Drew Ashby, MD

A 60-year-old man visits your clinic 30 days after he was hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The patient underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of a stent and received aspirin and a loading dose of ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of daily aspirin and ticagrelor. He asks about the risk for bleeding associated with these medications. Should you recommend any changes?

Platelet inhibition during and after ACS to prevent recurrent ischemic events is a cornerstone of treatment for patients after a myocardial infarction (MI).² Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend that patients with coronary artery disease who recently had an MI continue DAPT with aspirin and a P2Y12 blocker (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) for 12 months following ACS to reduce recurrent ischemia.^2-4

Studies have shown that using the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) after PCI leads to a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic events, compared with clopidogrel.^5-7 These data prompted a guideline change recommending the use of the newer agents over clopidogrel for 12 months following PCI.² Follow-up studies show strong evidence for the use of the newer P2Y12 agents in the first month following PCI, but they also demonstrate an increased bleeding risk in the maintenance phase (from 30 days to 12 months post-PCI).^6,7 This increased risk is the basis for the study by Cuisset et al, which examined switching from a newer P2Y12 agent to clopidogrel after the initial 30-day period following PCI.

STUDY SUMMARY

Switched DAPT is superior

This open-label RCT (N = 646) evaluated changing DAPT from aspirin plus a newer P2Y12 blocker (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel after the first month of DAPT post-ACS.¹ Prior to PCI, patients received a loading dose of ticagrelor (180 mg) or prasugrel (60 mg). Subsequently, all patients took aspirin (75 mg/d) and either prasugrel (10 mg/d) or ticagrelor (90 mg bid) for 1 month. After 30 days, participants who had no adverse events were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to continue the aspirin and newer P2Y12 blocker regimen or switch to aspirin and clopidogrel (75 mg/d). In the following year, researchers examined the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding (defined by a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification ≥ Type 2 at 1-year post-ACS).

Of the participants (average age, 60), 40% had a STEMI and 60% had a non-STEMI. Overall, 43% of patients were prescribed ticagrelor and 57% prasugrel. At 1 year, 86% of the switched-DAPT group and 75% of the unchanged-DAPT group were still taking their medication. The composite outcome at 1-year follow-up was lower in the switched group compared with the unchanged group (13.4% vs 26.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.68; number needed to treat [NNT], 8).

Bleeding events (ranging from minimal to fatal) were lower in the switched group (9.3% vs 23.5%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; NNT, 7) and events identified as BARC ≥ Type 2 (defined as needing medical treatment) were also lower in this group (4% vs 14.9%; HR, 0.30, 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; NNT, 9). There were no significant differences in reported recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events (9.3% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.50-1.29).

WHAT’S NEW

Less bleeding, no increase in ischemic events

Cardiology guidelines recommend the newer P2Y12 blockers as part of DAPT after ACS, but this trial showed switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after 30 days of treatment lowers bleeding events with no difference in recurrent ischemic events.^2-4

Continue to: CAVEATS

Less-than-ideal study methods

In this open-label and unblinded study, the investigators adjudicating critical events were blinded to the treatment allocation. However, patients could self-report minor bleeding and medication discontinuation for which no consultation was sought. In addition, the investigators used opaque envelopes—a less-than-ideal method—to conceal allocation at enrollment.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

PCP may not change cardiologist’s ­prescription

Implementing this practice is facilitated by the comparatively lower cost of clopidogrel versus the newer P2Y12 blockers. However, after ACS and PCI treatment, cardiologists usually initiate antiplatelet therapy and may continue to manage patients after discharge. The primary care provider (PCP) may not be responsible for the DAPT switch initially; furthermore, ordering a switch may require coordination if the PCP is hesitant to change the cardiologist’s prescription. Lastly, guidelines currently recommend using the newer P2Y12 blockers for 12 months.² CR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[3]:162,164).

A 60-year-old man visits your clinic 30 days after he was hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The patient underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of a stent and received aspirin and a loading dose of ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of daily aspirin and ticagrelor. He asks about the risk for bleeding associated with these medications. Should you recommend any changes?

Platelet inhibition during and after ACS to prevent recurrent ischemic events is a cornerstone of treatment for patients after a myocardial infarction (MI).² Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend that patients with coronary artery disease who recently had an MI continue DAPT with aspirin and a P2Y12 blocker (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) for 12 months following ACS to reduce recurrent ischemia.^2-4

Studies have shown that using the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) after PCI leads to a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic events, compared with clopidogrel.^5-7 These data prompted a guideline change recommending the use of the newer agents over clopidogrel for 12 months following PCI.² Follow-up studies show strong evidence for the use of the newer P2Y12 agents in the first month following PCI, but they also demonstrate an increased bleeding risk in the maintenance phase (from 30 days to 12 months post-PCI).^6,7 This increased risk is the basis for the study by Cuisset et al, which examined switching from a newer P2Y12 agent to clopidogrel after the initial 30-day period following PCI.

STUDY SUMMARY

Switched DAPT is superior

This open-label RCT (N = 646) evaluated changing DAPT from aspirin plus a newer P2Y12 blocker (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel after the first month of DAPT post-ACS.¹ Prior to PCI, patients received a loading dose of ticagrelor (180 mg) or prasugrel (60 mg). Subsequently, all patients took aspirin (75 mg/d) and either prasugrel (10 mg/d) or ticagrelor (90 mg bid) for 1 month. After 30 days, participants who had no adverse events were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to continue the aspirin and newer P2Y12 blocker regimen or switch to aspirin and clopidogrel (75 mg/d). In the following year, researchers examined the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding (defined by a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification ≥ Type 2 at 1-year post-ACS).

Of the participants (average age, 60), 40% had a STEMI and 60% had a non-STEMI. Overall, 43% of patients were prescribed ticagrelor and 57% prasugrel. At 1 year, 86% of the switched-DAPT group and 75% of the unchanged-DAPT group were still taking their medication. The composite outcome at 1-year follow-up was lower in the switched group compared with the unchanged group (13.4% vs 26.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.68; number needed to treat [NNT], 8).

Bleeding events (ranging from minimal to fatal) were lower in the switched group (9.3% vs 23.5%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; NNT, 7) and events identified as BARC ≥ Type 2 (defined as needing medical treatment) were also lower in this group (4% vs 14.9%; HR, 0.30, 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; NNT, 9). There were no significant differences in reported recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events (9.3% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.50-1.29).

