Search

BackgroundMost low back pain trials have limited applicability to the emergency department (ED) because they provide treatment and measure outcomes after discharge from the ED. We investigated the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions delivered in the ED to patients with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica on patient-relevant outcomes measured during the emergency visit.MethodsLiterature searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from inception to week 1 February 2020. We included all randomised controlled trials investigating adult patients (≥18 years) with non-specific low back pain and/or sciatica presenting to ED. The primary outcome of interest was pain intensity. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias of each trial using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The overall quality of evidence, or certainty, provided by a set of trials evaluating the same treatment was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, which considers imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness and bias in the evidence.ResultsFifteen trials (1802 participants) were included with 12 of 15 at low risk of bias (ie, PEDro score >6). Based on results from individual trials and moderate quality evidence, ketoprofen gel was more effective than placebo for non-specific low back pain at 30 min (mean difference (MD) −15.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) −21.0 to −9.0). For those with sciatica (moderate quality evidence), intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) (MD −15.7, 95% CI −19.8 to −11.6) and intravenous morphine (MD −11.4, 95% CI −21.6 to −1.2) were both superior to placebo at 30 min. Based on moderate quality of evidence, corticosteroids showed no benefits against placebo at emergency discharge for non-specific low back pain (MD 9.0, 95% CI −0.71 to 18.7) or sciatica (MD −6.8, 95% CI −24.2 to 10.6). There were conflicting results from trials comparing different pharmacological options (moderate quality evidence) or investigating non-pharmacological treatments (low quality evidence).ConclusionKetoprofen gel for non-specific low back pain and intravenous paracetamol or morphine for sciatica were superior to placebo, whereas corticosteroids were ineffective for both conditions. There was conflicting evidence for comparisons of different pharmacological options and those involving non-pharmacological treatments. Additional trials measuring important patient-related outcomes to EDs are needed.

BACKGROUND Sciatica can be a debilitating condition and there is limited guidance on the use of glucocorticoids administered via the oral, intramuscular or intravenous route for this condition. These represent viable treatment options in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the evidence on efficacy and harms of oral, IM and IV glucocorticoid administration for sciatica. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO (inception to October 2018) were searched for randomised placebo-controlled trials evaluating oral, IV or IM glucocorticoid administration for sciatica. Two authors extracted outcomes data. Continuous pain and disability outcomes were converted to a 0 (no pain/disability) to 100 (worst pain/disability) scale. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Primary outcomes were leg pain and disability. Primary follow-up period was the immediate-term (

The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network was formed to build capacity and infrastructure for high-quality musculoskeletal clinical trials in our region. The purpose of this paper is to describe the steps taken in its formation to help others interested in establishing similar networks. In particular, we describe the steps taken to form the collaboration and our progress in achieving our vision and mission. Our aim is to focus on trials of highest importance and quality to provide definitive answers to the most pressing questions in our field.

Objective.To describe the experience of the first OMERACT Emerging Leaders Program (ELP).Methods.A Delphi process identified positive aspects, areas for improvement, and future directions. Core items were defined as essential if they received ≥ 70% ratings.Results.Participants valued relatable/accessible mentors (100%), including an OMERACT Executive mentor (100%), and a support network of peers (90%). Key items for future development were funding support (100%) and developing knowledge about OMERACT processes (90%) and politics (80%).Conclusion.The ELP has the potential to provide targeted training for early career researchers to develop relevant skills for future leadership roles within OMERACT.

BACKGROUND Training in medicine is highly demanding and coincides with critical life tasks including relationship development, childbearing, and rearing. The rigid requirements of training programs risk precluding successful achievement of these extracurricular roles, forcing choices between work and other life commitments. Flexible employment structures that facilitate the development of high-quality physicians are needed. METHODS The clinical department, trainees and senior administration designed flexible, part-time advanced training positions in rheumatology. We sought to deliver excellent training, supervision and support whilst ensuring safe, efficient clinical service delivery within existing systems and cultures. Barriers to implementation were actively identified. We rejected job share arrangements in favour of independent part time positions anchored to departmental education, clinical and trainee needs. The outcomes of these positions have been determined through regular trainee meetings, clinic activity and costs. RESULTS Trainees achieved all training requirements, reported high levels of job satisfaction, strong professional development, improved work-life balance, and reduction of stress. Outpatient events increased and waiting times have decreased. We estimate that increased rebatable outpatient services have rendered the positions cost neutral. CONCLUSION Flexible training positions can enhance clinical departments whilst enabling high quality training for junior doctors. Further work should consider longer term outcomes and application to different clinical and training settings. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Introduction There is a common belief that patients presenting to emergency departments have more severe pain levels and functional limitations than those who are seen in general practice. The aim of this systematic review was to compare pain and disability levels of patients with acute low back pain presenting to general practice vs those presenting to emergency departments. Methods Electronic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL from database inception to February 2019. Observational studies including patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments and/or general practice were eligible. Pain and/or disability scores expressed on a 0–100 scale were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated with a validated tool for observational studies, and the overall quality of evidence was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Meta-analysis with random effects and meta-regression were used to test for differences between the two settings. Results We included 12 records reporting results for 10 unique studies with a total of 6,999 participants from general practice (n = 6) and emergency departments (n = 4). There was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher pain scores than those in general practice, with a mean difference of 17.3 points (95% confidence interval: 8.8 to 25.9 on a 0–100 scale). Similarly, there was low-quality evidence (downgraded for indirectness and inconsistency) that patients presenting to emergency departments had higher disability scores than those in general practice (mean difference: 21.7; 95% confidence interval: 4.6 to 38.7 on a 0–100 scale). Conclusion Patients with acute non-specific low back pain presenting to emergency departments may report higher levels of pain and disability than those seen in general practice.

