Red Algae Alters Expression of Inflammatory Pathways in an Osteoarthritis In Vitro Co-Culture

Background/Objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent chronic conditions and significantly contributes to local and global disease burden. Common pharmaceuticals that are used to treat OA cause significant side effects, thus non-pharmaceutical bioactive alternatives have been developed that can impact OA symptoms without severe side-effects. One such alternative is the Red Algae Lithothamnion species (Litho). However, there is little mechanistic knowledge of its potential to effect OA gene expression, and a human in vitro model using commercially available cell lines to test its effectiveness has yet to be developed. Methods: Human osteoblast (hFOB 1.19. CRL-11372) and chondrocyte (C28/I2) cell lines were co-cultured indirectly using transwells. IL1-β was used to induce an inflammatory state and gene expression profiles following treatment were the primary outcome. Conclusions: Results indicated that the model was physiologically relevant, remained viable over at least seven days, untreated or following induction of an inflammatory state while maintaining hFOB 1.19. and C28/I2 cell phenotypic characteristics. Following treatment, Litho reduced the expression of inflammatory and pain associated genes, most notably IL-1β, IL-6, PTGS2 (COX-2) and C1qTNF2 (CTRP2). Confirmatory analysis with droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) revealed that Il-1β induced a significant reduction in C1qTNF2 at 7 days which was ameliorated with Litho treatment. These data present a novel and replicable co-culture model of inflammatory OA that can be used to investigate bioactive nutraceuticals. For the first time, this model demonstrated a reduction in C1qTNF2 expression that was mitigated by Red Algae Lithothamnion species.

An update on non-pharmacological interventions for pain relief

Chronic pain affects a substantial portion of the population, yet current treatments often fail to provide adequate relief. Non-pharmacological interventions, which target behaviors and brain processes underlying the experience of pain, hold promises in offering relief for people with chronic pain. This review consolidates the current knowledge concerning the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain. We focus on psychological interventions (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy-based interventions and emotion-based therapies) that use mental techniques and physical practices (e.g., exercise, massage, acupuncture, and yoga) that use body techniques to reduce pain. The efficacy of neuromodulation is also discussed. Given that placebo and expectation effects may enhance benefits for non-pharmacological interventions, we also discuss placebo interventions and expectation management practices. Finally, we describe digital therapeutics as an emerging approach for managing chronic pain. We argue that non-pharmacological interventions are critical adjunctive or stand-alone interventions for chronic pain conditions.

Recent advances in the management of knee osteoarthritis: a narrative review

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition that causes pain and reduces the quality of life for many people. It also leads to high health and financial costs. Managing knee OA pain requires using different methods together for the best results. This review overviews current therapeutic options for knee OA pain, focusing on their efficacy, safety, and potential roles in clinical practice. Topical treatments, such as NSAIDs and capsaicin, offer significant pain relief with minimal systemic side effects and are suitable for initial therapy, together with nonpharmacologic interventions like exercise and, when relevant, weight loss. Oral analgesics, including acetaminophen and opioids, have limited efficacy and serious side effects, making them appropriate only for short-term or rescue therapy. Intra-articular injections, such as corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, and platelet rich plasma, demonstrate varying levels of efficacy and safety. Nutritional supplements, including curcumin, Boswellia serrata, and glucosaminechondroitin combinations, offer modest benefits and are best used as adjuncts to standart treatment. Nonpharmacological treatments, such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), acupuncture, and local heat therapy, provide variable pain relief and should be customized based on individual patient responses. Targeted biologic agents, such as antibodies to TNF-α, IL-1, and NGF, hold promise for more precise pain relief; however, further research is required to establish their routine use. Treating knee OA pain should be personalized, combining several methods. Research must continue to improve treatments and make them safer.

Medical cannabis and its efficacy/effectiveness on the management of osteoarthritis pain and function

OBJECTIVE

Despite pharmacological treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), more individuals are choosing medical cannabis for OA symptom management and for mitigating opioid prescriptions for OA. This systematic review examines the global evidence of medical cannabis use on OA pain and function.

METHODS

The search was completed in MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and CINAHL within the past 10 years (2012-2022). We limited the search to English language articles. We did not include grey literature or case studies. Participant demographics included all adult individuals with OA who were using medical cannabis for OA. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework; and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. We used a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

Overall, 7 studies were included: 2 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 5 observational studies. Only 1 of the 2 RCTs reported improvements in pain for cannabis users. All 5 observational studies reported an improvement in pain levels, reduction of opioid use, and/or improvement in overall OA function. Despite high risk of bias ratings and low study quality, the consensus across studies was that medical cannabis use was effective for a subgroup of individuals suffering from OA pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence to support medical cannabis use as a substitute for primary pharmacological treatment of OA. However, this does not negate the observations that medical cannabis may provide therapeutic relief for a subset of patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROPSERO REGISTRATION

CRD42022354026.

Model-Based Meta-Analysis Supporting the Combination of Acetaminophen and Topical Diclofenac in Acute Pain: A Therapy for Mild-to-Moderate Osteoarthritis Pain?

INTRODUCTION

Acetaminophen and topical diclofenac (AtopD) have complementary mechanisms of action and are therefore candidates for combination use in osteoarthritis (OA) pain. However, an evidence gap exists on their combination use in OA pain. This study aimed to assess the effects of this combination and compare its performance relative to monotherapies on pain score reduction and opioid-sparing effect by leveraging evidence from acute pain setting using a model-based meta-analysis (MBMA).

