Appraisal of quality and analysis of the similarities and differences between osteoarthritis Clinical Practice Guideline recommendations: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aim to support management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), but recommendations are often conflicting and implementation is poor, contributing to evidence-to-practice gaps. This systematic review investigated the contextual and methodological factors contributing to conflicting recommendations for hip and knee OA. METHOD: Our systematic review appraised CPGs for managing hip and knee OA in adults ≥18 years (PROSPERO CRD42021276635). We used AGREE-II and AGREE-REX to assess quality and extracted data on treatment gaps, conflicts, biases, and consensus. Heterogeneity of recommendations was determined using Weighted Fleiss Kappa (K). The relationship between (K) and AGREE-II/AGREE-REX scores was explored. RESULTS: We identified 25 CPGs across eight countries and four international organisations. The ACR, EULAR, NICE, OARSI and RACGP guidelines scored highest for overall AGREE-II quality (83%). The highest overall AGREE-REX scores were for BMJ Arthroscopy (80%), RACGP (78%) and NICE (76%). CPGs with the least agreement for pharmacological recommendations were ESCEO and NICE (-0.14), ACR (-0.08), and RACGP (-0.01). The highest agreements were between RACGP and NICE (0.53), RACGP and ACR (0.61), and NICE and ACR (0.91). Decreased internal validity determined by low-quality AGREE scores(<60%) in editorial independence were associated with less agreement for pharmacological recommendations. CONCLUSION: There were associations between guideline quality and agreement scores. Future guideline development should be informed by robust evidence, editorial independence and methodological rigour to ensure a harmonisation of recommendations. End-users of CPGs must recognise the contextual factors associated with the development of OA CPGs and balance these factors with available evidence.

What is the most effective and safest Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug for treating osteoarthritis in patients with comorbidities?

INTRODUCTION: Understanding what the most effective and safe non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is for managing osteoarthritis (OA) is complicated. OA is prevalent worldwide and people living with OA commonly have multiple comorbidities. The efficacy and safety of NSAIDs in a patient are influenced by their intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Current guidelines recommend the lowest dose for the shortest duration, monitoring patients for risk factors and comorbidities but generally do not specify, which NSAID is most suitable for a patient with specific comorbidities. AREAS COVERED: This paper looks at the mechanism of action of all NSAIDs and reviews the current literature concerning their safety in patients with and without comorbidities. Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed and Cochrane Library using key terms. The search was conducted from inception to 18 July 2023 and included results published before 18 July 2023. The search results and their references were then manually reviewed. EXPERT OPINION: In the paper, we determine whether the current practice of 'lowest dose for shortest duration' is in fact the best approach for prescribing NSAIDs and identify which NSAIDs are most suitable given a patient's risk factors and comorbidities. Our aim is to help guide health professionals in recommending the most suitable NSAID for each patient.