Pain Reduction With Oral Methotrexate in Knee Osteoarthritis : A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) are limited. Previous small studies suggest that the antirheumatic drug methotrexate may be a potential treatment for OA pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess symptomatic benefits of methotrexate in knee OA (KOA). DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done between 13 June 2014 and 13 October 2017. (ISRCTN77854383; EudraCT: 2013-001689-41). SETTING: 15 secondary care musculoskeletal clinics in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 207 participants with symptomatic, radiographic KOA and knee pain (severity ≥4 out of 10) on most days in the past 3 months with inadequate response to current medication were approached for inclusion. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation 10 to 25 mg) or matched placebo over 12 months and continued usual analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was average knee pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] 0 to 10) at 6 months, with 12-month follow-up to assess longer-term response. Secondary end points included knee stiffness and function outcomes and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 155 participants (64% women; mean age, 60.9 years; 50% Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 to 4) were randomly assigned to methotrexate (n = 77) or placebo (n = 78). Follow-up was 86% (n = 134; methotrexate: 66, placebo: 68) at 6 months. Mean knee pain decreased from 6.4 (SD, 1.80) at baseline to 5.1 (SD, 2.32) at 6 months in the methotrexate group and from 6.8 (SD, 1.62) to 6.2 (SD, 2.30) in the placebo group. The primary intention-to-treat analysis showed a statistically significant pain reduction of 0.79 NRS points in favor of methotrexate (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.51; P = 0.030). There were also statistically significant treatment group differences in favor of methotrexate at 6 months for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness (0.60 points [CI, 0.01 to 1.18]; P = 0.045) and function (5.01 points [CI, 1.29 to 8.74]; P = 0.008). Treatment adherence analysis supported a dose-response effect. Four unrelated serious AEs were reported (methotrexate: 2, placebo: 2). LIMITATION: Not permitting oral methotrexate to be changed to subcutaneous delivery for intolerance. CONCLUSION: Oral methotrexate added to usual medications demonstrated statistically significant reduction in KOA pain, stiffness, and function at 6 months. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Versus Arthritis.

Associations of Testosterone and Related Hormones With All-Cause and Cardiovascular Mortality and Incident Cardiovascular Disease in Men : Individual Participant Data Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Whether circulating sex hormones modulate mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in aging men is controversial. PURPOSE: To clarify associations of sex hormones with these outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Systematic literature review to July 2019, with bridge searches to March 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective cohort studies of community-dwelling men with sex steroids measured using mass spectrometry and at least 5 years of follow-up. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent variables were testosterone, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG), luteinizing hormone (LH), dihydrotestosterone (DHT), and estradiol concentrations. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, CVD death, and incident CVD events. Covariates included age, body mass index, marital status, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity, hypertension, diabetes, creatinine concentration, ratio of total to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lipid medication use. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine studies provided individual participant data (IPD) (255 830 participant-years). Eleven studies provided summary estimates (n = 24 109). Two-stage random-effects IPD meta-analyses found that men with baseline testosterone concentrations below 7.4 nmol/L (<213 ng/dL), LH concentrations above 10 IU/L, or estradiol concentrations below 5.1 pmol/L had higher all-cause mortality, and those with testosterone concentrations below 5.3 nmol/L (<153 ng/dL) had higher CVD mortality risk. Lower SHBG concentration was associated with lower all-cause mortality (median for quintile 1 [Q1] vs. Q5, 20.6 vs. 68.3 nmol/L; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.77 to 0.95]) and lower CVD mortality (adjusted HR, 0.81 [CI, 0.65 to 1.00]). Men with lower baseline DHT concentrations had higher risk for all-cause mortality (median for Q1 vs. Q5, 0.69 vs. 2.45 nmol/L; adjusted HR, 1.19 [CI, 1.08 to 1.30]) and CVD mortality (adjusted HR, 1.29 [CI, 1.03 to 1.61]), and risk also increased with DHT concentrations above 2.45 nmol/L. Men with DHT concentrations below 0.59 nmol/L had increased risk for incident CVD events. LIMITATIONS: Observational study design, heterogeneity among studies, and imputation of missing data. CONCLUSION: Men with low testosterone, high LH, or very low estradiol concentrations had increased all-cause mortality. SHBG concentration was positively associated and DHT concentration was nonlinearly associated with all-cause and CVD mortality. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Medical Research Future Fund, Government of Western Australia, and Lawley Pharmaceuticals. (PROSPERO: CRD42019139668).

Evidence-based definition of hypoprolactinemia in European men aged 40-86 years: the European male ageing study.

Empirical evidence for a low normal or reference interval for serum prolactin (PRL) is lacking for men, while the implications of very low PRL levels for human health have never been studied. A clinical state of "PRL deficiency" has not been defined except in relation to lactation. Using data from the European Male Ageing Study (EMAS), we analyzed the distribution of PRL in 3,369 community-dwelling European men, aged 40-80 years at phase-1 and free from acute illnesses. In total, 2,948 and 2,644 PRL samples were collected during phase-1 and phase-2 (3 to 5.7 years later). All samples were analysed in the same centre with the same assay. After excluding individuals with known pituitary diseases, PRL ≥ 35 ng/ml, and PRL-altering drugs including antipsychotic agents, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or dopamine agonists, 5,086 data points (2,845 in phase-1 and 2,241 in phase-2) were available for analysis. The results showed that PRL declined minimally with age (slope = -0.02) and did not correlate with BMI. The positively skewed PRL distribution was log-transformed to a symmetrical distribution (skewness reduced from 13.3 to 0.015). Using two-sigma empirical rule (2[]SD about the mean), a threshold at 2.5% of the lower end of the distribution was shown to correspond to a PRL value of 2.98ng/ml. With reference to individuals with PRL levels of 5-34.9 ng/ml (event rate = 6.3%), the adjusted risk of developing type 2 diabetes increased progressively in those with PRL levels of 3-4.9 ng/ml: event rate = 9.3%, OR (95% CI) 1.59 (0.93-2.71), and more so with PRL levels of 0.3-2.9 ng/ml: event rate = 22.7%, OR 5.45 (1.78-16.62). There was also an increasing trend in prediabetes and diabetes based on fasting blood glucose levels was observed with lower categories of PRL. However, PRL levels were not associated with cancer, cardiovascular diseases, depressive symptoms or mortality. Our findings suggest that a PRL level below 3 ng/ml (64 mlU/l) significantly identifies European men with a clinically-important outcome (of type 2 diabetes), offering a lower reference-value for research and clinical practice.

