Systematic review of non-surgical therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand: an update.

OBJECTIVE: To update our earlier systematic reviews which evaluated all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Surgical therapies were not evaluated. DESIGN: RCTs published between March 2008 and December 2015 were added to the previous systematic reviews. RESULTS: A total of 95 RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this update. Generally, the methodological quality of these RCTs has improved since the last update, with more studies describing their methods for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment. However, RCTs continue to be weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and a lack of standardized outcome assessments specific to hand OA. The number and location of evaluated hand joints continues to be underreported, and only 25% of RCTs adequately described the method used to ensure allocation concealment. These remain major weaknesses of published RCTs. A meta-analysis could not be performed because of marked study heterogeneity, insufficient statistical data available in the published RCTs, and a small number of identical comparators. CONCLUSION: Hand OA is a complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies. There has been an improvement in the overall design and conduct of RCTs, however, additional large RCTs with a more robust methodological approach specific to hand OA are needed in order to make clinically relevant conclusions about the efficacy of the diverse treatment options available.

Longitudinal changes in calcium and vitamin D intakes and relationship to bone mineral density in a prospective population-based study: the Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos).

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to study changes in calcium and vitamin D intakes over time, and their cross-sectional and longitudinal associations with bone mineral density (BMD). METHODS: We followed 9382 women and men aged ≥25 and 899 aged 16-24, for 10 and 2 years respectively. RESULTS: Calcium and vitamin D intakes increased over time in adults, but decreased in women aged 16-18. The increased intakes in adults were largely attributable to the increased use of calcium and/or vitamin D supplements. Both the percentage of supplement users and average dose among users increased over time. There was nevertheless a high prevalence of calcium and vitamin D intake below the estimated average requirement. At baseline, higher calcium and vitamin D intakes were associated with higher total hip and femoral neck BMD in young men, and cumulatively high levels of calcium and vitamin D intakes over time contributed to better BMD maintenance at lumbar spine and hip sites in adult women. CONCLUSIONS: Although total intakes, particularly of vitamin D, frequently fell below the Institute of Medicine recommendations despite an increase over time in supplement use, we found some positive associations between total calcium and vitamin D intake and bone health.

The effect of glucosamine on glucose metabolism in humans: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Glucosamine is commonly used for the treatment of osteoarthritis. It is available as an over the counter preparation and also as a prescription pharmaceutical. There is concern from animal experiments that glucosamine may alter glucose metabolism through the hexosamine biosynthetic pathway. The objective of this systematic review is to determine if exogenous glucosamine adversely affects glucose metabolism in humans. This review does not separate out the effects on glucose metabolism of the various glucosamine preparations. METHOD: An English-language literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and EBM Reviews (1950-February 2009) was conducted. The bibliographies of selected papers were manually searched for additional references. Two reviewers independently analyzed studies for quality and content using a standardized data extraction form. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included. Six studies were randomized controlled trials and the remaining five were prospective studies with or without controls. Four of the studies found decreased insulin sensitivity or increased fasting glucose in subjects taking glucosamine. Three of these were clinical studies using oral glucosamine. Studies that included subjects with baseline impaired glucose tolerance or insulin resistance were more likely to detect an effect on glucose metabolism than studies without such subjects. CONCLUSION: Clinical studies, including three using oral glucosamine, have provided mixed evidence about the effect of exogenous glucosamine on glucose metabolism in humans. Therefore, more studies are needed, particularly including subjects at high risk for impairments in glucose homeostasis, before a definite conclusion can be made.

Systematic review of non-surgical therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand: an update.

OBJECTIVE: To update our earlier systematic review which evaluated all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Surgical therapies were not evaluated. METHOD: RCTs published between August 2004 and February 2008 were added to the original systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 44 RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this update. Generally, these RCTs were of low quality. RCTs were weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and by a lack of standardized outcome assessments. The methods used for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment were rarely described. The number and location of symptomatic hand joints per treatment group at baseline was usually not stated. The number and location of evaluated hand joints at the end of the study was also usually not stated. A meta-analysis could not be performed since most of the treatments studied did not have more than one identical comparison to allow pooling of the data. CONCLUSIONS: It is apparent that hand OA is a more complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies when compared to hip and knee OA. The recently published OARSI Consensus Recommendations will improve the design and conduct of future RCTs in hand OA.

