Osteoarthritis

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

CHICAGO - Patients 80 years or older undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have similar odds of complications, compared with 65- to 79-year-old patients, an analysis of more than 1.7 million cases suggests.

Priscilla Varghese, MBA, MS, and an MD candidate at State University of New York, Brooklyn, led the research, presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons 2022 annual meeting.

Ms. Varghese’s team queried a Medicare claims database for the years 2005-2014 and analyzed information from 295,908 octogenarians and 1.4 million control patients aged 65-79 who received TKA.

Study group patients were randomly matched to controls in a 1:5 ratio according to gender and comorbidities, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and kidney failure.

Octogenarians were found to have higher incidence and odds of 90-day readmission rates (10.59% vs. 9.35%; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16; P < .0001).   

Hospital stays were also longer (3.69 days ± 1.95 vs. 3.23 days ± 1.83; P < .0001), compared with controls.

Reassuring older patients

However, Ms. Varghese told this news organization she was surprised to find that the older group had equal incidence and odds of developing medical complications (1.26% vs. 1.26%; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.03; P =.99).

“That’s a really important piece of information to have when we are advising 80-year-olds – to be able to say their risk of adverse outcomes is similar to someone who’s 10 years, 15 years younger,” she said. “It’s really reassuring.”

These results offer good news to older patients who might be hesitant to undergo the surgery, and good news in general as life expectancy increases and people stay active long into their later years, forecasting the need for more knee replacements.

The number of total knee replacements is expected to rise dramatically in the United States.

In a 2017 study published in Osteoarthritis Cartilage, the authors write, “the number of TKAs in the U.S., which already has the highest [incidence rate] of knee arthroplasty in the world, is expected to increase 143% by 2050.”

Thomas Fleeter, MD, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Reston, Virginia, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization this study reinforces that “it’s OK to do knee replacements in elderly people; you just have to pick the right ones.”

He pointed out that the study also showed that the 80-and-older patients don’t have the added risk of loosening their mechanical components after the surgery, likely because they are less inclined than their younger counterparts to follow surgery with strenuous activities.

In a subanalysis, revision rates were also lower for the octogenarians (0.01% vs. 0.02% for controls).

Octogenarians who had TKA were found to have lower incidence and odds (1.6% vs. 1.93%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.88, P < .001) of implant-related complications, compared with the younger group.

The increased length of stay would be expected, Dr. Fleeter said, because those 80-plus may need a bit more help getting out of bed and may not have as much support at home.

A total knee replacement can have the substantial benefit of improving octogenarians’ ability to maintain their independence longer by facilitating driving or walking.

“It’s a small and manageable risk if you pick the right patients,” he said.

Demand for TKAs rises as population ages

As patients are living longer and wanting to maintain their mobility and as obesity rates are rising, more older patients will seek total knee replacements, especially since the payoff is high, Ms. Varghese noted.

“People who undergo this operation tend to show remarkable decreases in pain and increases in range of motion,” she said.

This study has the advantage of a more personalized look at risks of TKA because it stratifies age groups.

“The literature tends to look at the elderly population as one big cohort – 65 and older,” Ms. Varghese said. “We were able to provide patients more specific data.”

Ms. Varghese and Dr. Fleeter have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Prevalent cases of osteoarthritis increased significantly worldwide from 1990 to 2019, based on data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

OA remains a highly prevalent condition worldwide, with no nonsurgical interventions to prevent progression, wrote Huibin Long, MD, of Capital Medical University, Beijing, and colleagues.

Courtesy National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)

Data from previous studies show that the prevalence of OA varies depending on the joints involved, with the knee being most frequently affected. However, site-specific data on OA trends and disease burden across regions or territories has not been well documented, they said.

In a study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, the researchers analyzed data from the Global Burden of Disease Study, an ongoing project involving researchers in approximately 200 countries and territories to provide up-to-date information on the disease burdens of more than 350 types of diseases and injuries.

The Global Burden of Disease study for 2019 (GBD 2019) included data on age- and sex-specific incidence, prevalence, mortality, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life-years for 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories. Countries were divided into five groups based on a composite sociodemographic index (SDI) of factors including fertility, income, and educational attainment; the SDI represents the quality and availability of health care, the researchers wrote.

OA was defined as radiologically confirmed Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2-4 and pain for at least 1 month during the past 12 months.

Overall, prevalent OA cases increased by 113.25% worldwide, from 247.51 million in 1990 to 527.81 million in 2019. China had the highest number of cases in 2019 (132.81 million), followed by India (62.36 million), and the United States (51.87 million). The percentage increases for these three countries from 1990 to 2019 were 156.58%, 165.75%, and 79.63%, respectively.

To further calculate trends in OA, the researchers used age-standardized prevalence rates (ASRs). The overall ASRs increased from 6,173.38 per 100,000 individuals in 1990 to 6,348.25 per 100,000 individuals in 2019, for an estimated annual percentage change of 0.12%. The ASR of OA varied substantially across countries in 2019, with the highest level observed in the United States (9,960.88 per 100,000) and the lowest in Timor-Leste (3,768.44 per 100,000). The prevalence of OA was higher in countries with higher SDI levels, such as the United States and the Republic of Korea, and increased life expectancy may play a role, they said.

OA prevalence increased with age; the prevalence of OA among adults peaked at 60-64 years in both 1990 and 2019. The absolute number of cases rose most sharply among individuals aged 95 years and older, increasing nearly fourfold during the 30-year period. The ASR of OA was also highest for people aged 95 years or older.

As for site-specific prevalence in 2019, OA of the knee was the most common site worldwide (60.6% of cases), followed by OA of the hand (23.7%), other joint sites (10.2%), and the hip (5.5%).

The ASR of OA increased for knee, hip, and other joints, with estimated annual percentage changes of 0.32%, 0.28%, and 0.18%, respectively, but decreased by 0.36% for the hand.

OA in large joints, such as the knee and hip, is often associated with higher disease burden, the researchers said. However, this held true for only knee OA because in this study, “globally as well as in most regions and countries, joints with the main disease burden were the knee, followed by the hand, [and] other joints except spine, while OA [of the] hip contributed the least,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the adjustments from individual studies in the GBD and the exclusion of spinal symptoms, which might have contributed to an underestimation of disease burden, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the lack of assessment of the effect of health systems as part of the SDI, they said.

Overall, the results support a trend of increasing OA worldwide that is expected to continue in part because of the aging global population and the ongoing epidemic of obesity, the researchers said.

“Public awareness of the modifiable risk factors, and potential education programs of prevention of disease occurrence are essential to alleviate the enormous burden of OA,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Beijing Postdoctoral Research Foundation and National Natural Science Foundation of China. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Researchers found a small but greater risk of a hip fracture after 2 years of taking a “drug holiday” – stopping therapy – after long-term (≥3-year) use of one bisphosphonate, risedronate, versus another, alendronate.   

The risk of a hip fracture after stopping either of these oral bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs was similar until 2 years, suggesting that patients who take a drug holiday from risedronate should be revaluated before 2 years.

These top-line findings from a propensity-matched cohort study of older patients in Ontario, Canada, were reported at the annual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) last fall.

The full study, led by Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We emphasize that our results do not indicate that alendronate therapy should be preferred over risedronate therapy,” the researchers stress, as several real-world studies found a similar risk of fractures while patients were receiving either drug.

“The decision to initiate alendronate or risedronate therapy [the two most commonly prescribed bisphosphonates] is driven by the prescriber,” they note, adding that some patients may prefer risedronate because it is available as a monthly dose or a weekly delayed-release formula that does not require fasting. 

“We found little difference in the association between risedronate versus alendronate drug holidays and hip fractures until approximately 2 years of not receiving therapy,” Dr. Hayes and colleagues summarize.

Over 3 years, risedronate drug holidays were associated with an 18% relative and 0.6% absolute increased risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays.

“To further inform clinical decision-making on drug holidays,” they conclude, “future research should examine when to start and restart osteoporosis therapy on the basis of initial length and type of treatment, patient characteristics, and relative risk for hip fractures versus [atypical femoral fracture].”
 

Hip fracture risk with risedronate vs. alendronate drug holiday

Long-term bisphosphonate use is associated with a rare risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures. At the same time, bisphosphonates continue to have a therapeutic effect after therapy is discontinued.

Guidelines recommend that patients at low risk of fracture should therefore have a “drug holiday” after 3 to 5 years of bisphosphonate use and be reassessed 2 to 3 years later, largely based on the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study of alendronate. But risedronate has a shorter half-life, so it may provide shorter residual fracture protection.

Using Ontario administrative data, Dr. Hayes and associates identified more than 60,000 patients who were over aged 65, had received at least 3 years of continuous alendronate or risedronate, and had a subsequent 3-year drug holiday between 2000 and 2020.

They excluded patients who had a fracture or entered a nursing home within 120 days of starting a drug holiday who may have stopped the bisphosphonate due to declining health rather than a drug holiday.

Roughly half (55%) had been taking risedronate and 45% had been taking alendronate.

Using propensity scores, the researchers matched 25,077 patients who had been taking risedronate with an equal number who had been taking alendronate.

Most of the patients were women (82%) and were White.

They started the drug holiday when they were on average 81 years old, after taking the bisphosphonate for 5.9 years on average.

During the 3-year drug holiday, 915 of the 50,154 patients had hip fractures.

This was equivalent to 12.4 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during a risedronate holiday and 10.6 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during an alendronate holiday (hazard ratio, 1.18).  

The risk of hip fracture was not significantly higher at 1 year (HR, 1.03) or at 2 years of a risedronate holiday versus an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.14).

However, the risk of a hip fracture was significantly higher at 2 to 3 years of a risedronate holiday than after an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.34). 

There was no significant difference in the risk of any osteoporotic fracture overall (including hip, vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, forearm), however, during a 3-year risedronate versus alendronate drug holiday (HR, 1.07).

The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Hayes was supported by a CIHR doctoral research award. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers found a small but greater risk of a hip fracture after 2 years of taking a “drug holiday” – stopping therapy – after long-term (≥3-year) use of one bisphosphonate, risedronate, versus another, alendronate.   

The risk of a hip fracture after stopping either of these oral bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs was similar until 2 years, suggesting that patients who take a drug holiday from risedronate should be revaluated before 2 years.

These top-line findings from a propensity-matched cohort study of older patients in Ontario, Canada, were reported at the annual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) last fall.

The full study, led by Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We emphasize that our results do not indicate that alendronate therapy should be preferred over risedronate therapy,” the researchers stress, as several real-world studies found a similar risk of fractures while patients were receiving either drug.

