Balance training (proprioceptive training) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Relationship between Falls and the Use of Medications and Diseases in an Otago Exercise Programme in Old People Living in the Community in Spain

(1) Background: Falls are a significant health problem among older adults, and can result in severe injuries, disability, and even death. In Spain, the prevalence of falls is lower if the person lives in the community than if they are institutionalized. Research has shown that exercise is an effective strategy for reducing the risk of falls among older adults. The objective of this study was to study the influence of a multicomponent exercise intervention on falls in people between 65 and 80 years of age despite the presence of diseases and drug use that are risk factors for falls; (2) Methods: This is a quasi-experimental study that focuses on people aged 65–80 who attended 21 primary healthcare centres. Target: Inclusion criteria were people between 65 and 80 years of age, living in the community with independent ambulation, and who were served by the healthcare centre of their region. Variables analysed: The number and characteristics of falls, sociodemographic, drug use, and previous diseases; (3) Results: The drugs associated with falls are benzodiazepines (OR 2.58), vasodilators (OR = 2.51), and psychotropics (OR = 1.61). For one of the years, a relationship was found between the consumption of antidepressants and falls (OR = 1.83). The associated diseases were mental and behavioural (OR = 2.53); (4) Discussion: The intervention has been related to the reduction in falls in people who consumed benzodiazepines, vasodilators, and psychotropics and in people with mental disorders; (5) Conclusion: This research concludes the importance of the implementation of the Otago Exercise Programme in the prevention of falls in the elderly.

Balance and prospective falls in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Background

Postural control is associated with fall risk. Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a higher risk to fall than healthy subjects. The objective of this study was to identify associations between variables of postural control with prospective falls in patients with RA.

Methods

For the baseline, the balance performance of 289 men and women with RA, ages 24–85 years, was evaluated by SPPB, FICSIT-4 and Romberg tests. Postural sway for Romberg, semitandem, tandem and one-leg stands were measured with the Leonardo Mechanograph®. Self-reported disability was assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Activity-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC-scale). Falls were reported in quarterly reports over a year. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to explore any associations with falling. Receiver-operating characteristics were determined, and the area under the curve is reported.

Results

A total of 238 subjects completed the 1-year follow-up, 48 (20.2%) experienced at least one fall during the observational period. Age (OR = 1.04, CI 1.01–1.07), HAQ (OR = 1.62, 1.1–2.38), FICSIT-4 scoring 0–4 (OR = 2.38, 1.13–5.0), and one-leg standing (OR = 2.14, 1.06–4.31) showed significant associations with falls. With regard to the SPPB and ABC-scale, no statistically significant associations with falls were found. The quartiles containing the worst results of medio-lateral sway of Romberg (OR = 2.63, CI 1.03–6.69), total sway of semitandem (OR = 3.07, CI 1.10–8.57) and tandem (OR = 2.86, CI 1.06–7.69), and area of sway of semitandem (OR = 2.80, CI 1.11–7.08) stands were associated with falls.

Conclusions

The assessment of a one-leg stand seems to be a good screening tool to discriminate between high and low risk of falls in RA patients in clinical practice. A low FICSIT-4 score and several sway parameters are important predictors of falls.

Trial registration

The study has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) since 16 March 2017 (DRKS00011873).

Association between sarcopenia, physical performance and falls in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a 1-year prospective study

Background

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are at increased risk of falls and fractures. Sarcopenia occurs more frequently in RA patients due to the inflammatory processes. Early diagnosis and prevention programmes are essential to avoid serious complications. The present study aims to identify risk factors for falls related to sarcopenia and physical performance.

Methods

In a 1-year prospective study, a total of 289 patients with RA, ages 24–85 years, were followed using quarterly fall diaries to report falls. At the baseline, medical data such as RA disease duration and Disease Activity Score (DAS28_CRP) were collected. Self-reported disability was assessed using the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). Appendicular skeletal mass was determined by Dual X-ray-Absorptiometry (DXA). Physical performance was evaluated by handgrip strength, gait speed, chair rise test, Short Physical Performance Battery, and FICSIT-4. Muscle mechanography was measured with the Leonardo Mechanograph®. Sarcopenia was assessed according to established definitions by the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People (EWGSOP2) and The Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH). Univariate and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to explore associations with falling. Receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) were performed, and the area under the curve is reported.

