➤ Short bone-conserving femoral stems in total hip arthroplasty were designed to preserve proximal bone stock.➤ Given the distinct fixation principles and location of loading among these bone-conserving stems, a classification system is essential to compare clinical outcomes.➤ Due to the low quality of currently available evidence, only a weak recommendation can be provided for clinical usage of certain stem designs, while some other designs cannot be recommended at this time.➤ A high prevalence of stem malalignment, incorrect sizing, subsidence, and intraoperative fractures has been reported in a subset of these short stem designs.➤ Stronger evidence, including prospective multicenter randomized trials comparing standard stems with these newer designs, is necessary before widespread use can be recommended.

consideration should be given to inclusion of opportunistic and routine questioning of older people about recent falls by practitioners in primary care settings. Referrals should be made to appropriate services and interventions for those who have experienced a fall to prevent further injuries or fracture.

Uptake of and adherence to fall prevention interventions is often poor and we know little about how older people's perceptions of and beliefs about fall prevention interventions affect uptake.This study aimed to explore older people's perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to participation in fall prevention interventions.We undertook a qualitative study with older people who had taken part in, declined to participate or adhere to fall prevention interventions using semi-structured interviews (n=65), and 17 focus groups (n=122) with older people (including 32 Asian and 30Chinese older people) in primary and community care settings A number of factors acted as either barriers or facilitators to uptake of interventions. Older people also made recommendations for improving access to interventions.Community nurses are ideally placed to screen older people, identify those at risk of falling and refer them to appropriate interventions as well as providing health promotion and education.

AimIn this study, efficacy, tolerability and safety of biosimilar adalimumab (Exemptia; Zydus Cadila) was compared with reference adalimumab (Humira; AbbVie) in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA).MethodIn this multicentre, prospective, randomized, double‐blind, active controlled parallel arm study, 120 patients with moderate to severe RA were given 40 mg of either test adalimumab (Exemptia) or reference adalimumab (Humira) by subcutaneous route every other week for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was proportion of responders in two tretament groups by American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) at week 12. The secondary endpoints were change in Disease Activity Score of 28 joints – C‐reactive protein (DAS28‐CRP) and proportion of patients with an ACR50 and ACR70 response in two treatment groups at week 12. Safety outcomes were also assessed.ResultsAfter 12 weeks, patients treated every other week with test adalimumab (Zydus Cadila) had statistically similar response rates as compared to reference adalimumab (AbbVie): ACR20 (82% vs. 79.2%; P > 0.7); ACR50 (46%, vs. 43.4%; P > 0.7); ACR70 (14% vs. 15.1%; P > 0.8). The change in DAS28‐CRP score was −2.1 ± 1.09 and −2.1 ± 1.21, in test and reference products, respectively. It was statistically significant compared to baseline, but not significantly different between the two products. Three serious adverse events and no death was reported during the study. Both adalimumab preparations were safe and well tolerated in this study.ConclusionThe results demonstrated biosimilarity with respect to efficacy, tolerability and safety of test adalimumab (Exemptia) and reference adalimumab (Humira) in patients with moderate to severe RA.

Therapeutic Level IV. See page 128 for a complete description of levels of evidence.