Midlands Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management. INTRODUCTION: The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. METHODS: Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence. RESULTS: Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement. CONCLUSION: The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This systematic review synthesized evidence from European neck and low back pain (NLBP) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommended treatment options for use across Europe. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: Comprehensive searches of thirteen databases were conducted, from 1st January 2013 to 4th May 2020 to identify up-to-date evidence-based European CPGs for primary care management of NLBP, issued by professional bodies/organizations. Data extracted included; aim and target population, methods for development and implementation and treatment recommendations. The AGREE II checklist was used to critically appraise guidelines. Criteria were devised to summarize and synthesize the direction and strength of recommendations across guidelines. RESULTS: Seventeen CPGs (11 low back; 5 neck; 1 both) from eight European countries were identified, of which seven were high quality. For neck pain, there were consistent weak or moderate strength recommendations for: reassurance, advice and education, manual therapy, referral for exercise therapy/programme, oral analgesics and topical medications, plus psychological therapies or multidisciplinary treatment for specific subgroups. Notable recommendation differences between back and neck pain included, i) analgesics for neck pain (not for back pain); ii) options for back pain-specific subgroups-work-based interventions, return to work advice/programmes and surgical interventions (but not for neck pain) and iii) a greater strength of recommendations (generally moderate or strong) for back pain than those for neck pain. CONCLUSIONS: This review of European CPGs identified a range of mainly non-pharmacological recommended treatment options for NLBP that have broad consensus for use across Europe. SIGNIFICANCE: Consensus regarding evidence-based treatment recommendations for patients with neck and low back pain (NLBP) from recent European clinical practice guidelines identifies a wide range of predominantly non-pharmacological treatment options. This includes options potentially applicable to all patients with NLBP and those applicable to only specific patient subgroups. Future work within our Back-UP research team will transfer these evidence-based treatment options to an accessible clinician decision support tool for first contact clinicians.

This "Year in review" presents a selection of research themes and individual studies from the clinical osteoarthritis (OA) field (epidemiology and therapy) and includes noteworthy descriptive, analytical-observational, and intervention studies. The electronic database search for the review was conducted in Medline, Embase and medRxiv (15th April 2020 to 1st April 2021). Following study screening, the following OA-related themes emerged: COVID-19; disease burden; occupational risk; prediction models; cartilage loss and pain; stem cell treatments; novel pharmacotherapy trials; therapy for less well researched OA phenotypes; benefits and challenges of Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analyses; patient choice-balancing benefits and harms; OA and comorbidity; and inequalities in OA. Headline study findings included: a longitudinal cohort study demonstrating no evidence for a harmful effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in terms of COVID-19 related deaths; a Global Burden of Disease study reporting a 102% increase in crude incidence rate of OA in 2017 compared to 1990; a longitudinal study reporting cartilage thickness loss was associated with only a very small degree of worsening in pain over 2 years; an exploratory analysis of a non-OA randomised controlled trial (RCT) finding reduced risk of total joint replacement with an Interleukin -1β inhibitor (canakinumab); a significant relationship between cumulative disadvantage and clinical outcomes of pain and depression mediated by perceived discrimination in a secondary analysis from a RCT; worsening socioeconomic circumstances were associated with future arthritis diagnosis in an innovative natural experiment (with implications for unique research possibilities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic context).

BACKGROUND: An unknown proportion of people who had an apparently mild COVID-19 infection continue to suffer with persistent symptoms, including chest pain, shortness of breath, muscle and joint pains, headaches, cognitive impairment ('brain fog'), and fatigue. Post-acute COVID-19 ('long-COVID') seems to be a multisystem disease, sometimes occurring after a mild acute illness; people struggling with these persistent symptoms refer to themselves as 'long haulers'. AIM: To explore experiences of people with persisting symptoms following COVID-19 infection, and their views on primary care support received. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative methodology, with semi-structured interviews to explore perspectives of people with persisting symptoms following suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. Participants were recruited via social media between July-August 2020. METHOD: Interviews were conducted by telephone or video call, digitally recorded, and transcribed with consent. Thematic analysis was conducted applying constant comparison techniques. People with experience of persisting symptoms contributed to study design and data analysis. RESULTS: of enduring and managing symptoms and accessing care; living with uncertainty, helplessness and fear, particularly over whether recovery is possible; the importance of finding the 'right' GP (understanding, empathy, and support needed); and recovery and rehabilitation: what would help? CONCLUSION: This study will raise awareness among primary care professionals, and commissioners, of long-COVID and the range of symptoms people are experiencing. Patients require their GP to believe their symptoms and to demonstrate empathy and understanding. Ongoing support by primary care professionals during recovery and rehabilitation is crucial.

