Search

Abstract Background Certain groups are commonly under-served by health research due to exclusionary models of research design/delivery. Working in partnership with under-served groups is key to improving inclusion. This project aimed to explore the use of a knowledge mobilisation approach to start building partnerships with under-served groups based on trust and mutual understanding. Methods This co-produced public involvement project employed a knowledge mobilisation approach. The project team involved public contributors from four community organisations and staff from two Universities. A series of ‘community conversations’ were co-produced. These involved open discussions with local people in community settings. The conversations provide an informal space to engage in a multi-directional dialogue about health research and incorporated approaches such as prompt questions, live illustrations, and themed boards. The findings were reviewed collectively. Dissemination/feedback activities and lessons learned for future engagement with community organisations and under-served groups were also co-produced. Results Over 100 people attended the community conversations. Attendees varied widely in their sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status and ethnicity) and brought diverse lived experiences (e.g., experiences of homelessness and disability). A strong appetite for change and desire to mobilise public knowledge were evident. Attendees reported wide-ranging barriers to inclusion in health research and suggested ways to address them. Three inter-related take-home messages were identified: ensure relevance, appreciation, and trust; prioritise language and accessibility needs; and maximise flexibility in all research-related activities. Feedback about the community conversations and dissemination activities was largely positive, with all parties planning to continue the partnership building. The lessons learned provide practical suggestions for promoting inclusion in research and highlight the importance of addressing research teams’ training/support needs. Conclusions Knowledge mobilisation was a valuable approach for facilitating multi-directional dialogues and relationship building between local communities and university teams. This approach enabled co-creation of new knowledge related to inclusion and partnership working in health research. The project has provided a firm foundation to build upon. However, creating sustainable, inclusive public partnerships is likely to require systemic changes, such as weighting of fundings schemes to projects that prioritise inclusion of under-served groups throughout the research cycle.

Abstract Objective There are few effective osteoarthritis (OA) therapies. A novel injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) previously demonstrated efficacy and safety up to week 26 in an open-label study of knee OA. Here we report longer-term effectiveness and safety data. Methods This multi-centre, open-label study included patients with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA. Primary outcome was WOMAC pain (0–100 scale) at 13 weeks, and patients continued to 26 weeks before entering a further 26-week extension phase. Secondary efficacy outcomes included WOMAC stiffness and function subscales, Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs). Results 49 participants (31 women, mean age 70) received an ultrasound-guided, intra-articular injection of 6 ml iPAAG; 46 completed the extension phase to 52 weeks. There was a significant reduction in the WOMAC pain score from baseline to 52 weeks (− 17.7 points (95% CI − 23.1; − 12.4); p

Objective: Neuroimaging investigations are critical to provide a more direct assessment of brain disturbances associated with osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain, and to better understand its pathophysiology to develop new treatment strategies. This viewpoint aims to summarize the importance of the brain in OA pain. Method: A European working group on pain in osteoarthritis GO-PAIN (Going Inside Osteoarthritis-related Pain Phenotyping) has been created to work on a global assessment of the OA-related pain. Relevant scientific literature was evaluated, summarized and discussed to expose advances in functional brain alterations related-to OA pain. Results: Findings of neuroimaging studies are highly heterogenous and based on small sample size, but some key brain alterations associated with OA pain can be identified across experiments. A systematic literature review conducted by Hall and colleagues (2023) found lower activity, connectivity, and grey matter volume in the right anterior insula in patients with OA than in healthy controls. Other works also pointed out that activity of specific brain regions could serve as a potential surrogate biomarker, but several limitations and confounding factors needs to be addressed. Conclusions: Brain functional imaging provides opportunities to accurately address an OA-related pain endophenotype. To encompass limitations and fill the gaps from the previous studies, we propose a blueprint for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.

