Reduction in Osteoarthritis Risk After Treatment With Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis

Association of peripheral inflammatory indicators with osteoarthritis risk

Objectives

Numerous studies have established the role of inflammation in osteoarthritis (OA) progression, yet limited research explores the association between systemic inflammatory indicators and pre-diagnosis OA risk. This study aimed to investigate the association between peripheral inflammatory indicators and the risk of OA using data from the UK Biobank.

Methods

The study analyzed data from 417,507 participants in the UK Biobank, including neutrophil count, lymphocyte count, monocyte count, platelet count, and C-reactive protein meter. Additionally, derived ratios such as NLR(neutrophils-lymphocytes ratio), PLR(Platelets-lymphocytes ratio), SII(systemic immune-inflammation index), and LMR (lymphocytes-monocytes ratio) were examined. Cox proportional hazards models and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess both linear and nonlinear associations.

Results

Over a mean follow-up period of 12.7 years, a total of 49,509 OA events were identified. The findings revealed that CRP (HR:1.06, 95%CI:1.05-1.07), NLR (HR:1.02, 95%CI:1.01-1.03), PLR (HR:1.02, 95%CI:1.01-1.03), and SII (HR:1.03, 95%CI:1.01-1.04) were associated with an increased risk of OA, while LMR (HR:0.97, 95%CI:0.96-0.99) showed a significant negative correlation with OA risk. Subgroup analyses further emphasized that these associations were significant across most of the population. Although neutrophils, lymphocytes, monocytes, and platelets showed a nominal association with the risk of OA, the results were unreliable, especially for specific joint OA.

Conclusion

The study provides evidence of a significant association between elevated peripheral inflammatory indicators and OA risk. These findings underscore the importance of low-grade chronic inflammation in OA development. The potential clinical utility of these indicators as early predictors of OA is suggested, warranting further exploration.

Purines and Adenosine Receptors in Osteoarthritis

OA is a common and debilitating condition that restricts mobility and diminishes the quality of life. Recent work indicates that the generation of adenosine at the cell surface is an important mediator of chondrocyte homeostasis, and topical application of adenosine in a slow-release form (liposomes) can halt the progression of OA and diminish the pain associated with OA. Here, we review the evidence indicating that adenosine, acting at A2A receptors, plays a critical role in endogenous and exogenous treatment and reversal of OA.

Increased risk of osteoarthritis in patients with atopic disease

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence of osteoarthrits (OA) in patients with atopic disease compared with matched non-exposed patients.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching using claims data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart (CDM) (January 2003 to June 2019) and electronic health record data from the Stanford Research Repository (STARR) (January 2010 to December 2020). We included adult patients without pre-existing OA or inflammatory arthritis who were exposed to atopic disease or who were non-exposed. The primary outcome was the development of incident OA.

RESULTS

In Optum CDM, we identified 117 346 exposed patients with asthma or atopic dermatitis (mean age 52 years; 60% female) and 1 247 196 non-exposed patients (mean age 50 years; 48% female). After propensity score matching (n=1 09 899 per group), OA incidence was higher in patients with asthma or atopic dermatitis (26.9 per 1000 person-years) compared with non-exposed patients (19.1 per 1000 person-years), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.58 (95% CI 1.55 to 1.62) for developing OA. This effect was even more pronounced in patients with both asthma and atopic dermatitis compared with non-exposed patients (aOR=2.15; 95% CI 1.93 to 2.39) and in patients with asthma compared with patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (aOR=1.83; 95% CI 1.73 to 1.95). We replicated our results in an independent dataset (STARR), which provided the added richness of body mass index data. The aOR of developing OA in patients with asthma or atopic dermatitis versus non-exposed patients in STARR was 1.42 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.48).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates an increased incidence of OA in patients with atopic disease. Future interventional studies may consider targeting allergic pathways for the prevention or treatment of OA.

The influence of involving patients in postoperative pain treatment decisions on pain-related patient-reported outcomes: A STROBE-compliant registering observational study

The evidence regarding the influence of allowing patients to participate in postoperative pain treatment decisions on acute pain management is contradictory. This study aimed to identify the role of patient participation in influencing pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This is a cross-sectional study. The data were provided by PAIN OUT (www.pain-out.eu). A dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was selected. The PROs were assessed on postoperative day 1. The patient participant was assessed using an 11-point scale. Participants who reported >5 were allocated to the "participation" group, and those who reported ≤5 were allocated to the "nonparticipation" group. A 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted. The primary outcome was the desire for more pain treatment. All other items of PROs were the secondary outcomes comprising pain intensity, interference of pain with function, emotional impairment, adverse effects, and other patient perception. From February 2014 to November 2020, 2244 patients from 20 centers were approached, of whom 1804 patients were eligible and 726 pairs were matched. There was no significant difference between the groups in the desire for more pain treatment either before (25.4% vs 28.2%, risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.90 [0.77, 1.05], P = .18) or after matching (26.7% vs 28.8%, risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.93 [0.79, 1.10], P = .43). After matching, patients in the participation group reported significantly better PROs, including pain intensity (less time spent in severe pain [P < .01]), emotional impairment (less anxiety [P < .01]), interference with function (less interference with sleep [P < .01]), adverse effects (less drowsiness [P = .01]), and patient perception (more pain relief [P < .01] and more satisfaction [P < .01]), than the nonparticipation group. Patient participation in pain treatment decisions was associated with improved pain experience but failed to mitigate the desire for more treatment.

Physician Understanding and Willingness to Prescribe Biosimilars: Findings from a US National Survey

BACKGROUND

Biosimilars have the potential to increase patient access and significantly reduce healthcare costs in the US. However, uptake in the US has been slower than anticipated, limiting the benefits of biosimilar competition. Understanding the factors that affect uptake is critically important to realize the benefits of biosimilars.

METHODS

A US national survey study was conducted electronically from December 11, 2019 to January 8, 2020. The survey was administered to 507 US healthcare professionals practicing in dermatology, gastroenterology, hematology, oncology, nephrology, or rheumatology. The survey evaluated prescriber attitudes toward biosimilars in general, as well as prescriber decision making, using a series of hypothetical scenarios with fictional biological products.

RESULTS

Fewer than half had a baseline understanding of key elements of biosimilarity, even among respondents who had previously prescribed a biosimilar. Regardless of previous experience, all respondents benefited from receiving additional information about biosimilarity, indicating the potential benefits of educational efforts for prescribers across all specialties and levels of experience. Prescriber choice was driven primarily by formulary status; however, respondents identified a variety of factors that would influence their willingness to prescribe a biosimilar, including financial savings to the patient, pharmacovigilance, patient experience, and education on the FDA approval process. Over one-third of participants indicated a preference for reference products and nearly half indicated a hesitancy to try biosimilars until they have been on the market longer. Naming conventions for biosimilars did not affect prescribers' willingness to prescribe biosimilars.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps in prescriber knowledge and hesitancy toward biosimilars remain significant challenges for biosimilar uptake. While formulary status of a biosimilar product strongly influences prescriber choice, additional prescriber education on biosimilarity is needed.