Skip Navigation
American College of Physicians Logo
  • Subscribe
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Sign In
    Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
    INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
    Sign In|Set Up Account
    You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
    INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
    Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
    Annals of Internal Medicine
    SUBSCRIBE
    Subscribe to Annals of Internal Medicine.
    You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your purchase.
Annals of Internal Medicine Logo Menu
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives
  • Author Info
Advanced Search
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Quality Indicators for Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders |16 October 2001

Quality Indicators for the Management of Osteoarthritis in Vulnerable Elders Free

Catherine H. MacLean, MD, PhD

Catherine H. MacLean, MD, PhD

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
Author, Article, and Disclosure Information
Copyright ©2004 by the American College of Physicians
Acknowledgments: The author thanks Leslie Tive, PhD, and David Felson, MD, for their review of an earlier version of the monograph containing the full set of proposed quality indicators and Patricia Smith for technical assistance.
Grant Support: By a contract from Pfizer Inc. to RAND.
Requests for Single Reprints: Catherine H. MacLean, MD, PhD, RAND, 1700 Main Street, M-23C, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138.
  • From RAND Health, Santa Monica, California; and University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
×
  • ‹ PREV ARTICLE
  • This Issue
  • NEXT ARTICLE ›
Jump To
  • Full Article
  • FULL ARTICLE
  • FULL ARTICLE
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
      1. References
  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplements
  • Audio/Video
  • Summary for Patients
  • Clinical Slide Sets
  • CME / MOC
  • Comments
  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
  • Email Link
More
  • LinkedIn Link
Osteoarthritis is the most common chronic condition affecting older persons. This condition is probably not a single disease but rather “a group of overlapping distinct diseases, which may have different etiologies but with similar biologic, morphologic, and clinical outcomes” (1). A common final result of these diseases, however, is the degeneration of articular cartilage with loss of the joint surface (1). Depending on the method of evaluation and the diagnostic criteria used, estimates of symptomatic disease prevalence range from 50% to 80% in the elderly population (2, 3).
Half of all disability among older persons has been attributed to arthritis (3, 4). Osteoarthritis is associated with pain, functional disability (5, 6), and being homebound (3). Although effective therapies exist to treat this disease, many are associated with substantial toxicities. Several studies have demonstrated regional and subspecialty variations in the use of pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and surgical treatments (7–9). Indirect evidence suggests that these differences result in variations in outcomes and in quality of care. On the basis of a comprehensive literature review, a set of process indicators to assess the quality of health care for vulnerable elders with osteoarthritis was developed. This paper summarizes the methods used to develop these indicators and reviews the evidence on which they are based.

Methods

The methods for developing these quality indicators, including literature review and expert panel consideration, are detailed in a preceding paper (10). For osteoarthritis, the structured literature review identified 6201 titles from which abstracts and articles relevant to this report were identified. Finally, the supporting evidence was supplemented with the author's own extensive files from previous related work and with the recommendations of an external expert reviewer. On the basis of the literature and the author's expertise, 18 potential quality indicators were proposed.

Results

Of the 18 potential quality indicators, 11 were judged valid by the expert panel process (see the quality indicators) and 7 were not accepted. The literature summaries that support each of the indicators judged to be valid by the expert panel process are described below.

Quality Indicator 1

Assessment of Pain and Functional Status

IF a vulnerable elder is diagnosed with symptomatic osteoarthritis, THEN his or her functional status and the degree of pain should be assessed annually BECAUSE this information is necessary to direct therapeutic decisions.
Supporting Evidence. The literature review identified no studies that demonstrate a direct association between the assessment of pain or function and therapeutic decision making. However, given that principal goals of treatment for osteoarthritis are to reduce pain and maximize function, such assessments are necessary to meet these treatment goals.
Assessment of pain and function are implicitly recommended by the American College of Rheumatology in its guidelines for the treatment of osteoarthritis (11–13). The American Board of Family Practice specifically recommends assessing both pain and functional status during the evaluation of patients with arthritis (14).

Quality Indicator 2

Aspiration of Hot Joints

IF a vulnerable elder has monoarticular joint pain associated with redness, warmth, or swelling AND the patient also has an oral temperature greater than 38.0 °C and does not have a previously established diagnosis of pseudogout or gout, THEN a diagnostic aspiration of the painfully swollen red joint should be performed that day BECAUSE this sign–symptom complex is common with joint infection, and it requires treatment that is different than that for osteoarthritis.
Supporting Evidence. No studies directly describe the relationship between the aspiration of painful, swollen, red joints in the presence of fever and establishment of a diagnosis of a septic joint. This sign–symptom complex is uncommon in uncomplicated osteoarthritis, however, and its presence raises the possibility that the affected joint may be septic. Given that an untreated septic joint can rapidly lead to joint destruction and that joint aspiration is necessary to make the diagnosis of a septic joint, it would seem prudent to aspirate in the described scenario.
The American College of Rheumatology, guideline statements, and numerous textbooks of medicine recommend aspiration in this clinical setting (11–13, 15, 16).

Quality Indicators 3 and 4

Exercise Therapy for Patients with Newly Diagnosed Disease

IF an ambulatory vulnerable elder is newly diagnosed with osteoarthritis of the knee, has no contraindication to exercise, and is physically and mentally able to exercise, THEN a directed or supervised strengthening or aerobic exercise program should be prescribed within 3 months of diagnosis BECAUSE such programs improve functional status and reduce pain.

