Osteoarthritis

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

Non–Lyme disease, tick-borne illnesses — such as spotted fever group rickettsiosis (SFGR), ehrlichiosis, and alpha-gal syndrome (AGS) — are emerging public health threats, but whether prior tick exposures are responsible for long-term complications, such as musculoskeletal symptoms or osteoarthritis, has been unclear.

Many patients attribute their nonspecific long-term symptoms, such as musculoskeletal pain, to previous illnesses from tick bites, note authors of a study published in JAMA Network Open. But the researchers, led by Diana L. Zychowski, MD, MPH, with the Division of Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that Ehrlichia or Rickettsia seropositivity was not associated with chronic musculoskeletal symptoms, though they write that “further investigation into the pathogenesis of [alpha-gal] syndrome is needed.”
 

Tick-Borne Illness Cases Multiplying

Cases of tick-borne illness (TBD) in the United States have multiplied in recent years. More than 50,000 cases of TBD in the United States were reported in 2019, which doubled the number of cases over the previous 2 decades, the authors note.

Most of the cases are Lyme disease, but others — including SFGR and ehrlichiosis — represent an important public health threat, especially in southeastern states, the authors write. Cases of ehrlichiosis, for example, transmitted by the lone star tick, soared more than 10-fold since 2000.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether there was an association between prior exposure to TBDs endemic to the southeastern United States and chronic musculoskeletal symptoms and radiographic measures of osteoarthritis.

Researchers analyzed 488 blood samples from the fourth visit (2017-2018) of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis (JoCo OA) project, an ongoing population-based study in Johnston County, North Carolina. JoCo OA participants include noninstitutionalized White and Black Johnston County residents 45 years old or older with osteoarthritis.

They measured seroprevalence of Rickettsia- and Ehrlichia-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) as well as alpha-gal immunoglobulin E (IgE) in patient samples. Only alpha-gal IgE was linked in the study with knee pain, aching, or stiffness. Antibodies to Rickettsia, Ehrlichia, and alpha-gal were not associated with radiographic, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

“To our knowledge,” the authors write, “this study was the first population-based seroprevalence study of SFGR, Ehrlichia, and [alpha]-gal.”

The study also found a high prevalence of TBD exposure in the cohort. More than a third (36.5%) had either an alpha-gal IgE level greater than 0.1 IU/mL, a positive test for SFGR IgG antibodies, or a positive test for Ehrlichia IgG antibodies.

Given that not every tick carries an infectious pathogen, the findings show human-tick interactions are common, they write.

“These findings suggest that substantial investment is required to examine the pathogenesis of these TBDs and interventions to reduce human-tick interactions,” the authors conclude.

This study was funded by a Creativity Hub Award from the University of North Carolina Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research. The JoCo OA project is supported in part by grants from the Association of Schools of Public Health/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and grants from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Authors reported grants from the National Institutes of Health, the CDC, and several pharmaceutical companies.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with overweight or obesity and knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) who used antiobesity medications and achieved slow-to-moderate weight loss had a lower risk for all-cause mortality than did those with weight gain or stable weight in a population-based cohort study emulating a randomized controlled trial. Patients who rapidly lost weight had mortality similar to those with weight gain or stable weight.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers used the IQVIA Medical Research Database to identify overweight or obese individuals with knee or hip OA; they conducted a hypothetical trial comparing the effects of slow-to-moderate weight loss (defined as 2%-10% of body weight) and rapid weight loss (defined as 5% or more of body weight) within 1 year of starting antiobesity medications.
• The final analysis included patients with a mean age of 60.9 years who met the criteria for treatment adherence to orlistat (n = 3028), sibutramine (n = 2919), or rimonabant (n = 797).
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over a 5-year follow-up period; secondary outcomes included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and venous thromboembolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause mortality at 5 years was 5.3% with weight gain or stable weight, 4.0% with slow to moderate weight loss, and 5.4% with rapid weight loss.
• Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.92) for slow to moderate weight loss and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.67-1.44) for the rapid weight loss group.
• Weight loss was associated with the secondary outcomes of reduced hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and venous thromboembolism in a dose-dependent manner.
• A slightly increased risk for cardiovascular disease occurred in the rapid weight loss group, compared with the weight gain or stable group, but this difference was not significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding that gradual weight loss by antiobesity medications lowers all-cause mortality, if confirmed by future studies, could guide policy-making and improve the well-being of patients with overweight or obesity and knee or hip OA,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Jie Wei, MD, of Central South University, Changsha, China. The study was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inability to control for factors such as exercise, diet, and disease severity; the inability to assess the risk for cause-specific mortality; and the inability to account for the impact of pain reduction and improved function as a result of weight loss.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, the Central South University Innovation-Driven Research Programme, and the Science and Technology Innovation Program of Hunan Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with overweight or obesity and knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) who used antiobesity medications and achieved slow-to-moderate weight loss had a lower risk for all-cause mortality than did those with weight gain or stable weight in a population-based cohort study emulating a randomized controlled trial. Patients who rapidly lost weight had mortality similar to those with weight gain or stable weight.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers used the IQVIA Medical Research Database to identify overweight or obese individuals with knee or hip OA; they conducted a hypothetical trial comparing the effects of slow-to-moderate weight loss (defined as 2%-10% of body weight) and rapid weight loss (defined as 5% or more of body weight) within 1 year of starting antiobesity medications.
• The final analysis included patients with a mean age of 60.9 years who met the criteria for treatment adherence to orlistat (n = 3028), sibutramine (n = 2919), or rimonabant (n = 797).
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over a 5-year follow-up period; secondary outcomes included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and venous thromboembolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause mortality at 5 years was 5.3% with weight gain or stable weight, 4.0% with slow to moderate weight loss, and 5.4% with rapid weight loss.
• Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.92) for slow to moderate weight loss and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.67-1.44) for the rapid weight loss group.
• Weight loss was associated with the secondary outcomes of reduced hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and venous thromboembolism in a dose-dependent manner.
• A slightly increased risk for cardiovascular disease occurred in the rapid weight loss group, compared with the weight gain or stable group, but this difference was not significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding that gradual weight loss by antiobesity medications lowers all-cause mortality, if confirmed by future studies, could guide policy-making and improve the well-being of patients with overweight or obesity and knee or hip OA,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Jie Wei, MD, of Central South University, Changsha, China. The study was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inability to control for factors such as exercise, diet, and disease severity; the inability to assess the risk for cause-specific mortality; and the inability to account for the impact of pain reduction and improved function as a result of weight loss.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, the Central South University Innovation-Driven Research Programme, and the Science and Technology Innovation Program of Hunan Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Individuals with overweight or obesity and knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) who used antiobesity medications and achieved slow-to-moderate weight loss had a lower risk for all-cause mortality than did those with weight gain or stable weight in a population-based cohort study emulating a randomized controlled trial. Patients who rapidly lost weight had mortality similar to those with weight gain or stable weight.

METHODOLOGY:

• The researchers used the IQVIA Medical Research Database to identify overweight or obese individuals with knee or hip OA; they conducted a hypothetical trial comparing the effects of slow-to-moderate weight loss (defined as 2%-10% of body weight) and rapid weight loss (defined as 5% or more of body weight) within 1 year of starting antiobesity medications.
• The final analysis included patients with a mean age of 60.9 years who met the criteria for treatment adherence to orlistat (n = 3028), sibutramine (n = 2919), or rimonabant (n = 797).
• The primary outcome was all-cause mortality over a 5-year follow-up period; secondary outcomes included hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and venous thromboembolism.

TAKEAWAY:

• All-cause mortality at 5 years was 5.3% with weight gain or stable weight, 4.0% with slow to moderate weight loss, and 5.4% with rapid weight loss.
• Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56-0.92) for slow to moderate weight loss and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.67-1.44) for the rapid weight loss group.
• Weight loss was associated with the secondary outcomes of reduced hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and venous thromboembolism in a dose-dependent manner.
• A slightly increased risk for cardiovascular disease occurred in the rapid weight loss group, compared with the weight gain or stable group, but this difference was not significant.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our finding that gradual weight loss by antiobesity medications lowers all-cause mortality, if confirmed by future studies, could guide policy-making and improve the well-being of patients with overweight or obesity and knee or hip OA,” the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author on the study was Jie Wei, MD, of Central South University, Changsha, China. The study was published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the inability to control for factors such as exercise, diet, and disease severity; the inability to assess the risk for cause-specific mortality; and the inability to account for the impact of pain reduction and improved function as a result of weight loss.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Plan, the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Project Program of National Clinical Research Center for Geriatric Disorders, the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, the Central South University Innovation-Driven Research Programme, and the Science and Technology Innovation Program of Hunan Province. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As the aging population grows and telehealth expands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging trend of in-home care is reshaping how patients access and receive physical therapy services.

Partnerships between hospitals and home health companies are increasing access to rehabilitation services not only for older adults but also for people in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and patients with injuries that hinder their driving abilities.

“We find more and more that physical therapy at their home, instead of coming to an outpatient facility, is something more and more folks are requesting,” said Bill Benoit, MBA, chief operating officer of University Hospitals, Cleveland. “In this post-COVID environment, people are getting all different types of services in their home when they’re available, and this is one of them. The pandemic sped up the process of us moving away from the traditional brick and mortar hospital.”

UH recently announced a partnership with Luna Physical Therapy, a company founded in 2018 that provides home services. Luna has teamed up with more than two dozen other hospitals in the United States to offer home-based rehabilitation, according to the company.

The process for arranging in-home therapies through hospital-clinic partnerships is like any other inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, Mr. Benoit said: A patient meets with a specialist or primary care practitioner, they discuss options, and eventually the clinician recommends physical therapy. The only difference here, he said, is rather than going to a separate facility or a hospital, the patient logs onto a mobile app that matches them with a physical therapist on the basis of their location, needs, and the times they are available.

The prescribing physician oversees the patient’s progress through notes provided by the therapist.

“For the primary care physician or surgeon, they’re not going to see much of a difference,” Mr. Benoit said. “This just adds to that list of options for patients.”
 

Safer, more productive PT

A study, published in the journal Family Practice, found that 76% of patients who are prescribed physical therapy do not initiate the services after it has been recommended.

Aside from the convenience and expanded accessibility for patients, the home therapy option can be more productive, said Denise Wagner, PT, DPT, a physical therapist with Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

“Home is safer for many patients, but home is also more engaging and motivating,” she said. “Home health clinicians are experts in using whatever they find in the home environment as equipment; many people have stairs in their home, so we can use the rail as something to hold. If patient likes to walk their dog, we can use putting a leash on dog as balance activity.”

Therapy in the home setting helps physical therapists customize programs to fit each patient’s lifestyle, said Gira Shah, PT, a physical therapist with Providence Home Services in Seattle.

For example, patients generally want to know how to function within their own space – navigate their kitchens to make food or get in and out of their bathtubs. Staying in that space allows therapists to focus on those specific goals, Ms. Shah said. “It’s more of a functional therapy. The beauty of this [is that] as therapists we’re trying to assess, ‘what does the patient need to be independent?’ ”

The consulting firm McKinsey predicts that as much as $265 billion in health care services for Medicare recipients will be provided within the home by 2025.

The obvious question is: Why would hospitals partner with clinics rather than offer in-home services on their own?

The answer, like most things in health care, boils down to money.

The billing and documentation system that they use is more efficient than anything hospitals have, said John Brickley, PT, MA, vice president and physical therapist at MedStar Health, a health care system in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. MedStar and Luna announced a partnership last June.