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the MEDLINE database to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the combination for acute pain. Subsequently, an MBMA of RCTs was implemented in conjunction with extrapolation principles to infer efficacy in the population of interest. Pain score reduction and opioid-sparing effect (OSE) were selected as the measures of efficacy.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs encompassing 1396 patients were included. Exploratory evaluation revealed AtopD combination to show greater pain score reduction versus acetaminophen monotherapy. However, pain score reduction was more susceptible to confounding by opioid patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) than OSE. Therefore, a parsimonious MBMA evaluating OSE was developed from 5 of the 11 RCTs (n = 353 patients). The analysis revealed a statistically significant interaction coefficient, suggesting a reduction of 32% in opioid use with the combination versus acetaminophen monotherapy. Differences in the effect size of the combination were less conclusive versus diclofenac monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate greater pain reduction and opioid-sparing efficacy for the AtopD combination versus acetaminophen monotherapy. Given the similar pain pathways and mechanisms of action of the two drugs in acute and mild-to-moderate OA pain, comparable beneficial effects from the combination therapy may be anticipated following extrapolation to chronic OA pain. Prospective RCTs and real-world studies in OA pain are needed to confirm the differences in the efficacy of the combination treatment observed in our study.

What Changes Have Occurred in Opioid Prescriptions and the Prescribers of Opioids Before TKA and THA? A Large National Registry Study

BACKGROUND

Opioid use before TKA or THA is linked to a higher risk of revision surgery and less functional improvement. In Western countries, the frequency of preoperative opioid use has varied, and robust information on temporal changes in opioid prescriptions over time (in the months before surgery as well as annual changes) and among prescribers is necessary to pinpoint opportunities to improve on low-value care patterns, and when they are recognized, to target physician populations for intervention strategies.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasties receive an opioid prescription in the year before TKA or THA, and what were the preoperative opioid prescription rates over time between 2013 and 2018? (2) Does the preoperative prescription rate vary between 12 and 10 months and between 3 and 1 months in the year before TKA or THA, and did it change between 2013 and 2018? (3) Which medical professionals were the main prescribers of preoperative opioids 1 year before TKA or THA?

METHODS

This was a large-database study drawn from longitudinally maintained national registry sources in the Netherlands. The Dutch Foundation for Pharmaceutical Statistics was linked to the Dutch Arthroplasty Register from 2013 to 2018. TKAs and THAs performed because of osteoarthritis in patients older than 18 years, which were also uniquely linked by age, gender, patient postcode, and low-molecular weight heparin use, were eligible. Between 2013 and 2018, 146,052 TKAs were performed: 96% (139,998) of the TKAs were performed for osteoarthritis in patients older than 18 years; of them, 56% (78,282) were excluded because of our linkage criteria. Some of the linked arthroplasties could not be linked to a community pharmacy, which was necessary to follow patients over time, leaving 28% (40,989) of the initial TKAs as our study population. Between 2013 and 2018, 174,116 THAs were performed: 86% (150,574) were performed for osteoarthritis in patients older than 18 years, one arthroplasty was excluded because of an outlier opioid dose, and a further 57% (85,724 of 150,574) were excluded because of our linkage criteria. Some of the linked arthroplasties could not be linked to a community pharmacy, leaving 28% (42,689 of 150,574) of THAs, which were performed between 2013 and 2018. For both TKA and THA, the mean age before surgery was 68 years, and roughly 60% of the population were women. We calculated the proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasties who had at least one opioid prescription in the year before arthroplasty and compared data from 2013 to 2018. Opioid prescription rates are given as defined daily dosages and morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per arthroplasty. Opioid prescriptions were assessed by preoperative quarter and by operation year. Possible changes over time in opioid exposure were investigated using linear regression, adjusted for age and gender, in which the month of operation since January 2013 was used as the determinant and MME as the outcome. This was done for all opioids combined and per opioid type. Possible changes in opioid prescription rates in the year before arthroplasty were assessed by comparing the time period of 1 to 3 months before surgery with the other quarters. Additionally, preoperative prescriptions per operation year were assessed per prescriber category: general practitioners, orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, and others. All analyses were stratified by TKA or THA.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients undergoing arthroplasties who had an opioid prescription before TKA increased from 25% (1079 of 4298) in 2013 to 28% (2097 of 7460) in 2018 (difference 3% [95% CI 1.35% to 4.65%]; p < 0.001), and before THA increased from 25% (1111 to 4451) to 30% (2323 to 7625) (difference 5% [95% CI 3.8% to 7.2%]; p < 0.001). The mean preoperative opioid prescription rate increased over time between 2013 and 2018 for both TKA and THA. For TKA, an adjusted monthly increase of 3.96 MME was observed (95% CI 1.8 to 6.1 MME; p < 0.001). For THA, the monthly increase was 3.8 MME (95% CI 1.5 to 6.0; p = 0.001. For both TKA and THA, there was a monthly increase in the preoperative oxycodone rate (3.8 MME [95% CI 2.5 to 5.1]; p < 0.001 and 3.6 [95% CI 2.6 to 4.7]; p < 0.001, respectively). For TKA, but not for THA, there was a monthly decrease in tramadol prescriptions (-0.6 MME [95% CI -1.0 to -0.2]; p = 0.006). Regarding the opioids prescribed in the year before surgery, there was a mean increase of 48 MME (95% CI 39.3 to 56.7 MME; p < 0.001) for TKA between 10 and 12 months and the last 3 months before surgery. For THA, this increase was 121 MME (95% CI 110 to 131 MME; p < 0.001). Regarding possible differences between 2013 and 2018, we only found differences in the period 10 to 12 months before TKA (mean difference 61 MME [95% CI 19.2 to 103.3]; p = 0.004) and the period 7 to 9 months before TKA (mean difference 66 MME [95% CI 22.0 to 110.9]; p = 0.003). For THA, there was an increase in the MMEs prescribed between 2013 and 2018 for all four quarters, with mean differences ranging from 43.9 to 55.4 MME (p < 0.05). The average proportion of preoperative opioid prescriptions prescribed by general practitioners ranged between 82% and 86% (41,037 of 49,855 for TKA and 49,137 of 57,289 for THA), between 4% and 6% (2924 of 49,855 for TKA and 2461 of 57,289 for THA), by orthopaedic surgeons, 1% by rheumatologists (409 of 49,855 for TKA and 370 of 57,289 for THA), and between 9% and 11% by other physicians (5485 of 49,855 for TKA and 5321 of 57,289 for THA). Prescriptions by orthopaedic surgeons increased over time, from 3% to 7% for THA (difference 4% [95% CI 3.6 to 4.9]) and 4% to 10% for TKA (difference 6% [95% CI 5% to 7%]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Between 2013 and 2018, preoperative opioid prescriptions increased in the Netherlands, mainly because of a shift to more oxycodone prescriptions. We also observed an increase in opioid prescriptions in the year before surgery. Although general practitioners were the main prescribers of preoperative oxycodone, prescriptions by orthopaedic surgeons also increased during the study period. Orthopaedic surgeons should address opioid use and its associated negative effects in preoperative consultations. More intradisciplinary collaboration seems important to limit the prescribing of preoperative opioids. Additionally, research is necessary to assess whether opioid cessation before surgery reduces the risk of adverse outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Prevalence and predictors of opioid use before orthopaedic surgery in an Australian setting: A multicentre, cross-sectional, observational study

