Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation

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

 

---

Review: Nutritional Support in Critically Ill Patients

6 Jan, 2025 | 11:00h | UTC

Introduction: This summary is derived from a state-of-the-art review on nutritional support in the intensive care unit (ICU) published in The BMJ. Critically ill patients experience metabolic disturbances, inflammation, and profound muscle wasting. Nutritional therapy aims to mitigate these effects, though recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) challenge the dogma of early, aggressive provision of high-calorie and high-protein diets for all ICU patients. Instead, emerging evidence indicates that moderate energy and protein restriction, particularly during the first week, may enhance recovery and reduce complications such as hospital-acquired infections, muscle weakness, and ICU-acquired morbidity. Nonetheless, identifying ideal feeding strategies remains complex, given the dynamic nature of critical illness and the interplay with other interventions such as sedation and physical rehabilitation.

Key Recommendations:

1. Individualized Timing and Dose: Limit caloric and protein loads during the acute phase (roughly the first seven days), especially in patients with hemodynamic instability or shock. Later, as patients transition to recovery, gradually increase macronutrient delivery to meet evolving metabolic needs.
2. Preferred Feeding Route: Enteral nutrition is generally recommended when the gastrointestinal tract is functional, particularly after shock resolution. Parenteral nutrition can be reserved for prolonged gut dysfunction or inability to meet needs enterally. Studies comparing enteral versus parenteral feeding have shown no clear outcome differences, but early enteral feeding is often favored for physiological and cost reasons.
3. Avoid Overfeeding and Overzealous Protein Provision: Several large RCTs (including EFFORT-Protein, EDEN, and NUTRIREA-3) observed no mortality benefit—and in some instances, worse outcomes—when patients received full or high doses of energy and protein in the first week. Metabolic “resistance” and inhibition of protective processes such as autophagy might explain why restricted early feeding sometimes confers advantages.
4. Monitoring and Assessment: Traditional tools (NUTRIC, NRS-2002) and biomarkers (albumin, prealbumin) do not reliably predict who benefits from higher or lower feeding levels. Ultrasound or computed tomography to assess muscle mass may hold promise, but no validated approach exists to guide individualized macronutrient targets.
5. Micronutrients and Specialized Formulations: Broad-spectrum pharmaconutrients (glutamine, antioxidants, etc.) have not improved outcomes in well-powered trials. Instead, standard vitamin and trace element supplementation consistent with recommended daily allowances appears sufficient in most cases.
6. Long-term Rehabilitation: Combined nutritional support and physical exercise are critical for mitigating long-term impacts of ICU-acquired weakness and functional decline. Evidence increasingly highlights the need for prolonged, structured rehabilitation to optimize muscle recovery and quality of life.

Conclusion: Although nutritional support remains central to critical care, it is most effective when carefully adapted to disease phase, patient comorbidities, and evolving organ dysfunction. Key evidence suggests a more conservative approach to energy and protein during the acute phase, followed by gradual escalation and integration with rehabilitation. Ongoing research seeks to identify physiological markers that distinguish when to intensify nutritional therapy and how best to align macronutrient delivery with other therapies to promote muscle function and reduce complications.

Reference: Reignier J, Rice TW, Arabi YM, Casaer M. Nutritional Support in the ICU. BMJ. 2025;388:e077979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077979

 

---

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

---

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

 

---

Meta-Analysis: ERAS Protocols Improve Recovery and Reduce Complications After Emergency Laparotomy – Am J Surg

18 Aug, 2024 | 19:32h | UTC

Study Design and Population: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effects of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols compared to standard care (SC) in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The analysis included six randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a total of 509 patients.

Main Findings: The ERAS group showed a reduction in length of hospital stay (mean difference: -2.92 days) and quicker recovery milestones, such as time to ambulation (mean difference: -1.67 days) and first bowel opening (mean difference: -1.26 days). The ERAS protocols were also associated with lower rates of pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR]: 0.43) and surgical site infections (OR: 0.33). Mortality rates were similar between the ERAS and SC groups.

Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that ERAS protocols may enhance recovery and reduce complications in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Implementation of these protocols could be beneficial in emergency surgical settings, where feasible.

Reference: Amir AH, Davey MG, Donlon NE. (2024). Evaluating the Impact of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols following Emergency Laparotomy – A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Surgery. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.115857.

 

---

Meta-Analysis: Efficacy of exercise modalities in major depressive disorder treatment

20 Mar, 2024 | 17:54h | UTC

Study Design and Population: This article presents a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the optimal dose and modality of exercise for treating major depressive disorder, comparing its effects to psychotherapy, antidepressants, and control conditions such as usual care or placebo. The review included 218 unique studies encompassing 495 arms with a total of 14,170 participants who met the clinical cutoffs for major depression.

Main Findings: The findings revealed moderate reductions in depression symptoms for several exercise modalities when compared to active controls. Notably, walking or jogging, yoga, and strength training demonstrated the most significant effects. The effectiveness of exercise was found to be proportional to the intensity of the activity prescribed. Among these, yoga and strength training were identified as the most acceptable modalities for participants. However, the overall confidence in these results is low due to the high risk of bias in the included studies, with only one study meeting the criteria for a low risk of bias.

Implications for Practice: The study concludes that exercise, particularly walking or jogging, yoga, and strength training at sufficient intensities, can be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder. These modalities could be recommended alongside traditional treatments such as psychotherapy and antidepressants. Future research should focus on blinding participants and staff to mitigate expectancy effects and improve the reliability of findings. The inclusivity of exercise as a core treatment for depression could significantly impact treatment strategies and patient outcomes.