Exercise Therapy for Patients with Prevalent Disease

IF an ambulatory vulnerable elder has had a diagnosis of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee for longer than 12 months, has no contraindication to exercise, and is physically and mentally able to exercise, THEN there should be evidence that a directed or supervised strengthening or aerobic exercise program was prescribed at least once since the time of diagnosis BECAUSE such programs improve functional status and reduce pain.
Supporting Evidence. The literature review identified one relevant systematic review and an additional randomized, controlled trial that was published after the systematic review. In the systematic review, van Baar and colleagues (17) evaluated the effectiveness of exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Among the randomized clinical trials on exercise therapy for osteoarthritis that were generated from a computerized search, the authors identified 11 trials that reported the effect of aerobic or strengthening exercise programs on pain, self-reported disability, observed disability in walking, or patient-rated global assessment (18–27). Most patients enrolled in these studies were older than 60 years of age. Effect sizes for these outcomes could be calculated, and were reported, for 9 of these studies (18–24, 26, 27). The effect size is calculated by dividing the observed result by the standard deviation for that result, producing a unitless outcome that is useful for comparing studies that report outcomes in the same domain (that is, pain) but use different instruments. Among the 6 studies that evaluated the effect of exercise on pain, 4 demonstrated statistically significant (small to medium) effect sizes (18, 19, 21, 22). Four of the 5 studies that recorded self-reported disability reported statistically significant positive effects associated with exercise (18, 19, 22, 26). Four studies reported the effect of exercise on observed disability in walking. In 3 of these studies (18, 19, 22), the effect size was positive, with small or large effect sizes; in 1 study (7), it was negative. All results were statistically significant. The effect of exercise on patient global assessment was evaluated in 2 studies; the effect sizes were medium and large (both statistically significant) (18, 21).
One additional trial that evaluated the effect of exercise among patients with osteoarthritis was published after the systematic review (28). In this study, 83 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to a 4-week physical therapy regimen or to a control group. The physical therapy regimen included manual therapy of the knee by a trained physical therapist and a standardized knee exercise program in the clinic and at home. The control group received subtherapeutic knee ultrasonography and no exercise. At 8 weeks, 6-minute walk times and functional status, measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), were clinically and statistically significantly better in the treatment group than in the control group.
The American College of Rheumatology (11, 12), the American Board of Family Practice (14), and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (29) recommend exercise for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip.

Quality Indicators 5 and 6

Patient Education for Incident Disease

IF an ambulatory vulnerable elder is diagnosed with symptomatic osteoarthritis THEN education regarding the natural history, treatment, and self-management of the disease should be offered at least once within 6 months of diagnosis BECAUSE such education produces improvements in physical functioning and pain.

Patient Education for Prevalent Disease

IF a patient COX has had a diagnosis of symptomatic osteoarthritis for 12 months or longer THEN there should be evidence that the patient was offered education regarding the natural history, treatment, and self-management of the disease at least once since the time of diagnosis BECAUSE such education produces improvements in physical functioning and pain.
Supporting Evidence. The literature search identified two meta-analyses (30, 31) and seven reviews (32–38) that addressed the effect of patient education on outcomes among patients with rheumatoid or osteoarthritis. Because these meta-analyses and reviews reported data from more than 60 different reports and came to similar conclusions, only the results from the most recent meta-analysis and the studies included in that report are discussed here.
The most recent meta-analysis, published in 1996, differentiated between trials that were performed in patients with osteoarthritis, those performed among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, and those performed among patients with combined arthritis (30). Nineteen studies were included in the meta-analysis. In 10 of those studies, the study sample exclusively or primarily included patients with osteoarthritis.
The study calculated and reported effect sizes for the effect of patient education on pain and disability. Effect size was calculated as change in the intervention group minus change in the control group divided by the pooled pretreatment standard deviation. Therefore, positive effect sizes indicate that the intervention group had greater improvement in the outcome of interest than the control group; negative effect sizes indicate that the control group had greater improvement than the intervention group. All effect sizes were weighted for sample size. Table 1 summarizes the results of these calculations. No statistically significant differences were seen between the groups.

Table 1.

Effect of Patient Education on Pain and Disability among Patients with Arthritis

Table 1.
The individual studies reported in this meta-analysis were also reviewed. In each of them, the mean age was older than 60 years. Among the 10 studies pertaining to osteoarthritis (39–48), a total of 20 treatment groups included an education intervention. Pain improved in 13 of these groups and worsened in 7. Disability improved in 11 of these groups, worsened in 7, and was unchanged in 2. In 2 of the studies, the effect of education was confounded by co-interventions, thus making it impossible to definitively attribute the outcome to either intervention (41, 44).
The guidelines for the treatment of osteoarthritis published by the American College of Rheumatology (11, 12) and by the American Board of Family Practice (14) cite education as a nonpharmacologic treatment option, but they do not specifically advocate its use in all patients.

Quality Indicators 7, 8, and 9

First-Line Pharmacologic Therapy

IF oral pharmacologic therapy is initiated to treat osteoarthritis in a vulnerable elder, THEN acetaminophen should be the first drug used, unless there is a documented contraindication to use, BECAUSE this agent is as effective in treating osteoarthritis as other oral agents, and it is less toxic.

