Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease, causing pain and functional impairments. According to international guidelines, exercise therapy has a short-term effect in reducing pain/functional impairments in knee OA and is therefore also generally recommended for hip OA. Because of its high prevalence and clinical implications, OA is associated with considerable (healthcare) costs. However, studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of common exercise therapy in hip OA are lacking. Therefore, this randomised controlled trial is designed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy in conjunction with the general practitioner's (GP) care, compared to GP care alone, for patients with hip OA.

Methods/design

Patients aged ? 45 years with OA of the hip, who consulted the GP during the past year for hip complaints and who comply with the American College of Rheumatology criteria, are included. Patients are randomly assigned to either exercise therapy in addition to GP care, or to GP care alone. Exercise therapy consists of (maximally) 12 treatment sessions with a physiotherapist, and home exercises. These are followed by three additional treatment sessions in the 5th, 7th and 9th month after the first treatment session. GP care consists of usual care for hip OA, such as general advice or prescribing pain medication. Primary outcomes are hip pain and hip-related activity limitations (measured with the Hip disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS]), direct costs, and productivity costs (measured with the PROductivity and DISease Questionnaire). These parameters are measured at baseline, at 6 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months follow-up. To detect a 25% clinical difference in the HOOS pain score, with a power of 80% and an alpha 5%, 210 patients are required. Data are analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Effectiveness is evaluated using linear regression models with repeated measurements. An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis and an incremental cost-utility analysis will also be performed.

Discussion

The results of this trial will provide insight into the cost-effectiveness of adding exercise therapy to GPs' care in the treatment of OA of the hip. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry http://www.trialregister.nl: trial number NTR1462.

SUBMITTER: van Es PP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3198764 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial.

van Es Pauline P PP Luijsterburg Pim A J PA Dekker Joost J Koopmanschap Marc A MA Bohnen Arthur M AM Verhaar Jan A N JA Koes Bart W BW Bierma-Zeinstra Sita M A SM

BMC musculoskeletal disorders 20111012

<h4>Background</h4>Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease, causing pain and functional impairments. According to international guidelines, exercise therapy has a short-term effect in reducing pain/functional impairments in knee OA and is therefore also generally recommended for hip OA. Because of its high prevalence and clinical implications, OA is associated with considerable (healthcare) costs. However, studies evaluating cost-effectiveness of common exercise therapy in hip OA ar ...[more]

