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:BackgroundIndividuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.InterventionsAn educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsThis study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).Conclusions and relevanceThis large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Project description:BackgroundKnee osteoarthritis is a common problem, but often underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care as compared to evidence-based guidelines. Educational outreach visits are an effective strategy to improve guideline adherence, but its contribution to knee osteoarthritis management is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the overall effectiveness of educational outreach visits on process quality indicators for knee osteoarthritis management, more specifically on the referral for physical therapy.MethodsAn educational intervention study, non-randomized and controlled, was designed for general practitioners (GPs) in Belgium. During four months, 426 GPs were visited by academic detailers and allocated to the intervention group. The control group was selected from GPs not visited by academic detailers during the study period. Six months post-intervention, both groups received a questionnaire with two case-vignettes to measure the effectiveness of the educational outreach. Outcomes were assessed with a Belgian set of quality indicators for knee osteoarthritis management and focused on the number of prescriptions for appropriate physical therapy (i.e. muscle strengthening, aerobic, functional or range of motion exercises) and the adherence to eight additional quality indicators related to knee osteoarthritis management. For the analysis, multivariable logistic regression models were used and Generalized Estimating Equations to handle the correlation between the multiple results per GP.ResultsThe intervention group showed a tendency to prescribe more frequently at least one appropriate physical therapy for a case (43.8%), compared to the control group (31.3%, p = 0.057). Muscle strengthening exercises were the most frequently prescribed therapy with 37.0% in the intervention versus 26.9% in the control group. The adherence to the other quality indicators showed no significant difference between the intervention and control group and varied between 8.9 and 100% in the intervention group.ConclusionsThis intervention did not alter significantly the adherence to quality indicators and in particular the probability of prescribing physical therapy. To change general practitioners' prescription behavior, more extensive or combined interventional approaches seem warranted.