Search

Purpose: Osteoarthritis (OA) has been shown to be associated with decreased physical function, which may impact upon a person's self-rated health (SRH). Only a few studies have examined the association between OA and SRH in the general population, but to date none have used a clinical definition of OA. The objectives are: (1) To examine the cross-sectional association between clinical OA and fair-to-poor SRH in the general population; (2) To examine whether this association differs between countries; (3) To examine whether physical function is a mediator in the association between clinical OA and SRH.Methods: Baseline data of the European Project on OSteoArthritis (EPOSA) were used, which includes pre-harmonized data from six European cohort studies (n = 2709). Clinical OA was defined according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria. SRH was assessed using one question: How is your health in general? Physical function was assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index and Australian/Canadian OA Hand Index.Results: The prevalence of fair-to-poor SRH ranged from 19.8 % in the United Kingdom to 63.5 % in Italy. Although country differences in the strength of the associations were observed, clinical OA of the hip, knee and hand were significantly associated with fair-to-poor SRH in five out of six European countries. In most countries and at most sites, the association between clinical OA and fair-to-poor SRH was partly or fully mediated by physical function.Conclusions: Clinical OA at different sites was related to fair-to-poor SRH in the general population. Most associations were (partly) mediated by physical functioning, indicating that deteriorating physical function in patients with OA should be a point of attention in patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Several studies have found an increased fall risk in persons with osteoarthritis (OA). However, most prospective studies did not use a clinical definition of OA. In addition, it is not clear which factors explain this risk. Our objectives were: (1) to confirm the prospective association between clinical OA of the hip and knee and falls; (2) to examine the modifying effect of sex; and (3) to examine whether low physical performance, low physical activity and use of pain medication are mediating these relationships., Methods: Baseline and 1-year follow-up data from the European Project on OSteoArthritis (EPOSA) were used involving pre-harmonized data from five European population-based cohort studies (ages 65-85, n = 2535). Clinical OA was defined according to American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. Falls were assessed using self-report., Results: Over the follow-up period, 27.7% of the participants fell once or more (defined as faller), and 9.8% fell twice or more (recurrent faller). After adjustment for confounding, clinical knee OA was associated with the risk of becoming a recurrent faller (relative risk=1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.10-2.18), but not with the risk of becoming a faller. No associations between clinical hip OA and (recurrent) falls were observed after adjustment for confounding. Use of opioids and analgesics mediated the associations between clinical OA and (recurrent) falls, while physical performance and physical activity did not., Conclusion: Individuals with clinical knee OA were at increased risk for recurrent falls. This relationship was mediated by pain medication, particularly opioids. The fall risk needs to be considered when discussing the risk benefit ratio of prescribing these medications., Competing Interests: Declarations of Competing Interest Professor Cooper reports personal fees from Alliance for Better Bone Health, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Takeda and UCB. Professor Dennison reports payment for lecture by Pfizer and UCB. Dr. Edwards reports travel/accommodation/meeting expenses paid by Eli Lilly, Pfizer, UCB, Chugai and Abbvie. All other authors: none., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The progressive rise in dementia prevalence increases the need for rapid methods that complement population-based prevalence studies., Objective: To estimate the prevalence of dementia in the population aged 65 and older based on use of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine., Methods: Descriptive study of use and prescription of cholinesterase inhibitors and/or memantine in 2011 according to 2 databases: Farm@drid (pharmacy billing records for the Region of Madrid) and BIFAP (database for pharmacoepidemiology research in primary care, with diagnosis and prescription records). We tested the comparability of drug use results from each database using the chi-square test and prevalence ratios. The prevalence of dementia in Madrid was estimated based on the dose per 100 inhabitants/day, adjusting the result for data obtained from BIFAP on combination treatment in the general population (0.37%) and the percentage of dementia patients undergoing treatment (41.13%)., Results: Cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine were taken by 2.08% and 0.72% of Madrid residents aged 65 and older was respectively. Both databases displayed similar results for use of these drugs. The estimated prevalence of dementia in individuals aged 65 and older is 5.91% (95% CI%, 5.85-5.95) (52 287 people), and it is higher in women (7.16%) than in men (4.00%)., Conclusions: The estimated prevalence of dementia is similar to that found in population-based studies. Analysing consumption of specific dementia drugs can be a reliable and inexpensive means of updating prevalence data periodically and helping rationalise healthcare resources., (Copyright © 2014 Sociedad Española de Neurología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Clinicians typically update their knowledge by reading articles on the Internet. Easy access to the articles' abstracts and a lack of time to access other information sources creates a risk that therapeutic or diagnostic decisions will be made after reading just the abstracts. Occasionally, however, the abstracts of articles from clinical trials that have not obtained statistically significant differences in the primary study endpoint have reported other positive results, for example, of a secondary endpoint or a subgroup analysis. The article, however, correctly reports all results, including those of the primary endpoint. In the abstract, the safety information of the experimental treatment is usually deficient. The whole article should be read if a clinical decision is to be made., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier España, S.L.U. y Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.)