Opioid analgesics are commonly used by patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery, and preoperative opioid use is associated with a greater burden of postoperative pain, suboptimal surgical outcomes and higher healthcare costs. This study aimed to examine the prevalence of total opioid use before elective orthopaedic surgery with a focus on regional and rural hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. This was a cross-sectional, observational study of patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery conducted between April 2017 and November 2019 across five hospitals that included a mix of metropolitan, regional, rural, private and public settings. Preoperative patient demographics, pain scores and analgesic use were collected during pre-admission clinic visits, held between two and six weeks before surgery. Of the 430 patients included, 229 (53.3%) were women and the mean age was 67.5 (standard deviation 10.1) years. The overall prevalence of total preoperative opioid use was 37.7% (162/430). Rates of preoperative opioid use ranged from 20.6% (13/63) at a metropolitan hospital to 48.8% (21/43) at an inner regional hospital. Multivariable logistic regression showed that the inner regional setting was a significant predictor of opioid use before orthopaedic surgery (adjusted odds ratio 2.6; 95% confidence interval 1.0 to 6.7) after adjusting for covariates. Opioid use prior to orthopaedic surgery is common and appears to vary by geographical location.

Magnetic Nanoemulsions for the Intra-Articular Delivery of Ascorbic Acid and Dexamethasone

(1) Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive joint degenerative disease that currently has no cure. Limitations in the development of innovative disease modifying therapies are related to the complexity of the underlying pathogenic mechanisms. In addition, there is the unmet need for efficient drug delivery methods. Magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) have been proposed as an efficient modality for the delivery of bioactive molecules within OA joints, limiting the side effects associated with systemic delivery. We previously demonstrated MNP's role in increasing cell proliferation and chondrogenesis. In the design of intra-articular therapies for OA, the combined NE-MNP delivery system could provide increased stability and biological effect. (2) Proprietary Fe3O4 MNPs formulated as oil-in-water (O/W) magneto nanoemulsions (MNEs) containing ascorbic acid and dexamethasone were tested for size, stability, magnetic properties, and in vitro biocompatibility with human primary adipose mesenchymal cells (ADSC), cell mobility, and chondrogenesis. In vivo biocompatibility was tested after systemic administration in mice. (3) We report high MNE colloidal stability, magnetic properties, and excellent in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility. By increasing ADSC migration potential and chondrogenesis, MNE carrying dexamethasone and ascorbic acid could reduce OA symptoms while protecting the cartilage layer.

Magnetic Nanoemulsions for the Intra-Articular Delivery of Ascorbic Acid and Dexamethasone

(1) Osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive joint degenerative disease that currently has no cure. Limitations in the development of innovative disease modifying therapies are related to the complexity of the underlying pathogenic mechanisms. In addition, there is the unmet need for efficient drug delivery methods. Magnetic nanoparticles (MNPs) have been proposed as an efficient modality for the delivery of bioactive molecules within OA joints, limiting the side effects associated with systemic delivery. We previously demonstrated MNP’s role in increasing cell proliferation and chondrogenesis. In the design of intra-articular therapies for OA, the combined NE-MNP delivery system could provide increased stability and biological effect. (2) Proprietary Fe3O4 MNPs formulated as oil-in-water (O/W) magneto nanoemulsions (MNEs) containing ascorbic acid and dexamethasone were tested for size, stability, magnetic properties, and in vitro biocompatibility with human primary adipose mesenchymal cells (ADSC), cell mobility, and chondrogenesis. In vivo biocompatibility was tested after systemic administration in mice. (3) We report high MNE colloidal stability, magnetic properties, and excellent in vitro and in vivo biocompatibility. By increasing ADSC migration potential and chondrogenesis, MNE carrying dexamethasone and ascorbic acid could reduce OA symptoms while protecting the cartilage layer.