Treatment Failure for First-Line Pharmacologic Therapy

IF oral pharmacologic therapy for osteoarthritis in a vulnerable elder is changed from acetaminophen to a different oral agent, THEN there should be evidence that the patient has had a trial of maximum-dose acetaminophen (suitable for age and comorbid conditions) BECAUSE acetaminophen, in adequate doses, is as effective in treating osteoarthritis as other oral agents, and it is less toxic.

Informing Patients about the Risks of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

IF a patient is treated with a COX nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), THEN there should be evidence that the patient was advised of the risk for gastrointestinal bleeding associated with these drugs BECAUSE this risk is substantial.
Supporting Evidence. Oral agents available to treat osteoarthritis include acetaminophen, NSAIDs, the newly approved COX-2 selective NSAIDs, and opioid analgesics.
Three trials, including one that was published after the panel meeting (49), have compared the efficacy of acetaminophen with nonselective NSAIDs. In one double-blind study (50), 184 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee were randomly assigned to receive acetaminophen, 4000 mg/d; ibuprofen, 1200 mg/d; or ibuprofen, 2400 mg/d. After 4 weeks, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) pain scores improved by 10% to 12% in all groups (P < 0.05). Walking and rest pain improved by 10% to 15% in the ibuprofen groups (P < 0.05). Small improvements in the 50-foot walk time and HAQ disability score were observed in the acetaminophen group. However, comparisons of the three treatment groups showed no statistically significant differences in any of the outcome variables except for rest pain; patients treated with ibuprofen, 1200 mg/d, had greater improvement in rest pain than patients taking acetaminophen.
Similar results were reported in a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial that compared the efficacy of naproxen, 375 mg twice daily, with acetaminophen, 650 mg four times daily, among patients with osteoarthritis (51). After 4 weeks of treatment, rest pain had improved 35% in the naproxen group (P = 0.001) but had not improved in the acetaminophen group (P = 0.008 for between-group comparison). Although improvements in pain on motion, 50-foot walk time, and physician assessment were also reported for the naproxen and acetaminophen groups, no differences between groups were found.
The most recent study (49), a randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, compared the efficacy of the combination of diclofenac and misoprostol, 75 mg and 200 µg twice daily, and acetaminophen, 1000 mg four times daily, among 218 patients with osteoarthritis. Improvements in pain (measured by WOMAC) and in function (measured by the modified HAQ) were similar among patients with mild osteoarthritis, but the diclofenac–misoprostol combination was favored for patients with moderate or severe osteoarthritis (P < 0.001). No studies that compared the efficacy of acetaminophen and COX-2 selective NSAIDs were found.
Two meta-analyses have addressed the relative efficacy of different nonselective NSAIDs in treating osteoarthritis. One of these meta-analyses focused on studies pertaining to osteoarthritis of the hip (52), and the other focused on studies pertaining to osteoarthritis of the knee (53). Neither meta-analysis could demonstrate differences in efficacy among different traditional NSAIDs.
One study was identified that compared the efficacy of celecoxib, a COX-2 selective NSAID, with that of naproxen in osteoarthritis (54). In this 12-week multicenter trial, 1003 patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib (50, 100, or 200 mg twice daily), naproxen (500 mg twice daily), or placebo. Outcomes reported at 12 weeks included pain measured on a visual analogue scale; patient and physician global assessment; the Osteoarthritis Severity Index, which measures pain, walking distance, and activities of daily living; and the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, which is composed of items pertaining to pain, stiffness, and physical function. Pain and physical function measures improved significantly in patients treated with celecoxib or naproxen compared with placebo. The celecoxib group and the naproxen group did not differ for any of the outcomes assessed in this study.
No studies were identified that compared the efficacy of opioid analgesics with that of nonselective or COX-2–selective NSAIDs or selective COX inhibitors. However, one randomized, controlled trial was identified that compared opioid analgesics with acetaminophen (55). This study compared the effect of paracetamol with that of paracetamol plus codeine on pain and patient-related global assessment in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. No statistically significant differences were seen for either variable.
Data on the relative toxicities of traditional NSAIDs come from a large literature. Serious NSAID toxicities, primarily related to gastrointestinal perforations, ulcerations, and bleeding episodes, have been studied in numerous clinical trials, case–control studies, and large population-based cohort studies. Several meta-analyses have evaluated the relationship between NSAIDs and gastrointestinal perforations, ulcers, and bleeding episodes and have reported similar findings. Among these meta-analyses, one pooled data from 7 cohort and 27 case–control studies and reported that the overall risk ratio for “NSAID-related gastrointestinal tract disease” was 3.5 (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.5) (56). Another meta-analysis reviewed 16 cohort and case–controls studies and reported that the overall pooled odds ratio was 2.74 (CI, 2.54 to 2.97) for serious gastrointestinal complications; among patients 60 years of age and older, the odds ratio was 5.52 (CI, 4.63 to 6.60) (57).
