Orthopedics (all articles)

RCT: Infrequent Zoledronate Infusions Reduce Vertebral Fractures in Early Postmenopausal Women Without Osteoporosis

18 Jan, 2025 | 16:48h | UTC

Background: Osteoporosis prevention typically targets older, higher-risk populations with significantly reduced bone mineral density (BMD). However, many fragility fractures occur in women who do not meet the traditional diagnostic threshold for osteoporosis (T score ≤ –2.5). This study investigated whether infrequent administration of zoledronate could prevent vertebral fractures in early postmenopausal women (50 to 60 years of age) who have BMD values between normal and osteoporotic ranges.

Objective: To determine if administering intravenous zoledronate once at baseline—and again 5 years later—could reduce the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures and other fracture types over a 10-year period in early postmenopausal women without osteoporosis.

Methods:

• Design: A 10-year, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
• Population: 1054 women (mean age 56.0) within 10 years post-menopause, with lumbar spine or hip T scores <0 but >–2.5, recruited from the electoral roll in Auckland, New Zealand.
• Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive:
  1. Zoledronate 5 mg at baseline and again at Year 5 (zoledronate–zoledronate)
  2. Zoledronate 5 mg at baseline and placebo at Year 5 (zoledronate–placebo)
  3. Placebo infusions at baseline and Year 5 (placebo–placebo)
• Follow-up: 10 years, with repeated BMD and spine X-ray assessments at baseline, Year 5, and Year 10.
• Primary Endpoint: Incidence of new morphometric vertebral fractures, defined by semiquantitative radiographic methods.
• Secondary Endpoints: Fragility fracture, any fracture, major osteoporotic fracture, changes in BMD, and bone-turnover markers.

Results:

• Vertebral Fractures: Over 10 years, 6.3% of participants in the zoledronate–zoledronate group and 6.6% in the zoledronate–placebo group experienced a new morphometric vertebral fracture, versus 11.1% in placebo–placebo. After imputation, the relative risks versus placebo–placebo were 0.56 (95% CI, 0.34–0.92; p=0.04) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.36–0.97; p=0.08), respectively.
• Other Fractures: The zoledronate–zoledronate group had a 30% reduced risk of any fracture (RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56–0.88), and zoledronate–placebo showed a 23% reduction (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.97), both compared with placebo–placebo.
• Bone Mineral Density: At Year 10, the zoledronate–zoledronate group had sustained BMD gains (~7–9 percentage points above placebo), whereas the zoledronate–placebo group retained a moderate advantage (~5–6 percentage points above placebo).
• Bone-Turnover Markers: Markers remained suppressed in the zoledronate–zoledronate group through Year 10, while in the zoledronate–placebo group, they gradually rose after Year 5 but stayed below baseline levels.
• Safety: Few adverse events were reported. Uveitis or episcleritis after the first infusion occurred in 1.1% of zoledronate recipients. No cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw or atypical femoral fractures were observed.

Conclusions: A single 5-mg dose of zoledronate, with an optional additional dose at five years, reduced the incidence of morphometric vertebral fractures and helped preserve BMD in younger postmenopausal women without osteoporosis. Both zoledronate regimens showed notable fracture-risk reductions and sustained effects on bone turnover.

Implications for Practice: These findings extend the potential role of zoledronate in fracture prevention to younger, early postmenopausal women without osteoporosis. Infrequent infusions are attractive because of their prolonged pharmacologic action and generally favorable safety profile. However, caution is warranted before broadly implementing this strategy for all postmenopausal women, as the data come from a relatively homogenous population and do not address other risk factors or comorbidities. Real-world adherence, healthcare resource allocation, and patient preferences must all be considered. Moreover, further evaluation of cost-effectiveness is essential, especially if expanding use to large populations. Longer follow-up in broader and more diverse groups may reveal less common adverse events that were not detected in this trial. Clinicians should therefore weigh individual risk–benefit profiles and await additional data before making universal recommendations.

Study Strengths and Limitations:

• Strengths: The trial’s 10-year duration, double-blind design, and high retention rate enhance its internal validity. Using radiographic assessments for vertebral fractures adds objectivity and robustness.
• Limitations: The trial predominantly involved healthy, early postmenopausal women of European descent, limiting the applicability of the findings to other ethnicities, older populations, or those with complex comorbidities. Only two zoledronate infusions at a five-year interval were evaluated, leaving the optimal dosing frequency unresolved. Further, while adverse events appeared uncommon here, the sample size and population profile may not adequately capture rare or long-latency adverse outcomes.

Future Research: Larger trials in more diverse demographic and clinical settings are necessary to determine whether infrequent zoledronate can safely and effectively reduce fracture risk across broader patient groups. Studies comparing different dosing schedules, as well as investigations into cost-effectiveness and logistics of administration, would be highly valuable. Longer-term surveillance in real-world cohorts should help clarify the incidence of uncommon adverse events. Ultimately, such additional evidence will guide whether infrequent zoledronate infusions might be integrated into routine practice for fracture prevention in postmenopausal women without osteoporosis.

Reference:

1. Bolland MJ, Nisa Z, Mellar A, et al. Fracture Prevention with Infrequent Zoledronate in Women 50 to 60 Years of Age. New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:239-248. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2407031
2. Chapurlat R. Infrequent Zoledronate — Small Individual Gain, Larger Population Gain. New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:281-283. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2415376

 

---

Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: Updated USPSTF Guidelines

18 Jan, 2025 | 15:19h | UTC

Introduction: This document summarizes the 2025 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guideline on screening for osteoporosis to prevent fragility fractures. Osteoporosis, characterized by low bone mass and decreased bone quality, can lead to fractures that impair independence, increase morbidity, and raise mortality. The revised guidance builds on evidence that screening in select populations reduces fracture risk. Although the Task Force finds moderate net benefit for screening certain groups, it concludes that evidence remains insufficient to assess benefits and harms in other segments.