Abstract Background To illustrate how (standardised) effect sizes (ES) vary based on calculation method and to provide considerations for improved reporting. Methods Data from three trials of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis were analyzed. ES of tanezumab versus comparator for WOMAC Pain (outcome) was defined as least squares difference between means (mixed model for repeated measures analysis) divided by a pooled standard deviation (SD) of outcome scores. Three approaches to computing the SD were evaluated: Baseline (the pooled SD of WOMAC Pain values at baseline [pooled across treatments]); Endpoint (the pooled SD of these values at the time primary endpoints were assessed); and Median (the median pooled SD of these values based on the pooled SDs across available timepoints). Bootstrap analyses were used to compute 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results ES (95% CI) of tanezumab 2.5 mg based on Baseline, Endpoint, and Median SDs in one study were − 0.416 (− 0.796, − 0.060), − 0.195 (− 0.371, − 0.028), and − 0.196 (− 0.373, − 0.028), respectively; negative values indicate pain improvement. This pattern of ES differences (largest with Baseline SD, smallest with Endpoint SD, Median SD similar to Endpoint SD) was consistent across all studies and doses of tanezumab. Conclusion Differences in ES affect interpretation of treatment effect. Therefore, we advocate clearly reporting individual elements of ES in addition to its overall calculation. This is particularly important when ES estimates are used to determine sample sizes for clinical trials, as larger ES will lead to smaller sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02697773, NCT02709486, and NCT02528188.

Abstract Introduction The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the improvement in spinal pain with ixekizumab, placebo, and adalimumab based on objective measures of inflammation response in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Methods The COAST-V 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial examined the efficacy of ixekizumab in patients with active AS; adalimumab was used as an active reference arm. Treatment effects on reduction in pain were assessed by objective measures of controlled and persisting inflammation (defined by magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], C-reactive protein [CRP], or MRI + CRP status). Pathway analysis was used to analyze treatment effect that was not attributable to reduction in inflammation biomarkers. Results In patients with AS, when inflammation was controlled as assessed by MRI, patients treated with ixekizumab experienced a reduction in spinal pain at night (SP-N, numeric rating scale, ixekizumab mean = − 3.9, p

Objective: The global impact of osteoarthritis is growing. Currently no disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs/therapies exist, increasing the need for preventative strategies. Knee injuries have a high prevalence, distinct onset, and strong independent association with post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA). Numerous groups are embarking upon research that will culminate in clinical trials to assess the effect of interventions to prevent knee PTOA despite challenges and lack of consensus about trial design in this population. Our objectives were to improve awareness of knee PTOA prevention trial design and discuss state-of-the art methods to address the unique opportunities and challenges of these studies. Design: An international interdisciplinary group developed a workshop, hosted at the 2023 Osteoarthritis Research Society International Congress. Here we summarize the workshop content and outputs, with the goal of moving the field of PTOA prevention trial design forward. Results: Workshop highlights included discussions about target population (considering risk, homogeneity, and possibility of modifying osteoarthritis outcome); target treatment (considering delivery, timing, feasibility and effectiveness); comparators (usual care, placebo), and primary symptomatic outcomes considering surrogates and the importance of knee function and symptoms other than pain to this population. Conclusions: Opportunities to test multimodal PTOA prevention interventions across preclinical models and clinical trials exist. As improving symptomatic outcomes aligns with patient and regulator priorities, co-primary symptomatic (single or aggregate/multidimensional outcome considering function and symptoms beyond pain) and structural/physiological outcomes may be appropriate for these trials. To ensure PTOA prevention trials are relevant and acceptable to all stakeholders, future research should address critical knowledge gaps and challenges.

Abstract Introduction The efficacy of abatacept is enhanced in anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) and rheumatoid factor (RF)-positive versus -negative patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Four early RA abatacept trials were analyzed to understand the differential impact of abatacept among patients with SeroPositive Early and Active RA (SPEAR) compared to non-SPEAR patients. Methods Pooled patient-level data from AGREE, AMPLE, AVERT, and AVERT-2 were analyzed. Patients were classified as SPEAR if they were ACPA +, RF +, disease duration

Abstract Background Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery. Methods Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department (‘Follow-up’ group), and those without (‘No follow-up’ group). Results A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]). Conclusion Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists.

Aims: To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods: A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results: The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion: Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78.