Several studies have evaluated the gastrointestinal toxicities of nonselective NSAIDs specifically in elderly populations. In a nested case–control study of patients at least 65 years of age, Griffin and associates (58) reported that the relative risk for the development of peptic ulcer disease was 4.1 (CI, 3.5 to 4.7) among current users of NSAIDs compared with nonusers. A randomized, controlled trial of the effect of misoprostol on NSAID-related gastrointestinal toxicities also reported data on the risk for NSAID-induced gastrointestinal toxicities among elders (59). This study reported that among patients 75 years of age and older, the odds ratio for the development of serious gastrointestinal events was 2.48 (CI, 1.48 to 4.14) relative to younger patients.
Data from three studies on symptomatic gastrointestinal toxicities of COX-2 selective NSAIDs were reported to the expert panel. Since the panel meeting, two additional studies (60, 61) have been published and are also described here. The first study was a prespecified analysis of eight randomized, double-blind trials that compared rofecoxib with placebo, nonselective NSAIDs (including ibuprofen, diclofenac, and nabumetone), or both for the treatment of osteoarthritis (62). The 3690 patients (67.9%) who completed the primary trials were included in the analysis. In this analysis, the cumulative 12-month incidence of confirmed gastrointestinal perforations, symptomatic ulcers, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding was 1.3% for rofecoxib over 1428 patient-years and 1.8% for nonselective NSAIDs over 615 patient-years (P = 0.046) (27% reduction in incidence for rofecoxib compared with naproxen). The rate per 100 patient-years was 1.33 for rofecoxib and 2.60 for the nonselective NSAIDs (relative risk, 0.51 [CI, 0.26 to 1.00]). The drugs differed in cumulative incidence of dyspeptic symptoms at 6 months (23.5% vs. 25.5% [P = 0.02] among patients treated with rofecoxib and those treated with nonselective NSAIDs, respectively) but not at 12 months.
The second study that reported clinical gastrointestinal outcomes for COX-2 selective NSAIDs compared the efficacy of celecoxib, naproxen, and placebo among patients with knee osteoarthritis (54). In this study, the reported incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was 22%, 24% to 28%, and 32% for patients treated with placebo, celecoxib at various doses, and naproxen, respectively (statistical significance was not reported).
Likewise, the third study was primarily an efficacy study but also reported clinical safety data. In this double-blind, multicenter study, patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib (100, 200, or 400 mg twice daily), naproxen (500 mg twice daily), or placebo (63). The combined incidence of the most frequently reported gastrointestinal adverse events (dyspepsia, diarrhea, abdominal pain, nausea, and flatulence) was 19%, 25% to 28%, and 31% for placebo, celecoxib, and naproxen, respectively (statistical significance was not reported).
More recently, two large multicenter studies have been reported that were specifically designed to compare the upper gastrointestinal toxicities of COX-2 selective and nonselective NSAIDs. In the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research (VIGOR) study, a multicenter, double-blind trial, 8076 patients with rheumatoid arthritis were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib (50 mg/d) or naproxen (500 mg twice daily) (60). Aspirin use, including aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis, was not permitted. Efficacy and overall mortality were similar for the two agents, but adverse events differed. Higher rates of serious upper gastrointestinal events were seen in the naproxen group, and higher rates of myocardial infarction were seen in the rofecoxib group. During a median follow-up of 9 months, the incidence of serious upper gastrointestinal events (perforations, obstructions, severe bleeding) was 0.6 per 100 patient-years for rofecoxib and 1.4 per 100 patient-years for naproxen (relative risk, 0.4 [CI, 0.2 to 0.8]). The incidence of myocardial infarction was 0.1% in the naproxen group and 0.4% in the rofecoxib group (relative risk, 0.2 [CI, 0.1 to 0.7]).
The Celecoxib Long-Term Arthritis Safety Study (CLASS), a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, evaluated the incidence of symptomatic gastrointestinal ulcers and ulcer complications among 7968 patients with rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis (61). Patients were treated with celecoxib, 400 mg twice daily; ibuprofen, 800 mg three times daily; or diclofenac, 75 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. Aspirin use for cardiovascular protection was allowed in this study. Among 2244 patients not taking aspirin, the annualized incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications for celecoxib and the other NSAIDs was 0.44% and 1.27%, respectively (P = 0.04); annual incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications combined with symptomatic ulcers was 1.4% for celecoxib and 2.91% for the other NSAIDs (P = 0.02). Among 581 patients who were taking aspirin, those taking celecoxib and those taking other NSAIDs did not differ in annual incidence of upper gastrointestinal ulcer complications alone or combined with symptomatic ulcers.
Neither acetaminophen nor narcotic analgesics are associated with gastrointestinal ulcerations or bleeding episodes. Narcotic analgesics are, however, associated with constipation, sedation, and cognitive impairment.
The American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee state that acetaminophen should be considered the first-line pharmacologic therapy for symptomatic patients (11, 12). The American Board of Family Practice also advocates acetaminophen as the first-line pharmacologic agent for treating osteoarthritis (14).

