Incidence of seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis in Denmark: a nationwide population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate and compare trends in incidence rates (IRs) of seropositive and seronegative rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Denmark using various data sources for serostatus definition. METHOD: This nationwide population-based cohort study was based on data from Danish healthcare and clinical quality registries between 2000 and 2018. Information on anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide and immunoglobulin M rheumatoid factor was obtained, and definitions of seropositivity according to the number of applied data sources were prespecified. Annual age- and sex-standardized IRs were calculated as the number of incident seropositive and seronegative cases, divided by the number of person-years (PY) in the general population in that given year. RESULTS: An increasing temporal trend in IR of seropositive RA and a decreasing trend in seronegative RA were observed. The IRs were higher for seropositive RA than for seronegative RA from 2009 onwards, with a widening of the IR gap between 2009 and 2016 regardless of the definition of seropositivity. When combining laboratory- and physician-reported autoantibody information and ICD-10 codes, the IR of seropositive RA in 2018 was approximately twice that of seronegative RA, at 19.0 and 9.0 per 100 000 PY, respectively. The level of antibody testing increased significantly during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The IR of seropositive RA increased over time, whereas the IR of seronegative RA decreased. Temporal IR changes may be caused by a real change in the RA serology subtypes, an increase in autoantibody testing and availability, changes in registration practice over time, or a combination of these factors.

Occurrence of comorbidity following osteoarthritis diagnosis: a cohort study in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the risk of comorbidity following diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: A cohort study was conducted using the Integrated Primary Care Information database, containing electronic health records of 2.5 million patients from the Netherlands. Adults at risk for OA were included. Diagnosis of knee or hip OA (=exposure) and 58 long-term comorbidities (=outcome) were defined by diagnostic codes following the International Classification of Primary Care coding system. Time between the start of follow-up and incident diagnosis of OA was defined as unexposed, and between diagnosis of OA and the end of follow-up as exposed. Age and sex adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing comorbidity rates in exposed and unexposed patient time were estimated with 99.9% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The study population consisted of 1,890,712 patients. For 30 of the 58 studied comorbidities, exposure to knee OA showed a HR larger than 1. Largest positive associations (HR with (99.9% CIs)) were found for obesity 2.55 (2.29-2.84) and fibromyalgia 2.06 (1.53-2.77). For two conditions a HR < 1 was found, other comorbidities showed no association with exposure to knee OA. For 26 comorbidities, exposure to hip OA showed a HR larger than 1. The largest were found for polymyalgia rheumatica 1.81 (1.41-2.32) and fibromyalgia 1.70 (1.10-2.63). All other comorbidities showed no associations with hip OA. CONCLUSION: This study showed that many comorbidities were diagnosed more often in patients with knee or hip OA. This suggests that the management of OA should consider the risk of other long-term-conditions.

Clustering of comorbidities and associated outcomes in people with osteoarthritis - A UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the clusters of chronic conditions present in people with osteoarthritis and the associated risk factors and health outcomes. METHODS: Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD was used to identify people diagnosed with incident osteoarthritis (n = 221,807) between 1997 and 2017 and age (±2 years), gender, and practice matched controls (no osteoarthritis, n = 221,807) from UK primary care. Clustering of people was examined for 49 conditions using latent class analysis. The associations between cluster membership and covariates were quantified by odds ratios (OR) using multinomial logistic regression. General practice (GP) consultations, hospitalisations, and all-cause mortality rates were compared across the clusters identified at the time of first diagnosis of osteoarthritis (index date). RESULTS: In both groups, conditions largely grouped around five clusters: relatively healthy; cardiovascular (CV), musculoskeletal-mental health (MSK-MH), CV-musculoskeletal (CV-MSK) and metabolic (MB). In the osteoarthritis group, compared to the relatively healthy cluster, strong associations were seen for 1) age with all clusters; 2) women with the MB cluster (OR 5.55: 5.14-5.99); 3) obesity with the CV-MSK (OR 2.11: 2.03-2.20) and CV clusters (OR 2.03: 1.97-2.09). The CV-MSK cluster in the osteoarthritis group had the highest number of GP consultations and hospitalisations, and the mortality risk was 2.45 (2.33-2.58) times higher compared to the relatively healthy cluster. CONCLUSIONS: Of the five identified clusters, CV-MSK, CV, and MSK-MH are more common in OA and CV-MSK cluster had higher health utilisation. Further research is warranted to better understand the mechanistic pathways and clinical implications.

