K Rome1, H Clark2, J Gray3, P McMeekin3, M Plant4, J Dixon5. 1. a Rehabilitation and Research Institute, School of Podiatry , AUT University , Auckland , New Zealand. 2. b Podiatry Department , South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Middlesbrough , UK. 3. c Department of Public Health and Wellbeing , Northumbria University , Newcastle upon Tyne , UK. 4. d Rheumatology Department , South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , Middlesbrough , UK. 5. e Health and Social Care Institute , Teesside University , Middlesbrough , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:Foot orthoses are commonly prescribed as an intervention for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Data relating to the cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses in people with RA are limited. The aim was to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of foot orthoses in people with established RA. METHOD: A single-blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken to compare custom-made foot orthoses (CMFOs) and simple insoles (SIs) in 41 people with established RA. The Foot Function Index (FFI) was used to measure foot pain, disability, and functional limitation. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), societal (patient and family) perspective, and secondary care resource use in terms of the intervention and staff time. Effects were assessed in terms of health gain expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: At baseline, 20 participants received a CMFO and 21 participants received an SI. After 16 weeks foot pain improved in both the CMFOs (p = 0.000) and the SIs (p < 0.01). However, disability scores improved for CMFOs (p < 0.001) but not for SIs (p = 0.40). The cost-effectiveness results demonstrated no difference in cost between the arms (CMFOs: £159.10; SIs: £79.10; p = 0.35), with the CMFOs being less effective in terms of cost per QALY gain (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In people with established RA, semi-rigid customized foot orthoses can improve pain and disability scores in comparison to simple insoles. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the customized foot orthoses were far more expensive to manufacture, with no significant cost per QALY gain.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Foot orthoses are commonly prescribed as an intervention for people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Data relating to the cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses in people with RA are limited. The aim was to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two types of foot orthoses in people with established RA. METHOD: A single-blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken to compare custom-made foot orthoses (CMFOs) and simple insoles (SIs) in 41 people with established RA. The Foot Function Index (FFI) was used to measure foot pain, disability, and functional limitation. Costs were estimated from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS), societal (patient and family) perspective, and secondary care resource use in terms of the intervention and staff time. Effects were assessed in terms of health gain expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: At baseline, 20 participants received a CMFO and 21 participants received an SI. After 16 weeks foot pain improved in both the CMFOs (p = 0.000) and the SIs (p < 0.01). However, disability scores improved for CMFOs (p < 0.001) but not for SIs (p = 0.40). The cost-effectiveness results demonstrated no difference in cost between the arms (CMFOs: £159.10; SIs: £79.10; p = 0.35), with the CMFOs being less effective in terms of cost per QALY gain (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In people with established RA, semi-rigid customized foot orthoses can improve pain and disability scores in comparison to simple insoles. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the customized foot orthoses were far more expensive to manufacture, with no significant cost per QALY gain.
Authors: Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron; Laura Ramos-Petersen; Ana Belen Ortega-Avila; Jose Miguel Morales-Asencio; Silvia Garcia-Mayor Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-06-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kellie S Gallagher; Jon Godwin; Gordon J Hendry; Martijn Steultjens; Jim Woodburn Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Lara S Chapman; Anthony C Redmond; Karl B Landorf; Keith Rome; Anne-Maree Keenan; Robin Waxman; Begonya Alcacer-Pitarch; Heidi J Siddle; Michael R Backhouse Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Marloes Tenten-Diepenmaat; Joost Dekker; Martijn W Heymans; Leo D Roorda; Thea P M Vliet Vlieland; Marike van der Leeden Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: María Reina-Bueno; María Del Carmen Vázquez-Bautista; Inmaculada C Palomo-Toucedo; Gabriel Domínguez-Maldonado; José Manuel Castillo-López; Javier Ramos-Ortega; Pedro V Munuera-Martínez Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Kevin Deschamps; Chris Nester; Veronica Newton; Gabriel Gijon-Nogueron; Engin Simsek; Antoine Brabants Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: María Reina-Bueno; Pedro V Munuera-Martínez; Sergio Pérez-García; María Del Carmen Vázquez-Bautista; Gabriel Domínguez-Maldonado; Inmaculada C Palomo-Toucedo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Radosław Rutkowski; Małgorzata Gałczyńska-Rusin; Małgorzata Gizińska; Marcin Straburzyński-Lupa; Agata Zdanowska; Mateusz Wojciech Romanowski; Wojciech Romanowski; Elly Budiman-Mak; Anna Straburzyńska-Lupa Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Lara S Chapman; Anthony C Redmond; Karl B Landorf; Keith Rome; Anne-Maree Keenan; Robin Waxman; Begonya Alcacer-Pitarch; Heidi J Siddle; Michael R Backhouse Journal: J Foot Ankle Res Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.303