Results

A total of 238 subjects with RA completed the 1-year follow-up, 48 (20.2%) experienced at least one fall during the observational period. No association was found between sarcopenia and prospective falls. Age (OR = 1.04, CI 1.01–1.07), HAQ (OR = 1.62, 1.1–2.38), and low FICSIT-4 score (OR = 2.38, 1.13–5.0) showed significant associations with falls.

Conclusions

In clinical practice, a fall assessment including age, self-reported activities of daily life and a physical performance measure can identify RA patients at risk of falling.

Trial registration

The study has been registered at the German Clinical Trials Register and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) since 16 March 2017 (DRKS00011873).

Exercise-induced hypoalgesia: A meta-analysis of exercise dosing for the treatment of chronic pain

OBJECTIVE

Increasing evidence purports exercise as a first-line therapeutic for the treatment of nearly all forms of chronic pain. However, knowledge of efficacious dosing respective to treatment modality and pain condition is virtually absent in the literature. The purpose of this analysis was to calculate the extent to which exercise treatment shows dose-dependent effects similar to what is seen with pharmacological treatments.

METHODS

A recently published comprehensive review of exercise and physical activity for chronic pain in adults was identified in May 2017. This report reviewed different physical activity and exercise interventions and their effectiveness in reducing pain severity and found overall modest effects of exercise in the treatment of pain. We analyzed this existing data set, focusing specifically on the dose of exercise intervention in these studies. We re-analyzed data from 75 studies looking at benefits of time of exercising per week, frequency of exercise per week, duration of intervention (in weeks), and estimated intensity of exercise.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed a significant positive correlation with exercise duration and analgesic effect on neck pain. Multiple linear regression modeling of these data predicted that increasing the frequency of exercise sessions per week is most likely to have a positive effect on chronic pain patients.

DISCUSSION

Modest effects were observed with one significant correlation between duration and pain effect for neck pain. Overall, these results provide insufficient evidence to conclude the presence of a strong dose effect of exercise in pain, but our modeling data provide tes predictions that can be used to design future studies to explicitly test the question of dose in specific patient populations.

Programme frequency, type, time and duration do not explain the effects of balance exercise in older adults: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of different balance exercise interventions compared with non-balance exercise controls on balance task performance in older adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until July 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials of balance exercise interventions for older adults were identified for extraction of eligible randomised trials. Eligibility criteria for inclusion of randomised trials in meta-analyses were comparison of a balance exercise intervention with a control group that did not perform balance exercises, report of at least one end-intervention balance outcome measurement that was consistent with the five subgroups of balance exercise identified, and full-text article available in English.

RESULTS

Ninety-five trials were included in meta-analyses and 80 in meta-regressions. For four balance exercise types (control centre of mass, multidimensional, mobility and reaching), significant effects for balance exercise interventions were found in meta-analyses (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31-0.50), however with considerable heterogeneity in observed effects (I²: 50.4%-80.6%). Risk of bias assessments (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and funnel plots) did not explain heterogeneity. One significant relationship identified in the meta-regressions of SMD and balance exercise frequency, time and duration explained 2.1% of variance for the control centre of mass subgroup.

CONCLUSION

Limitations to this study included the variability in design of balance interventions, incomplete reporting of data and statistical heterogeneity. The design of balance exercise programmes provides inadequate explanation of the observed benefits of these interventions.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.

METHODS

We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Physical activity and exercise for chronic pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is defined as pain lasting beyond normal tissue healing time, generally taken to be 12 weeks. It contributes to disability, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, poor quality of life, and healthcare costs. Chronic pain has a weighted mean prevalence in adults of 20%.For many years, the treatment choice for chronic pain included recommendations for rest and inactivity. However, exercise may have specific benefits in reducing the severity of chronic pain, as well as more general benefits associated with improved overall physical and mental health, and physical functioning.Physical activity and exercise programmes are increasingly being promoted and offered in various healthcare systems, and for a variety of chronic pain conditions. It is therefore important at this stage to establish the efficacy and safety of these programmes, and furthermore to address the critical factors that determine their success or failure.