“The decision to initiate alendronate or risedronate therapy [the two most commonly prescribed bisphosphonates] is driven by the prescriber,” they note, adding that some patients may prefer risedronate because it is available as a monthly dose or a weekly delayed-release formula that does not require fasting. 

“We found little difference in the association between risedronate versus alendronate drug holidays and hip fractures until approximately 2 years of not receiving therapy,” Dr. Hayes and colleagues summarize.

Over 3 years, risedronate drug holidays were associated with an 18% relative and 0.6% absolute increased risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays.

“To further inform clinical decision-making on drug holidays,” they conclude, “future research should examine when to start and restart osteoporosis therapy on the basis of initial length and type of treatment, patient characteristics, and relative risk for hip fractures versus [atypical femoral fracture].”
 

Hip fracture risk with risedronate vs. alendronate drug holiday

Long-term bisphosphonate use is associated with a rare risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures. At the same time, bisphosphonates continue to have a therapeutic effect after therapy is discontinued.

Guidelines recommend that patients at low risk of fracture should therefore have a “drug holiday” after 3 to 5 years of bisphosphonate use and be reassessed 2 to 3 years later, largely based on the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study of alendronate. But risedronate has a shorter half-life, so it may provide shorter residual fracture protection.

Using Ontario administrative data, Dr. Hayes and associates identified more than 60,000 patients who were over aged 65, had received at least 3 years of continuous alendronate or risedronate, and had a subsequent 3-year drug holiday between 2000 and 2020.

They excluded patients who had a fracture or entered a nursing home within 120 days of starting a drug holiday who may have stopped the bisphosphonate due to declining health rather than a drug holiday.

Roughly half (55%) had been taking risedronate and 45% had been taking alendronate.

Using propensity scores, the researchers matched 25,077 patients who had been taking risedronate with an equal number who had been taking alendronate.

Most of the patients were women (82%) and were White.

They started the drug holiday when they were on average 81 years old, after taking the bisphosphonate for 5.9 years on average.

During the 3-year drug holiday, 915 of the 50,154 patients had hip fractures.

This was equivalent to 12.4 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during a risedronate holiday and 10.6 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during an alendronate holiday (hazard ratio, 1.18).  

The risk of hip fracture was not significantly higher at 1 year (HR, 1.03) or at 2 years of a risedronate holiday versus an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.14).

However, the risk of a hip fracture was significantly higher at 2 to 3 years of a risedronate holiday than after an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.34). 

There was no significant difference in the risk of any osteoporotic fracture overall (including hip, vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, forearm), however, during a 3-year risedronate versus alendronate drug holiday (HR, 1.07).

The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Hayes was supported by a CIHR doctoral research award. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Researchers found a small but greater risk of a hip fracture after 2 years of taking a “drug holiday” – stopping therapy – after long-term (≥3-year) use of one bisphosphonate, risedronate, versus another, alendronate.   

The risk of a hip fracture after stopping either of these oral bisphosphonate osteoporosis drugs was similar until 2 years, suggesting that patients who take a drug holiday from risedronate should be revaluated before 2 years.

These top-line findings from a propensity-matched cohort study of older patients in Ontario, Canada, were reported at the annual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) last fall.

The full study, led by Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, PhD, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I., was published online in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“We emphasize that our results do not indicate that alendronate therapy should be preferred over risedronate therapy,” the researchers stress, as several real-world studies found a similar risk of fractures while patients were receiving either drug.

“The decision to initiate alendronate or risedronate therapy [the two most commonly prescribed bisphosphonates] is driven by the prescriber,” they note, adding that some patients may prefer risedronate because it is available as a monthly dose or a weekly delayed-release formula that does not require fasting. 

“We found little difference in the association between risedronate versus alendronate drug holidays and hip fractures until approximately 2 years of not receiving therapy,” Dr. Hayes and colleagues summarize.

Over 3 years, risedronate drug holidays were associated with an 18% relative and 0.6% absolute increased risk for hip fracture compared with alendronate drug holidays.

“To further inform clinical decision-making on drug holidays,” they conclude, “future research should examine when to start and restart osteoporosis therapy on the basis of initial length and type of treatment, patient characteristics, and relative risk for hip fractures versus [atypical femoral fracture].”
 

Hip fracture risk with risedronate vs. alendronate drug holiday

Long-term bisphosphonate use is associated with a rare risk of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures. At the same time, bisphosphonates continue to have a therapeutic effect after therapy is discontinued.

Guidelines recommend that patients at low risk of fracture should therefore have a “drug holiday” after 3 to 5 years of bisphosphonate use and be reassessed 2 to 3 years later, largely based on the Fracture Intervention Trial Long-Term Extension (FLEX) study of alendronate. But risedronate has a shorter half-life, so it may provide shorter residual fracture protection.

Using Ontario administrative data, Dr. Hayes and associates identified more than 60,000 patients who were over aged 65, had received at least 3 years of continuous alendronate or risedronate, and had a subsequent 3-year drug holiday between 2000 and 2020.

They excluded patients who had a fracture or entered a nursing home within 120 days of starting a drug holiday who may have stopped the bisphosphonate due to declining health rather than a drug holiday.

Roughly half (55%) had been taking risedronate and 45% had been taking alendronate.

Using propensity scores, the researchers matched 25,077 patients who had been taking risedronate with an equal number who had been taking alendronate.

Most of the patients were women (82%) and were White.

They started the drug holiday when they were on average 81 years old, after taking the bisphosphonate for 5.9 years on average.

During the 3-year drug holiday, 915 of the 50,154 patients had hip fractures.

This was equivalent to 12.4 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during a risedronate holiday and 10.6 hip fractures per 1,000 patients per year during an alendronate holiday (hazard ratio, 1.18).  

The risk of hip fracture was not significantly higher at 1 year (HR, 1.03) or at 2 years of a risedronate holiday versus an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.14).

However, the risk of a hip fracture was significantly higher at 2 to 3 years of a risedronate holiday than after an alendronate holiday (HR, 1.34). 

There was no significant difference in the risk of any osteoporotic fracture overall (including hip, vertebrae, pelvis, ribs, forearm), however, during a 3-year risedronate versus alendronate drug holiday (HR, 1.07).

The research was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. Dr. Hayes was supported by a CIHR doctoral research award. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A small, open-label, randomized trial of patients with chronic pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Netherlands shows that adding duloxetine to usual care doesn’t significantly improve clinical outcomes.

The results, published on Jan. 6 in Arthritis & Rheumatology, also showed duloxetine did not affect outcomes for a subgroup of patients who had symptoms of centrally sensitized pain, according to Jacoline J. van den Driest, MD, of the department of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The researchers acknowledged their findings contrast with other studies that showed a “small to moderate effect of duloxetine” for patients with chronic pain from hip and knee OA. There was also a higher rate of discontinuation of duloxetine around 3 months in the current trial, compared with previous studies, the authors said, which they attributed to the fact that clinicians were asked to discontinue treatment at 3 months if patients saw no effect or increased side effects.

“This difference in outcome can be due to the fact that we studied the effectiveness of duloxetine in primary care, while the other studies examined the efficacy in placebo-controlled trials in secondary care,” the researchers wrote. Patients in the current trial were also older, had more comorbidities, and had been living with OA symptoms “for a longer time” than patients in other trials, they explained.

“It is known that, in these more ‘real-life’ primary care populations and in effectiveness studies, smaller effects are found than in highly controlled efficacy trials,” they noted.

Dr. van den Driest and colleagues evaluated 132 patients with hip or knee OA between January 2016 and February 2019 who were cluster randomized at 66 general practitioner practice sites to receive duloxetine (30 mg/day in the first week, 60 mg/day in the second week and beyond) in addition to usual care that consisted of analgesics, physiotherapy, patient education, diet, and lifestyle advice. Patients were included in the study if they were at least 18 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA, and experienced chronic pain for “most days” over 3 months that was not improved through use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen or were unable to use NSAIDs because of contraindications or adverse effects. They were excluded if taking duloxetine was contraindicated for them, if they were taking an antidepressant or neuropathic pain medication, and if they had rheumatoid arthritis or were scheduled for total hip or total knee replacement.

The researchers assessed patients’ Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain scores at 3 months, compared with baseline, as a primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of WOMAC pain and function at 1 year, and cost-effectiveness as measured by the EQ-5D-5L. A modified painDETECT questionnaire was also used at baseline to identify a subset of patients with presence of centralized pain, which was defined as a score >12.

At 12 months, 80.3% of patients in both groups completed follow-up. Patient characteristics differed in duloxetine and usual-care groups, with the duloxetine group being younger (63.2 years vs. 65.4 years) and having fewer women (59.1% vs. 75.8%). The duloxetine group also had a lower percentage of patients with knee OA (77.3% vs. 86.4%) and a lower percentage of patients with two or more comorbidities (15.2% vs. 33.2%).

Duloxetine led to a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months, compared with usual care (adjusted difference, –0.58; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 0.63), and at 12 months (adjusted difference, –0.26; 95% CI, –1.86 to 1.34). Among a subgroup of patients with central sensitization symptoms, there was a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months (adjusted difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –2.32 to 1.67) and 12 months (adjusted difference, 1.02; 95% CI, –1.22 to 3.27).

Duloxetine also did not significantly improve WOMAC-measured function at 3 months (adjusted difference, –2.10; 95% CI, –6.39 to 2.20) or 12 months (adjusted difference, –1.79; 95% CI, –7.22 to 3.64).

For other secondary outcomes of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria, Dr. van den Driest and colleagues noted that “none of the differences between the two groups were clinically relevant or statistically significant.”

Some patients may likely still benefit from duloxetine
Commenting on the results, Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said the study by van den Driest and colleagues is pragmatic and demonstrates the “ ‘real-world’ benefits of trying duloxetine” – one of the study’s strengths.

“As we would probably expect, the benefits are small, and somewhat smaller in this setting than what was observed in more standard clinical trials evaluating this question,” he said, noting that the study is limited by a small sample size and loss to follow-up, as well as its open-label design and the fact that most patients stopped treatment during follow-up.

Dr. Baker also explained that while patients on average did not have a meaningful effect after taking duloxetine, “that doesn’t mean that the therapy didn’t have a meaningful effect for some people.” 

“In fact, though most people didn’t receive a meaningful benefit in this study, some did,” he said. “[A]ccording to these data, treating 8 people would be expected to result in 1 person achieving an [OMERACT-OARSI] response. That’s pretty good for a disease with few things that work.”

Future study of duloxetine should focus on who is most likely to benefit from treatment “since while most probably don’t benefit a lot, some probably do,” he said.

