The guideline was developed in line with the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Guidelines Protocol (version 5.4, November 2023). A lay summary of this guideline can be found in Supplementary File S1, available at Rheumatology online.
Scope and purpose
Need for guideline
Foot problems are highly prevalent in adults, children and young people with inflammatory arthritis (IA), an umbrella term encompassing a range of chronic, autoimmune conditions characterized by joint inflammation. These include rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondyloarthritis (SpA)—comprising psoriatic arthritis (PsA), axial SpA (ankylosing spondylitis), reactive arthritis, enteropathic arthritis and undifferentiated SpA—and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA). Existing guidelines relevant to foot health in IA are outdated or lack specific guidance for treatments [1–3].
Objective
This guideline aims to provide patient-focused, evidence-based, expert recommendations for the management of foot health in IA in the UK.
Target audience
Rheumatologists, general practitioners, orthopaedic surgeons, allied health professionals (such as podiatrists, orthotists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists) and specialist rheumatology nurses involved in the management of people with foot problems in IA, in primary care and community, secondary and tertiary care settings.
People living with foot problems in IA and their carers.
Clinical commissioners.
Areas the guideline does not cover
Surgical management.
Treatment of traumatic foot injuries.
Systemic drug therapies.
Scope of guideline
Nineteen clinical questions (Table 1) were developed through consensus between GWG members to guide a systematic literature review, as published previously [1]. The guideline covers foot problems (including pain, deformity, nail and skin pathologies, ulceration, peripheral arterial disease and neuropathy) in people with RA, SpA and JIA. Throughout the guideline, the terms ‘foot health’ and ‘foot problems’ refer to the entire foot and ankle complex.
Table 1.
Key clinical questions
| Question | |
|---|---|
| Q1 | In adults or children and young people with suspected or confirmed IA, what clinical assessments should be undertaken when assessing foot health and disease activity, and how often? |
| Q2 | In adults or children and young people with suspected or confirmed IA, what imaging should be requested when assessing foot health, and when should imaging be requested? |
| Q3 | When should adults or children and young people with suspected or confirmed IA be referred to specialist foot services, e.g. podiatry? |
| Q4 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, what personalized care (e.g. support for self-management, activation, shared decision-making and culturally-sensitive education) relating to foot health, and considering a person’s wider biopsychosocial health determinants, should be provided and when? |
| Q5 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, are orthotic devices effective, when are they indicated and which types of orthotic devices are effective? |
| Q6 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, what types of footwear are effective? |
| Q7 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, what frequency, intensity, type and time (duration) of exercises, gait rehabilitation and electrophysical therapies are effective? |
| Q8 | In adults or children and young people with common toenail pathologies in IA, what conservative treatments are effective, and when should abnormal nails be surgically removed? |
| Q9 | In adults or children and young people with common skin pathologies (e.g. callus) in IA, what treatments are effective? |
| Q10 | In adults or children and young people with foot ulceration in IA, including infected foot ulcers, what treatments are effective? |
| Q11 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, are local corticosteroid injections safe and effective, and if so, when should these be offered? |
| Q12 | When should local foot symptoms prompt a review of systemic disease control in adults or children and young people with IA? |
| Q13 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, when should a surgical referral be considered? |
| Q14 | In patients requiring foot and ankle surgical procedures, including nail surgery, should biologics/DMARDs be stopped, when should they be stopped and for how long? |
| Q15 | How often should foot health be reassessed in adults or children and young people with IA? |
| Q16 | In young people with IA who are transitioning from paediatric to adult care, how should foot health be incorporated? |
| Q17 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, what is the clinical effectiveness of physical activity? |
| Q18 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA who smoke, what is the clinical effectiveness of giving up smoking? |
| Q19 | In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA who are overweight or obese, what is the clinical effectiveness of weight loss? |
Methods
The systematic review underpinning the guideline was registered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42023423109). The search strategy is included in Supplementary Table S1, available at Rheumatology online. Guideline development followed the BSR Guidelines protocol using GRADE methodology to determine certainty in the evidence and strength of recommendation (SOR). The level of certainty in evidence (LOE) was determined as high (A), moderate (B) or low/very low (C), reflecting the confidence in the estimates of benefits or harm. Recommendations were categorized as strong (1) and in favour of an intervention when the benefits clearly outweigh the risks (or vice versa for recommendations against), or weak (2) when risks and benefits are more closely balanced or where they are more uncertain. The wording of each recommendation was agreed by all members and subjected to a vote for strength of agreement (SOA) on a scale of 1–100 (no to complete agreement). Evidence tables are presented in Supplementary Tables S2–S19, available at Rheumatology online. The guideline is expected to be updated after five years.