Abstract Background Foot and ankle involvement is common in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). High-quality evidence is lacking to determine the effectiveness of treatments for these disorders. Heterogeneity in the outcomes used across clinical trials and observational studies hinders the ability to compare findings, and some outcomes are not always meaningful to patients and end-users. The Core set of Outcome Measures for FOot and ankle disorders in RheumaTic and musculoskeletal diseases (COMFORT) study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in all trials of interventions for foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. This protocol addresses core outcome domains (what to measure) only. Future work will focus on core outcome measurement instruments (how to measure). Methods COMFORT: Core Domain Set is a mixed-methods study involving the following: (i) identification of important outcome domains through literature reviews, qualitative interviews and focus groups with patients and (ii) prioritisation of domains through an online, modified Delphi consensus study and subsequent consensus meeting with representation from all stakeholder groups. Findings will be disseminated widely to enhance uptake. Conclusions This protocol details the development process and methodology to identify and prioritise domains for a COS in the novel area of foot and ankle disorders in RMDs. Future use of this standardised set of outcome domains, developed with all key stakeholders, will help address issues with outcome variability. This will facilitate comparing and combining study findings, thus improving the evidence base for treatments of these conditions. Future work will identify suitable outcome measurement instruments for each of the core domains. Trial registration This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, as of June 2022: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2081

Abstract Introduction MRI bone surface area and femoral bone shape (B-score) measures have been employed as quantitative endpoints in DMOAD clinical trials. Computerized Tomography (CT) imaging is more commonly used for 3D visualization of bony anatomy due to its high bone-soft tissue contrast. We aimed to compare CT and MRI assessments of 3D imaging biomarkers. Methods We used baseline and 24-month image data from the IMI-APPROACH 2-year prospective cohort study. Femur and tibia were automatically segmented using active appearance models, a machine-learning method, to measure 3D bone shape, area and 3D joint space width (3DJSW). Linear regression was used to test for correlation between measures. Limits of agreement and bias were tested using Bland-Altman analysis. Results CT-MR pairs of the same knee were available from 434 participants (78% female). B-scores from CT and MR were strongly correlated (CCC = 0.967) with minimal bias of 0.1 (SDD = 0.227). Area measures were also correlated but showed a consistent bias (MR smaller). 3DJSW showed different biases (MR larger) in both lateral and medial compartments. Discussion The strong correlation and small B-score bias suggests that B-score may be measured reliably using either modality. It is likely that the bone surface identified using MR and CT will be at slightly different positions within the bone/cartilage boundary. The negative bone area bias suggests the MR bone boundary is inside the CT boundary producing smaller areas for MR, consistent with the positive 3DJSW bias. The lateral-medial 3DJSW difference is possibly due to a difference in knee pose during acquisition (extended for CT, flexed for MR). Trial registration NCT03883568

Abstract Background Drug-free remission is a desirable goal in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for both patients and clinicians. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to investigate whether clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) variables in patients with early RA who achieved remission with methotrexate and/or abatacept at 12 months could predict disease flare following treatment withdrawal. Methods In the AVERT study of abatacept in early RA, patients with low disease activity at month 12 entered a 12-month period with all treatment discontinued (withdrawal, WD). This post hoc analysis assessed predictors of disease flare at WD+6months (mo) and WD+12mo of patients with Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28)-defined remission (DAS28[C-reactive protein (CRP)]

Abstract Background To evaluate the impact of tanezumab on health status, non-work activities, and work productivity in a pooled analysis of two large phase 3 osteoarthritis (OA) studies. Methods Subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) was tested in double-blind, placebo-controlled, 16-week (NCT02697773) and 24-week (NCT02709486) clinical trials in patients with moderate-to-severe OA of the hip or knee. At baseline and week 16, all patients completed EQ-5D-5L and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-OA (WPAI-OA) activity impairment item. Those currently employed also completed WPAI-OA work time missed, impairment while working, and overall work impairment items. Between-group differences in least squares (LS) mean changes from baseline at week 16 were tested using analysis of covariance. Results Of 1545 pooled patients, 576 were employed at baseline. Improvements in EQ-5D-5L index value at week 16 were significantly greater for the tanezumab 2.5-mg group (difference in LS means [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.03 [0.01, 0.05]; p = 0.0083) versus placebo. Percent improvements (95% CI) in activity impairment (− 5.92 [− 8.87, − 2.98]; p

