Search

Importance: Despite recent studies suggesting arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is not more effective than physical therapy (PT), the procedure is still frequently performed in patients with meniscal tears.Objective: To assess whether PT is noninferior to APM for improving patient-reported knee function in patients with meniscal tears.Design, Setting, and Participants: Noninferiority, multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted in 9 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants were aged 45 to 70 years with nonobstructive meniscal tears (ie, no locking of the knee joint). Patients with knee instability, severe osteoarthritis, and body mass index greater than 35 were excluded. Recruitment took place between July 17, 2013, and November 4, 2015. Participants were followed up for 24 months (final participant follow-up, October 11, 2017).Interventions: Three hundred twenty-one participants were randomly assigned to APM (n = 159) or a predefined PT protocol (n = 162). The PT protocol consisted of 16 sessions of exercise therapy over 8 weeks focused on coordination and closed kinetic chain strength exercises.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in patient-reported knee function on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (range, 0 to 100; from worse to best) from baseline over a 24-month follow-up period. The noninferiority margin was defined as a difference between treatment groups of 8 points and was assessed with a 1-sided α of .025. The primary analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle.Results: Among 321 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 58 [6.6] years; 161 women [50%]), 289 (90%) completed the trial (161 women and 158 men). In the PT group, 47 participants (29%) had APM during the 24-month follow-up period, and 8 participants randomized to APM (5%) did not have APM. Over a 24-month follow-up period, knee function improved in the APM group by 26.2 points (from 44.8 to 71.5) and in the PT group by 20.4 points (from 46.5 to 67.7). The overall between-group difference was 3.6 points (97.5% CI, -∞ to 6.5; P value for noninferiority = .001). Adverse events occurred in 18 participants in the APM group and 12 in the PT group. Repeat surgery (3 in the APM group and 1 in the PT group) and additional outpatient visits for knee pain (6 in the APM group and 2 in the PT group) were the most frequent adverse events.Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with nonobstructive meniscal tears, PT was noninferior to APM for improving patient-reported knee function over a 24-month follow-up period. Based on these results, PT may be considered an alternative to surgery for patients with nonobstructive meniscal tears.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01850719. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the formation of antidrug antibodies against fully human monoclonal antibody adalimumab and the clinical relevance of these antidrug antibodies during long-term follow-up of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The study involved 272 patients with RA and they started receiving adalimumab in an outpatient clinic. The researchers monitored disease activity and collected trough serum samples at baseline. The discontinuation of treatment, minimal disease activity and clinical remission in patients with and without antiadalimumab antibodies were compared. The study found higher adalimumab concentrations in patients without antiadalimumab antibodies. The researchers conclude that antidrug antibody development was linked with lower adalimumab concentration.

Context: Several randomized controlled trials have been performed to examine the effectiveness of external hip protectors in reducing the incidence of hip fractures, but the results are controversial. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of hip protectors in reducing the incidence of hip fractures in an elderly high-risk population. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized controlled trial of elderly persons aged 70 years or older, who have low bone density, and are at high risk for falls. Participants lived in apartment houses for the elderly, homes for the elderly, and nursing homes in Amsterdam and surrounding areas in the Netherlands. They were enrolled in the study between March 1999 and March 2001; the mean follow-up was 69.6 weeks. Of the 830 persons who were screened, 561 persons were enrolled. Intervention: External hip protector. Both groups received written information on bone health and risk factors for falls. Main Outcome Measure: Time to first hip fracture. Survival analysis was used to include all participants for the time they participated. Results: In the intervention group, 18 hip fractures occurred vs 20 in the control group. Four hip fractures in the intervention group occurred while an individual was wearing a hip protector. At least 4 hip fractures in the intervention group occurred late at night or early in the morning. Both in univariate analysis (log-rank P = .86) and in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55-2.03), no statistically significant difference between the intervention group and control group was found with regard to time to first hip fracture. In addition, the per protocol analysis in compliant participants did not show a statistically significant difference between the groups (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.25-2.38). Conclusion: The hip protector studied was not effective in preventing hip fractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a reply from the author of an article discussing the use of external hip protection in patients prone to hip fractures.