The guideline
Recommendations for assessment and diagnosis
Assessment
1. In adults, children and young people with suspected or confirmed IA, questions relating to foot symptoms should be asked at each visit and, if appropriate, clinical examination of the foot should be undertaken, including disease activity, deformities, foot posture, musculoskeletal function, gait assessment, footwear, range of motion, vascular and neurological status, and skin and nail pathologies. SOR: 1; LOE: B/C; SOA: 92.
Rationale
The SOR is based on cross-sectional studies and expert consensus. Clinical assessment should be patient-centred and guided by symptoms and concerns; foot symptoms should prompt a detailed assessment of disease activity, including palpation of the foot joints for localized swelling and tenderness. There is weak evidence from cross-sectional studies for the specificity of the MTP joint squeeze test to identify synovitis in patients with suspected IA, but the test has been shown to lack sensitivity [4–6]. Foot posture, deformities, gait, range of motion, skin, toenails, and neurological and vascular status should be assessed, and footwear/insoles physically examined.
In children and young people with IA specifically, age and developmental stage should be considered. Foot joints should be assessed as part of Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score-71 (JADAS-71) [7] and paediatric Gait Arms Legs and SPine (pGALS) screening [8].
Imaging
2. Health professionals managing adults, children and young people with suspected or confirmed IA should have access to appropriate imaging (including X-ray, ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) to assess foot health, to inform clinical management. SOR: 1; LOE: B/C; SOA: 99.
Rationale
The SOR is based on cross-sectional, cohort and case-control studies, and expert opinion. X-ray, CT, US or MRI may be most appropriate depending on the clinical scenario. MRI is considered the reference standard modality for imaging synovitis and tenosynovitis in IA, and is more sensitive than conventional radiographs for the detection of inflammation [9]. To assess foot health specifically, there is weak evidence for the use of MRI and US [10–12]. Anyone who performs US should undertake a recognized formal training programme [13]. Recommendations relating to imaging in other IA guidelines should be considered [3, 14–16].
Referral to specialist foot services
3. In adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA, prompt referral to specialist foot services, e.g. podiatry, should be considered at any stage of the disease course where they impact on activities of daily living, participation and quality of life. Foot problems include but are not limited to pain, joint damage, deformity, risk of ulceration and/or footwear difficulties. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
Rationale
In this context, specialist foot services refer to foot services with experience of managing foot problems in people with IA such as podiatry, orthotics or orthopaedic surgery. The SOR is based on expert opinion and indirect evidence from qualitative studies [17–19].
Recommendations for treatment strategy
Personalized care
4. Individually tailored, culturally sensitive foot health education and support for self-management should be offered to adults, children and young people with IA, and their family members and carers, at diagnosis and on an ongoing basis. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 97.
5. Education and self-management support could be offered by any member of the rheumatology MDT. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 95.
6. Information could include how IA and medications affect the feet, advice about skin and wounds, nail care, footwear and/or physical activity, exercise and pacing, self-management advice, signposting to additional sources of support, who to contact about foot problems, and the role of podiatrists and orthotists. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
Rationale
The effectiveness of foot health education and self-management support in IA has not been formally assessed. One randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing a self-management program for foot health against usual care in participants without any systemic conditions demonstrated better foot disability scores in the self-management group, with similar cost-effectiveness [20]. Qualitative studies and surveys [21–23] highlight a preference of people with IA for receiving foot health education shortly after diagnosis and insufficient provision of foot health education. Foot health advice and self-management support should be discussed at diagnosis and reinforced at follow-up appointment by any member of the rheumatology multidisciplinary team (MDT), following the NICE guideline for shared decision-making [24]. Additionally, health professionals should be sensitive to a person’s cultural identity or heritage and the beliefs and conventions that might be determined by this, when providing information [25].
Orthotic devices and footwear
7. Adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA should have access to customized orthoses to reduce pain and improve function, recommended or prescribed by a health professional. A customized orthosis can comprise a fully bespoke device or a modified prefabricated orthosis tailored to meet the needs of the patient. SOR: 1; LOE: B/C; SOA: 99.
