Do people with knee osteoarthritis use guideline-consistent treatments after an orthopaedic surgeon recommends nonsurgical care? A cross-sectional survey with long-term follow-up.

Objective: Describe "usual care" patterns of education, exercise, weight management, pain medication and other nonsurgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in people recommended for nonsurgical care by an orthopaedic surgeon. Methods: We used a telephone-administered questionnaire to capture treatments people with knee OA used over the three to six years after an orthopaedic surgeon recommended nonsurgical care. The primary outcome, guideline-consistent nonsurgical treatments, was an aggregate measure defined as using education, exercise, weight management, and at least one recommended medication. Secondary outcomes were first-line (education, exercise, and weight management) and guideline-inconsistent treatments (orthoses, opioids, hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma, and stem cell therapy). Multivariable robust Poisson regression assessed the association between participant characteristics and use of guideline-consistent, first-line and guideline-inconsistent treatments. Results: 479 people were invited and 250 participated (52%). Participants were 58% female with a mean age 66.2 years. Participants received education by a healthcare professional (64%), exercised regularly (74%), used weight management (38%), and used recommended pain medications (91%). All guideline-consistent nonsurgical treatments were used by 19% of participants, 19% of participants used first-line treatments, and 42% used guideline-inconsistent treatments. Over six years, 34% had another consult then underwent arthroplasty. Older participants were less likely to use any treatment. People without post-secondary education were less likely to use first-line treatments (RR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.96), and females were less likely to use guideline-inconsistent treatments (RR 0.62, 95% CI:0.47-0.81). Conclusions: Nonsurgical usual care for people with knee OA was not consistent with international clinical guidelines.

Are education, exercise and diet interventions a cost-effective treatment to manage hip and knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research gaps and inform implementation we systematically reviewed the literature evaluating cost-effectiveness of recommended treatments (education, exercise and diet) for the management of hip and/or knee OA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database, and EconLit from inception to November 2019 for trial-based economic evaluations investigating hip and/or knee OA core treatments. Two investigators screened relevant publications, extracted data and synthesized results. Risk of bias was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list. RESULTS: Two cost-minimization, five cost-effectiveness and 16 cost-utility analyses evaluated core treatments in six health systems. Exercise therapy with and without education or diet was cost-effective or cost-saving compared to education or physician-delivered usual care at conventional willingness to pay (WTP) thresholds in 15 out of 16 publications. Exercise interventions were cost-effective compared to physiotherapist-delivered usual care in three studies at conventional WTP thresholds. Education interventions were not cost-effective compared to usual care or placebo at conventional WTP thresholds in three out of four publications. CONCLUSIONS: Structured core treatment programs were clinically effective and cost-effective, compared to physician-delivered usual care, in five health care systems. Providing education about core treatments was not consistently cost-effective. Implementing structured core treatment programs into funded clinical pathways would likely be an efficient use of health system resources and enhance physician-delivered usual primary care.