomes., Methods and Analysis: This prospective cohort study will enrol 320 patients with CID who are prescribed a TNFi between June 2017 and March 2019. Included among the patients with CID will be patients with inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis), rheumatic disorders (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis), inflammatory skin diseases (psoriasis, hidradenitis suppurativa) and non-infectious uveitis. At baseline (pretreatment), patient characteristics will be assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, clinical assessments of disease activity, quality of life and lifestyle, in addition to registry data on comorbidity and concomitant medication(s). In accordance with current Danish standards, follow-up will be conducted 14-16 weeks after treatment initiation. For each disease, evaluation of successful treatment response will be based on established primary and secondary endpoints, including disease-specific core outcome sets. The major outcome of the analyses will be to detect variability in treatment effectiveness between patients with different lifestyle characteristics., Ethics and Dissemination: The principle goal of this project is to improve the quality of life of patients suffering from CID by providing evidence to support dietary and other lifestyle recommendations that may improve clinical outcomes. The study is approved by the Ethics Committee (S-20160124) and the Danish Data Protecting Agency (2008-58-035). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, patient associations and presentations at international conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT03173144; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors declare no conflict of interest. However, the following authors declare: B. Heitmann has received funding from ‘MatPrat’, the information office for Norwegian egg and meat; L. Hvid is on the advisory board for Abbvie A/S; J. Fallingborg is on the advisory boards for AbbVie A/S, MSD Denmark, Takeda Pharma A/S, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S; V. Andersen receives compensation for consultancy and for being a member of the advisory board for MSD Denmark (Merck) and Janssen A/S. The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: Compare arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to a true sham intervention., Methods: Sham-controlled superiority trial performed in three county hospitals in Denmark comparing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy to skin incisions only in patients aged 35-55 years with persistent knee pain and an MRI-confirmed medial meniscus lesion. A computer-generated table of random numbers generated two comparison groups. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group allocation. Exclusions were locking knees, high-energy trauma or severe osteoarthritis. Outcomes were collected at baseline, 3 and 24 months. We hypothesised no difference between groups. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in change from baseline to 2 years in the mean score across all five normalised Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales (KOOS 5 )., Results: Forty-four patients (of the estimated 72) underwent randomisation; 22 in each group. Sixteen participants (36%) were non-blinded and eight participants (36%) from the sham group crossed over to the surgery group prior to the 2-year follow-up. At 2 years, both groups reported clinically relevant improvements (surgery 21.8, skin incisions only 13.6), the mean difference between groups was 8.2 in favour of surgery, which is slightly less than the cut-off of 10 prespecified to represent a clinically relevant difference; judged by the 95% CI (-3.4 to 19.8), a possibility of clinically relevant difference could not be excluded. In total, nine participants experienced 11 adverse events; six in the surgery group and three in the skin-incisions-only group., Conclusion: We found greater improvement from arthroscopic partial meniscectomy compared with skin incisions only at 2 years, with the statistical uncertainty of the between-group difference including what could be considered clinically relevant. Because of the study being underpowered, nearly half in the sham group being non-blinded and one-third crossing over to surgery, the results cannot be generalised to the greater patient population., Trial Registration Number: NCT01264991., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objectives: Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) is the most common inherited disorder of the peripheral nervous system, yet no studies have compared the mortality in patients with CMT with that of the general population, and prevalence estimates vary considerably. We performed a nationwide register-based study to investigate the prevalence, incidence and mortality of CMT in Denmark., Design: We used the Danish National Patient Registry to select all records with primary diagnostic codes for CMT between 1977 and 2012 given at a neurological, neurophysiological, paediatric or clinical genetic clinic. The prevalence was estimated by 31 December 2012, and the incidence rate was calculated based on data from 1988 to 2012. We calculated a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) and an absolute excess mortality rate (AER) stratified according to age categories and disease duration., Results: A total of 1534 patients (652 women) were identified. The prevalence proportion was 22.5 per 100 000 (95% CI 21.2 to 23.7) and the incidence rate was 0.98 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.04) per 100 000 person-years. The SMR was 1.36 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.53), and the AER was 4.87 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 2.77 to 6.96). We found a significantly higher SMR in cases below 50 years of age, and in cases with disease duration of more than 10 years., Conclusions: We found a reduced life expectancy among patients diagnosed with CMT. To our knowledge, this is the first study of CMT to use nationwide register-based data, and the first to report an SMR and an