Introduction Persistent, knee pain is a common cause of disability. Education and exercise treatment are advocated in all clinical guidelines; however, the increasing prevalence of persistent knee pain presents challenges for health services regarding appropriate and scalable delivery of these treatments. Digital technologies may help address this, and this trial will evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of two electronic-rehabilitation interventions: ‘My Knee UK’ and ‘Group E-Rehab’.Methods and analysis This protocol describes a non-blinded, randomised feasibility trial with three parallel groups. The trial aims to recruit 90 participants (45 years or older) with a history of persistent knee pain consistent with a clinical diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis. Participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 allocation ratio. The ‘My Knee UK’ intervention arm will receive a self-directed unsupervised internet-based home exercise programme plus short message service support (targeting exercise behaviour change) for 12 weeks; the ‘Group E-Rehab’ intervention arm will receive group-based physiotherapist-prescribed home exercises delivered via videoconferencing accompanied by internet-interactive educational sessions for 12 weeks; the control arm will receive usual physiotherapy care or continue with their usual self-management (depending on their recruitment path). Feasibility variables, patient-reported outcomes and clinical findings measured at baseline, 3 and 9 months will be assessed and integrated with qualitative interview data from a subset of Group E-Rehab and My Knee UK participants. If considered feasible and acceptable, a definitive randomised controlled trial can be conducted to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of one or both interventions with a view to implementation in routine care.Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 5 (Reference: 20/WS/0006). The results of the study will be disseminated to study participants, the study grant funder and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN15564385.

Abstract Background Patients’ pre-operative health and physical function is known to influence their post-operative outcomes. In patients with knee osteoarthritis, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are often not optimised prior to joint replacement. This results in some patients undergoing surgery when they are not as fit as they could be. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-operative package of non-operative care versus standard care prior to joint replacement. Methods/design This is a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Sixty patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1) to intervention or standard care arms. Data will be collected at baseline (before the start of the intervention), around the end of the intervention period and a minimum of 90 days after the planned date of surgery. Adherence will be reviewed each week during the intervention period (by telephone or in person). Participants will be randomised to a pre-operative package of non-operative care or standard care. The non-operative care will consist of (1) a weight-loss programme, (2) a set of exercises, (3) provision of advice on analgesia use and (4) provision of insoles. The intervention will be started as soon as possible after patients have been added to the waiting list for joint replacement surgery to take advantage of the incentive for behavioural change that this will create. The primary outcomes of this study are feasibility outcomes which will indicate whether the intervention and study protocol is feasible and acceptable and whether a full-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. The following will be measured and used to inform study feasibility: rate of recruitment, rate of retention at 90-day follow-up review after planned surgery date, and adherence to the intervention estimated through review questionnaires and weight change (for those receiving the weight-loss aspect of intervention). In addition the following information will be assessed qualitatively: analysis of qualitative interviews exploring acceptability, feasibility, adherence and possible barriers to implementing the intervention, and acceptability of the different outcome measures. Discussion The aims of the study specifically relate to testing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed effectiveness trial intervention and the feasibility of the trial methods. This study forms the important first step in developing and assessing whether the intervention has the potential to be assessed in a future fully powered effectiveness trial. The findings will also be used to refine the design of the effectiveness trial. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96684272. Registered on 18 April 2018.

Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost–utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time horizon, using evidence from 248 participants included in the HERO trial, conducted in England. Patient-level data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period, using participant-completed questionnaires and investigator forms, to collect healthcare utilisation, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L. The base-case analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation methods to deal with missing data. Results were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (incremental cost per QALY) and net health benefit, with uncertainty surrounding the findings explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The base-case analysis estimated slightly lower costs on average (−£11.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) −£15.60 to −£8.00) and marginally fewer QALYs (−0.0052; 95% CI −0.0057 to −0.0047) for participants in the hydroxychloroquine group versus placebo group at 12 months. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,267 per QALY lost indicated that although costs were saved, health-related quality of life was lost. Even assuming symmetrical preferences regarding losses and gains for health benefits, the findings do not fall within the cost-effective region. Similar findings arose for analyses conducted from the societal perspective and using complete cases only. Conclusions: This economic evaluation indicates that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide a cost-effective pain relief option for improving health-related quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe hand osteoarthritis.