Summary Background Low back pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide and a common presentation to emergency departments, often resulting in subsequent admissions to hospital. There have been several studies investigating the cost of low back pain to society, but few specific to the emergency department and inpatient setting, especially in Australia. The aim was to describe the cost of low back pain in Australian public hospital emergency departments, and inpatient settings, and explore healthcare costs associated with different care pathways. Methods In this retrospective observational study, we explored the costs associated with an episode of care for low back pain in adults that attended three emergency departments in Sydney between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2019. Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms (SNOMED) diagnosis codes were used to identify episodes of care where the patients had been diagnosed with non-specific low back pain or lumbosacral radicular syndromes. Serious spinal pathologies were excluded. We determined the costs for different treatment pathways involving the ambulance service, emergency department and inpatient ward care. Hospital costs were adjusted for inflation to 2019 Australian dollars (AUD). Findings There were 12,399 non-serious low back pain episodes of care during the study period. 4006 (32%) arrived by ambulance and 2067 (17%) were admitted for inpatient care. The total costs of inpatient and emergency department care across the 5-year period were AUD$36.7 million, with a mean of AUD$2959 per episode of care. The mean cost for a patient who had a non-ambulance presentation to the emergency department and was discharged was AUD$584. Patients presenting to the emergency department via ambulance and were discharged had a mean cost of AUD$1022. Patients who presented without the need of an ambulance and were admitted had a mean cost of $13,137. The most expensive care pathway was for patients arriving by ambulance with subsequent admission, with a mean cost of AUD$14,949. Interpretation The common practice of admitting patients with non-serious low back pain for inpatient care comes at great cost to the healthcare system. In a resource constrained environment, our data highlights the economic need to implement innovative, evidence-based strategies to reduce the inpatient management of these patients. Funding Nil.

Objective To determine whether rates of ED presentations because of low back pain (LBP) have increased from 2016 to 2019 in New South Wales and map the geographical distribution of ED presentations because of LBP across New South Wales. Methods We sourced data from the New South Wales Emergency Department Records for Epidemiology. We included all ED presentations aged 15 years and older with a diagnosis of LBP to the 178 public EDs across New South Wales from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2019. We calculated the ratio (95% confidence interval) between the 2016 and 2019 age-standardised rates to determine whether an increase in the rate of ED LBP presentations has occurred. To assess geographical variation, we aggregated presentations by their home postcode. We calculated age-standardised rates per 100 000 person year for each of those areas using data from 2016 to 2019. Results We included 188 275 LBP presentations for patients aged 15 years or older. Their mean (standard deviation) age was 51.3 (20.0) years. From 2016 to 2019, we observed a 5.3% increase in the age-adjusted LBP ED presentation rates (age-standardised ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.04-1.06). We found a 20-fold variation in LBP ED age-standardised presentation rates across the different local government areas of New South Wales. Higher rates were mostly observed in rural and regional areas. Conclusions The demand for ED services because of LBP has increased in New South Wales over time, and we observed a 20-fold variation in presentation rates across different regions.

BackgroundOveruse of lumbar imaging is common in the emergency department (ED). Few trials have examined interventions to address this. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain in the emergency department.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial in four EDs in New South Wales, Australia. After a 13-month control phase of usual care, the EDs received a multifaceted intervention to support guideline-endorsed care in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, every 4 weeks over a 4-month period. All sites were followed up for at least 3 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of low back pain presentations receiving lumbar imaging. Secondary healthcare utilisation outcomes included prescriptions of opioid and non-opioid pain medicines, inpatient admissions, length of ED stay, specialist referrals and re-presentations. Clinician beliefs and knowledge about low back pain care were measured before and after the intervention. Patient-reported pain, disability, quality of life and satisfaction were measured at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post ED presentation.ResultsA total of 269 ED clinicians and 4625 episodes of care for low back pain (4491 patients) were included. The data did not provide clear evidence that the intervention reduced lumbar imaging (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.26; p=0.29). It did reduce opioid use (OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.85; p=0.006) and improved clinicians’ beliefs (mean difference (MD), 2.85; 95% CI 1.85 to 3.85; pConclusionIt is uncertain if a multifaceted intervention to implement guideline recommendations for low back pain care decreased lumbar imaging in the ED; however, it did reduce opioid prescriptions without adversely affecting patient outcomes.Trial registration number ACTRN12617001160325.

BACKGROUND Low back pain (LBP) is a frequent reason for emergency department (ED) presentations, with a global prevalence of 4.4%. Despite being common, the number of clinical trials investigating LBP in the ED is low. Recruitment of patients in EDs can be challenging because of the fast-paced and demanding ED environment. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to describe the recruitment and response rates using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls to recruit patients with LBP and collect health outcomes in the ED. METHODS An automated SMS text messaging system was integrated into Research Electronic Data Capture and used to collect patient-reported outcomes for an implementation trial in Sydney, Australia. We invited patients with nonserious LBP who presented to participating EDs at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after ED discharge. Patients who did not respond to the initial SMS text message invitation were sent a reminder SMS text message or contacted via telephone. The recruitment rate was measured as the proportion of patients who agreed to participate, and the response rate was measured as the proportion of participants completing the follow-up surveys at weeks 2 and 4. Regression analyses were used to explore factors associated with response rates. RESULTS In total, 807 patients with nonserious LBP were invited to participate and 425 (53.0%) agreed to participate. The week 1 survey was completed by 51.5% (416/807) of participants. At week 2, the response rate was 86.5% (360/416), and at week 4, it was 84.4% (351/416). Overall, 60% of the surveys were completed via SMS text messaging and on the web and 40% were completed via telephone. Younger participants and those from less socioeconomically disadvantaged areas were more likely to respond to the survey via the SMS text messaging and web-based system. CONCLUSIONS Using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls is a viable method for recruiting patients with LBP and collecting health outcomes in the ED. This hybrid system could potentially reduce the costs of using traditional recruitment and data collection methods (eg, face-to-face, telephone calls only). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019052

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of telerehabilitation for patients with OA of the knee or hip.

