Mortality and Morbidity Among Individuals With Hypertension Receiving a Diuretic, ACE Inhibitor, or Calcium Channel Blocker: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The long-term relative risk of antihypertensive treatments with regard to mortality and morbidity is not well understood. Objective: To determine the long-term posttrial risk of primary and secondary outcomes among trial participants who were randomized to either a thiazide-type diuretic, calcium channel blocker (CCB), or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor with up to 23 years of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT), a multicenter randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial, followed up with participants aged 55 years or older with a diagnosis of hypertension and at least 1 other coronary heart disease risk factor for up to 23 years, from February 23, 1994, to December 31, 2017. Trial participants were linked with administrative databases for posttrial mortality (N = 32 804) and morbidity outcomes (n = 22 754). Statistical analysis was performed from January 2022 to October 2023. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a thiazide-type diuretic (n = 15 002), a CCB (n = 8898), or an ACE inhibitor (n = 8904) for planned in-trial follow-up of approximately 4 to 8 years and posttrial passive follow-up for up to 23 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was mortality due to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, combined fatal and nonfatal (morbidity) CVD, and both mortality and morbidity for coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, and cancer. Results: A total of 32 804 participants (mean [SD] age, 66.9 [7.7] years; 17 411 men [53.1%]; and 11 772 Black participants [35.9%]) were followed up for all-cause mortality and a subgroup of 22 754 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [7.2] years; 12 772 women [56.1%]; and 8199 Black participants [36.0%]) were followed up for fatal or nonfatal CVD through 2017 (mean [SD] follow-up, 13.7 [6.7] years; maximum follow-up, 23.9 years). Cardiovascular disease mortality rates per 100 persons were 23.7, 21.6, and 23.8 in the diuretic, CCB, and ACE inhibitor groups, respectively, at 23 years after randomization (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.89-1.05] for CCB vs diuretic; AHR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.97-1.15] for ACE inhibitor vs diuretic). The long-term risks of most secondary outcomes were similar among the 3 groups. Compared with the diuretic group, the ACE inhibitor group had a 19% increased risk of stroke mortality (AHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.03-1.37]) and an 11% increased risk of combined fatal and nonfatal hospitalized stroke (AHR, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.03-1.20]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial in an adult population with hypertension and coronary heart disease risk factors, CVD mortality was similar between all 3 groups. ACE inhibitors increased the risk of stroke outcomes by 11% compared with diuretics, and this effect persisted well beyond the trial period. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00000542.

Risk of Developing Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias in ALLHAT Trial Participants Receiving Diuretic, ACE-Inhibitor, or Calcium-Channel Blocker with 18 Years of Follow-Up.

Background: There is no any large randomized clinical trial of antihypertensive drug treatment with 18-year passive follow-up to examine the risk of Alzheimer's Disease (AD) or Related Dementias (ADRD). Methods: Post-trial passive follow-up study of Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) participants in 1994-1998 by linking with their Medicare claims data through 2017 among 17,158 subjects in 567 U.S. centers who were free of ADRD at baseline on January 1, 1999. Main outcome was the occurrence of ADRD over 18 years of follow-up. Results: The 18-year cumulative incidence rates were 30.9% for AD, 59.2% for non-AD dementias, and 60.9% for any ADRD. The 18-year cumulative incidence of AD was almost identical for the 3 drug groups (30.5% for chlorthalidone, 31.1% for amlodipine, and 31.4% for lisinopril). The hazard ratios of AD, non-AD dementias and total ADRD were not statistically significantly different among the 3 drug groups. The adjusted hazard ratio of AD was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.94-1.14) for chlorthalidone versus amlodipine, 1.02 (0.92-1.13) for lisinopril versus amlodipine, and 0.98 (0.89-1.08) for lisinopril versus chlorthalidone, which were not significantly different. The risk of AD and non-AD dementias was significantly higher in older subjects, females, blacks, non-Hispanics, subjects with lower education, and subjects with vascular diseases. Conclusion: The risk of ADRD did not vary significantly by 3 antihypertensive drugs in ALLHAT trial participants with 18-years of follow-up. The risk of ADRD was significantly associated with age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, and history of vascular diseases.

Patients' access to 2018 FDA-approved drugs 1 year post approval.

