Managing complex medication regimens: perspectives of consumers with osteoarthritis and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND: Managing medications is complex, particularly for consumers with multiple coexisting conditions for whom benefits and adverse effects are unpredictable and health priorities may be variable.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate perceptions of and experiences with managing drug regimens from the perspectives of consumers with osteoarthritis and coexisting chronic conditions and of healthcare professionals from diverse backgrounds.

METHODS: Using an exploratory research design, focus groups were formed with 34 consumers and 19 healthcare professionals. Individual interviews were undertaken with 3 community medical practitioners.

RESULTS: Consumers' management of medications was explored in terms of 3 themes: administration of medications, provision of information, and the perceived role of healthcare professionals. In general, consumers lacked understanding regarding the reason that they were prescribed certain medications. Since all consumer participants had at least 2 chronic conditions, they were taking many drugs to relieve undesirable symptoms. Some consumers were unable to achieve improved pain relief and were reluctant to take analgesics prescribed on an as - needed basis. Healthcare professionals discussed the importance of using non-pharmacologic measures to improve symptoms; however, consumers stated that physicians encourage them to continue using medications, often for prolonged periods, even when these agents are not helpful.

CONCLUSIONS: Consumers were dissatisfied about the complexity of their medication regimens and also lacked understanding as to how to take their drugs effectively. Dedicated time should be devoted during medical consultations to facilitate verbal exchange of information about medications. Pharmacists must communicate regularly with physicians about consumers' medication needs to help preempt any problems that may arise. Instructions need to be revised through collaboration between physicians and pharmacists so that "as needed" directions provide more explicit advice about when and how to use such drugs. Future research, using large, generalizable samples, should examine trends related to consumers' experiences of symptomatic relief from chronic conditions and their understandings about medications.

Can a disease-specific education program augment self-management skills and improve Health-Related Quality of Life in people with hip or knee osteoarthritis?

Background: Patient education and self-management programs are offered in many countries to people with chronic conditions such as osteoarthritis (OA). The most well-known is the disease-specific Stanford Arthritis Self-Management Program (ASMP). While Australian and international clinical guidelines promote the concept of self-management for OA, there is currently little evidence to support the use of the ASMP. Several meta-analyses have reported that arthritis self-management programs had minimal or no effect on reducing pain and disability. However, previous studies have had methodological shortcomings including the use of outcome measures which do not accurately reflect program goals. Additionally, limited cost-effectiveness analyses have been undertaken and the cost-utility of the program has not been explored.

Methods/design: This study is a randomised controlled trial to determine the efficacy (in terms of Health-Related Quality of Life and self-management skills) and cost-utility of a 6-week group-based Stanford ASMP for people with hip or knee OA.

Six hundred participants referred to an orthopaedic surgeon or rheumatologist for hip or knee OA will be recruited from outpatient clinics at 2 public hospitals and community-based private practices within 2 private hospital settings in Victoria, Australia. Participants must be 18 years or over, fluent in English and able to attend ASMP sessions. Exclusion criteria include cognitive dysfunction, previous participation in self-management programs and placement on a waiting list for joint replacement surgery or scheduled joint replacement.

Eligible, consenting participants will be randomised to an intervention group (who receive the ASMP and an arthritis self-management book) or a control group (who receive the book only). Follow-up will be at 6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months using standardised self-report measures. The primary outcome is Health-Related Quality of Life at 12 months, measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life instrument. Secondary outcome measures include the Health Education Impact Questionnaire, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (pain subscale and total scores), Kessler Psychological Distress Scale and the Hip and Knee Multi-Attribute Priority Tool. Cost-utility analyses will be undertaken using administrative records and self-report data. A subgroup of 100 participants will undergo qualitative interviews to explore the broader potential impacts of the ASMP.

Discussion: Using an innovative design combining both quantitative and qualitative components, this project will provide high quality data to facilitate evidence-based recommendations regarding the ASMP.

Parsimonious and efficient assessment of health-related quality of life in osteoarthritis research: validation of the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument

Background: The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) utility instrument was psychometrically developed for the general population. This study aimed to explore its potential as an osteoarthritis (OA) outcome measure.

Methods: WOMAC, Lequesne index, SF-36, Visual analogue scales and the AQoL were administered to 222 people with OA. The ability of each questionnaire to detect differences between groups was based on (i) self-rated health (SRH) and, (ii) differences between people on an orthopedic waiting list (WL) vs people with OA in the community (C). Comparisons included effect size, relative efficiency and receiver operator characteristic curves.

Results: All instruments detected differences between groups; however no one instrument exhibited superior efficiency. The AQoL demonstrated strong psychometric properties.

Conclusion: The AQoL has equivalent performance to comparator questionnaires commonly used in OA research and would be a useful adjunct to well-established disease specific scales. The AQoL has important advantages; brevity (12 items), facilitates comparisons between disease groups, and delivers a utility score that can be used in health economic evaluations.

Effects of laterally wedged insoles on symptoms and disease progression in medial knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial

Background: Whilst laterally wedged insoles, worn inside the shoes, are advocated as a simple, inexpensive, non-toxic self-administered intervention for knee osteoarthritis (OA), there is currently limited evidence to support their use. The aim of this randomised, double-blind controlled trial is to determine whether laterally wedges insoles lead to greater improvements in knee pain, physical function and health-related quality of life, and slower structural disease progression as well as being more cost-effective, than control flat insoles in people with medial knee OA.