WITHDRAWN: Analgesia and non-aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis of the hip.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely used as a pharmacologic treatment to relieve pain for patients with OA of the hip. However, these agents are associated with significant toxicity, particularly in the elderly population (age > 65 years). OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized trials of analgesics and anti-inflammatory therapy in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. To determine which non-steroidal, anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is the most effective, and which NSAID is the most toxic. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE up to August 1994. Reference lists of all trials were also manually searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials comparing non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or analgesics in patients with Osteoarthritis. The trials selected for inclusion were identified by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by a second (MH). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Qualitative assessments were performed using a quality scoring system designed for NSAID trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Both the design and analysis aspects of the trials were evaluated, each aspect being rated on a scale of 0 to 8. A quantitative method, which calculates the ratio of improvement produced by one NSAID to that produced by another, was used to rate the relative efficacy of different NSAIDs with respect to pain relief. Toxicity comparisons were made according to the reviewer findings. All quality assessments were carried out independently by two reviewers (TT, BS). All data abstraction was carried out by one reviewer (TT) and rechecked by two other reviewers (BS, GW). A consensus was reached on discrepancies. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three trials were identified, and of these, 39 evaluated NSAIDs, while four evaluated only analgesics. The median design and analysis scores were two and four respectively. Six NSAIDs were included in at least five trials. Of these, indomethacin was rated more effective in five of its seven comparisons, but more toxic in seven of 12 comparisons. Only five of the 29 (17%) NSAID comparisons found statistically significant differences in efficacy. Of the 43 RCTs identified only 17 had statistical data available for future pooling for this meta-analysis. In the case where data was missing, authors of the trials will be contacted for inclusion of data in future reviews. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: NSAID trials in patients with OA of the hip appear to be weakened by the lack of standardization of case definition of OA, and also by the lack of standardization of outcome assessments. No clear recommendations for the choice of specific NSAID therapy in hip OA can be offered at this time based on this analysis.

Prevalence of and factors associated with glucosamine use in Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Glucosamine is commonly used for the treatment of osteoarthritis, and its use is increasing in the general population. The Canadian Multicentre Osteoporosis Study (CaMos) provided an opportunity to examine the prevalence of glucosamine use across age and gender groups, and to assess the factors associated with its use. METHOD: CaMos is a random, population-based sample of 9423 Canadians. Baseline assessments took place in 1996-1997 and the 5-year follow-up assessments in 2001-2002. The primary outcome of this analysis was glucosamine use at year 5. Prevalence estimates were age- and sex-standardized to the Canadian population. A number of factors potentially associated with glucosamine use were identified from the literature. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with glucosamine use. RESULTS: At 5 years, complete data were available for 7652 of the original 9423 participants (81.2%). For men, glucosamine use increased from 0.9% to 4.7% (weighted values), and for women, it increased from 1.3% to 8.2%. Glucosamine use was higher among older participants, those living in western Canada, and those with arthritis, back pain, higher calcium intake from supplements, physical activity and prior glucosamine use. CONCLUSIONS: Glucosamine use increased substantially over 5 years, and its use is associated with a number of factors. Some may use glucosamine to manage pain and symptoms of arthritis and back pain, while others use it as a preventive measure to maintain health.