Key Recommendations:

1. Population and Rationale:
   • Women 65 years or older: The USPSTF concludes with moderate certainty that screening for osteoporosis in this age group leads to moderate net benefit for preventing osteoporotic fractures.
   • Postmenopausal women younger than 65 years at increased risk: Screening is recommended if a formal risk assessment or clinical risk factors indicate elevated risk, as moderate certainty suggests moderate benefit.
   • Men: The current evidence is insufficient to establish the balance of benefits and harms of screening men without known osteoporosis or prior fragility fractures.
2. Screening Methods:
   • The USPSTF identifies central dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the hip or lumbar spine as the key screening test.
   • In younger postmenopausal women, a two-step approach is suggested: (1) assess risk factors (e.g., low body weight, smoking, parental history of hip fracture); (2) apply a validated tool (e.g., Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument [ORAI] or Osteoporosis Self-assessment Tool [OST]) to determine who should proceed to DXA.
   • Tools such as FRAX may be used with or without BMD input to estimate 10-year fracture probability, but clinicians should be aware that tool accuracy and calibration vary by age, race/ethnicity, and underlying data sources.
3. Screening Intervals:
   • Current data do not clearly define an optimal interval for repeated screening.
   • Some evidence suggests little added value in repeating BMD tests within four to eight years if initial results are normal or only mildly low.
4. Management Following a Positive Screening Result:
   • After osteoporosis is confirmed, patients should be counseled on modifiable risk factors (e.g., smoking cessation, fall prevention) and assessed for pharmacotherapy.
   • Approved treatments (e.g., bisphosphonates, denosumab) have demonstrated benefit in reducing vertebral, hip, and other major fractures.
5. Harms of Screening and Treatment:
   • Screening anxiety and overdiagnosis are minimal concerns, though data are limited.
   • Bisphosphonate use has not been associated with significant excess serious adverse events in short- to medium-term trials, but rare events (e.g., atypical femur fractures, osteonecrosis of the jaw) remain possible with long-term use.
   • Denosumab reduces multiple fracture outcomes, though discontinuation can lead to rebound bone loss and increased risk of vertebral fractures without follow-up management.
   • The USPSTF underscores that treatment decisions should be individualized, especially in diverse populations and those with complex comorbidities.

Conclusion: These updated recommendations highlight the importance of osteoporosis screening in women 65 years or older and in younger postmenopausal women at higher fracture risk. Early detection with central DXA, informed by clinical risk tools, can reduce fracture incidence and related burdens. Further research is needed to clarify optimal screening intervals, the role of screening in men, and long-term treatment strategies. In the meantime, clinicians should collaborate with patients to personalize screening and treatment plans, considering both clinical risks and patient preferences.

Reference:

• US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. Published online January 14, 2025. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27154
• Editorials:
  • Ensrud KE, Crandall CJ. Fracture Risk Assessment as a Component of Osteoporosis Screening—Easier Said Than Done. JAMA. Published online January 14, 2025. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27416
  • Ott SM. Research That Could Broaden the Scope of Bone Density Screening. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(1):e2460746. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.60746
• Evidence Report:
  • Kahwati LC, Kistler CE, Booth G, et al. Screening for Osteoporosis to Prevent Fractures: A Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. Published online January 14, 2025. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.21653

 

---

SR: Efficacy and Safety of Non-Pharmacological, Pharmacological, and Surgical Treatments for Hand Osteoarthritis

16 Jan, 2025 | 10:54h | UTC

Background: Hand osteoarthritis (OA) affects a substantial proportion of older adults, contributing to pain, reduced grip strength, and functional limitations. While several clinical guidelines recommend patient education, exercise, and topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the level of evidence remains varied. In 2018, a systematic review identified efficacy data from 126 studies. This updated review includes 65 new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through December 2023, aiming to provide the most current evidence on hand OA treatments.

Objective: To summarize and evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological, and surgical interventions for hand OA, highlighting both short-term (<3 months) and long-term (≥3 months) outcomes for pain, function, and grip strength.

Methods: The authors searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL for RCTs published from June 2017 to December 2023. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE criteria. Interventions included hand exercises, orthoses, assistive devices, thermal modalities, pharmacologic therapies (e.g., oral/topical NSAIDs, glucocorticoids, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs), and various surgical techniques. Meta-analyses were conducted when appropriate, and outcomes were expressed as standardized mean differences or relative risks with 95% confidence intervals.

Results:

• Non-Pharmacological Interventions: Low- to moderate-certainty evidence supports hand exercises, thumb orthoses, and assistive devices for improving pain and function. Hand exercises showed a small long-term effect on pain, while thumb orthoses offered a moderate long-term effect on pain. Assistive devices demonstrated a moderate long-term benefit for function. Few mild adverse events were reported in these categories.
• Pharmacological Interventions: There is high-certainty evidence for a very small short-term functional improvement with topical NSAIDs and low-certainty evidence of moderate short-term pain relief with oral NSAIDs. Oral glucocorticoids likely yield a small, short-term functional benefit. Methotrexate showed a possible small long-term effect on pain but no clear impact on function. No new data support intra-articular steroid injections, hydroxychloroquine, or biologic DMARDs for meaningful improvements; in these trials, sponsor bias and cost considerations underscore the need for critical appraisal, given the typically higher expense of advanced agents like biologics.
• Surgical Interventions: Ten new studies compared various surgical techniques but did not include robust controls versus nonsurgical management or sham surgery. Heterogeneity precluded pooling of results, and no definitive superiority emerged for any particular procedure.

