The clinical and cost effectiveness of splints for thumb base osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives. To investigate the clinical effectiveness, efficacy and cost effectiveness of splints (orthoses) in people with symptomatic basal thumb joint OA (BTOA). Methods. A pragmatic, multicentre parallel group randomized controlled trial at 17 National Health Service (NHS) hospital departments recruited adults with symptomatic BTOA and at least moderate hand pain and dysfunction. We randomized participants (1:1:1) using a computer-based minimization system to one of three treatment groups: a therapist supported self-management programme (SSM), a therapist supported self-management programme plus a verum thumb splint (SSM+S), or a therapist supported self-management programme plus a placebo thumb splint (SSM+PS). Participants were blinded to group allocation, received 90min therapy over 8weeks and were followed up for 12weeks from baseline. Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) hand pain at 8weeks was the primary outcome, using intention to treat analysis. We calculated costs of treatment. Results. We randomized 349 participants to SSM (n =116), SSM+S (n =116) or SSM+PS (n =117) and 292 (84%) provided AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index hand pain scores at the primary end point (8 weeks). All groups improved, with no mean treatment difference between groups: SSM+S vs SSM -0.5 (95% CI: -1.4, 0.4), P = 0.255; SSM+PS vs SSM -0.1 (95% CI: -1.0, 0.8), P = 0.829; and SSM+S vs SSM+PS -0.4 (95% CI: -1.4, 0.5), P = 0.378. The average 12-week costs were: SSM 586; pound SSM+S 738; pound and SSM+PS 685 pound. Conclusion. There was no additional benefit of adding a thumb splint to a high-quality evidence-based, supported self-management programme for thumb OA delivered by therapists.

Automated summary

In a study on patients with symptomatic basal thumb joint OA, it was found that adding a thumb splint to a high-quality self-management programme provided by therapists did not result in additional treatment benefits. All treatment groups showed improvement, but there was no significant difference in efficacy between the groups.