Rationale
The GWG agreed that a prefabricated orthosis is a device that has been mass-produced to a generic foot shape; this is in contrast to a custom-made or fully bespoke orthosis which is specifically manufactured to the shape of an individual’s foot. The customized orthosis referred to here is any device that has been tailored, adapted or modified to meet individual needs (including a prefabricated device that has been selected following assessment by a health professional with expertise).
The SOR is based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicating that customized foot orthoses may be beneficial in reducing foot pain, improving function and decreasing plantar pressure in adults with RA [26–28]. NICE also recommended that functional orthoses should be available for adults with RA if indicated [3]. There is weak evidence for the effectiveness of foot orthoses for children with IA [29, 30]. Accessibility and cost should be considered. Prefabricated orthoses are readily available and can usually be provided instantly, whereas bespoke orthoses often require multiple visits. Limited data suggest prefabricated orthoses are more cost-effective [31].
8. Therapeutic footwear may be effective at reducing pain and improving function in adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 97.
9. The acceptability of therapeutic footwear for adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA should be taken into account. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 92.
10. A shared decision-making approach should be adopted to inform acceptability and may include factors such as comfort and fit, style, fastening mechanism, weight of the footwear, seasonality and cultural sensitivity. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
Rationale
Two systematic reviews found limited evidence that therapeutic footwear, such as extra-depth and extra-width off-the-shelf shoes, or custom-made footwear, improves outcomes in people with RA [32, 33]. NICE guidance recommends therapeutic footwear should be available for adults with RA [3]. Adults, children and young people with IA without significant foot deformity should be supported to self-manage foot symptoms with appropriate commercially available footwear (e.g. footwear with adequate width and depth, arch support, a firm heel counter and a fastening mechanism). Acceptability of custom-made footwear can be limited by poor fit, aesthetics, shoe weight and comfort, which can be addressed by patient involvement in the design [34]. The NICE guideline for shared decision-making should be considered in the context of footwear provision and advice [24]; adults, children and young people with IA should be involved in decisions about therapeutic footwear, and choice of footwear should take into consideration their individual preferences, beliefs and values.
Targeted exercises, gait rehabilitation and electrophysical therapies
11. Individually tailored exercises should be offered to adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA, if indicated after a comprehensive holistic assessment (see Recommendation 1). SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 96.
The role of targeted exercises for foot problems in IA has rarely been formally evaluated in clinical studies [35]. The SOR is based on expert consensus. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the use of electrophysical therapies (e.g. extracorporeal shockwave therapy, low level laser therapy) for adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA.
Nail and skin care
12. In patients without diabetes or suspected ulceration, callus debridement should not be routinely offered in isolation; additional treatments (e.g. education and self-management advice, foot orthoses, footwear, emollients) should be used. SOR: 1 (against); LOE: C; SOA: 98.
Rationale
Two RCTs concluded that sharp scalpel debridement had no benefits over sham debridement in adults with IA [36, 37]. In a small prospective cohort study (n = 8), treatment effect was lost by seven days [38]. The rationale for adjunctive treatments are discussed under Recommendations 4–10 and 13. No studies have been undertaken in adults with other types of IA, or children and young people with IA. GWG members with podiatric expertise agreed that inflammatory callus margins in PsA should not be debrided. In the case of suspected ulceration, and in people with diabetes, sharp scalpel debridement of overlying callus should be performed to reveal the size and nature of the ulcer, assess for infection and promote healing [39]. Additionally, callus is a risk factor for foot ulceration in people with diabetes, and sharp scalpel debridement should be performed [40]. Sharp debridement, when required, should only be undertaken by competent practitioners with specialist training.
13. Emollients are safe and effective, and can be offered for the relief of dry skin affecting the foot in IA. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 96.
Rationale
The effectiveness of emollients for foot health in IA has not been formally evaluated in clinical studies. Emollients are widely recommended for other conditions (e.g. in eczema and diabetes) [41], and risk of harm is low. Consideration should be given to other physical problems experienced by some people with IA, such as hand problems, which could make the application of emollients difficult.
14. All adults or children and young people with IA should be offered personalized nail care advice, including footwear advice, to help prevent and/or treat common toenail pathologies. People should be advised when to access foot health care, e.g. for ingrowing toenails, wounds and infections, and how to do this. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
15. Systemic control of disease activity is the aim of treatment, including joint disease and extra-articular manifestations, e.g. skin and nail disease in psoriatic arthritis. Foot skin and nail health should be assessed and managed in the context of systemic disease. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
16. In the presence of recurrent pain or infection, surgical removal of nails can be considered. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 96.