Dr. Baker also called attention to the questions surrounding use of antidepressants. “Use of antidepressants has been questioned by some, since the average clinical benefit is low, even for conditions like depression,” he explained. “However, some would argue that even small benefits may be important since there are few things that do work very well, and because a multimodal approach that provides multiple small benefits to patients can add up to a meaningful benefit.”

This study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the European Union, FOREUM, and the Dutch Arthritis Association, as well as personal fees from OARSI and Pfizer. The other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

* This story was updated 1/6/22.

A small, open-label, randomized trial of patients with chronic pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Netherlands shows that adding duloxetine to usual care doesn’t significantly improve clinical outcomes.

The results, published on Jan. 6 in Arthritis & Rheumatology, also showed duloxetine did not affect outcomes for a subgroup of patients who had symptoms of centrally sensitized pain, according to Jacoline J. van den Driest, MD, of the department of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The researchers acknowledged their findings contrast with other studies that showed a “small to moderate effect of duloxetine” for patients with chronic pain from hip and knee OA. There was also a higher rate of discontinuation of duloxetine around 3 months in the current trial, compared with previous studies, the authors said, which they attributed to the fact that clinicians were asked to discontinue treatment at 3 months if patients saw no effect or increased side effects.

“This difference in outcome can be due to the fact that we studied the effectiveness of duloxetine in primary care, while the other studies examined the efficacy in placebo-controlled trials in secondary care,” the researchers wrote. Patients in the current trial were also older, had more comorbidities, and had been living with OA symptoms “for a longer time” than patients in other trials, they explained.

“It is known that, in these more ‘real-life’ primary care populations and in effectiveness studies, smaller effects are found than in highly controlled efficacy trials,” they noted.

Dr. van den Driest and colleagues evaluated 132 patients with hip or knee OA between January 2016 and February 2019 who were cluster randomized at 66 general practitioner practice sites to receive duloxetine (30 mg/day in the first week, 60 mg/day in the second week and beyond) in addition to usual care that consisted of analgesics, physiotherapy, patient education, diet, and lifestyle advice. Patients were included in the study if they were at least 18 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA, and experienced chronic pain for “most days” over 3 months that was not improved through use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen or were unable to use NSAIDs because of contraindications or adverse effects. They were excluded if taking duloxetine was contraindicated for them, if they were taking an antidepressant or neuropathic pain medication, and if they had rheumatoid arthritis or were scheduled for total hip or total knee replacement.

The researchers assessed patients’ Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain scores at 3 months, compared with baseline, as a primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of WOMAC pain and function at 1 year, and cost-effectiveness as measured by the EQ-5D-5L. A modified painDETECT questionnaire was also used at baseline to identify a subset of patients with presence of centralized pain, which was defined as a score >12.

At 12 months, 80.3% of patients in both groups completed follow-up. Patient characteristics differed in duloxetine and usual-care groups, with the duloxetine group being younger (63.2 years vs. 65.4 years) and having fewer women (59.1% vs. 75.8%). The duloxetine group also had a lower percentage of patients with knee OA (77.3% vs. 86.4%) and a lower percentage of patients with two or more comorbidities (15.2% vs. 33.2%).

Duloxetine led to a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months, compared with usual care (adjusted difference, –0.58; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 0.63), and at 12 months (adjusted difference, –0.26; 95% CI, –1.86 to 1.34). Among a subgroup of patients with central sensitization symptoms, there was a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months (adjusted difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –2.32 to 1.67) and 12 months (adjusted difference, 1.02; 95% CI, –1.22 to 3.27).

Duloxetine also did not significantly improve WOMAC-measured function at 3 months (adjusted difference, –2.10; 95% CI, –6.39 to 2.20) or 12 months (adjusted difference, –1.79; 95% CI, –7.22 to 3.64).

For other secondary outcomes of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria, Dr. van den Driest and colleagues noted that “none of the differences between the two groups were clinically relevant or statistically significant.”

Some patients may likely still benefit from duloxetine
Commenting on the results, Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said the study by van den Driest and colleagues is pragmatic and demonstrates the “ ‘real-world’ benefits of trying duloxetine” – one of the study’s strengths.

“As we would probably expect, the benefits are small, and somewhat smaller in this setting than what was observed in more standard clinical trials evaluating this question,” he said, noting that the study is limited by a small sample size and loss to follow-up, as well as its open-label design and the fact that most patients stopped treatment during follow-up.

Dr. Baker also explained that while patients on average did not have a meaningful effect after taking duloxetine, “that doesn’t mean that the therapy didn’t have a meaningful effect for some people.” 

“In fact, though most people didn’t receive a meaningful benefit in this study, some did,” he said. “[A]ccording to these data, treating 8 people would be expected to result in 1 person achieving an [OMERACT-OARSI] response. That’s pretty good for a disease with few things that work.”

Future study of duloxetine should focus on who is most likely to benefit from treatment “since while most probably don’t benefit a lot, some probably do,” he said.

Dr. Baker also called attention to the questions surrounding use of antidepressants. “Use of antidepressants has been questioned by some, since the average clinical benefit is low, even for conditions like depression,” he explained. “However, some would argue that even small benefits may be important since there are few things that do work very well, and because a multimodal approach that provides multiple small benefits to patients can add up to a meaningful benefit.”

This study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the European Union, FOREUM, and the Dutch Arthritis Association, as well as personal fees from OARSI and Pfizer. The other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

* This story was updated 1/6/22.

A small, open-label, randomized trial of patients with chronic pain from hip and knee osteoarthritis in the Netherlands shows that adding duloxetine to usual care doesn’t significantly improve clinical outcomes.

The results, published on Jan. 6 in Arthritis & Rheumatology, also showed duloxetine did not affect outcomes for a subgroup of patients who had symptoms of centrally sensitized pain, according to Jacoline J. van den Driest, MD, of the department of general practice at Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and colleagues.

The researchers acknowledged their findings contrast with other studies that showed a “small to moderate effect of duloxetine” for patients with chronic pain from hip and knee OA. There was also a higher rate of discontinuation of duloxetine around 3 months in the current trial, compared with previous studies, the authors said, which they attributed to the fact that clinicians were asked to discontinue treatment at 3 months if patients saw no effect or increased side effects.

“This difference in outcome can be due to the fact that we studied the effectiveness of duloxetine in primary care, while the other studies examined the efficacy in placebo-controlled trials in secondary care,” the researchers wrote. Patients in the current trial were also older, had more comorbidities, and had been living with OA symptoms “for a longer time” than patients in other trials, they explained.

“It is known that, in these more ‘real-life’ primary care populations and in effectiveness studies, smaller effects are found than in highly controlled efficacy trials,” they noted.

Dr. van den Driest and colleagues evaluated 132 patients with hip or knee OA between January 2016 and February 2019 who were cluster randomized at 66 general practitioner practice sites to receive duloxetine (30 mg/day in the first week, 60 mg/day in the second week and beyond) in addition to usual care that consisted of analgesics, physiotherapy, patient education, diet, and lifestyle advice. Patients were included in the study if they were at least 18 years old, met the American College of Rheumatology criteria for hip or knee OA, and experienced chronic pain for “most days” over 3 months that was not improved through use of NSAIDs or acetaminophen or were unable to use NSAIDs because of contraindications or adverse effects. They were excluded if taking duloxetine was contraindicated for them, if they were taking an antidepressant or neuropathic pain medication, and if they had rheumatoid arthritis or were scheduled for total hip or total knee replacement.

The researchers assessed patients’ Western Ontario McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index pain scores at 3 months, compared with baseline, as a primary outcome, with secondary outcomes of WOMAC pain and function at 1 year, and cost-effectiveness as measured by the EQ-5D-5L. A modified painDETECT questionnaire was also used at baseline to identify a subset of patients with presence of centralized pain, which was defined as a score >12.

At 12 months, 80.3% of patients in both groups completed follow-up. Patient characteristics differed in duloxetine and usual-care groups, with the duloxetine group being younger (63.2 years vs. 65.4 years) and having fewer women (59.1% vs. 75.8%). The duloxetine group also had a lower percentage of patients with knee OA (77.3% vs. 86.4%) and a lower percentage of patients with two or more comorbidities (15.2% vs. 33.2%).

Duloxetine led to a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months, compared with usual care (adjusted difference, –0.58; 95% confidence interval, –1.80 to 0.63), and at 12 months (adjusted difference, –0.26; 95% CI, –1.86 to 1.34). Among a subgroup of patients with central sensitization symptoms, there was a nonsignificant improvement in WOMAC-measured pain at 3 months (adjusted difference, –0.32; 95% CI, –2.32 to 1.67) and 12 months (adjusted difference, 1.02; 95% CI, –1.22 to 3.27).

Duloxetine also did not significantly improve WOMAC-measured function at 3 months (adjusted difference, –2.10; 95% CI, –6.39 to 2.20) or 12 months (adjusted difference, –1.79; 95% CI, –7.22 to 3.64).

For other secondary outcomes of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria, Dr. van den Driest and colleagues noted that “none of the differences between the two groups were clinically relevant or statistically significant.”

Some patients may likely still benefit from duloxetine
Commenting on the results, Joshua F. Baker, MD, MSCE, associate professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia VA Medical Center, said the study by van den Driest and colleagues is pragmatic and demonstrates the “ ‘real-world’ benefits of trying duloxetine” – one of the study’s strengths.

“As we would probably expect, the benefits are small, and somewhat smaller in this setting than what was observed in more standard clinical trials evaluating this question,” he said, noting that the study is limited by a small sample size and loss to follow-up, as well as its open-label design and the fact that most patients stopped treatment during follow-up.

Dr. Baker also explained that while patients on average did not have a meaningful effect after taking duloxetine, “that doesn’t mean that the therapy didn’t have a meaningful effect for some people.” 

“In fact, though most people didn’t receive a meaningful benefit in this study, some did,” he said. “[A]ccording to these data, treating 8 people would be expected to result in 1 person achieving an [OMERACT-OARSI] response. That’s pretty good for a disease with few things that work.”

Future study of duloxetine should focus on who is most likely to benefit from treatment “since while most probably don’t benefit a lot, some probably do,” he said.

Dr. Baker also called attention to the questions surrounding use of antidepressants. “Use of antidepressants has been questioned by some, since the average clinical benefit is low, even for conditions like depression,” he explained. “However, some would argue that even small benefits may be important since there are few things that do work very well, and because a multimodal approach that provides multiple small benefits to patients can add up to a meaningful benefit.”

This study was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development. One author reported receiving grants from The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, the European Union, FOREUM, and the Dutch Arthritis Association, as well as personal fees from OARSI and Pfizer. The other authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.