In hospital systems, large volumes of data are routinely collected in digital form. Advances in electronic medical record systems have created digital health data that are well coded and structured, as well as unstructured data such as clinical notes and medical images. These data have value for researchers aiming to improve the quality of healthcare. Five barriers limit our ability to use and access electronic medical record data for research: 1. Data are stored across numerous data tables, in a variety of formats, within fragmented or siloed data systems. 2. Data quality is inconsistent (and at times poor). There are inaccuracies in recording, such as duplicate entries, missing data and incorrect diagnosis codes. 3. Efficient tools to quickly identify, link and capture relevant electronic medical record data are scarce. 4. Bureaucratic layers of governance, complex ethics approval processes and privacy legislation restrictions slow research. 5. Data collected for administrative or compliance purposes may not contain relevant research outcomes. These barriers mean that, with respect to sports injuries, for example, there are relatively few studies that describe the patterns or the quality and safety of healthcare using hospital-based electronic medical record data,1 2 although these injuries are commonly seen in outpatient clinics, emergency departments and inpatient wards. We report opportunities to use electronic medical record data …

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows:\ud \ud \ud To determine the benefits and harms of marine oil supplements for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Background Shared decision-making can reduce the uptake of some unnecessary tests and procedures. Although awareness of shared decision-making is increasing, overuse of diagnostic tests for common clinical conditions, such as low back pain, remains high. Recent public health campaigns, such as the ‘Choosing Wisely’ Initiative, attempt to persuade consumers to avoid unnecessary tests, rather than provide neutral information on benefits and harms. It is unclear whether persuasive information materials can influence perceptions of imaging tests more than neutral materials, and whether such public health approaches could have unintended consequences (e.g. decision regret). Objective To evaluate the effect of different types of information leaflets on public perceptions of imaging for low back pain. Design Randomised online experiment. Setting Community (online) and 1 tertiary hospital. Participants 360 members of the general public (recruited via Facebook) with or without low back pain, who have been asked to imagine they have experienced a severe episode of low back pain. Recruitment of the general public sample is due for completion in March 2019. We are also purposively sampling patients attending the back-pain outpatient clinic of a large tertiary hospital, who are being interviewed about the leaflets. Intervention We are randomising participants to read one of the three leaflets on their computer screen, tablet, or smart phone: (i) Control leaflet: guideline information (ii) Neutral leaflet: balanced information on benefits/harms of imaging (iii) Persuasive leaflet: information biased towards harms of imaging. Immediately after reading the leaflet participants complete an online survey. Outcome measures Intention to undergo imaging for low back pain (primary outcome measure). Secondary outcome measures include beliefs about necessity of imaging, usefulness of leaflet, knowledge, worry, harms, satisfaction with decision, decision regret. Results The study is underway and due for completion in April 2019. We will present results in full at the conference. Conclusion This study will be the first to compare the impact of information leaflets designed for a public health campaign about unnecessary imaging of low back pain. The data will inform future development of public health resources and shared decision-making interventions.

Leptomeningitis is a rare central nervous system manifestation of rheumatoid arthritis, generally in patients with established chronic rheumatoid disease. We report a 41-year-old man without previous rheumatoid arthritis or psychiatric disorder who presented with an acute neuropsychiatric disturbance and polyarthralgia. His MR scan of brain showed asymmetric bifrontal leptomeningitis, confirmed on (18F)-fluoro-D-glucose-positron emission tomography. Other investigations showed highly positive serum and cerebrospinal fluid anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide. A leptomeningeal biopsy showed necrotising leptomeningeal inflammation with ill-defined granulomas and lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate without organisms. Prolonged high-dose corticosteroids and then rituximab resulted in recovery. Chronic leptomeningitis can present with an acute neuropsychiatric disorder. We highlight that early rheumatoid disease can, rarely, cause a chronic leptomeningitis, reversible with immunotherapy.

Purpose This study aims to test the effect of an information and support intervention on physical activity (PA) in women aged 50+ years. Design Randomized wait-list controlled trial. Setting Sydney, Australia. Sample 126 female university and health service employees, aged 50+. Intervention Information session, activity tracker, regular motivational emails. Measures Proportion achieving ≥ 10,000 steps/day (primary outcome), daily step count, proportion meeting 150 mins/week of moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA), self-reported PA. Analysis Odds-ratios and general linear regression models. Results At 3 months, the intervention group reported significantly more vigorous PA (1.04 hours, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.85, P = .01, measured by IPAQ), were more likely to achieve 300 mins/week of MVPA (OR = 1.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.36, P = .09, measured by Actigraph) than the control wait-list group, and reported adopting PA promotion strategies (technology = 31/58% or goal-setting = 39/74%). No significant between-group differences in the primary outcome were detected (1.39, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.18, P = .44). Conclusions This low-dose intervention significantly increased self-reported vigorous PA time and non-significantly increased the proportion of people achieving 300 mins/week of MVPA but did not significantly increase the proportion of participants achieving 10,000 steps/day. Relatively small effects may be important at a population level given the minimal resources needed to deliver this intervention.

Objective.Previously published literature assessing the reporting of outcome measures used in joint replacement randomized controlled trials (RCT) has revealed disappointing results. It remains unknown whether international initiatives have led to any improvement in the quality of reporting and/or a reduction in the heterogeneity of outcome measures used. Our objective was to systematically assess and compare primary outcome measures and the risk of bias in joint replacement RCT published in 2008 and 2013.Methods.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for RCT investigating adult patients undergoing joint replacement surgery. Two authors independently identified eligible trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool.Results.Seventy RCT (30 in 2008, 40 in 2013) met the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the number of trials judged to be at low overall risk of bias (n = 6, 20%) in 2008 compared with 2013 [6 (15%); chi-square = 0.302, p = 0.75]. Significantly more trials published in 2008 did not specify a primary outcome measure (n = 25, 83%) compared with 18 trials (45%) in 2013 (chi-square = 10.6316, p = 0.001). When specified, there was significant heterogeneity in the measures used to assess primary outcomes.Conclusion.While less than a quarter of trials published in both 2008 and 2013 were judged to be at low overall risk of bias, significantly more trials published in 2013 specified a primary outcome. Although this might represent a temporal trend toward improvement, the overall frequency of primary outcome reporting and the wide heterogeneity in primary outcomes reported remain suboptimal.

