Maurizio Cutolo1, Francis Berenbaum2, Marc Hochberg3, Leonardo Punzi4, Jean-Yves Reginster5. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Viale Benedetto XV, 616132 Genoa, Italy. Electronic address: mcutolo@unige.it. 2. Department of Rheumatology, Faculty of Medicine Pierre & Marie Curie Paris VI, Saint-Antoine Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France. 3. Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Medicine DIMED, University of Padua, Padua, Italy. 5. Department of Public Health Sciences, State University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite availability of international evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) management, agreement on the different treatment modalities is lacking. METHOD: A symposium of European and US OA experts was held within the framework of the Annual European Congress of Rheumatology to discuss and compare guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of knee OA and to reach a consensus for management, particularly for areas in which there is no clear consensus: non-pharmacological therapy; efficacy and safety of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); intra-articular (i.a.) hyaluronates (HA); and the role of chondroitin sulfate (CS) and/or glucosamine sulfate (GS). RESULTS: All guidelines reviewed agree that knee OA is a progressive disease of the joint whose management requires non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches. Discrepancies between guidelines are few and mostly reflect heterogeneity of expert panels involved, geographical differences in the availability of pharmacotherapies, and heterogeneity of the studies included. Panels chosen for guideline development should include experts with real clinical experience in drug use and patient management. Implementation of agreed guidelines can be thwarted by drug availability and reimbursement plans, resulting in optimal OA treatment being jeopardized, HA and symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SySADOAs) being clear examples of drugs whose availability and prescription can greatly vary geographically. In addition, primary care providers, often responsible for OA management (at least in early disease), may not adhere to clinical care guidelines, particularly for non-pharmacological OA treatment. CONCLUSION: Harmonization of the recommendations for knee OA treatment is challenging but feasible, as shown by the step-by-step therapeutic algorithm developed by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). More easily disseminated and implemented guidance for OA treatment in the primary care setting is key to improved management of OA.
BACKGROUND: Despite availability of international evidence-based guidelines for osteoarthritis (OA) management, agreement on the different treatment modalities is lacking. METHOD: A symposium of European and US OA experts was held within the framework of the Annual European Congress of Rheumatology to discuss and compare guidelines and recommendations for the treatment of knee OA and to reach a consensus for management, particularly for areas in which there is no clear consensus: non-pharmacological therapy; efficacy and safety of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); intra-articular (i.a.) hyaluronates (HA); and the role of chondroitin sulfate (CS) and/or glucosamine sulfate (GS). RESULTS: All guidelines reviewed agree that knee OA is a progressive disease of the joint whose management requires non-pharmacological and pharmacological approaches. Discrepancies between guidelines are few and mostly reflect heterogeneity of expert panels involved, geographical differences in the availability of pharmacotherapies, and heterogeneity of the studies included. Panels chosen for guideline development should include experts with real clinical experience in drug use and patient management. Implementation of agreed guidelines can be thwarted by drug availability and reimbursement plans, resulting in optimal OA treatment being jeopardized, HA and symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SySADOAs) being clear examples of drugs whose availability and prescription can greatly vary geographically. In addition, primary care providers, often responsible for OA management (at least in early disease), may not adhere to clinical care guidelines, particularly for non-pharmacological OA treatment. CONCLUSION: Harmonization of the recommendations for knee OA treatment is challenging but feasible, as shown by the step-by-step therapeutic algorithm developed by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). More easily disseminated and implemented guidance for OA treatment in the primary care setting is key to improved management of OA.
Authors: Hang Yao; Jingchen Xue; Renjian Xie; Sa Liu; Yingjun Wang; Wenjing Song; Dong-An Wang; Li Ren Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Cyrus Cooper; François Rannou; Pascal Richette; Olivier Bruyère; Nasser Al-Daghri; Roy D Altman; Maria Luisa Brandi; Sabine Collaud Basset; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; Alberto Migliore; Karel Pavelka; Daniel Uebelhart; Jean-Yves Reginster Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-08-08 Impact factor: 4.794