“We would financially fall on our face if we tried to use our own billing systems; it would take too much time,” Mr. Brickley said. “Do we need them from a quality-of-care standpoint? No. They have the type of technology that’s not at our disposal.”

Patients should be aware of the difference between home-based PT and other health services for homebound patients, Mr. Brickley said. Medicare considers a patient homebound if they need the help of another person or medical equipment to leave their home or if their doctor believes their condition would worsen with greater mobility.

From the perspective of an insurance company, a home therapy session arranged by a hospital-clinic partnership is an ambulatory appointment and uses the same charging mechanism as most other visits. For a home health care visit, patients must qualify as homebound.

Home-based PT can be used for conditions including neurologic issues, bone and joint problems, balance, and fall deconditioning and prevention. But if a patient needs heavy equipment that cannot be transported, outpatient services are more practical.

That should be determined by the primary care practitioner or specialist evaluating each patient, said Palak Shah, PT, cofounder and head of clinical services at Luna.

“Primary care physicians play a huge role – that’s where patients express their initial concerns,” she said. “It’s up to them to make patients aware about all the options.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the aging population grows and telehealth expands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging trend of in-home care is reshaping how patients access and receive physical therapy services.

Partnerships between hospitals and home health companies are increasing access to rehabilitation services not only for older adults but also for people in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and patients with injuries that hinder their driving abilities.

“We find more and more that physical therapy at their home, instead of coming to an outpatient facility, is something more and more folks are requesting,” said Bill Benoit, MBA, chief operating officer of University Hospitals, Cleveland. “In this post-COVID environment, people are getting all different types of services in their home when they’re available, and this is one of them. The pandemic sped up the process of us moving away from the traditional brick and mortar hospital.”

UH recently announced a partnership with Luna Physical Therapy, a company founded in 2018 that provides home services. Luna has teamed up with more than two dozen other hospitals in the United States to offer home-based rehabilitation, according to the company.

The process for arranging in-home therapies through hospital-clinic partnerships is like any other inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, Mr. Benoit said: A patient meets with a specialist or primary care practitioner, they discuss options, and eventually the clinician recommends physical therapy. The only difference here, he said, is rather than going to a separate facility or a hospital, the patient logs onto a mobile app that matches them with a physical therapist on the basis of their location, needs, and the times they are available.

The prescribing physician oversees the patient’s progress through notes provided by the therapist.

“For the primary care physician or surgeon, they’re not going to see much of a difference,” Mr. Benoit said. “This just adds to that list of options for patients.”
 

Safer, more productive PT

A study, published in the journal Family Practice, found that 76% of patients who are prescribed physical therapy do not initiate the services after it has been recommended.

Aside from the convenience and expanded accessibility for patients, the home therapy option can be more productive, said Denise Wagner, PT, DPT, a physical therapist with Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

“Home is safer for many patients, but home is also more engaging and motivating,” she said. “Home health clinicians are experts in using whatever they find in the home environment as equipment; many people have stairs in their home, so we can use the rail as something to hold. If patient likes to walk their dog, we can use putting a leash on dog as balance activity.”

Therapy in the home setting helps physical therapists customize programs to fit each patient’s lifestyle, said Gira Shah, PT, a physical therapist with Providence Home Services in Seattle.

For example, patients generally want to know how to function within their own space – navigate their kitchens to make food or get in and out of their bathtubs. Staying in that space allows therapists to focus on those specific goals, Ms. Shah said. “It’s more of a functional therapy. The beauty of this [is that] as therapists we’re trying to assess, ‘what does the patient need to be independent?’ ”

The consulting firm McKinsey predicts that as much as $265 billion in health care services for Medicare recipients will be provided within the home by 2025.

The obvious question is: Why would hospitals partner with clinics rather than offer in-home services on their own?

The answer, like most things in health care, boils down to money.

The billing and documentation system that they use is more efficient than anything hospitals have, said John Brickley, PT, MA, vice president and physical therapist at MedStar Health, a health care system in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. MedStar and Luna announced a partnership last June.

“We would financially fall on our face if we tried to use our own billing systems; it would take too much time,” Mr. Brickley said. “Do we need them from a quality-of-care standpoint? No. They have the type of technology that’s not at our disposal.”

Patients should be aware of the difference between home-based PT and other health services for homebound patients, Mr. Brickley said. Medicare considers a patient homebound if they need the help of another person or medical equipment to leave their home or if their doctor believes their condition would worsen with greater mobility.

From the perspective of an insurance company, a home therapy session arranged by a hospital-clinic partnership is an ambulatory appointment and uses the same charging mechanism as most other visits. For a home health care visit, patients must qualify as homebound.

Home-based PT can be used for conditions including neurologic issues, bone and joint problems, balance, and fall deconditioning and prevention. But if a patient needs heavy equipment that cannot be transported, outpatient services are more practical.

That should be determined by the primary care practitioner or specialist evaluating each patient, said Palak Shah, PT, cofounder and head of clinical services at Luna.

“Primary care physicians play a huge role – that’s where patients express their initial concerns,” she said. “It’s up to them to make patients aware about all the options.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

As the aging population grows and telehealth expands in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, an emerging trend of in-home care is reshaping how patients access and receive physical therapy services.

Partnerships between hospitals and home health companies are increasing access to rehabilitation services not only for older adults but also for people in rural areas, those without reliable transportation, and patients with injuries that hinder their driving abilities.

“We find more and more that physical therapy at their home, instead of coming to an outpatient facility, is something more and more folks are requesting,” said Bill Benoit, MBA, chief operating officer of University Hospitals, Cleveland. “In this post-COVID environment, people are getting all different types of services in their home when they’re available, and this is one of them. The pandemic sped up the process of us moving away from the traditional brick and mortar hospital.”

UH recently announced a partnership with Luna Physical Therapy, a company founded in 2018 that provides home services. Luna has teamed up with more than two dozen other hospitals in the United States to offer home-based rehabilitation, according to the company.

The process for arranging in-home therapies through hospital-clinic partnerships is like any other inpatient or outpatient rehabilitation, Mr. Benoit said: A patient meets with a specialist or primary care practitioner, they discuss options, and eventually the clinician recommends physical therapy. The only difference here, he said, is rather than going to a separate facility or a hospital, the patient logs onto a mobile app that matches them with a physical therapist on the basis of their location, needs, and the times they are available.

The prescribing physician oversees the patient’s progress through notes provided by the therapist.

“For the primary care physician or surgeon, they’re not going to see much of a difference,” Mr. Benoit said. “This just adds to that list of options for patients.”
 

Safer, more productive PT

A study, published in the journal Family Practice, found that 76% of patients who are prescribed physical therapy do not initiate the services after it has been recommended.

Aside from the convenience and expanded accessibility for patients, the home therapy option can be more productive, said Denise Wagner, PT, DPT, a physical therapist with Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

“Home is safer for many patients, but home is also more engaging and motivating,” she said. “Home health clinicians are experts in using whatever they find in the home environment as equipment; many people have stairs in their home, so we can use the rail as something to hold. If patient likes to walk their dog, we can use putting a leash on dog as balance activity.”

Therapy in the home setting helps physical therapists customize programs to fit each patient’s lifestyle, said Gira Shah, PT, a physical therapist with Providence Home Services in Seattle.

For example, patients generally want to know how to function within their own space – navigate their kitchens to make food or get in and out of their bathtubs. Staying in that space allows therapists to focus on those specific goals, Ms. Shah said. “It’s more of a functional therapy. The beauty of this [is that] as therapists we’re trying to assess, ‘what does the patient need to be independent?’ ”

The consulting firm McKinsey predicts that as much as $265 billion in health care services for Medicare recipients will be provided within the home by 2025.

The obvious question is: Why would hospitals partner with clinics rather than offer in-home services on their own?

The answer, like most things in health care, boils down to money.

The billing and documentation system that they use is more efficient than anything hospitals have, said John Brickley, PT, MA, vice president and physical therapist at MedStar Health, a health care system in Maryland and the Washington, D.C., area. MedStar and Luna announced a partnership last June.

“We would financially fall on our face if we tried to use our own billing systems; it would take too much time,” Mr. Brickley said. “Do we need them from a quality-of-care standpoint? No. They have the type of technology that’s not at our disposal.”

Patients should be aware of the difference between home-based PT and other health services for homebound patients, Mr. Brickley said. Medicare considers a patient homebound if they need the help of another person or medical equipment to leave their home or if their doctor believes their condition would worsen with greater mobility.

From the perspective of an insurance company, a home therapy session arranged by a hospital-clinic partnership is an ambulatory appointment and uses the same charging mechanism as most other visits. For a home health care visit, patients must qualify as homebound.

Home-based PT can be used for conditions including neurologic issues, bone and joint problems, balance, and fall deconditioning and prevention. But if a patient needs heavy equipment that cannot be transported, outpatient services are more practical.

That should be determined by the primary care practitioner or specialist evaluating each patient, said Palak Shah, PT, cofounder and head of clinical services at Luna.

“Primary care physicians play a huge role – that’s where patients express their initial concerns,” she said. “It’s up to them to make patients aware about all the options.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stanford (Calif.) University’s human performance lab sits next to its physical therapy clinic, so orthopedic surgeons often stop by to request biomechanical analyses for their patients, such as athletes with repeat injuries.

“It would take us days to analyze the data, so we would only do it a handful of times per year,” said Scott Uhlrich, PhD, director of research at the lab.

Now an app can do the job in less than 10 minutes.

The motion-capture app, created by Dr. Uhlrich and fellow bioengineers at Stanford, could help clinicians design better interventions to ward off mobility problems and speed recovery. It could also help researchers fill huge knowledge gaps about human mobility.

Known as OpenCap, the app uses smartphone videos, artificial intelligence, and computational biomechanical modeling to quantify movement. It’s currently available free for research and educational use. Model Health, a startup affiliated with the Stanford researchers, provides licenses for commercial use and clinical practice.

Here’s how it works. Footage of human movement, recorded by two smartphones, gets uploaded to the cloud, where an algorithm identifies a set of points on the body. The app relies on computer vision algorithms, a form of AI that trains computers to “understand” visual data – in this case, a person’s pose.

Next, the app quantifies how the body is moving through three-dimensional space. Musculoskeletal system models reveal insights into that movement, such as the angle of a joint, the stretch in a tendon, or the force being transferred through the joints.

“These are the quantities that relate to injuries and disease,” said Dr. Uhlrich, co-author of a study introducing the app. “We need to get to those quantities to be able to inform medical research and eventually clinical practice.”

The conventional approach to getting this kind of analysis requires special expertise and costs $150,000. By contrast, the app is free and easy to use.

It “democratizes” human movement analysis, said senior study author Scott Delp, PhD, professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering at Stanford. The researchers hope this will “improve outcomes for patients across the world.” 

‘Endless opportunities’

A lot about human mobility remains mysterious.

In aging adults, researchers can’t say when balance starts to degrade or by how much every year. They’re also still unraveling how sports injuries occur and how degenerative joint diseases like arthritis progress.

“We don’t really understand the onset of a lot of things, because we’ve just never measured it,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

OpenCap could help change that in a big way. Although biomechanics studies tend to be small – just 14 participants, on average – the app could allow for much larger studies, thanks to its lower cost and ease of use. In the study, the app collected movement data on 100 participants in less than 10 hours and computed results in 31 hours – an effort that would otherwise have taken a year.

“Studies of hundreds will be common, and thousands will be feasible, especially if assessments are integrated into clinic visits,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

About 2,600 researchers around the world are already using the app, according to Dr. Uhlrich. Many had never created a dynamic simulation before.