Acetaminophen for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. Published guidelines and expert opinion are divided over the relative role of acetaminophen (also called paracetamol or Tylenol) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-line pharmacologic therapy. The comparative safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs is also important to consider. This update to the original 2003 review includes nine additional RCTs. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen versus placebo and versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen, diclofenac, arthrotec, celecoxib, naproxen, rofecoxib) for treating OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (up to July 2005), EMBASE (2002-July 2005), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ACP Journal Club, DARE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (all from 1994 to July 2005). Reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles were also hand searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen alone in OA were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pain, physical function and global assessment outcomes were reported. Results for continuous outcome measures were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD). Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs involving 5986 participants were included in this review. Seven RCTs compared acetaminophen to placebo and ten RCTs compared acetaminophen to NSAIDs. In the placebo-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was superior to placebo in five of the seven RCTs and had a similar safety profile. Compared to placebo, a pooled analysis of five trials of overall pain using multiple methods demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in pain (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.22 to -0.04), which is of questionable clinical significance. The relative percent improvement from baseline was 5% with an absolute change of 4 points on a 0 to 100 scale. The NNT to achieve an improvement in pain ranged from 4 to 16. In the comparator-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was less effective overall than NSAIDs in terms of pain reduction, global assessments and in terms of improvements in functional status. No significant difference was found overall between the safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs, although patients taking traditional NSAIDS were more likely to experience an adverse GI event (RR 1.47, (95% CI 1.08 to 2.00). 19% of patients in the traditional NSAID group versus 13% in the acetaminophen group experienced an adverse GI event. However, the median trial duration was only 6 weeks and it is difficult to assess adverse outcomes in a relatively short time period. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that NSAIDs are superior to acetaminophen for improving knee and hip pain in people with OA. The size of the treatment effect was modest, and the median trial duration was only six weeks, therefore, additional considerations need to be factored in when making the decision between using acetaminophen or NSAIDs. In OA subjects with moderate-to-severe levels of pain, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than acetaminophen.

Systematic review of therapies for osteoarthritis of the hand.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA), with an emphasis on trial methodology. METHODS: RCTs published between 1966 and August 2004 were identified by searching several electronic data sources as well as by searching reference lists. Details of study demographics, methodology, quality and outcomes were analyzed. A meta-analysis was planned, if feasible. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs evaluating various pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies in hand OA were analyzed in this systematic review. When compared with hip and knee OA, there are surprisingly few published RCTs in hand OA. Generally, these RCTs are of low quality. RCTs are weakened by a lack of consistent case definition and by a lack of standardized outcome assessments. The methods used for randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment were rarely described. The number and location of symptomatic hand joints per treatment group at baseline was usually not stated. The number and location of evaluated hand joints at the end of the study was also usually not stated. A meta-analysis could not be performed since most of the treatments studied did not have more than one identical comparison to allow pooling of the data. CONCLUSION: It is apparent that hand OA is a more complex area in which to study the efficacy of therapies when compared to hip and knee OA. Consensus guidelines are urgently needed to help improve the design and conduct of RCTs in hand OA. Additional RCTs of high quality that follow consensus recommendations are needed to evaluate the wide range of possible therapeutic options available for patients with hand OA.

Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CDSR, and the CCTR. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. All searches were updated in January 2005. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo controlled and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double blinded studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1996) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences (SMD) as the measure of effect size. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk ratios (RR). MAIN RESULTS: Analysis restricted to eight studies with adequate allocation concealment failed to show benefit of glucosamine for pain and WOMAC function. Collectively, the 20 analyzed RCTs found glucosamine favoured placebo with a 28% (change from baseline) improvement in pain (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.95, -0.28) and a 21% (change from baseline) improvement in function using the Lequesne index (SMD -0.51 95% CI -0.96, -0.05). However, the results are not uniformly positive, and the reasons for this remain unexplained. WOMAC pain, function and stiffness outcomes did not reach statistical significance. In the 10 RCTs in which the Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior for pain (SMD -1.31, 95% CI -1.99, -0.64) and function using the Lequesne index (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.96, -0.05). Pooled results for pain (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.35, 0.05) and function using the WOMAC index (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18, 0.25) in those RCTs in which a non-Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to placebo did not reach statistical significance. In the four RCTs in which the Rotta preparation of glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. Two RCTs using the Rotta preparation showed that glucosamine was able to slow radiological progression of OA of the knee over a three year period (SMD 0.24, 95% CI 0.04, 0.43). Glucosamine was as safe as placebo in terms of the number of subjects reporting adverse reactions (RR=0.97, 95% CI, 0.88, 1.08). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This update includes 20 studies with 2570 patients. Pooled results from studies using a non-Rotta preparation or adequate allocation concealment failed to show benefit in pain and WOMAC function while those studies evaluating the Rotta preparation show that glucosamine was superior to placebo in the treatment of pain and functional impairment resulting from symptomatic OA. WOMAC outcomes of pain, stiffness and function did not show a superiority of glucosamine over placebo for both Rotta and non-Rotta preparations of glucosamine. Glucosamine was as safe as placebo.

