Objective The objective of this study was to pool, harmonise and re-analyse national accelerometer data from adults in four European countries in order to describe population levels of sedentary time and physical inactivity. Methods Five cross-sectional studies were included from England, Portugal, Norway and Sweden. ActiGraph accelerometer count data were centrally processed using the same algorithms. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to study the associations of sedentary time and physical inactivity with sex, age, weight status and educational level, in both the pooled sample and the separate study samples. Results Data from 9509 participants were used. On average, participants were sedentary for 530 min/day, and accumulated 36 min/day of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity. Twenty-three percent accumulated more than 10 h of sedentary time/day, and 72% did not meet the physical activity recommendations. Nine percent of all participants were classified as high sedentary and low active. Participants from Norway showed the highest levels of sedentary time, while participants from England were the least physically active. Age and weight status were positively associated with sedentary time and not meeting the physical activity recommendations. Men and higher-educated people were more likely to be highly sedentary, while women and lower-educated people were more likely to be inactive. Conclusions We found high levels of sedentary time and physical inactivity in four European countries. Older people and obese people were most likely to display these behaviours and thus deserve special attention in interventions and policy planning. In order to monitor these behaviours, accelerometer-based cross-European surveillance is recommended.

Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention, with and without a height adjustable desk, on daily sitting time, and to investigate the relative effectiveness of the two interventions, and the effectiveness of both interventions on physical behaviours and physical, biochemical, psychological, and work related health and performance outcomes. Design Cluster three arm randomised controlled trial with follow-up at three and 12 months. Setting Local government councils in Leicester, Liverpool, and Greater Manchester, UK. Participants 78 clusters including 756 desk based employees in defined offices, departments, or teams from two councils in Leicester, three in Greater Manchester, and one in Liverpool. Interventions Clusters were randomised to one of three conditions: the SMART Work and Life (SWAL) intervention, the SWAL intervention with a height adjustable desk (SWAL plus desk), or control (usual practice). Main outcomes measures The primary outcome measure was daily sitting time, assessed by accelerometry, at 12 month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were accelerometer assessed sitting, prolonged sitting, standing and stepping time, and physical activity calculated over any valid day, work hours, workdays, and non-workdays, self-reported lifestyle behaviours, musculoskeletal problems, cardiometabolic health markers, work related health and performance, fatigue, and psychological measures. Results Mean age of participants was 44.7 years, 72.4% (n=547) were women, and 74.9% (n=566) were white. Daily sitting time at 12 months was significantly lower in the intervention groups (SWAL −22.2 min/day, 95% confidence interval −38.8 to −5.7 min/day, P=0.003; SWAL plus desk −63.7 min/day, −80.1 to −47.4 min/day, P<0.001) compared with the control group. The SWAL plus desk intervention was found to be more effective than SWAL at changing sitting time (−41.7 min/day, −56.3 to −27.0 min/day, P<0.001). Favourable differences in sitting and prolonged sitting time at three and 12 month follow-ups for both intervention groups and for standing time for the SWAL plus desk group were observed during work hours and on workdays. Both intervention groups were associated with small improvements in stress, wellbeing, and vigour, and the SWAL plus desk group was associated with improvements in pain in the lower extremity, social norms for sitting and standing at work, and support. Conclusions Both SWAL and SWAL plus desk were associated with a reduction in sitting time, although the addition of a height adjustable desk was found to be threefold more effective. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11618007.

Objective To assess immunologically relevant outcomes in a cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with prolonged therapy-induced lymphopenia. Methods Morbidity (infection or malignancy) and mortality were assessed in 53 RA patients who were treated with the lymphocytotoxic monoclonal antibody alemtuzumab between 1991 and 1994. Data were obtained by interview, medical record review, and Office for National Statistics mortality monitoring. Lymphocyte subsets were enumerated by flow cytometry. A retrospective, matched-cohort study of mortality was performed with 102 control subjects selected from the European League Against Rheumatism database of patients with rheumatic disorders. Results Lymphopenia persisted in the patients: median CD3+CD4+, CD3+CD8+, CD19+, and CD56+ lymphocyte counts measured at a median followup of 11.8 years from the first administration of alemtuzumab were 0.50 × 10⁹/liter, 0.26 × 10⁹/liter, 0.11 × 10⁹/liter, and 0.09 × 10⁹/liter, respectively. Twenty-seven of 51 cases and 46 of 101 controls with available data had died, yielding a mortality rate ratio of 1.20 (95% confidence interval 0.72–1.98). Causes of death were similar to those that would be expected in a hospital-based RA cohort. No opportunistic infections were noted, and only 3 infections were documented following 36 elective orthopedic procedures. Conclusion Despite continued lymphopenia 11.8 years after therapy, our patient cohort did not exhibit excess mortality or unusual infection-related morbidity, and surgery was well tolerated. These data should be reassuring for clinicians and patients who are considering lymphocytotoxic or other immunomodulatory therapy for RA.