“The opportunities here are endless,” said Eni Halilaj, PhD, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, who was not involved in creating the app. That’s especially true for “highly heterogeneous conditions that we have not been able to fully characterize through traditional studies with limited patients.”

In one case, researcher Reed Gurchiek, a former Stanford postdoc and current professor at Clemson (S.C.) University, used the app to study hamstring strain injuries during sprinting and found that these muscles lengthen faster during acceleration, compared with running at a constant speed.

“This aligns with the higher observed injury rates when athletes are accelerating,” Dr. Uhlrich explained. “Varied-speed sprinting studies are not possible in the lab, so this was really enabled by OpenCap’s portability.”
 

Movement as a biomarker

The researchers are already using the app to build new tools, including metrics to identify risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury in young athletes and to measure balance. 

Someday, the technology could augment annual physicals, establishing movement as a biomarker. By having patients perform a few movements, like walking or standing up, clinicians could assess their disease risk and progression or their risk of falling. 

Excessive loading in the knee joint puts patients at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis, for instance, but clinicians can’t easily access this information. The disease is typically diagnosed after symptoms appear, even though intervention could happen much earlier. 

“Prevention is still not as embraced as it should be,” said Pamela Toto, PhD, professor of occupational therapy at the University of Pittsburgh, who also was not involved in making the app. “If we could tie the technology to intervention down the road, that could be valuable.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stanford (Calif.) University’s human performance lab sits next to its physical therapy clinic, so orthopedic surgeons often stop by to request biomechanical analyses for their patients, such as athletes with repeat injuries.

“It would take us days to analyze the data, so we would only do it a handful of times per year,” said Scott Uhlrich, PhD, director of research at the lab.

Now an app can do the job in less than 10 minutes.

The motion-capture app, created by Dr. Uhlrich and fellow bioengineers at Stanford, could help clinicians design better interventions to ward off mobility problems and speed recovery. It could also help researchers fill huge knowledge gaps about human mobility.

Known as OpenCap, the app uses smartphone videos, artificial intelligence, and computational biomechanical modeling to quantify movement. It’s currently available free for research and educational use. Model Health, a startup affiliated with the Stanford researchers, provides licenses for commercial use and clinical practice.

Here’s how it works. Footage of human movement, recorded by two smartphones, gets uploaded to the cloud, where an algorithm identifies a set of points on the body. The app relies on computer vision algorithms, a form of AI that trains computers to “understand” visual data – in this case, a person’s pose.

Next, the app quantifies how the body is moving through three-dimensional space. Musculoskeletal system models reveal insights into that movement, such as the angle of a joint, the stretch in a tendon, or the force being transferred through the joints.

“These are the quantities that relate to injuries and disease,” said Dr. Uhlrich, co-author of a study introducing the app. “We need to get to those quantities to be able to inform medical research and eventually clinical practice.”

The conventional approach to getting this kind of analysis requires special expertise and costs $150,000. By contrast, the app is free and easy to use.

It “democratizes” human movement analysis, said senior study author Scott Delp, PhD, professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering at Stanford. The researchers hope this will “improve outcomes for patients across the world.” 

‘Endless opportunities’

A lot about human mobility remains mysterious.

In aging adults, researchers can’t say when balance starts to degrade or by how much every year. They’re also still unraveling how sports injuries occur and how degenerative joint diseases like arthritis progress.

“We don’t really understand the onset of a lot of things, because we’ve just never measured it,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

OpenCap could help change that in a big way. Although biomechanics studies tend to be small – just 14 participants, on average – the app could allow for much larger studies, thanks to its lower cost and ease of use. In the study, the app collected movement data on 100 participants in less than 10 hours and computed results in 31 hours – an effort that would otherwise have taken a year.

“Studies of hundreds will be common, and thousands will be feasible, especially if assessments are integrated into clinic visits,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

About 2,600 researchers around the world are already using the app, according to Dr. Uhlrich. Many had never created a dynamic simulation before.

“The opportunities here are endless,” said Eni Halilaj, PhD, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, who was not involved in creating the app. That’s especially true for “highly heterogeneous conditions that we have not been able to fully characterize through traditional studies with limited patients.”

In one case, researcher Reed Gurchiek, a former Stanford postdoc and current professor at Clemson (S.C.) University, used the app to study hamstring strain injuries during sprinting and found that these muscles lengthen faster during acceleration, compared with running at a constant speed.

“This aligns with the higher observed injury rates when athletes are accelerating,” Dr. Uhlrich explained. “Varied-speed sprinting studies are not possible in the lab, so this was really enabled by OpenCap’s portability.”
 

Movement as a biomarker

The researchers are already using the app to build new tools, including metrics to identify risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury in young athletes and to measure balance. 

Someday, the technology could augment annual physicals, establishing movement as a biomarker. By having patients perform a few movements, like walking or standing up, clinicians could assess their disease risk and progression or their risk of falling. 

Excessive loading in the knee joint puts patients at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis, for instance, but clinicians can’t easily access this information. The disease is typically diagnosed after symptoms appear, even though intervention could happen much earlier. 

“Prevention is still not as embraced as it should be,” said Pamela Toto, PhD, professor of occupational therapy at the University of Pittsburgh, who also was not involved in making the app. “If we could tie the technology to intervention down the road, that could be valuable.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Stanford (Calif.) University’s human performance lab sits next to its physical therapy clinic, so orthopedic surgeons often stop by to request biomechanical analyses for their patients, such as athletes with repeat injuries.

“It would take us days to analyze the data, so we would only do it a handful of times per year,” said Scott Uhlrich, PhD, director of research at the lab.

Now an app can do the job in less than 10 minutes.

The motion-capture app, created by Dr. Uhlrich and fellow bioengineers at Stanford, could help clinicians design better interventions to ward off mobility problems and speed recovery. It could also help researchers fill huge knowledge gaps about human mobility.

Known as OpenCap, the app uses smartphone videos, artificial intelligence, and computational biomechanical modeling to quantify movement. It’s currently available free for research and educational use. Model Health, a startup affiliated with the Stanford researchers, provides licenses for commercial use and clinical practice.

Here’s how it works. Footage of human movement, recorded by two smartphones, gets uploaded to the cloud, where an algorithm identifies a set of points on the body. The app relies on computer vision algorithms, a form of AI that trains computers to “understand” visual data – in this case, a person’s pose.

Next, the app quantifies how the body is moving through three-dimensional space. Musculoskeletal system models reveal insights into that movement, such as the angle of a joint, the stretch in a tendon, or the force being transferred through the joints.

“These are the quantities that relate to injuries and disease,” said Dr. Uhlrich, co-author of a study introducing the app. “We need to get to those quantities to be able to inform medical research and eventually clinical practice.”

The conventional approach to getting this kind of analysis requires special expertise and costs $150,000. By contrast, the app is free and easy to use.

It “democratizes” human movement analysis, said senior study author Scott Delp, PhD, professor of bioengineering and mechanical engineering at Stanford. The researchers hope this will “improve outcomes for patients across the world.” 

‘Endless opportunities’

A lot about human mobility remains mysterious.

In aging adults, researchers can’t say when balance starts to degrade or by how much every year. They’re also still unraveling how sports injuries occur and how degenerative joint diseases like arthritis progress.

“We don’t really understand the onset of a lot of things, because we’ve just never measured it,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

OpenCap could help change that in a big way. Although biomechanics studies tend to be small – just 14 participants, on average – the app could allow for much larger studies, thanks to its lower cost and ease of use. In the study, the app collected movement data on 100 participants in less than 10 hours and computed results in 31 hours – an effort that would otherwise have taken a year.

“Studies of hundreds will be common, and thousands will be feasible, especially if assessments are integrated into clinic visits,” Dr. Uhlrich said.

About 2,600 researchers around the world are already using the app, according to Dr. Uhlrich. Many had never created a dynamic simulation before.

“The opportunities here are endless,” said Eni Halilaj, PhD, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, who was not involved in creating the app. That’s especially true for “highly heterogeneous conditions that we have not been able to fully characterize through traditional studies with limited patients.”

In one case, researcher Reed Gurchiek, a former Stanford postdoc and current professor at Clemson (S.C.) University, used the app to study hamstring strain injuries during sprinting and found that these muscles lengthen faster during acceleration, compared with running at a constant speed.

“This aligns with the higher observed injury rates when athletes are accelerating,” Dr. Uhlrich explained. “Varied-speed sprinting studies are not possible in the lab, so this was really enabled by OpenCap’s portability.”
 

Movement as a biomarker

The researchers are already using the app to build new tools, including metrics to identify risk for anterior cruciate ligament injury in young athletes and to measure balance. 

Someday, the technology could augment annual physicals, establishing movement as a biomarker. By having patients perform a few movements, like walking or standing up, clinicians could assess their disease risk and progression or their risk of falling. 

Excessive loading in the knee joint puts patients at higher risk of developing osteoarthritis, for instance, but clinicians can’t easily access this information. The disease is typically diagnosed after symptoms appear, even though intervention could happen much earlier. 

“Prevention is still not as embraced as it should be,” said Pamela Toto, PhD, professor of occupational therapy at the University of Pittsburgh, who also was not involved in making the app. “If we could tie the technology to intervention down the road, that could be valuable.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Strength training at any point in life is associated with a lower risk of knee pain and osteoarthritis, contrary to persistent assumptions of adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on strength training and knee pain from 2,607 adults. They used the Historical Physical Activity Survey Instrument to assess the impact of strength training during four periods (ages 12-18 years, 19-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50 years and older).
• The participants were enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study; 44% were male, the average age was 64.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².
• Strength training was defined as those exposed and not exposed, as well as divided into low, medium, and high tertiles for those exposed. A total of 818 individuals were exposed to strength training, and 1,789 were not exposed to strength training.
• The primary outcomes were frequent knee pain, radiographic OA (ROA), and symptomatic radiographic OA (SOA).

TAKEAWAY:

• The study is the first to examine the effect of strength training on knee health in a community population sample not selected for a history of elite weight lifting.
• Overall, strength training at any point in life was associated with lower incidence of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, compared with no strength training (odds ratios, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.77, respectively).
• When separated by tertiles, only the high-exposure group had significantly reduced odds of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, with odds ratios of 0.74, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively. A dose-response relationship appeared for all three conditions, with the lowest odds ratios in the highest strength training exposure groups.
• Findings were similar for different age ranges, but the association between strength training and less frequent knee pain, less ROA, and less SOA was strongest in the older age groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings support the idea that the medical community should proactively encourage more people to participate in strength training to help reduce their risk of osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Grace H. Lo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design and self-selected study population of strength training participants might bias the results, including participants’ recall of their activity level levels and changes in exercise trends over time. More research is needed to explore associations between strength training and knee OA among those who started strength training at a younger age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and by donations to the Tupper Research Fund at Tufts Medical Center. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health; private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Three authors report having financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Strength training at any point in life is associated with a lower risk of knee pain and osteoarthritis, contrary to persistent assumptions of adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on strength training and knee pain from 2,607 adults. They used the Historical Physical Activity Survey Instrument to assess the impact of strength training during four periods (ages 12-18 years, 19-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50 years and older).
• The participants were enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study; 44% were male, the average age was 64.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².
• Strength training was defined as those exposed and not exposed, as well as divided into low, medium, and high tertiles for those exposed. A total of 818 individuals were exposed to strength training, and 1,789 were not exposed to strength training.
• The primary outcomes were frequent knee pain, radiographic OA (ROA), and symptomatic radiographic OA (SOA).

