Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of duloxetine added to usual care for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a pragmatic open-label cluster randomised trial (the DUO trial)

Series: Public engagement with research. Part 4: Maximising the benefits of involving the public in research implementation

This final article in the four-part series focuses on the often neglected yet important role of the public in implementing research in General Practice and Primary Care more broadly. Experience in implementation of findings from research with public engagement in Primary Care has highlighted how partnership working with patients and the public is important in transitioning from 'what we know' from the evidence-base to 'what we do' in practice. Factors related to Primary Care research that make public engagement important are highlighted e.g. implementing complex interventions, implementing interventions that increase health equity, implementing interventions in countries with different primary healthcare system strengths. Involvement of patients and public can enhance the development of modelling and simulation included in studies on systems modelling for improving health services. We draw on the emerging evidence base to describe public engagement in implementation and offer some guiding principles for engaging with the public in the implementation in General Practice and Primary Care in general. Illustrative case studies are included to support others wishing to offer meaningful engagement in implementing research evidence.

No added value of duloxetine for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomised trial

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost‐effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives.

Methods

We conducted an open‐label, cluster‐randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0–20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data.

Results

In total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference –0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference –0.26 [95% CI –1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference –0.32 [95% CI –2.32, 1.67]).

Conclusion

We found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results.

The rise of hospitalists: an opportunity for infectious diseases investigators

INTRODUCTION

Despite the essential role played by infectious diseases specialists in patient care, public health, cost-containment, and biomedical research, the field has a substantially higher percentage of vacant positions than other medicine sub-specialties. While much has been written about what this disturbing trend means for patient care, comparatively little attention has been focused on the dire implications for clinical research and the development of novel anti-infective therapy. Areas covered: We examine the ways that hospitalists and infectious disease specialists might collaborate to study emerging diagnostic platforms, novel antimicrobial agents, and strengthen antimicrobial stewardship programs to improve the delivery of high-quality health care. Through the use of PubMed, the manuscript reviews existing collaborations as well as those that might develop in the years to come. Expert commentary: In this paper, we propose potential strategies to confront this emerging problem, focusing on novel collaborations with the hospitalist - the specialist in inpatient medicine - to bolster the pipeline of funding for clinical infectious diseases investigators.