THU0579 “EVOLVING THE MANAGEMENT OF RA” PROGRAMME: EDUCATIONAL TOOLS TO SUPPORT DAILY PRACTICE

Background:The eRA (evolving the management of RA) programme was initiated in Europe to provide practical educational tools that address unmet needs in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Several eRA tools – covering early access to care, management of comorbidities, treat-to-target strategies, and patient empowerment – are available to the rheumatology community. Through ongoing activities, the eRA Steering Committee (SC) identified a need for tools on non-pharmacological management of RA.Objectives:To improve accessibility to eRA tools for rheumatology professionals; to review the evidence base of non-pharmacological interventions to create new eRA resources that may support management decisions.Methods:A web platform providing information on eRA programme and tools was developed in 2019. The platform collects survey-based metrics to quantify perception of eRA and use of eRA tools in clinical practice. Platform and tools are translated to further support access and use across Europe.To address unmet needs in non-pharmacological patient management, the eRA SC reviewed the core literature on agreed priority interventions, including physical activity, diet, patient education and self-management, psychosocial interventions, occupational therapy and orthotics, hand exercises, and hydrotherapy/balneotherapy. Available evidence for each intervention was assessed and graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence.Results:The eRA web platform is now live in 3 countries (www.evolvingthemanagementofRA.com), hosting translated copies of the eRA tools, with additional countries launching throughout 2020.From a review of core literature on non-pharmacological interventions, the eRA SC determined that strong evidence exists to support use of physical activity, patient education and self-management, psychosocial interventions, and occupational therapy and orthotics. Evidence was lacking or conflicting for diet and nutrition, hand exercises, and balneotherapy/hydrotherapy. A set of educational slides was produced by the eRA SC to summarise the evidence (Fig. 1) and provide top-line guidance on use of interventions in practice that should engage relevant members of the multi-disciplinary team. These slides are available through eRA dissemination activities.Conclusion:The eRA programme content is now freely available to health care professionals in several countries on a web platform, supported by translations of the eRA tools. An additional slide set on non-pharmacological management serves to further increase the practical guidance of this programme’s educational offering.Acknowledgments:The eRA programme is funded by Sanofi Genzyme. Programme direction and content creation are driven by an independent Steering CommitteeDisclosure of Interests:Gerd Rüdiger Burmester Consultant of: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie Inc, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Roche, Pfizer, and UCB Pharma, Jose-Maria Alvaro-Gracia Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Elli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Elli-Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Tigenix, Roche, UCB, Paid instructor for: Elli-Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Speakers bureau: Abbvie, BMS, Janssen-Cilag, Elli-Lilly, Gedeon Richter, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Tigenix, Roche, UCB, Neil Betteridge Consultant of: Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Grunenthal, GSK, Sanofi Genzyme, Jaime Calvo Grant/research support from: Lilly, UCB, Consultant of: Abbvie, Jansen, Celgene, Bernard Combe Grant/research support from: Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Chugai, Consultant of: AbbVie; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Janssen; Eli Lilly and Company; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; Sanofi, Speakers bureau: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; Merck Sharp & Dohme; Pfizer; Roche-Chugai; UCB, Patrick Durez Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Ricardo J. O. Ferreira Grant/research support from: Abbvie, Consultant of: Sanofi Genzyme, Amgen, MSD, Paid instructor for: UCB, Bruno Fautrel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Lilly, Janssen, Medac MSD France, Nordic Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, SOBI and UCB, Annamaria Iagnocco Grant/research support from: Abbvie, MSD and Alfasigma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Abiogen, Alfasigma, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi and Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Alfasigma, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi, Carlomaurizio Montecucco: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Sofia Ramiro Grant/research support from: MSD, Consultant of: Abbvie, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Andrea Rubbert-Roth Consultant of: Abbvie, BMS, Chugai, Pfizer, Roche, Janssen, Lilly, Sanofi, Amgen, Novartis, Tanja Stamm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Roche, Sanofi, Zoltán Szekanecz Grant/research support from: Pfizer, UCB, Consultant of: Sanofi, MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Roche, Novertis, Lilly, Gedeon Richter, Amgen, Peter C. Taylor Grant/research support from: Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, and Gilead, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly and Company, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer Roche, and UCB, Mart van de Laar Consultant of: Sanofi Genzyme, Speakers bureau: Sanofi Genzyme