TAKEAWAY:

• The study is the first to examine the effect of strength training on knee health in a community population sample not selected for a history of elite weight lifting.
• Overall, strength training at any point in life was associated with lower incidence of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, compared with no strength training (odds ratios, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.77, respectively).
• When separated by tertiles, only the high-exposure group had significantly reduced odds of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, with odds ratios of 0.74, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively. A dose-response relationship appeared for all three conditions, with the lowest odds ratios in the highest strength training exposure groups.
• Findings were similar for different age ranges, but the association between strength training and less frequent knee pain, less ROA, and less SOA was strongest in the older age groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings support the idea that the medical community should proactively encourage more people to participate in strength training to help reduce their risk of osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Grace H. Lo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design and self-selected study population of strength training participants might bias the results, including participants’ recall of their activity level levels and changes in exercise trends over time. More research is needed to explore associations between strength training and knee OA among those who started strength training at a younger age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and by donations to the Tupper Research Fund at Tufts Medical Center. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health; private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Three authors report having financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Strength training at any point in life is associated with a lower risk of knee pain and osteoarthritis, contrary to persistent assumptions of adverse effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data on strength training and knee pain from 2,607 adults. They used the Historical Physical Activity Survey Instrument to assess the impact of strength training during four periods (ages 12-18 years, 19-34 years, 35-49 years, and 50 years and older).
• The participants were enrolled in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal study; 44% were male, the average age was 64.3 years, and the mean body mass index was 28.5 kg/m².
• Strength training was defined as those exposed and not exposed, as well as divided into low, medium, and high tertiles for those exposed. A total of 818 individuals were exposed to strength training, and 1,789 were not exposed to strength training.
• The primary outcomes were frequent knee pain, radiographic OA (ROA), and symptomatic radiographic OA (SOA).

TAKEAWAY:

• The study is the first to examine the effect of strength training on knee health in a community population sample not selected for a history of elite weight lifting.
• Overall, strength training at any point in life was associated with lower incidence of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, compared with no strength training (odds ratios, 0.82, 0.83, and 0.77, respectively).
• When separated by tertiles, only the high-exposure group had significantly reduced odds of frequent knee pain, ROA, and SOA, with odds ratios of 0.74, 0.70, and 0.69, respectively. A dose-response relationship appeared for all three conditions, with the lowest odds ratios in the highest strength training exposure groups.
• Findings were similar for different age ranges, but the association between strength training and less frequent knee pain, less ROA, and less SOA was strongest in the older age groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings support the idea that the medical community should proactively encourage more people to participate in strength training to help reduce their risk of osteoarthritis and other chronic conditions,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Grace H. Lo, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, and colleagues, was published in Arthritis and Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The observational design and self-selected study population of strength training participants might bias the results, including participants’ recall of their activity level levels and changes in exercise trends over time. More research is needed to explore associations between strength training and knee OA among those who started strength training at a younger age.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded in part by the VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness, and Safety at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, and by donations to the Tupper Research Fund at Tufts Medical Center. The Osteoarthritis Initiative is supported by the National Institutes of Health; private funding partners include Merck Research Laboratories, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer. Three authors report having financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and MRI-detected synovitis who took methotrexate (MTX) 20 mg weekly over a 6-month period had a significant and potentially clinically meaningful reduction in pain and stiffness over those who received placebo in the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to show positive results with the drug.

Patients who were randomly assigned to MTX took 10 mg orally for the first 4 weeks then increased to 20 mg for the rest of the trial, with differences in the primary outcome of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) first becoming significant over placebo at 3 months.

Senior author of the METHODS study (Methotrexate to Treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis), Flavia Cicuttini, PhD, MSc, head of the musculoskeletal unit at Monash University and head of rheumatology at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, noted that the effect of MTX was higher than effect sizes that have been reported for NSAIDs on pain in hip or knee OA.

Astrid Gast/Thinkstock

The study was published online October 12 in The Lancet.

METHODS makes improvements on past studies

While OA is traditionally categorized as a noninflammatory process, it’s known that there are some patients who have a clinical phenotype characterized by joint swelling (synovitis) and others develop erosive disease. MTX is one of the most common therapies for inflammatory arthritis and standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Previous studies of methotrexate showed lack of efficacy in hand OA but may have been because of the use of a low dose, poor power due to moderate sample size, and failure to target the specific inflammatory OA phenotype.

Dr. Cicuttini

In an interview, Dr. Cicuttini noted the selection of methotrexate for this trial was intentional. “We considered the evidence and decided to test methotrexate because we know it is effective in inflammatory arthritis, and its mode of action is broader than the more selective anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] agents,” which she noted have failed in prior hand OA trials. She also noted that the only previous randomized controlled trial of MTX tested a dose of 10 mg/week, rather than the 20 mg/week dose used in METHODS. 
 

Study details and results

METHODS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at multiple sites within Australia. Patients were recruited from 2017 to 2022, with a temporary pause in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic because of safety concerns regarding MTX use. Participants included in this study were aged 40-75 years, had pain in hand joints for most days in the past 3 months, and a pain score of at least 40 mm on a 100-mm VAS in the past 7 days.

The participants’ hand OA fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria, radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or more) in at least one joint, and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more in at least one joint. They excluded patients with concomitant rheumatic disease, gout, psoriasis, positive rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, or elevated inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), as well as those with contraindication to methotrexate or MRI.

The trials’ 97 participants were assigned 1:1 to MTX or placebo using block randomization. The MTX group started on oral MTX 10 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg weekly for the remainder of the study. Participants took folic acid 5 mg once a day to reduce risk of MTX-related side effects.

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, with 70% female. Baseline characteristics were generally well-balanced, except for higher mean BMI in the MTX group. At 6 months, the MTX group had a greater reduction in mean VAS pain than the placebo group (–15.2 mm vs. –7.7 mm; adjusted between-group difference, –9.9 mm). The minimally clinically important difference for OA trials is a 15-mm change (out of 100) in VAS pain.

The MTX group also had greater reduction in mean Australian Canadian OA Hand Index (AUSCAN) score for pain and stiffness at 6 months, compared with placebo, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes (mean AUSCAN, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, or grip strength).

MTX was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events related to treatment; only 5 of 50 participants in the MTX group and 4 of 47 in the placebo group discontinued study medication. Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups throughout the trial, including mild leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, mild reduction of hemoglobin, and raised creatinine. None of the laboratory abnormalities required change in medication dosage or affected ability to continue in the study. 
 

Qualifications and considerations for MTX use

Commenting on the study, OA researcher Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Thurston Arthritis Research Center, said that its overall design was “excellent,” including appropriate masking, controls, randomization, and power and sample size calculations, contributing to “the trial’s relatively positive, although still modest, results.” Dr. Nelson was not involved with the METHODS study.

Dr. Nelson

Several factors may have contributed to the study’s success, including the broader mechanism of action of methotrexate and higher dose used, Ida K. Haugen, MD, PhD, senior researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital’s Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Oslo, Norway, told this news organization.

She noted that the MTX 20 mg/week dosage is similar to what is used in treatment of RA and may be key to better targeting inflammation.

Nicolas Tourrenc

“Furthermore, the study included individuals with hand OA and synovitis by MRI, and thus may have found the right patient population in comparison to prior studies,” Dr. Haugen said.

Dr. Cicuttini agreed, noting that “previous trials [of MTX] did not target the inflammatory phenotype of hand osteoarthritis that would be expected to respond.” In the previous randomized controlled trial of MTX in hand OA, only 29 of a total 1024 joints had synovitis, she explained. “Their inclusion criteria were individuals with severe erosive hand osteoarthritis, suggesting that this later-stage disease is less likely to respond.”

Dr. Cicuttini said that she saw no specific issues in regard to potential use of MTX in the OA population in the clinic. “The data we have, together with the large experience we have with using methotrexate and the fact that treatments for hand OA are not very effective, means that it would be reasonable to offer this to patients with hand OA and inflammation,” she said. “The level of evidence for an effect of methotrexate would need to be discussed with the patient. The discussion around the use of methotrexate would then need to proceed in the same way we discuss the use of methotrexate with patients when used for other inflammatory joint diseases, and the decision is then made with the patient.”

In contrast, Dr. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the immediate use of MTX for this population. “Many individuals with hand OA have multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy, which are important when considering additional treatments, particularly those with modest benefit and potential adverse effects over the long term,” she said. “I do not think this single study provides enough evidence to suggest that all such patients should be treated with methotrexate, and more data, particularly about long-term use and optimal risk stratification, is needed.” 

While MTX use in refractory inflammatory hand OA is not yet recommended in international guidelines, Dr. Haugen believes this study supports use of MTX in this patient population. Given that MRI and ultrasound may not always be available to identify synovitis, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Haugen suggested identifying patients who may benefit through careful history and clinical examination for evidence of swollen joints. In addition, Dr. Cicuttini explained that she would not necessarily use MTX in patients with erosive OA radiographically because it may be a later stage of disease that is less likely to respond.

The authors highlighted potential limitations of the METHODS trial. They initially planned to study whether MTX reduced pain and improved radiographic progression at 2 years, but since they paused the study for 7 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, they amended the trial protocol and focused on pain reduction at 6 months as the primary endpoint instead.

Tender and swollen joint counts were initially going to be included, but this was modified given the use of virtual telemedicine visits during the pandemic. Dr. Cicuttini said that further studies are underway to identify potential subpopulations who may benefit from immunosuppression, and others are needed to determine whether MTX reduces joint damage and slows disease progression in hand OA with inflammation.

Dr. Cicuttini said her research group is interested to see whether women who develop hand OA around the time of menopause (“menopausal OA”) are a group that could benefit. Dr. Haugen noted that she is involved in a study testing MTX in erosive hand OA (the MERINO trial). 

The study was funded by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and MRI-detected synovitis who took methotrexate (MTX) 20 mg weekly over a 6-month period had a significant and potentially clinically meaningful reduction in pain and stiffness over those who received placebo in the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to show positive results with the drug.

Patients who were randomly assigned to MTX took 10 mg orally for the first 4 weeks then increased to 20 mg for the rest of the trial, with differences in the primary outcome of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) first becoming significant over placebo at 3 months.

Senior author of the METHODS study (Methotrexate to Treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis), Flavia Cicuttini, PhD, MSc, head of the musculoskeletal unit at Monash University and head of rheumatology at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, noted that the effect of MTX was higher than effect sizes that have been reported for NSAIDs on pain in hip or knee OA.

Astrid Gast/Thinkstock

The study was published online October 12 in The Lancet.

METHODS makes improvements on past studies

While OA is traditionally categorized as a noninflammatory process, it’s known that there are some patients who have a clinical phenotype characterized by joint swelling (synovitis) and others develop erosive disease. MTX is one of the most common therapies for inflammatory arthritis and standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Previous studies of methotrexate showed lack of efficacy in hand OA but may have been because of the use of a low dose, poor power due to moderate sample size, and failure to target the specific inflammatory OA phenotype.

Dr. Cicuttini

In an interview, Dr. Cicuttini noted the selection of methotrexate for this trial was intentional. “We considered the evidence and decided to test methotrexate because we know it is effective in inflammatory arthritis, and its mode of action is broader than the more selective anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] agents,” which she noted have failed in prior hand OA trials. She also noted that the only previous randomized controlled trial of MTX tested a dose of 10 mg/week, rather than the 20 mg/week dose used in METHODS. 
 

Study details and results

METHODS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at multiple sites within Australia. Patients were recruited from 2017 to 2022, with a temporary pause in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic because of safety concerns regarding MTX use. Participants included in this study were aged 40-75 years, had pain in hand joints for most days in the past 3 months, and a pain score of at least 40 mm on a 100-mm VAS in the past 7 days.

The participants’ hand OA fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria, radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or more) in at least one joint, and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more in at least one joint. They excluded patients with concomitant rheumatic disease, gout, psoriasis, positive rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, or elevated inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), as well as those with contraindication to methotrexate or MRI.

The trials’ 97 participants were assigned 1:1 to MTX or placebo using block randomization. The MTX group started on oral MTX 10 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg weekly for the remainder of the study. Participants took folic acid 5 mg once a day to reduce risk of MTX-related side effects.

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, with 70% female. Baseline characteristics were generally well-balanced, except for higher mean BMI in the MTX group. At 6 months, the MTX group had a greater reduction in mean VAS pain than the placebo group (–15.2 mm vs. –7.7 mm; adjusted between-group difference, –9.9 mm). The minimally clinically important difference for OA trials is a 15-mm change (out of 100) in VAS pain.

The MTX group also had greater reduction in mean Australian Canadian OA Hand Index (AUSCAN) score for pain and stiffness at 6 months, compared with placebo, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes (mean AUSCAN, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, or grip strength).

MTX was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events related to treatment; only 5 of 50 participants in the MTX group and 4 of 47 in the placebo group discontinued study medication. Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups throughout the trial, including mild leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, mild reduction of hemoglobin, and raised creatinine. None of the laboratory abnormalities required change in medication dosage or affected ability to continue in the study. 
 

Qualifications and considerations for MTX use

Commenting on the study, OA researcher Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Thurston Arthritis Research Center, said that its overall design was “excellent,” including appropriate masking, controls, randomization, and power and sample size calculations, contributing to “the trial’s relatively positive, although still modest, results.” Dr. Nelson was not involved with the METHODS study.

Dr. Nelson

Several factors may have contributed to the study’s success, including the broader mechanism of action of methotrexate and higher dose used, Ida K. Haugen, MD, PhD, senior researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital’s Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Oslo, Norway, told this news organization.

She noted that the MTX 20 mg/week dosage is similar to what is used in treatment of RA and may be key to better targeting inflammation.

Nicolas Tourrenc

“Furthermore, the study included individuals with hand OA and synovitis by MRI, and thus may have found the right patient population in comparison to prior studies,” Dr. Haugen said.

Dr. Cicuttini agreed, noting that “previous trials [of MTX] did not target the inflammatory phenotype of hand osteoarthritis that would be expected to respond.” In the previous randomized controlled trial of MTX in hand OA, only 29 of a total 1024 joints had synovitis, she explained. “Their inclusion criteria were individuals with severe erosive hand osteoarthritis, suggesting that this later-stage disease is less likely to respond.”

Dr. Cicuttini said that she saw no specific issues in regard to potential use of MTX in the OA population in the clinic. “The data we have, together with the large experience we have with using methotrexate and the fact that treatments for hand OA are not very effective, means that it would be reasonable to offer this to patients with hand OA and inflammation,” she said. “The level of evidence for an effect of methotrexate would need to be discussed with the patient. The discussion around the use of methotrexate would then need to proceed in the same way we discuss the use of methotrexate with patients when used for other inflammatory joint diseases, and the decision is then made with the patient.”

In contrast, Dr. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the immediate use of MTX for this population. “Many individuals with hand OA have multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy, which are important when considering additional treatments, particularly those with modest benefit and potential adverse effects over the long term,” she said. “I do not think this single study provides enough evidence to suggest that all such patients should be treated with methotrexate, and more data, particularly about long-term use and optimal risk stratification, is needed.” 

While MTX use in refractory inflammatory hand OA is not yet recommended in international guidelines, Dr. Haugen believes this study supports use of MTX in this patient population. Given that MRI and ultrasound may not always be available to identify synovitis, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Haugen suggested identifying patients who may benefit through careful history and clinical examination for evidence of swollen joints. In addition, Dr. Cicuttini explained that she would not necessarily use MTX in patients with erosive OA radiographically because it may be a later stage of disease that is less likely to respond.

The authors highlighted potential limitations of the METHODS trial. They initially planned to study whether MTX reduced pain and improved radiographic progression at 2 years, but since they paused the study for 7 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, they amended the trial protocol and focused on pain reduction at 6 months as the primary endpoint instead.

Tender and swollen joint counts were initially going to be included, but this was modified given the use of virtual telemedicine visits during the pandemic. Dr. Cicuttini said that further studies are underway to identify potential subpopulations who may benefit from immunosuppression, and others are needed to determine whether MTX reduces joint damage and slows disease progression in hand OA with inflammation.

Dr. Cicuttini said her research group is interested to see whether women who develop hand OA around the time of menopause (“menopausal OA”) are a group that could benefit. Dr. Haugen noted that she is involved in a study testing MTX in erosive hand OA (the MERINO trial). 

The study was funded by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) and MRI-detected synovitis who took methotrexate (MTX) 20 mg weekly over a 6-month period had a significant and potentially clinically meaningful reduction in pain and stiffness over those who received placebo in the first randomized controlled trial of its kind to show positive results with the drug.

Patients who were randomly assigned to MTX took 10 mg orally for the first 4 weeks then increased to 20 mg for the rest of the trial, with differences in the primary outcome of pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) first becoming significant over placebo at 3 months.

Senior author of the METHODS study (Methotrexate to Treat Hand Osteoarthritis with Synovitis), Flavia Cicuttini, PhD, MSc, head of the musculoskeletal unit at Monash University and head of rheumatology at Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia, noted that the effect of MTX was higher than effect sizes that have been reported for NSAIDs on pain in hip or knee OA.

Astrid Gast/Thinkstock

The study was published online October 12 in The Lancet.

METHODS makes improvements on past studies

While OA is traditionally categorized as a noninflammatory process, it’s known that there are some patients who have a clinical phenotype characterized by joint swelling (synovitis) and others develop erosive disease. MTX is one of the most common therapies for inflammatory arthritis and standard of care for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management. Previous studies of methotrexate showed lack of efficacy in hand OA but may have been because of the use of a low dose, poor power due to moderate sample size, and failure to target the specific inflammatory OA phenotype.

Dr. Cicuttini

In an interview, Dr. Cicuttini noted the selection of methotrexate for this trial was intentional. “We considered the evidence and decided to test methotrexate because we know it is effective in inflammatory arthritis, and its mode of action is broader than the more selective anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] agents,” which she noted have failed in prior hand OA trials. She also noted that the only previous randomized controlled trial of MTX tested a dose of 10 mg/week, rather than the 20 mg/week dose used in METHODS. 
 

Study details and results

METHODS was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at multiple sites within Australia. Patients were recruited from 2017 to 2022, with a temporary pause in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic because of safety concerns regarding MTX use. Participants included in this study were aged 40-75 years, had pain in hand joints for most days in the past 3 months, and a pain score of at least 40 mm on a 100-mm VAS in the past 7 days.

The participants’ hand OA fulfilled American College of Rheumatology criteria, radiographic osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or more) in at least one joint, and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more in at least one joint. They excluded patients with concomitant rheumatic disease, gout, psoriasis, positive rheumatoid factor or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptides, or elevated inflammatory markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein), as well as those with contraindication to methotrexate or MRI.

The trials’ 97 participants were assigned 1:1 to MTX or placebo using block randomization. The MTX group started on oral MTX 10 mg weekly for the first 4 weeks, followed by 20 mg weekly for the remainder of the study. Participants took folic acid 5 mg once a day to reduce risk of MTX-related side effects.

The mean age of the participants was 61 years, with 70% female. Baseline characteristics were generally well-balanced, except for higher mean BMI in the MTX group. At 6 months, the MTX group had a greater reduction in mean VAS pain than the placebo group (–15.2 mm vs. –7.7 mm; adjusted between-group difference, –9.9 mm). The minimally clinically important difference for OA trials is a 15-mm change (out of 100) in VAS pain.

The MTX group also had greater reduction in mean Australian Canadian OA Hand Index (AUSCAN) score for pain and stiffness at 6 months, compared with placebo, but there were no differences in other secondary outcomes (mean AUSCAN, Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis, Health Assessment Questionnaire, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, or grip strength).

MTX was well-tolerated with no serious adverse events related to treatment; only 5 of 50 participants in the MTX group and 4 of 47 in the placebo group discontinued study medication. Incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups throughout the trial, including mild leukopenia, elevated liver enzymes, mild reduction of hemoglobin, and raised creatinine. None of the laboratory abnormalities required change in medication dosage or affected ability to continue in the study. 
 

Qualifications and considerations for MTX use

Commenting on the study, OA researcher Amanda E. Nelson, MD, MSCR, associate professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Thurston Arthritis Research Center, said that its overall design was “excellent,” including appropriate masking, controls, randomization, and power and sample size calculations, contributing to “the trial’s relatively positive, although still modest, results.” Dr. Nelson was not involved with the METHODS study.

Dr. Nelson

Several factors may have contributed to the study’s success, including the broader mechanism of action of methotrexate and higher dose used, Ida K. Haugen, MD, PhD, senior researcher at Diakonhjemmet Hospital’s Center for Treatment of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases in Oslo, Norway, told this news organization.

She noted that the MTX 20 mg/week dosage is similar to what is used in treatment of RA and may be key to better targeting inflammation.

Nicolas Tourrenc

“Furthermore, the study included individuals with hand OA and synovitis by MRI, and thus may have found the right patient population in comparison to prior studies,” Dr. Haugen said.

Dr. Cicuttini agreed, noting that “previous trials [of MTX] did not target the inflammatory phenotype of hand osteoarthritis that would be expected to respond.” In the previous randomized controlled trial of MTX in hand OA, only 29 of a total 1024 joints had synovitis, she explained. “Their inclusion criteria were individuals with severe erosive hand osteoarthritis, suggesting that this later-stage disease is less likely to respond.”

Dr. Cicuttini said that she saw no specific issues in regard to potential use of MTX in the OA population in the clinic. “The data we have, together with the large experience we have with using methotrexate and the fact that treatments for hand OA are not very effective, means that it would be reasonable to offer this to patients with hand OA and inflammation,” she said. “The level of evidence for an effect of methotrexate would need to be discussed with the patient. The discussion around the use of methotrexate would then need to proceed in the same way we discuss the use of methotrexate with patients when used for other inflammatory joint diseases, and the decision is then made with the patient.”

In contrast, Dr. Nelson expressed some concerns regarding the immediate use of MTX for this population. “Many individuals with hand OA have multiple medical comorbidities and polypharmacy, which are important when considering additional treatments, particularly those with modest benefit and potential adverse effects over the long term,” she said. “I do not think this single study provides enough evidence to suggest that all such patients should be treated with methotrexate, and more data, particularly about long-term use and optimal risk stratification, is needed.” 

While MTX use in refractory inflammatory hand OA is not yet recommended in international guidelines, Dr. Haugen believes this study supports use of MTX in this patient population. Given that MRI and ultrasound may not always be available to identify synovitis, Dr. Nelson and Dr. Haugen suggested identifying patients who may benefit through careful history and clinical examination for evidence of swollen joints. In addition, Dr. Cicuttini explained that she would not necessarily use MTX in patients with erosive OA radiographically because it may be a later stage of disease that is less likely to respond.

