Decreasing Medical Complications for Total Knee Arthroplasty: Effect of Critical Pathways on Outcomes

BACKGROUND: Studies on critical pathway use have demonstrated decreased length of stay and cost without compromise in quality of care. However, pathway effectiveness is difficult to determine given methodological flaws, such as small or single center cohorts. We studied the effect of critical pathways on total knee replacement outcomes in a large population-based study. METHODS: We identified hospitals in four US states that performed total knee replacements. We sent a questionnaire to surgical administrators in these hospitals including items about critical pathway use and hospital characteristics potentially related to outcomes. Patient data were obtained from Medicare claims, including demographics, comorbidities, 90-day postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. The principal outcome measure was the risk of having one or more postoperative complications. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety five hospitals (73%) responded to the questionnaire, with 201 reporting the use of critical pathways. 9,157 Medicare beneficiaries underwent TKR in these hospitals with a mean age of 74 years (± 5.8). After adjusting for both patient and hospital related variables, patients in hospitals with pathways were 32% less likely to have a postoperative complication compared to patients in hospitals without pathways (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.92). Patients managed on a critical pathway had an average length of stay 0.5 days (95% CI 0.3-0.6) shorter than patients not managed on a pathway. CONCLUSION: Medicare patients undergoing total knee replacement surgery in hospitals that used critical pathways had fewer postoperative complications than patients in hospitals without pathways, even after adjusting for patient and hospital related factors. This study has helped to establish that critical pathway use is associated with lower rates of postoperative mortality and complications following total knee replacement after adjusting for measured variables

Disease-specific composite measures for psoriatic arthritis are highly responsive to a Janus kinase inhibitor treatment that targets multiple domains of disease

Background: The multiple disease domains affected in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may make composite endpoints appropriate for assessing changes in disease activity over time. Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of PsA. Data from two phase 3 studies of patients with PsA were used to evaluate the effect of tofacitinib on composite endpoints. Methods: Oral Psoriatic Arthritis triaL (OPAL) Broaden was a 12-month study of tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi)-naïve patients with an inadequate response to at least one conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug; OPAL Beyond was a 6-month study of patients with inadequate response to TNFi. Patients with active PsA received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg doses twice daily (BID), adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneous injection once every 2 weeks (OPAL Broaden only), or placebo advancing at month 3 to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID. The disease-specific composites were Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS), Disease Activity Index for Reactive Arthritis/Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA), and Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI). Change from baseline in composite endpoints was also assessed for minimal disease activity (MDA) responders versus non-responders. Results: Overall, 422 patients from OPAL Broaden and 394 patients from OPAL Beyond were treated. The mean changes from baseline to month 3 for tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID (standard error; effect size) were OPAL Broaden: PASDAS, −2.0 (0.14; 1.73), −2.4 (0.14; 2.4); DAPSA, −20.2 (1.72; 0.9), −24.4 (1.73; 1.23); and CPDAI, −2.9 (0.34; 1.03), −4.2 (0.36; 1.53); OPAL Beyond: PASDAS, −1.9 (0.14; 1.53), −2.1 (0.14; 1.84); DAPSA, −22.5 (1.67; 0.81), −21.0 (1.70; 0.84); and CPDAI, −3.3 (0.31; 1.41), −3.4 (0.31; 1.45). Greater changes from baseline to month 3 (P ≤0.05) were seen with both doses of tofacitinib versus placebo for all endpoints except CPDAI for tofacitinib 5 mg BID in OPAL Broaden. Effect sizes generally increased from 3 to 6 months. Mean changes from baseline were greater in MDA responders than MDA non-responders for all composite endpoints across all time points and treatments. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that disease-specific composite measures are appropriate for evaluating treatment efficacy on multiple disease domains in PsA. Trial registration: OPAL Broaden: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01877668, first posted June 12, 2013; OPAL Beyond: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01882439, first posted June 20, 2013

The impact of functional medicine on patient-reported outcomes in inflammatory arthritis: A retrospective study.