OBJECTIVES: To examine US commercial health plans' adoption of 2018 FDA-approved drugs. STUDY DESIGN: Database analysis. METHODS: We identified novel drugs that the FDA approved in 2018 and categorized them as follows: cancer treatment, orphan drug, included in an expedited review program, and biosimilar. Using a data set of 17 large health plans' drug coverage policies and formularies, we examined coverage 1 year following FDA approval. RESULTS: The FDA approved 66 drugs in 2018 (5 were not yet marketed 1 year following approval). For 60 of 61 drugs, some plans issued coverage policies whereas other plans included the drug in their formularies. Plans imposed restrictions (eg, step therapy) in 37% (275/742) of coverage policies. Plans covered biosimilars, orphan drugs, and cancer treatments more generously than drugs not in those categories (P < .05). Plans imposed restrictions in their policies with different frequencies (range, 7%-52%). Plans imposed utilization management (UM) in 82% (3837/4697) of formulary entries. Of those entries, plans required prior authorizations in 98%, included drugs on the highest patient co-payment tier in 70%, and imposed step therapy in 3%. Plans most often placed orphan drugs and cancer treatments on the highest cost-sharing formulary tiers (68% and 64% of the time, respectively). Plans imposed UM in their formularies with different frequencies (range, 62%-100% of entries). CONCLUSIONS: Health plans imposed fewer coverage restrictions on cancer treatments, orphan drugs, and biosimilars than on drugs not in those categories. Some plans covered 2018 FDA-approved drugs more generously than others, which has implications for patients' access to innovative therapies.

Examining health care champions: a mixed-methods study exploring self and peer perspectives of champions.

Background: Champions are widely recognized as playing a key role in the successful implementation of evidence-based interventions within the health care sector; however, little is known about which characteristics and skills enable them to play that role. Furthermore, previous studies have measured only individual champions' responses to personal attributes without incorporating input from other observers. A mixed-methods study was conducted to identify, analyze, and group the behaviors and characteristics of champions who have successfully promoted the adoption of new initiatives within the health care delivery system, taking into consideration self and peer perspectives. Methods: Using a mixed-methods, cross-sectional triangulation design with a convergence model, quantitative data were collected and analyzed from health care champions (n = 30) and their colleagues (n = 58) from 11 countries using a survey. Every champion and a subset of colleagues (n = 14) also participated in in-depth interviews. Descriptive statistics were used to explore the relationship between champion and colleague responses to survey items; chi-squared tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare the differences. Thematic content analysis of qualitative data was used to explore champion-like behaviors and features. Characteristics of champions were categorized using the Transformational Leadership Theory framework. Results: Champions exhibited characteristics that facilitated trust and encouraged motivation among their colleagues to adopt innovations, such as being intrinsically motivated, persistent, enthusiastic, and highly effective communicators. Champions were described by their colleagues as empathetic, curious, physically present, approachable, and often soliciting feedback from others. Although there was a high degree of agreement between champion and colleague survey responses, champions were more likely to underrate their skills and abilities to instigate change compared to their colleagues. Conclusion: Both champions and colleagues described key champion-like characteristics, but champions often downplayed the characteristics and behaviors that make champions uniquely effective at facilitating the adoption of evidence-based interventions. Plan language abstract: Health care champions are people who promote the adoption of new initiatives to improve the quality of patient care among their colleagues within health care settings. Champions are often viewed by organizational leaders and researchers as critical for the successful implementation of new ideas; however, little is known about what specific skills or characteristics make them effective at promoting the adoption of new ideas among their colleagues. Most studies on champions' behaviors have only included the perspectives of champions, and not perspectives from others within the organization. The goal of our study was to not only explore champions' perspectives of themselves, but also the views of champions' colleagues to understand why and how champions motivated and influenced their colleagues to try new things. Findings from this study could lead to more accurate identification of health care champions, which in turn could lead to more efficient and effective adoption of new initiatives to improve the quality of patient care.

Papilledema Secondary to Neurologic Lyme Borreliosis: A Meta-Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Papilledema can be a manifestation of neurologic Lyme borreliosis (LB). The clinical manifestations and progression of these cases have not been comprehensively documented to date. We aimed to describe clinical and diagnostic features and to assess patient outcomes in cases of papilledema secondary to neurologic LB. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database from inception to August 2019. We did not restrict our search by study design or by publication date, status, or language. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies describing 46 cases of papilledema secondary to neurologic LB were included. Common clinical features included cranial neuropathy (68%) and diplopia (61%). Most patients did not recall tick bite (71%) and were afebrile (74%). Brain imaging was normal in 64% cases. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis showed lymphocytic pleocytosis (77%). Initial treatment with intravenous ceftriaxone was given in 52% of cases and resulted in a 100% resolution rate. Concomitant treatment with acetazolamide resulted in favorable outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: For patients in endemic regions who describe symptoms suggestive of intracranial hypertension and papilledema, especially accompanied by facial nerve palsy and other cranial nerve palsies, underlying neurologic LB should be considered.