Methods/Design: Two hundred participants with painful radiographic medial knee OA and varus malalignment will be recruited from the community and randomly allocated to lateral wedge or control insole groups using concealed allocation. Participants will be blinded as to which insole is considered therapeutic. Blinded follow up assessment will be conducted at 12 months after randomisation. The outcome measures are valid and reliable measures recommended for OA clinical trials. Questionnaires will assess changes in pain, physical function and health-related quality-of-life. Magnetic resonance imaging will measure changes in tibial cartilage volume. To evaluate cost-effectiveness, participants will record the use of all health-related treatments in a log-book returned to the assessor on a monthly basis. To test the effect of the intervention using an intention-to-treat analysis, linear regression modelling will be applied adjusting for baseline outcome values and other demographic characteristics.

Discussion: Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence regarding the effectiveness of laterally wedged insoles for the management of medial knee OA.

Trial registration: ACTR12605000503628; NCT00415259.

Guideline for the non-surgical management of hip and knee osteoarthritis

Introduction: Chronic disease is a major public health burden on Australian society. An increasing proportion of the population has risk factors for, or at least one, chronic disease, leading to increasing public health costs. Health service policy and delivery must not only address acute conditions, it must also effectively respond to the wide range of health and public service requirements of people with chronic illness.^1,2 Strong primary health care policy is an important foundation for a successful national health delivery system and long term management of public health, and is linked to practical outcomes including lower mortality, decreased hospitalisation and improved health outcomes.¹ National strategic health policy has recently given increased recognition to the importance of chronic disease management, with the Australian Federal Government endorsement of a number of initiatives for the prevention (or delay in onset), early detection and evidence based management of chronic disease, including osteoarthritis.^1,3
Chronic musculoskeletal conditions, including arthritis, account for over 4% of the national disease burden in terms of disability adjusted life years. Over 6 million Australians (almost one-third of the population) are estimated to have a chronic musculoskeletal disease; chronic musculoskeletal disease represents the main cause of long term pain and physical disability. In Australia, osteoarthritis is self reported by more than 1.4 million people (7.3% of the population4) and is the tenth most commonly managed problem in general practice.5 This number is set to rise as the elderly population grows. Osteoarthritis exerts a significant burden on the individual and the community through reduction in quality of life, diminished employment capacity and an increase in health care costs. For further details, refer to the Evidence to support the National Action Plan for Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis: Opportunities to improve health-related quality of life and reduce the burden of disease and disability (2004).⁶
As such, federal government health policy has identified arthritis as a National Health Priority Area and adopted a number of initiatives aimed at decreasing the burden of chronic disease and disability; raising awareness of preventive disease factors; providing access to evidence based knowledge; and improving the overall management of arthritis within the community.4 In 2002, all Australian health ministers designated arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions as Australia’s seventh National Health Priority Area. In response, a National Action Plan was developed in 2004 by the National Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Conditions Advisory Group (NAMSCAG).6 The aim of this document was to provide a blueprint for national initiatives to improve the health related quality of life of people living with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis; reduce the cost and prevalence of these conditions; and reduce the impact on individuals, their carers and their communities within Australia. The National Action Plan was developed to complement both the National Chronic Disease Strategy – which is broader – and the National Service Improvement Framework for Osteoarthritis, Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoporosis, in addition to other national and state/ territory structures.

Can we reduce disease burden from osteoarthritis?

♦ The comparison of disparate interventions for the prevention and management of osteoarthritis (OA) is limited by the quality and quantity of published efficacy studies and the use of disparate measures for reporting clinical trial outcomes.

♦ The “transfer to utility” technique was used to translate published trial outcomes into a health-related quality-of-life (utility) scale, creating a common metric which supported comparisons between disparate interventions.

♦ Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) surgery were the most effective treatments and also highly cost-effective, at estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of $7500 for THR and $10 000 for TKR (best estimate).

♦ Other apparently highly cost-effective interventions were exercise and strength training for knee OA (< $5000/QALY), knee bracing, and use of capsaicin or glucosamine sulfate (< $10 000/QALY).

♦ The cost per QALY estimates of non-specific and COX-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were affected by treatment-related deaths and highly sensitive to the discounting of life-years lost.

♦ OA interventions that have been shown to be ineffective (eg, arthroscopy) are targets for redistribution of healthcare resources.

♦ OA interventions which lack efficacy studies (eg, prevention programs) require further research to assist priority setting.

♦ The application of the Health-sector Wide model to OA demonstrates its role as an evidence-based model that can be successfully applied to identify marginal interventions — those to be expanded and contracted to reduce the expected burden of disease, within current healthcare resources.

Improving care for people with osteoarthritis of the hip and 'knee : how has national policy for osteoarthritis been translated into service models in Australia?

There is strong rationale for improving care for people with chronic conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). Successful implementation of healthcare reform requires new concepts and directions that are strongly supported by policy, new models of care (service redesign) and changes in day-to-day practice (healthcare provider and patient practice). In this paper we discuss the extent to which policy about management of OA of the hip and knee has been translated into new service models in Australia. A structured search of government and other key health websites in Australia was performed to identify policy, funding initiatives and new services models for managing OA of the hip and knee. This search was supported by a literature review. Musculoskeletal conditions were designated a National Health Priority in Australia in 2002. Under the Better Arthritis and Osteoporosis Care initiative, Australia has developed a national policy for OA care and national evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of OA of the hip and knee. Only two well described examples of new chronic disease management service models, the Osteoarthritis Clinical Pathway (OACP) model and the Osteoarthritis Hip and Knee Service (OAHKS) were identified. Primarily focused within acute care public hospital settings, these have been shown to be feasible and acceptable but have limited data on clinical impact and cost-effectiveness. While policy is extant, implementation has not been systematic and comprehensive. Clinicians have evidence-based recommendations for OA management but are poorly supported by service models to deliver these effectively and efficiently.

Investigating well-being, work limitations and preferences for self-management education and peer support among younger people with hip and knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a cross-sectional study

Introduction: