Estimating the Prevalence of Knee Pain and the Association between Illness Perception Profiles and Self-Management Strategies in the Frederiksberg Cohort of Elderly Individuals with Knee Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Knee pain is an early sign of later incident radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the prevalence of knee pain in the general population is unknown. Additionally, it is unknown how people with knee pain choose to self-manage the condition and if the perception of the illness affects these choices. In this study, 9086 citizens between 60-69 years old in the municipality of Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark, were surveyed, of which 4292 responded. The prevalence of knee pain was estimated, and associations between illness perceptions (brief illness perception questionnaire [B-IPQ]), self-management strategies, and knee symptoms were assessed. The prevalence of knee pain was 21.4% of which 40.5% reported to use no self-management strategies (non-users). These non-users perceived their knee pain as less threatening and reported less severe symptoms than users of self-management strategies. Further, we found that a more positive illness perception was associated with less severe knee symptoms. In conclusion, among Danes aged 60-69 years, the knee pain prevalence is 21.4%, of which 40.5% use no treatment and perceive the condition as non-threatening. These non-users with knee pain represent a subpopulation being at increased risk of developing knee OA later in life, and there is a potential preventive gain in identifying these persons.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA. METHODS: We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind-body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self-efficacy and self-management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Cost-of-illness of knee osteoarthritis: potential cost savings by not undergoing arthroplasty within the first 2 years.

PURPOSE: Although knee arthroplasty (KA) is the largest source of hospitalization costs for knee osteoarthritis (OA), some studies have suggested reducing the use of "low-value" interventions, such as intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA), to lower health care costs. However, those studies fail to consider that HA has demonstrated benefits in extending time to more costly KA or avoiding KA altogether. We evaluated 1) the overall knee OA costs (direct) within a 2-year period; 2) the relative contribution of HA and KA costs; 3) the direct cost savings from HA patients not undergoing KA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Knee OA patients were identified from the Optum Clinformatics data set, which includes physician, facility, and pharmacy claims data from privately insured patients of all ages. Patients were stratified in the no HA, non-hylan G-F 20, and hylan G-F 20 cohorts. The cumulative costs (payer perspective) were evaluated for all knee OA-related claims (adjusted to Consumer Price Index Jan 2017$) for patients who had at least 2 years follow-up. Costs were stratified into various clinical categories. RESULTS: The study cohort included 2,030,497 knee OA patients, of which 65,144 patients (3.2%) underwent KA. The cost of treating knee OA within the 2-year follow-up period was estimated to be $4.99 billion (B). The majority of the costs (69%) were attributed to KA patients (3.2% of patients). In all, 15.9% of the HA patients underwent KA within 2 years, but HA only contributed 1.7% to the total costs for these patients. The remaining 84.1% of HA patients did not undergo KA, which saved an estimated total of $1.54B (average $20,740 per patient) or 83.9%, after accounting for their non-KA therapies. CONCLUSION: Our study estimated substantial cost savings through a large percentage of HA patients not undergoing KA. Although a fraction of patients moved on from their conservative therapy to undergo KA within the 2-year period, HA attributed to <2% of their total treatment costs.

OLT1177, a ß-sulfonyl nitrile compound, safe in humans, inhibits the NLRP3 inflammasome and reverses the metabolic cost of inflammation.

Activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome induces maturation of IL-1ß and IL-18, both validated targets for treating acute and chronic inflammatory diseases. Here, we demonstrate that OLT1177, an orally active ß-sulfonyl nitrile molecule, inhibits activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. In vitro, nanomolar concentrations of OLT1177 reduced IL-1ß and IL-18 release following canonical and noncanonical NLRP3 inflammasome activation. The molecule showed no effect on the NLRC4 and AIM2 inflammasomes, suggesting specificity for NLRP3. In LPS-stimulated human blood-derived macrophages, OLT1177 decreased IL-1ß levels by 60% and IL-18 by 70% at concentrations 100-fold lower in vitro than plasma concentrations safely reached in humans. OLT1177 also reduced IL-1ß release and caspase-1 activity in freshly obtained human blood neutrophils. In monocytes isolated from patients with cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS), OLT1177 inhibited LPS-induced IL-1ß release by 84% and 36%. Immunoprecipitation and FRET analysis demonstrated that OLT1177 prevented NLRP3-ASC, as well as NLRP3-caspase-1 interaction, thus inhibiting NLRP3 inflammasome oligomerization. In a cell-free assay, OLT1177 reduced ATPase activity of recombinant NLRP3, suggesting direct targeting of NLRP3. Mechanistically, OLT1177 did not affect potassium efflux, gene expression, or synthesis of the IL-1ß precursor. Steady-state levels of phosphorylated NF-κB and IkB kinase were significantly lowered in spleen cells from OLT1177-treated mice. We observed reduced IL-1ß content in tissue homogenates, limited oxidative stress, and increased muscle oxidative metabolism in OLT1177-treated mice challenged with LPS. Healthy humans receiving 1,000 mg of OLT1177 daily for 8 d exhibited neither adverse effects nor biochemical or hematological changes.

Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Medicare Knee Osteoarthritis Patients Are Associated With Longer Time to Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Few nonoperative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis (OA) are available, but there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections. We investigated whether the formulation of IA HA, or its combined use with IA corticosteroid (CS), may be contributing to some of the reported variation in clinical outcomes. METHODS: The 5% Part B Medicare data (2005-2012) were used to identify knee OA patients who underwent knee arthroplasty (KA). The time from diagnosis of OA to KA was compared between patients with (HA) and without (no HA) IA HA use, using quantile regression with propensity score adjustment. These were further stratified by type of IA HA. Patient factors associated with time to KA were also assessed using Cox regression. RESULTS: The "HA" cohort was associated with a longer time to KA of 8.7 months (95% confidence interval: 8.3-9.1 months; P < .001) compared with the "no HA" cohort, with extended time to KA in the bioengineered Euflexxa IA HA cohort. Patient factors associated with longer time to KA included women, younger patients, minority patients, patients with fewer comorbidities, and IA CS injection use. Patients with both IA HA and IA CS had an additional 6.3 months (95% confidence interval: 5.5-7.0 months; P < .001) to KA over those with only IA HA. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of elderly patients undergoing KA, there was a significant longer time from diagnosis of OA to KA in those receiving IA HA. It is unclear if the extended time may lead to less KA utilization.

Efficacy and safety of glucosamine sulfate in the management of osteoarthritis: Evidence from real-life setting trials and surveys.

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm recommends chronic symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) including glucosamine sulfate (GS) and chondroitin sulfate (CS) as first-line therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Numerous studies are published on the use of SYSADOAs in OA; however, the efficacy of this class is still called into question largely due to the regulatory status, labeling and availability of these medications which differ substantially across the world. Examination of the evidence for the prescription patented crystalline GS (pCGS) formulation at a dose of 1500mg once-daily demonstrates superiority over other GS and glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) formulations and dosage regimens. Thus, the ESCEO task force advocates differentiation of prescription pCGS over other glucosamine preparations. Long-term clinical trials and real-life studies show that pCGS may delay joint structural changes, suggesting potential benefit beyond symptom control when used early in the management of knee OA. Real-life pharmacoeconomic studies demonstrate a long-term reduction in the need for additional pain analgesia and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with pCGS, with a significant reduction of over 50% in costs associated with medications, healthcare consultations and examinations over 12 months. Furthermore, treatment with pCGS for at least 12 months leads to a reduction in the need for total joint replacement for at least 5 years following treatment cessation. Thus, pCGS (1500mg od) is a logical choice to maximize clinical benefit in OA patients, with demonstrated medium-term control of pain and lasting impact on disease progression.

A consensus statement on the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis-From evidence-based medicine to the real-life setting.

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) published a treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in 2014, which provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. Further analysis of real-world data for OA provides additional evidence in support of pharmacological interventions, in terms of management of OA pain and function, avoidance of adverse events, disease-modifying effects and long-term outcomes, e.g., delay of total joint replacement surgery, and pharmacoeconomic factors such as reduction in healthcare resource utilization. This article provides an updated assessment of the literature for selected interventions in OA, focusing on real-life data, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA in primary care clinical practice, in support of the clinicians' individualized assessment of the patient. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) is recommended, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the prescription formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs without the systemic safety concerns. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk:benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.