BackgroundDespite treatment advances for inflammatory arthritis, a significant amount of patients fail to achieve remission. Other modifiable factors such as diet, physical activity and environmental exposures may be an important area of focus to help patients achieve disease remission and greater overall health. Functional medicine focuses on these lifestyle factors and may be an important adjunctive therapy. In this study, we examined the impact of functional medicine on patient-reported outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthritis.Materials and methodsIn this 12-week, retrospective study, patients with confirmed diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were treated according to guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology for RA or PSA respectively. Those in the functional medicine group underwent a functional medicine program adjunctive to the standard of care. Patient reported outcomes, such as PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) global physical health, mental health and pain scores were collected at baseline and 12 weeks. Multivariable statistical modeling was used to identify the impact of functional medicine on patient-reported outcomes.Results318 patients were screened and 54 patients (mean age 52.9±11.3 years, females 74(67.9%)), were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in both patient groups with the exception of PROMIS global physical health and pain (PROMIS global physical health score 43·2 ± 6·6 and 39·7 ± 8·7 and pain scores of 3·5 ± 1·9 and 5·2 ± 2·7 in the functional medicine group vs. standard of care group respectively). Using multivariable model to account for these differences, patients in the functional medicine group had a statistically significant reduction in pain (0.92, p-value = 0.007) and change in PROMIS physical health score (2·84, p-value = 0.001) as compared to the standard of care. Changes in PROMIS global mental health scores were also significant and were dependent on age and were greatest in those older than 55.LimitationsRetrospective design, baseline difference in patient reported outcomes.ConclusionsFunctional medicine may have an important role as adjunctive therapy to improve patients' pain, physical and mental health in those who do not see improvement with conventional therapy alone

Comparison of US patient, rheumatologist, and dermatologist perceptions of psoriatic disease symptoms: results from the DISCONNECT study

Abstract Background The perceived bother of skin and joint-related manifestations of psoriatic disease may differ among patients, rheumatologists, and dermatologists. This study identified and compared the patient and dermatologist/rheumatologist-perceived bother of psoriatic disease manifestations. Methods Online surveys were administered to patients with both psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and to dermatologists and rheumatologists. Object-case best–worst scaling was used to identify the most and least bothersome items from a set of five items in a series of questions. Each item set was drawn from 20 items describing psoriatic disease skin and joint symptoms and impacts on daily activities. Survey responses were analyzed using random-parameters logit models for each surveyed group, yielding a relative-bother weight (RBW) for each item compared with joint pain, soreness, or tenderness. Results Surveys were completed by 200 patients, 150 dermatologists, and 150 rheumatologists. Patients and physicians agreed that joint pain, soreness, and tenderness are among the most bothersome manifestations of psoriatic disease (RBW 1.00). For patients, painful, inflamed, or broken skin (RBW 1.03) was more bothersome, while both rheumatologists and dermatologists considered painful skin much less bothersome (RBW 0.17 and 0.22, respectively) than joint pain. Relative to joint pain, rheumatologists were more likely to perceive other joint symptoms as bothersome, while dermatologists were more likely to perceive other skin symptoms as bothersome. Conclusions This study has identified important areas of discordance both between patients and physicians and between rheumatologists and dermatologists about the relative bother of a comprehensive set of psoriatic disease symptoms and functional impacts. Both physician specialists should ask patients which manifestations of psoriatic disease are most bothersome to them, as these discussions may have important implications for drug and other patient management options