FRI0623-HPR HEALTHCARE RESOURCE USE IN PATIENTS WITH TRAPEZIOMETACARPAL OSTEOARTHRITIS

Background:Trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis (TMO) is one of the most debilitating forms of hand osteoarthritis (OA). According to the recent EULAR guidelines1, 2and a systematic review,3the efficacy of topical/oral non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), orthoses, hand exercises, and psychosocial interventions for hand OA or TMO are supported by scientific evidence. Cortisone injections and acetaminophen are generally not recommended.1, 3Besides, TMO management is suboptimal: only 21% of patients receive rehabilitative interventions prior to referral to hand surgeons.4Objectives:We aimed at documenting the types of treatment TMO patients employ and their healthcare resource use.Methods:A total of 227 TMO patients recruited from 16 healthcare institutions completed a questionnaire about 1) received interventions, 2) analgesic strategies, and 3) healthcare professional consultations.Results:Acetaminophen (64.3% of the participants), oral NSAIDs (31.7%), topical NSAIDs (11.9%), and nutraceuticals (7.9%) were the most commonly used medications. More than 70% of the participants reported having received cortisone injection(s) (72.5%) and orthosis (75.7%). More than half employed hand exercises, massage and heat/cold application. Relaxation/respiration, meditation, distraction, assistive devices, and joint protection principles were used by smaller percentages of participants (13.0-30.9%). Patients with TMO reported having consulted various types of healthcare professionals: family physicians, plastic/orthopaedic surgeons, radiologists-interventionists, rheumatologists, physiatrists, occupational/physical therapists, osteopaths, chiropractors, pharmacists, and acupuncturists. Only 4.8% of the participants reported having received psychosocial interventions.Conclusion:TMO patients use numerous types of modalities to relieve their pain. Provision of evidence-based interventions tailored to their needs is clearly needed.References:[1] Kloppenburg M, Kroon FP, Blanco FJ, et al. 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis.Annals of the rheumatic diseases.2019;78:16-24.[2] Geenen R, Overman CL, Christensen R, et al. EULAR recommendations for the health professional’s approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis.Annals of the rheumatic diseases.2018;77:797-807.[3] Hamasaki T, Laprise S, Harris PG, et al. Efficacy of non-surgical interventions for trapeziometacarpal (thumb base) osteoarthritis: A systematic review.Arthritis Care & Research.2019; In press (https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24084).[4] Gravås EMH, Tveter AT, Nossum R, et al. Non-pharmacological treatment gap preceding surgical consultation in thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis - a cross-sectional study.BMC musculoskeletal disorders.2019;20:180-180.Acknowledgments:This study was supported by a discretionary fund of the Centre de recherche du CHUM (CRCHUM) to Choinière and from theMultidisciplinary Council of the CHUM. Hamasaki was supported by a Doctoral training award of the Fonds de recherche du Québec—Santé, a doctoral scholarship from the CHUM Foundation to Harris (Hand Surgery Branch) and from Choinière’s internal funds of the CRCHUM.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Sustained efficacy of a concise self-management programme for hands in systemic sclerosis: a longitudinal case–control observational study

Objectives In a longitudinal case–control observational study, we evaluated the benefits of a self-management programme for hands developed for patients with SSc. Methods Patients with SSc included in the intervention group (IG) received a concise self-management programme with emphasis on hand exercises and were evaluated during 24 weeks regarding hand pain, hand function, range of motion, grip and tip and key pinch strength. Results were compared with a control group (CG) with no intervention using an analysis of variance for repeated measures with variables transformed into ranks (P ≤ 0.05). Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s test. Results Of 90 patients who were evaluated, seven were excluded at enrolment and 26 were excluded during the follow-up. Data from 57 subjects (IG 40, CG 17) were used for analysis. Groups were similar at baseline, except for the Scleroderma HAQ and tip and key pinch strength. Outcome improvements were noted only in the IG (P ≤ 0.05, large effect size). In the CG, variables did not change or had even worsened (hand grip strength and finger motion). Conclusions This self-management programme based on hand exercises for SSc resulted in pain reduction and hand function, strength and range of motion improvement. It can be a simple and useful intervention, especially when a regular rehabilitation programme is not available.

P160 Systemic sclerosis physiotherapy in the digital age

Background Clinical outcome measures for hand function in systemic sclerosis (SSc) can be assessed using validated questionnaires such as the Cochin hand function questionnaire (CHFS). The CHFS can evaluate the physical efficacy of hand physiotherapy. However, there is currently no validated questionnaire for assessing patient motivation to engage in hand exercises, which is a crucial consideration for any exercise regime. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient opinions of their own hand function status and motivation to complete hand exercises. This research sits within a larger study investigating hand function pre and post-conventional therapy and a new innovative virtual rehabilitation programme. Methods Twenty patients diagnosed with limited and diffuse cutaneous SSc (lcSSc and dcSSc), meeting the 2013 ACR criteria for SSc, were recruited from a tertiary referral rheumatology clinic (mean age: 55yrs; range 34-74yrs; female: n = 18; white British: 95%; dcSSc: n = 10; lcSSc: n = 10; mean mRSS: 10; mean age at diagnosis: 43yrs). All participants completed a novel questionnaire developed for this study to evaluate their experience with and motivation for completing hand exercises. Additionally, baseline characteristics were surveyed as well as a timeline of disease characteristics. Subsequent data analysis included Fisher’s exact testing and Spearman’s bivariate correlation. Results Half of all patients surveyed reported that hand function limited their ability to perform tasks of daily living, but they still retained independence. 65% (n = 13) of participants performed hand function exercises for a mean 25 weeks, with 30.8% being only a “little motivated”. A total of 65% were referred for physiotherapy. There was a strong positive correlation (Spearman’s rho 0.786) between older age at disease diagnosis and motivation to do hand exercises. However, there was no correlation (Spearman’s rho 0.027) between how motivated an individual was to do hand exercises and the number of weeks exercises were performed. The dcSSc group of patients were found to have performed hand exercises more than lcSSc (Fisher’s Exact Test, p = 0.03). Conclusion Across all patients, the lack of association between motivation and weeks of hand exercises completed indicates that there are barriers faced by patients with SSc who want to do physiotherapy. The strong correlation between the age at which the disease was diagnosed and a patient’s motivation to do physiotherapy is not supported by the available literature, as studies show that adherence to physiotherapy is associated more closely to education, socioeconomic background and social support. An additional independent study specific to age, with the consideration of confounders is necessary to explore this. An easy to use digital rehabilitation intervention could help actualise motivation and make physiotherapy more accessible. This needs to be validated in a larger cohort. Disclosures S. Addous None. J. Wood None. E. Eusterwiemann None. M.E. Anderson None.

Use of paraffin instead of lukewarm water prior to hand exercises had no additional effect on hand mobility in patients with systemic sclerosis: A randomized clinical trial

Introduction Systemic sclerosis is a connective tissue disease associated with significantly impaired hand mobility, which may hamper activities of daily living. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect on hand mobility and health status of patients with systemic sclerosis of warming up hands with paraffin compared with warming up hands in lukewarm water prior to hand exercises. Methods Patients were allocated to receive either warm-up treatment with water or paraffin prior to hand exercises for a period of six months. Primary outcome was Hand Mobility in Scleroderma (HAMIS), while secondary outcomes included SF-36 and measurements of fingertips to proximal and distal palmar crease. Follow-up assessments were conducted 3, 6 and 12 months post baseline. Results Ninety patients were enrolled in the study and 56 patients completed. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups regarding hand mobility post intervention. Within both groups, hand mobility improved on the HAMIS six months post baseline with −2.6 points (95% CI: −4.4; −0.8) in the paraffin group and −3.3 points (95% CI: −5.2; −1.5) in the water group. Improvements were maintained at 12-month follow-up. Conclusions Our findings suggested that warm-up with paraffin compared to lukewarm water prior to hand exercises in patients with systemic sclerosis had no additional effect on hand mobility. Results may have been affected by the high dropout rate and statistical errors underestimating a possible effect.