Background It is not known, whether outcome reporting in trials of total joint arthroplasty in the recent years is adequate or not. Our objective was to assess whether outcomes reported in total joint replacement (TJR) trials fulfil the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.0. Methods We systematically reviewed all TJR trials in adults, published in English in 2008 or 2013. Searches were conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Two authors independently applied the inclusion criteria for the studies, and any disagreement was resolved with a third review author. All outcome measures were abstracted using a pre-piloted standardised data extraction form and assessed for whether they mapped to one of the three OMERACT Filter 2.0 core areas: pathophysiological, life impact, and death. Results From 1635 trials identified, we included 70 trials (30 in 2008 and 40 in 2013) meeting the eligibility criteria. Twenty-two (31%) trials reported the three essential OMERACT core areas. Among the 27 hip replacement surgery trials and 39 knee replacement surgery trials included, 11 hip (41%) and nine knee (23%) trials reported all three essential OMERACT core areas. The most common outcome domains/measures were pain (20/27, 74%) and function (23/27, 85%) in hip trials and pain (26/39, 67%) and function (27/39, 69%) in knee trials. Results were similar for shoulder and hand joint replacement trials. Conclusions We identified significant gaps in the measurement of OMERACT core outcome areas in TJR trials, despite the majority reporting outcome domains of pain and function. An international consensus of key stakeholders is needed to develop a core domain set for reporting of TJR trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42014009216 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0498-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionLow back pain, and especially non-specific low back pain, is a common cause of presentation to the emergency department (ED). Although these patients typically report relatively high pain intensity, the clinical course of their pain and disability remains unclear. Our objective was to review the literature and describe the clinical course of non-specific low back pain after an ED visit.MethodsElectronic searches were conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. We screened for cohort studies or randomised trials investigating pain or disability in patients with non-specific low back pain presenting to EDs. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with minimal pain or disability scores at baseline. Two reviewers independently screened the full texts, extracted the data and assessed risk of bias and quality of evidence. Estimates of pain and disability were converted to a common 0–100 scale. We estimated pooled means and 95% CIs of pain and disability as a function of time since ED presentation.ResultsEight studies (nine publications) with a total of 1994 patients provided moderate overall quality evidence of the expected clinical course of low back pain after an ED visit. Seven of the eight studies were assessed to have a low risk of bias. At the time of the ED presentation, the pooled estimate of the mean pain score on a 0–100 scale was 71.0 (95% CI 64.2–77.9). This reduced to 46.1 (95% CI 37.2–55.0) after 1 day, 41.8 (95% CI 34.7 to 49.0) after 1 week and 13.5 (95% CI 5.8–21.3) after 26 weeks. The course of disability followed a similar pattern.ConclusionsPatients presenting to EDs with non-specific low back pain experience rapid reductions in pain intensity, but on average symptoms persisted 6 months later. This review can be used to educate patients so they can have realistic expectations of their recovery.

There is compelling evidence that physical activity has many physical and mental health benefits and can delay the development of disability in older age. However, uptake of this health behaviour is sub-optimal in working women in their middle age. This trial aims to establish the impact of a low-dose information program, incorporating follow-up support using behaviour change techniques, compared with a wait-list control group, on physical activity among women aged 50+ years. 100 female university or health service employees aged 50 years and over who are not sufficiently active according to national guidelines will be recruited and randomised to: [1] attend one information session at the worksite with follow-up email support and provision of resources including use of an activity tracker (Fitbit) for 3 months and free trial class at the university sports facility, or [2] a wait-list control to receive the intervention after the 3-month follow-up period. The primary outcome will be the proportion of people achieving 10,000 steps/day at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of people achieving national guideline-recommended physical activity levels, the average self-reported hours of physical activity per week, perceived benefits of and barriers to exercise participation, physical functioning, and mood. Analyses will be planned, conducted while masked to group allocation and will use an intention-to-treat approach. This randomised controlled trial will evaluate the impact of a simple intervention using behaviour change techniques to increase physical activity participation in insufficiently active working women over the age of 50. ACTRN12617000485336 , prospectively registered, approved 04/04/2017.

Objective.To reach consensus on the core domains to be included in a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 Core Domain Set process.Methods.At OMERACT 2018, the OMERACT Shoulder Working Group conducted a workshop that presented the OMERACT 2016 preliminary core domain set and its rationale based upon a systematic review of domains measured in shoulder trials and international Delphi sessions involving patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as a new systematic review of qualitative studies on the experiences of people with shoulder disorders. After discussions in breakout groups, the OMERACT core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders was presented for endorsement by OMERACT 2018 participants.Results.The qualitative review (n = 8) identified all domains included in the preliminary core set. An additional domain, cognitive dysfunction, was also identified, but confidence that this represents a core domain was very low. The core domain set that was endorsed by the OMERACT participants, with 71% agreement, includes 4 “mandatory” trial domains: pain, function, patient global — shoulder, and adverse events including death; and 4 “important but optional” domains: participation (recreation/work), sleep, emotional well-being, and condition-specific pathophysiological manifestations. Cognitive dysfunction was voted out of the core domain set.Conclusion.OMERACT 2018 delegates endorsed a core domain set for clinical trials of shoulder disorders. The next step includes identification of a core outcome measurement set that passes the OMERACT 2.1 Filter for measuring each domain.

BackgroundTo describe the diagnoses of people who present to the emergency department (ED) with low back pain (LBP), the proportion of people with a lumbar spine condition who arrived by ambulance, received imaging, opioids and were admitted to hospital; and to explore factors associated with these four outcomes.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analysed electronic medical records for all adults presenting with LBP at three Australian EDs from January 2016 to June 2018. Outcomes included discharge diagnoses and key aspects of care (ambulance transport, lumbar spine imaging, provision of opioids, admission). We explored factors associated with these care outcomes using multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression models and reported data as ORs.ResultsThere were 14 024 presentations with a ‘visit reason’ for low back pain, of which 6393 (45.6%) had a diagnosis of a lumbar spine condition. Of these, 31.4% arrived by ambulance, 23.6% received lumbar imaging, 69.6% received opioids and 17.6% were admitted to hospital. Older patients (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.04) were more likely to be imaged. Opioids were less used during working hours (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) and in patients with non-serious LBP compared with patients with serious spinal pathology (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.55). Hospital admission was more likely to occur during working hours (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.05) and for those who arrived by ambulance (OR 2.98, 95% CI 2.53 to 3.51).ConclusionMany ED presentations of LBP were not due to a lumbar spine condition. Of those that were, we noted relatively high rates of lumbar imaging, opioid use and hospital admission.