Rationale
Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of self-management of toenail pathologies, and when and how to access specialist foot services (see Recommendation 3).
In PsA, where multiple nails are pathological, systemic rather than local treatment should be considered and dermatology input should be sought. Widespread psoriasis, or foot psoriasis that is unresponsive to topical treatment, should prompt a review of systemic disease management [42].
Nail surgery should be considered for toenail pathologies that do not or are thought unlikely to resolve with conservative care. When infection is present, antibiotics should be considered and DMARD/biologic therapy suspended [43, 44], with input from the rheumatology MDT. There is no evidence for one type of nail avulsion surgery procedure over another in IA or generally [45]; matrixectomy should therefore be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Wound management
17. Adults, children and young people with IA and foot ulceration should be able to access an appropriate health professional(s) promptly. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
18. Assessment of adults, children and young people with IA and foot ulceration should include causation, infection, wound severity and disease activity, in the context of their IA, comorbidities and their treatment. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
19. Wound management could include wound cleansing, removal of devitalized tissue, application of topical medicinal products or dressings, or offloading, as appropriate. Systemic treatment for infection and/or IA disease activity should be considered. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
Rationale
Recommendations are based on evidence for managing foot ulceration generally and expert opinion. Patients with or at high risk of foot ulceration should be advised how and when to access a health professional. Patient education regarding how to access a health professional is pertinent. Timely communication between the health professional who first identifies a wound and the rheumatology MDT ensures ulceration is not managed in isolation. Foot ulcer management principles include offloading, restoration of tissue perfusion, treatment of infection, treatment of comorbidities, local ulcer care, patient education and ulcer prevention [46]. Collection of a wound sample can be considered where infection is clinically suspected. Stopping conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) and biologic DMARDs (bDMARDs) in the presence of infection should be discussed with the rheumatology MDT, with further guidance available in the BSR guidelines for bDMARD safety [43] and prescribing and monitoring of non-biologic DMARDs [44].
Targeted injection therapy
20. Local corticosteroid injections are safe and effective, and can be offered as an adjunct for the relief of inflammation and pain in the foot in IA. Image guidance using radiology or ultrasound should be considered and available if needed. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
21. Children and young people undergoing local corticosteroid injection should be offered access to general anaesthesia or conscious sedation in a suitable paediatric environment. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
Rationale
Weak evidence for the effectiveness of US-guided injections on foot pain reduction in adults with IA has been demonstrated in a systematic review of four uncontrolled trials and one comparative trial [47]. The GWG accepted the effectiveness of palpation-guided and US-guided injections to reduce pain and inflammation. Whilst evidence of the effectiveness of US-guided over palpation-guided injections in the foot is lacking, US-guided injections theoretically allow more accurate needle placement, injection of structures that are difficult to access and avoidance of other structures. However, RCTs at other joint sites do not show convincingly that US-guided injections are more effective than systemic [48] or palpation-guided corticosteroid injections [49] or sham lavage plus corticosteroid [50].
There is weak evidence from observational studies of improved outcomes following local intra-articular corticosteroid ankle and subtalar joint injections in children and young people with JIA [51]. Conscious sedation provides safe and effective short-term relief of pain and anxiety during intra-articular injections and can be considered in children and young people with IA [52]. General anaesthesia may be more suitable in certain cases (e.g. younger children or for multiple injections) [2].
Local corticosteroid injections are well-tolerated. Serious side-effects are rare [47] Administration is standard practice in other joints in IA (e.g. knees, shoulders), with evidence from RCTs for improved outcomes [53, 54].
Reviewing systemic disease control
22. In adults, children and young people with IA, the presence of inflammatory foot pain, new or increasing early morning stiffness, and/or suspected joint/tendon swelling should raise the possibility of active systemic disease and prompt a review of systemic disease control. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 100.
Rationale
The ankle and foot joints are particularly susceptible to damage in IA. The SOR is based on expert opinion and evidence for systemic disease control reviews in IA generally [2, 3, 42]. The presence of inflammatory foot pain, new or increasing early morning stiffness and/or suspected joint/tendon swelling are indicators of poor disease control. Pain worse after rest (especially overnight) and eased by activity raises the possibility of active inflammation. Adults, children and young people with IA should be advised who and how to contact if they have concerns about worsening symptoms.
