All cause and disease specific mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: Population based cohort study

Copyright © 2011 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. This articles was first published in: BMJ, 2011, Vol. 342, Issue 7798, pp. 638 - 638To examine all cause and disease specific mortality in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip

Population requirement for primary knee replacement surgery: a cross‐sectional study

Objectives. To determine the population requirement for total knee replacement (TKR) in England Methods. Population‐based study using an age/sex‐stratified random sample of 28 080 individuals aged 35 yr and over. Incident disease was estimated from prevalence by statistical modelling. The New Zealand priority criteria for major joint replacement were used for case selection. Results. Patients with knee disease were less likely than those with equally severe hip disease to have been referred to a specialist, to have consulted an orthopaedic surgeon or to be on a waiting list for joint replacement. The estimated annual requirement of TKRs in England, based on New Zealand Scores alone, was 55 800 (95% CI 40 700-70 900), contrasting sharply with an annual provision of 29 300 actually observed. However, in contrast to previously reported hip replacement data, when patient willingness to undergo surgery was considered, this estimate decreased considerably. Conclusions. There appears to be an underprovision of TKR in England. This may be due in part to differences in perception of disease severity and likely response to surgery between patients and general practitioners on one hand, and rheumatologists and orthopaedic surgeons on the othe

Outcomes of non-invasive diagnostic modalities for the detection of coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis of diagnostic randomised controlled trials

Objective: To evaluate differences in downstream testing, coronary revascularisation, and clinical outcomes following non-invasive diagnostic modalities used to detect coronary artery disease. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: Medline, Medline in process, Embase, Cochrane Library for clinical trials, PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Diagnostic randomised controlled trials comparing non-invasive diagnostic modalities in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of low risk acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary artery disease. Data synthesis: A random effects network meta-analysis synthesised available evidence from trials evaluating the effect of non-invasive diagnostic modalities on downstream testing and patient oriented outcomes in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Modalities included exercise electrocardiograms, stress echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography-myocardial perfusion imaging, real time myocardial contrast echocardiography, coronary computed tomographic angiography, and cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Unpublished outcome data were obtained from 11 trials. Results: 18 trials of patients with low risk acute coronary syndrome (n=11 329) and 12 trials of those with suspected stable coronary artery disease (n=22 062) were included. Among patients with low risk acute coronary syndrome, stress echocardiography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and exercise electrocardiograms resulted in fewer invasive referrals for coronary angiography than coronary computed tomographic angiography (odds ratio 0.28 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.57), 0.32 (0.15 to 0.71), and 0.53 (0.28 to 1.00), respectively). There was no effect on the subsequent risk of myocardial infarction, but estimates were imprecise. Heterogeneity and inconsistency were low. In patients with suspected stable coronary artery disease, an initial diagnostic strategy of stress echocardiography or single photon emission computed tomography-myocardial perfusion imaging resulted in fewer downstream tests than coronary computed tomographic angiography (0.24 (0.08 to 0.74) and 0.57 (0.37 to 0.87), respectively). However, exercise electrocardiograms yielded the highest downstream testing rate. Estimates for death and myocardial infarction were imprecise without clear discrimination between strategies. Conclusions: For patients with low risk acute coronary syndrome, an initial diagnostic strategy of stress echocardiography or cardiovascular magnetic resonance is associated with fewer referrals for invasive coronary angiography and revascularisation procedures than non-invasive anatomical testing, without apparent impact on the future risk of myocardial infarction. For suspected stable coronary artery disease, there was no clear discrimination between diagnostic strategies regarding the subsequent need for invasive coronary angiography, and differences in the risk of myocardial infarction cannot be ruled out. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registry no CRD42016049442

Prospective reporting of statistical analysis plans for randomised controlled trials

In 2017, JAMA published a statistical analysis plan (SAP) guidance document for randomised clinical trials (RCTs). This guidance is part of the EQUATOR Network of reporting resources and includes a checklist of minimum items for reporting details of statistical analysis of RCTs [1]. While the clinical trial protocol should describe the principal features of the statistical analysis, a separate detailed SAP containing sufficient information to support replication by an independent statistician may be needed [2,3,4]