Elevated blood pressure, antihypertensive medications and bone health in the population: revisiting old hypotheses and exploring future research directions.

Blood pressure and bone metabolism appear to share commonalities in their physiologic regulation. Specific antihypertensive drug classes may also influence bone mineral density. However, current evidence from existing observational studies and randomised trials is insufficient to establish causal associations for blood pressure and use of blood pressure-lowering drugs with bone health outcomes, particularly with the risks of osteoporosis and fractures. The availability and access to relevant large-scale biomedical data sources as well as developments in study designs and analytical approaches provide opportunities to examine the nature of the association between blood pressure and bone health more reliably and in greater detail than has ever been possible. It is unlikely that a single source of data or study design can provide a definitive answer. However, with appropriate considerations of the strengths and limitations of the different data sources and analytical techniques, we should be able to advance our understanding of the role of raised blood pressure and its drug treatment on the risks of low bone mineral density and fractures. As elevated blood pressure is highly prevalent and blood pressure-lowering drugs are widely prescribed, even small effects of these exposures on bone health outcomes could be important at a population level.

Comparative risk of acute myocardial infarction for anti-osteoporosis drugs in primary care: a meta-analysis of propensity-matched cohort findings from the UK Clinical Practice Research Database and the Catalan SIDIAP Database.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of acute myocardial infarction in patients taking osteoporosis medication. Patients were taken from the SIDIAP or CPRD database and were matched using propensity scores. Patients with diabetes and chronic kidney disease taking SERMs were at an increased risk. The results favour the cardiovascular safety of alendronate as a first-line choice for osteoporosis treatment. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the comparative safety of anti-osteoporosis drugs based on the observed risk of acute myocardial infarction while on treatment in a primary care setting. METHODS: This is a propensity-matched cohort study and meta-analysis. This study was conducted in two primary care record databases covering UK NHS (CPRD) and Catalan healthcare (SIDIAP) patients during 1995-2014 and 2006-2014, respectively. The outcome was acute myocardial infarction while on treatment. Users of alendronate (reference group) were compared to those of (1) other oral bisphosphonates (OBP), (2) strontium ranelate (SR), and (3) selective oestrogen receptor modulator (SERM), after matching on baseline characteristics (socio-demographics, fracture risk factors, comorbidities, and concomitant drug use) using propensity scores. Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data on confounders and competing risk modelling for the calculation of relative risk (sub-distribution hazard ratios (SHR)) according to therapy. Country-specific data were analysed individually and meta-analysed. RESULTS: A 10% increased risk of acute myocardial infarction was found in users of other bisphosphonates as compared to alendronate users within CPRD. The meta-analysis of CPRD and SIDIAP results showed a 9% increased risk in users of other bisphosphonate as compared to alendronate users. Sensitivity analysis showed SERMS users with diabetes and chronic kidney disease were at an elevated risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides additional data on the risk of acute myocardial infarction in patients receiving osteoporosis treatment. The results favour the cardiovascular safety of alendronate as a first-line choice for osteoporosis treatment.

Incidence and prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis in Denmark from 1998 to 2018: a nationwide register-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence and prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in the adult Danish population. METHOD: In this nationwide register-based cohort study, patients with incident RA between 1998 and the end of 2018 were identified using Danish administrative registries. The age- and sex-standardized incidence rate (IR), incidence proportion (IP), lifetime risk (LR), and point prevalence (PP) of RA were calculated. RA was defined as a first-time RA diagnosis registered in the Danish National Patient Registry combined with a redeemed prescription of a conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug in the following year. In addition, three different case definitions of RA were explored. RESULTS: The overall age- and sex-standardized IR of RA from 1998 to 2018 was 35.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.1-35.9] per 100 000 person-years while the IP was 35.2 (95% CI 34.8-35.5) per 100 000 individuals. The IR was two-fold higher for women than for men. The LR of RA ranged from 2.3% to 3.4% for women and from 1.1% to 1.5% for men, depending on the RA case definition used. The overall PP of RA was 0.6% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) in 2018: 0.8% (95% CI 0.7-0.8%) for women and 0.3% (95% CI 0.3-0.4%) for men. The prevalence increased about 1.5-fold from 2000 to 2018. CONCLUSION: The IR and PP were approximately two-fold higher for women than for men. The prevalence of RA in Denmark increased significantly from 2000 to 2018. The RA case definition had more impact on the results than the choice of denominator.

The treatment gap after major osteoporotic fractures in Denmark 2005-2014: a combined analysis including both prescription-based and hospital-administered anti-osteoporosis medications.