PMID: 21992502

Similar Datasets

Project description:To assess whether colon cancer follow-up can be organised by general practitioners (GPs) without a decline in the patient's quality of life (QoL) and increase in cost or time to cancer diagnoses, compared to hospital follow-up.Randomised controlled trial.Northern Norway Health Authority Trust, 4 trusts, 11 hospitals and 88 local communities.Patients surgically treated for colon cancer, hospital surgeons and community GPs.24-month follow-up according to national guidelines at the community GP office. To ensure a high follow-up guideline adherence, a decision support tool for patients and GPs were used.Primary outcomes were QoL, measured by the global health scales of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C-30) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). Secondary outcomes were cost-effectiveness and time to cancer diagnoses.110 patients were randomised to intervention (n=55) or control (n=55), and followed by 78 GPs (942 follow-up months) and 70 surgeons (942 follow-up months), respectively. Compared to baseline, there was a significant improvement in postoperative QoL (p=0.003), but no differences between groups were revealed (mean difference at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21 and 24-month follow-up appointments): Global Health; ?-2.23, p=0.20; EQ-5D index; ?-0.10, p=0.48, EQ-5D VAS; ?-1.1, p=0.44. There were no differences in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis (GP 35 days vs surgeon 45 days, p=0.46); 14 recurrences were detected (GP 6 vs surgeon 8) and 7 metastases surgeries performed (GP 3 vs surgeon 4). The follow-up programme initiated 1186 healthcare contacts (GP 678 vs surgeon 508), 1105 diagnostic tests (GP 592 vs surgeon 513) and 778 hospital travels (GP 250 vs surgeon 528). GP organised follow-up was associated with societal cost savings (£8233 vs £9889, p<0.001).GP-organised follow-up was associated with no decline in QoL, no increase in time to recurrent cancer diagnosis and cost savings.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00572143.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines recommend exercise as the first line of management for hip osteoarthritis, yet high-quality evidence from Cochrane reviews suggest only slight benefits for pain and physical function; and no benefit on quality of life (low-quality evidence). However, the scope of physical impairments identified in people with hip osteoarthritis may not have been adequately addressed with targeted rehabilitation options in previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Potential targeted options include gait retraining to address spatio-temporal impairments in walking; motor control training to address deep gluteal (gluteus minimus) dysfunction; and progressive, high-intensity resistance exercises to address atrophy of the gluteal muscles. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of a targeted gluteal rehabilitation programme that incorporates gait retraining, motor control and progressive, high-intensity resistance-strength training, to address physical activity levels and self-reported physical function in people with mild to moderate disability from hip osteoarthritis.MethodsNinety people diagnosed with mild to moderately disabling hip osteoarthritis will be recruited and randomised to receive one of two exercise programmes (sham or GHOst programme). Interventions will be 12 weeks in duration, with weekly, supervised physiotherapy sessions, and daily home exercises. Both groups will receive standardised education. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 7 weeks, 13 weeks (primary time-point) and 25 weeks. The primary outcome will be self-reported physical function measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Secondary outcomes include physical activity measured with a tri-axial accelerometer, physical function tests, self-reported physical activity, isometric hip-muscle strength tests, hip-related patient-reported outcome measures, pain thoughts and depressive symptoms, quality of life, global rating of change, gluteal-muscle activity (electromyography (EMG)) and gluteal-muscle size and adiposity (magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)).DiscussionThis will be the first study to compare a targeted gluteal rehabilitation programme to a sham exercise programme. The targeted GHOst programme includes exercises designed to address gait impairments as well as gluteal-muscle atrophy and dysfunction.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ID: ACTRN12617000970347 . Registered retrospectively on 5 July 2017. Protocol version 3.0.

Project description:IntroductionShoulder pain is common and the prognosis is often unfavourable. Dutch guidelines on the treatment of shoulder pain in primary care recommend a corticosteroid injection or a referral to exercise therapy, if initial pain management fails and pain persists. However, evidence of the effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with exercise therapy, especially in the long term, is limited. This trial will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a corticosteroid injection compared with physiotherapist-led exercise therapy over 12 months follow-up in patients with shoulder pain in primary care.Methods and analysisThe SIX Study is a multicentre, pragmatic randomised clinical trial in primary care. A total of 213 patients with shoulder pain, aged ≥18 years presenting in general practice will be included. Patients will be randomised (1:1) into two groups: a corticosteroid injection or 12 sessions of physiotherapist-led exercise therapy. The effect of the allocated treatment will be assessed through questionnaires at 6 weeks and after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The primary outcome is patient's reported shoulder pain-intensity and function, measured with the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, over 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes include cost effectiveness, pain-intensity, function, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, patient's global perceived effect, work absence, healthcare utilisation and adverse events. Between group differences will be evaluated using a repeated measurements analysis with linear effects models. A cost-utility analysis will be performed to assess the cost effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years from a medical and societal perspective.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam (MEC 2020-0300). All participants will give written informed consent prior to data collection. The results from this study will be disseminated in international journals and implemented in the primary care guidelines on shoulder pain.Trial registration numberDutch Trial Registry (NL8854).