Does point of care prothrombin time measurement reduce the transfusion of fresh frozen plasma in patients undergoing major surgery? The POC-OP randomized-controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bleeding is a frequent complication during surgery. The intraoperative administration of blood products, including packed red blood cells, platelets and fresh frozen plasma (FFP), is often live saving. Complications of blood transfusions contribute considerably to perioperative costs and blood product resources are limited. Consequently, strategies to optimize the decision to transfuse are needed.</p> <p>Bleeding during surgery is a dynamic process and may result in major blood loss and coagulopathy due to dilution and consumption. The indication for transfusion should be based on reliable coagulation studies. While hemoglobin levels and platelet counts are available within 15 minutes, standard coagulation studies require one hour. Therefore, the decision to administer FFP has to be made in the absence of any data. Point of care testing of prothrombin time ensures that one major parameter of coagulation is available in the operation theatre within minutes. It is fast, easy to perform, inexpensive and may enable physicians to rationally determine the need for FFP.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The objective of the POC-OP trial is to determine the effectiveness of point of care prothrombin time testing to reduce the administration of FFP. It is a patient and assessor blind, single center randomized controlled parallel group trial in 220 patients aged between 18 and 90 years undergoing major surgery (any type, except cardiac surgery and liver transplantation) with an estimated blood loss during surgery exceeding 20% of the calculated total blood volume or a requirement of FFP according to the judgment of the physicians in charge. Patients are randomized to usual care plus point of care prothrombin time testing or usual care alone without point of care testing. The primary outcome is the relative risk to receive any FFP perioperatively. The inclusion of 110 patients per group will yield more than 80% power to detect a clinically relevant relative risk of 0.60 to receive FFP of the experimental as compared with the control group.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Point of care prothrombin time testing in the operation theatre may reduce the administration of FFP considerably, which in turn may decrease costs and complications usually associated with the administration of blood products.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00656396</p

Effect of biomechanical footwear on knee pain in people with knee osteoarthritis : the BIOTOK randomized clinical trial

Importance: Individually calibrated biomechanical footwear therapy may improve pain and physical function in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits of this therapy are unclear. Objective: To assess the effect of a biomechanical footwear therapy vs control footwear over 24 weeks of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial conducted at a Swiss university hospital. Participants (N = 220) with symptomatic, radiologically confirmed knee osteoarthritis were recruited between April 20, 2015, and January 10, 2017. The last participant visit occurred on August 15, 2017. Interventions: Participants were randomized to biomechanical footwear involving shoes with individually adjustable external convex pods attached to the outsole (n = 111) or to control footwear (n = 109) that had visible outsole pods that were not adjustable and did not create a convex walking surface. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was knee pain at 24 weeks of follow-up assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore standardized to range from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms). The secondary outcomes included WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscores and the WOMAC global score, all ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms) at 24 weeks of follow-up, and serious adverse events. Results: Among the 220 randomized participants (mean age, 65.2 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 104 women [47.3%]), 219 received the allocated treatment and 213 (96.8%) completed follow-up. At 24 weeks of follow-up, the mean standardized WOMAC pain subscore improved from 4.3 to 1.3 in the biomechanical footwear group and from 4.0 to 2.6 in the control footwear group (between-group difference in scores at 24 weeks of follow-up, -1.3 [95% CI, -1.8 to -0.9]; P < .001). The results were consistent for WOMAC physical function subscore (between-group difference, -1.1 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.7]), WOMAC stiffness subscore (between-group difference, -1.4 [95% CI, -1.9 to -0.9]), and WOMAC global score (between-group difference, -1.2 [95% CI, -1.6 to -0.8]) at 24 weeks of follow-up. Three serious adverse events occurred in the biomechanical footwear group compared with 9 in the control footwear group (2.7% vs 8.3%, respectively); none were related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants with knee pain from osteoarthritis, use of biomechanical footwear compared with control footwear resulted in an improvement in pain at 24 weeks of follow-up that was statistically significant but of uncertain clinical importance. Further research would be needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety, as well as replication, before reaching conclusions about the clinical value of this device

Effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo. RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656

Quality of care after acute coronary syndromes in a prospective cohort with reasons for non-prescription of recommended medications.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to guidelines is associated with improved outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Clinical registries developed to assess quality of care at discharge often do not collect the reasons for non-prescription for proven efficacious preventive medication in Continental Europe. In a prospective cohort of patients hospitalized for an ACS, we aimed at measuring the rate of recommended treatment at discharge, using pre-specified quality indicators recommended in cardiologic guidelines and including systematic collection of reasons for non-prescription for preventive medications. METHODS: In a prospective cohort with 1260 patients hospitalized for ACS, we measured the rate of recommended treatment at discharge in 4 academic centers in Switzerland. Performance measures for medication at discharge were pre-specified according to guidelines, systematically collected for all patients and included in a centralized database. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty eight patients(54.6%) were discharged with a main diagnosis of STEMI, 491(39%) of NSTEMI and 81(6.4%) of unstable angina. Mean age was 64 years and 21.3% were women. 94.6% were prescribed angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers at discharge when only considering raw prescription rates, but increased to 99.5% when including reasons non-prescription. For statins, rates increased from 98% to 98.6% when including reasons for non-prescription and for beta-blockers, from 82% to 93%. For aspirin, rates further increased from 99.4% to 100% and from to 99.8% to 100% for P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: We found a very high adherence to ACS guidelines for drug prescriptions at discharge when including reasons for non-prescription to drug therapy. For beta-blockers, prescription rates were suboptimal, even after taking into account reason for non-prescription. In an era of improving quality of care to achieve 100% prescription rates at discharge unless contra-indicated, pre-specification of reasons for non-prescription for cardiovascular preventive medication permits to identify remaining gaps in quality of care at discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01000701