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of Cochrane Reviews of adults with chronic pain to determine (1) the effectiveness of different physical activity and exercise interventions in reducing pain severity and its impact on function, quality of life, and healthcare use; and (2) the evidence for any adverse effects or harm associated with physical activity and exercise interventions.

METHODS

We searched theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) on the Cochrane Library (CDSR 2016, Issue 1) for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), after which we tracked any included reviews for updates, and tracked protocols in case of full review publication until an arbitrary cut-off date of 21 March 2016 (CDSR 2016, Issue 3). We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the AMSTAR tool, and also planned to analyse data for each painful condition based on quality of the evidence.We extracted data for (1) self-reported pain severity, (2) physical function (objectively or subjectively measured), (3) psychological function, (4) quality of life, (5) adherence to the prescribed intervention, (6) healthcare use/attendance, (7) adverse events, and (8) death.Due to the limited data available, we were unable to directly compare and analyse interventions, and have instead reported the evidence qualitatively.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 reviews with 381 included studies and 37,143 participants. Of these, 264 studies (19,642 participants) examined exercise versus no exercise/minimal intervention in adults with chronic pain and were used in the qualitative analysis.Pain conditions included rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, low back pain, intermittent claudication, dysmenorrhoea, mechanical neck disorder, spinal cord injury, postpolio syndrome, and patellofemoral pain. None of the reviews assessed 'chronic pain' or 'chronic widespread pain' as a general term or specific condition. Interventions included aerobic, strength, flexibility, range of motion, and core or balance training programmes, as well as yoga, Pilates, and tai chi.Reviews were well performed and reported (based on AMSTAR), and included studies had acceptable risk of bias (with inadequate reporting of attrition and reporting biases). However the quality of evidence was low due to participant numbers (most included studies had fewer than 50 participants in total), length of intervention and follow-up (rarely assessed beyond three to six months). We pooled the results from relevant reviews where appropriate, though results should be interpreted with caution due to the low quality evidence. Pain severity: several reviews noted favourable results from exercise: only three reviews that reported pain severity found no statistically significant changes in usual or mean pain from any intervention. However, results were inconsistent across interventions and follow-up, as exercise did not consistently bring about a change (positive or negative) in self-reported pain scores at any single point. Physical function: was the most commonly reported outcome measure. Physical function was significantly improved as a result of the intervention in 14 reviews, though even these statistically significant results had only small-to-moderate effect sizes (only one review reported large effect sizes). Psychological function and quality of life: had variable results: results were either favourable to exercise (generally small and moderate effect size, with two reviews reporting significant, large effect sizes for quality of life), or showed no difference between groups. There were no negative effects. Adherence to the prescribed intervention: could not be assessed in any review. However, risk of withdrawal/dropout was slightly higher in the exercising group (82.8/1000 participants versus 81/1000 participants), though the group difference was non-significant. Healthcare use/attendance: was not reported in any review. Adverse events, potential harm, and death: only 25% of included studies (across 18 reviews) actively reported adverse events. Based on the available evidence, most adverse events were increased soreness or muscle pain, which reportedly subsided after a few weeks of the intervention. Only one review reported death separately to other adverse events: the intervention was protective against death (based on the available evidence), though did not reach statistical significance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the evidence examining physical activity and exercise for chronic pain is low. This is largely due to small sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. A number of studies had adequately long interventions, but planned follow-up was limited to less than one year in all but six reviews.There were some favourable effects in reduction in pain severity and improved physical function, though these were mostly of small-to-moderate effect, and were not consistent across the reviews. There were variable effects for psychological function and quality of life.The available evidence suggests physical activity and exercise is an intervention with few adverse events that may improve pain severity and physical function, and consequent quality of life. However, further research is required and should focus on increasing participant numbers, including participants with a broader spectrum of pain severity, and lengthening both the intervention itself, and the follow-up period.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing job loss in workers with inflammatory arthritis