Objective.Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a premeeting in 2018 to bring together patients, regulators, researchers, clinicians, and consumers to build upon previous OMERACT drug safety work, with patients fully engaged throughout all phases.Methods.Day 1 included a brief introduction to the history of OMERACT and methodology, and an overview of current efforts within and outside OMERACT to identify patient-reported medication safety concerns. On Day 2, two working groups presented results; after each, breakout groups were assembled to discuss findings.Results.Five themes pertaining to drug safety measurement emerged.Conclusion.Current approaches have failed to include data from the patient’s perspective. A better understanding of how individuals with rheumatic diseases view potential benefits and harms of therapies is essential.

Objective.To evaluate the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the ultrasonographic (US) assessment of subtalar joint (STJ) synovitis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods.Following a Delphi process, 12 sonographers conducted an US reliability exercise on 10 RA patients with hindfoot pain. The anteromedial, posteromedial, and posterolateral STJ was assessed using B-mode and power Doppler (PD) techniques according to an agreed US protocol and using a 4-grade semiquantitative grading score for synovitis [synovial hypertrophy (SH) and signal] and a dichotomous score for the presence of joint effusion (JE). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were computed by Cohen’s and Light’s κ. Weighted κ coefficients with absolute weighting were computed for B-mode and PD signal.Results.Mean weighted Cohen’s κ for SH, PD, and JE were 0.80 (95% CI 0.62–0.98), 0.61 (95% CI 0.48–0.73), and 0.52 (95% CI 0.36–0.67), respectively. Weighted Cohen’s κ for SH, PD, and JE in the anteromedial, posteromedial, and posterolateral STJ were −0.04 to 0.79, 0.42–0.95, and 0.28–0.77; 0.31–1, −0.05 to 0.65, and −0.2 to 0.69; 0.66–1, 0.52–1, and 0.42–0.88, respectively. Weighted Light’s κ for SH was 0.67 (95% CI 0.58–0.74), 0.46 (95% CI 0.35–0.59) for PD, and 0.16 (95% CI 0.08–0.27) for JE. Weighted Light’s κ for SH, PD, and JE were 0.63 (95% CI 0.45–0.82), 0.33 (95% CI 0.19–0.42), and 0.09 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.19), for the anteromedial; 0.49 (95% CI 0.27–0.64), 0.35 (95% CI 0.27–0.4), and 0.04 (95% CI −0.06 to 0.1) for posteromedial; and 0.82 (95% CI 0.75–0.89), 0.66 (95% CI 0.56–0.8), and 0.18 (95% CI 0.04–0.34) for posterolateral STJ, respectively.Conclusion.Using a multisite assessment, US appears to be a reliable tool for assessing synovitis of STJ in RA.

ObjectiveDescribe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified.DesignScoping review.Setting and populationStudies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included.Methods and analysisWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted.ResultsForty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities.ConclusionsWhile many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017059250.

Objectives Junior doctors are exposed to occupational and traumatic stressors, some of which are inherent to medicine. This can result in burnout, mental ill-health and suicide. Within a crossover pilot study comparing personalised, trauma-informed yoga to group-format exercise, qualitative interviews were conducted to understand the experience of junior doctors and whether such interventions were perceived to help manage these stressors. Methods Twenty-one doctors, 76% female, were order-randomised to consecutive 8-week yoga and exercise programmes. Fifty-two interviews were recorded before and after each programme. Results Many participants reported being time poor, sleep-affected, frequently stressed and occasionally in physical pain/distress. Major stressor themes were workplace incivility, death/human suffering and shift work with minimal support. Both interventions were acceptable for different reasons. Personalised yoga offered a therapeutic alliance, time to check-in and reduced anxiety/rumination. Group exercise provided energy and social connection. One participant found yoga beneficial following an acute workplace trauma: ‘It was really eye opening how much I felt my body just needed to detox … I wouldn't have gone to a group fitness the next day … I just wanted to relax and breathe …We still had a big debrief which was great … (but) I almost felt like … I dealt with it physically and emotionally before going into it (P20).’ Conclusion Junior doctors found both interventions useful for stress management adjunctive to other organisational programmes though for different and complementary reasons, possibly related to delivery mode. Personalised, trauma-informed yoga provided a confidential therapeutic alliance whereas group exercise offered social connection.

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a frequent reason for emergency department (ED) presentations, with a global prevalence of 4.4%. Despite being common, the number of clinical trials investigating LBP in the ED is low. Recruitment of patients in EDs can be challenging because of the fast-paced and demanding ED environment. Objective The aim of this study is to describe the recruitment and response rates using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls to recruit patients with LBP and collect health outcomes in the ED. Methods An automated SMS text messaging system was integrated into Research Electronic Data Capture and used to collect patient-reported outcomes for an implementation trial in Sydney, Australia. We invited patients with nonserious LBP who presented to participating EDs at 1, 2, and 4 weeks after ED discharge. Patients who did not respond to the initial SMS text message invitation were sent a reminder SMS text message or contacted via telephone. The recruitment rate was measured as the proportion of patients who agreed to participate, and the response rate was measured as the proportion of participants completing the follow-up surveys at weeks 2 and 4. Regression analyses were used to explore factors associated with response rates. Results In total, 807 patients with nonserious LBP were invited to participate and 425 (53.0%) agreed to participate. The week 1 survey was completed by 51.5% (416/807) of participants. At week 2, the response rate was 86.5% (360/416), and at week 4, it was 84.4% (351/416). Overall, 60% of the surveys were completed via SMS text messaging and on the web and 40% were completed via telephone. Younger participants and those from less socioeconomically disadvantaged areas were more likely to respond to the survey via the SMS text messaging and web-based system. Conclusions Using an SMS text messaging and web-based survey system supplemented by telephone calls is a viable method for recruiting patients with LBP and collecting health outcomes in the ED. This hybrid system could potentially reduce the costs of using traditional recruitment and data collection methods (eg, face-to-face, telephone calls only). International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019052

To determine factors associated with opioid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients.Adult RA patients (n = 3225, 73% female, mean age 57 years, median follow-up 54 months) were recruited into the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) between 2001-2015. A logistic regression examining both within- and between-patient effect sizes for time-varying covariates, and transition-state analysis for covariates associated with opioid commencement or cessation were used to examine determinants of current opioid use.The population-averaged prevalence of any opioid use was 33% (95%CI 32-34), 9% (95% CI 8, 10) for high potency opioid use, and 62% (95% 60, 64) of patients reported opioid ever-use after five years of follow-up. Opioid use was higher in females and decreased with older baseline age. Within-patients opioid use was associated with higher self-reported pain and HAQ scores (p0.001), and NSAID (OR 1.88; 1.67-2.10), oral glucocorticoid (2.23;1.93-2.58), csDMARD (2.08;1.78-2.44) and bDMARD (1.22;1.06-1.40) treatment. Younger baseline age, higher pain scores, HAQ scores and oral GC use were important determinants of change in opioid use, associated with both a higher probability of commencing opioid use, and a lower probability of cessation. Paradoxically, NSAID and DMARD treatments were associated with both a lower probability of commencing opioids, and a lower probability of cessation.There was a high prevalence of opioid use among RA patients, which was associated with pain, function and GC treatment. NSAID, and DMARD treatments obviate the need for opioids in some, but not all, patients.