This study demonstrates a substantial and persistent anti-osteoporosis treatment gap in men and women ≥50 years old who sustained major osteoporotic fracture(s) between 2005 and 2014 in Denmark. This was not substantially reduced by including hospital-administered anti-osteoporosis treatments. Strengthened post-fracture organization of care and secondary fracture prevention is highly needed. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Danish anti-osteoporosis treatment gap from 2005 to 2014 in patients sustaining a major osteoporotic fracture (MOF), and to assess the impact of including hospital-administered anti-osteoporosis medications (AOM) on the treatment gap among these patients. METHODS: In this retrospective, registry-based study, we included men and women aged 50 years or older and living in Denmark, who sustained at least one MOF between 2005 and 2014. We applied a repeated cross-sectional design to generate cohorts of patients sustaining a first MOF, hip, vertebral, humerus, or forearm fracture, respectively, within each calendar year. We evaluated the treatment gap as the proportion of patients within each cohort not receiving treatment with AOM within 1 year of the fracture. Hospital-administered AOM was identified by SKS code. RESULTS: The treatment gap among MOF patients decreased from 85% in 2005 to 79% in 2014. The gap was smaller among hip and vertebral fracture patients as compared to humerus and forearm fracture patients, and it was smaller in women than in men. The use of hospital-administered AOM was relatively uncommon, with a maximum of 0.9% of MOF patients initiating hospital-administered AOM (in 2012). We observed substantial variations in this proportion between fracture types and gender. Hospital-administered AOM was most commonly used among vertebral fracture patients. CONCLUSION: A significant treatment gap among patients sustaining a major osteoporotic fracture was present throughout our analysis, and including hospital-administered AOM did not significantly improve the treatment gap assessment. Improved secondary fracture prevention is urgently needed.

Diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in chronic kidney disease stages 4 to 5D: a call for a shift from nihilism to pragmatism.

The European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) CKD-MBD working group, in collaboration with the Committee of Scientific Advisors of the International Osteoporosis Foundation, published a position paper for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in patients with CKD stages 4-5D (eGFR < 30 ml/min 1.73 m2). The present article reports and summarizes the main recommendations included in this 2021 document. The following areas are reviewed: diagnosis of osteoporosis; risk factors for fragility fractures; fracture risk assessment; intervention thresholds for pharmacological intervention; general and pharmacological management of osteoporosis; monitoring of treatment, and systems of care, all in patients with CKD stages 4-5D. Guidance is provided for clinicians caring for CKD stages 4-5D patients with osteoporosis, allowing for a pragmatic individualized diagnostic and therapeutic approach as an alternative to current variations in care and treatment nihilism.

Inappropriate opioid dispensing in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate inappropriate opioid dispensing in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) defined as (1) dispensing of opioids within the first year of diagnosis or (2) long-term opioid use. DESIGN: Data from Skåne Healthcare Register was linked with the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Incidence proportion of dispensed opioids within first year of incident knee or hip OA diagnosis was determined in knee (n = 399,670) and hip (413,216) OA cohorts without a history of OA. The 1-year period prevalence of long-term opioid dispensing was determined in a prevalence cohort (n = 48,574 with knee and/or hip OA and n = 457,587 without OA). The proportion of OA patients with excess opioid dispensing attributable to OA was estimated using inverse probability weighted regression adjustment. RESULTS: In the incident cohorts, 5866 and 2359 developed knee and hip OA, respectively. Within the first year after OA diagnosis 14.7% patients with knee OA and 20.7% with hip OA had an opioid dispensed. The estimated inappropriate dispensing attributable to OA was 7.4% (95% CI 6.5-8.4) for knee OA and 12.8% (95% CI 11.1-14.4) for hip OA. Among persons with prevalent knee, hip or knee and hip OA inappropriate, long-term opioid use attributable to OA was 1.3%, 2.0% and 2.4% of, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: More than half the incident opioid dispensations to patients within their first year after knee or hip OA diagnosis are inappropriate according to current treatment guidelines. Furthermore, 2% of patients with prevalent knee or hip OA have inappropriate long-term dispensing of opioids.

Secular trends in the initiation of therapy in secondary fracture prevention in Europe: a multi-national cohort study including data from Denmark, Catalonia, and the United Kingdom.

