primary health care

Background: Both physical therapy and intraarticular injections of glucocorticoids have been shown to confer clinical benefit with respect to osteoarthritis of the knee. Whether the short-term and long-term effectiveness for relieving pain and improving physical function differ between these two therapies is uncertain.

Methods: We conducted a randomized trial to compare physical therapy with glucocorticoid injection in the primary care setting in the U.S. Military Health System. Patients with osteoarthritis in one or both knees were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a glucocorticoid injection or to undergo physical therapy. The primary outcome was the total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 1 year (scores range from 0 to 240, with higher scores indicating worse pain, function, and stiffness). The secondary outcomes were the time needed to complete the Alternate Step Test, the time needed to complete the Timed Up and Go test, and the score on the Global Rating of Change scale, all assessed at 1 year.

Results: We enrolled 156 patients with a mean age of 56 years; 78 patients were assigned to each group. Baseline characteristics, including severity of pain and level of disability, were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SD) baseline WOMAC scores were 108.8±47.1 in the glucocorticoid injection group and 107.1±42.4 in the physical therapy group. At 1 year, the mean scores were 55.8±53.8 and 37.0±30.7, respectively (mean between-group difference, 18.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 5.0 to 32.6), a finding favoring physical therapy. Changes in secondary outcomes were in the same direction as those of the primary outcome. One patient fainted while receiving a glucocorticoid injection.

Conclusions: Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent physical therapy had less pain and functional disability at 1 year than patients who received an intraarticular glucocorticoid injection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01427153.).

KEY POINTS

• Clinical assessment and care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations should include tailoring approaches to a person’s gender, age, Indigenous heritage, ethnicity and history of trauma; and advocacy for comprehensive primary health care.

• As initial steps in the care of homeless and vulnerably housed populations, permanent supportive housing is strongly recommended, and income assistance is also recommended.

• Case-management interventions, with access to psychiatric support, are recommended as an initial step to support primary care and to address existing mental health, substance use and other morbidities.

• Harm-reduction interventions, such as supervised consumption facilities, and access to pharmacologic agents for opioid use disorder, such as opioid agonist treatment, are recommended for people who use substances.

BACKGROUND:

Antivirals are infrequently prescribed in European primary care for influenza-like illness, mostly because of perceived ineffectiveness in real world primary care and because individuals who will especially benefit have not been identified in independent trials. We aimed to determine whether adding antiviral treatment to usual primary care for patients with influenza-like illness reduces time to recovery overall and in key subgroups.

METHODS:

We did an open-label, pragmatic, adaptive, randomised controlled trial of adding oseltamivir to usual care in patients aged 1 year and older presenting with influenza-like illness in primary care. The primary endpoint was time to recovery, defined as return to usual activities, with fever, headache, and muscle ache minor or absent. The trial was designed and powered to assess oseltamivir benefit overall and in 36 prespecified subgroups defined by age, comorbidity, previous symptom duration, and symptom severity, using a Bayesian piece-wise exponential primary analysis model. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, number ISRCTN 27908921.

FINDINGS:

Between Jan 15, 2016, and April 12, 2018, we recruited 3266 participants in 15 European countries during three seasonal influenza seasons, allocated 1629 to usual care plus oseltamivir and 1637 to usual care, and ascertained the primary outcome in 1533 (94%) and 1526 (93%). 1590 (52%) of 3059 participants had PCR-confirmed influenza infection. Time to recovery was shorter in participants randomly assigned to oseltamivir (hazard ratio 1·29, 95% Bayesian credible interval [BCrI] 1·20-1·39) overall and in 30 of the 36 prespecified subgroups, with estimated hazard ratios ranging from 1·13 to 1·72. The estimated absolute mean benefit from oseltamivir was 1·02 days (95% [BCrI] 0·74-1·31) overall, and in the prespecified subgroups, ranged from 0·70 (95% BCrI 0·30-1·20) in patients younger than 12 years, with less severe symptoms, no comorbidities, and shorter previous illness duration to 3·20 (95% BCrI 1·00-5·50) in patients aged 65 years or older who had more severe illness, comorbidities, and longer previous illness duration. Regarding harms, an increased burden of vomiting or nausea was observed in the oseltamivir group.

INTERPRETATION:

Primary care patients with influenza-like illness treated with oseltamivir recovered one day sooner on average than those managed by usual care alone. Older, sicker patients with comorbidities and longer previous symptom duration recovered 2-3 days sooner.

FUNDING:

European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme.

PURPOSE:

Case management (CM) interventions are effective for frequent users of health care services, but little is known about which intervention characteristics lead to positive outcomes. We sought to identify characteristics of CM that yield positive outcomes among frequent users with chronic disease in primary care.

METHODS:

For this systematic review of both quantitative and qualitative studies, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO (1996 to September 2017) and included articles meeting the following criteria: (1)population: adult frequent users with chronic disease, (2)intervention: CM in a primary care setting with a postintervention evaluation, and (3)primary outcomes: integration of services, health care system use, cost, and patient outcome measures. Independent reviewers screened abstracts, read full texts, appraised methodologic quality (Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool), and extracted data from the included studies. Sufficient and necessary CM intervention characteristics were identified using configurational comparative methods.

RESULTS:

Of the 10,687 records retrieved, 20 studies were included; 17 quantitative, 2 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods study. Analyses revealed that it is necessary to identify patients most likely to benefit from a CM intervention for CM to produce positive outcomes. High-intensity intervention or the presence of a multidisciplinary/interorganizational care plan was also associated with positive outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS:

Policy makers and clinicians should focus on their case-finding processes because this is the essential characteristic of CM effectiveness. In addition, value should be placed on high-intensity CM interventions and developing care plans with multiple types of care providers to help improve patient outcomes.