Objective: This study aims to assess the efficacy of the anticatabolic ‘a disintegrin and metalloproteinase with thrombospondin motif-5’ (ADAMTS-5) inhibitor, S201086/GLPG1972, in slowing cartilage loss in participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Design: ROCCELLA (NCT03595618) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial. We plan to enrol a total of 852 participants with knee OA across 12 countries. Participants will be randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive 75, 150 or 300 ​mg S201086/GLPG1972, or placebo orally, once daily for 52 weeks. Eligible participants will be aged 40–75 years and have predominantly medial knee OA with centrally read Kellgren–Lawrence grade 2 or 3, OARSI atlas medial femorotibial joint space narrowing grade 1 or 2, and consistent moderate to severe baseline pain. The primary endpoint will be the change from baseline to week 52 in magnetic resonance imaging-assessed central medial femorotibial compartment cartilage thickness. Secondary endpoints will include other structural outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes, as well as safety and pharmacokinetic assessments. Study sites will be assessed for eligibility based on factors including imaging quality, and images will be centrally read and quality checked. Conclusions: Using strict inclusion criteria and leading imaging techniques with stringent quality controls, the ROCCELLA trial will evaluate the efficacy of S201086/GLPG1972 in slowing cartilage loss in participants with knee OA. The selected eligibility criteria should enrich for participants with OA who experience sufficient cartilage loss to allow detection of a substantial treatment effect.

Background: An economic evaluation alongside the Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis (HERO) trial was undertaken to assess the cost-effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine compared with placebo for symptomatic treatment of hand osteoarthritis for patients with at least moderate hand pain and inadequate response to current therapies. Methods: A trial-based cost–utility analysis was undertaken from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 12-month time horizon, using evidence from 248 participants included in the HERO trial, conducted in England. Patient-level data were collected prospectively over a 12-month period, using participant-completed questionnaires and investigator forms, to collect healthcare utilisation, costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the EQ-5D-5L. The base-case analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis and used multiple imputation methods to deal with missing data. Results were presented in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (incremental cost per QALY) and net health benefit, with uncertainty surrounding the findings explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: The base-case analysis estimated slightly lower costs on average (−£11.80; 95% confidence interval (CI) −£15.60 to −£8.00) and marginally fewer QALYs (−0.0052; 95% CI −0.0057 to −0.0047) for participants in the hydroxychloroquine group versus placebo group at 12 months. The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2,267 per QALY lost indicated that although costs were saved, health-related quality of life was lost. Even assuming symmetrical preferences regarding losses and gains for health benefits, the findings do not fall within the cost-effective region. Similar findings arose for analyses conducted from the societal perspective and using complete cases only. Conclusions: This economic evaluation indicates that hydroxychloroquine is unlikely to provide a cost-effective pain relief option for improving health-related quality of life in adult patients with moderate-to-severe hand osteoarthritis.

Introduction The importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) clinical studies has been recognised for many years. The current study aims to describe the RA PROMs used over the past 20 years, and their performance metrics, to underpin appropriate tool selection.Methods The study included a systematic search for PROMs that have been in use over the period 2000–2019, with detailed documentation of their psychometric properties, and a user-friendly presentation of the extensive evidence base.Results 125 PROMs were identified with psychometric evidence available. The domains of pain, fatigue, emotional functions, mobility, physical functioning and work dominated, with self-efficacy and coping as personal factors. Domains such as stiffness and sleep were poorly served. The most frequently used PROMs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ), the Short Form 36 (SF-36), the EuroQoL and the Modified HAQ which, between them, appeared in more than 3500 papers. Strong psychometric evidence was found for the HAQ, and the SF-36 Physical Functioning and Vitality (fatigue) domains. Otherwise, all domains except stiffness, sleep, education and health utility, had at least one PROM with moderate level of psychometric evidence.Conclusion There is a broad range of PROMs for measuring RA outcomes, but the quality of psychometric evidence varies widely. This work identifies gaps in key RA domains according to the biopsychosocial model.