Assessment of clinical practice guideline methodology for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular hyaluronic acid.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance in the decision making for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Inconsistent recommendations regarding the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis have led to confusion among treating physicians. METHODS: Literature search to identify clinical practice guidelines that provide recommendations regarding the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis was conducted. Included guidelines were appraised using the AGREE II instrument. Guideline development methodologies, how the results were assessed, the recommendation formation, and work group composition were summarized. RESULTS: Overall, 10 clinical practice guidelines were identified that met our inclusion criteria. AGREE II domain scores were variable across the included guidelines. The methodology utilized across the guidelines was heterogeneous regarding the evidence inclusion criteria, analysis of evidence results, formulation of clinical practice recommendations, and work group composition. The recommendations provided by the guidelines for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis are highly inconsistent as a result of the variability in guideline methodology. Overall, 30% of the included guidelines recommended against the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, while 30% deemed the treatment an appropriate intervention under certain scenarios. The remaining 40% of the guidelines provided either an uncertain recommendation or no recommendation at all, based on the high variability in reviewed evidence regarding efficacy and trial quality. CONCLUSION: There is a need for a standard "appropriate methodology" that is agreed upon for osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines in order to prevent the development of conflicting recommendations for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis, and to assure that treating physicians who are utilizing these guidelines are making their clinical decisions on the best available evidence. At present, the inconsistent recommendations provided for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment make it difficult for clinical professionals to determine its appropriateness when treating patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of intra-articular injections of a high molecular weight bioengineered hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of bioengineered hyaluronic acid (BioHA, 1% sodium hyaluronate) intra-articular injections in treating osteoarthritis knee pain in poor responders to conventional care (CC) including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. METHODS: Two decision analytic models compared BioHA treatment with either continuation of patient's baseline CC with no assumption of disease progression (Model 1), or CC including escalating care costs due to disease progression (NSAIDs and analgesics, corticosteroid injections, and surgery; Model 2). Analyses were based on patients who received two courses of 3-weekly intra-articular BioHA (26-week FLEXX Trial + 26-week Extension Study). BioHA group costs included fees for physician assessment and injection regimen, plus half of CC costs. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as averages and incremental costs per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of QALYs gained in BioHA-treated patients, and ±20% of BioHA treatment and CC costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed for Model 2. RESULTS: For 214 BioHA patients, the average utility gain was 0.163 QALYs (95% CI = -0.162 to 0.488) over 52 weeks. Model 1 treatment costs were $3469 and $4562 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively; sensitivity analyses showed BioHA to be the dominant treatment strategy, except when at the lower end of the 95% CI. Model 2 annual treatment costs per QALY gained were $1446 and $516 for the BioHA and CC groups, respectively. Using CC as baseline strategy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of BioHA was $38,741/QALY gained, and was sensitive to response rates in either the BioHA or CC groups. CONCLUSION: BioHA is less costly and more effective than CC with NSAIDs and analgesics, and is the dominant treatment strategy. Compared with escalating CC, the $38,741/QALY ICER of BioHA remains within the $50,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold to adopt a new technology.

Outcome variables for osteoarthritis clinical trials: The OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria.

Improvement in analysis and reporting results of osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials has been recently obtained because of harmonization and standardization of the selection of outcome variables (OMERACT 3 and OARSI). Moreover, OARSI has recently proposed the OARSI responder criteria. This composite index permits presentation of results of symptom modifying clinical trials in OA based on individual patient responses (responder yes/no). The 2 organizations (OMERACT and OARSI) established a task force aimed at evaluating: (1) the variability of observed placebo and active treatment effects using the OARSI responder criteria; and (2) the possibility of proposing a simplified set of criteria. The conclusions of the task force were presented and discussed during the OMERACT 6 conference, where a simplified set of responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria) was proposed.