Dataset Information

ARTIST (osteoarthritis intervention standardized) study of standardised consultation versus usual care for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee in primary care in France: pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of standardised consultations on patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

Design

Open pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Primary care in France.

Participants

198 primary care rheumatologists, each of whom had to include two consecutive patients who met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for osteoarthritis of the knee.

Interventions

Standardised consultation was provided during three goal oriented visits (education on osteoarthritis and treatment management; information on physical exercises; information on weight loss) or usual care.

Main outcome measures

Change in body weight and in time spent on physical exercises (Baecke index) at four months.

Results

336 patients were included (154 allocated to standardised consultation and 182 to usual care). Nine patients were excluded because of lack of baseline data (standardised consultation, n=8; usual care, n=1). At four months, taking into account the clustering effect, the decrease in weight was greater in the standardised consultation group than in the usual care group (mean -1.11 (SD 2.49) kg v -0.37 (2.39) kg; P=0.007). The physical activity score was higher for the standardised consultation group than for the usual care group (mean 0.20 (0.65) v 0.04 (0.78); P=0.013). The standardised consultation and usual care groups did not differ in secondary outcomes, except for global assessment of disease activity (0-10 numeric scale: mean -1.66 (2.26) v -0.90 (2.48); P=0.003) and pain level (0-10 numeric scale: mean -1.65 (2.32) v -1.18 (2.58); P=0.04).

Conclusions

A structured consultation programme for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee resulted in short term improvement in weight loss and time spent on physical activity.

Trial registration

Clinical trials NCT00462319.

SUBMITTER: Ravaud P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2651104 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis study tested the effectiveness of moxibustion on pain and function in chronic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and evaluated safety.MethodsA multi-centre, non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial compared moxibustion with usual care (UC) in KOA. 212 South Korean patients aged 40-70 were recruited from 2011-12, stratified by mild (Kellgren/Lawrence scale grades 0/1) and moderate-severe KOA (grades 2/3/4), and randomly allocated to moxibustion or UC for four weeks. Moxibustion involved burning mugwort devices over acupuncture and Ashi points in affected knee(s). UC was allowed. Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Questionnaire (K-WOMAC), Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36v2), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), physical performance test, pain numeric rating scale (NRS) and adverse events were evaluated at 5 and 13 weeks. K-WOMAC global score at 5 weeks was the primary outcome.Results102 patients (73 mild, 29 moderate-severe) were allocated to moxibustion, 110 (77 mild, 33 moderate-severe) to UC. K-WOMAC global score (moxibustion 25.42+/-SD 19.26, UC 33.60+/-17.91, p<0.01, effect size = 0.0477), NRS (moxibustion 44.77+/-22.73, UC 56.23+/-17.71, p<0.01, effect size = 0.0073) and timed-stand test (moxibustion 24.79+/-9.76, UC 25.24+/-8.84, p = 0.0486, effect size = 0.0021) were improved by moxibustion at 5 weeks. The primary outcome improved for mild but not moderate-severe KOA. At 13 weeks, moxibustion significantly improved the K-WOMAC global score and NRS. Moxibustion improved SF-36 physical component summary (p = 0.0299), bodily pain (p = 0.0003), physical functioning (p = 0.0025) and social functioning (p = 0.0418) at 5 weeks, with no difference in mental component summary at 5 and 13 weeks. BDI showed no difference (p = 0.34) at 5 weeks. After 1158 moxibustion treatments, 121 adverse events included first (n = 6) and second degree (n = 113) burns, pruritus and fatigue (n = 2).ConclusionsMoxibustion may improve pain, function and quality of life in KOA patients, but adverse events are common. Limitations included no sham control or blinding.Trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS) KCT0000130.

Project description:BackgroundIn Swedish primary care, the healthcare process for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) can be initiated by a physician or physiotherapist assessment. However, it is unclear how the different assessments affect the healthcare processes and patient reported outcomes over time. The purpose of this study was to examine the differences in health-related quality of life (HrQoL), adjusted for pain and physical function, for patients with KOA when the healthcare process is initiated by a physiotherapist assessment compared to a physician assessment in primary care.MethodsAn assessor-blinded randomised controlled pragmatic trial. Using a computer-generated list of random numbers, patients seeking primary care during 2013-2017 with suspected KOA were randomised to either a physiotherapist or physician for primary assessment and treatment. Data was collected before randomisation and at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-ups. Primary outcome was HrQoL using EuroQol 5 dimensions 3 levels questionnaire, index (EQ-5D-3L index) and a visual analogue scale (VAS) (EQ-5D-3L VAS); pain intensity was measured with VAS (0-100) and physical function measured with the 30-s chair stand test. Mixed effect model analyses compared repeated measures of HrQoL between groups. The significance level was p < 0.05 and data was applied with intention-to-treat.ResultsPatients were randomised to either a physiotherapist (n = 35) or physician (n = 34) for primary assessment. All 69 patients were included in the analyses. There were no significant differences in HrQoL for patients assessed by a physiotherapist or a physician as primary assessor (EQ-5D-3L index, p = 0.18; EQ-5D-3L VAS, p = 0.49). We found that HrQoL changed significantly 12 months after baseline assessment for all patients regardless of assessor (EQ-5D-3L index, p < 0.001; EQ-5D-3 L VAS, p = 0.0049). No adverse events or side effects were reported.ConclusionsThere were no differences in HrQoL, when adjusted for pain and physical function, for patients with KOA when the healthcare process was initiated with physiotherapist assessment compared to physician assessment in primary care. Both assessments resulted in significantly higher HrQoL at the 12-month follow-up. The results imply that physiotherapists and physicians in primary care are equally qualified as primary assessors.Trial registrationRetrospectively registered at http://clinicaltrial.gov , ID: NCT03715764.