Project description:The aim of this trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home-based exercise program delivered four months following hip-fracture surgery. In the two-armed randomized, single blinded clinical trial we included persons who lived in the catchment area, were 70 years or older, and community-dwelling at time of the fracture. We excluded persons who were unable to walk ten meters prior to the fracture, and those who were bedridden or had medical contraindications for exercise at baseline (ie. four months after the fracture). All participants underwent routine treatment and rehabilitation. The intervention group received additional 20 sessions (10 weeks) structured, home exercise targeting gait and balance, delivered by physiotherapists in primary health care. Gait speed was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included physical activity, gait characteristics, cognitive function, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, and health care costs extracted from hospital and municipality records. In total, 223 participants were included. Four months post surgery 143 were randomized for the exercise trial (70% women, mean age 83.4 (SD 6.1) years, mean gait speed 0.6 (SD 0.2) m/sec). Estimated between group difference in gait speed was 0.09 m/sec (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.14, p<0.001) at posttest and 0.07 m/sec (95% CI: 0.02 to 0.12, p = 0.009) 12 months post surgery. The mean between-group QALY difference was -0.009 (95% CI: -0.061 to 0.038). The mean between-group total cost difference was +242.9 EUR (95% CI: -8397 to 8584). Our findings suggest that gait recovery after hip fracture can be improved by introducing a home-based balance and gait exercise program four months post surgery, without increasing total health care costs. Future research should focus on how to implement gait and balance exercise in comprehensive interventions that increase adherence among the most vulnerable persons and have an effect on daily life activities and patient-centred outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01379456.

Project description:Despite the increasing use of hip arthroscopy for hip pain, there is no level 1 evidence to support physiotherapy rehabilitation programs following this procedure. The aims of this study were to determine (i) what is the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating a targeted physiotherapy intervention for early-onset hip osteoarthritis (OA) post-hip arthroscopy? and (ii) what are the within-group treatment effects of the physiotherapy intervention and a health-education control group?This study was a pilot single-blind RCT conducted in a private physiotherapy clinic in Hobart, Australia. Patients included 17 volunteers (nine women; age 32 ± 8 years; body mass index = 25.6 ± 5.1 kg/m2) who were recruited 4-14 months post-hip arthroscopy, with chondropathy and/or labral pathology at the time of surgery. Interventions included a physiotherapy treatment program that was semi-standardised and consisted of (i) manual therapy; (ii) hip strengthening and functional retraining; and (iii) health education. Control treatment encompassed individualised health education sessions. The primary outcome measure was feasibility, which was reported as percentage of eligible participants enrolled, adherence with the intervention, and losses to follow-up. The research process was evaluated using interviews, and an estimated sample size for a definitive study is offered. Secondary outcomes included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT-33) patient-reported outcomes.Seventeen out of 48 eligible patients (35%) were randomised. Adherence to the intervention was 100%, with no losses to follow-up. The estimated sample size for a full-scale RCT was 142 patients. The within-group (95% confidence intervals) change scores for the physiotherapy group were HOOS-Symptoms 6 points (-4 to 16); HOOS-Pain 10 points (-2 to 22); HOOS-Activity of Daily Living 8 points (0 to 16); HOOS-Sport 3 points (-12 to 19); HOOS-Quality of Life 3 points (-7 to 13); and IHOT-33 7 points (-10 to 25). The within-group (95% confidence intervals) change scores for the control group were HOOS-Symptoms -4 points (-17 to 9); HOOS-Pain -2 points (-18 to 13); HOOS-Activity of Daily Living -7 points (-17 to 4); HOOS-Sport 4 points (-16 to 23); HOOS-Quality of Life -5 points (-18 to 9); and IHOT-33 -4 points (-27 to 19). Suggestions to improve study design included greater supervision of exercises and increased access to physiotherapy appointments.Results support the feasibility of a full-scale RCT, and recommendations for an adequately powered and improved study to determine the efficacy of this physiotherapy intervention post-hip arthroscopy to reduce pain and improve function are provided.Australian Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000426684.

