Search

Background: Fractures of the distal radius are among the most common bone injuries, and their frequency is constantly increasing, leading to an elevated need for subsequent rehabilitation. This growing need has led to the emergence of online content aimed at providing guidance on rehabilitation. Nonetheless, unreviewed online content raises concerns about its reliability; therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality, reliability, and comprehensiveness of online videos concerning rehabilitation following a distal radius fracture. Methods: A total of 240 YouTube videos were screened, identifying 33 videos that met the inclusion criteria. These selected videos were evaluated by five independent experts from various professional groups, using the Global Quality Scale, the DISCERN reliability tool, and the JAMA Benchmark Score, as well as a structured set of questions to assess their comprehensiveness and coverage of pertinent aspects. Results: The observers' assessment of the Global Quality Scale exhibited a broad spectrum of viewpoints, indicating considerable variability in evaluations. In most cases, therapy aligned well with the diagnosed condition, and most raters deemed the indication and instruction in the videos acceptable. A proportion of 87% of the videos was deemed suitable for home training by at least three raters. However, a concerning trend emerged, as potential risks and pitfalls were scarcely addressed. Conclusions: The moderate overall quality of the videos and the divergence in expert opinions highlight the need for a regulatory authority to ensure adherence to guidelines and maintain high-quality content. Additionally, our results raise concerns about the applicability of established assessment tools in this context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Little is known about the experiences, values, and needs of people without arthritis who undergo predictive biomarker testing for the development of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Our study aimed to explore the perspectives of these individuals and describe their information needs.Methods: A qualitative, multicenter interview study with a thematic analysis was conducted in Austria, Germany and the UK. Individuals were interviewed who underwent predictive biomarker testing for RA and had a positive test result but no diagnosis of any inflammatory joint disease. Participants included patients with arthralgia and asymptomatic individuals. Information and education needs were developed from the qualitative codes and themes using the Arthritis Educational Needs Assessment Tool as a frame of reference.Results: Thematic saturation was reached in 34 individuals (76% female, 24 [71%] with arthralgia, and 10 [29%] asymptomatic individuals). Thirty-seven codes were summarized into 4 themes: 1) decision-making around whether to undergo initial predictive testing, 2) willingness to consider further predictive tests, and/or 3) preventive interventions, including medication, and 4) varying reactions after receiving a positive test result. Individuals with arthralgia were more likely to be willing to take preventive action, undergo further testing, and experience psychological distress than asymptomatic individuals. All participants expressed the need for tailored, patient-understandable information.Conclusion: Individuals at risk of RA are currently the subjects of research aimed at developing better predictive strategies and preventive approaches. Their perceptions and needs should be addressed to inform the future development of interventions combined with education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have been approved for use in various immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. With five agents licensed, it was timely to summarise the current understanding of JAKi use based on a systematic literature review (SLR) on efficacy and safety., Methods: Existing data were evaluated by a steering committee and subsequently reviewed by a 29 person expert committee leading to the formulation of a consensus statement that may assist the clinicians, patients and other stakeholders once the decision is made to commence a JAKi. The committee included patients, rheumatologists, a gastroenterologist, a haematologist, a dermatologist, an infectious disease specialist and a health professional. The SLR informed the Task Force on controlled and open clinical trials, registry data, phase 4 trials and meta-analyses. In addition, approval of new compounds by, and warnings from regulators that were issued after the end of the SLR search date were taken into consideration., Results: The Task Force agreed on and developed four general principles and a total of 26 points for consideration which were grouped into six areas addressing indications, treatment dose and comedication, contraindications, pretreatment screening and risks, laboratory and clinical follow-up examinations, and adverse events. Levels of evidence and strengths of recommendations were determined based on the SLR and levels of agreement were voted on for every point, reaching a range between 8.8 and 9.9 on a 10-point scale., Conclusion: The consensus provides an assessment of evidence for efficacy and safety of an important therapeutic class with guidance on issues of practical management., Competing Interests: Competing interests: DA has received grants from AbbVie, Novartis and Roche, consulting and lecture fees from Abbvie, Amgen, Celgene, Lilly, Medac, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz and Sanofi/Genzyme. W-HB has received a research grant from Pfizer and honoraria for advice from Abbvie, Alimirall, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Leo, Lilly, Novartis and UCB. TD received study support and/or consulting fees by AbbVie, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, EMD/Merck, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma. MD: grants from Pfizer, Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, Novartis and honoraria from Pfizer, Abbvie, UCB, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, BMS, Celgene, Biogen, Sandoz. PE: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Samsung, Lilly and honoraria from AbbVie, Novartis, BMS, Gilead, Samsung, Lilly. XB, KG