* This story was updated 1/6/22.

A large randomized, placebo-controlled trial of platelet-rich plasma injections for knee osteoarthritis has found almost no symptomatic or structural benefit from the treatment, giving some clarity to an evidence base that has seen both positive and negative trials for the treatment modality.

Given the need for better disease-modifying treatments for osteoarthritis, there has been a lot of interest in biological therapies such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cells, the lead author of the study, Kim Bennell, PhD, told this news organization. “People have started to use it to treat osteoarthritis, but the evidence to support it was limited in terms of its quality, and there’s been very little work looking at effects on structure,” said Dr. Bennell, a research physiotherapist and chair of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne.

Platelet-rich plasma contains a range of growth factors and cytokines that are thought to be beneficial in building cartilage and reducing inflammation. There have been several clinical trials of the treatment in knee osteoarthritis, but the current study’s authors said these were limited by factors such as a lack of blinding and were at high risk of bias. “That was the impetus to do a large, high-quality study and to look at joint structure,” Dr. Bennell said.

Study details

For the study, which was published Nov. 23 in JAMA, the researchers enrolled 288 adults older than 50 with knee osteoarthritis who had experienced knee pain on most days of the past month and had radiographic evidence of mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the tibiofemoral joint.

After having stopped all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and pain-relief drugs 2 weeks prior – except acetaminophen – participants were randomly assigned to receive three weekly intra-articular knee injections of either a commercially available leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma or saline placebo. They were then followed for 12 months.

Among the 288 participants in the study, researchers saw no statistically significant difference in the change in pain scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 12 months, although there was a nonsignificantly greater reduction in pain scores among those given platelet-rich plasma. The study also found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the change in medial tibial cartilage volume.

The researchers also looked at a large number of secondary outcomes, including the effects of treatment on pain and function at 2 months, change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) scores, and change in quality of life scores. There were no indications of any benefits from the treatment at the 2-month follow-up, and at 12 months, the study showed no significant improvements in knee pain while walking or in pain scores, KOOS scores, or quality of life measures.

However, significantly more participants in the treatment group than in the placebo group reported overall improvement at the 2-month point – 48.2% of those in the treatment arm, compared with 36.2% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.80; P = .02). At 12 months, 42.8% of those who received platelet-rich plasma reported improved function, compared with 32.1% of those in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.86, P = .05).

The study also found that significantly more people in the platelet-rich plasma group had three or more areas of cartilage thinning at 12 months (17.1% vs. 6.8%; risk ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.16-6.34; P = .02).

Even when researchers looked for treatment effects in subgroups – for example, based on disease severity, body mass index, or knee alignment – they found no significant differences from placebo.

Dr. Bennell said the results were disappointing but not surprising. “Anecdotally, people do report that they get better, but we know that there is a very large placebo effect with treatment of pain,” she said.

Results emphasize importance of placebo controls

In an accompanying editorial by Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, director of the Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, professor of medicine and orthopedic surgery at Harvard Medical School, and professor of epidemiology and environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, all in Boston, draws parallels between this study and two earlier studies of platelet-rich plasma for ankle osteoarthritis and Achilles tendinopathy, both published in JAMA in 2021. None of the three studies showed any significant improvements over and above placebo.

“These findings emphasize the importance of comparing interventions with placebos in trials of injection therapies,” Dr. Katz writes. However, he notes that these studies do suggest possible benefits in secondary outcomes, such as self-reported pain and function, and that earlier studies of the treatment had had more positive outcomes.

Dr. Katz said it was premature to dismiss platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, but “until a new generation of trials using standardized approaches to PRP [platelet-rich plasma] therapy provides evidence of efficacy, it would be prudent to pause the use of PRP for OA and Achilles tendinitis.”

Not ready to stop using platelet-rich plasma?

When asked for comment, sports medicine physician Maarten Moen, MD, from the Bergman Clinics Naarden (the Netherlands) said the study was the largest yet of the use of platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis and that it was a well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

However, he also pointed out that at least six earlier randomized, placebo-controlled studies of this treatment approach have been conducted, and of those six, all but two found positive benefits for patients. “It’s a very well-performed study, but for me, it would be a bridge too far to say, ‘Now we have this study, let’s stop doing it,’ ” Dr. Moen said.

Dr. Moen said he would like to see what effect this study had on meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the treatment, as that would give the clearest indication of the overall picture of its effectiveness.

Dr. Moen’s own experience of treating patients with platelet-rich plasma also suggested that, among those who do benefit from the treatment, that benefit would most likely show between 2 and 12 months afterward. He said it would have been useful to see outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals.

“What I tell people is that, on average, around 9 months’ effect is to be expected,” he said.

Dr. Bennell said the research group chose the 12-month follow-up because they wanted to see if there were long-term improvements in joint structure which they hoped for, given the cost of treatment.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Regen Lab SA provided platelet-rich plasma kits free of charge. Two authors reported using platelet-rich plasma injections in clinical practice, one reported scientific advisory board fees from Biobone, Novartis, Tissuegene, Pfizer, and Lilly; two reported fees for contributing to UpToDate clinical guidelines, and two reported grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large randomized, placebo-controlled trial of platelet-rich plasma injections for knee osteoarthritis has found almost no symptomatic or structural benefit from the treatment, giving some clarity to an evidence base that has seen both positive and negative trials for the treatment modality.

Given the need for better disease-modifying treatments for osteoarthritis, there has been a lot of interest in biological therapies such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cells, the lead author of the study, Kim Bennell, PhD, told this news organization. “People have started to use it to treat osteoarthritis, but the evidence to support it was limited in terms of its quality, and there’s been very little work looking at effects on structure,” said Dr. Bennell, a research physiotherapist and chair of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne.

Platelet-rich plasma contains a range of growth factors and cytokines that are thought to be beneficial in building cartilage and reducing inflammation. There have been several clinical trials of the treatment in knee osteoarthritis, but the current study’s authors said these were limited by factors such as a lack of blinding and were at high risk of bias. “That was the impetus to do a large, high-quality study and to look at joint structure,” Dr. Bennell said.

Study details

For the study, which was published Nov. 23 in JAMA, the researchers enrolled 288 adults older than 50 with knee osteoarthritis who had experienced knee pain on most days of the past month and had radiographic evidence of mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the tibiofemoral joint.

After having stopped all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and pain-relief drugs 2 weeks prior – except acetaminophen – participants were randomly assigned to receive three weekly intra-articular knee injections of either a commercially available leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma or saline placebo. They were then followed for 12 months.

Among the 288 participants in the study, researchers saw no statistically significant difference in the change in pain scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 12 months, although there was a nonsignificantly greater reduction in pain scores among those given platelet-rich plasma. The study also found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the change in medial tibial cartilage volume.

The researchers also looked at a large number of secondary outcomes, including the effects of treatment on pain and function at 2 months, change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) scores, and change in quality of life scores. There were no indications of any benefits from the treatment at the 2-month follow-up, and at 12 months, the study showed no significant improvements in knee pain while walking or in pain scores, KOOS scores, or quality of life measures.

However, significantly more participants in the treatment group than in the placebo group reported overall improvement at the 2-month point – 48.2% of those in the treatment arm, compared with 36.2% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.80; P = .02). At 12 months, 42.8% of those who received platelet-rich plasma reported improved function, compared with 32.1% of those in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.86, P = .05).

The study also found that significantly more people in the platelet-rich plasma group had three or more areas of cartilage thinning at 12 months (17.1% vs. 6.8%; risk ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.16-6.34; P = .02).

Even when researchers looked for treatment effects in subgroups – for example, based on disease severity, body mass index, or knee alignment – they found no significant differences from placebo.

Dr. Bennell said the results were disappointing but not surprising. “Anecdotally, people do report that they get better, but we know that there is a very large placebo effect with treatment of pain,” she said.

Results emphasize importance of placebo controls

In an accompanying editorial by Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, director of the Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, professor of medicine and orthopedic surgery at Harvard Medical School, and professor of epidemiology and environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, all in Boston, draws parallels between this study and two earlier studies of platelet-rich plasma for ankle osteoarthritis and Achilles tendinopathy, both published in JAMA in 2021. None of the three studies showed any significant improvements over and above placebo.

“These findings emphasize the importance of comparing interventions with placebos in trials of injection therapies,” Dr. Katz writes. However, he notes that these studies do suggest possible benefits in secondary outcomes, such as self-reported pain and function, and that earlier studies of the treatment had had more positive outcomes.

Dr. Katz said it was premature to dismiss platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, but “until a new generation of trials using standardized approaches to PRP [platelet-rich plasma] therapy provides evidence of efficacy, it would be prudent to pause the use of PRP for OA and Achilles tendinitis.”

Not ready to stop using platelet-rich plasma?

When asked for comment, sports medicine physician Maarten Moen, MD, from the Bergman Clinics Naarden (the Netherlands) said the study was the largest yet of the use of platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis and that it was a well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

However, he also pointed out that at least six earlier randomized, placebo-controlled studies of this treatment approach have been conducted, and of those six, all but two found positive benefits for patients. “It’s a very well-performed study, but for me, it would be a bridge too far to say, ‘Now we have this study, let’s stop doing it,’ ” Dr. Moen said.

Dr. Moen said he would like to see what effect this study had on meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the treatment, as that would give the clearest indication of the overall picture of its effectiveness.

Dr. Moen’s own experience of treating patients with platelet-rich plasma also suggested that, among those who do benefit from the treatment, that benefit would most likely show between 2 and 12 months afterward. He said it would have been useful to see outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals.

“What I tell people is that, on average, around 9 months’ effect is to be expected,” he said.

Dr. Bennell said the research group chose the 12-month follow-up because they wanted to see if there were long-term improvements in joint structure which they hoped for, given the cost of treatment.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Regen Lab SA provided platelet-rich plasma kits free of charge. Two authors reported using platelet-rich plasma injections in clinical practice, one reported scientific advisory board fees from Biobone, Novartis, Tissuegene, Pfizer, and Lilly; two reported fees for contributing to UpToDate clinical guidelines, and two reported grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A large randomized, placebo-controlled trial of platelet-rich plasma injections for knee osteoarthritis has found almost no symptomatic or structural benefit from the treatment, giving some clarity to an evidence base that has seen both positive and negative trials for the treatment modality.

Given the need for better disease-modifying treatments for osteoarthritis, there has been a lot of interest in biological therapies such as platelet-rich plasma and stem cells, the lead author of the study, Kim Bennell, PhD, told this news organization. “People have started to use it to treat osteoarthritis, but the evidence to support it was limited in terms of its quality, and there’s been very little work looking at effects on structure,” said Dr. Bennell, a research physiotherapist and chair of physiotherapy at the University of Melbourne.