Quality Indicator 10

Gastrointestinal Prophylaxis with Use of Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

IF a vulnerable elder is older than 75 years of age, is treated with warfarin, or has a history of peptic ulcer disease or gastrointestinal bleeding, AND is being treated with a COX nonselective NSAID, THEN he or she should be offered concomitant treatment with either misoprostol or a proton-pump inhibitor BECAUSE this will substantially reduce the risk for NSAID-induced gastrointestinal bleeding.
Supporting Evidence. The literature search identified one trial that assessed the effect of any agent on preventing clinically detectable upper gastrointestinal toxicities from NSAIDs. This large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated the occurrence of serious gastrointestinal side effects among nonselective NSAID users who were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol or placebo in addition to their usual nonselective NSAID (59). The 8843 participants (mean age, 68 years) were monitored for gastrointestinal complications. During the 2 years of the study, 25 serious gastrointestinal events were reported among the 4404 patients in the misoprostol group and 42 serious gastrointestinal events were reported among the 4439 patients in the placebo group [P < 0.05 for between-group comparisons]. Using multiple logistic regression modeling, the study authors evaluated the effects of several patient factors, as well as the effect of treatment, on the risk for serious gastrointestinal events. They identified the following risk factors for gastrointestinal bleeding: 1) age at least 75 years (odds ratio, 2.48 [CI, 1.48 to 4.14]], 2) history of peptic ulcer (odds ratio, 2.29 [CI, 1.28 to 4.12]], 3) history of gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 2.56 [CI, 1.30 to 5.03]], and 4) history of heart disease (odds ratio, 1.84 [CI, 1.07 to 3.15]). Treatment with misoprostol reduced the risk for serious gastrointestinal events by 40% (odds ratio, 0.60 [CI, 0.36 to 0.98]).
The literature review did not identify any studies that assessed the effect of H2-receptor antagonists or proton-pump inhibitors on clinically evident gastrointestinal side effects. However, several studies that assessed the effect of these agents on endoscopic outcomes were identified. A meta-analysis, which included 24 clinical trials, assessed the effect of misoprostol and H2-receptor antagonists on the development of endoscopic lesions among patients treated with nonselective NSAIDs (64). This study demonstrated benefit for misoprostol compared with placebo for the development of endoscopically detected gastric ulcers and duodenal ulcers and benefit for H2-receptor antagonists compared with placebo for the development of endoscopically detected duodenal ulcers (Table 2).

Table 2.

Effects of Misoprostol and H2-Receptor Antagonists on the Development of Endoscopic Lesions among Patients Treated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Table 2.
Two randomized, controlled trials with similar designs, the Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-Associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) (65) and the Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-Induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) (66) study, described the effect of proton-pump inhibitors on endoscopic ulcers. Each of these studies enrolled patients who required continuous nonselective NSAID therapy and had endoscopic ulcers or more than 10 erosions in the stomach or the duodenum. These studies assessed the effects of omeprazole and ranitidine (65) and omeprazole and misoprostol (66) on the healing of endoscopic ulcers and erosions. In addition, each study assessed whether continued treatment with these agents after successful healing could prevent subsequent endoscopic lesions. In both studies, healing of gastric and duodenal ulcers was demonstrated in more than two thirds of the patients in each study group, although the percentage of patients with healing of gastric or duodenal ulcers was higher for omeprazole than for ranitidine or misoprostol (Table 3). Among patients with healed gastric or duodenal lesions, 50% or more of those treated with omeprazole, ranitidine, or misoprostol remained in remission after 6 months. A significantly greater percentage of patients who received omeprazole remained in remission compared with those who received misoprostol. Patients treated with omeprazole and those treated with ranitidine did not differ (Table 4). The literature review identified no studies that directly evaluated the relationship between endoscopic lesions and clinical outcomes.

Table 3.

Effects of Omeprazole, Ranitidine, and Misoprostol on Prevalent Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers among Patients Continuously Treated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Summary of the Healing Phase Results from ASTRONAUT and the OMNIUM Study

Table 3.

Table 4.

Effects of Omeprazole, Ranitidine, and Misoprostol on the Recurrence of Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers among Patients Continuously Treated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Summary of the Maintenance Phase Results from ASTRONAUT and the OMNIUM Study

Table 4.
The American College of Gastroenterology recommends the use of misoprostol in patients treated with NSAIDs who are at high risk for hemorrhage or perforation, states that proton-pump inhibitors are an acceptable alternative, and specifically notes that H2-receptor antagonists cannot be recommended for prophylaxis (67). The American College of Rheumatology guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee note that misoprostol is the only drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for prophylaxis against NSAID-induced upper gastrointestinal complications (68). The guidelines also state that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of famotidine, nizatidine, or omeprazole as prophylactic agents (69). Of note, however, the ASTRONAUT and OMNIUM trials were published after these guidelines.