Objectives When low back pain is managed in the emergency department overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common. Measuring this is usually cumbersome. An online data analytics and visualisation tool was designed and developed to capture, store, analyse and visually present ED care data of patients presenting with low back pain. Method This project was conducted in collaboration with the Performance Monitoring, System Improvement and Innovation Unit of the Sydney Local Health District (SLHD). An online data analytics and visualisation tool was designed and created using Qlik Sense® by a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and information technology experts Results The online data analytics and visualisation tool (STARS Back Pain App) was developed within the SLHD Targeted Activity and Reporting System (STARS). It displays the total number of presentations for low back pain at the three SLHD’s EDs, as well as subsequent admissions to hospital. Data displayed in the app reflect ED practice for low back pain management, such as proportion of patients receiving: i) laboratory tests, ii) imaging, and iii) pain medications. The app also displays demographics and characteristics of patients, including age, gender, days and hours presenting, mode of arrival, and emergency triage category. The app allows interactive analysis using innovative visualisation techniques. Conclusions The STARS Back Pain App will provide emergency clinicians with a summary of their clinical performance. It will also allow us to efficiently measure unwarranted clinical variation and drive practice change using and audit and feedback approach to avoid inappropriate use of tests and treatments for low back pain.

Objectives When low back pain is managed in the emergency department overdiagnosis and overtreatment are common. Key problems are overuse of imaging, opioid medicines and hospital admission. The overall aim of the Sydney Health Partners Emergency Department (SHaPED) trial is to implement and evaluate an evidence-based model of care for acute low back pain. The outcomes of the trial reflect the key messages in the model: (1) patients with non-specific low back pain do not require imaging; (2) where medicines are used, simple analgesics should be the first option; (3) patients with non-specific low back pain should be managed as outpatients. Method A stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to implement and evaluate the model of care for acute low back pain at four emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. Clinician participants will be emergency physicians, nurses and physiotherapists. Codes from the Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms—Australian version will be used to identify low back pain presentations. We anticipate ~2000 patient participants. The intervention, targeting emergency clinicians, will comprise educational materials and seminars and an audit and feedback approach. Health service delivery outcomes are routinely collected measures of imaging (primary outcome), opioid use and inpatient admission A random subsample of 200 patient participants from each trial period will be included to measure patient outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life and experience with emergency service). An economic evaluation will be undertaken from the health system perspective. Results The SHaPED trial received ethical approval from the RPAH HREC (reference: X17–0043). The trial is registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12617001160325.The conference presentation will discuss the design and rationale for the trial. Conclusions We hypothesised that active implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain will improve emergency care by reducing inappropriate overuse of tests and treatments (i.e. imaging, opioids, admission to hospital) and improving patient outcomes.

Background: The incidence of subtalar joint (STJ) disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is greatly increased between five and ten years of disease duration and regularly precedes changes in the tibiotalar joint [1]. The joint is notoriously difficult to assess clinically and frequently overlooked in favour of the more accessible tibiotalar joint. We hypothesized that US might be used as a reliable outcome measure to evaluate synovitis of the STJ in patients with RA. The objectives of this study were first, to develop an expert consensus derived definition of synovitis and scanning protocol for the STJ and second, to test the reliability of the definitions and protocol. Objectives: To evaluate the intra- and interobserver reliability of the US assessment of STJ synovitis in patients with RA. Methods: Following a Delphi process, twelve sonographers conducted an US reliability exercise on 10 RA patients with hindfoot pain. The anteromedial, posteromedial, and posterolateral STJ was assessed using B-mode and power Doppler (PD) techniques according to an agreed US protocol and using a 4-grade semiquantitative grading score for synovitis (synovial hypertrophy (SH) and power Doppler (PD) signal) and a dichotomous score for the presence of joint effusion (JE). Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were computed by Cohen and Light kappa (k). Weighted k coefficients with absolute weighting were computed for B-mode and PD signal. Results: Mean weighted Cohen’s kappa for SH, PD, and JE, was 0.80 (0.62–0.98), 0.61 (0.48–0.73), and 0.52 (0.36–0.67), respectively. Weighted Cohen’s kappa for SH, PD, and JE in the anteromedial, posteromedial and posterolateral STJ was -0.04–0.79, 0.42–0.95, and 0.28–0.77; 0.31–1, -0.05–0.65, and -0.2–0.69; 0.66–1, 0.52–1, and 0.42–0.88, respectively. Weigthed Light kappa for SH was 0.67 (95%CI 0.58–0.74), 0.46 (0.35–0.59) for PD, and 0.16 (0.08–0.27) for JE. Weighted Light kappa for SH, PD, and JE was 0.63 (0.45–0.82),0.33 (0.19–0.42) and 0.09 (-0.01–0.19), for the anteromedial; 0.49 (0.27–0.64), 0.35 (0.27–0.4), and 0.04 (-0.06–0.1) for posteromedial, and 0.82 (0.75–0.89), 0.66 (0.56–0.8), and 0.18 (0.04–0.34) for posterolateral STJ, respectively. Conclusions: Ultrasound is a feasible and reliable tool for assessing synovitis of the posterolateral STJ in RA, but not for the anteromedial and posteromedial STJ. SH can be reliably detected in B-mode and PD mode, but this is not true for JE. Reference 1. Van der Leeden M, Steultjens MP, Van Ursem J, et al. Prevalence and course of forefoot impairments and walking disability in the first eight years of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum2008;59:1596–1602. Disclosure of Interest: None declared