WHAT’S NEW

Less bleeding, no increase in ischemic events

Cardiology guidelines recommend the newer P2Y12 blockers as part of DAPT after ACS, but this trial showed switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after 30 days of treatment lowers bleeding events with no difference in recurrent ischemic events.^2-4

Continue to: CAVEATS

Less-than-ideal study methods

In this open-label and unblinded study, the investigators adjudicating critical events were blinded to the treatment allocation. However, patients could self-report minor bleeding and medication discontinuation for which no consultation was sought. In addition, the investigators used opaque envelopes—a less-than-ideal method—to conceal allocation at enrollment.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

PCP may not change cardiologist’s ­prescription

Implementing this practice is facilitated by the comparatively lower cost of clopidogrel versus the newer P2Y12 blockers. However, after ACS and PCI treatment, cardiologists usually initiate antiplatelet therapy and may continue to manage patients after discharge. The primary care provider (PCP) may not be responsible for the DAPT switch initially; furthermore, ordering a switch may require coordination if the PCP is hesitant to change the cardiologist’s prescription. Lastly, guidelines currently recommend using the newer P2Y12 blockers for 12 months.² CR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[3]:162,164).

A 60-year-old man visits your clinic 30 days after he was hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The patient underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of a stent and received aspirin and a loading dose of ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of daily aspirin and ticagrelor. He asks about the risk for bleeding associated with these medications. Should you recommend any changes?

Platelet inhibition during and after ACS to prevent recurrent ischemic events is a cornerstone of treatment for patients after a myocardial infarction (MI).² Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend that patients with coronary artery disease who recently had an MI continue DAPT with aspirin and a P2Y12 blocker (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) for 12 months following ACS to reduce recurrent ischemia.^2-4

Studies have shown that using the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) after PCI leads to a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic events, compared with clopidogrel.^5-7 These data prompted a guideline change recommending the use of the newer agents over clopidogrel for 12 months following PCI.² Follow-up studies show strong evidence for the use of the newer P2Y12 agents in the first month following PCI, but they also demonstrate an increased bleeding risk in the maintenance phase (from 30 days to 12 months post-PCI).^6,7 This increased risk is the basis for the study by Cuisset et al, which examined switching from a newer P2Y12 agent to clopidogrel after the initial 30-day period following PCI.

STUDY SUMMARY

Switched DAPT is superior

This open-label RCT (N = 646) evaluated changing DAPT from aspirin plus a newer P2Y12 blocker (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel after the first month of DAPT post-ACS.¹ Prior to PCI, patients received a loading dose of ticagrelor (180 mg) or prasugrel (60 mg). Subsequently, all patients took aspirin (75 mg/d) and either prasugrel (10 mg/d) or ticagrelor (90 mg bid) for 1 month. After 30 days, participants who had no adverse events were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to continue the aspirin and newer P2Y12 blocker regimen or switch to aspirin and clopidogrel (75 mg/d). In the following year, researchers examined the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding (defined by a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification ≥ Type 2 at 1-year post-ACS).

Of the participants (average age, 60), 40% had a STEMI and 60% had a non-STEMI. Overall, 43% of patients were prescribed ticagrelor and 57% prasugrel. At 1 year, 86% of the switched-DAPT group and 75% of the unchanged-DAPT group were still taking their medication. The composite outcome at 1-year follow-up was lower in the switched group compared with the unchanged group (13.4% vs 26.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.68; number needed to treat [NNT], 8).

Bleeding events (ranging from minimal to fatal) were lower in the switched group (9.3% vs 23.5%; HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; NNT, 7) and events identified as BARC ≥ Type 2 (defined as needing medical treatment) were also lower in this group (4% vs 14.9%; HR, 0.30, 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; NNT, 9). There were no significant differences in reported recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events (9.3% vs 11.5%; HR, 0.80, 95% CI, 0.50-1.29).

WHAT’S NEW

Less bleeding, no increase in ischemic events

Cardiology guidelines recommend the newer P2Y12 blockers as part of DAPT after ACS, but this trial showed switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after 30 days of treatment lowers bleeding events with no difference in recurrent ischemic events.^2-4

Continue to: CAVEATS

Less-than-ideal study methods

In this open-label and unblinded study, the investigators adjudicating critical events were blinded to the treatment allocation. However, patients could self-report minor bleeding and medication discontinuation for which no consultation was sought. In addition, the investigators used opaque envelopes—a less-than-ideal method—to conceal allocation at enrollment.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

PCP may not change cardiologist’s ­prescription

Implementing this practice is facilitated by the comparatively lower cost of clopidogrel versus the newer P2Y12 blockers. However, after ACS and PCI treatment, cardiologists usually initiate antiplatelet therapy and may continue to manage patients after discharge. The primary care provider (PCP) may not be responsible for the DAPT switch initially; furthermore, ordering a switch may require coordination if the PCP is hesitant to change the cardiologist’s prescription. Lastly, guidelines currently recommend using the newer P2Y12 blockers for 12 months.² CR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2019. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2019;68[3]:162,164).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 60-year-old man is seen in your clinic 30 days after he was hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). He underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of one stent. He received aspirin and a loading dose of ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of daily aspirin and ticagrelor. He asks about the risk of bleeding associated with these medications. Should you recommend any changes?

Platelet inhibition during and after ACS to prevent recurrent ischemic events is a cornerstone of treatment for patients after myocardial infarction (MI).² Current American Cardiology Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend patients with coronary artery disease who have had a recent MI continue DAPT with aspirin and a P2Y12 blocker (ie, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) for 12 months following ACSto reduce recurrent ischemia.^2-4

Studies have shown that using the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (ie, prasugrel and ticagrelor) after PCI leads to a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel.^5-7 These data led to a guideline change recommending the use of the newer agents over clopidogrel for 12 months following PCI.² Follow-up studies evaluating the newer P2Y12 agents continue to show strong evidence for their use in the first month following PCI, while also demonstrating an increased bleeding risk in the maintenance phase (from 30 days to 12 months post-PCI).^6,7 This increased risk is the basis for the current study, which tested switching from a newer P2Y12 agent to clopidogrel after the initial 30-day period following PCI.

STUDY SUMMARY

Switched DAPT is superior to unchanged DAPT

This open-label RCT (N = 646) examined changing DAPT from aspirin plus a newer P2Y12 blocker (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel after the first month of DAPT post-ACS.¹ Prior to PCI, all patients received a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg. Subsequently, all patients in the trial took aspirin (75 mg/d) and one of the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel 10 mg/d or ticagrelor 90 mg BID) for 1 month. For those enrollees who had no adverse events after 30 days, half were randomly switched to aspirin and clopidogrel 75 mg/d and the other half remained on aspirin and their newer P2Y12 blocker in a 1:1 ratio. For the next year, researchers examined the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification ≥ Type 2 at 1 year post-ACS).

Implementing this practice change is facilitated by the fact that, currently, clopidogrel is less expensive than the newer P2Y12 blockers.

The average age of the participants was 60 years; 40% had experienced a STEMI and 60% had a non–STEMI. Overall, 43% of patients were prescribed ticagrelor and 57% prasugrel. At 1 year, 86% of the switched DAPT group and 75% of the unchanged DAPT group were still taking their medication. At the 1-year follow-up, the composite outcome was lower in the switched group, compared with the unchanged group (13% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.68; number needed to treat [NNT] = 8).

All bleeding events (ranging from minimal to fatal) were lower in the switched group (9% vs 24%; HR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; NNT = 7), and bleeding events identified as BARC ≥ Type 2 (defined as needing medical treatment) were also lower in the switched group (4% vs 15%; HR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; NNT = 9). There were no significant differences in reported recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events (9.3% vs 11.5%; HR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.50-1.29).

WHAT’S NEW

Fewer bleeding events without an increase in ischemic events

Cardiology guidelines recommend the newer P2Y12 blockers as part of DAPT after ACS, but this trial showed switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after 30 days of treatment lowers bleeding events with no difference in recurrent ischemic events.^2-4

Continue to: CAVEATS

Less-than-ideal study methods

This trial was an open-label, unblinded study. The investigators who adjudicated critical events were blinded to the treatment allocation, but some events, such as minor bleeding and medication discontinuation, could be self-reported by patients. In addition, the investigators used a less-than-ideal method (opaque envelopes) to conceal allocation at enrollment.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation may require changing a cardiologist’s prescription

Implementing this practice change is facilitated by the fact that clopidogrel is currently less expensive than the newer P2Y12 blockers. However, after ACS and PCI treatment, cardiologists usually initiate antiplatelet therapy and may continue to manage patients after discharge. So the family physician (FP) may not be responsible for the DAPT switch initially. Further, switching may necessitate coordination with the cardiologist, as FPs may be hesitant to change cardiologists’ prescriptions. Lastly, guidelines currently recommend using the newer P2Y12 blockers for 12 months.²

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 60-year-old man is seen in your clinic 30 days after he was hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). He underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of one stent. He received aspirin and a loading dose of ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of daily aspirin and ticagrelor. He asks about the risk of bleeding associated with these medications. Should you recommend any changes?

Platelet inhibition during and after ACS to prevent recurrent ischemic events is a cornerstone of treatment for patients after myocardial infarction (MI).² Current American Cardiology Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend patients with coronary artery disease who have had a recent MI continue DAPT with aspirin and a P2Y12 blocker (ie, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) for 12 months following ACSto reduce recurrent ischemia.^2-4

Studies have shown that using the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (ie, prasugrel and ticagrelor) after PCI leads to a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel.^5-7 These data led to a guideline change recommending the use of the newer agents over clopidogrel for 12 months following PCI.² Follow-up studies evaluating the newer P2Y12 agents continue to show strong evidence for their use in the first month following PCI, while also demonstrating an increased bleeding risk in the maintenance phase (from 30 days to 12 months post-PCI).^6,7 This increased risk is the basis for the current study, which tested switching from a newer P2Y12 agent to clopidogrel after the initial 30-day period following PCI.

STUDY SUMMARY

Switched DAPT is superior to unchanged DAPT

This open-label RCT (N = 646) examined changing DAPT from aspirin plus a newer P2Y12 blocker (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel after the first month of DAPT post-ACS.¹ Prior to PCI, all patients received a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg. Subsequently, all patients in the trial took aspirin (75 mg/d) and one of the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel 10 mg/d or ticagrelor 90 mg BID) for 1 month. For those enrollees who had no adverse events after 30 days, half were randomly switched to aspirin and clopidogrel 75 mg/d and the other half remained on aspirin and their newer P2Y12 blocker in a 1:1 ratio. For the next year, researchers examined the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification ≥ Type 2 at 1 year post-ACS).

Implementing this practice change is facilitated by the fact that, currently, clopidogrel is less expensive than the newer P2Y12 blockers.

The average age of the participants was 60 years; 40% had experienced a STEMI and 60% had a non–STEMI. Overall, 43% of patients were prescribed ticagrelor and 57% prasugrel. At 1 year, 86% of the switched DAPT group and 75% of the unchanged DAPT group were still taking their medication. At the 1-year follow-up, the composite outcome was lower in the switched group, compared with the unchanged group (13% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.68; number needed to treat [NNT] = 8).

All bleeding events (ranging from minimal to fatal) were lower in the switched group (9% vs 24%; HR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; NNT = 7), and bleeding events identified as BARC ≥ Type 2 (defined as needing medical treatment) were also lower in the switched group (4% vs 15%; HR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; NNT = 9). There were no significant differences in reported recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events (9.3% vs 11.5%; HR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.50-1.29).

WHAT’S NEW

Fewer bleeding events without an increase in ischemic events

Cardiology guidelines recommend the newer P2Y12 blockers as part of DAPT after ACS, but this trial showed switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after 30 days of treatment lowers bleeding events with no difference in recurrent ischemic events.^2-4

Continue to: CAVEATS

Less-than-ideal study methods

This trial was an open-label, unblinded study. The investigators who adjudicated critical events were blinded to the treatment allocation, but some events, such as minor bleeding and medication discontinuation, could be self-reported by patients. In addition, the investigators used a less-than-ideal method (opaque envelopes) to conceal allocation at enrollment.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation may require changing a cardiologist’s prescription

Implementing this practice change is facilitated by the fact that clopidogrel is currently less expensive than the newer P2Y12 blockers. However, after ACS and PCI treatment, cardiologists usually initiate antiplatelet therapy and may continue to manage patients after discharge. So the family physician (FP) may not be responsible for the DAPT switch initially. Further, switching may necessitate coordination with the cardiologist, as FPs may be hesitant to change cardiologists’ prescriptions. Lastly, guidelines currently recommend using the newer P2Y12 blockers for 12 months.²

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 60-year-old man is seen in your clinic 30 days after he was hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). He underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of one stent. He received aspirin and a loading dose of ticagrelor for antiplatelet therapy. He was discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of daily aspirin and ticagrelor. He asks about the risk of bleeding associated with these medications. Should you recommend any changes?

Platelet inhibition during and after ACS to prevent recurrent ischemic events is a cornerstone of treatment for patients after myocardial infarction (MI).² Current American Cardiology Association and European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend patients with coronary artery disease who have had a recent MI continue DAPT with aspirin and a P2Y12 blocker (ie, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) for 12 months following ACSto reduce recurrent ischemia.^2-4

Studies have shown that using the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (ie, prasugrel and ticagrelor) after PCI leads to a significant reduction in recurrent ischemic events when compared to clopidogrel.^5-7 These data led to a guideline change recommending the use of the newer agents over clopidogrel for 12 months following PCI.² Follow-up studies evaluating the newer P2Y12 agents continue to show strong evidence for their use in the first month following PCI, while also demonstrating an increased bleeding risk in the maintenance phase (from 30 days to 12 months post-PCI).^6,7 This increased risk is the basis for the current study, which tested switching from a newer P2Y12 agent to clopidogrel after the initial 30-day period following PCI.

STUDY SUMMARY

Switched DAPT is superior to unchanged DAPT

This open-label RCT (N = 646) examined changing DAPT from aspirin plus a newer P2Y12 blocker (prasugrel or ticagrelor) to a combination of aspirin and clopidogrel after the first month of DAPT post-ACS.¹ Prior to PCI, all patients received a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg. Subsequently, all patients in the trial took aspirin (75 mg/d) and one of the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel 10 mg/d or ticagrelor 90 mg BID) for 1 month. For those enrollees who had no adverse events after 30 days, half were randomly switched to aspirin and clopidogrel 75 mg/d and the other half remained on aspirin and their newer P2Y12 blocker in a 1:1 ratio. For the next year, researchers examined the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, urgent revascularization, stroke, and major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification ≥ Type 2 at 1 year post-ACS).

Implementing this practice change is facilitated by the fact that, currently, clopidogrel is less expensive than the newer P2Y12 blockers.

The average age of the participants was 60 years; 40% had experienced a STEMI and 60% had a non–STEMI. Overall, 43% of patients were prescribed ticagrelor and 57% prasugrel. At 1 year, 86% of the switched DAPT group and 75% of the unchanged DAPT group were still taking their medication. At the 1-year follow-up, the composite outcome was lower in the switched group, compared with the unchanged group (13% vs 26%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.68; number needed to treat [NNT] = 8).

All bleeding events (ranging from minimal to fatal) were lower in the switched group (9% vs 24%; HR = 0.39; 95% CI, 0.27-0.57; NNT = 7), and bleeding events identified as BARC ≥ Type 2 (defined as needing medical treatment) were also lower in the switched group (4% vs 15%; HR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; NNT = 9). There were no significant differences in reported recurrent cardiovascular ischemic events (9.3% vs 11.5%; HR = 0.80, 95% CI, 0.50-1.29).

WHAT’S NEW

Fewer bleeding events without an increase in ischemic events

Cardiology guidelines recommend the newer P2Y12 blockers as part of DAPT after ACS, but this trial showed switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after 30 days of treatment lowers bleeding events with no difference in recurrent ischemic events.^2-4

Continue to: CAVEATS

Less-than-ideal study methods

This trial was an open-label, unblinded study. The investigators who adjudicated critical events were blinded to the treatment allocation, but some events, such as minor bleeding and medication discontinuation, could be self-reported by patients. In addition, the investigators used a less-than-ideal method (opaque envelopes) to conceal allocation at enrollment.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Implementation may require changing a cardiologist’s prescription

Implementing this practice change is facilitated by the fact that clopidogrel is currently less expensive than the newer P2Y12 blockers. However, after ACS and PCI treatment, cardiologists usually initiate antiplatelet therapy and may continue to manage patients after discharge. So the family physician (FP) may not be responsible for the DAPT switch initially. Further, switching may necessitate coordination with the cardiologist, as FPs may be hesitant to change cardiologists’ prescriptions. Lastly, guidelines currently recommend using the newer P2Y12 blockers for 12 months.²

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

A 65-year-old man with moderately severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee presents to your office for his annual exam. During the medication review, the patient mentions he is using glucosamine and chondroitin for his knee pain, which was recommended by a family member. Should you tell the patient to continue taking the medication?

Knee OA is a common condition in the United States, affecting an estimated 12% of adults ages 60 and older and 16% of those ages 70 and older.² The primary goals of OA therapy are to minimize pain and improve function. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) agree that firstline treatment recommendations include aerobic exercise, resistance training, and weight loss.

Initial pharmacologic therapies include full-strength acetaminophen or oral/topical NSAIDs; the latter are also used if pain is unresponsive to acetaminophen.^3,4 If initial therapy is inadequate to control pain, tramadol, other opioids, duloxetine, or intra-articular injections with corticosteroids or hyaluronate are alternatives.^3,4 Total knee replacement may be indicated in moderate or severe knee OA with radiographic evidence.⁵ Vitamin D, lateral wedge insoles, and antioxidants are not currently recommended.⁶

Prior studies evaluating glucosamine and/or chondroitin have provided conflicting results regarding evidence on pain reduction, function, and quality of life. Therefore, guidelines on OA management do not recommend their use (AAOS, strong; ACR, conditional).^3,4 However, consumption remains high, with 6.5 million US adults reporting use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin in the prior 30 days.⁷

A 2015 systematic review of 43 randomized trials evaluating oral chondroitin sulfate for OA of varying severity suggested there may be a significant decrease in short-term and long-term pain with doses ≥ 800 mg/d compared with placebo (level of evidence, low; risk for bias, high).⁸ However, no significant difference was noted in short- or long-term function, and the trials were highly heterogeneous.

Studies included in the 2015 systematic review found that glucosamine plus chondroitin did not have a significant effect on short- or long-term pain or physical function compared with placebo. Although glucosamine plus chondroitin led to significantly decreased pain compared with other medication, sensitivity analyses conducted for larger studies (N > 200) with adequate methods of blinding and allocation concealment found no difference in pain.⁸ There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events for glucosamine plus chondroitin vs placebo, based on data from three studies included in the review.⁸

This RCT from Roman-Blas et al evaluated chondroitin and glucosamine vs placebo in patients with more severe OA. The study was supported by Tedec-Meiji Farma (Madrid), maker of the combination of chondroitin plus glucosamine used in the study.¹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

Chondroitin + glucosamine not better than placebo

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in nine rheumatology referral centers and one orthopedic center in Spain. The trial evaluated the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate (1,200 mg) plus glucosamine sulfate (1,500 mg) (CS/GS) compared with placebo in 164 patients with Grade 2 or 3 knee OA and moderate-to-severe knee pain. OA grade was ascertained using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, corresponding to osteophytes and either possible (Grade 2) or definite (Grade 3) joint space narrowing. Knee pain severity was defined by a self-reported global pain score of 40 to 80 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

No significant difference was noted in group characteristics; average age in the CS/GS group was 67 and in the placebo group, 65. Exclusion criteria included BMI ≥ 35, concurrent arthritic conditions, and any coexisting chronic disease that would prevent successful completion of the trial.¹

The primary endpoint was mean reduction in global pain score on a 0- to 100-mm VAS at six months. Secondary outcomes included mean reduction in total and subscale scores in pain and function on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index (0–100-mm VAS for each) and the use of rescue medication.