The authors highlighted potential limitations of the METHODS trial. They initially planned to study whether MTX reduced pain and improved radiographic progression at 2 years, but since they paused the study for 7 months during the COVID-19 pandemic, they amended the trial protocol and focused on pain reduction at 6 months as the primary endpoint instead.

Tender and swollen joint counts were initially going to be included, but this was modified given the use of virtual telemedicine visits during the pandemic. Dr. Cicuttini said that further studies are underway to identify potential subpopulations who may benefit from immunosuppression, and others are needed to determine whether MTX reduces joint damage and slows disease progression in hand OA with inflammation.

Dr. Cicuttini said her research group is interested to see whether women who develop hand OA around the time of menopause (“menopausal OA”) are a group that could benefit. Dr. Haugen noted that she is involved in a study testing MTX in erosive hand OA (the MERINO trial). 

The study was funded by a project grant from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. The authors reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

David Felson, MD, MPH, often steps out of his physician’s role to help patients with osteoarthritis (OA). “I have one now who needed me to write to her landlord to get her to a ground floor apartment because she’s unable to navigate the stairs,” said Dr. Felson, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University.

Rheumatologists don’t have a lot of options to treat patients with OA, Dr. Felson said. The most effective treatments are NSAIDs. While reasonably effective, they have a lot of side effects and are not always safe to use, he said.

Exercise also works, but people don’t adhere to it after a while. “Another useful strategy is getting cortisone injections into the affected joint, but that doesn’t last for very long, and I think we’re all reluctant to do it over and over again,” Dr. Felson said.

Some might say, “Well, why can’t they just get a knee replacement?” Many patients don’t want the surgery, and others are too frail to qualify. They’re also not 100% successful. Patients after the surgery sometimes say that they’re still in pain.

There’s an urgent need for more effective therapies, said Dr. Felson, who’s been working on a unique approach to target patients at high risk for OA by studying two specific populations who sustain knee injury.
 

Previous clinical trials have failed

Clinical trials to test OA treatments have run into some roadblocks. The market for this is enormous, with the potential to benefit millions of patients, Dr. Felson continued.

However, very few large pharmaceutical companies or even biotech companies are pursuing treatment development in osteoarthritis because there have been a lot of expensive failures. “It’s made them gun shy,” Dr. Felson noted.

One issue is OA has a long disease course, taking decades to progress and see changes, said Jason Kim, PhD, vice president for osteoarthritis research at the Arthritis Foundation in Atlanta.

Ron Hester

The typical clinical trial window runs just 2-5 years, which is insufficient to see adequate results in a disease like OA. Longer trials are prohibitively costly, especially for corporations with near-term pressures, Dr. Kim said.

Many of these trials also apply disease-modifying drugs to participants with OA who are “too far gone” and beyond repair. By the time older people present with OA to the doctor, their disease is far advanced, and it may not be reversible or even stoppable, Dr. Felson said.
 

Finding patients with ACL reconstruction with ‘bad outcomes’

Dr. Kim and Dr. Felson have joined other researchers to test a new approach, using people with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as a starting block to sleuth out OA tendencies years before it even begins.

When someone gets an ACL or meniscal tear, the knee in many cases begins the process of developing OA. However, that process can take 10-20 years, or sometimes even longer.

“We can’t do trials that last that long,” Dr. Felson said. But there are a few people who do quickly develop OA when they sustain those injuries. “If we can grab those people and get them involved in a study where we test treatments, we could probably figure out what kinds of treatments would be effective,” Dr. Felson explained.

The challenge is finding enough patients with ACL reconstruction with bad outcomes to effectively study OA prevention and treatment. While that sounds unfortunate, “it’s what we needed,” Dr. Felson said.

A longitudinal study known as the MOON trial that tracked 2,340 ACL reconstruction cases offered some initial clues, providing a foundation for future research. Dr. Felson and Dr. Kim joined lead researcher Kurt Spindler, MD, to create the “MOON” cohort for people who underwent surgery after an ACL tear, following them for a decade.

Through the MOON trial, Spindler et al. were able to assess how many people developed OA over 2, 6, and 10 years of follow-up, and how many experienced pain.

“It allowed us to guesstimate whether we were going to have enough numbers of people getting bad outcomes to see if we could get enough numbers to treat,” Dr. Felson said.
 

Clinical trial to test FastOA criteria

The Arthritis Foundation, which funded the MOON trial along with the National Institutes of Health and The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, launched the FastOA initiative, based on its findings.

FastOA is defined as “the rapid development of OA in those who have sustained a major joint injury.” One criterion for FastOA is older age. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds generally don’t have high risk for injury or OA. “It’s only when you get to your late 20s and 30s where your risk really starts to increase substantially, just like the risk of osteoarthritis does,” Dr. Felson said.

The other major risk factor for FastOA is pain. Pain after ACL reconstruction usually takes a long time to surface. Many people never experience pain. However, for a subgroup of people who get ACL reconstruction, their pain never goes away. “What the MOON data told us was that those are the people who continue to have pain later and who get osteoarthritis quicker,” he added.

The MOON results also informed researchers on the types of patients they should seek out for a future trial. “We wouldn’t just take everybody with ACL reconstructions. We’d take selected people who we knew based on the MOON data were at really high likelihood of developing FastOA,” Dr. Felson said .

Armed with these risk factors, Dr. Felson and colleagues plan to apply FastOA to a new clinical trial, Post-Injury Knee Arthritis Severity Outcomes (PIKASO), that will test the use of metformin, a well-known diabetes drug, in 500 patients at high risk of developing post-traumatic OA in the knee following ACL reconstruction.

Two groups will participate in the PIKASO trial, an initiative of the Arthritis Foundation’s Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Network (OA-CTN).

“If you have pain at the time of ACL reconstruction, we are interested in you. And if even you don’t have pain, if you’re among older people who need ACL reconstruction, we’re also interested in you,” Dr. Felson said.

People aged 25-40 are eligible for the older category and those 18-40 are eligible for the pain group. It’s important to include younger people in the study, Dr. Felson said. One of his colleagues, a physical therapist, was disabled by a sports injury in her late teens. Now in her 30s, she’s disabled by OA and will have to wait up to 15 years to qualify for a knee replacement.

“It’s a good idea for us to focus in on the younger folks who develop osteoarthritis at a very early age where there’s nothing we can do for them in terms of surgical options for a few years,” he said.

Targeting specific groups means fewer patients will need to be followed over the period of the study, which will lower costs, Dr. Kim said.

Metformin, a popular diabetes drug with a good safety profile, is an ideal treatment for this trial, Dr. Felson said. It’s been tested in multiple animal models and has been shown to protect against OA in all those models.

Researchers will employ imaging and biomechanics measurements to assess changes in joint structure. Eight institutions will participate, including Mass General Brigham, the trial’s clinical coordinating center, and the Cleveland Clinic and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which will coordinate the collection and analysis of MRI data and biomechanical and function assessments, respectively.

“Positive results from this trial would have the potential to enable surgeons to immediately prescribe the drug before a patient undergoes surgery to slow the disease progression, or even fully prevent” post-traumatic OA, according to a statement from the Arthritis Foundation.
 

‘We’re taking a leap’

PIKASO doesn’t come without its challenges. “There’s a lot of dangers here,” Dr. Felson acknowledged.

Even with the application of the FastOA risk factors, not enough people may end up getting OA. “We could do an expensive study with 500 people and not get enough people with OA to be able to test a treatment,” he said.

Another risk is metformin might not work in these participants to prevent disease. “We’re taking a leap and we’re hoping that leap works out,” Dr. Felson added.

Physicians outside of this project are hopeful that FastOA will facilitate the development of new OA therapeutic strategies.

“We all intuitively understand that a joint injury will increase our risk of arthritis in 5, 10 years, even 20 years if we’re lucky,” said Dominik R. Haudenschild, PhD, professor and director of translational orthopaedic research at Houston Methodist Academic Institute.

Most patients with a painful joint can recall when an injury took place. Focusing on treatments closer to the time of injury before irreversible disease sets in makes sense, he added.

The MOON researchers found that pain is not uncommon in patients with ACL reconstruction, making them an excellent choice for analysis, Dr. Haudenschild continued.

PIKASO could face some limitations, specifically with respect to the effect size – how big of a difference a treatment can make the moment a measurement is taken.

“If we’re looking at earlier disease, the intensity of pain is likely lower, or pain isn’t felt as frequently, or the extent of structural damage in the joint is smaller,” he explained. Even a perfect treatment would only make a smaller difference at the moment measurements are taken, which can be harder to measure.

“But I expect that many of the limitations can likely be overcome by making sure the appropriate outcomes are chosen,” he said.

Nancy E. Lane, MD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at UC Davis Health System, is hoping the research will better inform physicians and patients about ACL tears. They should be aware “that within a few months of an ACL injury, the bone structure around the joint changes and there are cartilage changes,” Dr. Lane said.

While early changes may not necessarily lead to OA, patients who develop joint pain with activity or joint swelling would benefit from education, additional imaging, and modifying their activities to prevent progression, she said.

“Hopefully, within a few years we will have effective treatments to slow or reverse the development of knee OA,” Dr. Lane said.

The PIKASO trial is scheduled to begin enrollment at the end of this year or in early 2024.

Dr. Felson is a board member and past and current awardee of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Kim is a staff member of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Haudenschild received a grant from the Arthritis Foundation and participates in local, regional, and national activities with the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Lane had no disclosures.
 

David Felson, MD, MPH, often steps out of his physician’s role to help patients with osteoarthritis (OA). “I have one now who needed me to write to her landlord to get her to a ground floor apartment because she’s unable to navigate the stairs,” said Dr. Felson, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University.

Rheumatologists don’t have a lot of options to treat patients with OA, Dr. Felson said. The most effective treatments are NSAIDs. While reasonably effective, they have a lot of side effects and are not always safe to use, he said.

Exercise also works, but people don’t adhere to it after a while. “Another useful strategy is getting cortisone injections into the affected joint, but that doesn’t last for very long, and I think we’re all reluctant to do it over and over again,” Dr. Felson said.

Some might say, “Well, why can’t they just get a knee replacement?” Many patients don’t want the surgery, and others are too frail to qualify. They’re also not 100% successful. Patients after the surgery sometimes say that they’re still in pain.

There’s an urgent need for more effective therapies, said Dr. Felson, who’s been working on a unique approach to target patients at high risk for OA by studying two specific populations who sustain knee injury.
 

Previous clinical trials have failed

Clinical trials to test OA treatments have run into some roadblocks. The market for this is enormous, with the potential to benefit millions of patients, Dr. Felson continued.

However, very few large pharmaceutical companies or even biotech companies are pursuing treatment development in osteoarthritis because there have been a lot of expensive failures. “It’s made them gun shy,” Dr. Felson noted.

One issue is OA has a long disease course, taking decades to progress and see changes, said Jason Kim, PhD, vice president for osteoarthritis research at the Arthritis Foundation in Atlanta.

Ron Hester

The typical clinical trial window runs just 2-5 years, which is insufficient to see adequate results in a disease like OA. Longer trials are prohibitively costly, especially for corporations with near-term pressures, Dr. Kim said.

Many of these trials also apply disease-modifying drugs to participants with OA who are “too far gone” and beyond repair. By the time older people present with OA to the doctor, their disease is far advanced, and it may not be reversible or even stoppable, Dr. Felson said.
 

Finding patients with ACL reconstruction with ‘bad outcomes’

Dr. Kim and Dr. Felson have joined other researchers to test a new approach, using people with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as a starting block to sleuth out OA tendencies years before it even begins.