BACKGROUND

Work participation of patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA) is important not only economically but also for physical and psychological health. There is no Cochrane Review to date on studies of non-pharmacological interventions specifically aimed at preventing job loss in people with IA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of non-pharmacological interventions that aim to prevent job loss, work absenteeism or improve work functioning for employees with IA (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), other spondylarthritis (SpA) or IA associated with connective tissue diseases, such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception up to 30 April 2014; The Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, i.e. CENTRAL and DARE), MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Embase.com), CINAHL (EbSCOhost), ClinicalTrials.gov and PsycINFO (ProQuest). We did not impose language restrictions in the search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated interventions aimed at preventing job loss in adults of working age (18 to 65 years) diagnosed with IA, including RA, AS, PsA, SpA or other types of IA. Primary outcomes were job loss and sickness absenteeism and the secondary outcome was work functioning.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included RCTs.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs with a total of 414 participants at risk of job loss. The majority of participants had IA, most with RA and to a lesser degree AS. The interventions aimed to prevent job loss and improve work functioning in several ways: firstly by evaluating work changes or adaptations and secondly by providing any person-directed interventions including vocational counselling, advice or education. Interventions directly targeted at the work environment were minimal and included workplace visits (one trial) or any actions by an occupational physician (one trial). The duration or dose of the interventions varied from two 1.5-hour sessions (one RCT) over five months, two consultation and multidisciplinary treatments during three months (one RCT), to six to eight individual or group sessions over six months (also one RCT). All participants were recruited through rheumatology clinics, both in or outside hospitals. Included trials investigated job loss (n = two RCTs; 382 participants), work absenteeism and work functioning (n = one RCT; 32 participants). Overall, we evaluated the two smaller trials as having a high risk of bias and the large trial as having a low risk of bias. Trials showed marked differences in how they performed on risk of bias items, particularly on performance bias.We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach and judged there to be very low quality evidence across the three reported outcomes. Of the two RCTs investigating job loss, the larger one (n = 242 participants) reported a large statistically significant reduction in job loss (relative risk (RR) = 0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.68) and the other RCT (n = 140) reported similar effects in both groups, although the CI was very wide (RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.06). The latter one probably suffered from performance bias and we judged it to have a high risk of bias. The one small trial investigating sickness absenteeism found uncertain results at six months' follow-up (MD = -2.42 days, 95% CI -5.03 to 0.19). Finally, in the same small trial investigating work functioning using the Rheumatoid Arthritis-Work Instability Scale (RA-WIS), there was a moderate improvement of intermediate term work functioning (six months; scale range 0 to 23; mean improvement -4.67 points, 95% CI -8.43 to -0.91). We identified no adverse effects in the publications of the three trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane review of three RCTs found very low quality evidence overall for job loss prevention interventions having an effect on job loss, work absenteeism and work functioning in workers with inflammatory arthritis. While this review highlights that further high quality RCTs are required, the results suggest that these strategies have potential to be effective.

Benefits of exercise in rheumatoid arthritis

This paper aims to highlight the importance of exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to demonstrate the multitude of beneficial effects that properly designed exercise training has in this population. RA is a chronic, systemic, autoimmune disease characterised by decrements to joint health including joint pain and inflammation, fatigue, increased incidence and progression of cardiovascular disease, and accelerated loss of muscle mass, that is, “rheumatoid cachexia”. These factors contribute to functional limitation, disability, comorbidities, and reduced quality of life. Exercise training for RA patients has been shown to be efficacious in reversing cachexia and substantially improving function without exacerbating disease activity and is likely to reduce cardiovascular risk. Thus, all RA patients should be encouraged to include aerobic and resistance exercise training as part of routine care. Understanding the perceptions of RA patients and health professionals to exercise is key to patients initiating and adhering to effective exercise training.