The acceptability and feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a walking intervention for older people with persistent musculoskeletal pain in primary care: A mixed methods evaluation of the iPOPP pilot trial.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent musculoskeletal (MSK) pain is associated with physical inactivity in older people. While walking is an acceptable form of physical activity, the effectiveness of walking interventions in this population has yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the acceptability and feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to test the effectiveness of a healthcare assistant-led walking intervention for older people with persistent MSK pain (iPOPP) in primary care. METHODS: A mixed method, three arm pilot RCT was conducted in four general practices and recruited patients aged ≥65 years with persistent MSK pain. Participants were randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to: (i) usual care, (ii) usual care plus a pedometer intervention, or (iii) usual care plus the iPOPP walking intervention. Descriptive statistics were used in an exploratory analysis of the quantitative data. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate the analyses from the mixed methods. RESULTS: All pre-specified success criteria were achieved in terms of feasibility (recruitment, follow-up and iPOPP intervention adherence) and acceptability. Triangulation of the data identified the need, in the future, to make the iPOPP training (for intervention deliverers) more patient-centred to better support already active patients and the use of individualised goal setting and improve accelerometry data collection processes to increase the amount of valid data. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial suggests that the iPOPP intervention and a future full-scale RCT are both acceptable and feasible. The use of a triangulation protocol enabled more robust conclusions about acceptability and feasibility to be drawn.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of bracing in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis management: protocol for a multicentre, primary care, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Brace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: North West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28555470.

Open-label randomised pragmatic trial (CONTACT) comparing naproxen and low-dose colchicine for the treatment of gout flares in primary care.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of naproxen and low-dose colchicine for treating gout flares in primary care. METHODS: This was a multicentre open-label randomised trial. Adults with a gout flare recruited from 100 general practices were randomised equally to naproxen 750 mg immediately then 250 mg every 8 hours for 7 days or low-dose colchicine 500 mcg three times per day for 4 days. The primary outcome was change in worst pain intensity in the last 24 hours (0-10 Numeric Rating Scale) from baseline measured daily over the first 7 days: mean change from baseline was compared between groups over days 1-7 by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 29 January 2014 and 31 December 2015, we recruited 399 participants (naproxen n=200, colchicine n=199), of whom 349 (87.5%) completed primary outcome data at day 7. There was no significant between-group difference in average pain-change scores over days 1-7 (colchicine vs naproxen: mean difference -0.18; 95% CI -0.53 to 0.17; p=0.32). During days 1-7, diarrhoea (45.9% vs 20.0%; OR 3.31; 2.01 to 5.44) and headache (20.5% vs 10.7%; 1.92; 1.03 to 3.55) were more common in the colchicine group than the naproxen group but constipation was less common (4.8% vs 19.3%; 0.24; 0.11 to 0.54). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in pain intensity over 7 days between people with a gout flare randomised to either naproxen or low-dose colchicine. Naproxen caused fewer side effects supporting naproxen as first-line treatment for gout flares in primary care in the absence of contraindications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN (69836939), clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01994226), EudraCT (2013-001354-95).