Therapeutic ultrasound for knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis with grade quality assessment.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic ultrasound (US) is a widely used intervention in physical therapy to manage pain and to aid in the healing of soft tissue. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to determine the effects of therapeutic US on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) symptoms. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with symptomatic KOA that compared therapeutic US with a sham or other control were included. The methodological quality of the trials was assessed at the study level using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The quality of evidence at the outcome level- and overall- was assessed using GRADE methodology. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Four studies (N = 234 participants) were eligible for inclusion in our primary analyses assessing therapeutic US versus sham. The methodological quality of the included RCTs ranged from moderate to very low. Treatment with therapeutic US resulted in small, statistically significant benefits for pain (approximate 9.6% improvement on a 0-100 visual analog scale [95% confidence interval: 2, 17.4%]) and self-reported measures of function (approximate 12.8% improvement on a 0-100 visual analog scale [0.4, 25.2%]). The overall quality of the evidence was very low. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: The use of therapeutic US may provide additional benefits to physical therapy regimens in terms of symptom relief in individuals with KOA. However, it is not possible to make any meaningful recommendations for clinical practice due to the small number of applicable RCTs and the low methodological quality of the RCTs deemed eligible for this study.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2020 Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Babesiosis.

The purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based guidance for the most effective strategies for the diagnosis and management of babesiosis. The diagnosis and treatment of co-infection with babesiosis and Lyme disease will be addressed in a separate Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guideline [1]. Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of human granulocytic anaplasmosis can be found in the recent rickettsial disease guideline developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2]. The target audience for the babesiosis guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition, such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, intensivists, internists, pediatricians, hematologists, and transfusion medicine specialists.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease.

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease.

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2020 Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Babesiosis.

The purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based guidance for the most effective strategies for the diagnosis and management of babesiosis. The diagnosis and treatment of co-infection with babesiosis and Lyme disease will be addressed in a separate Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guideline [1]. Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of human granulocytic anaplasmosis can be found in the recent rickettsial disease guideline developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2]. The target audience for the babesiosis guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition, such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, intensivists, internists, pediatricians, hematologists, and transfusion medicine specialists.

Is There Any Role for Opioids in the Management of Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Opioids have long been prescribed for chronic pain conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). However, there is little information about their temporal efficacy, or differences in efficacy and safety between opioids with strong versus weak/intermediate µ opioid receptor-binding affinity. To explore these research questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with knee and/or hip OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2019 and sought unpublished data. Placebo-controlled RCTs of oral opioids in patients with knee and/or hip OA were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for pain and function at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Subgroup analyses for strong and weak/intermediate opioids were conducted. Meta-regression was performed to assess the impact of dosage (morphine equivalency) on pain relief. Risk ratios were calculated for safety at the final follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 18 RCTs (9,283 participants) were included. Opioids demonstrated small benefits on pain at each time point, with SMDs ranging from -0.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.38, -0.17) to -0.19 (95% CI -0.29, -0.08); similar effects were observed for function. Strong opioids demonstrated consistently inferior efficacy and overall worse safety than weak/intermediate opioids. Meta-regression revealed that incremental pain relief achieved beyond 20-50-mg doses was not substantial in the context of increased safety risks. CONCLUSION: Opioids provide minimal relief of OA symptoms within a 12-week period, and they are known to cause discomfort in a majority of patients. Clinicians and policy makers should reconsider the utility of opioids in the management of OA.

Comparative Effectiveness of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are several regimens recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) for HER2-negative operable breast cancer. To our knowledge, no trials have yet been performed comparing these regimens head to head. We performed a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of NCCN-recommended chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to February 2020. We included randomized clinical trials comparing adjuvant regimens in predominantly node-positive operable breast cancer patients. We compared (1) DDACT, (2) TCx4 cycles, (3) TAC, and (4) ACWKT. Common comparators were (5) AC, (6) ACT, and (7) ACD. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool assessed quality of the studies. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated as measures of treatment effects with AC as reference. We used Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models with noninformative priors for mixed multiple treatment comparisons. Effectiveness was estimated by disease-free and overall survival using ORs. Sensitivity analyses were performed. Safety outcomes included febrile neutropenia. RESULTS: We identified 7 randomized controlled trials with 16,332 patients. TC (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 0.71 [0.36-1.40]), TAC (0.77 [0.37-1.57]), ACWKT (0.68 [0.34-1.38]), and DDACT (0.72 [0.35-1.42]) were similar for overall survival. TC (0.64 [0.36-1.14]), TAC (0.67 [0.39-1.15]), ACWKT (0.63 [0.37-1.07]), and DDACT (0.59 [0.35-1.01]) had similar disease-free survival benefit. With regard to toxicity, TAC (2.67 [0.30-21.04]) had the highest odds of febrile neutropenia. CONCLUSION: The current generation of regimens are similar in efficacy. Given the lower toxicity of TCx4 comparatively, it is an acceptable alternative for lower-risk early-stage HER2-negative breast cancers.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, and American College of Rheumatology: 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease.