Project description:BackgroundPeritoneal dialysis (PD)-related infections, such as peritonitis, exit site, and tunnel infections, substantially impair the sustainability of PD. Accordingly, PD-related infection is the top-priority research outcome for patients and caregivers. While PD nurse trainers teach patients to perform their own PD, PD training curricula are not standardized or informed by an evidentiary base and may offer a potential approach to prevent PD infections. The Targeted Education ApproaCH to improve Peritoneal Dialysis outcomes (TEACH-PD) trial evaluates whether a standardized training curriculum for PD nurse trainers and incident PD patients based on the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD) guidelines reduces PD-related infections compared to usual training practices.MethodsThe TEACH-PD trial is a registry-based, pragmatic, open-label, multi-center, binational, cluster-randomized controlled trial. TEACH-PD will recruit adults aged 18 years or older who have not previously undergone PD training at 42 PD treatment units (clusters) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) between July 2019 and June 2023. Clusters will be randomized 1:1 to standardized TEACH-PD training curriculum or usual training practice. The primary trial outcome is the time to the first occurrence of any PD-related infection (exit site infection, tunnel infection, or peritonitis). The secondary trial outcomes are the individual components of the primary outcome, infection-associated catheter removal, transfer to hemodialysis (greater than 30 days and 180 days), quality of life, hospitalization, all-cause death, a composite of transfer to hemodialysis or all-cause death, and cost-effectiveness. Participants are followed for a minimum of 12 months with a targeted average follow-up period of 2 years. Participant and outcome data are collected from the ANZ Dialysis and Transplant Registry (ANZDATA) and the New Zealand Peritoneal Dialysis (NZPD) Registry. This protocol follows the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.DiscussionTEACH-PD is a registry-based, cluster-randomized pragmatic trial that aims to provide high-certainty evidence about whether an ISPD guideline-informed standardized PD training curriculum for PD nurse trainers and adult patients prevents PD-related infections.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03816111. Registered on 24 January 2019.

Project description:ImportanceIncreasing inpatient palliative care delivery is prioritized, but large-scale, experimental evidence of its effectiveness is lacking.ObjectiveTo determine whether ordering palliative care consultation by default for seriously ill hospitalized patients without requiring greater palliative care staffing increased consultations and improved outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsA pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized trial was conducted among patients 65 years or older with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, or kidney failure admitted from March 21, 2016, through November 14, 2018, to 11 US hospitals. Outcome data collection ended on January 31, 2019.InterventionOrdering palliative care consultation by default for eligible patients, while allowing clinicians to opt-out, was compared with usual care, in which clinicians could choose to order palliative care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was hospital length of stay, with deaths coded as the longest length of stay, and secondary end points included palliative care consult rate, discharge to hospice, do-not-resuscitate orders, and in-hospital mortality.ResultsOf 34 239 patients enrolled, 24 065 had lengths of stay of at least 72 hours and were included in the primary analytic sample (10 313 in the default order group and 13 752 in the usual care group; 13 338 [55.4%] women; mean age, 77.9 years). A higher percentage of patients in the default order group received palliative care consultation than in the standard care group (43.9% vs 16.6%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.17 [95% CI, 4.59-5.81]) and received consultation earlier (mean [SD] of 3.4 [2.6] days after admission vs 4.6 [4.8] days; P < .001). Length of stay did not differ between the default order and usual care groups (percent difference in median length of stay, -0.53% [95% CI, -3.51% to 2.53%]). Patients in the default order group had higher rates of do-not-resuscitate orders at discharge (aOR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.21-1.63]) and discharge to hospice (aOR, 1.30 [95% CI, 1.07-1.57]) than the usual care group, and similar in-hospital mortality (4.7% vs 4.2%; aOR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.68-1.08]).Conclusions and relevanceDefault palliative care consult orders did not reduce length of stay for older, hospitalized patients with advanced chronic illnesses, but did improve the rate and timing of consultation and some end-of-life care processes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505035.

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic trials evaluating complex health interventions often compare them to usual care. This comparator should resemble care as provided in everyday practice. However, usual care can differ for the same condition, between patients and practitioners, across clinical sites and over time. Heterogeneity within a usual care arm can raise methodological and ethical issues. To address these it may be necessary to standardise what usual care entails, although doing so may compromise a trial's external validity. Currently, there is no guidance detailing how researchers should decide the content of their usual care comparators. We conducted a methodology review to summarise current thinking about what should inform this decision.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2022. Articles and book chapters that discussed how to identify or develop usual care comparators were included. Experts in the field were also contacted. Reference lists and forward citation searches of included articles were screened. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.ResultsOne thousand nine hundred thirty records were identified, 1611 titles and abstracts screened, 112 full texts screened, and 16 articles included in the review. Results indicated that the content of a usual care comparator should be informed by the aims of the trial, existing care practices, clinical guidelines, and characteristics of the target population. Its content should also be driven by the trial's requirements to protect participants, inform practice, and be methodologically robust, efficient, feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. When deciding the content of usual care, researchers will need to gather information about these drivers, balance tensions that might occur when responding to different trial objectives, and decide how usual care will be described and monitored in the trial.DiscussionWhen deciding the content of a usual care arm, researchers need to understand the context in which a trial will be implemented and what the trial needs to achieve to address its aim and remain ethical. This is a complex decision-making process and trade-offs might need to be made. It also requires research and engagement with stakeholders, and therefore time and funding during the trial's design phase.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022307324.