Platelet-rich plasma contains a range of growth factors and cytokines that are thought to be beneficial in building cartilage and reducing inflammation. There have been several clinical trials of the treatment in knee osteoarthritis, but the current study’s authors said these were limited by factors such as a lack of blinding and were at high risk of bias. “That was the impetus to do a large, high-quality study and to look at joint structure,” Dr. Bennell said.

Study details

For the study, which was published Nov. 23 in JAMA, the researchers enrolled 288 adults older than 50 with knee osteoarthritis who had experienced knee pain on most days of the past month and had radiographic evidence of mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the tibiofemoral joint.

After having stopped all nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and pain-relief drugs 2 weeks prior – except acetaminophen – participants were randomly assigned to receive three weekly intra-articular knee injections of either a commercially available leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma or saline placebo. They were then followed for 12 months.

Among the 288 participants in the study, researchers saw no statistically significant difference in the change in pain scores between the treatment and placebo groups at 12 months, although there was a nonsignificantly greater reduction in pain scores among those given platelet-rich plasma. The study also found no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the change in medial tibial cartilage volume.

The researchers also looked at a large number of secondary outcomes, including the effects of treatment on pain and function at 2 months, change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) scores, and change in quality of life scores. There were no indications of any benefits from the treatment at the 2-month follow-up, and at 12 months, the study showed no significant improvements in knee pain while walking or in pain scores, KOOS scores, or quality of life measures.

However, significantly more participants in the treatment group than in the placebo group reported overall improvement at the 2-month point – 48.2% of those in the treatment arm, compared with 36.2% of the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.80; P = .02). At 12 months, 42.8% of those who received platelet-rich plasma reported improved function, compared with 32.1% of those in the placebo group (risk ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.00-1.86, P = .05).

The study also found that significantly more people in the platelet-rich plasma group had three or more areas of cartilage thinning at 12 months (17.1% vs. 6.8%; risk ratio, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.16-6.34; P = .02).

Even when researchers looked for treatment effects in subgroups – for example, based on disease severity, body mass index, or knee alignment – they found no significant differences from placebo.

Dr. Bennell said the results were disappointing but not surprising. “Anecdotally, people do report that they get better, but we know that there is a very large placebo effect with treatment of pain,” she said.

Results emphasize importance of placebo controls

In an accompanying editorial by Jeffrey N. Katz, MD, director of the Orthopaedic and Arthritis Center for Outcomes Research at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, professor of medicine and orthopedic surgery at Harvard Medical School, and professor of epidemiology and environmental health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, all in Boston, draws parallels between this study and two earlier studies of platelet-rich plasma for ankle osteoarthritis and Achilles tendinopathy, both published in JAMA in 2021. None of the three studies showed any significant improvements over and above placebo.

“These findings emphasize the importance of comparing interventions with placebos in trials of injection therapies,” Dr. Katz writes. However, he notes that these studies do suggest possible benefits in secondary outcomes, such as self-reported pain and function, and that earlier studies of the treatment had had more positive outcomes.

Dr. Katz said it was premature to dismiss platelet-rich plasma as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis, but “until a new generation of trials using standardized approaches to PRP [platelet-rich plasma] therapy provides evidence of efficacy, it would be prudent to pause the use of PRP for OA and Achilles tendinitis.”

Not ready to stop using platelet-rich plasma?

When asked for comment, sports medicine physician Maarten Moen, MD, from the Bergman Clinics Naarden (the Netherlands) said the study was the largest yet of the use of platelet-rich plasma for knee osteoarthritis and that it was a well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

However, he also pointed out that at least six earlier randomized, placebo-controlled studies of this treatment approach have been conducted, and of those six, all but two found positive benefits for patients. “It’s a very well-performed study, but for me, it would be a bridge too far to say, ‘Now we have this study, let’s stop doing it,’ ” Dr. Moen said.

Dr. Moen said he would like to see what effect this study had on meta-analyses and systematic reviews of the treatment, as that would give the clearest indication of the overall picture of its effectiveness.

Dr. Moen’s own experience of treating patients with platelet-rich plasma also suggested that, among those who do benefit from the treatment, that benefit would most likely show between 2 and 12 months afterward. He said it would have been useful to see outcomes at 3- and 6-month intervals.

“What I tell people is that, on average, around 9 months’ effect is to be expected,” he said.

Dr. Bennell said the research group chose the 12-month follow-up because they wanted to see if there were long-term improvements in joint structure which they hoped for, given the cost of treatment.

The study was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and Regen Lab SA provided platelet-rich plasma kits free of charge. Two authors reported using platelet-rich plasma injections in clinical practice, one reported scientific advisory board fees from Biobone, Novartis, Tissuegene, Pfizer, and Lilly; two reported fees for contributing to UpToDate clinical guidelines, and two reported grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study has found that physical therapy may lead to a reduced risk of long-term opioid use in patients who have undergone total knee replacement (TKR).

ChooChin/Getty Images

“Greater number of PT intervention sessions and earlier initiation of outpatient PT care after TKR were associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use,” authors from Boston University wrote in their report on the study, which was published online Oct. 27 in JAMA Network Open.

“In previous large studies, we’ve seen that physical therapy can reduce pain in people with knee osteoarthritis, which is usually the primary indication for TKR,” study coauthor Deepak Kumar, PT, PhD, said in an interview. “But the association of physical therapy with opioid use in people with knee replacement has not yet been explored.

“The reason we focused on opioid use in these patients is because the number of knee replacement surgeries is going up exponentially,” Dr. Kumar said. “And, depending on which data you look at, from one-third to up to half of people who undergo knee replacement and have used opioids before end up becoming long-term users. Even in people who have not used them before, 5%-8% become long-term users after the surgery.

“Given how many surgeries are happening – and that number is expected to keep going up – the number of people who are becoming long-term opioid users is not trivial,” he said.
 

Study details

To assess the value of PT in reducing opioid use in this subset of patients, the authors reviewed records from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse insurance claims database to identify 67,322 eligible participants aged 40 or older who underwent TKR from Jan. 1, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016. Of those patients, 38,408 were opioid naive and 28,914 had taken opioids before. The authors evaluated long-term opioid use – defined as 90 days or more of filled prescriptions – during a 12-month outcome assessment period that varied depending on differences in post-TKR PT start date and duration.

The researchers found a significantly lower likelihood of long-term opioid use associated with receipt of any PT before TKR among patients who had not taken opioids before (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.95) and those who had taken opioids in the past (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.80).

Investigators found that 2.2% of participants in the opioid-naive group and 32.5% of those in the opioid-experienced group used opioids long-term after TKR. Approximately 76% of participants overall received outpatient PT within the 90 days after surgery, and the receipt of post-TKR PT at any point was associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use in the opioid-experienced group (aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.70-0.79).

Among the opioid-experienced group, receiving between 6 and 12 PT sessions (aOR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.90) or ≥ 13 sessions (aOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.65-0.77) were both associated with lower odds of long-term opioid use, compared with those who received 1-5 sessions. Beginning PT 31-60 days or 61-90 days after surgery was associated with greater odds of long-term opioid use across both cohorts, compared with those who initiated therapy within 30 days of TKR.
 

Physical therapy: Underexplored option for pain in knee replacement

One finding caught the researchers slightly off guard: There was no association between active physical therapy and reduced odds of long-term opioid use. “From prior studies, at least in people with knee osteoarthritis, we know that active interventions were more useful than passive interventions,” Dr. Kumar said.

That said, he added that there is still some professional uncertainty regarding “the right type or the right components of physical therapy for managing pain in this population.” Regardless, he believes their study emphasizes the benefits of PT as a pain alleviator in these patients, especially those who have previously used opioids.

“Pharmaceuticals have side effects. Injections are not super effective,” he said. “The idea behind focusing on physical therapy interventions is that it’s widely available, it does you no harm, and it could potentially be lower cost to both the payers and the providers.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including not adjusting for opioid use within the 90 days after surgery as well as the different outcome assessment periods for pre-TKR and post-TKR PT exposures. In addition, they admitted that some of the patients who received PT could have been among those less likely to be treated with opioids, and vice versa. “A randomized clinical trial,” they wrote, “would be required to disentangle these issues.”

The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Kumar reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study and grants from Pfizer for unrelated projects outside the submitted work. The full list of author disclosures can be found with the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections did not significantly improve pain or function when compared with placebo injections in patients with ankle osteoarthritis (OA), a new study has found.

“Previous evidence for PRP injections in ankle osteoarthritis was limited to 4 small case series with methodological flaws,” wrote Liam D. A. Paget, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and coauthors. The study was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA.

To assess the value of PRP injections as a treatment for ankle OA, the researchers launched a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of Dutch patients with notable ankle pain and tibiotalar joint space narrowing. From six sites in the Netherlands, 100 patients (45% women, mean age 56 years) were split into two groups: one that received two intra-articular injections of PRP 6 weeks apart (n = 48) and one that received two injections of saline placebo (n = 52).

At baseline, mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were 63 in the PRP group and 64 in the placebo group (range 0-100, with higher scores indicating less pain and more function). At 26-week follow-up, the mean AOFAS score improved by 10 points in the PRP group (95% confidence interval, 6-14; P < .001) and by 11 points in the placebo group (95% CI, 7-15; P < .001). The adjusted between-group difference for AOFAS improvement over 26 weeks was –1 point (95% CI, –6 to 3; P = .56).

There was one serious adverse event in the placebo group – a transient ischemic attack 3 weeks after the first injection – but it was deemed unrelated.
 

Searching for answers regarding PRP and osteoarthritis

“From my standpoint, this study is a great step forward to where the field needs to be, which is honing in on longer-term studies that are standardizing PRP and teasing out its effects,” Prathap Jayaram, MD, director of regenerative sports medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

He highlighted the authors’ acknowledgment of previous studies in which PRP injections appeared effective in treating knee OA, including their statement that the “results reported here for ankle osteoarthritis were not consistent with these potentially beneficial effects in knee osteoarthritis.”

“They’re acknowledging that this does have some benefit in knees,” he said. “Could that translate toward the ankle?”

“PRP did lead to an improvement,” he added. “There just wasn’t a big enough difference to say one was superior to the other.”

Citing his team’s recent preclinical study that was published in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, Dr. Jayaram emphasized the possibility that PRP could have much-needed disease-modifying effects in osteoarthritis. More work is needed to pin down the details.