Three Weekly Intra-Articular Injections of Hylan G-F 20 vs Arthrocentesis in Patients with Chronic Idiopathic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Multicenter, Evaluator- and Patient-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Symptoms can vary over time, leading to episodes of worsened symptoms known as flares. Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid has demonstrated long-term symptomatic relief in the broader knee osteoarthritis population, although its use in the flare population has not been extensively examined.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of 3 once-weekly intra-articular injections of hylan G-F 20 (as single and repeat courses) in patients with chronic knee osteoarthritis, including a subpopulation that experienced flare.

Methods

Prospective randomized controlled, evaluator- and patient-blinded, multicenter trial with 2 phases: hylan G-F 20 vs arthrocentesis only (control) and 2 courses vs single-course hylan G-F 20. Primary outcomes were visual analog scale (0-100 mm) pain scores. Secondary outcomes included safety and synovial fluid analysis.

Results

Ninety-four patients (104 knees) were enrolled in Phase I, with 31 knees representing flare patients. Seventy-six patients (82 knees) were enrolled in Phase II. Long-term follow-up was 26 to 34 weeks. In flare patients, hylan G-F 20 showed significantly more improvement than the controls for all primary outcomes except pain at night (P = 0.063). Both 1 and 2 courses of hylan G-F 20 showed significant improvements from baseline for primary outcomes with no differences in efficacy between groups in the intention-to-treat population at the end of Phase II. Two courses of hylan G-F 20 showed better improvement in pain with motion (P = 0.0471) at long-term follow-up. No general side effects were reported, and local reactions (pain/swelling of the injected joint) resolved within 1 to 2 weeks. Hylan G-F 20 was also associated with reduced effusion volume and protein concentration.

Conclusions

Hylan G-F 20 significantly improves pain scores vs arthrocentesis in flare patients with no safety concerns. A repeat course of hylan G-F 20 was found to be well tolerated and efficacious.

Opioids for Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Survey of Patient Perspectives and Satisfaction

Patients often take opioids to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain despite limited benefits and potential harms. This study aimed to compare cross-sectional perspectives of patients that were taking prescription opioid (N = 471) or nonopioid medications (N = 185) for OA in terms of satisfaction, expectations of effectiveness, and concerns. Patients prescribed opioids (>7 days) reported more prior treatments (2.47 vs. 1.74), greater mean pain intensity (5.47 vs. 4.11), and worse quality of life (EQ-5D-5L index value mean 0.45 vs. 0.71) than patients prescribed nonopioid medications (all p < 0.0001). Based on linear regression models adjusting for demographics and pain intensity, patients prescribed opioids were less satisfied with overall regimen (3.40 vs. 3.67, p = 0.0322), had less belief that medications were meeting effectiveness expectations (2.72 vs. 3.13, p < 0.0001), and had more concerns about treatments being "not very good" (3.66 vs. 3.22, p = 0.0026) and addiction (3.30 vs. 2.65, p < 0.0001) than patients prescribed nonopioid regimens. When the models were replicated for subgroups with ≥30 days' medication regimen duration, the findings were consistent with the main analyses. Patients have concerns about the risk of opioid addiction, but those with greater disease burden and more prior treatments continue taking opioid regimens.

The Use of Opioids in the Management of Chronic Pain: Synopsis of the 2022 Updated U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and U.S. Department of Defense Clinical Practice Guideline

DESCRIPTION

In May 2022, leadership within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) approved a joint clinical practice guideline for the use of opioids when managing chronic pain. This synopsis summarizes the recommendations that the authors believe are the most important to highlight.

METHODS

In December 2020, the VA/DoD Evidence-Based Practice Work Group assembled a team to update the 2017 VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. The guideline development team included clinical stakeholders and conformed to the National Academy of Medicine's tenets for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The guideline team developed key questions to guide a systematic evidence review that was done by an independent third party and distilled 20 recommendations for care using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The guideline team also created 3 one-page algorithms to help guide clinical decision making. This synopsis presents the recommendations and highlights selected recommendations on the basis of clinical relevance.

RECOMMENDATIONS

This guideline is intended for clinicians who may be considering opioid therapy to manage patients with chronic pain. This synopsis reviews updated recommendations for the initiation and continuation of opioid therapy; dose, duration, and taper of opioids; screening, assessment, and evaluation; and risk mitigation. New additions are highlighted, including recommendations about the use of buprenorphine instead of full agonist opioids; assessing for behavioral health conditions and factors associated with higher risk for harm, such as pain catastrophizing; and the use of pain and opioid education to reduce the risk for prolonged opioid use for postsurgical pain.

Opioid Prescribing for Osteoarthritis: Cross-Sectional Survey among Primary Care Physicians, Rheumatologists, and Orthopaedic Surgeons

Opioids are often prescribed for osteoarthritis (OA) pain, despite recommendations to limit use due to minimal benefits and associated harms. This study aimed to assess physicians' practice patterns and perceptions regarding opioids by specialty one year following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published guidance on opioid prescribing. The 139/153 (90.8%) physicians who reported prescribing opioids in the previous year reported decreased prescribing for mild OA (51.3%, 26.5% and 33.3% of primary care physicians, rheumatologists, and orthopaedic surgeons, respectively), moderate OA (50.0%, 47.1% and 48.1%) and severe OA (43.6%, 41.2% and 44.4%). Prescribing changes were attributed to the CDC guidelines for 58.9% of primary care physicians, 59.1% of rheumatologists, and 73.3% of orthopaedic surgeons. Strong opioids were mostly reserved as third-line treatment. Although treatment effectiveness post-CDC guidelines was not assessed, perceptions of efficacy and quality of life with opioids significantly differed across specialties, whereas perceptions of safety, convenience/acceptability and costs did not. Physicians generally agreed on the barriers to opioid prescribing, with fear of addiction and drug abuse being the most important. Across specialties, physicians reported decreased opioid prescribing for OA, irrespective of OA severity, and in most cases attributed changes in prescribing to the CDC guideline.