Project description:BackgroundPhysiotherapy has long been a routine component of patient rehabilitation following hip joint replacement. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physiotherapy exercise after discharge from hospital on function, walking, range of motion, quality of life and muscle strength, for osteoarthritic patients following elective primary total hip arthroplasty.MethodsDesignSystematic review, using the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Quorom Statement. Database searches: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, KingsFund, MEDLINE, Cochrane library (Cochrane reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, DARE), PEDro, The Department of Health National Research Register. Handsearches: Physiotherapy, Physical Therapy, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (Britain) Conference Proceedings. No language restrictions were applied.SelectionTrials comparing physiotherapy exercise versus usual/standard care, or comparing two types of relevant exercise physiotherapy, following discharge from hospital after elective primary total hip replacement for osteoarthritis were reviewed.OutcomesFunctional activities of daily living, walking, quality of life, muscle strength and range of hip joint motion. Trial quality was extensively evaluated. Narrative synthesis plus meta-analytic summaries were performed to summarise the data.Results8 trials were identified. Trial quality was mixed. Generally poor trial quality, quantity and diversity prevented explanatory meta-analyses. The results were synthesised and meta-analytic summaries were used where possible to provide a formal summary of results. Results indicate that physiotherapy exercise after discharge following total hip replacement has the potential to benefit patients.ConclusionInsufficient evidence exists to establish the effectiveness of physiotherapy exercise following primary hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Further well designed trials are required to determine the value of post discharge exercise following this increasingly common surgical procedure.

Project description:BackgroundHip and knee osteoarthritis is ranked as the 11th highest contributor to global disability. Exercise is a core treatment in osteoarthritis. The model for physical activity-related health competence describes possibilities to empower patients to perform physical exercises in the best possible health-promoting manner while taking into account their own physical condition. Face-to-face supervision is the gold standard for exercise guidance.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate whether instruction and guidance via a digital app is not inferior to supervision by a physiotherapist with regard to movement quality, control competence for physical training, and exercise-specific self-efficacy.MethodsPatients with clinically diagnosed hip osteoarthritis were recruited via print advertisements, emails and flyers. The intervention consisted of two identical training sessions with one exercise for mobility, two for strength, and one for balance. One session was guided by a physiotherapist and the other was guided by a fully automated tablet computer-based app. Both interventions took place at a university hospital. Outcomes were assessor-rated movement quality, and self-reported questionnaires on exercise-specific self-efficacy and control competence for physical training. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences. One sequence started with the app in the first session followed by the physiotherapist in the second session after a minimum washout phase of 27 days (AP group) and the other sequence occurred in the reverse order (PA group). Noninferiority was defined as a between-treatment effect (gIG)<0.2 in favor of the physiotherapist-guided training, including the upper confidence interval. Participants, assessors, and the statistician were neither blinded to the treatment nor to the treatment sequence.ResultsA total of 54 participants started the first training session (32 women, 22 men; mean age 62.4, SD 8.2 years). The treatment sequence groups were similar in size (PA: n=26; AP: n=28). Seven subjects did not attend the second training session (PA: n=3; AP: n=4). The app was found to be inferior to the physiotherapist in all outcomes considered, except for movement quality of the mobility exercise (gIG -0.13, 95% CI -0.41-0.16). In contrast to the two strengthening exercises in different positions (supine gIG 0.76, 95% CI 0.39-1.13; table gIG 1.19, 95% CI 0.84-1.55), movement quality of the balance exercise was close to noninferiority (gIG 0.15, 95% CI -0.17-0.48). Exercise-specific self-efficacy showed a strong effect in favor of the physiotherapist (gIG 0.84, 95% CI 0.46-1.22). In terms of control competence for physical training, the app was only slightly inferior to the physiotherapist (gIG 0.18, 95% CI -0.14-0.50).ConclusionsDespite its inferiority in almost all measures of interest, exercise-specific self-efficacy and control competence for physical training did improve in patients who used the digital app. Movement quality was acceptable for exercises that are easy to conduct and instruct. The digital app opens up possibilities as a supplementary tool to support patients in independent home training for less complex exercises; however, it cannot replace a physiotherapist.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trial Register: DRKS00015759; http://www.drks.de/DRKS00015759.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial.

Background

Methods/design

Discussion

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of exercise therapy versus general practitioner care for osteoarthritis of the hip: design of a randomised clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets