Résumé
Background@#In Korea, during the early phase of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we responded to the uncertainty of treatments under various conditions, consistently playing catch up with the speed of evidence updates. Therefore, there was high demand for national-level evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for clinicians in a timely manner. We developed evidence-based and updated living recommendations for clinicians through a transparent development process and multidisciplinary expert collaboration. @*Methods@#The National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA) and the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences (KAMS) collaborated to develop trustworthy Korean living guidelines. The NECA-supported methodological sections and 8 professional medical societies of the KAMS worked with clinical experts, and 31 clinicians were involved annually. We developed a total of 35 clinical questions, including medications, respiratory/critical care, pediatric care, emergency care, diagnostic tests, and radiological examinations. @*Results@#An evidence-based search for treatments began in March 2021 and monthly updates were performed. It was expanded to other areas, and the search interval was organized by a steering committee owing to priority changes. Evidence synthesis and recommendation review was performed by researchers, and living recommendations were updated within 3–4 months. @*Conclusion@#We provided timely recommendations on living schemes and disseminated them to the public, policymakers and various stakeholders using webpages and social media.Although the output was successful, there were some limitations. The rigor of development issues, urgent timelines for public dissemination, education for new developers, and spread of several new COVID-19 variants have worked as barriers. Therefore, we must prepare systematic processes and funding for future pandemics.
Résumé
Background@#Recent studies raise concerns that arthroscopic meniscectomy (AM) for degenerative tear may be detrimental to the maintenance of the joint structure. This study was performed to examine the rate of total knee replacement (TKR) among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent AM for meniscal tears and compare this rate with those who did not. @*Methods@#A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the National Health Insurance Database of South Korea. Among knee OA patients aged 50–79, those who were treated with AM due to meniscal damage from 2007 to 2009 were selected as the AM group while those not treated with AM despite the presence of meniscal damage were selected as control group. Both were matched based on a propensity score and followed-up until the earliest occurrence of:TKR, death, or 10 years. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare the outcome. @*Results@#A total of 36,974 patients were included in AM groups and non-AM group after 1:1 matching. TKR occurred in 9.62% and 7.64% in AM and non-AM groups with the average duration after meniscectomy of 5.88 ± 2.77 and 5.50 ± 2.94 years, respectively. After adjustment for baseline confounders, the TKR rate in the AM group was calculated to be 25% higher than that in the non-AM group (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.16–1.34). The mortality rate was 5.20%, which did not significantly differ between groups. @*Conclusion@#OA patients who underwent AM for the meniscal injury had higher incidence of TKR up to 10 years of follow-up than the non-operated group. The greater TKR utilization observed in patients undergoing AM merits caution when treating OA patients with meniscal injury.
Résumé
Background@#Meniscal tears are commonly observed in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), however, clinical significance of such lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging is in many cases unclear. This study aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) compared with non-operative care in patients with knee OA.Method: We used existing systematic reviews with updates of latest studies. Three randomized controlled studies were selected, where two studies compared the effects of APM plus physical therapy (PT) with PT alone and one compared APM alone and PT alone. While 1 study exclusively included OA patients, 2 studies included 21.1 and 12% of patients with no radiographic OA. Patients with knee locking were unanimously excluded. @*Results@#Upon comparison of APM plus PT and PT alone, there was no significant difference observed in knee function, physical activity, or adverse events. Knee pain was observed to be significantly lower in the APM plus PT group at 6 months, but there was no difference between the two groups at 12 and 24 months. With respect to the comparison between APM alone and PT alone, PT was non-inferior based on the criteria for knee function during 24 months; however, knee pain was significantly reduced in the APM alone group. @*Conclusions@#Our study showed that knee pain was significantly improved in the APM group compared to non-operative care group at 6 months and over 24 months. Our result was based on only 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) revealing a significant knowledge gap, hence demanding more high-quality RCTs in OA patients.
Résumé
Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.
Résumé
Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.