Insulin-like peptide 3 (INSL3) as an indicator of leydig cell insufficiency (LCI) in Middle-aged and older men with hypogonadism: reference range and threshold.

Insulin-like peptide 3 (INSL3) is a circulating biomarker for Leydig cell functional capacity in men, also indicating Leydig Cell Insufficiency (LCI) and potential primary hypogonadism. Using results from large cohort studies we explore sources of biological and technical variance, and establish a reference range for adult men. It is constitutively secreted with little within-individual variation and reflects testicular capacity to produce testosterone. The main INSL3 assays available indicate good concordance with low technical variance; there is no effect of ethnicity. INSL3 declines with age from 35 years at about 15% per decade. Like low calculated free testosterone, and to a lesser extent low total testosterone, reduced INSL3 is significantly associated with increasing age-related morbidity, including lower overall sexual function, reflecting LCI. Consequently, low INSL3 (≤0.4 ng/ml; ca. <2 SD from the population mean) might serve as an additional biochemical marker in the assessment of functional hypogonadism (late-onset hypogonadism, LOH) where testosterone is in the borderline low range. Excluding individuals with low LCI (INSL3 ≤ 0.4 ng/ml) leads to an age-independent (> 35 years) reference range (serum) for INSL3 in the eugonadal population of 0.4 - 2.3 ng/ml, with low INSL3 prospectively identifying individuals at risk of increased future morbidity.

Postoperative opioids administered to inpatients with major or orthopaedic surgery: A retrospective cohort study using data from hospital electronic prescribing systems.

BACKGROUND: Opioids administered in hospital during the immediate postoperative period are likely to influence post-surgical outcomes, but inpatient prescribing during the admission is challenging to access. Modified-release(MR) preparations have been especially associated with harm, whilst certain populations such as the elderly or those with renal impairment may be vulnerable to complications. This study aimed to assess postoperative opioid utilisation patterns during hospital stay for people admitted for major/orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: Patients admitted to a teaching hospital in the North-West of England between 2010-2021 for major/orthopaedic surgery with an admission for ≥1 day were included. We examined opioid administrations in the first seven days post-surgery in hospital, and "first 48 hours" were defined as the initial period. Proportions of MR opioids, initial immediate-release(IR) oxycodone and initial morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day were calculated and summarised by calendar year. We also assessed the proportion of patients prescribed an opioid at discharge. RESULTS: Among patients admitted for major/orthopaedic surgery, 71.1% of patients administered opioids during their hospitalisation. In total 50,496 patients with 60,167 hospital admissions were evaluated. Between 2010-2017 MR opioids increased from 8.7% to 16.1% and dropped to 11.6% in 2021. Initial use of oxycodone IR among younger patients (≤70 years) rose from 8.3% to 25.5% (2010-2017) and dropped to 17.2% in 2021. The proportion of patients on ≥50MME/day ranged from 13% (2021) to 22.9% (2010). Of the patients administered an opioid in hospital, 26,920 (53.3%) patients were discharged on an opioid. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised with major/orthopaedic surgery, 4 in 6 patients were administered an opioid. We observed a high frequency of administered MR opioids in adult patients and initial oxycodone IR in the ≤70 age group. Patients prescribed with ≥50MME/day ranged between 13-22.9%. This is the first published study evaluating UK inpatient opioid use, which highlights opportunities for improving safer prescribing in line with latest recommendations.

Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

Variation in UK fracture liaison service consultation conduct and content before and during the COVID pandemic: results from the iFraP-D UK survey.

We conducted a survey of FLSs' consultation conduct and content which identified marked variation in whether FLS HCPs discussed osteoporosis medicine with patients. A review of service pro formas showed more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening' than to 'informing'. We propose an expanded FLS typology and model FLS pro forma. PURPOSE: To investigate the nature of direct patient contact in fracture liaison service (FLS) delivery, examine the use and content of pro formas to guide information eliciting and sharing in FLS consultations, and determine service changes which were implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey of UK FLS healthcare practitioners (HCPs) was distributed through clinical networks, social media, and other professional networks. Participants were asked to upload service pro formas used to guide consultation content. Documentary analysis findings were mapped to UK FLS clinical standards. RESULTS: Forty-seven HCPs responded, providing data on 39 UK FLSs, over half of all 74 FLSs reporting to FLS-database. Results showed variation in which HCP made clinical decisions, whether medicines were discussed with patients or not, and in prescribing practice. Services were variably affected by COVID, with most reporting a move to more remote consulting. The documentary analysis of eight service pro formas showed that these contained more content related to 'investigating' and 'intervening', with fewer pro formas prompting the clinician to offer information and support (e.g., about coping with pain). Based on our findings we propose an expanded FLS typology and have developed a model FLS pro forma. CONCLUSION: There is marked variation in the delivery of services and content of consultations in UK FLSs including discussion about osteoporosis medications. Clinical standards for FLSs should clarify the roles of primary and secondary HCPs and the importance of holistic approaches to patient care.