Surgical referral
23. In adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA, prompt surgical referral should be considered where there is pain, risk of ulceration, joint damage and/or deformity at the forefoot, midfoot or hindfoot, and usually when multidisciplinary non-operative care has failed or is considered unlikely to be successful. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
Rationale
There is no direct evidence concerning when to consider surgical referral. First-line conservative management is usually appropriate. Earlier referral for surgical opinion should be considered in certain cases, e.g. significant pain or deformity, whilst taking into account that commissioning and pathways vary nationally. Inability to wear off-the-shelf footwear may also be considered an indication for surgery. In children and young people with foot problems in IA, surgical referral is less commonly indicated.
Stopping biologics/DMARDs prior to foot and ankle surgical procedures
No specific recommendations were made regarding stopping biologics/DMARDs in patients requiring foot and ankle surgery, including nail surgery; existing BSR guidelines [43, 44] should be followed and advice from the rheumatology MDT can be sought.
Follow-up and monitoring
24. In adults, children and young people with confirmed IA, questions relating to foot symptoms should be asked at each visit and, if appropriate, clinical examination of the foot should be undertaken, including disease activity, deformities, foot posture, musculoskeletal function, footwear, gait, range of motion, vascular and neurological status, and skin and nail pathologies. SOR: 1; LOE: B/C; SOA: 92.
Rationale
See Recommendation 1.
25. In young people with IA who transfer from paediatric to adult care, a multidisciplinary approach to foot health should be considered a core element of the transition process. SOR: 2; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
Rationale
There is no direct evidence for the inclusion of foot health in transitional care; the SOR is based on expert opinion. To enhance transitional care, young people with IA should be appropriately signposted to information relating to foot health, and made aware of how to access foot health services, at each visit. European Alliance for Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR)/Paediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS) [55] and National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) recommendations [56] should be considered.
Recommendations for secondary prevention
Physical activity
26. Adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA should be encouraged and supported to meet physical activity guidelines for people with IA. This may include regular assessment and management of foot health needs, including appropriate footwear. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 98.
Smoking and weight loss
27. Adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA should be encouraged and supported to stop smoking where appropriate. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
28. Adults or children and young people with foot problems in IA should be encouraged and supported to maintain/reduce weight where appropriate. SOR: 1; LOE: C; SOA: 99.
Rationale
There is no evidence for physical activity, smoking or weight loss specifically in relation to foot health in IA. Evidence from existing literature for IA in general demonstrates that physical activity is safe and beneficial, and improves pain, function, fatigue and quality of life, and potentially modifies disease [57]. The management of foot pain among people who are trying to become more active should be considered using a personalized approach, e.g. non-weightbearing physical activity or the use of customized orthoses/therapeutic footwear. Regular assessment and management of foot health needs will therefore help people to meet their activity needs. The negative effects of smoking and BMI on inflammation and disease activity in IA are well established [58, 59].
Current EULAR recommendations for physical activity in people with IA [60] and for lifestyle behaviours and work participation to prevent progression of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases [61], and NICE guidelines for weight management [62] and RA management [3] should be considered. The NICE guideline relating to tobacco (preventing uptake, promoting quitting and treating dependence) is also applicable for people with foot symptoms in IA [63].
Summary and conclusions
This guideline highlights the lack of high-quality evidence available to inform the management of foot health in IA, with an absence of RCTs in most treatment areas. Recommendations made in this guideline are therefore predominantly based on expert consensus and low-quality observational studies. Definitive RCTs, with adequate sample sizes and long-term follow-up, are critical to determine the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of treatments for adults, children and young people with foot problems in IA (see recommendations for research in full guideline).
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements
The GWG gratefully acknowledge Jennifer Jones and Lambert Felix for their input into the systematic review underpinning this guideline. A list of British Society for Rheumatology Guideline Steering Group members can be found in Supplementary File S2, available at Rheumatology online.
Contributor Information
Lara S Chapman, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK; Podiatry, Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate, UK.
Michael Backhouse, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Warwick, UK.
Nadia Corp, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Danielle van der Windt, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Lindsay Bearne, Population Health Research Institute, St George’s, University of London, London, UK.
Lindsey Cherry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Gavin Cleary, Paediatric Rheumatology, Alder Hey Children's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Jasmine Davey, Expert by Experience, Liverpool, UK.
Rachel Ferguson, Children's Podiatry, Children's Therapies Service, NHS Hampshire and Isle of Wight, Portsmouth, UK.
Philip Helliwell, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Adam Lomax, Orthopaedics, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Helen McKeeman, Podiatry, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Belfast, UK.
Alan A Rawlings, Expert by Experience, Stone, UK.