AER., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Spondyloarthritis (SpA) is a heterogeneous spectrum of rheumatic diseases with either predominantly axial inflammatory symptoms of the spine and sacroiliac joints or predominantly peripheral arthritis. The two main entities of axial SpA (axSpA) are ankylosing spondylitis or non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA). Tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitors have revolutionised the treatment of patients with axSpA who failed to respond to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and physical therapy. Chronic pain is common in patients with SpA and may still persist despite the lack of signs of inflammation. This has led researchers to hypothesise that central pain sensitisation may play a role in the generation of chronic pain in SpA. The painDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ) is a screening tool developed to detect neuropathic pain components. The primary objective is to explore the prognostic value of the PDQ regarding treatment response in patients with axSpA 3 months after initiating a biological agent. Secondary aim is to evaluate the impact of extra-articular manifestations, comorbidities and patient-reported outcomes and elucidate if these factors influence treatment response., Method and Analysis: We will include 60 participants (≥18 years of age) diagnosed with axSpA independent of main entity, who initiate or switch treatment of a biologic. Data will be collected at baseline and at endpoint following Danish clinical practice (≥3 months) of treatment with biologics. We will explore whether the PDQ and other phenotypical patient characteristics are prognostically important for response to biological therapy according to established response criteria like 50% improvement in the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (50%) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is approved by the Region of Southern Denmark's Ethics committee (S-20160094) and has been designed in cooperation with patient representatives. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02948608, pre-results). Dissemination will occur through publication(s) in international peer-reviewed journal(s)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RAA, LEK, TE, TU, AE, BD, LF and IMJH have nothing to disclose. RC reports non-financial support from Board membership, grants from Consultancy (AbbVie, Amgen, Axellus A/S, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, MSD, Norpharma, Novartis, Orkla Health, Pfizer, Roche, Sobi, Takeda), personal fees from Employment (Research Unit for Musculoskeletal Function and Physiotherapy, Institute of Sports Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark), non-financial support from Expert testimony, grants from Grants/grants pending (Axellus A/S, AbbVie, Cambridge Weight Plan, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, and Roche), grants from Payment for lectures including service on speakers bureaus (Abbott, Amgen, Axellus, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Biogen Idec, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Ipsen, Janssen, Laboratoires Expanscience, MSD, Mundipharma, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, Sobi, and Wyeth), grants from Payment for manuscript preparation (Axellus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Cambridge Weight Plan, Aleris-Hamlet (via Norpharma)), non-financial support from Patents (planned, pending or issued), non financial support from Royalties, grants from Payment for development of educational presentations (Bristol-Myers Squibb, MSD, Pfizer), non-financial support from Stock/stock options, grants from Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses unrelated to activities listed (Abbott, AbbVie, Axellus, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cambridge Weight Plan, Celgene, Laboratoires Expanscience, Norpharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Rottapharm-Madaus, and Wyeth), non-financial support from Other (err on the side of full disclosure), outside the submitted work; and he is involved in many healthcare initiatives and research that could benefit from wide uptake of this publication (including Cochrane, OMERACT, IDEOM, RADS and the GRADE Working Group). The Parker Institute is supported by a core grant from the Oak Foundation; The Oak Foundation is a group of philanthropic organizations that, since its establishment in 1983, has given grants to not-for-profit organizations around the world. JW reports personal fees from Abbvie (advisory board), personal fees from Santhera (speaker), grants from Bayer (AAO Congres invitation), outside the submitted Work. CA reports personal fees from Boardmembership (Ferring, Takeda), personal fees from Payment for lectures i (Abbott, Ferring, Norgine, MSD, Takeda), grants from Travel/accommodations/meeting expenses unrelated to activities listed (Abvie, Ferring, Eli Lilly, Norgine, Medtronics, Takeda,Tillots) , outside the submitted work. BC reports personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. HCH reports personal fees from Advisory Board Abbvie Denmark, psoriatic arthritis, spondyloarthritis and uveitis, personal fees from Advisory Board Novartis Denmark, non-financial (support from Travel/accomodation/meeting expenses unrelated to activity listed Abbvie, Pfizer, BMS, MSD), grants from Payment for educational presentations (Novartis Denmark), outside the submitted work., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Introduction: Physical activity is a cornerstone in type 2 diabetes (T2D) rehabilitation. Effective long-term and low-cost strategies to keep these patients' physically active are needed. However, maintaining physical activity behaviour is difficult once formalised interventions end. Structured exercise training supported by mobile technology and remote feedback is potentially an effective strategy. The objective of the trial is to investigate whether mobile health support using the InterWalk application for smartphones is effective in increasing physical activity levels in persons with T2D over time compared with standard care. We