The British Thoracic Society (BTS) Home Oxygen Guideline provides detailed evidence-based guidance for the use of home oxygen for patients out of hospital. Although the majority of evidence comes from the use of oxygen in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the scope of the guidance includes patients with a variety of long-term respiratory illnesses and other groups in whom oxygen is currently ordered, such as those with cardiac failure, cancer and end-stage cardiorespiratory disease, terminal illness or cluster headache. It explores the evidence base for the use of different modalities of oxygen therapy and patient-related outcomes such as mortality, symptoms and quality of life. The guideline also makes recommendations for assessment and follow-up protocols, and risk assessments, particularly in the clinically challenging area of home oxygen users who smoke. The guideline development group is aware of the potential for confusion sometimes caused by the current nomenclature for different types of home oxygen, and rather than renaming them, has adopted the approach of clarifying those definitions, and in particular emphasising what is meant by long-term oxygen therapy and palliative oxygen therapy. The home oxygen guideline provides expert consensus opinion in areas where clinical evidence is lacking, and seeks to deliver improved prescribing practice, leading to improved compliance and improved patient outcomes, with consequent increased value to the health service.

OBJECTIVES: We previously found large variations in general practitioner (GP) hypertension treatment probability in oldest-old (>80 years) between countries. We wanted to explore whether differences in country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden and life expectancy could explain the differences. DESIGN: This is a survey study using case-vignettes of oldest-old patients with different comorbidities and blood pressure levels. An ecological multilevel model analysis was performed. SETTING: GP respondents from European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) countries, Brazil and New Zeeland. SUBJECTS: This study included 2543 GPs from 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GP treatment probability to start or not start antihypertensive treatment based on responses to case-vignettes; either low (<50% started treatment) or high (≥50% started treatment). CVD burden is defined as ratio of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to ischemic heart disease and/or stroke and total DALYs lost per country; life expectancy at age 60 and prevalence of oldest-old per country. RESULTS: Of 1947 GPs (76%) responding to all vignettes, 787 (40%) scored high treatment probability and 1160 (60%) scored low. GPs in high CVD burden countries had higher odds of treatment probability (OR 3.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00-4.57); in countries with low life expectancy at 60, CVD was associated with high treatment probability (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.12-4.25); but not in countries with high life expectancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.56-1.98). CONCLUSIONS: GPs' choice to treat/not treat hypertension in oldest-old was explained by differences in country-specific health characteristics. GPs in countries with high CVD burden and low life expectancy at age 60 were most likely to treat hypertension in oldest-old. Key Points • General practitioners (GPs) are in a clinical dilemma when deciding whether (or not) to treat hypertension in the oldest-old (>80 years of age). • In this study including 1947 GPs from 29 countries, we found that a high country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden (i.e. myocardial infarction and/or stroke) was associated with a higher GP treatment probability in patients aged >80 years. • However, the association was modified by country-specific life expectancy at age 60. While there was a positive association for GPs in countries with a low life expectancy at age 60, there was no association in countries with a high life expectancy at age 60. • These findings help explaining some of the large variation seen in the decision as to whether or not to treat hypertension in the oldest-old.