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Duration of Symptom Relief and Early Trajectory of Adverse Events for Oral Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Despite an extensive body of research on nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in osteoarthritis, the duration of their efficacy and timeline of adverse event (AE) onset have been understudied. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses from 2 to 26 weeks to characterize the efficacy and AE trajectories of oral NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and/or safety of Federal Drug Administration-approved NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: We included 72 randomized controlled trials (26,424 participants). NSAIDs demonstrated moderate, statistically significant effects on pain that peaked at 2 weeks (SMD -0.43 [95% CI -0.48, -0.38]), but the magnitude of the effects decreased over time. The results for function were similar. The incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) AEs was significantly higher in NSAID users than placebo users as early as 4 weeks (RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.21, 1.57]). The incidence of cardiovascular (CV) AEs in NSAID users was not significantly different from placebo. Most GI and CV AEs were transient and of minor severity. CONCLUSION: NSAIDs produced significant pain and function improvements that peaked at 2 weeks but decreased over time. The incidence of minor GI and CV AEs consistently rose, reaching significance as early as 4 weeks. Clinicians should weigh the durability of efficacy with the early onset of minor AEs along with patient tolerability and preferences when formulating an NSAID regimen.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

About 21% of adults with osteoarthritis (OA) are diagnosed with concomitant depression in addition to chronic pain. Duloxetine, an anti-depressant medication, has been recently approved for managing Knee OA. We performed a systematic review to ascertain the efficacy and safety of duloxetine for OA. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to December 2018. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and/or safety of duloxetine versus placebo in OA patients were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Seven RCTs (n = 2,102 participants) met our inclusion criteria, and five RCTs (n = 1,713) were eligible for meta-analysis. The results of our analyses indicate that duloxetine has statistically significant, moderate benefits on pain, function, and quality of life in knee OA patients for up to 13 weeks. Reported incidences of gastrointestinal adverse events were three to four times higher in participants who received duloxetine versus placebo. Duloxetine may be an effective treatment option for individuals with knee OA, but use of the drug is associated with a significantly higher risk of adverse events. Patient preferences and clinicians' judgment must be considered before the initiation of duloxetine.

Efficacy of curcumin and Boswellia for knee osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The unfavorable safety profiles of commonly prescribed knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatments have led clinicians and patients to seek safer alternatives. Research has suggested that curcuminoid and boswellia formulations could moderate key inflammatory pathways that are associated with worsening symptoms and disease progression. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these treatments vs. placebo or NSAIDs for knee OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science and the Cochrane database from inception to February 21, 2018. We also hand searched reference lists and reviewed conference proceedings. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing curcuminoid or boswellia formulations with placebo or NSAIDs for knee OA. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) for all relevant outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs (N = 1009) were eligible for analysis. Study quality was low overall, and most included RCTs were conducted on fewer than 100 participants. Both curcuminoid and boswellia formulations were statistically significantly more effective than placebo for pain relief and functional improvement. There were no significant differences between curcuminoids or boswellia and placebo in safety outcomes. Curcuminoids showed no statistically significant differences in efficacy outcomes compared to NSAIDs; patients receiving curcuminoids were significantly less likely to experience gastrointestinal adverse events. No RCTs compared boswellia against approved NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study suggest that curcuminoid and boswellia formulations could be a valuable addition to the knee OA treatment regimens by relieving symptoms while reducing safety risks. The current body of evidence is not adequate in size or quality to make any meaningful clinical practice recommendations. Further research through large, high quality RCTs probably investigating the synergistic effect of these products with other OA treatments is warranted.

What clinicians should know about differential placebo effects.

Research is inconclusive as to whether placebo interventions can result in clinical improvement. A number of methodological concepts must be taken into consideration when estimating differential effects of placebo interventions. Using network meta-analysis, researchers can move beyond the lack of direct comparisons available between different placebo interventions by making multiple pairwise comparisons. This design allows us to account for several components of the placebo effect. The additive effects of placebos may be beneficial in clinical practice if physicians can utilize them in a non-deceptive manner to optimize patient care. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of the existence of differential placebo responses when considering selecting appropriate placebo controls in the design of future clinical trials and when formulating treatment regimens.