Abstract Background While the prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal problems are high, most attention has been directed towards the back, knee and hip disorders. Foot pain is known to be common in older adults and accounts for a significant burden on health services. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of foot and ankle joint pain, considering age, presence of co-morbidities and other site joint pain, in a large community sample. Methods In the North Yorkshire Health study, 16,222 people over 55 years participated in a detailed survey of the prevalence and impact of lower limb joint problems. Self-assessment of overall body pain and functional activities of daily living were assessed. Participants indicated the presence of joint pain, stiffness or swelling during the last 3 months which had lasted for more than 6 weeks on a manikin: data were captured on the foot and the ankle. Results The prevalence of self-reported foot and ankle joint pain was substantial: 184.33 per 1000, second only to knee problems. While foot pain was common, it was mostly associated with joint pain at other sites; only 1 in 11 of those with foot and ankle pain reported it only in the foot. Logistic regression modeling revealed while established factors such as co-morbidities, knee and hip problems contributed to functional impairment, foot and ankle problems contributed to an additional increased risk of having difficulty standing and walking by two fold (OR = 2.314, 95%CI 2.061–2.598), going up and down stairs by 71% (OR = 1.711, 95%CI 1.478–1.980) and getting up from a seated position by 44% (OR = 1.438, 95%CI 1.197–1.729). Conclusion These results suggest that not only are foot problems in the over 55 age group extremely prevalent, they have a considerable impact on functional abilities.

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to evaluate early changes in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and clinical disease activity measures as predictors of later structural progression in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods This was a post hoc analysis of data pooled across treatments from a three-arm (tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib with methotrexate [MTX], or MTX monotherapy) trial of MTX-naïve patients with early, active RA. Synovitis, osteitis and erosions were assessed with the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) RA MRI scoring system (RAMRIS) and RAMRIQ (automated quantitative RA MRI assessment system; automated RAMRIS) at months 0, 1, 3, 6 and 12. Radiographs were assessed at months 0, 6 and 12, and clinical endpoints were assessed at all timepoints. Univariate and multivariate analyses explored the predictive value of early changes in RAMRIS/RAMRIQ parameters and disease activity measures, with respect to subsequent radiographic progression. Results Data from 109 patients with a mean RA duration of 0.7 years were included. In univariate analyses, changes in RAMRIS erosions at months 1 and 3 significantly predicted radiographic progression at month 12 (both p

Abstract Introduction In clinical trials for knee osteoarthritis (OAK), rescue medication is commonly provided to manage uncontrolled index-knee pain. The impact of treatment on rescue medication utilization provides important information on the robustness of analgesic effect. In randomized controlled OAK trials (NCT01487161, NCT02116972, NCT02357459), intra-articular (IA) triamcinolone acetonide extended-release (TA-ER) demonstrated substantial, prolonged analgesia versus saline-placebo and TA crystalline solution (TAcs) as assessed by patient-reported pain scales. This pooled analysis assessed the impact of TA-ER on rescue medication use. Methods Patients (N = 798) with OAK (American College of Rheumatology criteria; Kellgren–Lawrence grade 2/3) and baseline average daily pain intensity score ≥ 5 to ≤ 9 (0–10 numeric rating scale) received a single IA injection of TA-ER (N = 324), saline-placebo (N = 262), or TAcs (N = 212). Acetaminophen/paracetamol tablets were provided to treat uncontrolled pain (knee or otherwise). Rescue medication consumption was monitored through a daily diary; pill counts were confirmed at the clinical site. Differences in rescue medication use were measured by least-squares mean (LSM) differences, number of rescue medication tablets used per day, and in area under the effect (AUE) curves of rescue medication tablets used per week. Results The overall number of rescue medication tablets used per day through week 24 was significantly less (p ≤ 0.05) for TA-ER versus saline-placebo (LSM difference, − 0.43) and TAcs (− 0.24). Rescue medication use was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) lower following TA-ER versus saline-placebo across weeks 1–12 (AUEweeks1–12; LSM difference, − 24.5) and weeks 1–24 (AUEweeks1–24; − 51.6) and versus TAcs across weeks 1–12 (AUEweeks1–12; − 21.1). Conclusions In patients with painful OAK, reduced rescue medication use may be a potential benefit of TA-ER and further supports its analgesic efficacy. Additional research is needed to assess whether TA-ER impacts the use of other common oral analgesics (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids) for patients with OAK. Funding Flexion Therapeutics, Inc., Burlington, MA, USA. Plain Language Summary Plain language summary available for this article.