Rofecoxib for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Editor's note: The anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib (Vioxx) was withdrawn from the market at the end of September 2004 after it was shown that long-term use (greater than 18 months) could increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. Further information is available at www.vioxx.com. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a systemic auto-immune disorder, in which the synovial lining of many joints and tendon sheaths are persistently inflamed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and toxicity of rofecoxib for treating RA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases up to December 2000: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, National Research Register, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database. The bibliographies of retrieved papers were scanned for additional references. The manufacturers of rofecoxib, MSD, were also approached by the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence to submit additional evidence to inform it's appraisal on the use of cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors for arthritis. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of parallel group design evaluating the efficacy and/or toxicity of rofecoxib in RA, both placebo based and comparative trials were eligible. Relevant outcome criteria had to be available to evaluate efficacy and/or toxicity, such as the OMERACT outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were abstracted independently by two reviewers and the results were compared for the degree of agreement. A validated tool (Jadad 1996) was used to score the quality of the randomised controlled trials. The planned analysis was to pool, where appropriate, continuous outcome measures using mean or standardized mean differences, and dichotomous outcome measures using relative risk ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Two randomised controlled trials evaluating rofecoxib for the treatment of RA were identified and met the inclusion criteria. One compared rofecoxib to placebo and was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of several doses of rofecoxib. The second trial compared rofecoxib to naproxen and was primarily designed to assess the safety of rofecoxib so did not include all the recommended RA efficacy measures. The overall number of ACR 20 responders who had received 25mg (82/ 171 = 48%) or 50mg (86/161 = 53%) was statistically significantly more than those receiving placebo (58/168 = 35% ) (RR 1.39 CI: 1.07, 1.80 and RR 1.55 CI: 1.20, 1.99 respectively) with no statistically significant differences between the 25 and 50 mg doses. The safety profile of rofecoxib was similar to that of placebo. In the comparative trial, rofecoxib at a dosage of 50 mg/day demonstrated similar efficacy to naproxen at a dosage of 500 mg twice daily. However, the combined rate of clinically significant complicated gastro-intestinal events (GI) (perforations, ulcers, bleeds, or obstructions) was lower with rofecoxib than with naproxen (RR 0.46, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.63) due to a reduction in the number of ulcers and bleeds. Compared to patients taking naproxen, patients taking rofecoxib had a greater risk of having any cardiovascular event (45/4047 = 1.1% vs 19/4029 =0.47%) (RR 2.36 CI 1.38 to 4.02) and had greater risk of having a non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (18/4047 =0 .44% and 4/4029 =0.1%) (RR 4.48, 95% CI, 1.52 to 13.23). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RA, rofecoxib demonstrates a greater degree of efficacy than placebo, while having a comparable safety profile. Rofecoxib demonstrates a similar degree of efficacy as naproxen, but with a significantly lower rate of ulceration and gastrointestinal bleeding. Rofecoxib was associated with a greater risk for MI, but the exact significance and pathophysiology of this possible relationship is unclear. Rofecoxib was voluntarily withdrawn from global markets in October 2004. It cannot therefore be prescribed and therefore there are no implications for practice concerning its use. None the less when considering which NSAID to use, it must be borne in mind that the toxicity of NSAIDs is variable amongst patients and drugs and it tends to be dose related and associated with variation in the mode of action, absorption, distribution and metabolism. There remains a number of questions over both the benefits and risks associated with Cox II selective agents and further work is ongoing. It is likely that this issue will not be resolved until research has enabled a fuller understanding of the complex mechanism by which the Cox system operates.