Conclusions: This systematic review reaffirms the central role of non-pharmacological interventions, especially exercise, orthoses, and assistive devices, for improving pain and function in hand OA with minimal adverse events. Pharmacological treatments offer modest short-term benefits, particularly oral NSAIDs, although cost, side-effect profiles, and real-world adherence should be considered. Surgical approaches lack high-quality comparative data, highlighting the need for well-designed trials.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians should prioritize patient education, exercises, and readily accessible interventions (e.g., orthoses, assistive devices) given their demonstrated safety and moderate efficacy. Oral or topical NSAIDs remain suitable options for acute pain management, with the understanding that longer-term use warrants caution due to possible adverse effects. In contexts where advanced pharmacologic agents (such as biologics) are evaluated, practitioners must scrutinize costs, potential sponsor influence, and marginal benefits relative to standard care.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths of this review include a comprehensive literature search, systematic appraisal of risk of bias, and application of GRADE to gauge certainty. However, most RCTs were small in size or had high or unclear risk of bias, and considerable heterogeneity in study designs reduced comparability. Additional limitations include the scarcity of direct comparisons for surgical versus non-surgical approaches and inconsistent reporting of adverse events.

Future Research: High-quality, larger-scale RCTs are needed to clarify subtypes of hand OA and tailor treatments accordingly. Trials should evaluate long-term outcomes, systematically measure adverse events, and compare surgery directly with non-surgical options. Studies employing mobile health (mHealth) tools and addressing ways to enhance grip strength may further advance evidence-based hand OA management.

Reference:
Kjeken I, Bordvik DH, Osteras N, Haugen IK, Fjeldstad KAA, Skaalvik I, Kloppenburg M, Kroon FPB, Tveter AT, Smedslund G. Efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatments for hand osteoarthritis in 2024: a systematic review. RMD Open. 2024; e004963. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2024-004963

 

---

Observational Study Emulation: Denosumab vs. Oral Bisphosphonates in Dialysis-Dependent Patients Shows Reduced Fractures but Possible Elevated Cardiovascular Risk

8 Jan, 2025 | 11:55h | UTC

Background: Patients receiving dialysis have a markedly increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, yet management options in this population remain challenging. Although oral bisphosphonates are the usual first-line treatment for osteoporosis, safety concerns exist for those with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Denosumab, which is not cleared via the kidney, offers a potential alternative, but limited data compare its fracture-prevention benefit and cardiovascular (CV) safety against bisphosphonates in dialysis-dependent patients.

Objective: To estimate the risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and the effectiveness in preventing fractures when using denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates among patients undergoing dialysis.

Methods: This study emulated a target trial using an observational Japanese administrative claims database (April 2014 to October 2022). Adults aged 50 years or older, receiving dialysis and newly prescribed denosumab (60 mg subcutaneously) or oral bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, or minodronate) were included. Exclusions involved recent acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary safety outcome was MACE (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or CV death), and the primary effectiveness outcome was all fractures. Three-year risks, risk differences, and risk ratios were estimated.

Results: Among 658 denosumab users and 374 oral bisphosphonate users (mean age, 74.5 years; 62.9% women) followed for up to 3 years, denosumab was associated with a higher weighted risk of MACE (3-year risk ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.87]; risk difference, 8.2% [–0.2% to 16.7%]) compared with oral bisphosphonates. Although the point estimate suggests a notable increase, the 95% CI includes 1.0, indicating that statistical significance was not definitively achieved. Denosumab showed a significantly lower composite fracture risk (3-year risk ratio, 0.55 [0.28 to 0.93]; risk difference, –5.3% [–11.3% to –0.6%]). Individual fracture sites (e.g., hip, vertebral) had imprecise estimates but trended toward fewer nonvertebral fractures with denosumab. Mortality rates did not differ substantially between the groups.

Conclusions: In dialysis-dependent patients with osteoporosis, denosumab may reduce fracture risk while potentially elevating the likelihood of MACE. However, the higher MACE estimate did not surpass the conventional threshold for statistical significance, warranting cautious interpretation. Although these data suggest a clinically meaningful reduction in fractures, the findings regarding cardiovascular outcomes remain imprecise and require further confirmation.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians treating dialysis-dependent patients should weigh denosumab’s fracture-prevention advantage against its possible heightened CV risk. Oral bisphosphonates, though sometimes restricted in severe CKD, may confer lower risk of MACE. Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels, especially calcium, and CV status is essential when administering denosumab in end-stage kidney disease.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, real-world cohort and the use of target trial emulation with robust propensity score weighting. Limitations involve potential residual confounding, reliance on claims-based definitions of outcomes, and absent lab data (e.g., serum calcium, glomerular filtration rate). Consequently, causality and generalizability should be interpreted with caution, especially outside Japan.

Future Research:
Prospective trials and additional observational studies using detailed clinical data (including renal function parameters and bone mineral density) are needed to clarify the relative net benefits of denosumab versus bisphosphonates in advanced CKD. Investigations into other safety outcomes, such as long-term renal function and hypocalcemia-related complications, would further inform clinical decision-making.

Reference: Masuda S, Fukasawa T, Matsuda S, Kawakami K. “Cardiovascular Safety and Fracture Prevention Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Oral Bisphosphonates in Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Target Trial Emulation.” Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03237

 

---

Dose-Response Meta-Analysis: At Least 150 Weekly Minutes of Aerobic Exercise Needed for Significant Waist and Fat Reduction

2 Jan, 2025 | 09:30h | UTC

Background: Elevated body weight and adiposity remain major public health concerns worldwide, with overweight and obesity affecting nearly half of the adult population. Although various guidelines advocate for aerobic exercise as a core strategy in weight management, robust meta-analyses exploring dose-response relationships are scarce.