Objective To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a peer mentorship intervention to improve self-management of osteoarthritis (OA).Design Six-month parallel group non-blinded randomised feasibility trial.Setting One secondary care and one primary care UK National Health Service Trust.Participants Fifty adults aged ≥55 years old with hip and/or knee OA.Interventions Participants were allocated 1:1 to the intervention or control group using an online randomisation service. Intervention group participants received usual care (information resources) and up to eight community-based self-management support sessions delivered by a peer mentor (trained volunteer with hip and/or knee OA). Control group participants received usual care only.Outcome measures Key feasibility outcomes were participant and peer mentor recruitment and attrition, intervention completion and the sample size required for a definitive RCT. Based on these feasibility outcomes, four success criteria for proceeding to a definitive RCT were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were collected via questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks and 6 months.Results Ninety-six individuals were screened, 65 were eligible and 50 were randomised (25 per group). Of the 24 participants who commenced the intervention, 20 completed it. Four participants did not complete the 6-month questionnaire. Twenty-one individuals were eligible for the peer mentor role, 15 were trained and 5 withdrew prior to being matched with a participant. No intervention-related harms occurred. Allowing for 20% attrition, the sample size required for a definitive RCT was calculated as 170 participants. The intervention group showed improvements in self-management compared with the control group.Conclusions The feasibility outcomes achieved the prespecified criteria for proceeding to an RCT. The exploratory analyses suggest peer mentorship may improve OA self-management. An RCT of the OA peer mentorship intervention is therefore warranted with minor modifications to the intervention and trial procedures.Trial registration number ISRCTN:50675542.

Summary: Objective: To summarize proceedings of a workshop convened to discuss advances in disease modifying osteoarthritis (OA) drugs and regulatory challenges in bringing these drugs to market. Design: Summary of a one day workshop held in Washington, DC in May 2019. Results: Attendees presented data documenting the prevalence, cost and disability burden of OA; recent documentation of disease modification without concomitant clinical benefit in trials of disease modifying drugs; regulatory considerations pertinent to disease modifying therapy; and methodologic approaches to addressing these regulatory considerations. Conclusions: The research, pharmaceutical and regulatory communities must continue to collaborate on defining pathways for approval of disease modifying osteoarthritis drugs that document effects on clinical endpoints (such as pain, function or joint replacement) as well as on bone, cartilage and other structures.

Objective Assessment of enthesitis, a key feature in spondyloarthritis (SpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), using objective and sensitive methods is pivotal in clinical trials. MRI allows detection of both soft tissue and intra-osseous changes of enthesitis. This article presents an atlas for the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Heel Enthesitis Magnetic Resonance ImagingMRI Scoring System (HEMRIS).Methods Following a preliminary selection of potential examples of each grade, as per HEMRIS definitions, the images along with detailed definitions and reader rules were discussed at web-based, interactive meetings between the members of the OMERACT MRI in Arthritis Working Group.Results Reference images of each grade of the MRI features to be assessed using HEMRIS, along with reader rules and recommended MRI sequences are depicted.Conclusion The presented reference images can be used to guide scoring Achilles tendon and plantar fascia (plantar aponeurosis) enthesitis according to the OMERACT HEMRIS in clinical trials and cohorts in which MRI enthesitis is used as an outcome.