This international guideline proposes improving clozapine package inserts worldwide by using ancestry-based dosing and titration. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) databases suggest that clozapine is the third most toxic drug in the United States (US), and it produces four times higher worldwide pneumonia mortality than that by agranulocytosis or myocarditis. For trough steady-state clozapine serum concentrations, the therapeutic reference range is narrow, from 350 to 600 ng/mL with the potential for toxicity and ADRs as concentrations increase. Clozapine is mainly metabolized by CYP1A2 (female non-smokers, the lowest dose; male smokers, the highest dose). Poor metabolizer status through phenotypic conversion is associated with co-prescription of inhibitors (including oral contraceptives and valproate), obesity, or inflammation with C-reactive protein (CRP) elevations. The Asian population (Pakistan to Japan) or the Americas' original inhabitants have lower CYP1A2 activity and require lower clozapine doses to reach concentrations of 350 ng/mL. In the US, daily doses of 300-600 mg/day are recommended. Slow personalized titration may prevent early ADRs (including syncope, myocarditis, and pneumonia). This guideline defines six personalized titration schedules for inpatients: 1) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing minimum therapeutic dosages of 75-150 mg/day, 2) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average metabolism needing 175-300 mg/day, 3) European/Western Asian ancestry with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 100-200 mg/day, 4) European/Western Asian ancestry with average metabolism needing 250-400 mg/day, 5) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower clozapine metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 150-300 mg/day, and 6) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average clozapine metabolism needing 300-600 mg/day. Baseline and weekly CRP monitoring for at least four weeks is required to identify any inflammation, including inflammation secondary to clozapine rapid titration.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is a major public health concern. Increasing ageing populations and high risk of suicide in later life highlight the importance of identification of the particular characteristics of self-harm in older adults.AimTo systematically review characteristics of self-harm in older adults. METHODS: A comprehensive search for primary studies on self-harm in older adults was conducted in e-databases (AgeLine, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science) from their inception to February 2018. Using predefined criteria, articles were independently screened and assessed for methodological quality. Data were synthesised following a narrative approach. A patient advisory group advised on the design, conduct and interpretation of findings. RESULTS: A total of 40 articles (n = 62 755 older adults) were included. Yearly self-harm rates were 19 to 65 per 100 000 people. Self-poisoning was the most commonly reported method. Comorbid physical problems were common. Increased risk repetition was reported among older adults with self-harm history and previous and current psychiatric treatment. Loss of control, increased loneliness and perceived burdensome ageing were reported self-harm motivations. CONCLUSIONS: Self-harm in older adults has distinct characteristics that should be explored to improve management and care. Although risk of further self-harm and suicide is high in all age cohorts, risk of suicide is higher in older adults. Given the frequent contact with health services, an opportunity exists for detection and prevention of self-harm and suicide in this population. These results are limited to research in hospital-based settings and community-based studies are needed to fully understand self-harm among older adults.Declaration of interestNone.