Baseline global pain scores were 62 mm in both groups. Acetaminophen, up to 3 g/d, was the only allowed rescue medication. Clinic visits occurred at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. A statistically significant difference between groups was defined as P < .03.¹

Results. In the intention-to-treat analysis at six months, patients in the placebo group had a greater reduction in pain than the CS/GC group (–20 mm vs –12 mm; P = .029). No other difference was noted between the placebo and CS/GS groups in the total or subscales of the WOMAC index, and no difference was noted in use of acetaminophen. More patients in the placebo group had at least a 50% improvement in pain or function compared with the CS/GS group (47.4% vs 27.5%; P = .01).

Continue to: In the CS/GS group...

In the CS/GS group, 31% did not complete the six-month treatment period, compared with 18% in the placebo group. More patients dropped out because of adverse effects (diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, and constipation) in the CS/GS group than the placebo group (33 vs 19; P = .018).¹

WHAT’S NEW

Pharma-sponsored study finds treatment ineffective

The effectiveness of CS/GS for the treatment of knee OA has been in question for years, but this RCT is the first trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate CS/GS efficacy. This trial found evidence of a lack of efficacy. In patients with more severe OA of the knee, placebo was more effective than CS/GS, and CS/GS had significantly more adverse events. Therefore, it may be time to advise patients to stop taking their CS/GS supplement.

CAVEATS

Cannot generalize findings

The study compared only one medication dosing regimen using a combination of CS and GS. Whether either agent alone, or different dosing, would lead to the same outcome is unknown.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2018. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2018; 67[9]:566-568).

A 65-year-old man with moderately severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee presents to your office for his annual exam. During the medication review, the patient mentions he is using glucosamine and chondroitin for his knee pain, which was recommended by a family member. Should you tell the patient to continue taking the medication?

Knee OA is a common condition in the United States, affecting an estimated 12% of adults ages 60 and older and 16% of those ages 70 and older.² The primary goals of OA therapy are to minimize pain and improve function. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) agree that firstline treatment recommendations include aerobic exercise, resistance training, and weight loss.

Initial pharmacologic therapies include full-strength acetaminophen or oral/topical NSAIDs; the latter are also used if pain is unresponsive to acetaminophen.^3,4 If initial therapy is inadequate to control pain, tramadol, other opioids, duloxetine, or intra-articular injections with corticosteroids or hyaluronate are alternatives.^3,4 Total knee replacement may be indicated in moderate or severe knee OA with radiographic evidence.⁵ Vitamin D, lateral wedge insoles, and antioxidants are not currently recommended.⁶

Prior studies evaluating glucosamine and/or chondroitin have provided conflicting results regarding evidence on pain reduction, function, and quality of life. Therefore, guidelines on OA management do not recommend their use (AAOS, strong; ACR, conditional).^3,4 However, consumption remains high, with 6.5 million US adults reporting use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin in the prior 30 days.⁷

A 2015 systematic review of 43 randomized trials evaluating oral chondroitin sulfate for OA of varying severity suggested there may be a significant decrease in short-term and long-term pain with doses ≥ 800 mg/d compared with placebo (level of evidence, low; risk for bias, high).⁸ However, no significant difference was noted in short- or long-term function, and the trials were highly heterogeneous.

Studies included in the 2015 systematic review found that glucosamine plus chondroitin did not have a significant effect on short- or long-term pain or physical function compared with placebo. Although glucosamine plus chondroitin led to significantly decreased pain compared with other medication, sensitivity analyses conducted for larger studies (N > 200) with adequate methods of blinding and allocation concealment found no difference in pain.⁸ There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events for glucosamine plus chondroitin vs placebo, based on data from three studies included in the review.⁸

This RCT from Roman-Blas et al evaluated chondroitin and glucosamine vs placebo in patients with more severe OA. The study was supported by Tedec-Meiji Farma (Madrid), maker of the combination of chondroitin plus glucosamine used in the study.¹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

Chondroitin + glucosamine not better than placebo

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in nine rheumatology referral centers and one orthopedic center in Spain. The trial evaluated the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate (1,200 mg) plus glucosamine sulfate (1,500 mg) (CS/GS) compared with placebo in 164 patients with Grade 2 or 3 knee OA and moderate-to-severe knee pain. OA grade was ascertained using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, corresponding to osteophytes and either possible (Grade 2) or definite (Grade 3) joint space narrowing. Knee pain severity was defined by a self-reported global pain score of 40 to 80 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

No significant difference was noted in group characteristics; average age in the CS/GS group was 67 and in the placebo group, 65. Exclusion criteria included BMI ≥ 35, concurrent arthritic conditions, and any coexisting chronic disease that would prevent successful completion of the trial.¹

The primary endpoint was mean reduction in global pain score on a 0- to 100-mm VAS at six months. Secondary outcomes included mean reduction in total and subscale scores in pain and function on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index (0–100-mm VAS for each) and the use of rescue medication.

Baseline global pain scores were 62 mm in both groups. Acetaminophen, up to 3 g/d, was the only allowed rescue medication. Clinic visits occurred at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. A statistically significant difference between groups was defined as P < .03.¹

Results. In the intention-to-treat analysis at six months, patients in the placebo group had a greater reduction in pain than the CS/GC group (–20 mm vs –12 mm; P = .029). No other difference was noted between the placebo and CS/GS groups in the total or subscales of the WOMAC index, and no difference was noted in use of acetaminophen. More patients in the placebo group had at least a 50% improvement in pain or function compared with the CS/GS group (47.4% vs 27.5%; P = .01).

Continue to: In the CS/GS group...

In the CS/GS group, 31% did not complete the six-month treatment period, compared with 18% in the placebo group. More patients dropped out because of adverse effects (diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, and constipation) in the CS/GS group than the placebo group (33 vs 19; P = .018).¹

WHAT’S NEW

Pharma-sponsored study finds treatment ineffective

The effectiveness of CS/GS for the treatment of knee OA has been in question for years, but this RCT is the first trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate CS/GS efficacy. This trial found evidence of a lack of efficacy. In patients with more severe OA of the knee, placebo was more effective than CS/GS, and CS/GS had significantly more adverse events. Therefore, it may be time to advise patients to stop taking their CS/GS supplement.

CAVEATS

Cannot generalize findings

The study compared only one medication dosing regimen using a combination of CS and GS. Whether either agent alone, or different dosing, would lead to the same outcome is unknown.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2018. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2018; 67[9]:566-568).

A 65-year-old man with moderately severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee presents to your office for his annual exam. During the medication review, the patient mentions he is using glucosamine and chondroitin for his knee pain, which was recommended by a family member. Should you tell the patient to continue taking the medication?

Knee OA is a common condition in the United States, affecting an estimated 12% of adults ages 60 and older and 16% of those ages 70 and older.² The primary goals of OA therapy are to minimize pain and improve function. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) agree that firstline treatment recommendations include aerobic exercise, resistance training, and weight loss.

Initial pharmacologic therapies include full-strength acetaminophen or oral/topical NSAIDs; the latter are also used if pain is unresponsive to acetaminophen.^3,4 If initial therapy is inadequate to control pain, tramadol, other opioids, duloxetine, or intra-articular injections with corticosteroids or hyaluronate are alternatives.^3,4 Total knee replacement may be indicated in moderate or severe knee OA with radiographic evidence.⁵ Vitamin D, lateral wedge insoles, and antioxidants are not currently recommended.⁶

Prior studies evaluating glucosamine and/or chondroitin have provided conflicting results regarding evidence on pain reduction, function, and quality of life. Therefore, guidelines on OA management do not recommend their use (AAOS, strong; ACR, conditional).^3,4 However, consumption remains high, with 6.5 million US adults reporting use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin in the prior 30 days.⁷

A 2015 systematic review of 43 randomized trials evaluating oral chondroitin sulfate for OA of varying severity suggested there may be a significant decrease in short-term and long-term pain with doses ≥ 800 mg/d compared with placebo (level of evidence, low; risk for bias, high).⁸ However, no significant difference was noted in short- or long-term function, and the trials were highly heterogeneous.

Studies included in the 2015 systematic review found that glucosamine plus chondroitin did not have a significant effect on short- or long-term pain or physical function compared with placebo. Although glucosamine plus chondroitin led to significantly decreased pain compared with other medication, sensitivity analyses conducted for larger studies (N > 200) with adequate methods of blinding and allocation concealment found no difference in pain.⁸ There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events for glucosamine plus chondroitin vs placebo, based on data from three studies included in the review.⁸

This RCT from Roman-Blas et al evaluated chondroitin and glucosamine vs placebo in patients with more severe OA. The study was supported by Tedec-Meiji Farma (Madrid), maker of the combination of chondroitin plus glucosamine used in the study.¹

Continue to: STUDY SUMMARY

Chondroitin + glucosamine not better than placebo

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in nine rheumatology referral centers and one orthopedic center in Spain. The trial evaluated the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate (1,200 mg) plus glucosamine sulfate (1,500 mg) (CS/GS) compared with placebo in 164 patients with Grade 2 or 3 knee OA and moderate-to-severe knee pain. OA grade was ascertained using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, corresponding to osteophytes and either possible (Grade 2) or definite (Grade 3) joint space narrowing. Knee pain severity was defined by a self-reported global pain score of 40 to 80 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

No significant difference was noted in group characteristics; average age in the CS/GS group was 67 and in the placebo group, 65. Exclusion criteria included BMI ≥ 35, concurrent arthritic conditions, and any coexisting chronic disease that would prevent successful completion of the trial.¹

The primary endpoint was mean reduction in global pain score on a 0- to 100-mm VAS at six months. Secondary outcomes included mean reduction in total and subscale scores in pain and function on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index (0–100-mm VAS for each) and the use of rescue medication.

Baseline global pain scores were 62 mm in both groups. Acetaminophen, up to 3 g/d, was the only allowed rescue medication. Clinic visits occurred at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. A statistically significant difference between groups was defined as P < .03.¹

Results. In the intention-to-treat analysis at six months, patients in the placebo group had a greater reduction in pain than the CS/GC group (–20 mm vs –12 mm; P = .029). No other difference was noted between the placebo and CS/GS groups in the total or subscales of the WOMAC index, and no difference was noted in use of acetaminophen. More patients in the placebo group had at least a 50% improvement in pain or function compared with the CS/GS group (47.4% vs 27.5%; P = .01).

Continue to: In the CS/GS group...

In the CS/GS group, 31% did not complete the six-month treatment period, compared with 18% in the placebo group. More patients dropped out because of adverse effects (diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, and constipation) in the CS/GS group than the placebo group (33 vs 19; P = .018).¹

WHAT’S NEW

Pharma-sponsored study finds treatment ineffective

The effectiveness of CS/GS for the treatment of knee OA has been in question for years, but this RCT is the first trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate CS/GS efficacy. This trial found evidence of a lack of efficacy. In patients with more severe OA of the knee, placebo was more effective than CS/GS, and CS/GS had significantly more adverse events. Therefore, it may be time to advise patients to stop taking their CS/GS supplement.

CAVEATS

Cannot generalize findings

The study compared only one medication dosing regimen using a combination of CS and GS. Whether either agent alone, or different dosing, would lead to the same outcome is unknown.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Copyright © 2018. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Reprinted with permission from the Family Physicians Inquiries Network and The Journal of Family Practice (2018; 67[9]:566-568).

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 65-year-old man with moderately severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee presents to your office for his annual exam. During the medication review, the patient mentions he is using glucosamine and chondroitin for his knee pain, which was recommended by a family member.

Should you tell the patient it’s okay to continue the medication?

Knee OA in the United States is a common condition and affects an estimated 12% of adults 60 years and older and 16% of adults 70 years and older.² The primary goals of OA therapy are to minimize pain and improve function. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) agree that first-line treatment recommendations include aerobic exercise, resistance training, and weight loss.

Initial pharmacologic therapies include full-strength acetaminophen or oral/topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (either initially or if unresponsive to acetaminophen).^3,4 Alternative medication options for patients with an inadequate response to initial therapy include tramadol, other opioids, duloxetine, or intra-articular injections with corticosteroids or hyaluronate.^3,4 Total knee replacement may be indicated in moderate or severe knee OA with radiographic evidence of OA.⁵ Vitamin D, lateral wedge insoles, and antioxidants are not currently recommended.⁶

Prior studies evaluating glucosamine and/or chondroitin have provided conflicting results regarding evidence on pain reduction, function, and quality of life. Therefore, guidelines on OA management do not recommend their use (AAOS, strong; ACR, conditional recommendation).^3,4 However, consumption remains high, with 6.5 million US adults reporting use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin in the prior 30 days.⁷

A 2015 systematic review of 43 randomized trials evaluating oral chondroitin sulfate for OA of varying severity suggested there may be a significant decrease in short-term and long-term pain with doses of ≥800 mg/d compared with placebo (level of evidence, low; risk of bias, high).⁸ However, no significant difference was noted in short- or long-term function, and the trials were highly heterogeneous.

[polldaddy:10097537]

Studies included in the 2015 systematic review found that glucosamine plus chondroitin did not have a significant effect on short- or long-term pain or physical function compared with placebo. Although glucosamine plus chondroitin led to significantly decreased pain compared with other medication, sensitivity analyses conducted for larger studies (N>200) with adequate methods of blinding and allocation concealment found no difference in pain.⁸

Continue to: Three studies included...

Three studies included in the 2015 systematic review provided data on adverse events when comparing glucosamine plus chondroitin vs placebo, and found no statistically significant difference.⁸

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Roman-Blas et al¹ evaluated chondroitin and glucosamine vs placebo in patients with more severe OA. The study was supported by Tedec-Meiji Farma (Madrid, Spain) maker of the combination of chondroitin plus glucosamine used in the study.