When someone gets an ACL or meniscal tear, the knee in many cases begins the process of developing OA. However, that process can take 10-20 years, or sometimes even longer.

“We can’t do trials that last that long,” Dr. Felson said. But there are a few people who do quickly develop OA when they sustain those injuries. “If we can grab those people and get them involved in a study where we test treatments, we could probably figure out what kinds of treatments would be effective,” Dr. Felson explained.

The challenge is finding enough patients with ACL reconstruction with bad outcomes to effectively study OA prevention and treatment. While that sounds unfortunate, “it’s what we needed,” Dr. Felson said.

A longitudinal study known as the MOON trial that tracked 2,340 ACL reconstruction cases offered some initial clues, providing a foundation for future research. Dr. Felson and Dr. Kim joined lead researcher Kurt Spindler, MD, to create the “MOON” cohort for people who underwent surgery after an ACL tear, following them for a decade.

Through the MOON trial, Spindler et al. were able to assess how many people developed OA over 2, 6, and 10 years of follow-up, and how many experienced pain.

“It allowed us to guesstimate whether we were going to have enough numbers of people getting bad outcomes to see if we could get enough numbers to treat,” Dr. Felson said.
 

Clinical trial to test FastOA criteria

The Arthritis Foundation, which funded the MOON trial along with the National Institutes of Health and The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, launched the FastOA initiative, based on its findings.

FastOA is defined as “the rapid development of OA in those who have sustained a major joint injury.” One criterion for FastOA is older age. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds generally don’t have high risk for injury or OA. “It’s only when you get to your late 20s and 30s where your risk really starts to increase substantially, just like the risk of osteoarthritis does,” Dr. Felson said.

The other major risk factor for FastOA is pain. Pain after ACL reconstruction usually takes a long time to surface. Many people never experience pain. However, for a subgroup of people who get ACL reconstruction, their pain never goes away. “What the MOON data told us was that those are the people who continue to have pain later and who get osteoarthritis quicker,” he added.

The MOON results also informed researchers on the types of patients they should seek out for a future trial. “We wouldn’t just take everybody with ACL reconstructions. We’d take selected people who we knew based on the MOON data were at really high likelihood of developing FastOA,” Dr. Felson said .

Armed with these risk factors, Dr. Felson and colleagues plan to apply FastOA to a new clinical trial, Post-Injury Knee Arthritis Severity Outcomes (PIKASO), that will test the use of metformin, a well-known diabetes drug, in 500 patients at high risk of developing post-traumatic OA in the knee following ACL reconstruction.

Two groups will participate in the PIKASO trial, an initiative of the Arthritis Foundation’s Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Network (OA-CTN).

“If you have pain at the time of ACL reconstruction, we are interested in you. And if even you don’t have pain, if you’re among older people who need ACL reconstruction, we’re also interested in you,” Dr. Felson said.

People aged 25-40 are eligible for the older category and those 18-40 are eligible for the pain group. It’s important to include younger people in the study, Dr. Felson said. One of his colleagues, a physical therapist, was disabled by a sports injury in her late teens. Now in her 30s, she’s disabled by OA and will have to wait up to 15 years to qualify for a knee replacement.

“It’s a good idea for us to focus in on the younger folks who develop osteoarthritis at a very early age where there’s nothing we can do for them in terms of surgical options for a few years,” he said.

Targeting specific groups means fewer patients will need to be followed over the period of the study, which will lower costs, Dr. Kim said.

Metformin, a popular diabetes drug with a good safety profile, is an ideal treatment for this trial, Dr. Felson said. It’s been tested in multiple animal models and has been shown to protect against OA in all those models.

Researchers will employ imaging and biomechanics measurements to assess changes in joint structure. Eight institutions will participate, including Mass General Brigham, the trial’s clinical coordinating center, and the Cleveland Clinic and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which will coordinate the collection and analysis of MRI data and biomechanical and function assessments, respectively.

“Positive results from this trial would have the potential to enable surgeons to immediately prescribe the drug before a patient undergoes surgery to slow the disease progression, or even fully prevent” post-traumatic OA, according to a statement from the Arthritis Foundation.
 

‘We’re taking a leap’

PIKASO doesn’t come without its challenges. “There’s a lot of dangers here,” Dr. Felson acknowledged.

Even with the application of the FastOA risk factors, not enough people may end up getting OA. “We could do an expensive study with 500 people and not get enough people with OA to be able to test a treatment,” he said.

Another risk is metformin might not work in these participants to prevent disease. “We’re taking a leap and we’re hoping that leap works out,” Dr. Felson added.

Physicians outside of this project are hopeful that FastOA will facilitate the development of new OA therapeutic strategies.

“We all intuitively understand that a joint injury will increase our risk of arthritis in 5, 10 years, even 20 years if we’re lucky,” said Dominik R. Haudenschild, PhD, professor and director of translational orthopaedic research at Houston Methodist Academic Institute.

Most patients with a painful joint can recall when an injury took place. Focusing on treatments closer to the time of injury before irreversible disease sets in makes sense, he added.

The MOON researchers found that pain is not uncommon in patients with ACL reconstruction, making them an excellent choice for analysis, Dr. Haudenschild continued.

PIKASO could face some limitations, specifically with respect to the effect size – how big of a difference a treatment can make the moment a measurement is taken.

“If we’re looking at earlier disease, the intensity of pain is likely lower, or pain isn’t felt as frequently, or the extent of structural damage in the joint is smaller,” he explained. Even a perfect treatment would only make a smaller difference at the moment measurements are taken, which can be harder to measure.

“But I expect that many of the limitations can likely be overcome by making sure the appropriate outcomes are chosen,” he said.

Nancy E. Lane, MD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at UC Davis Health System, is hoping the research will better inform physicians and patients about ACL tears. They should be aware “that within a few months of an ACL injury, the bone structure around the joint changes and there are cartilage changes,” Dr. Lane said.

While early changes may not necessarily lead to OA, patients who develop joint pain with activity or joint swelling would benefit from education, additional imaging, and modifying their activities to prevent progression, she said.

“Hopefully, within a few years we will have effective treatments to slow or reverse the development of knee OA,” Dr. Lane said.

The PIKASO trial is scheduled to begin enrollment at the end of this year or in early 2024.

Dr. Felson is a board member and past and current awardee of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Kim is a staff member of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Haudenschild received a grant from the Arthritis Foundation and participates in local, regional, and national activities with the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Lane had no disclosures.
 

David Felson, MD, MPH, often steps out of his physician’s role to help patients with osteoarthritis (OA). “I have one now who needed me to write to her landlord to get her to a ground floor apartment because she’s unable to navigate the stairs,” said Dr. Felson, a professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University.

Rheumatologists don’t have a lot of options to treat patients with OA, Dr. Felson said. The most effective treatments are NSAIDs. While reasonably effective, they have a lot of side effects and are not always safe to use, he said.

Exercise also works, but people don’t adhere to it after a while. “Another useful strategy is getting cortisone injections into the affected joint, but that doesn’t last for very long, and I think we’re all reluctant to do it over and over again,” Dr. Felson said.

Some might say, “Well, why can’t they just get a knee replacement?” Many patients don’t want the surgery, and others are too frail to qualify. They’re also not 100% successful. Patients after the surgery sometimes say that they’re still in pain.

There’s an urgent need for more effective therapies, said Dr. Felson, who’s been working on a unique approach to target patients at high risk for OA by studying two specific populations who sustain knee injury.
 

Previous clinical trials have failed

Clinical trials to test OA treatments have run into some roadblocks. The market for this is enormous, with the potential to benefit millions of patients, Dr. Felson continued.

However, very few large pharmaceutical companies or even biotech companies are pursuing treatment development in osteoarthritis because there have been a lot of expensive failures. “It’s made them gun shy,” Dr. Felson noted.

One issue is OA has a long disease course, taking decades to progress and see changes, said Jason Kim, PhD, vice president for osteoarthritis research at the Arthritis Foundation in Atlanta.

Ron Hester

The typical clinical trial window runs just 2-5 years, which is insufficient to see adequate results in a disease like OA. Longer trials are prohibitively costly, especially for corporations with near-term pressures, Dr. Kim said.

Many of these trials also apply disease-modifying drugs to participants with OA who are “too far gone” and beyond repair. By the time older people present with OA to the doctor, their disease is far advanced, and it may not be reversible or even stoppable, Dr. Felson said.
 

Finding patients with ACL reconstruction with ‘bad outcomes’

Dr. Kim and Dr. Felson have joined other researchers to test a new approach, using people with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as a starting block to sleuth out OA tendencies years before it even begins.

When someone gets an ACL or meniscal tear, the knee in many cases begins the process of developing OA. However, that process can take 10-20 years, or sometimes even longer.

“We can’t do trials that last that long,” Dr. Felson said. But there are a few people who do quickly develop OA when they sustain those injuries. “If we can grab those people and get them involved in a study where we test treatments, we could probably figure out what kinds of treatments would be effective,” Dr. Felson explained.

The challenge is finding enough patients with ACL reconstruction with bad outcomes to effectively study OA prevention and treatment. While that sounds unfortunate, “it’s what we needed,” Dr. Felson said.

A longitudinal study known as the MOON trial that tracked 2,340 ACL reconstruction cases offered some initial clues, providing a foundation for future research. Dr. Felson and Dr. Kim joined lead researcher Kurt Spindler, MD, to create the “MOON” cohort for people who underwent surgery after an ACL tear, following them for a decade.

Through the MOON trial, Spindler et al. were able to assess how many people developed OA over 2, 6, and 10 years of follow-up, and how many experienced pain.

“It allowed us to guesstimate whether we were going to have enough numbers of people getting bad outcomes to see if we could get enough numbers to treat,” Dr. Felson said.
 

Clinical trial to test FastOA criteria

The Arthritis Foundation, which funded the MOON trial along with the National Institutes of Health and The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, launched the FastOA initiative, based on its findings.

FastOA is defined as “the rapid development of OA in those who have sustained a major joint injury.” One criterion for FastOA is older age. Eighteen- to 25-year-olds generally don’t have high risk for injury or OA. “It’s only when you get to your late 20s and 30s where your risk really starts to increase substantially, just like the risk of osteoarthritis does,” Dr. Felson said.

The other major risk factor for FastOA is pain. Pain after ACL reconstruction usually takes a long time to surface. Many people never experience pain. However, for a subgroup of people who get ACL reconstruction, their pain never goes away. “What the MOON data told us was that those are the people who continue to have pain later and who get osteoarthritis quicker,” he added.

The MOON results also informed researchers on the types of patients they should seek out for a future trial. “We wouldn’t just take everybody with ACL reconstructions. We’d take selected people who we knew based on the MOON data were at really high likelihood of developing FastOA,” Dr. Felson said .

Armed with these risk factors, Dr. Felson and colleagues plan to apply FastOA to a new clinical trial, Post-Injury Knee Arthritis Severity Outcomes (PIKASO), that will test the use of metformin, a well-known diabetes drug, in 500 patients at high risk of developing post-traumatic OA in the knee following ACL reconstruction.

Two groups will participate in the PIKASO trial, an initiative of the Arthritis Foundation’s Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Network (OA-CTN).

“If you have pain at the time of ACL reconstruction, we are interested in you. And if even you don’t have pain, if you’re among older people who need ACL reconstruction, we’re also interested in you,” Dr. Felson said.