To the Editor, We would like to share the experiences we have recently had while conducting online qualitative studies. We believe people have contacted members of our research teams, offering to participate in interviews for a health study, who were not the people they initially purported to be. We reimburse participants to cover time and expenses for their involvement in research, with varying views on the complex issue of incentivization.1 We also acknowledge the benefits of adapting to COVID-19 via online qualitative research: this data can be as rich and valuable as that obtained in face-to-face settings2; social media can provide excellent avenues of recruitment (especially for seldom heard participants); while data collection can be more economical in terms of time and cost, including compared to physical R&D site negotiations. Researchers collecting data in this way can more easily reach large geographical areas, and online is also a greener option than travelling long distances for interviews.3, 4 Additionally, it is not unheard of for participants to falsify their identities in face-to-face research.5 Suspect participants sometimes cited recruitment sites that were not used by the study More than one suspect participant gave the same social media platform as their source for learning about the study, despite the use of multiple platforms for recruitment in a study Participants responded quickly, sometimes within minutes, of recruitment advertisements being posted on social media, and some of these posted multiple follow-up emails in quick succession Emails from multiple suspect participants had similar configurations and frequently came from the same email platform Blank subject lines in emails expressing interest in the study (as well as emails that were only a sentence or two long) were common, with some potential participants copying text from recruitment ads verbatim In some cases, a single participant was suspected of slightly changing their story and sociodemographics to complete multiple interviews, which could be difficult to detect quickly, especially where more than one researcher was conducting interviews (i.e., suspect interviews were spread across different data collectors) Researchers noted matches between participants' voices, stories and limitations in accounts of the health condition under investigation, as well as similar sociodemographic profiles Concerns about timing and methods of payment were a priority for the participant There were requests for payment via PayPal or in the form of vouchers, and a reticence to share bank details for bankers' automated clearing system (BACS) payments, citing concerns around confidentiality Researcher requests for details of participants' professional backgrounds resulted in participants verbatim copying a profession from the examples listed in the recruitment advertisement ‘Health professional’ participants declined to give their work (e.g., National Health Service [NHS]) email for verification purposes, claiming concerns around anonymity (even if conversations about the study were permitted to be carried out via personal email) Requests for an institutional email address to authenticate participants' profession before payment resulted in no further communication from those participants Suspect participants who were interviewed via video links chose to keep their cameras off, citing a range of reasons, for example, shyness Preference was expressed for online interviews (albeit with the camera turned off) over telephone interviews, and there was a reticence to disclose a telephone contact number Interview questions elicited vague answers, and participants seemed distracted or otherwise occupied during interviews This phenomenon is not something we, as a group of researchers, had come across pre-COVID. We wondered if it might be related to the accelerated move to online research methods necessitated by the pandemic,6 and especially the cost of living crisis in the United Kingdom and globally,7 with people needing to find ways of boosting their income in the face of soaring inflation. Nevertheless, we expect that motivations varied. Importantly, this is not a new problem; Hydock8 discovered that a ‘small but nontrivial portion of participants’ engaging in online survey studies ‘misrepresented their identity for the chance of financial gain’ (p. 1566). Other authors have suggested that the falsification of identity in online surveys is more widespread than suggested by Hydock.9, 10 Roehl and Harding11 argue that participants in online qualitative research have a good opportunity to perform an identity to volunteer for research studies when they do not meet inclusion criteria. They (and those discussing self-reported survey research) recommend that researchers plan their recruitment procedures, data collection and approach to analyses to protect data from ‘dishonest’ participants.8, 12 We note that fraudulent participation in qualitative research is an apparently newer and potentially more complex endeavour than carrying out online survey response scams. Considering closing recruitment from the social media source singled out by suspect participants Participants sending subsequent suspect requests to participate politely advised that recruitment had closed for their particular sociodemographic Checking email configurations and formats of all new participation requests for patterns Being up-to-date with information security as well as means for identifying phishing (and accessing training available) in researchers' organizations Checking names on professional registers to authenticate professional participants Considering BACS payments for reimbursement, as opposed to vouchers Where participants give similar or odd stories, researchers review these particular accounts Where multiple study team members are carrying out qualitative interviews, it is helpful for interviewers to meet and regularly review accounts in the data, thus ensuring any potential issue is identified as quickly as possible Removal of the suspect interview data from the study During recruitment, how could I verify that the participants meet the inclusion criteria? How confident can I be in this information? During data collection, was the participant hesitant or flustered when asked probing questions for additional detail? Did I document impressions of honesty in my reflexive journal? Did the participant's answers make sense, and were they detailed enough about the topic being researched? Jones et al.13 advise that qualitative data is rich in detail, making it easier to spot dubious data. However, just because a participant does not provide a detailed description, does not necessarily mean they are an imposter. Not all qualitative interviews go well or result in illuminating data. Balancing a need to build rapport with participants, while being cognizant of potential imposters, is a first step for researchers to determine whether a participant is indeed an imposter or is simply giving an interview that yields less substantial data. In conclusion, recruiting participants online and conducting virtual interviews are likely to become increasingly popular practices for qualitative researchers. All qualitative researchers using online methods should consider and prepare a protocol for dealing with potential imposter participants in their qualitative studies. And at a time when even recent internet-mediated research ethics guidelines are yet to get to grips with the problem,14 ethics committees should be seen as having an important role in scrutinizing online ‘imposter participant protocols’. For example, interviewers can feel uneasy about doubting the authenticity of participants, meaning there are impacts on the researcher. We believe it is important for principal investigators to permit researchers to voice uncertainty about authenticity in research teams, and to debrief with members in cases of suspected imposter participants, thus addressing issues like self-blame. Additionally, discussing this potential problem in the planning stages of studies with patient and public involvement or advisory groups is likely to prove valuable in helping us to get the balance right in giving voice to our participants and maintaining the integrity of our research. Should we consider any other factors? For example, if you become aware that a participant is being dishonest during an interview, how do you handle this in real time? What kinds of safety risks might a researcher be opening themselves up to from an imposter participant? We would welcome discussion amongst readers of HEX on the issue of imposter participants in qualitative research. Damien Ridge: Co-ordination of letter drafting; conceptualization; contribution of content; review and editing; and approval of the final manuscript. Laurna Bullock: Conceptualization; review and editing; and approval of the final manuscript. Hilary Causer and Samantha Hider: Conceptualization; contribution of content; review and editing; and approval of the final manuscript. Tom Kingstone: Conceptualization; contribution of content; supported drafting of the letter; review and editing; and approval of the final manuscript. Lauren Gray: Review and editing; and approval of the final manuscript. Ruth Riley, Tamsin Fisher and Victoria Silverwood: Conceptualisation; review and approval of the final manuscript. Nina Smyth: Contribution of content; conceptualization; supported drafting of the letter; review and editing; and approval of the final manuscript. Johanna Spiers: Contribution of content; review and editing; copy editing and approval of the final manuscript. Jane Southam: Review and approval of the final manuscript. There are no acknowledgements for this letter. The authors of this letter work closely with Professor Carolyn Chew-Graham, who is Editor in Chief of Health Expectations. There are no ethical requirements for this letter/opinion piece.

BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to estimate the population prevalence and distribution of plantar heel pain in mid-to-older age groups, examine associations with selected health status and lifestyle factors, and report the frequency of healthcare use. METHODS: Adults aged ≥50 years registered with four general practices were mailed a health survey (n = 5109 responders). Plantar heel pain in the last month was defined by self-reported shading on a foot manikin, and was defined as disabling if at least one of the function items of the Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index were also reported. Population prevalence estimates and associations between plantar heel pain and demographic characteristics, health status measures and lifestyle factors were estimated using multiple imputation and weighted logistic regression. Healthcare professional consultation was summarised as the 12-month period prevalence of foot pain-related consultation. RESULTS: The population prevalence of plantar heel pain was 9.6% (95% CI: 8.8, 10.5) and 7.9% (7.1, 8.7) for disabling plantar heel pain. Occurrence was slightly higher in females, comparable across age-groups, and significantly higher in those with intermediate/routine and manual occupations. Plantar heel pain was associated with physical and mental impairment, more anxiety and depression, being overweight, a low previous use of high-heeled footwear, and lower levels of physical activity and participation. The 12-month period prevalence of foot pain-related consultation with a general practitioner, physiotherapist or podiatrist/chiropodist was 43.0, 15.1 and 32.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Plantar heel pain is a common, disabling symptom among adults aged 50 years and over. Observed patterns of association indicate that in addition to focused foot-specific management, primary care interventions should also target more general physical and psychological factors that could potentially act as barriers to treatment adherence and recovery.

Abstract Evidence from the Global Burden of Disease studies suggests that osteoarthritis (OA) is a significant cause of disability globally; however, it is less clear how much of this burden exists in low-income and lower middle-income countries. This study aims to determine the prevalence of OA in people living in low-income and lower middle-income countries. Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science) were systematically searched from inception to October 2018 for population-based studies. We included studies reporting the prevalence of OA among people aged 15 years and over in low-income and lower middle-income countries. The prevalence estimates were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Our study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018112870.The search identified 7414 articles, of which 356 articles were selected for full text assessment. 34 studies were eligible and included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of OA was 16·05% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12·55–19·89), with studies demonstrating a substantial degree of heterogeneity ( I 2 = 99·50%). The pooled prevalence of OA was 16.4% (CI 11·60–21.78%) in South Asia, 15.7% (CI 5·31–30·25%) in East Asia and Pacific, and 14.2% (CI 7·95–21·89%) in Sub Saharan Africa. The meta-regression analysis showed that publication year, study sample size, risk of bias score and country-income categories were significantly associated with the variations in the prevalence estimates. The prevalence of OA is high in low-income and lower middle-income countries, with almost one in six of the study participants reported to have OA. With the changing population demographics and the shift to the emergence of non-communicable diseases, targeted public health strategies are urgently needed to address this growing epidemic in the aging population.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had far-reaching effects upon lives, healthcare systems and society. Some who had an apparently 'mild' COVID-19 infection continue to suffer from persistent symptoms, including chest pain, breathlessness, fatigue, cognitive impairment, paraesthesia, muscle and joint pains. This has been labelled 'long COVID'. This paper reports the experiences of doctors with long COVID. METHODS: A qualitative study; interviews with doctors experiencing persistent symptoms were conducted by telephone or video call. Interviews were transcribed and analysis conducted using an inductive and thematic approach. RESULTS: Thirteen doctors participated. The following themes are reported: making sense of symptoms, feeling let down, using medical knowledge and connections, wanting to help and be helped, combining patient and professional identity. Experiencing long COVID can be transformative: many expressed hope that good would come of their experiences. Distress related to feelings of being 'let down' and the hard work of trying to access care. Participants highlighted that they felt better able to care for, and empathize with, patients with chronic conditions, particularly where symptoms are unexplained. CONCLUSIONS: The study adds to the literature on the experiences of doctors as patients, in particular where evidence is emerging and the patient has to take the lead in finding solutions to their problems and accessing their own care. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study was developed with experts by experience (including co-authors HA and TAB) who contributed to the protocol and ethics application, and commented on analysis and implications. All participants were given the opportunity to comment on findings.