Psoriasis and Cardiovascular Disease: Novel Mechanisms and Evolving Therapeutics

Purpose of Review: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that is associated with increased cardiovascular risk compared to those without psoriasis. This review will cover emerging mechanisms of cardiovascular risk, key pathways targeted with biologic therapies, and the current evidence on therapies to modulate this risk in patients with psoriasis. Recent Findings: Recent scientific work has highlighted mechanisms that contribute to this enhanced risk, including the role of vascular endothelial dysfunction, platelet activation, dyslipidemia, and increased cardiometabolic comorbidities. Newer biologic and targeted synthetic therapies have transformed psoriasis treatment with high rates of clinical remission and durable skin disease control now possible. Epidemiological evidence suggests that many of these therapies may lower cardiovascular risk in psoriasis, although prospective interventional data is lacking (or mixed). Recently, caution has also been raised that some treatments may negatively affect cardiovascular risk. Summary: Overall, the current data suggests a positive or neutral ability to reduce cardiovascular risk for TNF, IL-17A, and IL-12/23p40 inhibitors, but current evidence remains conflicting for anti-IL-23/p19 and JAK inhibitors. More studies that include prospective cohorts, larger number of patients, treatment duration, and validated surrogate outcomes are needed to better evaluate the role of biologic therapies on cardiovascular risk in psoriasis

Tramadol for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND Tramadol is often prescribed to treat pain and is associated physical disability in osteoarthritis (OA). Due to the pharmacologic mechanism of tramadol, it may lead to fewer associated adverse effects (i.e. gastrointestinal bleeding or renal problems) compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This is an update of a Cochrane Review originally published in 2006. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of oral tramadol or tramadol combined with acetaminophen or NSAIDs in people with osteoarthritis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase databases, as well as the US National Institutes of Health and World Health Organization trial registries up to February 2018. We searched the LILACS database up to August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of tramadol, or tramadol in combination with acetaminophen (paracetamol) or NSAIDs versus placebo or any comparator in people with osteoarthritis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodologic procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included 22 RCTs (11 more than the previous review) of which 21 RCTs were included in meta-analyses for 3871 participants randomized to tramadol alone or tramadol in combination with another analgesic and 2625 participants randomized to placebo or active control. Seventeen studies evaluated tramadol alone and five evaluated tramadol plus acetaminophen. Thirteen studies used placebo controls and eleven studies used active controls (two trials had both placebo and active arms). The dose of tramadol ranged from 37.5 mg to 400 mg daily; all doses were pooled. Most trials were multicenter with a mean duration of two months. Participants were predominantly women with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with a mean age of 63 years and moderate to severe pain. There was a high risk of selection bias as only four trials reported both adequate sequence generation and allocation concealment. There was a low risk for performance bias as most studies blinded participants. There was a high risk of attrition bias as 10/22 trials showed incomplete outcome data. Most of the trials were funded by the pharmaceutical industry.Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen had no important benefit on pain reduction compared to placebo control (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3% to 5%; 8 studies, 3972 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Fifteen out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in pain) compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Twelve out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 7/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that tramadol alone and in combination with acetaminophen led to no important benefit in physical function compared to placebo (tramadol alone: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 6%; 5 studies, 2550 participants; tramadol in combination with acetaminophen: 4% absolute improvement, 95% CI 2% to 7%; 2 studies, 614 participants).Twenty-one out of 100 people in the tramadol group improved by 20% (which corresponded to a clinically important difference in physical function) compared to 16/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement). Fifteen out of 100 people improved by 20% in the tramadol in combination with acetaminophen group compared to 10/100 in the placebo group (5% absolute improvement).Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that, compared to placebo, there was a greater risk of developing adverse events with tramadol alone (risk ratio (RR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.46; 4 studies, 2039 participants) and tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.76; 1 study, 308 participants). This corresponded to a 17% increase (95% CI 12% to 23%) with tramadol alone and 22% increase (95% CI 8% to 41%) with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen.The three most frequent adverse events were nausea, dizziness and tiredness. Moderate quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (RR 2.64, 95% CI 2.17 to 3.20; 9 studies, 4533 participants), which corresponded to a 12% increase (95% CI 9% to 16%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency) indicated that there was a greater risk of withdrawing from the study because of adverse events with tramadol in combination with acetaminophen compared to placebo (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.16; 2 studies, 614 participants), which corresponded to a 8% absolute improvement (95% CI 2% to 19%).Low quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision) indicated that there was a greater risk of developing serious adverse events with tramadol alone compared to placebo (110/2459 participants with tramadol compared to 22/1153 participants with placebo; RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.84; 7 studies, 3612 participants), which corresponded to a 1% increase (95% CI 0% to 4%). There were no serious adverse events reported in one small study (15 participants) of tramadol with acetaminophen compared to placebo. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Moderate quality evidence indicates that compared to placebo, tramadol alone or in combination with acetaminophen probably has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis, although slightly more people in the tramadol group report an important improvement (defined as 20% or more). Moderate quality evidence shows that adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol. The increase in serious adverse events with tramadol is less certain, due to the small number of events