investigate whether Interval Walking Training using the InterWalk application is superior to Danish municipality-based rehabilitation in increasing moderate-and-vigorous physical activity levels in patients with T2D across 52 weeks. Secondary, we hypothesise that a motivational programme added from end of intervention to 52 weeks further increases level of physical activity in everyday life in patients with T2D., Methods and Analysis: The trial is a parallel-group, open-labelled, randomised controlled trial with long-term follow-up at 52 week including patients with T2D. The primary outcome is change in moderate-and-vigorous physical activity. The key secondary outcome includes motivation for physical activity behaviour change. Other secondary outcomes are VO 2 -peak, strength in the lower extremities. Exclusion criterion is medical contraindication to exercise. We include up to 246 patients and randomly allocate them into a control (standard group) or an experimental group (8-12 weeks of IWT supported by the smartphone-based InterWalk application) in a 1:2 fashion. After intervention, the experimental group is randomly allocated into two follow-up conditions with unsupervised IWT with or without motivational support until 52-week follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle is applied., Ethics and Dissemination: The local regional Research Ethics Committee in Denmark (H-1-2014-074) and the Danish Data Protection Agency (j.nr. 2014-54-0897) have approved the trial. Positive, negative or inconclusive results will be disseminated in scientific journals and conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT02341690., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) should have well-defined primary and secondary outcomes to answer questions generated by the main hypotheses. However, for the chronic, inflammatory skin disease hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), the reported outcome measures are numerous and diverse. A recent systematic review found a total of 30 outcome measure instruments in 12 RCTs. This use of a broad range of outcome measures can increase difficulties in interpretation and comparison of results and may potentially obstruct appropriate evidence synthesis by causing reporting bias. One strategy for dealing with these problems is to develop a core outcome set (COS). A COS is a list of outcomes that are meant as mandatory and should be measured and reported in all clinical trials. The aim of this study is to develop a COS for the management of HS., Method and Analysis: An international steering group of researchers, clinicians and a patient research partner will guide the COS development. 6 stakeholder groups are involved: patients, dermatologists, surgeons, nurses, industry representatives and drug regulatory authorities. A 1:1 ratio of patients:healthcare professionals is aimed for. The initial list of candidate items will be obtained by combining three data sets: (1) a systematic review of the literature, (2) US and Danish qualitative interview studies involving patients with HS and (3) an online healthcare professional (HCP) item generation survey. To reach consensus on the COS, 4 anonymous online Delphi rounds are then planned together with 2 face-to-face consensus meetings (1 in Europe and 1 in the USA) to ensure global representation., Ethics and Dissemination: The study will be performed according to the Helsinki declaration. All results from the study, including inconclusive or negative results, will be published in peer-reviewed indexed journals. The study will involve different stakeholder groups to ensure that the developed COS will be suitable and well accepted., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Introduction: There is no consensus about what constitutes the most appropriate patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) instrument for measuring physical function in patients with rheumatic hand conditions. Existing instruments lack psychometric testing and vary in feasibility and their psychometric qualities. We aim to develop a PROM instrument to assess hand-related physical function in rheumatic hand conditions., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a systematic search to identify existing PROMs to rheumatic hand conditions, and select items relevant for hand-related physical function as well as those items from the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) item bank that are relevant to patients with rheumatic hand conditions. Selection will be based on consensus among reviewers. Content validity of selected items will be established through the use of focus groups. If patients deem necessary, we will develop new items based on the patients' input. We will examine whether it is valid to score all selected and developed items on the same scale as the original items from the PROMIS PF item bank. Our analyses will follow the methods used for calibrating the original PROMIS PF item bank in US samples, which were largely based on the general PROMIS approach., Ethics and Dissemination: This study will be carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. Ethics approvals will be obtained where necessary, and signed informed consent will be obtained from all participants. We aim to disseminate the results of the study through publication in international peer-reviewed journals and at international conferences., Competing Interests: CBT and RWe are coordinators of the Dutch-Flemish PROMIS group (http://www.dutchflemishpromis.nl). CBT, SN and GL are part of the PROMIS International Group. GL is doing his PhD on the PROMIS PF Item Bank., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Introduction: Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis in men over 40 years of age. Long-term urate-lowering therapy is considered a key strategy for effective gout management. The primary outcome measure for efficacy in clinical trials of urate-lowering therapy is serum urate levels, effectively acting as a surrogate for patient-centred outcomes such as frequency of gout attacks or pain. Yet it is not clearly demonstrated that the strength of the relationship between serum urate and clinically relevant outcomes is sufficiently strong for serum urate to be considered an adequate surrogate. Our objective is to investigate the strength of the relationship between changes in serum urate in randomised controlled trials and changes in clinically relevant outcomes according to the 'Biomarker-Surrogacy Evaluation Schema version 3' (BSES3), documenting the validity of selected instruments by applying the 'OMERACT Filter 2.0'., Methods and Analysis: A systematic review described in terms of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines will identify all relevant studies. Standardised data elements will be extracted from each study by 2 independent reviewers and disagreements are resolved by discussion. The data will be analysed by meta-regression of the between-arm differences in the change in serum urate level (independent variable) from baseline to 3 months (or 6 and 12 months if 3-month values are not available) against flare rate, tophus size and number and pain at the final study visit (dependent variables)., Ethics and Dissemination: This study will not require specific ethics approval since it is based on analysis of published (aggregated) data. The intended audience will include healthcare researchers, policymakers and clinicians. Results of the study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: CRD42016026991., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Cardiovascular morbidity is a major burden in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). In this study, we compare the effect of a targeted, intensified, multifactorial intervention with that of conventional treatment of modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with early RA fulfilling the 2010 American College of Rheumatology European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) criteria., Methods and Analysis: The study is a prospective, randomised, open label trial with blinded end point assessment and balanced randomisation (1:1) conducted in 10 outpatient clinics in Denmark. The primary end point after 5 years of follow-up is a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke and cardiac revascularisation. Secondary outcomes are: the proportion of patients achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <2.5 mmol/L, glycated haemoglobin <48 mmol/mol, blood pressure <140/90 mm  Hg for patients without diabetes and <130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes and normoalbuminuria (urinary albumin creatinine ratio <30 mg/g) after 1 year of follow-up and the proportion of patients in each treatment group achieving low RA disease activity after 1 year, defined as a disease activity score C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) <3.2 and a DAS28-CRP score <2.6 after 12, 24 and 60 months. Furthermore, all hospitalisations for acute and elective reasons will be adjudicated by the event committee after 12, 24 and 60 months. Three hundred treatment-naive patients with early RA will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either conventional treatment administered and monitored by their general practitioner according to national guidelines (control group) or a stepwise implementation administered and monitored in a quarterly rheumatological nurse-administered set-up of behaviour modification and pharmacological therapy targeting (1) hyperlipidaemia, (2) hypertension, (3) hyperglycaemia and (4) microalbuminuria (intervention group)., Ethics and Dissemination: This protocol is approved by the local ethics committee (DK-S-2014007) and The Danish Health and Medicines Authority. Dissemination will occur through presentations at National and International conferences and publications in international peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT02246257., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Persistent pain is a major concern for patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Pain may be due to inflammatory activity or augmented central pain processing. Unawareness of the origin and mechanisms of pain can lead to misinterpretation of disease activity (by composite scores) and erroneous treatments. Ultrasonography (US) is a highly sensitive method to detect tissue inflammation. Evaluating pain mechanisms in relation to US measures may prove valuable in predicting response to treatment in PsA., Aims: To study the association and prognostic value of pain mechanisms, ultrasonic activity and clinical outcomes in patients with PsA who intensify antirheumatic treatment., Methods and Analyses: 100 participants >18 years of age with PsA who initiate or switch antirheumatic treatment (biologicals and/or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs)) will be prospectively recruited from outpatient clinics in Copenhagen. All data (demographics, clinical, imaging, blood samples and patient-reported outcomes) will be collected at baseline and after 4 months. Pain is assessed by the PainDETECT Questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Swollen to Tender Joint Count Ratio, Widespread Pain Index and tender point examination. The association between pain variables and clinical/US characteristics will be described by correlation analyses. The predictive value of pain measures and baseline US scores on treatment response will be analysed with regression models. Outcomes are composite and clinical, as well as patient reported., Ethics and Dissemination: The study is approved by the ethics committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (H-15009080) and has been designed in cooperation with patient research partners. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (number NCT02572700). Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: NCT02572700, Pre-results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: This systematic review aims to identify generic prognostic factors for disability and sick leave in subacute pain patients., Setting: General practice and other primary care facilities., Participants: Adults (>18 years) with a subacute (≤ 3-month) non-malignant pain condition. Eligibility criteria were cohort studies investigating the prediction of disability or long-term sick leave in adults with a subacute pain condition in a primary care setting. 