A dissonance between espoused values of consumerism within mental health care and the 'reality' of clinical practice has been firmly established in the literature, not least in terms of service user involvement in care planning. In order to begin to minimize such dissonance, it is vital that mental health nurse perceptions of service user involvement in the core activity of care planning are better understood. The main findings of this qualitative study, which uses semistructured interviews, suggest that mental health nurses value the concept of user involvement but consider it to be problematic in certain circumstances. The study reveals that nurses hold similar views about the 'meaning' of patient involvement in care planning but limited resources, individual patients characteristics and limitations in nursing care are the main inhibiting factors. Factors perceived as promoting and increasing user involvement included: provision of accurate information, 'user-friendly' documentation, mechanisms for gaining service user feedback, and high staff morale.

Background: Contemporary data on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and axial spondyloarthritits (SpA) epidemiology in England are lacking. This knowledge is crucial to planning healthcare services. We updated algorithms defining patients with diagnoses of RA, PsA, and axial SpA in primary care and applied them to describe their incidence and prevalence in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, an electronic health record (EHR) database covering ∼20% of England. Methods: Algorithms for ascertaining patients with RA, axial SpA, and PsA diagnoses validated in primary care EHR databases using Read codes were updated (to account for the English NHS change to SNOMED CT diagnosis coding) and applied. Updated diagnosis and synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug code lists were devised by rheumatologists and general practitioners. Annual incidence/point-prevalence of RA, PsA, and axial SpA diagnoses were calculated from 2004 to 2020 and stratified by age/sex. Findings: Point-prevalence of RA/PsA diagnoses increased annually, peaking in 2019 (RA 0·779% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·773, 0·784]; PsA 0·287% [95% CI 0·284, 0·291]) then falling slightly. Point-prevalence of axial SpA diagnoses increased annually (except in 2018/2019), peaking in 2020 (0·113% [95% CI 0·111, 0·115]). RA diagnosis annual incidence was higher between 2013-2019 (after inclusion in the Quality and Outcomes Framework, range 49·1 [95% CI 47·7, 50·5] to 52·1 [95% CI 50·6, 53·6]/100,000 person-years) than 2004-2012 (range 34·5 [95% CI 33·2, 35·7] to 40·0 [95% CI 38·6, 41·4]/100,000 person-years). Increases in the annual incidence of PsA/axial SpA diagnosis occurred following new classification criteria publication. Annual incidence of RA, PsA and axial SpA diagnoses fell by 40·1%, 67·4%, and 38·1%, respectively between 2019 and 2020, likely reflecting the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on their diagnosis. Interpretation: Recorded RA, PsA, and axial SpA diagnoses are increasingly prevalent in England, underlining the importance of organising healthcare services to provide timely, treat-to-target care to optimise the health of >1% of adults in England. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300826).

< .001). In Asian countries, average clozapine doses are lower than 300 mg/day. After sex and smoking stratification in 5 Asian samples with clozapine concentrations, the clozapine dose required to reach 350 ng/ml in female non-smokers ranged from 145 to 189 mg/day and in male smokers, from 259 to 294 mg/day. Thus, in Asian patients with average metabolism (with no inducers other than smoking, with no inhibitors, and in the absence of extreme obesity), the dose needed for clinical response may range between 150 mg/day for female non-smokers to 300 mg/day for male smokers. Clozapine levels may help personalize dosing in clozapine poor metabolizers (PMs) and ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs). Asian PMs may need very low doses (50-150 mg/day) to obtain therapeutic concentrations. About 10% (range 2-13%) of Asians are genetic PM cases. Other PMs are patients taking CYP1A2 inhibitors such as fluvoxamine, oral contraceptives, and valproate. Temporary clozapine PM status may occur during severe systemic infections/inflammations with fever and C-reactive protein (CRP) elevations. Asian UMs include patients taking potent inducers such as phenytoin, and rarely, valproate.