Quality Indicator 11

Joint Replacement

IF a vulnerable elder with severe symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee or hip has failed to respond to nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapy and has no contraindication to surgery, THEN the patient should be referred to an orthopedic surgeon to be evaluated for total joint replacement within 6 months unless a contraindication to surgery is documented BECAUSE hip and knee replacements markedly improve function and quality of life by reducing pain and/or improving range of motion.
Supporting Evidence. Numerous studies have demonstrated that total hip and total knee replacements reduce pain and improve function and quality of life. In a meta-analysis of 130 primarily observational studies that reported patient outcomes after tricompartmental total knee replacement, Callahan and coworkers (70) reported significant improvements in global rating scores. The 9879 patients included in this analysis had, on average, a 100% improvement in global rating after the total knee replacement. Depending on the type of prosthesis used, between 86% and 92% of patients reported a good or excellent outcome. The mean complication rate was 18.1%, and the mean mortality rate per year of follow-up was 1.5%.
The literature review identified one study that compared outcomes of total knee replacement among very elderly persons with those among young elders (71). In this study, 50 consecutive patients 80 years of age or older who were undergoing total knee replacement were compared with 50 patients 65 to 69 years of age who had the same diagnosis and who were undergoing the same type of surgery. Hospital for Special Surgery scores, a composite measure of pain, range of motion, and activity, were compared before surgery and at intervals up to 2 years after surgery. Scores did not differ between these age groups at baseline or at any point after surgery.
Another report used a computerized search strategy to identify 20 articles that evaluated health-related quality of life after total hip replacement (72). The authors reported that each of the 20 studies demonstrated beneficial and often dramatic improvement in health-related quality of life after elective total hip replacement. Other studies have reported mortality rates between 0.34% (73) and 0.4% (74) after total hip replacement. The infection rate after primary total hip replacement has been reported to be less than 0.25% (75, 76).
Both the American College of Rheumatology (11, 12) and the American Board of Family Practice (14) recommend referral to an orthopedic surgeon for further evaluation and possible joint replacement if response to medical therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip is inadequate. The National Institutes of Health consensus statement on total hip replacement states that “hip replacement is an option for nearly all patients with diseases of the hip that cause chronic discomfort and significant functional impairment” (77). The orthopedic clinical policies of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons list pain and functional disability and nonresponse to medical treatment as indications for knee and hip replacement surgery (29, 78).

Discussion

Osteoarthritis primarily affects older persons and imposes a significant burden on this population. Older patients with osteoarthritis frequently experience substantial variations in processes and outcomes of care (7–9). Improvements in processes of care for this high-risk population may lead to substantial reductions in disease burden and improvements in patient outcomes. This project investigated the relationship between processes and outcomes of care and aimed to develop explicit criteria to evaluate the quality of care of elderly persons with osteoarthritis. Eleven indicators were judged sufficiently valid for use as measures of quality of osteoarthritis care for vulnerable elders. These indicators can potentially serve as a basis to compare the care provided by different health care delivery systems and to compare the change in care over time.