Objective: To describe the relationship between baseline area‐ and person‐level social inequalities and functional disability at 3 years in patients with early inflammatory polyarthritis (IP).Methods: A total of 1,393 patients with new‐onset IP were recruited and allocated an Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2004 score based on their area of residence, and a social class based on baseline self‐reported occupation. Differences in the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) score at baseline and 3 years by IMD or social class were tested. The mean 3‐year change in HAQ score was compared by IMD and social class, and interactions between these measures examined.Results: Patients from more deprived areas had poorer 3‐year HAQ outcome than those from less deprived areas (P = 0.019, adjusted for baseline HAQ score, age, sex, and symptom duration). The mean difference in HAQ change was most notable between the most deprived (IMD4) and least deprived areas (IMD1) (0.22; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.11, 0.34). There was also a significant difference in HAQ score change between patients of the highest (SCI and II) and lowest social class (SCIV and V) (0.11; 95% CI 0.02, 0.20). For the mean (95% CI) 3‐year change in HAQ score, a significant interaction exists between IMD score and social class and their association with HAQ scores (P = 0.001) to modify outcome: IMD1/SC I and II −0.23 (95% CI −0.40, −0.06) versus IMD 4/SC IV and V 0.15 (95% CI −0.05, 0.34).Conclusion: Person‐ and area‐level inequalities combine to modify outcome for rheumatoid arthritis. A person's social circumstance and residential environment have independent effects on outcome and are not just alternative measures of the same exposure.

Office-based workers typically spend 70–85% of working hours, and a large proportion of leisure time, sitting. High levels of sitting have been linked to poor health. There is a need for fully powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with long-term follow-up to test the effectiveness of interventions to reduce sitting. This paper describes the methodology of a three-arm cluster RCT designed to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SMART Work & Life intervention, delivered with and without a height-adjustable desk, for reducing daily sitting. A three-arm cluster RCT of 33 clusters (660 council workers) will be conducted in three areas in England (Leicester; Manchester; Liverpool). Office groups (clusters) will be randomised to the SMART Work & Life intervention delivered with (group 1) or without (group 2) a height-adjustable desk or a control group (group 3). SMART Work & Life includes organisational (e.g., management buy-in, provision/support for standing meetings), environmental (e.g., relocating waste bins, printers), and group/individual (education, action planning, goal setting, addressing barriers, coaching, self-monitoring, social support) level behaviour change strategies, with strategies driven by workplace champions. Baseline, 3, 12 and 24 month measures will be taken. Primary outcome: Objectively measured daily sitting time (activPAL3). Secondary outcomes: objectively measured sitting, standing, stepping, prolonged sitting and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity time and number of steps at work and daily; objectively measured sleep (wrist accelerometry). Adiposity, blood pressure, fasting glucose, glycated haemoglobin, cholesterol (total, HDL, LDL) and triglycerides will be assessed from capillary blood samples. Questionnaires will examine dietary intake, fatigue, musculoskeletal issues, job performance and satisfaction, work engagement, occupational and general fatigue, stress, presenteeism, anxiety and depression and sickness absence (organisational records). Quality of life and resources used (e.g. GP visits, outpatient attendances) will also be assessed. We will conduct a full process evaluation and cost-effectiveness analysis. The results of this RCT will 1) help to understand how effective an important simple, yet relatively expensive environmental change is for reducing sitting, 2) provide evidence on changing behaviour across all waking hours, and 3) provide evidence for policy guidelines around population and workplace health and well-being. ISRCTN11618007 . Registered on 21 January 2018.