People aged 25-40 are eligible for the older category and those 18-40 are eligible for the pain group. It’s important to include younger people in the study, Dr. Felson said. One of his colleagues, a physical therapist, was disabled by a sports injury in her late teens. Now in her 30s, she’s disabled by OA and will have to wait up to 15 years to qualify for a knee replacement.

“It’s a good idea for us to focus in on the younger folks who develop osteoarthritis at a very early age where there’s nothing we can do for them in terms of surgical options for a few years,” he said.

Targeting specific groups means fewer patients will need to be followed over the period of the study, which will lower costs, Dr. Kim said.

Metformin, a popular diabetes drug with a good safety profile, is an ideal treatment for this trial, Dr. Felson said. It’s been tested in multiple animal models and has been shown to protect against OA in all those models.

Researchers will employ imaging and biomechanics measurements to assess changes in joint structure. Eight institutions will participate, including Mass General Brigham, the trial’s clinical coordinating center, and the Cleveland Clinic and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, which will coordinate the collection and analysis of MRI data and biomechanical and function assessments, respectively.

“Positive results from this trial would have the potential to enable surgeons to immediately prescribe the drug before a patient undergoes surgery to slow the disease progression, or even fully prevent” post-traumatic OA, according to a statement from the Arthritis Foundation.
 

‘We’re taking a leap’

PIKASO doesn’t come without its challenges. “There’s a lot of dangers here,” Dr. Felson acknowledged.

Even with the application of the FastOA risk factors, not enough people may end up getting OA. “We could do an expensive study with 500 people and not get enough people with OA to be able to test a treatment,” he said.

Another risk is metformin might not work in these participants to prevent disease. “We’re taking a leap and we’re hoping that leap works out,” Dr. Felson added.

Physicians outside of this project are hopeful that FastOA will facilitate the development of new OA therapeutic strategies.

“We all intuitively understand that a joint injury will increase our risk of arthritis in 5, 10 years, even 20 years if we’re lucky,” said Dominik R. Haudenschild, PhD, professor and director of translational orthopaedic research at Houston Methodist Academic Institute.

Most patients with a painful joint can recall when an injury took place. Focusing on treatments closer to the time of injury before irreversible disease sets in makes sense, he added.

The MOON researchers found that pain is not uncommon in patients with ACL reconstruction, making them an excellent choice for analysis, Dr. Haudenschild continued.

PIKASO could face some limitations, specifically with respect to the effect size – how big of a difference a treatment can make the moment a measurement is taken.

“If we’re looking at earlier disease, the intensity of pain is likely lower, or pain isn’t felt as frequently, or the extent of structural damage in the joint is smaller,” he explained. Even a perfect treatment would only make a smaller difference at the moment measurements are taken, which can be harder to measure.

“But I expect that many of the limitations can likely be overcome by making sure the appropriate outcomes are chosen,” he said.

Nancy E. Lane, MD, professor of medicine and rheumatology at UC Davis Health System, is hoping the research will better inform physicians and patients about ACL tears. They should be aware “that within a few months of an ACL injury, the bone structure around the joint changes and there are cartilage changes,” Dr. Lane said.

While early changes may not necessarily lead to OA, patients who develop joint pain with activity or joint swelling would benefit from education, additional imaging, and modifying their activities to prevent progression, she said.

“Hopefully, within a few years we will have effective treatments to slow or reverse the development of knee OA,” Dr. Lane said.

The PIKASO trial is scheduled to begin enrollment at the end of this year or in early 2024.

Dr. Felson is a board member and past and current awardee of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Kim is a staff member of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Haudenschild received a grant from the Arthritis Foundation and participates in local, regional, and national activities with the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Lane had no disclosures.
 

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

• Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
• Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
• Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
• Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
• Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

• Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
• Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
• Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
• Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
• Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Certain products marketed for arthritis and pain management could contain hidden ingredients that could be harmful to consumers, according to a warning by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
 

Some of these products contain active ingredients found in anti-inflammatory prescription medication.

“These products may cause potentially serious side effects and may interact with medications or dietary supplements a consumer is taking,” the FDA said in a statement. “It is clear from the results of our decade of testing that retailers and distributors, including online marketplaces, do not effectively prevent these types of potentially harmful products from being sold to consumers.”

Unlike prescription medication and over-the-counter drugs such as loratadine (Claritin) or acetaminophen (Tylenol), supplements do not need FDA approval before they can be sold. Only after a complaint is made or FDA testing reveals illegal or unsafe ingredients can the FDA get involved.

From August 2013 to September 2023, the FDA identified 22 arthritis and pain products with active ingredients not disclosed on the product label. The most common hidden ingredients detected in these supplements were prescription-only corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and muscle relaxants, said Candy Tsourounis, PharmD, a professor in the department of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Kuka Flex Forte and Reumo Flex, both promoted for joint pain and arthritis, both contain the NSAID diclofenac. Tapee Tea, a product promoted for pain relief, contains dexamethasone and piroxicam. AK Forte, also sold for joint pain and arthritis, contains diclofenac, dexamethasone, and methocarbamol not disclosed on the label.

“It is interesting that these products have hidden ingredients that are used to reduce swelling and inflammation,” Dr. Tsourounis said. “I don’t know if this was intentional, but it seems suspicious that a product marketed to reduce joint pain and inflammation contains prescription-only ingredients that are used for this purpose.”

Certain products also contained antihistamines including cyproheptadine and chlorpheniramine.

These types of products are likely targeted toward underserved and immigrant communities, added Pieter Cohen, MD, a primary care physician and an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, who studies dietary supplements. They might be sold in mom-and-pop shops or gas stations to individuals with limited access to health care or insurance, he noted.

The FDA warned that this list included “only a small fraction of the potentially dangerous products marketed to consumers online and in stores. Even if a product is not included in this list, consumers should exercise caution before using these types of arthritis and pain management products.”
 

Advising patients

Research suggests that most patients do not tell doctors about the supplements they are taking, and often, clinicians do not ask, said Dr. Cohen. “Most of the time it’s a total black box – we don’t know what’s going on,” he added.

He advised raising the subject of supplements in a very nonjudgmental way, particularly when treating patients in marginalized and immigrant communities. One approach he suggested was first mentioning that other patients in your care dealing with joint pain have bought remedies locally or have tried treatments that friends recommend. You can then ask a patient about their own use, framing it as a way to better help with treatment decisions.

Once a clinician understands what their patient is taking, they can then give advice and discuss if a product is safe to combine with prescription drugs, Dr. Cohen said. “If they come down too hard, I think the patients will just clam up and not talk about it anymore,” he said.

If a patient begins to experience side effects or gets sick, a clinician will already be informed of what their patient is taking and can ask that patient to bring the product or supplement in, so they can look over the product together, Dr. Cohen noted. Any side effects or other adverse events potentially related to the use of these products should then be reported to FDA’s MedWatch Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
 

Tips for safe shopping

To make sure supplements and other over-the-counter products are safe to use, Dr. Tsourounis recommends that consumers:

• Buy products from well-known retailers like Target or large pharmacies like CVS or Walgreens.
• Avoid buying products with labels in another language that you cannot read or products with no drug label.
• Be cautious of buying products online or from other countries.
• Look up suspicious products on the FDA’s health fraud database.
• Be wary of any product that offers miracle cures or relies on personal testimonies without evidence.

In general, do not base purchasing decisions on any health claims on a product label because companies selling supplements making these claims “don’t have to have any clinical data to back them up,” Dr. Cohen said.

Dr. Cohen also recommends sticking with individual ingredients. “If you want echinacea, buy echinacea. Don’t buy a complicated mix that is supposed to be good for arthritis with 10 different botanical [ingredients]. That’s more likely to run [you] into trouble,” he said.

Last, Dr. Cohen recommended buying supplements that are certified by NSF International or United States Pharmacopeia, both respected third-party testing organizations. “If it has an NSF International or USP stamp, that gives us more certainty that what’s in the bottle is going to be what’s listed on label,” he said.

Dr. Tsourounis noted that if you are skeptical of a product, you can also try calling the manufacturer number on the product label.

“I always encourage people to call that number to see if somebody answers,” she said. “Sometimes, you can tell a lot about that company just by calling that number.”

Dr. Cohen has received research support from the Consumers Union and PEW Charitable Trusts and royalties from UpToDate. He has collaborated in research with NSF International. Dr. Tsourounis disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The prevalence of reported diagnosed arthritis in the United States is highest overall in older adults with comorbid chronic conditions.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) from 2019 to 2021 to update the prevalence of self-reported arthritis in the United States.
• The sample sizes for the 2019, 2020, and 2021 NHIS were 31,997, 21,153, and 29,482, with survey response rates of 59.1%, 48.9%, and 50.9%, respectively.
• The unadjusted and age-standardized prevalence estimates were calculated for adults aged 18 years and older and based on self-reported health and demographic data.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, arthritis was diagnosed in 53.2 million adults aged 18 years and older in the United States; of these, 88.3% were aged 45 years and older and 48.3% were 65 years and older.
• Age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher in women vs men and among veterans vs nonveterans (20.9% vs 16.3% and 24.2% vs 18.5%, respectively).
• When categorized by race, age-standardized prevalence of arthritis was higher among non-Hispanic White individuals, compared with Hispanic or Latino individuals or non-Hispanic Asian individuals (20.1%, 14.7%, and 10.3%, respectively).
• The prevalence of arthritis also was higher among individuals with self-reported diagnosis of chronic conditions including dementia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and cancer than in those without these conditions; approximately half of adults aged 65 years and older with arthritis reported at least one of these conditions.

IN PRACTICE:

“These prevalence estimates can be used to guide public health policies and activities to increase equitable access to physical activity opportunities within the built environment and other community-based, arthritis-appropriate, evidence-based interventions,” the authors write.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Elizabeth A. Fallon, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The data were published online in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.  

LIMITATIONS:

The cross-sectional design prevented conclusions of causality between individual characteristics and arthritis diagnosis; other limitations included the reliance on self-reports, possible response bias, and the inability to calculate prevalence of arthritis subtypes. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Nearly 600 million people worldwide (7.6% of the world’s population) have osteoarthritis, and numbers are expected to rise starkly by 2050, especially knee/hip disease.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers estimated the prevalence of osteoarthritis in 204 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020 and projected prevalence levels for the year 2050.
• Population-based surveys offered data from 26 countries for knee osteoarthritis, 23 countries for hip osteoarthritis, and 42 countries for hand osteoarthritis. Researchers used U.S. insurance claims to estimate prevalence for other osteoarthritis types.
• Similar analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2017.

TAKEAWAY:

• Osteoarthritis cases worldwide have grown by an estimated 132.2% since 1990. Population growth and aging were identified as major contributing factors.
• In 2020, an estimated 595 million people had osteoarthritis. From 2020 to 2050, cases of osteoarthritis in the knee are expected to grow by 74.9%, in the hand by 48.6%, in the hip by 78.6%, and in other locations by 95.1%.  
• Years lived with disability (age-standardized rate) grew from an estimated 233 per 100,000 in 1990 to 255 per 100,000 in 2020, an increase of 9.5%.
• High body mass index contributed to 20.4% of cases.

IN PRACTICE:

In “a major challenge to health systems,” osteoarthritis may affect nearly 1 billion people in 2050.

SOURCE:

The Global Burden of Disease 2021 Osteoarthritis Collaborators, led by Jaimie D. Steinmetz, PhD, MSc, of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Seattle, conducted the study, which was published in The Lancet Rheumatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limited data, heavy reliance on U.S. insurance data, and other factors may have skewed the results.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Institute of Bone and Joint Research, and the Global Alliance for Musculoskeletal Health. Multiple authors reported numerous disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.