Self-administered transcranial direct current stimulation treatment of knee osteoarthritis alters pain-related fNIRS connectivity networks

Significance

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a disease that causes chronic pain in the elderly population. Currently, OA is mainly treated pharmacologically with analgesics, although research has shown that neuromodulation via transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) may be beneficial in reducing pain in clinical settings. However, no studies have reported the effects of home-based self-administered tDCS on functional brain networks in older adults with knee OA.

Aim

We used functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) to investigate the functional connectivity effects of tDCS on underlying pain processing mechanisms at the central nervous level in older adults with knee OA.

Approach

Pain-related brain connectivity networks were extracted using fNIRS at baseline and for three consecutive weeks of treatment from 120 subjects randomly assigned to two groups undergoing active tDCS and sham tDCS.

Results

Our results showed that the tDCS intervention significantly modulated pain-related connectivity correlation only in the group receiving active treatment. We also found that only the active treatment group showed a significantly reduced number and strength of functional connections evoked during nociception in the prefrontal cortex, primary motor (M1), and primary somatosensory (S1) cortices. To our knowledge, this is the first study in which the effect of tDCS on pain-related connectivity networks is investigated using fNIRS.

Conclusions

fNIRS-based functional connectivity can be effectively used to investigate neural circuits of pain at the cortical level in association with nonpharmacological, self-administered tDCS treatment.

Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from - unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are "better" and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.

Opioid use prior to total knee replacement: comparative analysis of trends in England and Sweden

OBJECTIVES

To describe and compare trends in the frequency of opioid prescribing/dispensing in English and Swedish patients with osteoarthritis prior to total knee replacement (TKR).

METHODS

49,043 patients from an English national database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register undergoing TKR between 2015 and 2019 were included, alongside 1:1 age-, sex-, and practice (residential area) matched controls. Annual prevalence and prevalence rates ratio (PRR) of opioid prescribing/dispensing (any, by strength) in the 10 years prior to TKR (or matched index date for controls) were estimated using Poisson regression.

RESULTS

In England and Sweden, the prevalence of patients with osteoarthritis receiving any opioid prior to TKR increased towards the date of surgery from 24% to 44% in England and from 16% to 33% in Sweden. Prescribing in controls was stable, resulting in an increasing PRR (1.6-2.7) between 10 and 1 years prior to index date in both countries. No relevant cohort or period effect was observed in either country. Prevalence of opioid prescribing was higher in English cases and controls; weaker opioids were more commonly prescribed in England, stronger opioids in Sweden.

CONCLUSIONS

Temporal prevalence patterns of opioid prescribing between cases and controls are similar in England and Sweden. Opioids are still commonly used in TKR cases in both countries highlighting the lack of valid alternatives for OA pain management.

Self-Reported Practices and Emotions in Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study of German Physicians

Background: The pressure on physicians when a patient seeks pain relief and their own desire to be self-effective may lead to the prescription of strong opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This study, via physician self-reporting, aims to identify and measure (i) physician adherence to national opioid prescribing guidelines and (ii) physician emotions when a patient seeks a dosage increase of the opioid. Methods: Within a cross-sectional survey—conducted as part of a randomized controlled online intervention trial (ERONA)—600 German physicians were queried on their opioid prescribing behavior (choice and formulation of opioid, indications) for CNCP patients and their emotions to a case vignette describing a patient seeking an opioid dosage increase without signs of objective deterioration. Results: The prescription of strong opioids in this study was not always in accordance with current guidelines. When presented with a scenario in which a patient sought to have their opioid dose increased, some physicians reported negative feelings, such as either pressure (25%), helplessness (25%), anger (23%) or a combination. The risk of non-guideline-compliant prescribing behavior using the example of ultrafast-acting fentanyl for CNCP was increased when negative emotions were present (OR: 1.7; 95%-CI: 1.2−2.6; p = 0.007) or when sublingual buprenorphine was prescribed (OR: 15.4; 95%-CI: 10.1−23.3; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Physicians’ emotional self-awareness represents the first step to identify such direct reactions to patient requests and to ensure a responsible, guideline-based opioid prescription approach for the long-term well-being of the patient.

Conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A review of the literature

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common chronic debilitating disease with an estimated prevalence of 23.9% in the general adult population. The condition is characterised by joint pain, functional impairment and significant reduction in quality of life. Management for KOA can generally be divided into conservative (non-operative) and surgical (operative) measures. Conservative management broadly compromises pharmacological and non-pharmacological options and is conventionally the first line treatment to avoid or delay the need for surgical management. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the current recommendations, efficacy and safety profile of different conservative treatments through a review of the literature.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2021: epidemiology & therapy

This "Year in review" presents a selection of research themes and individual studies from the clinical osteoarthritis (OA) field (epidemiology and therapy) and includes noteworthy descriptive, analytical-observational, and intervention studies. The electronic database search for the review was conducted in Medline, Embase and medRxiv (15th April 2020 to 1st April 2021). Following study screening, the following OA-related themes emerged: COVID-19; disease burden; occupational risk; prediction models; cartilage loss and pain; stem cell treatments; novel pharmacotherapy trials; therapy for less well researched OA phenotypes; benefits and challenges of Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analyses; patient choice-balancing benefits and harms; OA and comorbidity; and inequalities in OA. Headline study findings included: a longitudinal cohort study demonstrating no evidence for a harmful effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in terms of COVID-19 related deaths; a Global Burden of Disease study reporting a 102% increase in crude incidence rate of OA in 2017 compared to 1990; a longitudinal study reporting cartilage thickness loss was associated with only a very small degree of worsening in pain over 2 years; an exploratory analysis of a non-OA randomised controlled trial (RCT) finding reduced risk of total joint replacement with an Interleukin -1β inhibitor (canakinumab); a significant relationship between cumulative disadvantage and clinical outcomes of pain and depression mediated by perceived discrimination in a secondary analysis from a RCT; worsening socioeconomic circumstances were associated with future arthritis diagnosis in an innovative natural experiment (with implications for unique research possibilities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic context).