“We need more mechanistic studies to be done so we can actually identify the therapeutic properties in PRP and leverage them to track reproducible outcomes,” he said, adding that “simply put, your blood and my blood might be different. There is going to be heterogeneity there. The analogy I give my patients is, when they take an antibiotic, we have a specific dose, a specific drug, and a specific duration. It’s very standardized. We’re just not there yet with PRP.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a likely inability to generalize their results to other platelet-rich blood products as well as a lack of composition analysis of the PRP they used. That said, they added that this particular PRP has been “analyzed previously” for another trial and noted that such analysis is not typically performed in a clinical setting.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Arthritis Society. Its authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving their own grants from the Dutch Arthritis Society and other organizations, as well as accepting loaned Hettich centrifuges from a medical device company for the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections did not significantly improve pain or function when compared with placebo injections in patients with ankle osteoarthritis (OA), a new study has found.

“Previous evidence for PRP injections in ankle osteoarthritis was limited to 4 small case series with methodological flaws,” wrote Liam D. A. Paget, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and coauthors. The study was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA.

To assess the value of PRP injections as a treatment for ankle OA, the researchers launched a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of Dutch patients with notable ankle pain and tibiotalar joint space narrowing. From six sites in the Netherlands, 100 patients (45% women, mean age 56 years) were split into two groups: one that received two intra-articular injections of PRP 6 weeks apart (n = 48) and one that received two injections of saline placebo (n = 52).

At baseline, mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were 63 in the PRP group and 64 in the placebo group (range 0-100, with higher scores indicating less pain and more function). At 26-week follow-up, the mean AOFAS score improved by 10 points in the PRP group (95% confidence interval, 6-14; P < .001) and by 11 points in the placebo group (95% CI, 7-15; P < .001). The adjusted between-group difference for AOFAS improvement over 26 weeks was –1 point (95% CI, –6 to 3; P = .56).

There was one serious adverse event in the placebo group – a transient ischemic attack 3 weeks after the first injection – but it was deemed unrelated.
 

Searching for answers regarding PRP and osteoarthritis

“From my standpoint, this study is a great step forward to where the field needs to be, which is honing in on longer-term studies that are standardizing PRP and teasing out its effects,” Prathap Jayaram, MD, director of regenerative sports medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

He highlighted the authors’ acknowledgment of previous studies in which PRP injections appeared effective in treating knee OA, including their statement that the “results reported here for ankle osteoarthritis were not consistent with these potentially beneficial effects in knee osteoarthritis.”

“They’re acknowledging that this does have some benefit in knees,” he said. “Could that translate toward the ankle?”

“PRP did lead to an improvement,” he added. “There just wasn’t a big enough difference to say one was superior to the other.”

Citing his team’s recent preclinical study that was published in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, Dr. Jayaram emphasized the possibility that PRP could have much-needed disease-modifying effects in osteoarthritis. More work is needed to pin down the details.

“We need more mechanistic studies to be done so we can actually identify the therapeutic properties in PRP and leverage them to track reproducible outcomes,” he said, adding that “simply put, your blood and my blood might be different. There is going to be heterogeneity there. The analogy I give my patients is, when they take an antibiotic, we have a specific dose, a specific drug, and a specific duration. It’s very standardized. We’re just not there yet with PRP.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a likely inability to generalize their results to other platelet-rich blood products as well as a lack of composition analysis of the PRP they used. That said, they added that this particular PRP has been “analyzed previously” for another trial and noted that such analysis is not typically performed in a clinical setting.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Arthritis Society. Its authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving their own grants from the Dutch Arthritis Society and other organizations, as well as accepting loaned Hettich centrifuges from a medical device company for the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections did not significantly improve pain or function when compared with placebo injections in patients with ankle osteoarthritis (OA), a new study has found.

“Previous evidence for PRP injections in ankle osteoarthritis was limited to 4 small case series with methodological flaws,” wrote Liam D. A. Paget, MD, of the University of Amsterdam, and coauthors. The study was published online Oct. 26 in JAMA.

To assess the value of PRP injections as a treatment for ankle OA, the researchers launched a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of Dutch patients with notable ankle pain and tibiotalar joint space narrowing. From six sites in the Netherlands, 100 patients (45% women, mean age 56 years) were split into two groups: one that received two intra-articular injections of PRP 6 weeks apart (n = 48) and one that received two injections of saline placebo (n = 52).

At baseline, mean American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were 63 in the PRP group and 64 in the placebo group (range 0-100, with higher scores indicating less pain and more function). At 26-week follow-up, the mean AOFAS score improved by 10 points in the PRP group (95% confidence interval, 6-14; P < .001) and by 11 points in the placebo group (95% CI, 7-15; P < .001). The adjusted between-group difference for AOFAS improvement over 26 weeks was –1 point (95% CI, –6 to 3; P = .56).

There was one serious adverse event in the placebo group – a transient ischemic attack 3 weeks after the first injection – but it was deemed unrelated.
 

Searching for answers regarding PRP and osteoarthritis

“From my standpoint, this study is a great step forward to where the field needs to be, which is honing in on longer-term studies that are standardizing PRP and teasing out its effects,” Prathap Jayaram, MD, director of regenerative sports medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, said in an interview.

He highlighted the authors’ acknowledgment of previous studies in which PRP injections appeared effective in treating knee OA, including their statement that the “results reported here for ankle osteoarthritis were not consistent with these potentially beneficial effects in knee osteoarthritis.”

“They’re acknowledging that this does have some benefit in knees,” he said. “Could that translate toward the ankle?”

“PRP did lead to an improvement,” he added. “There just wasn’t a big enough difference to say one was superior to the other.”

Citing his team’s recent preclinical study that was published in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, Dr. Jayaram emphasized the possibility that PRP could have much-needed disease-modifying effects in osteoarthritis. More work is needed to pin down the details.

“We need more mechanistic studies to be done so we can actually identify the therapeutic properties in PRP and leverage them to track reproducible outcomes,” he said, adding that “simply put, your blood and my blood might be different. There is going to be heterogeneity there. The analogy I give my patients is, when they take an antibiotic, we have a specific dose, a specific drug, and a specific duration. It’s very standardized. We’re just not there yet with PRP.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including a likely inability to generalize their results to other platelet-rich blood products as well as a lack of composition analysis of the PRP they used. That said, they added that this particular PRP has been “analyzed previously” for another trial and noted that such analysis is not typically performed in a clinical setting.

The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch Arthritis Society. Its authors reported several potential conflicts of interest, including receiving their own grants from the Dutch Arthritis Society and other organizations, as well as accepting loaned Hettich centrifuges from a medical device company for the study.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Tramadol is increasingly used to manage chronic noncancer pain, but as compared with opioids, it appears to be linked to a higher risk for adverse outcomes, according to new data.

Among a cohort of patients who received a prescription for either tramadol or codeine for orthopedic-related pain, tramadol was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality, cardiovascular events, and fractures.

However, there was no significant difference in the risk of falls, delirium, constipation, opioid abuse/dependence, or sleep disorders between the two drugs.

“However, this is a retrospective cohort study, and despite it providing information that would otherwise be impossible to gather – such as from randomized controlled trials – clinicians should not solely base their decision on this study,” cautioned lead author Carlen Reyes, MD, PhD, of the Institut Universitari d’Investigació en Atenció Primària (IDIAP Jordi Gol), Barcelona.

Dr. Reyes noted that the intake of tramadol and codeine was analyzed using the number of “packages” that were dispensed, as an approximation of the real intake. “Logically we could think that the more packages dispensed of one drug, the more dose the patient is taking, but this is not always true given the availability of different doses commercialized of tramadol and different doses prescribed,” she said. “Given that we did not account for the real dose prescribed, we can only suspect an increased risk of these outcomes and reinforce the need for further prospective studies with more specific dose-response analysis comparing tramadol and codeine.”

The paper was published Oct. 19 in JAMA.

Tramadol has been considered to be a relatively safe opioid and was even strongly recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons for patients experiencing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The authors point out that studies looking at opioid use from 2019 to 2020 show that tramadol was the most prescribed opioid in England, the Netherlands, and Spain.

In the United States, the age-adjusted rate of drug overdose deaths from synthetic opioids rose from 1.0 per 100 000 in 2013 to 11.4 in 2019. Most of these deaths were attributable to fentanyl but some were also related to tramadol.

But despite its wide use in managing chronic noncancer pain, results of recent studies suggest adverse outcomes as compared with other agents. Last year, one study found that older patients who received tramadol had a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture vs. those using NSAIDs or codeine. Another study, also published in 2020, showed that patients with osteoarthritis who were treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs.

In the current paper, Dr. Reyes and colleagues evaluated the association of tramadol with mortality and other adverse clinical outcomes in outpatient settings, compared with codeine.

They conducted a retrospective, population-based, propensity score–matched cohort study using a primary care database that routinely collects medical records and pharmacy dispensations for more than 80% of the population of Catalonia, Spain. The cohort included people 18 years or older who had been prescribed tramadol or codeine from 2007 to 2017 and were followed up to Dec. 31, 2017.

After propensity score matching, the final analysis included 368,960 participants: 184,480 in the tramadol arm and 184,480 in the codeine arm.

The mean age of patients was 52.7 years in the tramadol arm and 53.5 years in the codeine arm, and the prevalence of cancer was 3.2% and 3.3%, respectively. The most common diagnoses in this cohort were back pain (47.5% vs. 48.5%), neck/shoulder pain (28.6% vs. 29.5%), and osteoarthritis (15.3% vs. 15.5%). The most commonly used drugs were ibuprofen (34.4% vs. 34.3%) and paracetamol/acetaminophen (37.1% vs. 36.8%)

Higher risk of adverse outcomes

As compared with codeine, tramadol use was significantly associated with a higher risk of mortality (13.00 vs. 5.61 per 1,000 person-years; hazard ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.08-2.56); absolute rate differences (7.37 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 6.09-8.78), cardiovascular events (10.03 vs. 8.67 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05-1.27; ARD, 1.36 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 0.45-2.36), and fractures (12.26 vs. 8.13 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.65; ARD, 4.10 per 1,000 person-years; 95% CI, 3.02-5.29).

A subgroup and sensitivity analysis showed that the increased mortality risk associated with tramadol was significantly higher in younger persons vs. older ones (HR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.82-5.41 vs. 2.39; 95% CI, 2.20-2.60]; P < .001 for interaction). In addition, women had a significantly greater risk of cardiovascular events versus men (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.19-1.46] vs. 1.03; 95% CI, 0.9-1.13]; P < .001 for interaction).
 