References

  1. Kuettner
    KE
    Goldberg
    VM
    Introduction
    Kuettner KE, Goldberg VM
    Osteoarthritic Disorders
    Rosemont, IL
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    1995
    xxi-xxv
  2. Felson
    DT
    The epidemiology of knee osteoarthritis: results from the Framingham Osteoarthritis Study
    Semin Arthritis Rheum
    1990
    20
    42-50
     PubMed
  3. Hughes
    SL
    Dunlop
    D
    The prevalence and impact of arthritis in older persons
    Arthritis Care Res
    1995
    8
    257-64
     PubMed
  4. Hughes
    SL
    Edelman
    P
    Chang
    RW
    Singer
    RH
    Schuette
    P
    The GERI-AIMS. Reliability and validity of the arthritis impact measurement scales adapted for elderly respondents
    Arthritis Rheum
    1991
    34
    856-65
     PubMed
  5. Verbrugge
    LM
    Lepkowski
    JM
    Konkol
    LL
    Levels of disability among U.S. adults with arthritis
    J Gerontol
    1991
    46
    S71-83
     PubMed
  6. Yelin
    EH
    Katz
    PP
    Transitions in health status among community-dwelling elderly people with arthritis. A national, longitudinal study
    Arthritis Rheum
    1990
    33
    1205-15
     PubMed
  7. Freund
    DA
    Dittus
    RS
    Assessing and Improving Outcomes: Total Knee Replacement Patient Outcomes Research Team (PORT). Final Report
    Rockville, MD
    Agency for Health Care Policy and Research
    1995
  8. Katz
    BP
    Freund
    DA
    Heck
    DA
    Dittus
    RS
    Paul
    JE
    Wright
    J
    et al.
    Demographic variation in the rate of knee replacement: a multi-year analysis
    Health Serv Res
    1996
    31
    125-40
     PubMed
  9. Hochberg
    MC
    Perlmutter
    DL
    Hudson
    JI
    Altman
    RD
    Preferences in the management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: results of a survey of community-based rheumatologists in the United States
    Arthritis Care Res
    1996
    9
    170-6
     PubMed
  10. Shekelle
    PG
    MacLean
    CH
    Morton
    SC
    Wenger
    NS
    Assessing care of vulnerable elders: methods for developing quality indicators
    Ann Intern Med
    2001
    135
    647-52
  11. Hochberg
    MC
    Altman
    RD
    Brandt
    KD
    Clark
    BM
    Dieppe
    PA
    Griffin
    MR
    et al.
    Guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis. Part I. Osteoarthritis of the hip. American College of Rheumatology
    Arthritis Rheum
    1995
    38
    1535-40
     PubMed
  12. Hochberg
    MC
    Altman
    RD
    Brandt
    KD
    Clark
    BM
    Dieppe
    PA
    Griffin
    MR
    et al.
    Guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis. Part II. Osteoarthritis of the knee. American College of Rheumatology
    Arthritis Rheum
    1995
    38
    1541-6
     PubMed
  13. Guidelines for the initial evaluation of the adult patient with acute musculoskeletal symptoms. American College of Rheumatology Ad Hoc Committee on Clinical Guidelines
    Arthritis Rheum
    1996
    39
    1-8
     PubMed
  14. Reference Guide 18. Osteoarthritis. 6th ed. American Board of Family Practice
    Linthicum, MD
    Cadmus Journal Services
    1998
  15. McCune
    WJ
    Golbus
    J
    Monoarticular arthritis
    Kelley WN
    Textbook of Rheumatology. 5th ed
    Philadelphia
    WB Saunders
    1997
    378
  16. Liang MH, Sturrock RD. Evaluation of musculoskeletal symptoms. In: Klippel JH Dieppe P, eds. Rheumatology. St. Louis, MO: Mosby–Year Book; 1994:2.1.5.
  17. van Baar
    ME
    Assendelft
    WJ
    Dekker
    J
    Oostendorp
    RA
    Bijlsma
    JW
    Effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials
    Arthritis Rheum
    1999
    42
    1361-9
     PubMed
  18. van Baar
    ME
    Dekker
    J
    Oostendorp
    RA
    Bijl
    D
    Voorn
    TB
    Lemmens
    JA
    et al.
    The effectiveness of exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a randomized clinical trial
    J Rheumatol
    1998
    25
    2432-9
     PubMed
  19. Ettinger
    WH
    Jr
    Burns
    R
    Messier
    SP
    Applegate
    W
    Rejeski
    WJ
    Morgan
    T
    et al.
    A randomized trial comparing aerobic exercise and resistance exercise with a health education program in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. The Fitness Arthritis and Seniors Trial (FAST)
    JAMA
    1997
    277
    25-31
     PubMed
  20. Callaghan
    MJ
    Oldham
    JA
    Hunt
    J
    An evaluation of exercise regimes for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A single-blind randomized controlled trial
    Clin Rehabil
    1995
    9
    213-8
  21. Börjesson
    M
    Robertson
    E
    Weidenhielm
    L
    Mattsson
    E
    Olsson
    E
    Physiotherapy in knee osteoarthrosis: effect on pain and walking
    Physiother Res Int
    1996
    1
    89-97
     PubMed
  22. Kovar
    PA
    Allegrante
    JP
    MacKenzie
    CR
    Peterson
    MG
    Gutin
    B
    Charlson
    ME
    Supervised fitness walking in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A randomized, controlled trial
    Ann Intern Med
    1992
    116
    529-34
     PubMed
  23. Schilke
    JM
    Johnson
    GO
    Housh
    TJ
    O'Dell
    JR
    Effects of muscle-strength training on the functional status of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee joint
    Nurs Res
    1996
    45
    68-72
     PubMed
  24. Bautch
    JC
    Malone
    DG
    Vailas
    AC
    Effects of exercise on knee joints with osteoarthritis: a pilot study of biologic markers
    Arthritis Care Res
    1997
    10
    48-55
     PubMed
  25. Chamberlain
    MA
    Care
    G
    Harfield
    B
    Physiotherapy in osteoarthrosis of the knees. A controlled trial of hospital versus home exercises
    Int Rehabil Med
    1982
    4
    101-6
     PubMed
  26. Jan
    MH
    Lai
    JS
    The effects of physiotherapy on osteoarthritic knees of females
    J Formos Med Assoc
    1991
    90
    1008-13
     PubMed
  27. Minor
    MA
    Hewett
    JE
    Webel
    RR
    Anderson
    SK
    Kay
    DR
    Efficacy of physical conditioning exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis
    Arthritis Rheum
    1989
    32
    1396-405
     PubMed
  28. Deyle
    GD
    Henderson
    NE
    Matekel
    RL
    Ryder
    MG
    Garber
    MB
    Allison
    SC
    Effectiveness of manual physical therapy and exercise in osteoarthritis of the knee. A randomized, controlled trial
    Ann Intern Med
    2000
    132
    173-81
     PubMed
  29. Osteoarthritis (Arthrosis) of the Knee (Degenerative Joint Disease). Clinical Policies. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    Rosemont, IL