This paper demonstrates a large post-fracture anti-osteoporosis treatment gap in the period 2005 to 2015. The gap was stable in Denmark at around 88-90%, increased in Catalonia from 80 to 88%, and started to increase in the UK towards the end of our study. Improved post-fracture care is needed. INTRODUCTION: Patients experiencing a fragility fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures, particularly within the first 2 years after the fracture. Previous studies have demonstrated that only a small proportion of fracture patients initiate therapy with an anti-osteoporotic medication (AOM), despite the proven fracture risk reduction of such therapies. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the changes in this post-fracture treatment gap across three different countries from 2005 to 2015. METHODS: This analysis, which is part of a multinational cohort study, included men and women, aged 50 years or older, sustaining a first incident fragility fracture. Using routinely collected patient data from three administrative health databases covering Catalonia, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, we estimated the treatment gap as the proportion of patients not treated with AOM within 1 year of their first incident fracture. RESULTS: A total of 648,369 fracture patients were included. Mean age 70.2-78.9 years; 22.2-31.7% were men. In Denmark, the treatment gap was stable at approximately 88-90% throughout the 2005 to 2015 time period. In Catalonia, the treatment gap increased from 80 to 88%. In the UK, an initially decreasing treatment gap-though never smaller than 63%-was replaced by an increasing gap towards the end of our study. The gap was more pronounced in men than in women. CONCLUSION: Despite repeated calls for improved secondary fracture prevention, an unacceptably large treatment gap remains, with time trends indicating that the problem may be getting worse in recent years.

Comparative cardiovascular safety of strontium ranelate and bisphosphonates: a multi-database study in 5 EU countries by the EU-ADR Alliance.

Strontium ranelate use, compared with oral bisphosphonates, is not associated with increased risk of AMI in patients with no contraindications for SR use. However, current strontium ranelate (compared with current bisphosphonate) appears associated with 25-30% excess risk of VTE and 35% excess risk of CVDeath. INTRODUCTION: Evaluate the risk of cardiac and thromboembolic events among new users of SR and oral BPs without contraindications for SR. METHODS: We conducted three multi-national, multi-database (Aarhus-Denmark, HSD-Italy, IPCI-Netherlands, SIDIAP-Spain, THIN-UK) case-control studies nested within a cohort of new users of SR/BP. We matched cases of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and cardiovascular death (CVDeath), up to 10 controls on gender, year of birth, index date, and country. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) according to current SR vs current BP use and current vs past SR use, adjusting for potential confounders. Data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: No excess risk of AMI (5477 cases/54,674 controls) was found with current SR vs current BP (OR 0.89 (95%CI 0.70, 1.12)) nor with current vs past SR use (0.71(0.56, 0.91)). For VTE (5614 cases/6036 controls), an excess risk was found with current SR compared with current BP use, 1.24 (0.96, 1.61), and current vs past SR use, 1.30 (1.04, 1.62). For CVDeath (3019 cases/29,871 controls), an increased risk was seen with current SR vs current BP use, 1.35 (1.02, 1.80), but not with current vs past SR use (0.68 (0.48, 0.96)). CONCLUSION: In patients without contraindications for SR, we found no evidence of an increased risk of AMI but a 25-30% excess risk of VTE and a 35% excess risk of CVDeath with current SR vs current BP users. This is despite a reduction in risk in CVDeath with current vs past SR users. The latter disparity could still be partially explained by cessation of preventative therapies in end-of-life or residual confounding by indication.

Correction to: Impact of risk minimisation measures on the use of strontium ranelate in Europe: a multi-national cohort study in 5 EU countries by the EU-ADR Alliance.

The original version of this article, published on 26 November 2019 contained a mistake.

Impact of risk minimisation measures on the use of strontium ranelate in Europe: a multi-national cohort study in 5 EU countries by the EU-ADR Alliance.