Acetaminophen for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis. Published guidelines and expert opinion are divided over the relative role of acetaminophen (also called paracetamol or Tylenol) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as first-line pharmacologic therapy. The comparative safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs is important to consider as NSAIDs have the potential for serious gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular toxicities, and acetaminophen in high dosages (greater than or equal to 2 grams per day), may also have the potential for serious upper gastrointestinal toxicity. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen versus placebo and versus NSAIDs (ibuprofen, arthrotec, celecoxib,naproxen, rofecoxib) for treating OA. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 3, 2002), MEDLINE (up to July 2002), and Current Contents (up to March 2002). Reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles were also hand searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen alone in OA were considered for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pain, physical function and global assessment outcomes were reported. Results for continuous outcome measures were expressed as standardized mean differences. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using relative risk and the number needed to treat was calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs and 1689 participants were included in the review. One study compared acetaminophen to placebo, and five compared acetaminophen to NSAIDs. In the placebo-controlled RCT, acetaminophen was shown to be clearly superior to placebo with a similar safety profile. The number needed to treat to achieve an improvement in pain was three. In the comparator-controlled RCTs, acetaminophen was less effective overall than NSAIDs in terms of pain reduction and global assessments but both drugs had similar efficacy in terms of improvements in functional status. No significant difference was found between the safety of acetaminophen and NSAIDs, although patients taking NSAIDS were more likely to withdraw due to GI events. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to date suggests that NSAIDs are superior to acetaminophen for improving knee and hip pain in people with OA but have not been shown to be superior in improving function. The size of the treatment effect was modest, and the mean trial duration was only six weeks, therefore, additional considerations need to be factored in when making the decision between using acetaminophen or NSAIDs. In OA subjects with moderate-to-severe levels of pain, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than acetaminophen.

Glucosamine therapy for treating osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis, and it is often associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To review all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine in osteoarthritis (OA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Current Contents up to November 1999, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. We also wrote letters to content experts, and hand searched reference lists of identified RCTs and pertinent review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Relevant studies met the following criteria: 1) RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine in OA, 2) Both placebo based and comparative studies were eligible, 3) Both single blinded and double-blinded studies were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data abstraction was performed independently by two investigators and the results were compared for degree of agreement. Gotzsche's method and a validated tool (Jadad 1995) were used to score the quality of the RCTs. Continuous outcome measures were pooled using standardized mean differences. Dichotomous outcome measures were pooled using Peto Odds Ratios. MAIN RESULTS: Collectively, the 16 identified RCTs provided evidence that glucosamine is both effective and safe in OA. In the 13 RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to placebo, glucosamine was found to be superior in all RCTs, except one. In the four RCTs in which glucosamine was compared to an NSAID, glucosamine was superior in two, and equivalent in two. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Further research is necessary to confirm the long term effectiveness and toxicity of glucosamine therapy in OA. Most of the trials reviewed only evaluated the Rotta preparation of glucosamine sulfate. It is not known whether different glucosamine preparations prepared by different manufacturers are equally effective in the therapy of OA.

Determinants of health-related quality of life following elective total hip replacement.

This study examined the patient perspective of surgical success through the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQOL), in order to identify the patient characteristics and process issues associated with postoperative changes in health status. Patients completed the RAND 36-item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36) prior to surgery and at 6 months following surgery. Baseline patient demographic and clinical information were collected from the medical record and were used to develop models of change in HRQOL for 68 patients. While many patients improved, a number experienced no change or even a decline in HRQOL in the postoperative period. Factors associated with change in HRQOL are presented. The findings suggest that factors associated with change in health status can be systematically assessed, which may lead to the development of interventions aimed at those patient characteristics or process issues that impact on HRQOL.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura as an initial presentation of limited systemic sclerosis.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a rare complication of scleroderma (systemic sclerosis, SSc). In the 5 reports documenting the association of TTP and SSc, the TTP syndrome developed on a background of well established SSc. We describe a 51-year-old woman with a 5 month history of an evolving connective tissue disease syndrome who presented initially with TTP, followed 4 months later by limited cutaneous SSc and Raynaud's phenomenon.