Objective: To clarify how different doses and intensities of supervised aerobic exercise affect body weight, waist circumference, and body fat in adults with overweight or obesity.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis encompassed 116 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including a total of 6880 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [13] years). All studies involved supervised continuous aerobic interventions (e.g., walking or running) for at least 8 weeks. Comparisons were made against sedentary or usual-activity controls. Frequency, duration (minutes per week), and intensity (moderate, vigorous, or combined) of aerobic sessions were extracted.

Results: Across all trials, each additional 30 minutes per week of aerobic exercise was linked to a mean reduction of 0.52 kg in body weight (95% CI, −0.61 to −0.44), 0.56 cm in waist circumference, and 0.37 percentage points in body fat. Body weight and waist circumference showed largely linear decreases with increasing weekly exercise, whereas body fat percentage displayed a pattern suggesting that at least 150 minutes per week may be required to achieve clinically meaningful reductions (>2% reduction in body fat). Aerobic training was generally well tolerated, although a modest increase in mild musculoskeletal complaints was noted (risk difference, 2 more events per 100 participants).

Conclusions: Engaging in up to 300 minutes per week of aerobic exercise was associated with progressively greater benefits for weight control, waist circumference, and body fat. While even small doses yielded modest improvements, these findings suggest that an intensity of at least moderate level and a duration of at least 150 minutes per week may be necessary to achieve clinically important reductions in central obesity and fat percentage.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians managing patients with overweight or obesity can recommend a minimum of 150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous aerobic training to achieve significant anthropometric changes. Gradual progression is essential to balance effectiveness and safety, especially in individuals with musculoskeletal constraints.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the large number of RCTs, robust dose-response analyses, and consistent directions of effects. However, high heterogeneity, publication bias for certain fat measures, and limited data on medication use and health-related quality of life in longer trials were noted.

Future Research: Further trials should explore additional subgroup analyses (e.g., older adults, individuals with chronic comorbidities), longer durations of follow-up, and the integration of resistance training to optimize cardiometabolic outcomes.

Reference: Jayedi A, Soltani S, Emadi A, et al. Aerobic Exercise and Weight Loss in Adults: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(12):e2452185. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52185

 

---

Review: Management of Degenerative Rotator-Cuff Disorders

28 Nov, 2024 | 12:48h | UTC

---

Cohort Study: High Rate of Preventable Adverse Events in Surgical Inpatients

16 Nov, 2024 | 17:29h | UTC

Background: Adverse events during hospital admissions, particularly in surgical settings, remain a significant cause of patient harm despite efforts to improve patient safety since the “To Err is Human” report. Advances in surgical techniques and patient care necessitate an updated assessment of the current state of perioperative safety.

Objective: To estimate the frequency, severity, and preventability of adverse events associated with perioperative care in surgical inpatients and to identify the settings and healthcare professionals involved.

Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted across 11 US hospitals in Massachusetts. A weighted random sample of 1,009 patients was selected from 64,121 adults admitted for surgery in 2018. Trained nurses reviewed electronic health records to identify adverse events, which were then adjudicated by physicians. Adverse events were classified by type, severity, preventability, setting, and professions involved.

Results: Adverse events occurred in 38.0% of patients (95% CI, 32.6–43.4%), with major adverse events in 15.9% (12.7–19.0%). Among 593 adverse events identified, 59.5% were potentially preventable, and 20.7% were definitely or probably preventable. The most common events were surgery-related (49.3%), adverse drug events (26.6%), healthcare-associated infections (12.4%), and patient care events (11.2%). Adverse events most frequently occurred in general care units (48.8%) and involved attending physicians (89.5%) and nurses (58.9%).

Conclusions: More than one-third of surgical inpatients experienced adverse events, with nearly half classified as major and most potentially preventable. These findings highlight the critical need for ongoing improvement in patient safety throughout perioperative care involving all healthcare professionals.

Implications for Practice: Healthcare providers should enhance patient safety protocols across all perioperative settings, not just in operating rooms. Emphasis should be placed on preventing surgery-related complications, adverse drug events, and healthcare-associated infections by fostering teamwork and continuous monitoring.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a comprehensive review of medical records and systematic classification of adverse events by trained professionals. Limitations involve the study’s confinement to Massachusetts hospitals in 2018, potential variability in documentation practices, and limited sample size affecting generalizability and specialty-specific estimates.

Future Research: Further studies are needed to assess adverse event rates in diverse geographic locations and healthcare systems, explore effective interventions to reduce preventable harm, and evaluate long-term trends in surgical patient safety.

Reference: Duclos A, Frits ML, Iannaccone C, Lipsitz SR, Cooper Z, Weissman JS, Bates DW. Safety of inpatient care in surgical settings: cohort study. BMJ. 2024; DOI: http://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-080480

 

---

RCT: Once-Weekly Semaglutide Reduces Weight and Knee Osteoarthritis Pain in Obese Patients

16 Nov, 2024 | 13:41h | UTC

Background: Obesity is a major risk factor for the development and progression of knee osteoarthritis, leading to chronic pain and reduced mobility. Weight reduction has been shown to alleviate symptoms, but sustained, non-surgical interventions are limited. Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, such as semaglutide, have demonstrated efficacy in weight management; however, their impact on knee osteoarthritis pain is not well established.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide (2.4 mg) versus placebo, alongside lifestyle interventions, on body weight reduction and pain related to knee osteoarthritis in adults with obesity.

Methods: In this 68-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 61 sites across 11 countries, 407 adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) and moderate knee osteoarthritis with at least moderate pain were enrolled. Participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive semaglutide or placebo, in addition to counseling on a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. The primary endpoints were the percentage change in body weight and the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score from baseline to week 68.

Results: Semaglutide treatment resulted in a mean weight reduction of −13.7% compared to −3.2% with placebo (P<0.001). The mean change in WOMAC pain score was −41.7 points with semaglutide versus −27.5 points with placebo (P<0.001), indicating a significant reduction in pain. Additionally, semaglutide led to greater improvements in physical function scores and a decrease in the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Serious adverse events were similar between groups; however, gastrointestinal disorders led to more discontinuations in the semaglutide group (6.7% vs. 3.0%).