Potential for confounding

Weighing in on the data, Daniel Solomon, MD, MPH, chief of clinical sciences, division of rheumatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and professor of medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, noted that because it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever conduct a large, head-to-head safety trial comparing different opioids, the results of this paper are important to consider.

“However, as the authors appropriately caution, this type of analysis is limited by the strong potential for residual confounding,” he said. “In other words, even though the authors used state-of-the-art methods to limit imbalances between the patients initiating tramadol versus codeine, there is strong reason to believe that imbalances that may account for the differences in adverse events exist.”

For example, he noted that if one looks at the distribution of comorbid conditions in the before-matching group, tramadol initiators demonstrate a higher frequency of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and overall chronic comorbid diseases. “This suggests to me that prescribers apply selection criteria when choosing who to prescribe which opioid,” Dr. Solomon explained.

“While the authors’ use of propensity score matching limits confounding, it only can improve balance for measured confounders,” he said. “Other factors not measured in this type of data set – blood pressure, pain, physical activity, tobacco use, body mass index – may still demonstrate imbalances even after matching.”

But after these limitations are taken into consideration, the results remain concerning, Dr. Solomon emphasized, particularly the all-cause mortality excess of tramadol versus codeine users. “This study did not include cause of death, which would help the reader understand why users of tramadol were dying more frequently,” he added. “It also might help in understanding whether this is a true biologic effect or residual confounding.”

Perceived safety

In an accompanying editorial, Howard S. Kim, MD, MS, and colleagues from Northwestern University, Chicago, write that the greatest risk of tramadol may involve the perception that it is “inherently safer than other opioids.”

“In actuality, the mechanisms of action and variable metabolism of tramadol in a given population create considerable therapeutic uncertainty and introduce additional risk exposure,” they say, as demonstrated in the current study.

Therefore, when clinicians determine that an opioid is needed for pain relief, it may be a better option to select a pure opioid agonist that has a more predictable therapeutic effect and known adverse effect profile, such as morphine or hydrocodone. “This would allow clinicians and patients to more properly weigh the risks and benefits of initiating opioid therapy through shared decision-making and prompt the level of counseling on safe use, storage, and disposal practices that all opioids deserve,” write the editorialists.

The study was funded by the Fundació Institut Universitari per a la recerca a l’Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol i Gurina. The research was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Reyes has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Solomon disclosed salary support from research contracts to his hospital from Amgen, AbbVie, Moderna, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and National Institutes of Health; and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Kim reported unrelated grant support from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After nearly a decade, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has updated its guidance on nonoperative treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

The clinical practice guidelines, released Sept. 13, 2021, is the third edition of the orthopedic society’s clinical practice recommendations.

According to Robert Brophy, MD, FAAOS, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University, St. Louis, and cochair of the AAOS clinical practice guideline work group, the AAOS guidelines are a “living document” that needs periodic updating as new research comes to light.

“The methodology for maintaining the AAOS guidelines aims to update guideline documents at least every 10 years,” Dr. Brophy said in an interview. “Since the last edition was from 2013, it was time to provide an updated guideline on this very important topic that affects such a high percentage of our patients and providers.”

The guidelines work group, composed of 12 medical doctors and 1 physical therapist, evaluated the evidence for 29 areas of treatment.

A rating scale based on available evidence and the strength of related medical studies labeled each treatment area as demonstrating strong, moderate, or limited evidence.

Eight treatment modalities weighed in with strong evidence for or against their use: lateral wedge insoles, topical or oral NSAIDs, exercise (supervised or unsupervised), self-management programs, patient education programs, oral acetaminophen, and oral opioids.

According to Dr. Brophy, many of the recommendations assigned a strong evidence base were similar to the prior edition of the guidelines.
 

Oral medications

NSAIDs and acetaminophen still remain steadfast options for the treatment of knee pain secondary to OA.

decade3d/Thinkstock

The most notable change was that opioids, which have a long history of being used to treat pain, are strongly recommended not to be used for arthritis.

“Reflecting the growing awareness of and emphasis on the opioid epidemic, one of the strongest changes between the current and prior guidelines centers on the use of opioid medications,” Dr. Brophy said. “In the prior guideline, a strong recommendation was made in favor of tramadol with an inconclusive recommendation made regarding other opioid medications. The updated guideline demonstrates clearly the evidence does not support the use of opioid medications – including tramadol – to treat knee osteoarthritis.”

This may require some education for both patients and doctors to buy in that knee pain can be treated adequately with NSAIDs and acetaminophen.

Patients may not understand that anti-inflammatory drugs treat the pain they are experiencing. They may equate an opioid with a “pain pill” and may need education from their doctor that NSAIDs and acetaminophen not only can relieve their pain, but also avoid potential adverse events prior to or after surgery should they progress to knee replacement surgery.

Furthermore, primary care physicians may not be looking at the long-term picture. Solving a short-term pain problem with opioids may limit the medication’s ability to provide pain relief after surgery should a patient develop a tolerance to the medication’s effects.
 

Recommendations on hip and foot alignment interventions

When it comes to alignment and joint stresses, the knee is sometimes considered the innocent bystander of hip and foot alignment.

Insoles. How the hip and foot align with each can determine the amount of weight that passes through the medial (inner) or lateral (outer) compartment of the knee. To that end, lateral foot insoles have been used in the past for unloading parts of the knee.

Nevertheless, recent evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant benefit for insoles in the setting of OA knee pain, earning the practice a strong recommendation against its use.

High-tibial osteotomy (HTO). The weight-bearing axis of the lower-extremity axis can also be realigned with HTO. The procedure shifts the body’s weight slightly to the opposite side of the knee.

Newer research has led the practice to be downgraded one level in the new guideline, from moderate to limited, despite its widespread use.

It will, however, likely continue to be used as an alternative to total knee replacement in younger patients and to shift weight away from an area of the knee where cartilage is being restored with a concomitant surgical procedure, according to the work group. They noted that additional research studies on the long-term efficacy of the procedure are still needed.

Topical treatments. The guideline authors gave these a strong recommendation. Gels with anti-inflammatory medication have long been available but were prescription only or of considerable cost. Now several affordable over-the-counter options with the same prescription strength can be found in pharmacies and supermarkets.

What makes these medications unique is that they have an NSAID medication in the formulation, which the vast majority of topical treatments found on shelves do not. They also benefit patients who are unable to tolerate oral NSAIDs because of gastrointestinal side effects.

Comparison with 2019 OARSI recommendations

In 2019, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International also published guidelines for the management of OA of the hand, hip, and knee.

Thomas Trojian, MD, a family medicine physician with expertise in sports medicine in York, Pa., and member of both the AAOS and OARSI recommendation committees, noted that the OARSI guidelines are meant to be practical guidelines of stepwise nonoperative treatment.

He said in an interview that “the OARSI guidelines recommend dietary weight management, education, and land-based [exercise] therapy, next topical NSAIDs, then injection therapy.”

Intra-articular steroids and viscosupplementation injection therapy in the form of hyaluronic acid derivatives continue to be a mainstay of treatment for both groups.

The AAOS group notably gave a moderate strength recommendation for intra-articular steroid injections with the caveat that the effects typically only last for 3 months. They also included newer extended-release steroid injections in the recommendation, stating that the evidence moderately suggests they provide more benefit than traditional short-acting steroid injections.
 

Methodology differs between guidelines

In the areas where the guidelines don’t fully line up, it is important to remember the methodology of each group often drives the guidelines and recommendations.

According to Yale Fillingham, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in group private practice in the greater Philadelphia area and the other cochair of the AAOS guidelines committee, the biggest difference between the AAOS and OARSI guidelines is that, although the OARSI guidelines are also grounded in the literature, the recommendation level was based on voting among panel members.

“The AAOS methodology requires the recommendation and strength of the recommendation to be dictated primarily by the best available evidence in the literature and much less on the expertise and opinion of the voting panel,” Dr. Fillingham said in an interview.

He pointed out that the AAOS voting panel can alter the guideline by adjusting the strength of the recommendation but noted it was only in very clearly defined situations. Therefore, the differences in methodology between the groups make it difficult to directly compare the two guidelines.

Multiple guidelines do, however, point to the importance of the issue. Dr. Fillingham commented: “The numerous organizations that have produced guidelines on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are a testament to the widespread and profound impact of knee osteoarthritis on our health care system and society.”

As a member of both recommendation groups, Dr. Trojian finds both guidelines reveal the importance of understanding that knee OA is a chronic illness. “There are ways we can manage knee OA and reduce the morbidity. ... The core skills of motivational interviewing are important. Open-ended questions, affirmation, reflection, and summarizing are needed to help patients find and remove roadblocks to promote lifestyle changes.”

Dr. Brophy, Dr. Trojian, and Dr. Fillingham have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After nearly a decade, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has updated its guidance on nonoperative treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

The clinical practice guidelines, released Sept. 13, 2021, is the third edition of the orthopedic society’s clinical practice recommendations.

According to Robert Brophy, MD, FAAOS, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University, St. Louis, and cochair of the AAOS clinical practice guideline work group, the AAOS guidelines are a “living document” that needs periodic updating as new research comes to light.

“The methodology for maintaining the AAOS guidelines aims to update guideline documents at least every 10 years,” Dr. Brophy said in an interview. “Since the last edition was from 2013, it was time to provide an updated guideline on this very important topic that affects such a high percentage of our patients and providers.”

The guidelines work group, composed of 12 medical doctors and 1 physical therapist, evaluated the evidence for 29 areas of treatment.

A rating scale based on available evidence and the strength of related medical studies labeled each treatment area as demonstrating strong, moderate, or limited evidence.

Eight treatment modalities weighed in with strong evidence for or against their use: lateral wedge insoles, topical or oral NSAIDs, exercise (supervised or unsupervised), self-management programs, patient education programs, oral acetaminophen, and oral opioids.

According to Dr. Brophy, many of the recommendations assigned a strong evidence base were similar to the prior edition of the guidelines.
 

Oral medications

NSAIDs and acetaminophen still remain steadfast options for the treatment of knee pain secondary to OA.

decade3d/Thinkstock

The most notable change was that opioids, which have a long history of being used to treat pain, are strongly recommended not to be used for arthritis.

“Reflecting the growing awareness of and emphasis on the opioid epidemic, one of the strongest changes between the current and prior guidelines centers on the use of opioid medications,” Dr. Brophy said. “In the prior guideline, a strong recommendation was made in favor of tramadol with an inconclusive recommendation made regarding other opioid medications. The updated guideline demonstrates clearly the evidence does not support the use of opioid medications – including tramadol – to treat knee osteoarthritis.”

This may require some education for both patients and doctors to buy in that knee pain can be treated adequately with NSAIDs and acetaminophen.