19 studies were included, referring to a total of 6266 patients suffering from pain in the head, neck, back and shoulders., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was long-term disability (>3 months) due to a pain condition. The secondary outcome was sick leave, defined as 'absence from work' or 'return-to-work'., Results: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PEDro databases were searched from 16 January 2003 to 16 January 2014. The quality of evidence was presented according to the GRADE WG recommendations. Several factors were found to be associated with disability at follow-up for at least two different pain symptoms. However, owing to insufficient studies, no generic risk factors for sick leave were identified., Conclusions: Multiple site pain, high pain severity, older age, baseline disability and longer pain duration were identified as potential prognostic factors for disability across pain sites. There was limited evidence that anxiety and depression were associated with disability in patients with subacute pain, indicating that these factors may not play as large a role as expected in developing disability due to a pain condition. Quality of evidence was moderate, low or very low, implying that confidence in the results is limited. Large prospective prognostic factor studies are needed with sufficient study populations and transparent reporting of all factors examined., Trial Registration Number: CRD42014008914., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Current pharmacological therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are challenged by lack of sustainability and borderline firm evidence of real long-term health benefits. Accordingly, lifestyle intervention remains the corner stone in the management of T2D. However, there is a lack of knowledge regarding the optimal intervention programmes in T2D ensuring both compliance as well as long-term health outcomes. Our objective is to assess the effects of an intensive lifestyle intervention (the U-TURN intervention) on glycaemic control in patients with T2D. Our hypothesis is that intensive lifestyle changes are equally effective as standard diabetes care, including pharmacological treatment in maintaining glycaemic control (ie, glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)) in patients with T2D. Furthermore, we expect that intensive lifestyle changes will decrease the need for antidiabetic medications., Methods and Analysis: The study is an assessor-blinded, parallel group and a 1-year randomised trial. The primary outcome is change in glycaemic control (HbA1c), with the key secondary outcome being reductions in antidiabetic medication. Participants will be patients with T2D (T2D duration <10 years) without complications who are randomised into an intensive lifestyle intervention (U-TURN) or a standard care intervention in a 2:1 fashion. Both groups will be exposed to the same standardised, blinded, target-driven pharmacological treatment and can thus maintain, increase, reduce or discontinue the pharmacological treatment. The decision is based on the standardised algorithm. The U-TURN intervention consists of increased training and basal physical activity level, and an antidiabetic diet including an intended weight loss. The standard care group as well as the U-TURN group is offered individual diabetes management counselling on top of the pharmacological treatment., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the Scientific Ethical Committee at the Capital Region of Denmark (H-1-2014-114). Positive, negative or inconclusive findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT02417012., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Introduction: Pain in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is traditionally considered to be of inflammatory origin. Despite better control of inflammation, some patients still report pain as a significant concern, even when being in clinical remission. This suggests that RA may prompt central sensitisation-one aspect of chronic pain. In contrast, other patients report good treatment response, although imaging shows signs of inflammation, which could indicate a possible enhancement of descending pain inhibitory mechanisms. When assessing disease activity in patients with central sensitisation, the commonly used disease activity scores (eg, DAS28-CRP (C reactive protein)) will yield constant high total scores due to high tender joint count and global health assessments, whereas MRI provides an isolated estimate of inflammation. The objective of this study is, in patients with RA initiating anti-inflammatory treatment, to explore the prognostic value of a screening questionnaire for central sensitisation, hand inflammation assessed by conventional MRI, and the interaction between them regarding treatment outcome evaluated by clinical status (DAS28-CRP). For the purpose of further exploratory analyses, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) is performed., Method and Analysis: The painDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ), originally developed to screen for a neuropathic pain component, is applied to indicate the presence of central sensitisation. Adults diagnosed with RA are included when either (A) initiating disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment, or (B) initiating or switching to biological therapy. We anticipate that 100 patients will be enrolled, tested and reassessed after 4 months of treatment., Data Collection Includes: Clinical data, conventional MRI, DCE-MRI, blood samples and patient-reported outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: This study aims at supporting rheumatologists to define strategies to reach optimal treatment outcomes in patients with RA based on chronic pain prognostics. The study has been approved by The Capital region of Denmark's Ethics Committee; identification number H-3-2013-049. The results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Introduction: The validity of systematic reviews and meta-analysis depends on methodological quality and unbiased dissemination of trials. Our objective is to evaluate the association of estimates of treatment effects with different bias-related study characteristics in meta-analyses of interventions used for treating pain in osteoarthritis (OA). From the findings, we hope to consolidate guidance on interpreting OA trials in systematic reviews based on empirical evidence from Cochrane reviews., Methods and Analysis: Only systematic reviews that compare experimental interventions with sham, placebo or no intervention control will be considered eligible. Bias will be assessed with the risk of bias tool, used according to the Cochrane Collaboration's recommendations. Furthermore, center status, trial size and funding will be assessed. The primary outcome (pain) will be abstracted from the first appearing forest plot for overall pain in the Cochrane review. Treatment effect sizes will be expressed as standardised mean differences (SMDs), where the difference in mean values available from the forest plots is divided by the pooled SD. To empirically assess the risk of bias in treatment benefits, we will perform stratified analyses of the trials from the included meta-analyses and assess the interaction between trial characteristics and treatment effect. A relevant study-level covariate is defined as one that decreases the between-study variance (τ(2), estimated as Tau-squared) as a consequence of inclusion in the mixed effects statistical model., Ethics and Dissemination: Meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials provide the most reliable basis for treatment of patients with OA, but the actual impact of bias is unclear. This study will systematically examine the methodological quality in OA Cochrane reviews and explore the effect estimates behind possible bias. Since our study does not collect primary data, no formal ethical assessment and informed consent are required., Trial Registration Number: PROSPERO (CRD42013006924)., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Introduction: Chronic pain is common in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and may still persist despite regression of objective signs of inflammation. This has led researchers to hypothesise that central pain sensitisation may play a role in the generation of chronic pain in RA. Application of the disease activity score DAS28 can classify some patients with active RA solely based on a high tender joint count and poor patient global health score. In such cases, intensified treatment with anti-inflammatory drugs would be expected to yield poorer results than in cases with DAS28 elevation due to a high score for swollen joints and C reactive protein (CRP). Evaluation of central pain sensitisation in patients with few inflammatory indices may be a predictive tool regarding the effect of anti-inflammatory treatment. Computerised pneumatic cuff pressure algometry (CPA) is a method for assessing temporal summation (ie, degree of central sensitisation). The main objective of this study was to examine the prognostic values of pressure pain-induced temporal summation, ultrasound Doppler activity and the interaction between them in relation to treatment response (DAS28-CRP change) in patients with RA initiating any anti-inflammatory therapy., Method and Analysis: 120 participants ≥18 years of age will be recruited. Furthermore, they must be either (1) diagnosed with RA, untreated with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for at least 6 months and about to initiate disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment or (2) about to begin or switch treatment with any biological drug for their RA. Data (clinical, imaging, blood samples, patient reported outcomes and CPA measurements) will be collected from each participant at baseline and after 4 months of anti-inflammatory treatment., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the ethics committee for the Copenhagen region (H-4-2013-007). Dissemination will occur through presentations and publication in international peer-reviewed journals.

Background: Meniscus surgery is a high-volume surgery carried out on 1 million patients annually in the USA. The procedure is conducted on an outpatient basis and the patients leave the hospital a few hours after surgery. A critical oversight of previous studies is their failure to account for the type of meniscal tears. Meniscus tears can be categorised as traumatic or non-traumatic. Traumatic tears (TT) are usually observed in younger, more active individuals in an otherwise 'healthy' meniscus and joint. Non-traumatic tears (NTT) (ie, degenerative tears) are typically observed in the middle-aged (35-55 years) and older population but the aetiology is largely unclear. Knowledge about the potential difference of the effect of arthroscopic meniscus surgery on patient symptoms between patients with traumatic and NTT is sparse. Furthermore, little is known about the natural time course of patient perceived pain, function and quality of life after meniscus surgery and factors affecting these outcomes. The aim of this prospective cohort study is to investigate the natural time course of patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing meniscus surgery, with particular emphasis on the role of type of symptom onset., Methods/design: This prospective cohort study enrol patients assigned for meniscus surgery. At the baseline (PRE surgery), patient characteristics are assessed using an email-based questionnaire also comprising several validated questionnaires assessing general health, knee-specific characteristics and patient's expectations of the surgery. Follow-up will be conducted at 12 and 52 weeks after meniscus surgery. The major outcomes will be differences in changes, from before to 52 weeks after surgery, in each of the five domains on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) between patients undergoing surgery for traumatic compared with non-traumatic meniscus tears., Dissemination: The study findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01871272.