Conclusions: Once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide significantly reduces body weight and alleviates pain related to knee osteoarthritis in obese adults, compared to placebo, when combined with lifestyle modifications. These findings support semaglutide as an effective non-surgical intervention for weight management and symptom relief in this population.

Implications for Practice: Semaglutide may be considered as part of a comprehensive treatment strategy for obese patients with knee osteoarthritis, potentially improving pain, physical function, and reducing reliance on analgesics. Clinicians should weigh the benefits against potential gastrointestinal side effects.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized, double-blind design and a sizable, diverse cohort. Limitations involve the absence of imaging follow-up, lack of metabolic and inflammatory marker assessments, and no post-treatment outcome data to evaluate the sustainability of benefits after discontinuation.

Future Research: Further studies are warranted to explore the long-term effects of semaglutide on knee osteoarthritis progression, its mechanisms of action on joint pathology, and its effectiveness in broader patient populations.

Reference: Bliddal H, Bays H, Czernichow S, et al. Once-Weekly Semaglutide in Persons with Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2024;391(17):1573-1583. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2403664

 

---

Meta-Analysis: Spinal Cord Stimulation May Be Effective for Chronic Back and Leg Pain

15 Nov, 2024 | 13:43h | UTC

Background: Chronic back and leg pain causes significant disability worldwide. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) offers treatment for patients unresponsive to conventional medical management (CMM). The comparative efficacy of conventional and novel SCS forms versus CMM is debated, requiring thorough evaluation.

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of conventional and novel SCS therapies compared with CMM in adults with chronic back or leg pain who had not previously used SCS.

Methods: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis per PRISMA guidelines were performed. MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched up to September 2, 2022. Thirteen RCTs with 1,561 patients were included. Interventions were conventional SCS, novel SCS modalities (e.g., high-frequency, burst stimulation), and CMM. Primary outcomes were pain intensity (visual analog scale) and responder rates (≥50% pain relief) in back or leg. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (EQ-5D index) and functional disability (Oswestry Disability Index).

Results: At 6 months, both conventional and novel SCS were superior to CMM in five of six outcomes. For back pain responder rates, conventional SCS had an OR of 3.00 (95% CrI, 1.49–6.72) and novel SCS had an OR of 8.76 (95% CrI, 3.84–22.31) versus CMM. Pain intensity in the back decreased significantly with conventional SCS (MD, –1.17; 95% CrI, –1.64 to –0.70) and novel SCS (MD, –2.34; 95% CrI, –2.96 to –1.73). Leg pain intensity also decreased significantly with conventional SCS (MD, –2.89; 95% CrI, –4.03 to –1.81) and novel SCS (MD, –4.01; 95% CrI, –5.31 to –2.75) compared to CMM. Quality of life improved with both SCS therapies (conventional SCS MD, 0.15; 95% CrI, 0.09–0.21; novel SCS MD, 0.17; 95% CrI, 0.13–0.21). Functional disability improved significantly with conventional SCS (MD, –7.10; 95% CrI, –10.91 to –3.36).

Conclusions: Both conventional and novel SCS therapies are associated with significant improvements in pain relief, quality of life, and functional ability compared with CMM in patients with chronic back and leg pain at 6 months.

Implications for Practice: The results support integrating SCS therapies into clinical practice for patients with chronic back and leg pain unresponsive to CMM.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include inclusion of recent RCTs and use of Bayesian network meta-analysis, allowing comprehensive evidence synthesis with both direct and indirect comparisons, enhancing reliability. Limitations involve potential biases due to challenges in blinding participants and assessors, as patients can perceive whether a device is active. Heterogeneity among studies in patient populations and interventions may affect generalizability. Inability to include long-term efficacy data due to crossover in many trials limits understanding of sustained outcomes.

Future Research: Long-term RCTs are needed to assess sustained efficacy and safety of SCS therapies. Future studies should compare different SCS modalities directly and identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit.

Reference: Huygen FJPM, et al. Spinal Cord Stimulation vs Medical Management for Chronic Back and Leg Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2024; doi: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.44608

 

---

RCT: Total Hip Replacement Superior to Resistance Training for Severe Hip Osteoarthritis

3 Nov, 2024 | 01:23h | UTC

Background: Severe hip osteoarthritis (OA) is often treated with total hip replacement (THR), yet randomized trials comparing THR with nonsurgical interventions like resistance training (RT) are lacking. While exercise is recommended for hip OA, its efficacy relative to surgery remains unclear.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of THR with RT in patients aged 50 years or older with severe hip OA and an indication for surgery.

Methods: In a multicenter, randomized controlled trial, 109 patients were assigned to undergo THR (n=53) or participate in a 12-week supervised RT program (n=56). The primary outcome was the change in patient-reported hip pain and function from baseline to 6 months, measured by the Oxford Hip Score (OHS; range 0–48, higher scores indicate less pain and better function). Secondary outcomes included measures of pain, function, quality of life, physical activity, and functional performance. Safety was also assessed.

Results: At 6 months, the mean improvement in OHS was 15.9 points in the THR group and 4.5 points in the RT group (between-group difference: 11.4 points; 95% CI, 8.9 to 14.0; P<0.001). Significant improvements favoring THR were also observed in all secondary patient-reported outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 12% of patients in the THR group and 9% in the RT group; most were known complications of THR. At 6 months, 9% of patients assigned to THR had not undergone surgery, and 21% of those assigned to RT had undergone THR.

Conclusions: In patients aged 50 years or older with severe hip OA and an indication for surgery, THR resulted in clinically important, superior reductions in hip pain and improvements in function compared to RT at 6 months.