STUDY SUMMARY

Chondroitin + glucosamine was not better than placebo for pain

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 9 rheumatology referral centers and one orthopedic center in Spain. The trial evaluated the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate 1200 mg plus glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg (CS/GS) compared with placebo in 164 patients with Grade 2 or 3 knee OA and moderate to severe knee pain. OA grade was ascertained using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, corresponding to osteophytes and either possible (Grade 2) or definite (Grade 3) joint space narrowing. Level of knee pain was defined by a self-reported global pain score of 40-80 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

Placebo was more effective than chondroitin sulfate/glucosamine sulfate in patients with knee OA.

No significant difference was noted in group characteristics, and the average age in the CS/GS group was 67 years vs 65 years in the placebo group. Exclusion criteria included body mass index of ≥35 kg/m², concurrent arthritic conditions, and any coexisting chronic disease that would prevent successful completion of the trial.¹

The primary end point was mean reduction in global pain score on a 0- to 100-mm VAS at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean reduction in total and subscale scores in pain and function on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index (0–100-mm VAS for each) and the use of rescue medication.

Continue to: Baseline global pain scores were...

Baseline global pain scores were 62 mm in both groups. Acetaminophen, up to 3 g/d, was the only allowed rescue medication. Clinic visits occurred at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. A statistically significant difference between groups was defined as P<.03.¹

Results. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, patients in the placebo group had a greater reduction in pain than the CS/GC group (-20 mm vs -12 mm; P=.029). No other difference was noted between the placebo and CS/GS groups in the total or subscales of the WOMAC index, and no difference was noted in use of acetaminophen. More patients in the placebo group had at least a 50% improvement in pain or function compared with the CS/GS group (47.4% vs 27.5%; P=.01).

In the CS/GS group, 31% did not complete the 6-month treatment period, compared with 18% in the placebo group. More patients dropped out because of adverse effects (diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, and constipation) in the CS/GS group than the placebo group (33 vs 19; P=.018).¹

WHAT’S NEW

A pharma-sponsored study finds treatment ineffective

The effectiveness of CS/GS for the treatment of knee OA has been in question for years, but this RCT is the first trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate CS/GS efficacy. This trial found evidence of a lack of efficacy. In patients with more severe OA of the knee, placebo was more effective than CS/GS, and CS/GS had significantly more adverse events. Therefore, it may be time to advise patients to stop taking their CS/GS supplement.

CAVEATS

Cannot generalize findings to CS or GS alone, or different dosages

The study compared only one medication dosing regimen using a combination of CS and GS. Whether either agent alone or different dosing would lead to the same outcome is unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

An all-too-common product presents challenges

CS/GC is available over the counter and advertised directly to consumers. With this medication so readily available, identifying patients who are taking the supplement and encouraging discontinuation can be a challenge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 65-year-old man with moderately severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee presents to your office for his annual exam. During the medication review, the patient mentions he is using glucosamine and chondroitin for his knee pain, which was recommended by a family member.

Should you tell the patient it’s okay to continue the medication?

Knee OA in the United States is a common condition and affects an estimated 12% of adults 60 years and older and 16% of adults 70 years and older.² The primary goals of OA therapy are to minimize pain and improve function. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) agree that first-line treatment recommendations include aerobic exercise, resistance training, and weight loss.

Initial pharmacologic therapies include full-strength acetaminophen or oral/topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (either initially or if unresponsive to acetaminophen).^3,4 Alternative medication options for patients with an inadequate response to initial therapy include tramadol, other opioids, duloxetine, or intra-articular injections with corticosteroids or hyaluronate.^3,4 Total knee replacement may be indicated in moderate or severe knee OA with radiographic evidence of OA.⁵ Vitamin D, lateral wedge insoles, and antioxidants are not currently recommended.⁶

Prior studies evaluating glucosamine and/or chondroitin have provided conflicting results regarding evidence on pain reduction, function, and quality of life. Therefore, guidelines on OA management do not recommend their use (AAOS, strong; ACR, conditional recommendation).^3,4 However, consumption remains high, with 6.5 million US adults reporting use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin in the prior 30 days.⁷

A 2015 systematic review of 43 randomized trials evaluating oral chondroitin sulfate for OA of varying severity suggested there may be a significant decrease in short-term and long-term pain with doses of ≥800 mg/d compared with placebo (level of evidence, low; risk of bias, high).⁸ However, no significant difference was noted in short- or long-term function, and the trials were highly heterogeneous.

[polldaddy:10097537]

Studies included in the 2015 systematic review found that glucosamine plus chondroitin did not have a significant effect on short- or long-term pain or physical function compared with placebo. Although glucosamine plus chondroitin led to significantly decreased pain compared with other medication, sensitivity analyses conducted for larger studies (N>200) with adequate methods of blinding and allocation concealment found no difference in pain.⁸

Continue to: Three studies included...

Three studies included in the 2015 systematic review provided data on adverse events when comparing glucosamine plus chondroitin vs placebo, and found no statistically significant difference.⁸

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Roman-Blas et al¹ evaluated chondroitin and glucosamine vs placebo in patients with more severe OA. The study was supported by Tedec-Meiji Farma (Madrid, Spain) maker of the combination of chondroitin plus glucosamine used in the study.

STUDY SUMMARY

Chondroitin + glucosamine was not better than placebo for pain

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 9 rheumatology referral centers and one orthopedic center in Spain. The trial evaluated the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate 1200 mg plus glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg (CS/GS) compared with placebo in 164 patients with Grade 2 or 3 knee OA and moderate to severe knee pain. OA grade was ascertained using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, corresponding to osteophytes and either possible (Grade 2) or definite (Grade 3) joint space narrowing. Level of knee pain was defined by a self-reported global pain score of 40-80 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

Placebo was more effective than chondroitin sulfate/glucosamine sulfate in patients with knee OA.

No significant difference was noted in group characteristics, and the average age in the CS/GS group was 67 years vs 65 years in the placebo group. Exclusion criteria included body mass index of ≥35 kg/m², concurrent arthritic conditions, and any coexisting chronic disease that would prevent successful completion of the trial.¹

The primary end point was mean reduction in global pain score on a 0- to 100-mm VAS at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean reduction in total and subscale scores in pain and function on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index (0–100-mm VAS for each) and the use of rescue medication.

Continue to: Baseline global pain scores were...

