Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2020 Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Babesiosis

The purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based guidance for the most effective strategies for the diagnosis and management of babesiosis. The diagnosis and treatment of co-infection with babesiosis and Lyme disease will be addressed in a separate Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guideline [1]. Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of human granulocytic anaplasmosis can be found in the recent rickettsial disease guideline developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2]. The target audience for the babesiosis guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition, such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, intensivists, internists, pediatricians, hematologists, and transfusion medicine specialists.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA): 2020 Guideline on Diagnosis and Management of Babesiosis

The purpose of this guideline is to provide evidence-based guidance for the most effective strategies for the diagnosis and management of babesiosis. The diagnosis and treatment of co-infection with babesiosis and Lyme disease will be addressed in a separate Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guideline [1]. Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of human granulocytic anaplasmosis can be found in the recent rickettsial disease guideline developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [2]. The target audience for the babesiosis guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition, such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, intensivists, internists, pediatricians, hematologists, and transfusion medicine specialists.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment of Lyme Disease

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, American Academy of Neurology, and American College of Rheumatology: 2020 Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Lyme Disease

This evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease was developed by a multidisciplinary panel representing the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). The scope of this guideline includes prevention of Lyme disease, and the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease presenting as erythema migrans, Lyme disease complicated by neurologic, cardiac, and rheumatologic manifestations, Eurasian manifestations of Lyme disease, and Lyme disease complicated by coinfection with other tick-borne pathogens. This guideline does not include comprehensive recommendations for babesiosis and tick-borne rickettsial infections, which are published in separate guidelines. The target audience for this guideline includes primary care physicians and specialists caring for this condition such as infectious diseases specialists, emergency physicians, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, neurologists, rheumatologists, cardiologists and dermatologists in North America.

Duration of Symptom Relief and Early Trajectory of Adverse Events for Oral Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Despite an extensive body of research on nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in osteoarthritis, the duration of their efficacy and timeline of adverse event (AE) onset have been understudied. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses from 2 to 26 weeks to characterize the efficacy and AE trajectories of oral NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Database from inception to May 2018. Randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy and/or safety of Federal Drug Administration-approved NSAIDs in knee osteoarthritis patients were included. Two independent reviewers assessed quality and extracted data. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

We included 72 randomized controlled trials (26,424 participants). NSAIDs demonstrated moderate, statistically significant effects on pain that peaked at 2 weeks (SMD -0.43 [95% CI -0.48, -0.38]), but the magnitude of the effects decreased over time. The results for function were similar. The incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) AEs was significantly higher in NSAID users than placebo users as early as 4 weeks (RR 1.38 [95% CI 1.21, 1.57]). The incidence of cardiovascular (CV) AEs in NSAID users was not significantly different from placebo. Most GI and CV AEs were transient and of minor severity.

CONCLUSION

NSAIDs produced significant pain and function improvements that peaked at 2 weeks but decreased over time. The incidence of minor GI and CV AEs consistently rose, reaching significance as early as 4 weeks. Clinicians should weigh the durability of efficacy with the early onset of minor AEs along with patient tolerability and preferences when formulating an NSAID regimen.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand upon prior Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines by developing patient-focused treatment recommendations for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular osteoarthritis (OA) that are derived from expert consensus and based on objective review of high-quality meta-analytic data.

METHODS

We sought evidence for 60 unique interventions. A systematic search of all relevant databases was conducted from inception through July 2018. After abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers, eligible studies were matched to PICO questions. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan software. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence Profiles were compiled using the GRADEpro web application. Voting for Core Treatments took place first. Four subsequent voting sessions took place via anonymous online survey, during which Panel members were tasked with voting to produce recommendations for all joint locations and comorbidity classes. We designated non-Core treatments to Level 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, or 5, based on the percentage of votes in favor, in addition to the strength of the recommendation.

RESULTS

Core Treatments for Knee OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs with or without dietary weight management. Core Treatments for Hip and Polyarticular OA included arthritis education and structured land-based exercise programs. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were strongly recommended for individuals with Knee OA (Level 1A). For individuals with gastrointestinal comorbidities, COX-2 inhibitors were Level 1B and NSAIDs with proton pump inhibitors Level 2. For individuals with cardiovascular comorbidities or frailty, use of any oral NSAID was not recommended. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, and aquatic exercise were Level 1B/Level 2 treatments for Knee OA, dependent upon comorbidity status, but were not recommended for individuals with Hip or Polyarticular OA. The use of Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (APAP) was conditionally not recommended (Level 4A and 4B), and the use of oral and transdermal opioids was strongly not recommended (Level 5). A treatment algorithm was constructed in order to guide clinical decision-making for a variety of patient profiles, using recommended treatments as input for each decision node.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines offer comprehensive and patient-centered treatment profiles for individuals with Knee, Hip, and Polyarticular OA. The treatment algorithm will facilitate individualized treatment decisions regarding the management of OA.