Implications for Practice: These findings support the use of THR over RT for patients with severe hip OA who are surgical candidates, affirming current clinical recommendations. However, RT may still be considered as an initial treatment option for some patients, especially those preferring to delay surgery.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized controlled design and multicenter approach. Limitations involve lack of blinding, potential selection bias due to low enrollment (14% of eligible patients), and crossovers between treatment groups, which may underestimate the true treatment effects.

Future Research: Further studies should investigate long-term outcomes, optimal timing of THR, and factors influencing patient choice and response to RT versus surgery.

Reference: Frydendal T, Christensen R, Mechlenburg I, et al. Total Hip Replacement or Resistance Training for Severe Hip Osteoarthritis. New England Journal of Medicine. 2024;391(17):1610-1620. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2400141

 

---

Summary: Perioperative Management of Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants

19 Sep, 2024 | 21:12h | UTC

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)—including apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban, and dabigatran—are increasingly used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for treating venous thromboembolism. Effective perioperative management of DOACs is essential to minimize bleeding and thromboembolic risks during surgical and nonsurgical procedures. Below are practical recommendations focused on the perioperative management of patients taking DOACs, based on a recent JAMA review article.

---

Elective Surgical or Nonsurgical Procedures

Classify Bleeding Risk of Procedures:

1. Minimal Risk:
   • Minor dental procedures (e.g., cleaning, extractions)
   • Minor dermatologic procedures (e.g., skin lesion removal)
   • Cataract surgery
2. Low to Moderate Risk:
   • Endoscopic procedures without high-risk interventions
   • Cholecystectomy
   • Inguinal hernia repair
3. High Risk:
   • Major surgery (e.g., cancer surgery, joint replacement)
   • Procedures involving neuraxial anesthesia
   • Endoscopic procedures with high-risk interventions (e.g., large polyp removal)

DOAC Management Strategies:

1. Minimal Bleeding Risk Procedures:
   • Option 1: Continue DOACs without interruption.
   • Option 2: For added safety, withhold the morning dose on the day of the procedure (especially for twice-daily DOACs like apixaban and dabigatran).
2. Low to Moderate Bleeding Risk Procedures:
   • Preoperative:
     • Discontinue DOACs 1 day before the procedure.
     • This allows approximately 2 half-lives for drug clearance.
   • Postoperative:
     • Resume DOACs 1 day after the procedure, ensuring adequate hemostasis.
3. High Bleeding Risk Procedures:
   • Preoperative:
     • Discontinue DOACs 2 days before the procedure.
     • This allows approximately 4-5 half-lives for drug clearance.
   • Postoperative:
     • Resume DOACs 2-3 days after the procedure, based on bleeding risk and hemostasis.

Evidence Supporting These Strategies:

• The PAUSE study demonstrated that standardized interruption protocols without heparin bridging result in low rates of:
  • Thromboembolism: 0.2%–0.4%
  • Major Bleeding: 1%–2%

Postoperative DOAC Resumption:

• Assess surgical-site hemostasis before resuming DOACs.
• Delay resumption if there is ongoing bleeding or concerns about hemostasis.
• For high bleeding risk procedures, consider a longer delay (2–3 days).

Perioperative Heparin Bridging:

• Not recommended for patients on DOACs.
• Bridging increases bleeding risk without reducing thromboembolism.
• DOACs have rapid offset and onset, making bridging unnecessary.

---

Special Considerations

Patients with Impaired Renal Function:

• For CrCl 30–50 mL/min:
  • Dabigatran: Extend preoperative discontinuation by an additional day.
• For CrCl <30 mL/min:
  • Dabigatran is contraindicated.
  • For other DOACs, consider extending discontinuation to 3–4 days before surgery.

Patients Undergoing Neuraxial Anesthesia:

• Discontinue DOACs for 3 days (apixaban, edoxaban, rivaroxaban) or 4 days (dabigatran) before the procedure.
• Minimizes risk of spinal or epidural hematoma.

Dental Procedures:

• Generally safe to continue DOACs.
• For added safety:
  • Omit or delay the dose on the day of the procedure.
  • Employ local hemostatic measures (e.g., tranexamic acid mouthwash).

Endoscopic Procedures:

• Low-risk procedures (e.g., diagnostic endoscopy without biopsy):
  • Follow standard DOAC interruption for low to moderate bleeding risk.
• High-risk procedures (e.g., polypectomy of large polyps):
  • Extend DOAC discontinuation by an additional day pre- and post-procedure.

Patients Unable to Resume Oral Medications Postoperatively:

• Use prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) until oral intake is possible.
• Avoid therapeutic-dose LMWH due to bleeding risk.

---

Emergent, Urgent, or Semiurgent Procedures

Risks:

• Higher bleeding risk: Up to 23%
• Thromboembolism risk: Up to 11%

Management Strategies:

1. Assess Time Since Last DOAC Dose:
   • If within 48 hours, consider that significant anticoagulant effect may persist.
2. Laboratory Testing (if available):
   • DOAC Level Testing:
     • ≥50 ng/mL: Consider using reversal agents.
     • <50 ng/mL: May proceed without reversal agents.
3. Use of Reversal Agents:
   • For Dabigatran:
     • Idarucizumab (5 g IV)
   • For Factor Xa Inhibitors (apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban):
     • Andexanet alfa (dosing based on last dose timing and amount)
     • Prothrombin Complex Concentrates (PCCs): If andexanet alfa is unavailable or contraindicated.
4. Proceeding Without Testing:
   • If testing is unavailable and last DOAC dose was within 48 hours, consider reversal agents.
   • If >48 hours since last dose, may proceed without reversal.

Considerations:

• Reversal agents are expensive and may carry thrombotic risks.
• Use should be judicious, weighing risks and benefits.
• Consult hematology or thrombosis experts when possible.