Abstract Background Targeted treatment, matched according to specific clinical criteria e.g. hip muscle weakness, may result in better outcomes for people with patellofemoral pain (PFP). However, to ensure the success of future trials, a number of questions on the feasibility of a targeted treatment need clarification. The aim of the study was to explore the feasibility of matched treatment (MT) compared to usual care (UC) management for a subgroup of people with PFP determined to have hip weakness and to explore the mechanism of effect for hip strengthening. Methods In a pragmatic, randomised controlled feasibility study, 24 participants with PFP (58% female; mean age 29 years) were randomly allocated to receive either MT aimed specifically at hip strengthening, or UC over an eight-week period. The primary outcomes were feasibility outcomes, which included rates of adherence, attrition, eligibility, missing data and treatment efficacy. Secondary outcomes focused on the mechanistic outcomes of the intervention, which included hip kinematics. Results Conversion to consent (100%), missing data (0%), attrition rate (8%) and adherence to both treatment and appointments (>90%) were deemed successful endpoints. The analysis of treatment efficacy showed that the MT group reported a greater improvement for the Global Rating of Change Scale (62% vs. 9%) and the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (−5.23 vs. 1.18) but no between-group differences for either average or worst pain. Mechanistic outcomes showed a greatest reduction in peak hip internal rotation angle for the MT group (13.1% vs. −2.7%). Conclusion This feasibility study indicates that a definitive randomised controlled trial investigating a targeted treatment approach is achievable. Findings suggest the mechanism of effect of hip strengthening may be to influence kinematic changes in hip function in the transverse plane. Trial registration This study was registered retrospectively. ISRCTN74560952 . Registration date: 2017–02-06.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic painful arthritis with increasing global prevalence. Current management involves non-pharmacological interventions and commonly used pharmacological treatments that generally have limited analgesic efficacy and multiple side effects. New treatments are therefore required to relieve patient symptoms and disease impact. A number of existing pharmacological therapies have been recently trialled in OA. These include extended-release triamcinolone and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis; generally, DMARDs have not shown a benefit in treating OA. Novel analgesic therapies are in development, including those targeting peripheral pain pathways. Disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) target key tissues in the OA pathophysiology process and aim to prevent structural progression; a number of putative DMOADs are in phase II development. There is preliminary evidence of structural improvement with some of these therapies but without concomitant symptom improvement, raising new considerations for future DMOAD trials.

BackgroundPrevious studies of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have used candidate-gene approaches, or evaluated single genome-wide association studies (GWAS). We undertook the first meta-analysis of GWAS of RA radiological damage to: (1) identify novel genetic loci for this trait; and (2) test previously validated variants.MethodsSeven GWAS (2,775 RA cases, of a range of ancestries) were combined in a meta-analysis. Radiological damage was assessed using modified Larsen scores, Sharp van Der Heijde scores, and erosive status. Single nucleotide polymophsim (SNP) associations with radiological damage were tested at a single time-point using regression models. Primary analyses included age and disease duration as covariates. Secondary analyses also included rheumatoid factor (RF). Meta-analyses were undertaken in trans-ethnic and European-only cases.ResultsIn the trans-ethnic primary meta-analysis, one SNP (rs112112734) in close proximity to HLA-DRB1, and strong linkage disequilibrium with the shared-epitope, attained genome-wide significance (P = 4.2x10-8). In the secondary analysis (adjusting for RF) the association was less significant (P = 1.7x10-6). In both trans-ethnic primary and secondary meta-analyses 14 regions contained SNPs with associations reaching PConclusionsOur meta-analysis confirms the known association between the HLA-DRB1 shared epitope and RA radiological damage. The lack of replication of previously validated non-HLA markers highlights a requirement for further research to deliver clinically-useful prognostic genetic markers.

OBJECTIVE:To perform a systematic review examining the variation in methods, results, reporting and risk of bias in electronic health record (EHR)-based studies evaluating management of a common musculoskeletal disease, gout. METHODS:Two reviewers systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar for all EHR-based studies published by February 2019 investigating gout pharmacological treatment. Information was extracted on study design, eligibility criteria, definitions, medication usage, effectiveness and safety data, comprehensiveness of reporting (RECORD), and Cochrane risk of bias (registered PROSPERO CRD42017065195). RESULTS:We screened 5,603 titles/abstracts, 613 full-texts and selected 75 studies including 1.9M gout patients. Gout diagnosis was defined in 26 ways across the studies, most commonly using a single diagnostic code (n = 31, 41.3%). 48.4% did not specify a disease-free period before 'incident' diagnosis. Medication use was suboptimal and varied with disease definition while results regarding effectiveness and safety were broadly similar across studies despite variability in inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness of reporting was variable, ranging from 73% (55/75) appropriately discussing the limitations of EHR data use, to 5% (4/75) reporting on key data cleaning steps. Risk of bias was generally low. CONCLUSION:The wide variation in case definitions and medication-related analysis among EHR-based studies has implications for reported medication use. This is amplified by variable reporting comprehensiveness and the limited consideration of EHR-relevant biases (e.g. data adequacy) in study assessment tools. We recommend accounting for these biases and performing a sensitivity analysis on case definitions, and suggest changes to assessment tools to foster this.

After publication of our article [1] we have been notified that two of the author names have been mistakenly removed from the authorship list: Colin R. Howie and Nicholas D. Clement.