Professionals in Rheumatology guideline for the management of gout was published in 2007 [1]. A revised and updated guideline is now required because of the availability of new pharmaceutical treatment options; recent increases in the incidence, prevalence and severity of gout [2]; continuing suboptimal management in both primary and secondary care [2, 3]; and better understanding of patient and provider barriers to effective care [4, 5].

An NSAID at maximum dose and colchicine in doses of 500 mg bdqds is the drugs of choice when there are no contraindications' to 'An NSAID at maximum dose or colchicine in doses of 500 mg bd-qds is the drug of choice when there are no contraindications.'

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current literature on pain assessment and pain treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia. METHOD: A comprehensive systematic search of the literature with narrative synthesis was conducted. Eight major bibliographic databases were searched in October 2018. Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were sequentially screened. Standardised data extraction and quality appraisal exercises were conducted. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included in the review, 11 reporting findings on pain assessment tools or methods and 27 reporting findings on treatments for pain. In regard to pain assessment, a large proportion of people with moderate to severe dementia were unable to complete a self-report pain instrument. Pain was more commonly reported by informal caregivers than the person with dementia themselves. Limited evidence was available for pain-focused behavioural observation assessment. In regard to pain treatment, paracetamol use was more common in community-dwelling people with dementia compared with people without dementia. However, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were used less. For stronger analgesics, community-dwelling people with dementia were more likely to receive strong opioids (eg, fentanyl) than people without dementia. CONCLUSION: This review identifies a dearth of high-quality studies exploring pain assessment and/or treatment for community-dwelling people with dementia, not least into non-pharmacological interventions. The consequences of this lack of evidence, given the current and projected prevalence of the disease, are very serious and require urgent redress. In the meantime, clinicians should adopt a patient- and caregiver-centred, multi-dimensional, longitudinal approach to pain assessment and pain treatment for this population.

### What you need to know Gout is a painful and debilitating condition with long term complications, including joint damage and renal stones. Although gout flares are often treated with NSAIDs, colchicine or steroids, those with gout often continue to have flares which could have been prevented with lifestyle modification or urate lowering medication. However, only a third of people with gout receive urate lowering therapies (ULTs), and only a third of those have their serum urate level managed effectively.1 This article summarises the recommendations from the new National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline, focusing on the diagnosis and management of gout.2 NICE recommendations are based on systematic reviews of best available evidence and explicit consideration of cost effectiveness. When minimal evidence is available, recommendations are based on the Guideline Committee’s experience and opinion of what constitutes good practice. Evidence levels for the recommendations are given in italic in square brackets. ### Diagnosis and assessment Most people with gout receive a clinical diagnosis in primary care, which is then confirmed by clinical investigation. #### Signs and symptoms

Identification of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) remains challenging, frequently resulting in a diagnostic delay for patients. Current benchmarks of delay are usually reported as mean data, which are typically skewed and therefore may be overestimating delay. Our aim was to determine the extent of median delay patients' experience in receiving a diagnosis of axSpA and examine whether specific factors are associated with the presence of such delay. We conducted a systematic review across five literature databases (from inception to November 2021), with studies reporting the average time period of diagnostic delay in patients with axSpA being included. Any additional information examining associations between specific factors and delay were also extracted. A narrative synthesis was used to report the median range of diagnostic delay experienced by patients with axSpA and summarise which factors have a role in the delay. From an initial 11,995 articles, 69 reported an average time period of diagnostic delay, with 25 of these providing a median delay from symptom onset to diagnosis. Across these studies, delay ranged from 0.67 to 8 years, with over three-quarters reporting a median of between 2 years and 6 years. A third of all studies reported median delay data ranging from just 2 to 2.3 years. Of seven variables reported with sufficient frequency to evaluate, only 'gender' and 'family history of axSpA' had sufficient concordant data to draw any conclusion on their role, neither influenced the extent of the delay. Despite improvements in recent decades, patients with axSpA frequently experience years of diagnostic delay and this remains an extensive worldwide problem. This is further compounded by a mixed picture of the disease, patient and healthcare-related factors influencing delay. Key points • Despite improvements in recent decades, patients with axSpA frequently experience years of diagnostic delay. • Median diagnostic delay typically ranges from 2 to 6 years globally. • Neither 'gender' nor 'family history of axSpA' influenced the extent of diagnostic delay experienced. • Diagnostic delay based on mean, rather than median, data influences the interpretation of the delay time period and consistently reports a longer delay period.