---

Key Takeaways

• Elective Procedures:
  • Utilize standardized protocols based on procedural bleeding risk.
  • Routine preoperative DOAC level testing is unnecessary.
  • Avoid heparin bridging.
• Emergent/Urgent Procedures:
  • Reversal agents may be appropriate when significant DOAC levels are present.
  • Decision to use reversal agents should consider bleeding risk, time since last dose, and availability of DOAC level testing.
• Patient Communication:
  • Ensure patients understand the plan for DOAC interruption and resumption.
  • Provide clear instructions regarding timing and dosing.
• Interdisciplinary Coordination:
  • Collaborate with surgical teams, anesthesiologists, and pharmacists.
  • Use electronic medical records and clinical decision support tools to enhance communication.

---

Conclusion

By applying standardized perioperative management protocols, clinicians can effectively balance the risks of bleeding and thromboembolism in patients taking DOACs who require surgical or nonsurgical procedures. These strategies simplify decision-making, avoid unnecessary interventions like heparin bridging, and promote patient safety.

Reference: Douketis JD, Spyropoulos AC. Perioperative Management of Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants: A Review. JAMA. 2024;332(10):825–834. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.12708

 

---

Systematic Review: Antidepressants Offer Limited Pain Relief with Potential Harms in Older Adults

17 Sep, 2024 | 11:34h | UTC

Background: Chronic pain is prevalent among older adults and significantly affects their quality of life. Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for pain management in this population across various countries. While several systematic reviews have evaluated the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for pain in adults, none have specifically focused on individuals aged 65 years and older. The efficacy and safety profile of antidepressants for pain relief in older adults remains unclear.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of antidepressant medications compared to all alternatives for the management of non-cancer pain in older adults aged 65 years and above.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. Thirteen databases were searched from inception to February 1, 2024, to identify relevant studies. Trials included compared any antidepressant medication to any alternative (e.g., placebo, other medications, or non-drug therapies) for the treatment of non-cancer pain in older adults. Data extracted included study and participant characteristics, primary efficacy outcomes (pain scores converted to a 0–100 scale), and harms. Estimates for efficacy were pooled using a random-effects model and reported as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of included trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Results: Fifteen studies encompassing 1,369 participants met the inclusion criteria. The most frequently studied antidepressants were duloxetine and amitriptyline (six studies each). Pain related to knee osteoarthritis was the most commonly studied condition (six studies). For knee osteoarthritis:

• Immediate Term (0–2 weeks): Antidepressants did not provide a statistically significant reduction in pain compared to alternatives (mean difference [MD], –5.6; 95% CI, –11.5 to 0.3).
• Intermediate Term (≥6 weeks and <12 months): Duloxetine provided a statistically significant, albeit very small, reduction in pain (MD, –9.1; 95% CI, –11.8 to –6.4).

Nearly half of the studies (7 out of 15) reported increased withdrawal of participants in the antidepressant treatment group compared to the comparator group due to adverse events.

Conclusions: For most chronic painful conditions in older adults, the benefits and harms of antidepressant medications are unclear. The available evidence predominantly comes from trials with small sample sizes (less than 100 participants), disclosed industry ties, and trials classified as having unclear or high risk of bias.

Implications for Practice:

• Minimal Benefit: Antidepressants, particularly duloxetine, may offer a very small benefit for pain relief in older adults with knee osteoarthritis over the intermediate term.
• Risk of Harms: The potential harms, including increased adverse events leading to higher withdrawal rates, may outweigh these minimal benefits.
• Clinical Decision-Making: Clinicians should carefully weigh the benefits against the risks when considering prescribing antidepressants for pain in older adults.
• Alternative Strategies: Non-pharmacological interventions and alternative pain management strategies should be prioritized in this population.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the comprehensive search strategy across multiple databases and the focus on older adults, a population often underrepresented in clinical trials. Limitations involve the generally low quality of the included trials, small sample sizes, high risk of bias, and inconsistent reporting of pain outcomes and adverse events among studies.

Future Research: Further large-scale, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to investigate the efficacy and safety of antidepressants for pain management in older adults. Future studies should also compare antidepressants to non-pharmacological interventions and explore long-term outcomes and optimal dosing regimens in this population.

Reference: Narayan SW, Naganathan V, Vizza L, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Antidepressants for Pain in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. Published online September 12, 2024. doi:10.1111/bcp.16234

 

---

RCT: Methotrexate Shows Modest Pain Reduction in Knee Osteoarthritis, More Research Needed – Ann Intern Med

18 Aug, 2024 | 18:01h | UTC

Study Design and Population: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the effects of oral methotrexate on 207 participants with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA) who had persistent knee pain despite prior treatments. Conducted across 15 musculoskeletal clinics in the UK from June 2014 to October 2017, participants were randomly assigned to receive either methotrexate or placebo over a 12-month period.

Main Findings: At 6 months, methotrexate resulted in a modest reduction in knee pain, with a statistically significant difference of 0.79 points on the NRS compared to placebo (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.51; P = 0.030). Small but statistically significant improvements were also noted in knee stiffness and function. However, the clinical significance of these findings remains uncertain, and potential side effects of methotrexate warrant caution.

Implications for Practice: While methotrexate may offer some symptomatic relief for patients with knee osteoarthritis who do not respond to standard treatments, the modest reduction in pain and improvement in function observed in this study may not justify its routine use given the potential for significant side effects. The small magnitude of benefit suggests that methotrexate should be considered cautiously and only in select patients. Further research is necessary to confirm these findings and to better understand the risk-benefit profile of methotrexate in this population before broader clinical adoption.