Does pain medication use influence the outcome of 8 weeks of education and exercise therapy in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis? An observational study

OBJECTIVE

Patients with osteoarthritis are mainly managed in primary care settings and many patients use pain medication as symptomatic treatment. We investigated in OA-patients receiving an education and exercise program, the use and type of pain medication and its impact on outcomes at 3 months follow-up.

DESIGN, SETTING & SUBJECTS

The design was a retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the GLA: D® registry. The study included 15,918 primary care patients.

RESULTS

Among the included patients, 62% were pain medication users and 38% were non-users. Among the pain medications users, 35% were classified as paracetamol users, 54% as NSAID users, and 11% as opioid users. Medication users and non-users differed regarding a higher pain intensity, poorer physical and mental health. Pain medication use before and during the education and exercise program was associated with the pain intensity at 3 months follow-up. However, patients either using or not using pain medications improved over time, and the magnitude of the difference between patient groups was small (less than 10 mm on a 0-100 scale).

CONCLUSIONS

Pain medication use is weakly associated with outcome at 3 months follow up in OA-patients receiving an education and exercise program. Between-group differences, however, are small and probably not clinically important.

Patients' self-reported physical and psychological effects of opioid use in chronic noncancer pain-A retrospective cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Strong opioids can have unintended effects. Clinical studies of strong opioids mainly report physical side effects, psychiatric or opioid use disorders. To date, too little attention has been paid to the psychological effects of opioids to treat patients with chronic noncancer pain (CNCP). This study aims to identify and measure (i) the nature and frequency of physical and psychological effects and (ii) the degree of physician counseling of patients with CNCP taking strong opioids.

METHODS

Within a cross-sectional survey-conducted as part of a randomised controlled online intervention trial (ERONA [Experiencing the risk of overusing opioids among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in ambulatory care])-300 German CNCP patients were surveyed via patient-reported outcome measures regarding on both the side effects from their use of strong opioids as well as their counselling experience.

RESULTS

Among the patients' reported effects, the psychological outcomes of the opioids in CNCP were: feeling relaxed (84%), fatigue (76%), dizziness (57%), listlessness (37%), difficulty with mental activities (23%), dulled emotions (17%) and poor memory (17%). Ninety-two per cent of the patients reported having received information about opioid effects, and 46% had discussed cessation of the opioid medication with their physicians before commencing the prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the well-known physical side effects, patients with CNCP taking strong opioids experience significant psychological effects. In view of these effects, discontinuation of opioid therapy should be discussed early to ensure their benefits do not outweigh their harm.

SIGNIFICANCE

In this study, patients with non-cancer pain notice that opioids they have taken do not only cause physical side effects but also may have an impact on their psyche and their emotions and, thus, may also affect quality of life substantially. Clinical trial number: DRKS00020358.

[Pain Management in Non-surgical Inpatients - Treatment Approaches and Competence for Pain Services]

The number of non-surgical patients in the hospital setting with pain due to medical conditions or comorbidities and/or invasive procedures or treatments is high. Compared to perioperative pain management, the portion of patients and/or conditions that require more than an approach focused on pharmacological treatment of nociceptive pain is considerably higher. Rather, treatment often requires the differentiated use of co-analgesics, non-pharmacological treatments, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, psychological assessment and interventsions and educational approaches, ideally in the form of closely coordinated interdisciplinary treatment. The assessment and treatment of acute and especially chronic pain should follow the biopsychosocial concept of pain, especially if risk factors for chronification have been identified, if patients receive high-dose therapy with analgesics or have preexisting a chronic pain disorder.

Treating osteoarthritis pain: mechanisms of action of acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and nerve growth factor antibodies

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common difficult-to-treat condition where the goal, in the absence of disease-modifying treatments, is to alleviate symptoms such as pain and loss of function. Acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids are common pharmacologic treatments for OA. Antibodies directed against nerve growth factor (NGF-Abs) are a new class of agents under clinical investigation for the treatment of OA. This narrative review describes (and uses schematics to visualize) nociceptive signaling, chronification of pain, and the mechanisms of action (MOAs) of these different analgesics in the context of OA-related pain pathophysiology. Further, the varying levels of efficacy and safety of these agents observed in patients with OA is examined, based on an overview of published clinical data and/or treatment guidelines (when available), in the context of differences in their MOAs.

Opioid users show worse baseline knee osteoarthritis and faster progression of degenerative changes: a retrospective case-control study based on data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI)

BACKGROUND

Opioids are frequently prescribed for pain control in knee osteoarthritis patients, despite recommendations by current guidelines. Previous studies have investigated the chondrotoxicity of different opioid subtypes. However, the impact opioids may have on progression of osteoarthritis in vivo remains unknown. The aim of this study was thus to describe the associations between opioid use and knee structural changes and clinical outcomes, over 4 years.