received consultancy and lecture fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche and investigational grants from Roche. EBL reports grants from Green pharma, Seoul, grants from Handoc, Seoul, and personal fees from Pfizer. PTN has received research grants and funding for clinical trials and honoraria for advice and lectures on behalf of Abbvie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma. JEP has consulted for Amgen, AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sandoz, Sanofi, Teva, UCB. RMF has received research grants and funding for clinical trials and honoraria for adbice from Abbvie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Celltrion, Lilly, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Tahio and UCB. DvdH received consulting fees AbbVie, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Cyxone, Daiichi, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, UCB Pharma and is Director of Imaging Rheumatology bv. JDI has received research funding or honoraria from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Roche. AK has received lecture fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp and Dohme and Pfizer. JK received grant support for clinical research from Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and consulted with Abbvie, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Regeneron/Sanofi. IBM has received research funding or honoraria from Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, GSK, Lilly, Boehringer, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, UCB, BMS, Sanofi. WPM has served as a consultant, and/or received honoraria and/or has received research/educational grants from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB Pharma, and is Chief Medical Officer of CARE Arthritis Limited. MV: no conflict of interest. JSS has received research Grants for his institution from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and honoraria for consultancies and/or speaking engagements: Abbvie, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Astro-Celltrion, BMS, Celgene, ILTOO, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Novartis-Sandoz, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi, UCB. MS-M has no conflicts of interest. LST received grant support from Janssen, GSK and Pfizer and honoraria for consultations and/or speaking engagements from Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi, Abbvie and Lilly. TT received grants from Astellas, AbbVie GK, Eisai; speaking fee from: AbbVie GK, Eli Lilly Japan, Astellas, Eisai, Gilead, Pfizer Japan; and consultancy fees from: Astellas, AbbVie GK, Gilead. YT has received speaking fees and/or honoraria from Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Novartis, YL Biologics, Bristol-Myers, Eisai, Chugai, Abbvie, Astellas, Pfizer, Sanofi, Asahi-kasei, GSK, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Gilead, Janssen and has received research grants from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Chugai, Abbvie, Takeda, UCB, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai. MT: Speaker for BMS, Falk Foundation, Gilead and MSD; advisory boards for Albireo, BiomX, Boehringer Ingelheim, Falk Pharma GmbH, Genfit, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Novartis, Phenex and Regulus. He further received unrestricted research grants from Albireo, Cymabay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD and Takeda. He is also co-inventor of patents on the medical use of norUDCA (filed by the medical University of Graz as previous employer). FvdB received consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbvie, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. MdW has received honoraria for consultancies and speaking through Stichting Tools from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche. RW: honoraria for speaking engagements and advice from Galapagos, Gilead and Celltrion. KLW received grant support from BMS and Pfizer and honoraria for consultations and /or speaking engagements from Pfizer, BMS, Abbvie, Gilead, Galapagos, Lilly, GSK, UCB. RX received consultancy and/or speaker fees from Abbvie, Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Janssen., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: The eumusc.net standards of care (SOCs) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) aimed to improve quality of care across Europe. This study investigated importance and implementation of each standard according to patients and health care professionals (HCPs) in the Netherlands and identified barriers towards implementation., Methods: Dutch patients, rheumatologists and rheumatology nurses rated importance and implementation (0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS); 10=most important/best implemented) for each of the 20 SOCs. A care gap, adjusted for importance, was calculated: (100=highest gap). Statistical differences between a) patients and HCPs and b) subgroups of patients (demographics, health) were tested. Additionally, patients indicated agreement (0-10) with 6 implementation barriers., Results: 386 patients and 91 HCPs were included. Both ranked adequate disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug treatment (9.3(SD1.2), 9.2(SD0.8)), access to care in emergencies (9.2(SD1.2), 9.2(SD1.0)) and regular re-appraisal when treatment fails (9.2(SD1.3), 9.0(SD1.0)) the most important SOCs, and these were among the best implemented (NRS≥8.5) SOCs. After accounting for applicability, patients and HCP identified care gaps for early diagnosis (25.5(SD32.0), 22.3(SD16.3)), availability of a treatment plan (25.1(SD22.7), 25.7(SD18.5)) and patients also for a regular schedule of assessment of disease (28.6(SD25.5)).Patients with poorer health or higher education scored systematically lower on care received while sharing similar priorities. Patients and HCPs considered limited reimbursement of specific health services a main barrier for implementation and patients additionally identified limited time of physicians., Conclusions: Dutch patients and HCPs overall agreed on priorities in care and found relevant SOCs well implemented. However, suggestions for improvement were raised especially by patients with poorer health and/or higher education.