Robin Rees, Orthopaedics, Ramsay Healthcare, Stafford, UK.
Robbie Rooney, Orthotics and Biomechanics, University Hospital Wishaw, NHS Lanarkshire, Wishaw, UK.
Sarah Ryan, Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Lucy Sanders, Department of Rheumatology, Christchurch Hospital, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Christchurch, UK.
Heidi J Siddle, Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Sue Varley, Expert by Experience, Bradford, UK.
Louise Warburton, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK; MSK, Shropshire Community NHS Trust, Shrewsbury, UK.
Jim Woodburn, School of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia.
Edward Roddy, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK; Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
for the British Society for Rheumatology Guideline Steering Group:
Christopher Joyce, Zoe McLaren, Claire Jones, Karen Merrison, Edward Roddy, Pratyasha Saha, Emma Williams, Emily Rose-Parfitt, Devesh Mewar, Caroline Cotton, Sandrine Compeyrot-Lacassagne, Anoop Kuttikat, Hirushi Jayasekera, and Coziana Ciurtin
Supplementary material
Supplementary material is available at Rheumatology online.
Data availability
Data are available in the guideline and its supplementary material.
Funding
No specific funding was received from any bodies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors to carry out the work described in this article.
Disclosure statement: L.S.C. is funded by a Health Education England (HEE)/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship [ID NIHR302173]. G.C. has received: (1) speaker fees from Pfizer; (2) honorarium for advisory board work from Fresenius Kabi. P.H. has received: (1) speaking fees from Novartis; (2) advisory board fees from Amgen. S.R. has received honoraria from Janssen to edit an educational supplement on Psoriatic arthritis for Musculoskeletal Care. H.S., Senior Clinical Lecturer, ICA-SCL-2018–04-ST2-004, is funded by Health Education England (HEE)/NIHR. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, NHS or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. H.R. has received speaker fees from Janssen-Cilag Limited. L.W. has received honoraria from Novartis for GRAPPA meeting attendance. E.R. was topic advisor for the 2022 NICE gout guideline. The remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1. Williams AE, Davies S, Graham A et al. ; North West Clinical Effectiveness Group for the Foot in Rheumatic Diseases (NWCEG). Guidelines for the management of the foot health problems associated with rheumatoid arthritis. Musculoskeletal Care 2011;9:86–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Davies K, Cleary G, Foster H, Hutchinson E, Baildam E, British Society of Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology. BSPAR Standards of Care for children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:1406–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Rheumatoid arthritis in adults: management. NICE guideline [NG100]. 2020. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng100 (1 February 2023, date last accessed).
- 4. van Dijk BT, Dakkak YJ, Krijbolder DI et al. Which inflamed tissues explain a positive metatarsophalangeal squeeze test? A large imaging study to clarify a common diagnostic procedure. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2022;61:4107–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Wouters F, Niemantsverdriet E, van der Helm-van Mil AHM. The value of the squeeze test for detection of subclinical synovitis in patients with arthralgia suspicious for progression to RA. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;59:3106–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. van den Bosch WB, Mangnus L, Reijnierse M, Huizinga TW, van der Helm-van Mil AH. The diagnostic accuracy of the squeeze test to identify arthritis: a cross-sectional cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1886–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Swart JF, van Dijkhuizen EHP, Wulffraat NM, de Roock S. Clinical juvenile arthritis disease activity score proves to be a useful tool in treat-to-target therapy in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:336–42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Foster HE, Jandial S. pGALS–paediatric gait arms legs and spine: a simple examination of the musculoskeletal system. Pediatr Rheumatol 2013;11:1–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. McQueen FM. The MRI view of synovitis and tenosynovitis in inflammatory arthritis: implications for diagnosis and management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009;1154:21–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Dakkak YJ, Matthijssen XME, van der Heijde D, Reijnierse M, van der Helm-van Mil AHM. Reliability of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scoring of the metatarsophalangeal joints of the foot according to the rheumatoid arthritis MRI score. J Rheumatol 2020;47:1165–73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Cherry L, King L, Thomas M et al. The reliability of a novel magnetic resonance imaging-based tool for the evaluation of forefoot bursae in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: the FFB score. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014;53:2014–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Lanni S, Bovis F, Ravelli A et al. Delineating the application of ultrasound in detecting synovial abnormalities of the subtalar joint in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016;68:1346–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Siddle HJ, Mandl P, Aletaha D et al. The EULAR points to consider for health professionals undertaking musculoskeletal ultrasound for rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:311–3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Colebatch-Bourn AN, Edwards CJ, Collado P et al. EULAR-PReS points to consider for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of juvenile idiopathic arthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1946–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Spondyloarthritis in over 16s: diagnosis and management. NICE guideline [NG65]. 2017. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng65 (1 February 2023, date last accessed). [PubMed]