METHODS

Participants with baseline opioid use (n=181) and who continued use for ≥1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up (n=79) were included from the Osteoarthritis Initiative cohort and frequency matched with non-users (controls) (1:2). Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scores (WORMS) were obtained, including a total summation score (WORMS total, range 0-96) and subscores for cartilage (0-36), menisci (0-24), and bone marrow abnormalities and subchondral cyst-like lesions (0-18, respectively). Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcomes score (KOOS) symptoms, quality of life (QOL), and pain were also obtained at baseline and follow-up (range 0-100; lower scores indicate worse outcomes). Using linear regression models, associations between baseline and longitudinal findings were investigated. As pain may modify observations, a sensitivity analysis was performed for longitudinal findings. All analyses were adjusted for sex, BMI, age, race, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade.

RESULTS

Opioid users had greater structural degeneration at baseline (WORMS total: Coef. [95% CI], P; 7.1 [5.5, 8.8], <0.001) and a greater increase over 4 years (4.7 [2.9, 6.5], <0.001), compared to controls. Cartilage and meniscus scores increased greater in opioid users, compared to controls (P≤0.001), and findings withstood the adjustment for baseline pain (P≤0.002). All baseline KOOS scores were lower in opioid users compared to controls (P<0.001). QOL loss was greater, when adjusted for baseline KOOS pain (QOL -6.9 [-11.6, -2.1], 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid users had worse baseline knee structural degeneration and faster progression. Opioid use was also associated with worse symptoms, pain, and QOL. Furthermore, QOL loss was greater in opioid users compared to controls, when adjusted for baseline KOOS pain, indicating that opioids may not be suited to prevent subjective disease progression in KOA patients.

European* clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 1: Role of opioids in the management of chronic noncancer pain

BACKGROUND

Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is complex. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).

METHODS

The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.

RESULTS

The key clinical practice recommendations suggest: (a) first optimizing established non-pharmacological treatments and non-opioid analgesics and (b) considering opioid treatment if established non-pharmacological treatments or non-opioid analgesics are not effective and/or not tolerated and/or contraindicated. Evidence- and clinical consensus-based potential indications and contraindications for opioid treatment are presented. Eighteen GCP recommendations give guidance regarding clinical evaluation, as well as opioid treatment assessment, monitoring, continuation and discontinuation.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids remain a treatment option for some selected patients with CNCP under careful surveillance.

SIGNIFICANCE

In chronic pain, opioids are neither a universal cure nor a universally dangerous weapon. They should only be used for some selected chronic noncancer pain syndromes if established non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment options have failed in supervised pain patients as part of a comprehensive, multi-modal, multi-disciplinary approach to treatment. In this context alone, opioid therapy can be a useful tool in achieving and maintaining an optimal level of pain control in some patients.

European clinical practice recommendations on opioids for chronic noncancer pain - Part 2: Special situations

BACKGROUND

Opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is under debate. In the absence of pan-European guidance on this issue, a position paper was commissioned by the European Pain Federation (EFIC).

METHODS

The clinical practice recommendations were developed by eight scientific societies and one patient self-help organization under the coordination of EFIC. A systematic literature search in MEDLINE (up until January 2020) was performed. Two categories of guidance are given: Evidence-based recommendations (supported by evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials or of observational studies) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) statements (supported either by indirect evidence or by case-series, case-control studies and clinical experience). The GRADE system was applied to move from evidence to recommendations. The recommendations and GCP statements were developed by a multiprofessional task force (including nursing, service users, physicians, physiotherapy and psychology) and formal multistep procedures to reach a set of consensus recommendations. The clinical practice recommendations were reviewed by five external reviewers from North America and Europe and were also posted for public comment.

RESULTS

The European Clinical Practice Recommendations give guidance for combination with other medications, the management of frequent (e.g. nausea, constipation) and rare (e.g. hyperalgesia) side effects, for special clinical populations (e.g. children and adolescents, pregnancy) and for special situations (e.g. liver cirrhosis).

CONCLUSION

If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

If a trial with opioids for chronic noncancer pain is conducted, detailed knowledge and experience are needed to adapt the opioid treatment to a special patient group and/or clinical situation and to manage side effects effectively. A collaboration of medical specialties and of all health care professionals is needed for some special populations and clinical situations.

Comprehensive Review of Knee Osteoarthritis Pharmacological Treatment and the Latest Professional Societies' Guidelines

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal progressive disease, with the knee as the most commonly affected joint in the human body. While several new medications are still under research, many symptomatic therapy options, such as analgesics (opioid and non-opioid), nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis, and preparations for topical administration, are being used, with a diverse clinical response and inconsistent conclusions across various professional societies guidelines. The concept of pharmacogenomic-guided therapy, which lies on principles of the right medication for the right patient in the right dose at the right time, can significantly increase the patient's response to symptom relief therapy in knee osteoarthritis. Corticosteroid intra-articular injections and hyaluronic acid injections provoke numerous discussions and disagreements among different guidelines, even though they are currently used in daily clinical practice. Biological options, such as platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cell injections, have shown good results in the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms, greatly increasing the patient's quality of life, especially when combined with other therapeutic options. Non-inclusion of the latter therapies in the guidelines, and their inconsistent stance on numerous therapy options, requires larger and well-designed studies to examine the true effects of these therapies and update the existing guidelines.

Is opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain associated with a greater risk of all-cause mortality compared to non-opioid analgesics? A systematic review of propensity score matched observational studies

BACKGROUND

The many risks associated with opioid therapy for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) have led to questions about use. This is particularly relevant for risk of increased mortality. However, underlying medical conditions of those using opioids may influence mortality findings due to confounding by indication. Similarly, non-opioid analgesics are also associated with an increased risk of mortality, too.