Reference: Kingsbury, S. R., Tharmanathan, P., Keding, A., Watt, F. E., Scott, D. L., Roddy, E., Birrell, F., & Conaghan, P. G. (2024). Pain Reduction With Oral Methotrexate in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI: 10.7326/M24-0303.

 

---

RCT: Triple combination of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone reduces morphine use post-hip arthroplasty – Lancet Rheumatol

11 May, 2024 | 14:18h | UTC

Study Design and Population: The RECIPE trial was a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter study conducted across nine Danish hospitals to evaluate the effectiveness of non-opioid analgesic combinations in managing postoperative pain following total hip arthroplasty. A total of 1,060 adults scheduled for surgery were enrolled and randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups, receiving combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone. The study’s primary endpoint was the 24-hour intravenous morphine consumption, with a predefined minimal important difference set at 8 mg.

Main Findings: The trial results indicated significant reductions in 24-hour morphine consumption in the group receiving paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone combined, compared to other groups, though none reached the minimal important difference. Specifically, this group consumed a median of 15 mg morphine, which was less than the other groups ranging from 16 mg to 24 mg. However, the differences did not meet the study’s threshold for a clinically important effect. Adverse events were lowest in the combined treatment group, suggesting a better safety profile primarily characterized by fewer incidents of nausea, vomiting, and dizziness.

Implications for Practice: The findings support the use of a combined regimen of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and dexamethasone for reducing morphine consumption post-total hip arthroplasty, which could be significant in clinical settings aiming to minimize opioid use. The improved safety profile also highlights the potential benefits of multimodal analgesia. Further research may explore the optimization of dosing schedules and long-term outcomes to enhance patient recovery and satisfaction.

 

Reference (link to abstract – $ for full-text):

Steiness J et al. (2024). Non-opioid analgesic combinations following total hip arthroplasty (RECIPE): a randomised, placebo-controlled, blinded, multicentre trial. The Lancet Rheumatology, 6(4), e205-e215. DOI: 10.1016/S2665-9913(24)00020-1

 

---

Systematic Review: Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination for dislocated hips in infants

28 Apr, 2024 | 16:52h | UTC

This systematic review assesses the diagnostic accuracy of clinical examinations in identifying dislocated hips in infants, using data from nine studies that compared clinical examinations to diagnostic ultrasound as the reference. The study involved 37,859 hips with a dislocation prevalence of 0.94%. The Barlow and Ortolani maneuvers showed a sensitivity of 46% and a specificity of 99.1%, with a positive likelihood ratio of 52, highlighting their effectiveness in predicting hip dislocation. Other methods such as limited hip abduction and a clicking sound were found to have minimal diagnostic utility. This evidence supports the clinical utility of specific maneuvers in early detection to prevent long-term complications.

 

Reference (link to abstract – $ for full-text):

Abhinav Singh et al. (2024). Does This Infant Have a Dislocated Hip? The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review. JAMA, Published online April 15, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2024.2404

 

---

Consensus Paper | Surgical video data use, structure, and exploration (for research in AI, quality improvement, and education)

9 Aug, 2023 | 15:20h | UTC

SAGES consensus recommendations on surgical video data use, structure, and exploration (for research in artificial intelligence, clinical quality improvement, and surgical education) – Surgical Endoscopy

 

---

Cohort Study | Vegetarian diet linked to elevated hip fracture risk; BMI plays a partial role

9 Aug, 2023 | 15:16h | UTC

Risk of hip fracture in meat-eaters, pescatarians, and vegetarians: a prospective cohort study of 413,914 UK Biobank participants – BMC Medicine

 

---

Podcast | Knee pain pearls

9 Aug, 2023 | 15:08h | UTC

#406 Kneedful Things: Knee Pain 201 with Dr. Ted Parks – The Curbsiders

 

---

RCT | Ferric derisomaltose plus tranexamic acid may reduce blood transfusion risk by 50% in hip surgery

3 Aug, 2023 | 13:18h | UTC

Ferric derisomaltose and tranexamic acid, combined or alone, for reducing blood transfusion in patients with hip fracture (the HiFIT trial): a multicentre, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial – The Lancet Haematology (link to abstract – $ for full-text)

 

---

RCT | Platelet-rich plasma injections lack efficacy in 52-week ankle osteoarthritis study

2 Aug, 2023 | 13:43h | UTC

Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for the Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis – The American Journal of Sports Medicine

 

---

M-A | Updated evidence supports incisional negative pressure wound therapy for surgical site infection prevention

1 Aug, 2023 | 14:15h | UTC

Incisional negative pressure wound therapy for the prevention of surgical site infection: an up-to-date meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis – eClinicalMedicine

 

---

Guideline | Diagnosis and treatment of fragility fractures of the pelvis

14 Jul, 2023 | 12:39h | UTC

Clinical Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fragility Fractures of the Pelvis – Orthopaedic Surgery

 

---

Podcast | Overuse injuries in pediatrics

11 Jul, 2023 | 13:52h | UTC

#86: Overuse Injuries – The Leg Bone’s Connected to the Foot Bone! – The Cribsiders

 

---

Systematic Review | Ethical perspectives on surgical video recording for patients, surgeons and society

11 Jul, 2023 | 13:44h | UTC

Ethical perspectives on surgical video recording for patients, surgeons and society: systematic review – BJS Open

 

---

RCT | Opioids not more effective than placebo for acute low back and neck pain

5 Jul, 2023 | 01:15h | UTC

Opioid analgesia for acute low back pain and neck pain (the OPAL trial): a randomised placebo-controlled trial – The Lancet (link to abstract – $ for full-text)

News Releases:

Opioids no more effective than placebo for acute back and neck pain – University of Sidney

Opioid pain relievers do not reduce acute lower back and neck pain, study suggests – The Lancet

Commentary from the authors: Opioids don’t relieve acute low back or neck pain – and can result in worse pain, new study finds – The Conversation

 

---