- 16. Mandl P, Navarro-Compán V, Terslev L et al. , European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in the diagnosis and management of spondyloarthritis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 2015;74:1327–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. de Souza S, Williams R, Lempp H. Patient and clinician views on the quality of foot health care for rheumatoid arthritis outpatients: a mixed methods service evaluation. J Foot Ankle Res 2016;9:1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Williams AE, Graham AS. 'My feet: visible, but ignored …' A qualitative study of foot care for people with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rehabil 2012;26:952–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Wilson O, Kirwan J, Dures E, Quest E, Hewlett S. The experience of foot problems and decisions to access foot care in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a qualitative study. J Foot Ankle Res 2017;10:4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Waxman R, Woodburn H, Powell M et al. FOOTSTEP: a randomized controlled trial investigating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a patient self-management program for basic foot care in the elderly. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:1092–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Graham AS, Hammond A, Williams AE. Foot health education for people with rheumatoid arthritis: the practitioner's perspective. J Foot Ankle Res 2012;5:2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Graham AS, Stephenson J, Williams AE. A survey of people with foot problems related to rheumatoid arthritis and their educational needs. J Foot Ankle Res 2017;10:12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Graham AS, Williams AE. Foot health education for people with rheumatoid arthritis: '…. a game of chance…' – a survey of patients' experiences. Musculoskeletal Care 2016;14:37–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Shared decision making. NICE guideline [NG197]. 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng197 (1 February 2023, date last accessed).
- 25. Care Quality Commission. Culturally appropriate care. 2024. https://www.cqc.org.uk/guidance-providers/adult-social-care/culturally-appropriate-care (14 March 2024, date last accessed).
- 26. Gijon-Nogueron G, Ramos-Petersen L, Ortega-Avila AB, Morales-Asencio JM, Garcia-Mayor S. Effectiveness of foot orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis related to disability and pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Qual Life Res 2018;27:3059–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Santos EJF, Duarte C, Marques A et al. Effectiveness of non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for rheumatoid arthritis: an umbrella review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2019;17:1494–531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Tenten-Diepenmaat M, Dekker J, Heymans MW et al. Systematic review on the comparative effectiveness of foot orthoses in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Foot Ankle Res 2019;12:32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Evans AM, Rome K, Carroll M, Hawke F. Foot orthoses for treating paediatric flat feet. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022;1:Cd006311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Fellas A, Singh-Grewal D, Chaitow J et al. Effect of preformed foot orthoses in reducing pain in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2022;61:2572–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Rome K, Clark H, Gray J et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of foot orthoses for people with established rheumatoid arthritis: an exploratory clinical trial. Scand J Rheumatol 2017;46:187–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Frecklington M, Dalbeth N, McNair P et al. Footwear interventions for foot pain, function, impairment and disability for people with foot and ankle arthritis: a literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2018;47:814–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Tenten-Diepenmaat M, van der Leeden M, Vliet Vlieland TPM, Roorda LD, Dekker J. The effectiveness of therapeutic shoes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Rheumatol Int 2018;38:749–62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Williams AE, Rome K, Nester CJ. A clinical trial of specialist footwear for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007;46:302–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. do Carmo CM, Almeida da Rocha B, Tanaka C. Effects of individual and group exercise programs on pain, balance, mobility and perceived benefits in rheumatoid arthritis with pain and foot deformities. J Phys Ther Sci 2017;29:1893–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Siddle HJ, Redmond AC, Waxman R et al. Debridement of painful forefoot plantar callosities in rheumatoid arthritis: the CARROT randomised controlled trial. Clin Rheumatol 2013;32:567–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Davys HJ, Turner DE, Helliwell PS et al. Debridement of plantar callosities in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology 2005;44:207–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Woodburn J, Stableford Z, Helliwell PS. Preliminary investigation of debridement of plantar callosities in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology 2000;39:652–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Foot in Diabetes UK. Principles of debridement: the diabetic foot. 2014. https://wounds-uk.com/consensus-documents/principles-of-debridement-the-diabetic-foot (9 April 2024, date last accessed).
- 40. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Diabetic foot problems: prevention and management. NICE guideline [NG19]. 2019. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng19 (9 April 2024, date last accessed).