METHODS

We have conducted a systematic review of propensity score matched observational studies comparing mortality associated with opioid use compared to non-opioid analgesics. Clinicaltrials.gov, Google Scholar, MEDLINE and Scopus were searched from inception to July 2020. Propensity score matched observational studies comparing opioids to non-opioid analgesics in real-world settings were analysed. Primary outcome was pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause death. Effects were summarized by a random effects model.

RESULTS

Four studies with seven study arms and 120,186 patients were analysed. Pooled aHR for all-cause death was 1.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.47, 1.95). When mortality risk was confined to out-of-hospital deaths, the pooled aHR was 2.12 (95% CI 1.46, 3.09). The most frequent cause of death was cardiovascular death. Before matching, patients with opioids were older and had more somatic diseases than patients with non-opioids. Despite extensive propensity score matchings and sensitivity analyses, all studies could not fully exclude confounding by indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Possibly, opioids are associated with an increased all-cause mortality risk compared to non-opioid analgesics. When considering treatment options for patients with CNCP, the possible risk of increased all-cause mortality with opioids should be discussed.

SIGNIFICANCE

An increased all-cause mortality associated with opioid use compared to non-opioid analgesics for CNCP was identified by a systematic review of four propensity score matched cohort studies in real-world settings. The number needed to harm for an additional excess death per 10,000 person-years was 116. Despite extensive propensity score matchings and sensitivity analyses, all studies could not fully exclude confounding by indication. The potential risk of increased all-cause mortality with opioids should be discussed with patients when considering opioid treatment.

The Burden of Pain Associated with Osteoarthritis in the Hip or Knee from the Patient's Perspective: A Multinational Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

To evaluate, from the patient’s perspective, the burden of pain associated with hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the USA and selected European Union (EU) countries.

Methods

Data were drawn from the 2017 global Adelphi OA Disease Specific Programme™ (DSP). Patients with hip/knee OA were stratified based on pain intensity and the presence/absence of current opioid use. Outcomes included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores, functional limitations, unmet treatment needs, Charlson Comorbidity Index, relevant comorbid conditions, the 5-dimension 5-level EuroQol, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: Specific Health Problem. Bivariate testing compared outcomes using patients with no/mild pain without opioid use as the reference group.

Results

The study population comprised 2170 patients (US: n = 623 [28.7%]; EU: n = 1547 [71.3%]) with knee (54.9%), hip (24.6%), or knee/hip (20.5%) OA. Mean (SD) age was 66.4 (11.2) years. Patients had no/mild pain without opioid use (39.6%), no/mild pain with opioid use (10.2%), moderate/severe pain without opioid use (30.6%), and moderate/severe pain with opioid use (19.7%). Compared with the reference group, patients with moderate/severe pain reported significantly (p < 0.05) higher functional limitations, greater use of ≥ 3 treatments and treatment dissatisfaction, reduced quality of life, and impaired work productivity and activity. The burden was highest with moderate/severe pain with opioid use. Results were generally similar in the US and EU cohorts.

Conclusions

The results from this multinational cross-sectional study indicate that the impact of OA pain is multidimensional, worsened by increasing pain intensity, and may not be adequately addressed by current treatment strategies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01445-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain: second update of the German guidelines

The opioid epidemic in North America challenges national guidelines worldwide to define the importance of opioids for the management of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

METHODS

The second update of the German guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for CNCP was developed by 26 scientific associations and 2 patient self-help organizations. A systematic literature search in CENTRAL, Medline, and Scopus (to May 2019) was performed. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and open-label extension studies with opioids for CNCP were conducted. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine classification system. The formulation and strength of recommendations were established by multistep formalized procedures to reach a consensus according to German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies regulations. The guidelines underwent external review by 4 experts and public commentary.

RESULTS

Opioids are one drug-based treatment option for short- (4-12 weeks), intermediate- (13-26 weeks), and long-term (>26 weeks) therapy of chronic pain in osteoarthritis, diabetic polyneuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, and low back pain. Contraindications are primary headaches, functional somatic syndromes, and mental disorders with the (cardinal) symptom of pain. For specified other clinical pain conditions, short- and long-term therapy with opioids should be evaluated on an individual basis. Long-term therapy with opioids is associated with relevant risks.

CONCLUSION

Responsible application of opioids requires consideration of possible indications and contraindications, as well as regular assessment of clinical response and adverse effects. Neither uncritical opioid prescription nor general rejection of opioids is justified in patients with CNCP.

[Method report of the second update of the guidelines on long-term opioid therapy for chronic noncancer pain]

BACKGROUND

The update of the German S3 guidelines on long-term opioid therapy of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP), the LONTS (AWMF registration number 145/003), was scheduled for February 2020 due to the expiry of the validity period.

METHODS

The guidelines were updated by 28 scientific societies and 2 patient self-help organizations under the coordination of the German Pain Society and the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF).

RESULTS

A systematic literature search was performed in the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Scopus databases from October 2013 to December 2018. The previous meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of opioids in CNPC syndromes with a study duration of ≥4 weeks were updated. Levels of evidence were assigned according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine version 2009 classification system. The formulation and strength of recommendations was established in a multistep formalized consensus procedure, in accordance with AWMF rules and standards. The guidelines were reviewed by four experts not involved in the development of the guidelines. The public was given the opportunity to comment on the guidelines. The guidelines were approved by the executive boards of the societies that were engaged in development of the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The guidelines will be published in several forms: complete and short scientific versions as well as clinical practice and patient versions.