Patients may not understand that anti-inflammatory drugs treat the pain they are experiencing. They may equate an opioid with a “pain pill” and may need education from their doctor that NSAIDs and acetaminophen not only can relieve their pain, but also avoid potential adverse events prior to or after surgery should they progress to knee replacement surgery.

Furthermore, primary care physicians may not be looking at the long-term picture. Solving a short-term pain problem with opioids may limit the medication’s ability to provide pain relief after surgery should a patient develop a tolerance to the medication’s effects.
 

Recommendations on hip and foot alignment interventions

When it comes to alignment and joint stresses, the knee is sometimes considered the innocent bystander of hip and foot alignment.

Insoles. How the hip and foot align with each can determine the amount of weight that passes through the medial (inner) or lateral (outer) compartment of the knee. To that end, lateral foot insoles have been used in the past for unloading parts of the knee.

Nevertheless, recent evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant benefit for insoles in the setting of OA knee pain, earning the practice a strong recommendation against its use.

High-tibial osteotomy (HTO). The weight-bearing axis of the lower-extremity axis can also be realigned with HTO. The procedure shifts the body’s weight slightly to the opposite side of the knee.

Newer research has led the practice to be downgraded one level in the new guideline, from moderate to limited, despite its widespread use.

It will, however, likely continue to be used as an alternative to total knee replacement in younger patients and to shift weight away from an area of the knee where cartilage is being restored with a concomitant surgical procedure, according to the work group. They noted that additional research studies on the long-term efficacy of the procedure are still needed.

Topical treatments. The guideline authors gave these a strong recommendation. Gels with anti-inflammatory medication have long been available but were prescription only or of considerable cost. Now several affordable over-the-counter options with the same prescription strength can be found in pharmacies and supermarkets.

What makes these medications unique is that they have an NSAID medication in the formulation, which the vast majority of topical treatments found on shelves do not. They also benefit patients who are unable to tolerate oral NSAIDs because of gastrointestinal side effects.

Comparison with 2019 OARSI recommendations

In 2019, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International also published guidelines for the management of OA of the hand, hip, and knee.

Thomas Trojian, MD, a family medicine physician with expertise in sports medicine in York, Pa., and member of both the AAOS and OARSI recommendation committees, noted that the OARSI guidelines are meant to be practical guidelines of stepwise nonoperative treatment.

He said in an interview that “the OARSI guidelines recommend dietary weight management, education, and land-based [exercise] therapy, next topical NSAIDs, then injection therapy.”

Intra-articular steroids and viscosupplementation injection therapy in the form of hyaluronic acid derivatives continue to be a mainstay of treatment for both groups.

The AAOS group notably gave a moderate strength recommendation for intra-articular steroid injections with the caveat that the effects typically only last for 3 months. They also included newer extended-release steroid injections in the recommendation, stating that the evidence moderately suggests they provide more benefit than traditional short-acting steroid injections.
 

Methodology differs between guidelines

In the areas where the guidelines don’t fully line up, it is important to remember the methodology of each group often drives the guidelines and recommendations.

According to Yale Fillingham, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in group private practice in the greater Philadelphia area and the other cochair of the AAOS guidelines committee, the biggest difference between the AAOS and OARSI guidelines is that, although the OARSI guidelines are also grounded in the literature, the recommendation level was based on voting among panel members.

“The AAOS methodology requires the recommendation and strength of the recommendation to be dictated primarily by the best available evidence in the literature and much less on the expertise and opinion of the voting panel,” Dr. Fillingham said in an interview.

He pointed out that the AAOS voting panel can alter the guideline by adjusting the strength of the recommendation but noted it was only in very clearly defined situations. Therefore, the differences in methodology between the groups make it difficult to directly compare the two guidelines.

Multiple guidelines do, however, point to the importance of the issue. Dr. Fillingham commented: “The numerous organizations that have produced guidelines on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are a testament to the widespread and profound impact of knee osteoarthritis on our health care system and society.”

As a member of both recommendation groups, Dr. Trojian finds both guidelines reveal the importance of understanding that knee OA is a chronic illness. “There are ways we can manage knee OA and reduce the morbidity. ... The core skills of motivational interviewing are important. Open-ended questions, affirmation, reflection, and summarizing are needed to help patients find and remove roadblocks to promote lifestyle changes.”

Dr. Brophy, Dr. Trojian, and Dr. Fillingham have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

After nearly a decade, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has updated its guidance on nonoperative treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

The clinical practice guidelines, released Sept. 13, 2021, is the third edition of the orthopedic society’s clinical practice recommendations.

According to Robert Brophy, MD, FAAOS, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University, St. Louis, and cochair of the AAOS clinical practice guideline work group, the AAOS guidelines are a “living document” that needs periodic updating as new research comes to light.

“The methodology for maintaining the AAOS guidelines aims to update guideline documents at least every 10 years,” Dr. Brophy said in an interview. “Since the last edition was from 2013, it was time to provide an updated guideline on this very important topic that affects such a high percentage of our patients and providers.”

The guidelines work group, composed of 12 medical doctors and 1 physical therapist, evaluated the evidence for 29 areas of treatment.

A rating scale based on available evidence and the strength of related medical studies labeled each treatment area as demonstrating strong, moderate, or limited evidence.

Eight treatment modalities weighed in with strong evidence for or against their use: lateral wedge insoles, topical or oral NSAIDs, exercise (supervised or unsupervised), self-management programs, patient education programs, oral acetaminophen, and oral opioids.

According to Dr. Brophy, many of the recommendations assigned a strong evidence base were similar to the prior edition of the guidelines.
 

Oral medications

NSAIDs and acetaminophen still remain steadfast options for the treatment of knee pain secondary to OA.

decade3d/Thinkstock

The most notable change was that opioids, which have a long history of being used to treat pain, are strongly recommended not to be used for arthritis.

“Reflecting the growing awareness of and emphasis on the opioid epidemic, one of the strongest changes between the current and prior guidelines centers on the use of opioid medications,” Dr. Brophy said. “In the prior guideline, a strong recommendation was made in favor of tramadol with an inconclusive recommendation made regarding other opioid medications. The updated guideline demonstrates clearly the evidence does not support the use of opioid medications – including tramadol – to treat knee osteoarthritis.”

This may require some education for both patients and doctors to buy in that knee pain can be treated adequately with NSAIDs and acetaminophen.

Patients may not understand that anti-inflammatory drugs treat the pain they are experiencing. They may equate an opioid with a “pain pill” and may need education from their doctor that NSAIDs and acetaminophen not only can relieve their pain, but also avoid potential adverse events prior to or after surgery should they progress to knee replacement surgery.

Furthermore, primary care physicians may not be looking at the long-term picture. Solving a short-term pain problem with opioids may limit the medication’s ability to provide pain relief after surgery should a patient develop a tolerance to the medication’s effects.
 

Recommendations on hip and foot alignment interventions

When it comes to alignment and joint stresses, the knee is sometimes considered the innocent bystander of hip and foot alignment.

Insoles. How the hip and foot align with each can determine the amount of weight that passes through the medial (inner) or lateral (outer) compartment of the knee. To that end, lateral foot insoles have been used in the past for unloading parts of the knee.

Nevertheless, recent evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant benefit for insoles in the setting of OA knee pain, earning the practice a strong recommendation against its use.

High-tibial osteotomy (HTO). The weight-bearing axis of the lower-extremity axis can also be realigned with HTO. The procedure shifts the body’s weight slightly to the opposite side of the knee.

Newer research has led the practice to be downgraded one level in the new guideline, from moderate to limited, despite its widespread use.

It will, however, likely continue to be used as an alternative to total knee replacement in younger patients and to shift weight away from an area of the knee where cartilage is being restored with a concomitant surgical procedure, according to the work group. They noted that additional research studies on the long-term efficacy of the procedure are still needed.

Topical treatments. The guideline authors gave these a strong recommendation. Gels with anti-inflammatory medication have long been available but were prescription only or of considerable cost. Now several affordable over-the-counter options with the same prescription strength can be found in pharmacies and supermarkets.

What makes these medications unique is that they have an NSAID medication in the formulation, which the vast majority of topical treatments found on shelves do not. They also benefit patients who are unable to tolerate oral NSAIDs because of gastrointestinal side effects.

Comparison with 2019 OARSI recommendations

In 2019, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International also published guidelines for the management of OA of the hand, hip, and knee.

Thomas Trojian, MD, a family medicine physician with expertise in sports medicine in York, Pa., and member of both the AAOS and OARSI recommendation committees, noted that the OARSI guidelines are meant to be practical guidelines of stepwise nonoperative treatment.

He said in an interview that “the OARSI guidelines recommend dietary weight management, education, and land-based [exercise] therapy, next topical NSAIDs, then injection therapy.”

Intra-articular steroids and viscosupplementation injection therapy in the form of hyaluronic acid derivatives continue to be a mainstay of treatment for both groups.

The AAOS group notably gave a moderate strength recommendation for intra-articular steroid injections with the caveat that the effects typically only last for 3 months. They also included newer extended-release steroid injections in the recommendation, stating that the evidence moderately suggests they provide more benefit than traditional short-acting steroid injections.
 

Methodology differs between guidelines

In the areas where the guidelines don’t fully line up, it is important to remember the methodology of each group often drives the guidelines and recommendations.

According to Yale Fillingham, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in group private practice in the greater Philadelphia area and the other cochair of the AAOS guidelines committee, the biggest difference between the AAOS and OARSI guidelines is that, although the OARSI guidelines are also grounded in the literature, the recommendation level was based on voting among panel members.

“The AAOS methodology requires the recommendation and strength of the recommendation to be dictated primarily by the best available evidence in the literature and much less on the expertise and opinion of the voting panel,” Dr. Fillingham said in an interview.

He pointed out that the AAOS voting panel can alter the guideline by adjusting the strength of the recommendation but noted it was only in very clearly defined situations. Therefore, the differences in methodology between the groups make it difficult to directly compare the two guidelines.

Multiple guidelines do, however, point to the importance of the issue. Dr. Fillingham commented: “The numerous organizations that have produced guidelines on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are a testament to the widespread and profound impact of knee osteoarthritis on our health care system and society.”

As a member of both recommendation groups, Dr. Trojian finds both guidelines reveal the importance of understanding that knee OA is a chronic illness. “There are ways we can manage knee OA and reduce the morbidity. ... The core skills of motivational interviewing are important. Open-ended questions, affirmation, reflection, and summarizing are needed to help patients find and remove roadblocks to promote lifestyle changes.”

Dr. Brophy, Dr. Trojian, and Dr. Fillingham have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.