Reference: Noetel, M., et al. (2024). Effect of exercise for depression: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 384, e075847. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-075847. Access the study here: [Link]

---

RCT – 2ry analysis | Aerobic exercise intervention shows potential to reduce chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy

11 Aug, 2023 | 15:17h | UTC

Effect of Exercise on Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Among Patients Treated for Ovarian Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial – JAMA Network Open

See also: Visual Abstract

Commentary: Aerobic Exercise Cuts Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Symptoms – HealthDay

 

Commentary on Twitter

Aerobic exercise improves chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in women who were treated for ovarian cancer. Incorporating referral to exercise programs as a part of standard of oncology care is recommended. https://t.co/lp9C9seyM6 @anlan_cao

— JAMA Network Open (@JAMANetworkOpen) August 1, 2023

 

---

Survival ≠ Recovery | A narrative review of post-intensive care syndrome

11 Aug, 2023 | 15:11h | UTC

Survival ≠ Recovery: A Narrative Review of Post-Intensive Care Syndrome – CHEST Critical Care

 

---

M-A | Approximately 25 min/day of walking can boost function and cut adverse events in acutely hospitalized elders

8 Aug, 2023 | 13:35h | UTC

Optimal dose and type of physical activity to improve functional capacity and minimise adverse events in acutely hospitalised older adults: a systematic review with dose-response network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials – British Journal of Sports Medicine (free for a limited period)

 

---

Guideline on multimodal rehabilitation for patients with post-intensive care syndrome

2 Aug, 2023 | 14:04h | UTC

Guideline on multimodal rehabilitation for patients with post-intensive care syndrome – Critical Care

 

Commentary from the author on Twitter

Very proud to announce our new publication:

Guideline on multimodal rehabilitation for patients with post-intensive care syndrome

Incl. 1 statement, 12 recommendations, and 4 therapy options for prevention & rehab of patients with PICShttps://t.co/NbjIx7zcwR pic.twitter.com/X63epI7ec7

— Peter Nydahl (@NydahlPeter) July 31, 2023

 

---

RCT| Exercise during hemodialysis improves physical function in chronic kidney failure patients

13 Jul, 2023 | 13:01h | UTC

Exercise during Hemodialysis in Patients with Chronic Kidney Failure – NEJM Evidence

 

---

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

 

---

M-A | Interventions using wearable activity trackers to improve patient physical activity in adults who are hospitalized

30 Jun, 2023 | 14:46h | UTC

Interventions Using Wearable Activity Trackers to Improve Patient Physical Activity and Other Outcomes in Adults Who Are Hospitalized: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis – JAMA Network Open

Author Interview: Wearable Activity Trackers to Improve Physical Activity and Outcomes – JAMA

News Release: Wearable activity trackers accelerate hospital patient recovery – University of South Australia

 

---

RCT | Arthroscopic capsular shift surgery shows no significant pain or functional improvement in atraumatic shoulder instability

29 Jun, 2023 | 13:45h | UTC

Arthroscopic capsular shift surgery in patients with atraumatic shoulder joint instability: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial – British Journal of Sports Medicine (link to abstract – $ for full-text)

 

---

M-A | Effect of resistance exercise dose components for tendinopathy management

26 Jun, 2023 | 00:22h | UTC

Effect of resistance exercise dose components for tendinopathy management: a systematic review with meta-analysis – British Journal of Sports Medicine

 

---

M-A | Post-surgery interventions for hip fracture

16 Jun, 2023 | 13:45h | UTC

Post-surgery interventions for hip fracture: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials – BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

 

---

Cluster RCT | Effects of implementation of a supervised walking program in veterans affairs hospitals

14 Jun, 2023 | 14:17h | UTC

Effects of Implementation of a Supervised Walking Program in Veterans Affairs Hospitals: A Stepped-Wedge, Cluster Randomized Trial – Annals of Internal Medicine (link to abstract – $ for full-text)

Commentary: Supervised Walking Program Benefits Veterans Admitted to Hospital – Physician’s Weekly

 

Commentary on Twitter

A supervised #WalkingProgram known as #STRIDE reduced skilled nursing facility admissions among older adults. https://t.co/nvkzcx5eVE pic.twitter.com/UJnJMtaxXG

— Annals of Int Med (@AnnalsofIM) June 8, 2023

 

---

Review | The cervical spine in tension type headache

13 Jun, 2023 | 13:58h | UTC

The cervical spine in tension type headache – Musculoskeletal Science and Practice

 

Commentary on Twitter

The cervical spine in tension type headache

🤕🤕🤕https://t.co/EFcxBlDO34 pic.twitter.com/y7SyA3T7qt

— Physio Meets Science (@PhysioMeScience) June 1, 2023

 

---

M-A | Effects of physical exercise on physical function in older adults in residential care

7 Jun, 2023 | 13:39h | UTC

Effects of physical exercise on physical function in older adults in residential care: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials – The Lancet Health Longevity

Invited commentary: Is there enough evidence to prescribe exercise to older adults living in residential care? – The Lancet Health Longevity

 

---

ACR Guideline for exercise, rehabilitation, diet, and additional integrative interventions for rheumatoid arthritis

2 Jun, 2023 | 12:33h | UTC

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis – Arthritis Care & Research

Editorial: Patient Perspectives on the 2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Exercise, Rehabilitation, Diet, and Additional Integrative Interventions for Rheumatoid Arthritis – Arthritis Care & Research

News Release: New Guideline Introduces Recommendations for Integrative Approach to RA Treatment – American College of Rheumatology

 

---