Comparison of the combined cortical thickness of the second metacarpal with Sharp's method for scoring hand microradiographs in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the correlation and specificity of the combined cortical thickness of the second metacarpal (CCT-MC) with Sharp's method (SM) for scoring joint erosions and joint space narrowing in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to compare the degree of interobserver agreement between the 2 methods. METHODS: Hand microradiographs of 22 women with RA, functional classes III and IV, were scored independently by 3 rheumatologists using the CCT-MC and the CCT of the middle phalanx and SM. RESULTS: (1) There was a highly significant correlation between the total SM score and the CCT-MC for the 3 observers (r = 0.61, p = 0.0026), but not between the CCT of the middle phalanx and SM (r = 0.15, p = 0.53). There was a lower degree of agreement between the observers for SM erosion scores compared to the CCT-MC (intraclass correlation 0.88 for the CCT-MC and 0.63 for the SM); (2) Both joint space narrowing and erosion scores correlated highly with the CCT-MC (r = -0.60, p = 0.004; and r = -0.51, p = 0.014, respectively); (3) CCT-MC measurements are more closely related to the inner (d) as opposed to the outer (D) diameter of the 2nd metacarpal; (4) The mean time to obtain the CCT-MC score was 3.43 min (SD = 1.38) versus 9.83 min (SD = 3.20) for SM (p = 0.0001); (5) the derivative, (D2-d2)/D2, was significantly correlated with SM (r = -0.72, p = 0.0002) and its erosion and joint space narrowing components (r = -0.63, p = 0.0019; and r = -0.71, p = 0.0002, respectively). CONCLUSION: The CCT-MC is a rapid, practical method with higher agreement among observers compared to SM and correlates highly with SM scores for joint damage in RA. CCT-MC appears to have a higher degree of specificity than other sites for CCT measurement. The CCT-MC is more closely related to the inner diameter than the outer diameter, which supports the notion that the principal site of accelerated bone loss due to RA in the hand occurs at the endosteal surface. The CCT-MC should be further assessed with respect to monitoring radiological progression in RA.

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological therapy in osteoarthritis of the knee, with an emphasis on trial methodology.

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological therapy in knee osteoarthritis (OA), published between 1966 and August 1994. RCTs were identified by MEDLINE, supplemented by a manual search of reference lists. Qualitative assessment of RCTs was performed using Gotzsche's method; design and analysis features were rated on a scale of 0 (worst) to 8 (best). Heller et al's method was used to compare efficacy of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in comparative trials. A total of 80 RCTs were analyzed (45 involved NSAIDs, 3 analgesics, 5 intraarticular [IA] steroids, 9 biological agents, including IA hyaluronic acid, and 18 mixed modalities, including topical capsaicin). The median design and analysis scores for all 80 RCTs were 2 and 5, respectively. NSAIDs were superior to placebo in all short-term trials, but in the 32 comparative NSAID trials, only five (16%) found significant differences in efficacy. Heller et al's method identified differences in 14 NSAID comparisons; etodolac (600 mg/day) was superior in five of its nine comparisons. Indomethacin and aspirin were the most toxic NSAIDs. IA steroids were superior to placebo in short-term efficacy (< 1 month). Biological agents were superior to placebo and generally well tolerated over a mean follow-up of 48 weeks. Acetaminophen was superior to placebo and was comparably efficacious to low-dose naproxen and ibuprofen (< 2,400 mg/day). The data support the use of acetaminophen, topical capsaicin, IA steroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and NSAIDs in the treatment of patients with knee OA.