Introduction Patients with low back pain often seek care in emergency departments, but the problem is that many patients receive unnecessary or ineffective interventions and at the same time miss out on the basics of care, such as advice on self-management. This pattern of care has important consequences for the healthcare system (expensive and inefficient) and for patients (poor health outcomes). We hypothesised that the implementation of an evidence-based model of care for low back pain will improve emergency care by reducing inappropriate overuse of tests and treatments and improving patient outcomes. Methods and analysis A stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to implement and evaluate the use of the Agency for Clinical Innovation (ACI) model of care for acute low back pain at four emergency departments in New South Wales, Australia. Clinician participants will be emergency physicians, nurses and physiotherapists. Codes from the Systematised Nomenclature of Medicine—Clinical Terms—Australian version will be used to identify low back pain presentations. The intervention, targeting emergency clinicians, will comprise educational materials and seminars and an audit and feedback approach. Health service delivery outcomes are routinely collected measures of imaging (primary outcome), opioid use and inpatient admission. A random subsample of 200 patient participants from each trial period will be included to measure patient outcomes (pain intensity, physical function, quality of life and experience with emergency service). The effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed by comparing the postintervention period with the retrospective baseline control period. Ethics and dissemination The study received ethical approval from the Sydney Local Health District (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital zone) Ethics Committee (X17-0043). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. Trial registration number Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12617001160325.

Objective.The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Shoulder Core Outcome Set Special Interest Group (SIG) was established to develop a core outcome set (COS) for clinical trials of shoulder disorders.Methods.In preparation for OMERACT 2016, we systematically examined all outcome domains and measurement instruments reported in 409 randomized trials of interventions for shoulder disorders published between 1954 and 2015. Informed by these data, we conducted an international Delphi consensus study including shoulder trial experts, clinicians, and patients to identify key domains that should be included in a shoulder disorder COS. Findings were discussed at a stakeholder premeeting of OMERACT. At OMERACT 2016, we sought consensus on a preliminary core domain set and input into next steps.Results.There were 13 and 15 participants at the premeeting and the OMERACT 2016 SIG meeting, respectively (9 attended both meetings). Consensus was reached on a preliminary core domain set consisting of an inner core of 4 domains: pain, physical function/activity, global perceived effect, and adverse events including death. A middle core consisted of 3 domains: emotional well-being, sleep, and participation (recreation and work). An outer core of research required to inform the final COS was also formulated.Conclusion.Our next steps are to (1) analyze whether participation (recreation and work) should be in the inner core, (2) conduct a third Delphi round to finalize definitions and wording of domains and reach final endorsement for the domains, and (3) determine which instruments fulfill the OMERACT criteria for measuring each domain.

Objective.To provide an update from the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Ultrasound Working Group on the progress for defining ultrasound (US) minimal disease activity threshold at joint level in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and for standardization of US application in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA).Methods.For minimal disease activity, healthy controls (HC) and patients with early arthritis (EA) who were naive to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were recruited from 2 centers. US was performed of the hands and feet, and scored semiquantitatively (0–3) for synovial hypertrophy (SH) and power Doppler (PD). Synovial effusion (SE) was scored a binary variable. For JIA, a Delphi approach and subsequent validation in static images and patient-based exercises were used to developed preliminary definitions for synovitis and a scoring system.Results.For minimal disease activity, 7% HC had at least 1 joint abnormality versus 30% in the EA group. In HC, the findings of SH and PD were predominantly grade 1 whereas all grades were seen in the EA cohort, but SE was rare. In JIA, synovitis can be diagnosed based on B-mode findings alone because of the presence of physiological vascularization. A semiquantitative scoring system (0–3) for synovitis for both B-mode and Doppler were developed in which the cutoff between Doppler grade 2 and grade 3 was 30%.Conclusion.The first step has been taken to define the threshold for minimal disease activity in RA by US and to define and develop a scoring system for synovitis in JIA. Further steps are planned for the continuous validation of US in these areas.

AIM: To develop Australian and New Zealand evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in adult patients with optimally treated inflammatory arthritis (IA). METHODS: Four hundred and fifty-three rheumatologists from 17 countries including 46 rheumatologists from Australia and New Zealand participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, rheumatologists from 15 national scientific committees selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008-09 EULAR/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Rheumatologists from Australia and New Zealand used the evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. These recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice. The Oxford Levels of Evidence and Grade of Recommendation were applied to each recommendation. RESULTS: The systematic reviews identified 49 242 references, from which 167 studies which met the pre-specified inclusion criteria. Combining this evidence with expert opinion led to the development of 10 final Australian and New Zealand recommendations. The recommendations relate to pain measurement, and the use of analgesic medications in patients with and without co-morbidities and during pregnancy and lactation. The recommendations reflect the clinical practice of the majority of the participating rheumatologists (mean level of agreement 7.24-9.65). CONCLUSIONS: Ten Australian and New Zealand evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in adults with optimally treated IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists, thus enhancing their utility in everyday clinical practice.

Musculoskeletal conditions are the leading contributors to disability burden globally and account for 27.4% of total disability burden in Australia. Timely research that addresses important questions relevant to consumers, clinicians and policymakers is critical for reducing the burden associated with these conditions. Clinical trials are particularly important for providing information about whether interventions are effective and safe. They are also needed to test strategies for reducing the sizeable delays in translating evidence into practice. A review of the current scope of musculoskeletal clinical trials in Australia found that National Health and Medical Research Council funding is disproportionally low compared with the burden of these conditions (averaging 5.8 new trials per year through the project grant scheme over the past 5 years, representing 0.8% of all project grants and funding, and 5% of NHMRC clinical trial funding). In the past 2 years, 128 Australian-initiated trials were registered in a trial registry, while about one in 20 randomised trials published in 37 leading general medical and musculoskeletal-specific journals was initiated in Australia. None were implementation trials. Relative to the burden of musculoskeletal conditions in Australia, investment in clinical trials is not ideal. While Australian musculoskeletal trialists are productive and internationally competitive, we may not be addressing the most critical issues. There is an urgent need for Australian researchers, clinicians, policymakers and consumers to work collaboratively to prioritise the most important questions, secure appropriate research funding, and undertake well designed trials to ensure we deliver best evidence-informed care and optimal outcomes for people with musculoskeletal conditions.

To determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants in pain management in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA).We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, and PsychINFO for randomized controlled trials in adults with IA that compared any antidepressants (administered via any route) to another analgesic intervention or placebo. We also searched the 2008-2009 American College of Rheumatology and European League Against Rheumatism abstracts and performed a hand search of reference lists of relevant articles. Primary outcomes were patient-reported pain relief ≥ 30% and withdrawals due to adverse events. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data. A risk of bias assessment was performed using methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.Eight trials (652 participants) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and 1 trial in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (100 participants) were included in this review. The majority of studies were published in the late 1980s in patients with active disease receiving minimal disease-modifying antirheumatic drug therapy. All trials evaluated tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) and 2 studies included a selective serotonin uptake inhibitor. Seven of the 9 trials had high risk of bias, 2 were unclear, and metaanalysis was not performed due to trial heterogeneity. RA trials with short-term outcome (1 week) found no significant benefit of amitriptyline 25 mg in combination with dextropropoxyphene (DXP) 65 mg over placebo, and inferiority of amitriptyline + DXP versus DXP 130 mg [mean difference (MD) 10.0, 95% CI 0.4 to 19.6]. There was conflicting evidence regarding medium (1-6 wks) or longer-term (6 wks) benefits on pain. One trial in depressed patients with RA showed no significant difference between amitriptyline and paroxetine given for 8 weeks (65% vs 56% much or very much improved; RR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.5). One trial found that amitriptyline was no better than placebo in reducing pain in patients with active AS over 2 weeks (MD -0.2, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.8). From 5 trials, withdrawals due to adverse events were not significantly different from placebo. However, there were significantly more minor adverse events in patients receiving TCA compared with those receiving a placebo (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2 to 4.4). These included somnolence, dizziness, dry mouth, and nausea.Based upon 9 trials of high or unclear risk of bias, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about the efficacy of TCA as analgesics for patients with IA. The use of these agents may be associated with adverse events that are generally mild and do not lead to cessation of treatment. High-quality trials are needed in this area.

Objective. To develop evidence-based recommendations for pain management by pharmacotherapy in patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Methods. A total of 453 rheumatologists from 17 countries participated in the 2010 3e (Evidence, Expertise, Exchange) Initiative. Using a formal voting process, 89 rheumatologists representing all 17 countries selected 10 clinical questions regarding the use of pain medications in IA. Bibliographic fellows undertook a systematic literature review for each question, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and 2008–09 European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR abstracts. Relevant studies were retrieved for data extraction and quality assessment. Rheumatologists from each country used this evidence to develop a set of national recommendations. Multinational recommendations were then formulated and assessed for agreement and the potential impact on clinical practice. Results. A total of 49 242 references were identified, from which 167 studies were included in the systematic reviews. One clinical question regarding different comorbidities was divided into two separate reviews, resulting in 11 recommendations in total. Oxford levels of evidence were applied to each recommendation. The recommendations related to the efficacy and safety of various analgesic medications, pain measurement scales and pain management in the pre-conception period, pregnancy and lactation. Finally, an algorithm for the pharmacological management of pain in IA was developed. Twenty per cent of rheumatologists reported that the algorithm would change their practice, and 75% felt the algorithm was in accordance with their current practice. Conclusions. Eleven evidence-based recommendations on the management of pain by pharmacotherapy in IA were developed. They are supported by a large panel of rheumatologists from 17 countries, thus enhancing their utility in clinical practice.

The systemic vasculitides are multisystem disorders characterised by the inflammation of blood vessels and tissue necrosis. Classified by the size of the vessels affected, the large vessel vasculitides include giant cell arteritis (GCA) and Takayasu's arteritis (TA). These are anatomically, epidemiologically and clinically distinct conditions. They are often associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. The classification of vasculitis has been an area of controversy for many years and current classification criteria remain suboptimal. Although intensive efforts are under way to improve them, a further understanding of the aetiology and pathogenesis of these diseases is required to develop more sensitive and specific diagnostic tests. These efforts, however, have been hampered by the low prevalence of these diseases. The establishment of national and international registries is encouraged to enhance valuable data collection. These are anatomically, epidemiologically and clinically distinct conditions. This article summarises the current classification systems for systemic vasculitis and their limitations. We also review the presently known epidemiology, risk factors and morbidity and mortality associated with GCA and TA.

IntroductionWe report a case of an isolated acute neuropsychiatric presentation due to rheumatoid meningitis (RM), successfully treated with steroids and rituximab.CaseA 41 year old man with a chronic headache and acute neuropsychiatric disturbance including impulsivity, grandiose delusions and agitation on a background of no known psychiatric history. Incidentally, he reported migratory palindromic, large and small joint polyarthritis over the preceding 18 months accompanied by headache, symptomatically treated with indomethacin. He had no prior diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or other connective tissue disorder. Serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies were strongly positive, with a normal serum rheumatoid factor. An interferon-gamma release assay was positive, suggestive of prior tuberculosis (TB) exposure. CSF examination was unremarkable with an MRI brain demonstrating asymmetric features of leptomeningeal thickening and enhancement over both cerebral cortices, suggesting an inflammatory or infiltrative leptomeningitis. Lymphoma, IgG4–related disease, granulomatous diseases such as TB, granulomatosis with polyangiitis, neurosarcoidosis, neurosyphilis and meningeal metastasis were considered as differential diagnoses. A leptomeningeal and brain biopsy showed necrotising inflammation with ill-defined granulomas and a dense lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate. No organisms were identified. Mycobacterial polymerase chain reaction and cultures over three months were negative. RM was the favoured histological diagnosis. Empirical treatment for prior TB exposure was commenced in conjunction with steroids. Subsequent addition of iv rituximab resulted in sustained improvement of neuropsychiatric and joint symptoms.ConclusionThis report illustrates for the first time isolated acute neuropsychiatric disturbances attributable to RM without a prior history of RA that was responsive to rituximab. Clinicians should consider infiltrative and inflammatory leptomeningeal causes, particularly with asymmetric meningeal thickening and enchantment on MRI and should commit to a tissue biopsy when no other systemic connective tissue, infective or neoplastic causes are identified.