Baseline global pain scores were 62 mm in both groups. Acetaminophen, up to 3 g/d, was the only allowed rescue medication. Clinic visits occurred at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. A statistically significant difference between groups was defined as P<.03.¹

Results. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, patients in the placebo group had a greater reduction in pain than the CS/GC group (-20 mm vs -12 mm; P=.029). No other difference was noted between the placebo and CS/GS groups in the total or subscales of the WOMAC index, and no difference was noted in use of acetaminophen. More patients in the placebo group had at least a 50% improvement in pain or function compared with the CS/GS group (47.4% vs 27.5%; P=.01).

In the CS/GS group, 31% did not complete the 6-month treatment period, compared with 18% in the placebo group. More patients dropped out because of adverse effects (diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, and constipation) in the CS/GS group than the placebo group (33 vs 19; P=.018).¹

WHAT’S NEW

A pharma-sponsored study finds treatment ineffective

The effectiveness of CS/GS for the treatment of knee OA has been in question for years, but this RCT is the first trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate CS/GS efficacy. This trial found evidence of a lack of efficacy. In patients with more severe OA of the knee, placebo was more effective than CS/GS, and CS/GS had significantly more adverse events. Therefore, it may be time to advise patients to stop taking their CS/GS supplement.

CAVEATS

Cannot generalize findings to CS or GS alone, or different dosages

The study compared only one medication dosing regimen using a combination of CS and GS. Whether either agent alone or different dosing would lead to the same outcome is unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

An all-too-common product presents challenges

CS/GC is available over the counter and advertised directly to consumers. With this medication so readily available, identifying patients who are taking the supplement and encouraging discontinuation can be a challenge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

ILLUSTRATIVE CASE

A 65-year-old man with moderately severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee presents to your office for his annual exam. During the medication review, the patient mentions he is using glucosamine and chondroitin for his knee pain, which was recommended by a family member.

Should you tell the patient it’s okay to continue the medication?

Knee OA in the United States is a common condition and affects an estimated 12% of adults 60 years and older and 16% of adults 70 years and older.² The primary goals of OA therapy are to minimize pain and improve function. The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) agree that first-line treatment recommendations include aerobic exercise, resistance training, and weight loss.

Initial pharmacologic therapies include full-strength acetaminophen or oral/topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (either initially or if unresponsive to acetaminophen).^3,4 Alternative medication options for patients with an inadequate response to initial therapy include tramadol, other opioids, duloxetine, or intra-articular injections with corticosteroids or hyaluronate.^3,4 Total knee replacement may be indicated in moderate or severe knee OA with radiographic evidence of OA.⁵ Vitamin D, lateral wedge insoles, and antioxidants are not currently recommended.⁶

Prior studies evaluating glucosamine and/or chondroitin have provided conflicting results regarding evidence on pain reduction, function, and quality of life. Therefore, guidelines on OA management do not recommend their use (AAOS, strong; ACR, conditional recommendation).^3,4 However, consumption remains high, with 6.5 million US adults reporting use of glucosamine and/or chondroitin in the prior 30 days.⁷

A 2015 systematic review of 43 randomized trials evaluating oral chondroitin sulfate for OA of varying severity suggested there may be a significant decrease in short-term and long-term pain with doses of ≥800 mg/d compared with placebo (level of evidence, low; risk of bias, high).⁸ However, no significant difference was noted in short- or long-term function, and the trials were highly heterogeneous.

[polldaddy:10097537]

Studies included in the 2015 systematic review found that glucosamine plus chondroitin did not have a significant effect on short- or long-term pain or physical function compared with placebo. Although glucosamine plus chondroitin led to significantly decreased pain compared with other medication, sensitivity analyses conducted for larger studies (N>200) with adequate methods of blinding and allocation concealment found no difference in pain.⁸

Continue to: Three studies included...

Three studies included in the 2015 systematic review provided data on adverse events when comparing glucosamine plus chondroitin vs placebo, and found no statistically significant difference.⁸

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) from Roman-Blas et al¹ evaluated chondroitin and glucosamine vs placebo in patients with more severe OA. The study was supported by Tedec-Meiji Farma (Madrid, Spain) maker of the combination of chondroitin plus glucosamine used in the study.

STUDY SUMMARY

Chondroitin + glucosamine was not better than placebo for pain

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 9 rheumatology referral centers and one orthopedic center in Spain. The trial evaluated the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate 1200 mg plus glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg (CS/GS) compared with placebo in 164 patients with Grade 2 or 3 knee OA and moderate to severe knee pain. OA grade was ascertained using the Kellgren-Lawrence scale, corresponding to osteophytes and either possible (Grade 2) or definite (Grade 3) joint space narrowing. Level of knee pain was defined by a self-reported global pain score of 40-80 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

Placebo was more effective than chondroitin sulfate/glucosamine sulfate in patients with knee OA.

No significant difference was noted in group characteristics, and the average age in the CS/GS group was 67 years vs 65 years in the placebo group. Exclusion criteria included body mass index of ≥35 kg/m², concurrent arthritic conditions, and any coexisting chronic disease that would prevent successful completion of the trial.¹

The primary end point was mean reduction in global pain score on a 0- to 100-mm VAS at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean reduction in total and subscale scores in pain and function on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index (0–100-mm VAS for each) and the use of rescue medication.

Continue to: Baseline global pain scores were...

Baseline global pain scores were 62 mm in both groups. Acetaminophen, up to 3 g/d, was the only allowed rescue medication. Clinic visits occurred at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. A statistically significant difference between groups was defined as P<.03.¹

Results. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 6 months, patients in the placebo group had a greater reduction in pain than the CS/GC group (-20 mm vs -12 mm; P=.029). No other difference was noted between the placebo and CS/GS groups in the total or subscales of the WOMAC index, and no difference was noted in use of acetaminophen. More patients in the placebo group had at least a 50% improvement in pain or function compared with the CS/GS group (47.4% vs 27.5%; P=.01).

In the CS/GS group, 31% did not complete the 6-month treatment period, compared with 18% in the placebo group. More patients dropped out because of adverse effects (diarrhea, upper abdominal pain, and constipation) in the CS/GS group than the placebo group (33 vs 19; P=.018).¹

WHAT’S NEW

A pharma-sponsored study finds treatment ineffective

The effectiveness of CS/GS for the treatment of knee OA has been in question for years, but this RCT is the first trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate CS/GS efficacy. This trial found evidence of a lack of efficacy. In patients with more severe OA of the knee, placebo was more effective than CS/GS, and CS/GS had significantly more adverse events. Therefore, it may be time to advise patients to stop taking their CS/GS supplement.

CAVEATS

Cannot generalize findings to CS or GS alone, or different dosages

The study compared only one medication dosing regimen using a combination of CS and GS. Whether either agent alone or different dosing would lead to the same outcome is unknown.

Continue to: CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

An all-too-common product presents challenges

CS/GC is available over the counter and advertised directly to consumers. With this medication so readily available, identifying patients who are taking the supplement and encouraging discontinuation can be a challenge.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.