INTRODUCTION: In May 2013 and March 2014, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) issued two decisions restricting the use of strontium ranelate (SR). These risk minimisation measures (RMM) introduced new contraindications and limited the indications of SR therapy. The EMA required an assessment of the impact of RMMs on the use of SR in Europe. Methods design: multi-national, multi-database cohort Setting: electronic medical record databases based on hospital (Denmark) and primary care provenance (Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, UK). PARTICIPANTS: the database source populations were included for population-based analyses, and SR users for patient-level analyses. INTERVENTION: New RMMs included contraindications (ischaemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease, cerebrovascular disease, uncontrolled hypertension) and restricted SR indication to severe osteoporosis with initiation by experienced physician and not as first line anti-osteoporosis therapy. METHODS: Prevalence and incidence rates of SR use in the population; prevalence of contraindications and restricted indications in SR users, plus 1-year therapy persistence. Drug use measures were calculated in three periods for comparison: reference (2004 to May 2013), transition (June 2013 to March 2014) and assessment (from April 2014 to end 2016). RESULTS: The study population included 143 million person-years(PY) of follow-up and 76,141 incident episodes of SR treatment. Average monthly prevalence rates of SR use dropped by 86.4% from 62.6/10,000 PY (95 CI 62.4-62.9) in the reference to 8.5 (8.5-8.6) in the assessment period. Similarly, the incidence rate of SR use fell by 97.3% from 7.4/10,000 PY (7.4-7.4) to 0.2 (0.2-0.2) between the reference and assessment period. The prevalence of any contraindication decreased, whilst the prevalence of restricted indications increased in these periods. One-year persistence decreased in the assessment compared with reference period. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a substantial impact of the regulatory action to restrict use of SR in Europe: SR utilisation overall decreased strongly. The proportion of patients fulfilling the restricted indications, without contraindications, increased after the proposed RMMs.

Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures.

Guidance is provided in an international setting on the assessment and specific treatment of postmenopausal women at low, high and very high risk of fragility fractures. INTRODUCTION: The International Osteoporosis Foundation and European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis published guidance for the diagnosis and management of osteoporosis in 2019. This manuscript seeks to apply this in an international setting, taking additional account of further categorisation of increased risk of fracture, which may inform choice of therapeutic approach. METHODS: Clinical perspective and updated literature search. RESULTS: The following areas are reviewed: categorisation of fracture risk and general pharmacological management of osteoporosis. CONCLUSIONS: A platform is provided on which specific guidelines can be developed for national use to characterise fracture risk and direct interventions.

Is there a role for menopausal hormone therapy in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis?

We provide an evidence base and guidance for the use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) for the maintenance of skeletal health and prevention of future fractures in recently menopausal women. Despite controversy over associated side effects, which has limited its use in recent decades, the potential role for MHT soon after menopause in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis is increasingly recognized. We present a narrative review of the benefits versus risks of using MHT in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Current literature suggests robust anti-fracture efficacy of MHT in patients unselected for low BMD, regardless of concomitant use with progestogens, but with limited evidence of persisting skeletal benefits following cessation of therapy. Side effects include cardiovascular events, thromboembolic disease, stroke and breast cancer, but the benefit-risk profile differs according to the use of opposed versus unopposed oestrogens, type of oestrogen/progestogen, dose and route of delivery and, for cardiovascular events, timing of MHT use. Overall, the benefit-risk profile supports MHT treatment in women who have recently (< 10 years) become menopausal, who have menopausal symptoms and who are less than 60 years old, with a low baseline risk for adverse events. MHT should be considered as an option for the maintenance of skeletal health in women, specifically as an additional benefit in the context of treatment of menopausal symptoms, when commenced at the menopause, or shortly thereafter, in the context of a personalized benefit-risk evaluation.

Correction to: Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures.

The article 'Algorithm for the management of patients at low, high and very high risk of osteoporotic fractures',written by J. A. Kanis, was originally published Online First without Open Access. After publication in volume [#], issue [#] and page [#-#], the author decided to opt for Open Choice and to make the article an Open Access publication.

Opioid use in knee or hip osteoarthritis: a region-wide population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify opioid use in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients, and to estimate the proportion of opioids in the population attributable to OA patients. DESIGN: Population-based cohort study. METHODS: We included 751,579 residents in southern Sweden, aged ≥35 years in 2015. Doctor-diagnosed knee or hip OA between 1998 and 2015 was the exposure. Dispensed weak and strong opioids were identified between November 2013 and October 2015 from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR). We determined age- and sex-standardized 12-month period prevalence of opioid use from November 2014 until October 2015 and calculated prevalence ratios and incidence rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, and other socio-demographic variables. We estimated the population attributable fraction (PAF) of incident opioid use attributable to OA patients. RESULTS: The 12-month prevalence of opioid use among OA patients was 23.7% [95% confidence intervals (CI) 23.3-24.2], which was two-fold higher compared to individuals without knee or hip OA: prevalence ratio: 2.1 [95% CI 2.1-2.1]. Similarly, OA patients were more likely to have an incident opioid dispensation, especially for strong opioids (incidence rate ratio: 2.6 [95% CI 2.5-2.7]). Population attributable tractions (PAF) of incident opioid use attributable to OA patients was 12%, 9% for weak and 17% for strong opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Every fourth patient with knee or hip OA has opioids dispensed over a 1-year period, and 12% of incident opioid dispensations are attributable to OA and/or its related comorbidities. These results highlight that patients with knee and hip OA constitute a group of patients with an alarmingly high use of opioids.