Are bisphosphonates efficacious in knee osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To clarify the effects of bisphosphonates in knee osteoarthritis (OA) using an up-to-date meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DESIGN

The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017073449). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database from inception until August 2017. We included only RCTs comparing any bisphosphonates vs placebo in knee OA patients and reporting validated pain and function scales, radiographic progression, and adverse events (AEs) outcomes. We excluded studies using active comparators or concomitant medications besides non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) to account for variation in outcome scales. Random effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We included seven RCTs (3013 patients, 69% female); most patients (N = 2767) received oral risedronate. No pain or function outcomes, regardless of dose, route, time point or measuring instrument, revealed statistically significant results (end of trial pain SMD = -0.16 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.34, 0.02]). Similarly, we found no statistically significant effect on radiographic progression (risk ratio = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.77, 1.26]). One small RCT in patients with bone marrow lesions (BMLs) suggested a reduction in BML size at 6 months. Bisphosphonates displayed good tolerability, with no statistically significant differences in AE outcomes vs placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrary to prior reviews, our analysis showed that bisphosphonates neither provide symptomatic relief nor defer radiographic progression in knee OA. However, these agents may still be beneficial in certain subsets of patients who display high rates of subchondral bone turnover. Future studies should be directed at defining such OA subsets and investigating the effects of bisphosphonates in those patients.

Comparative safety profile of hyaluronic acid products for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) is considered a safer alternative to oral Non-Steroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for knee osteoarthritis (OA). A recent review raised potential safety concerns about HA, warranting further review of safety outcomes. We examined the risks of HA compared with IA placebo and investigated whether the risks vary among individual HA preparations.

METHODS

We searched all relevant databases from inception to October 2015 and sought unpublished data. We included all knee OA trials which compared any of the 18 HA products and reported on adverse events (AEs) and withdrawals. We calculated odds ratios for safety data reported at the longest follow-up. Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian hierarchical random effects model for mixed multiple treatment comparisons.

RESULTS

We identified 74 studies involving 13,032 participants aged between 45 and 75 years. The proportion of women ranged from 28% to 100%. The overall incidence of local reactions reported across all products was 8.5%. Commonly reported AEs were transient local reactions, such as pain, swelling and arthralgia, which subsided rapidly. None of the HA products were statistically significantly different from IA placebo or from each other with regard to incidence of AEs. Three treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported among 9214 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the very low incidence of any particular AEs, we conclude that HA products are relatively well tolerated. These products have a similar safety profile compared to each other. This information along with the comparative effectiveness profile and relative cost would be helpful for clinicians in delivering individualized patient care.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated.

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of treatments of primary knee OA using a network meta-analysis design, which estimates relative effects of all treatments against each other.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through 15 August 2014, and unpublished data.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of adults with knee OA comparing 2 or more of the following: acetaminophen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, oral placebo, and IA placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Standardized mean differences were calculated for pain, function, and stiffness at 3-month follow-up.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects model; 137 studies comprising 33,243 participants were identified. For pain, all interventions significantly outperformed oral placebo, with effect sizes from 0.63 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.39 to 0.88) for the most efficacious treatment (hyaluronic acid) to 0.18 (CrI, 0.04 to 0.33) for the least efficacious treatment (acetaminophen). For function, all interventions except IA corticosteroids were significantly superior to oral placebo. For stiffness, most of the treatments did not significantly differ from one another.

LIMITATION

Lack of long-term data, inadequate reporting of safety data, possible publication bias, and few head-to-head comparisons.

CONCLUSION

This method allowed comparison of common treatments of knee OA according to their relative efficacy. Intra-articular treatments were superior to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, possibly because of the integrated IA placebo effect. Small but robust differences were observed between active treatments. All treatments except acetaminophen showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain. This information, along with the safety profiles and relative costs of included treatments, will be helpful for individualized patient care decisions.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.