Elevated levels of plasma symmetric dimethylarginine and increased arginase activity as potential indicators of cardiovascular comorbidity in rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract Background Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). In RA, chronic inflammation may lead to endothelial dysfunction, an early indicator of CVD, owing to diminished nitric oxide (NO) production. Because l-arginine is the sole precursor of NO, we hypothesized that levels of l-arginine metabolic products reflecting NO metabolism are altered in patients with RA. Methods Plasma samples from patients with RA (n = 119) and age- and sex-matched control subjects (n = 238) were used for this study. Using LC-MS/MS, we measured plasma levels of free l-arginine, l-ornithine, l-citrulline, l-N G-monomethyl arginine (MMA), asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA), and symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA). We compared global arginine bioavailability ratio (GABR) (i.e., ratio of l-arginine to l-ornithine + l-citrulline) and arginine methylation index (ArgMI) (i.e., ADMA + SDMA/MMA) in patients with RA vs. control subjects. Plasma arginase activity was measured using a sensitive arginase assay kit. The relationship of l-arginine metabolites and arginase activity to CVD risk factors was evaluated using Pearson’s chi-square test. Results Compared with healthy control subjects, the RA cohort showed significantly lower levels of plasma l-arginine (46.11 ± 17.29 vs. 74.2 ± 22.53 μmol/L, p < 0.001) and GABR (0.36 ± 0.16 vs. 0.73 ± 0.24, p < 0.001), elevated levels of ADMA (0.76 ± 0.12 vs. 0.62 ± 0.12 μmol/L, p < 0.001), SDMA (0.54 ± 0.14 vs. 0.47 ± 0.13 μmol/L, p < 0.001), and ArgMI (6.51 ± 1.86 vs. 5.54 ± 1.51, p < 0.001). We found an approximately fourfold increase in arginase activity (33.8 ± 1.1 vs. 8.4 ± 0.8 U/L, p < 0.001), as well as elevated levels of arginase-mediated l-arginine catalytic product l-ornithine (108.64 ± 30.26 vs. 69.3 ± 20.71 μmol/L, p < 0.001), whereas a nitric oxide synthase (NOS) catalytic product, the l-citrulline level, was diminished in RA (30.32 ± 9.93 vs. 36.17 ± 11.64 μmol/L, p < 0.001). Patients with RA with existing CVD had higher arginase activity than patients with RA without CVD (p = 0.048). Conclusions Global l-arginine bioavailability was diminished, whereas plasma arginase activity, ADMA, and SDMA levels were elevated, in patients with RA compared with healthy control subjects. Plasma SDMA was associated with hypertension and hyperlipidemia in patients with RA. This dysregulated l-arginine metabolism may function as a potential indicator of CVD risk in patients with RA

Comprehensive treatment of psoriatic arthritis: managing comorbidities and extraarticular manifestations

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is an inflammatory arthritis associated with psoriasis that can lead to decreased health-related quality of life and permanent joint damage leading to functional decline. In addition to joint and skin manifestations, both psoriasis and PsA are associated with numerous comorbidities and extraarticular/cutaneous manifestations, which may influence the physician's choice of therapy. The objectives of this review are (1) to identify comorbidities in patients with PsA based on the available evidence; (2) to examine the effects of these comorbidities or extraarticular/cutaneous manifestation on the management of patients with PsA as well as the selection of therapy; and (3) to highlight research needs around comorbidities and treatment paradigms. This review is part of a treatment recommendations update initiated by the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (GRAPPA