Osteoarthritis year in review 2021: epidemiology & therapy.

This "Year in review" presents a selection of research themes and individual studies from the clinical osteoarthritis (OA) field (epidemiology and therapy) and includes noteworthy descriptive, analytical-observational, and intervention studies. The electronic database search for the review was conducted in Medline, Embase and medRxiv (15th April 2020 to 1st April 2021). Following study screening, the following OA-related themes emerged: COVID-19; disease burden; occupational risk; prediction models; cartilage loss and pain; stem cell treatments; novel pharmacotherapy trials; therapy for less well researched OA phenotypes; benefits and challenges of Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analyses; patient choice-balancing benefits and harms; OA and comorbidity; and inequalities in OA. Headline study findings included: a longitudinal cohort study demonstrating no evidence for a harmful effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in terms of COVID-19 related deaths; a Global Burden of Disease study reporting a 102% increase in crude incidence rate of OA in 2017 compared to 1990; a longitudinal study reporting cartilage thickness loss was associated with only a very small degree of worsening in pain over 2 years; an exploratory analysis of a non-OA randomised controlled trial (RCT) finding reduced risk of total joint replacement with an Interleukin -1ß inhibitor (canakinumab); a significant relationship between cumulative disadvantage and clinical outcomes of pain and depression mediated by perceived discrimination in a secondary analysis from a RCT; worsening socioeconomic circumstances were associated with future arthritis diagnosis in an innovative natural experiment (with implications for unique research possibilities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic context).

A systematic review of international guidelines regarding the role of radiography in the diagnosis of osteoarthritis

Background: A substantial proportion of primary care osteoarthritis (OA) consultations are associated with an X-ray request (1,2). Uncertainty exists regarding the ability of radiography to improve a clinical OA diagnosis, and the over-use of radiography may lead to inappropriate referrals due to severe radiographic features that do not correlate with patients' symptoms. Additionally, there are cost implications of unnecessarily imaging such a prevalent disease. As evidence questions the utility of routine radiography in OA, the extent to which radiography is supported by international guidelines is unknown. Objectives: To undertake a systematic review and narrative synthesis of UK and international guideline recommendations on the role of radiography in the diagnosis of OA. Methods: A systematic search of eleven electronic databases (including EMBASE, MEDLINE CINAHL, Epistemonikos and Guideline Central) and the websites of nine professional organisations (including NICE, Royal College of Radiologists (RCR), EULAR, and the American College of Radiology (ACR)) identified the most recent evidence-based guidelines produced by professional organisations on the role of imaging in OA. Guidelines not addressing the role of radiography in the diagnosis of OA were excluded, as were non-English and spinal OA guidelines. Each title was screened by one reviewer whilst each abstract and full text underwent dual screening. A single reviewer, using a standard proforma, undertook data extraction. Each guideline was independently appraised by two reviewers using the AGREE II tool. A narrative synthesis of the nature and consistency of OA radiographic recommendations was performed. Results: 18 evidence-based OA guidelines published between 1998-2019 were included. These guidelines considered OA at any joint (n=8), or at the knee (n=3), hip (n=2), hand (n=2), wrist (n=1), foot (n=1), and ankle (n=1). Seven guidelines were produced by European organisations;four guidelines were produced by EULAR. Guidelines were targeted at general practitioners (n=11), radiologists (n=7), rheumatologist (n=4) and orthopaedic surgeons (n=3). Using the AGREE II tool, the identified guidelines scored highly on rigour of development (mean score 69%) but poorly on applicability (32%). All 18 guidelines recommended X-rays as the first-line modality, where imaging was indicated. A clinical diagnosis of OA without radiographic confirmation was recommended by all eleven guidelines produced by organisations represented general practitioners, with seven guidelines justifying this due to a poor correlation between radiographic features and clinical symptoms. Only three guidelines explicitly discouraged the routine use of radiography for the diagnosis of OA and only two guidelines reassured practitioners of a low probability of missing serious pathology when not routinely requesting radiographs. Guidelines produced by organisations representing radiologists were more supportive of radiography. The ACR recommended radiographic confirmation in patients suspected to have OA at the hand, wrist, hip, knee, ankle, and foot. Conversely, the RCR recommended radiographic confirmation in patients suspected to have OA at the hand, feet, and hip, but not the knee. Conclusion: Differences in guideline recommendations on the utility of radiography in OA appear related to country/region, professional organisation, and joint. The use and utility of radiography in OA may need to be reviewed in light of a shift towards remote consultations, a change that has been accelerated by COVID-19 in many countries.