Lifetime risk of knee and hip replacement following a GP diagnosis of osteoarthritis: a real-world cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate lifetime risk of knee and hip replacement following a GP diagnosis of osteoarthritis and assess how this risk varies with patient characteristics. METHODS: Routinely collected data from Catalonia, Spain, covering 2006 to 2015, were used. Study participants had a newly recorded GP diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis. Parametric survival models were specified for risk of knee/hip replacement and death following diagnosis. Survival models were combined using a Markov model and lifetime risk estimated for the average patient profile. The effects of age at diagnosis, sex, comorbidities, socioeconomic status, body mass index (BMI), and smoking on risk were assessed. RESULTS: 48,311 individuals diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis were included, of whom 2,561 underwent knee replacement. 15,105 individuals diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis were included, of whom 1,247 underwent hip replacement. The average participant's lifetime risk for knee replacement was 30% (95% CI: 25-36%) and for hip replacement was 14% (10-19%). Notable patient characteristics influencing lifetime risk were age at diagnosis for knee and hip replacement, sex for hip replacement, and BMI for knee replacement. BMI increasing from 25 to 35 was associated with lifetime risk of knee replacement increasing from 24% (20-28%) to 32% (26-37%) for otherwise average patients. CONCLUSION: Knee and hip replacement are not inevitable after an osteoarthritis diagnosis, with average lifetime risks of less than a third and a sixth, respectively. Patient characteristics, most notably BMI, influence lifetime risks.

The impact of BMI and smoking on risk of revision following knee and hip replacement surgery: evidence from routinely collected data.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the association of body mass index (BMI) and smoking with risk of revision following total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR). DESIGN: Primary care data, from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD), was linked to inpatient hospital records, from Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC), and covered 1997 to 2014. Parametric survival models, with BMI and smoking status included as explanatory variables, were estimated for 10-year risk of revision and mortality, and were extrapolated to estimate lifetime risk of revision. FINDINGS: TKR and THR cohorts included 10,260 and 10,961 individuals, respectively. For a change in BMI from 25 to 35, the 10-year risk of revision is expected change from 4.6% (3.3-6.4%) to 3.7% (2.6-5.1%) for TKR and 3.7% (2.8-5.1%) to 4.0% (2.8-5.7%) for THR for an otherwise average patient profile. Meanwhile, changing from a non-smoker to a current smoker is expected to change the risk of revision from 4.1% (3.1-5.5%) to 2.8% (1.7-4.7%) for TKR and from 3.8% (2.8-5.3%) to 2.9% (1.9-4.7%) for THR for an otherwise average patient profile. Estimates of lifetime risk were also similar for different values of BMI or smoking status. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and smoking do not appear to have a meaningful impact on the risk of revision following TKR and THR.

Impact of a national enhanced recovery after surgery programme on patient outcomes of primary total knee replacement: an interrupted time series analysis from "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test whether a national Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Programme in total knee replacement (TKR) had an impact on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Natural-experiment (April 2008-December 2016). Interrupted time-series regression assessed impact on trends before-during-after ERAS implementation. SETTING: Primary operations from the UK National Joint Registry (NJR) were linked with Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data which contains inpatient episodes undertaken in National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing primary planned TKR aged ≥18 years. INTERVENTION: ERAS implementation (April 2009-March 2011). OUTCOMES: Regression coefficients of monthly means of Length of stay (LOS), bed day costs, change in Oxford knee scores (OKS) 6-months after surgery, complications (at 6 months), and rates of revision surgeries (at 5 years). RESULTS: 486,579 primary TKRs were identified. Overall LOS and bed-day costs decreased from 5.8 days to 3.7 and from £7607 to £5276, from April 2008 to December 2016. Oxford knee score (OKS) change improved from 15.1 points in April 2008 to 17.1 points in December 2016. Complications decreased from 4.1 % in April 2008 to 1.7 % in March 2016. 5-year revision rates remained stable at 4.8 per 1000 implants years in April 2008 and December 2011. After ERAS, declining trends in LOS and bed costs slowed down; OKS improved, complications remained stable, and revisions slightly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Different secular trends in outcomes for patients having TKR have been observed over the last decade. Although patient outcomes are better than a decade ago ERAS did not improve them at national level.