- 41. Bowen G, Bristow I, Chadwick P et al. Optimal emollient treatment and prevention of diabetic foot complications. Diabetic Foot J 2021;24:40–5. [Google Scholar]
- 42. Coates LC, Soriano ER, Corp N et al. , GRAPPA Treatment Recommendations Domain Subcommittees. Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA): updated treatment recommendations for psoriatic arthritis 2021. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2022;18:465–79. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Holroyd CR, Seth R, Bukhari M et al. The British Society for Rheumatology biologic DMARD safety guidelines in inflammatory arthritis – executive summary. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019;58:220–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Ledingham J, Gullick N, Irving K et al. , BSR and BHPR Standards, Guidelines and Audit Working Group. BSR and BHPR guideline for the prescription and monitoring of non-biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017;56:865–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Exley V, Jones K, O'Carroll G, Watson J, Backhouse M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on surgical treatments for ingrown toenails part I: recurrence and relief of symptoms. J Foot Ankle Res 2023;16:35. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. The International Working Group on the Diabetic Foot. IWGDF Guidelines on the prevention and management of diabetes-related foot disease. 2023. https://iwgdfguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/IWGDF-Guidelines-2023.pdf (9 April 2024, date last accessed).
- 47. Abdelghani KB, Rouached L, Fazaa A et al. Efficacy of local injection therapy for heel pain in rheumatic inflammatory diseases: a systematic review. Z Rheumatol 2020;79:1033–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Ekeberg OM, Bautz-Holter E, Tveitå EK et al. Subacromial ultrasound guided or systemic steroid injection for rotator cuff disease: randomised double blind study. BMJ 2009;338:a3112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49. Cunnington J, Marshall N, Hide G et al. A randomized, double-blind, controlled study of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection into the joint of patients with inflammatory arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2010;62:1862–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Moosmayer S, Ekeberg OM, Hallgren HB et al. Ultrasound guided lavage with corticosteroid injection versus sham lavage with and without corticosteroid injection for calcific tendinopathy of shoulder: randomised double blinded multi-arm study. BMJ 2023;383:e076447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Jennings H, Hennessy K, Hendry GJ. The clinical effectiveness of intra-articular corticosteroids for arthritis of the lower limb in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J 2014;12:23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Cleary AG, Murphy HD, Davidson JE. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections in juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arch Dis Child 2003;88:192–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Hetland ML, Stengaard-Pedersen K, Junker P et al. , CIMESTRA Study Group. Aggressive combination therapy with intra-articular glucocorticoid injections and conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in early rheumatoid arthritis: second-year clinical and radiographic results from the CIMESTRA study. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:815–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Gvozdenović E, Dirven L, van den Broek M et al. Intra articular injection with corticosteroids in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis: subanalyses from the BeSt study. Clin Rheumatol 2014;33:263–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Foster HE, Minden K, Clemente D et al. EULAR/PReS standards and recommendations for the transitional care of young people with juvenile-onset rheumatic diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2017;76:639–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. The inbetweeners: a review of the barriers and facilitators in the process of the transition of children and young people with complex chronic health conditions into adult health services. 2023. www.ncepod.org.uk/2023transition/The%20Inbetweeners_summary%20report.pdf (1 September 2023, date last accessed).
- 57. Ye H, Weng H, Xu Y et al. Effectiveness and safety of aerobic exercise for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil 2022;14:17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Villaverde-García V, Cobo-Ibáñez T, Candelas-Rodríguez G et al. The effect of smoking on clinical and structural damage in patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a systematic literature review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2017;46:569–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Qin B, Yang M, Fu H et al. Body mass index and the risk of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Arthritis Res Ther 2015;17:86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Rausch Osthoff A-K, Niedermann K, Braun J et al. 2018 EULAR recommendations for physical activity in people with inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2018;77:1251–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Gwinnutt JM, Wieczorek M, Balanescu A et al. 2021 EULAR recommendations regarding lifestyle behaviours and work participation to prevent progression of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases. Ann Rheum Dis 2023;82:48–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Weight management: lifestyle services for overweight or obese adults. Public health guideline [PH53]. 2014. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph53 (14 August 2023, date last accessed).
- 63. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Tobacco: preventing uptake, promoting quitting and treating dependence. NICE guideline [NG209]. 2021. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng209 (14 August 2023, date last accessed). [PubMed]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Data are available in the guideline and its supplementary material.