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    1996
  30. Superio-Cabuslay
    E
    Ward
    MM
    Lorig
    KR
    Patient education interventions in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: a meta-analytic comparison with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug treatment
    Arthritis Care Res
    1996
    9
    292-301
     PubMed
  31. Mullen
    PD
    Laville
    EA
    Biddle
    AK
    Lorig
    K
    Efficacy of psychoeducational interventions on pain, depression, and disability in people with arthritis: a meta-analysis
    J Rheumatol
    1987
    14
    Suppl 15
    33-9
     PubMed
  32. Holman
    HR
    Lorig
    KR
    Overcoming barriers to successful aging. Self-management of osteoarthritis
    West J Med
    1997
    167
    265-8
     PubMed
  33. Taal
    E
    Rasker
    JJ
    Wiegman
    O
    Group education for rheumatoid arthritis patients
    Semin Arthritis Rheum
    1997
    26
    805-16
     PubMed
  34. Taal
    E
    Rasker
    JJ
    Wiegman
    O
    Patient education and self-management in the rheumatic diseases: a self-efficacy approach
    Arthritis Care Res
    1996
    9
    229-38
     PubMed
  35. Daltroy
    LH
    Liang
    MH
    Arthritis education: opportunities and state of the art
    Health Educ Q
    1993
    20
    3-16
     PubMed
  36. Hirano
    PC
    Laurent
    DD
    Lorig
    K
    Arthritis patient education studies, 1987-1991: a review of the literature
    Patient Educ Couns
    1994
    24
    9-54
     PubMed
  37. Lorig
    K
    Holman
    H
    Arthritis self-management studies: a twelve-year review
    Health Educ Q
    1993
    20
    17-28
     PubMed
  38. Lorig
    K
    Konkol
    L
    Gonzalez
    V
    Arthritis patient education: a review of the literature
    Patient Educ Couns
    1987
    10
    207-52
     PubMed
  39. Keefe
    FJ
    Caldwell
    DS
    Williams
    DA
    Gil
    KM
    Mitchell
    D
    Robertson
    C
    et al.
    Pain coping skills training in the management of osteoarthritic knee pain—a comparative study
    Behavior Therapy
    1990
    21
    435-47
  40. Lorig
    K
    González
    V
    The integration of theory with practice: a 12-year case study
    Health Educ Q
    1992
    19
    355-68
     PubMed
  41. Kovar
    PA
    Allegrante
    JP
    MacKenzie
    CR
    Peterson
    MG
    Gutin
    B
    Charlson
    ME
    Supervised fitness walking in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. A randomized, controlled trial
    Ann Intern Med
    1992
    116
    529-34
     PubMed
  42. Lorig
    K
    Lubeck
    D
    Kraines
    RG
    Seleznick
    M
    Holman
    HR
    Outcomes of self-help education for patients with arthritis
    Arthritis Rheum
    1985
    28
    680-5
     PubMed
  43. Lorig
    K
    Holman
    HR
    Long-term outcomes of an arthritis self-management study: effects of reinforcement efforts
    Soc Sci Med
    1989
    29
    221-4
     PubMed
  44. Weinberger
    M
    Tierney
    WM
    Booher
    P
    Katz
    BP
    Can the provision of information to patients with osteoarthritis improve functional status? A randomized, controlled trial
    Arthritis Rheum
    1989
    32
    1577-83
     PubMed
  45. Lorig
    K
    Feigenbaum
    P
    Regan
    C
    Ung
    E
    Chastain
    RL
    Holman
    HR
    A comparison of lay-taught and professional-taught arthritis self-management courses
    J Rheumatol
    1986
    13
    763-7
     PubMed
  46. Goeppinger
    J
    Arthur
    MW
    Baglioni
    AJ
    Jr
    Brunk
    SE
    Brunner
    CM
    A reexamination of the effectiveness of self-care education for persons with arthritis
    Arthritis Rheum
    1989
    32
    706-16
     PubMed
  47. Laborde
    JM
    Powers
    MJ
    Evaluation of education interventions for osteoarthritics
    Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoint
    1989
    12
    12-37
  48. Lorig
    K
    Seleznick
    M
    Lubeck
    D
    Ung
    E
    Chastain
    RL
    Holman
    HR
    The beneficial outcomes of the arthritis self-management course are not adequately explained by behavior change
    Arthritis Rheum
    1989
    32
    91-5
     PubMed
  49. Pincus
    T
    Koch
    GG
    Sokka
    T
    Lefkowith
    J
    Wolfe
    F
    Jordan
    JM
    et al.
    A randomized double-blind, crossover clinical trial of diclofenac plus misoprostol versus acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee
    Arthritis Rheum
    2001
    44
    1587-98
     PubMed
  50. Bradley
    JD
    Brandt
    KD
    Katz
    BP
    Kalasinski
    LA
    Ryan
    SI
    Comparison of an antiinflammatory dose of ibuprofen, an analgesic dose of ibuprofen, and acetaminophen in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee
    N Engl J Med
    1991
    325
    87-91
     PubMed
  51. Williams
    HJ
    Ward
    JR
    Egger
    MJ
    Neuner
    R
    Brooks
    RH
    Clegg
    DO
    et al.
    Comparison of naproxen and acetaminophen in a two-year study of treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee
    Arthritis Rheum
    1993
    36
    1196-206
     PubMed
  52. Watson MC, Brookes ST, Kirwan JR. Osteoarthritis: the comparative efficacy of non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the management of osteoarthritis of the knee. The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software; 2001:2
  53. Towheed T, Shea B, Wells G, Hochberg M. Osteoarthritis: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of analgesia and anti-inflammatory therapy in osteoarthritis of the hip. The Cochrane Library. Oxford: Update Software; 2001:2.
  54. Bensen
    WG
    Fiechtner
    JJ
    McMillen
    JI
    Zhao
    WW
    Yu
    SS
    Woods
    EM
    et al.
    Treatment of osteoarthritis with celecoxib, a cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor: a randomized controlled trial
    Mayo Clin Proc
    1999
    74
    1095-105
     PubMed
  55. Kjaersgaard-Andersen
    P
    Nafei
    A
    Skov
    O
    Madsen
    F
    Andersen
    HM
    Krøner
    K
    et al.
    Codeine plus paracetamol versus paracetamol in longer-term treatment of chronic pain due to osteoarthritis of the hip. A randomised, double-blind, multi-centre study
    Pain
    1990
    43
    309-18
     PubMed
  56. Bollini
    P
    García Rodríguez
    LA
    Pérez Gutthann
    S
    Walker
    AM
    The impact of research quality and study design on epidemiologic estimates of the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on upper gastrointestinal tract disease
    Arch Intern Med
    1992
    152
    1289-95
     PubMed
  57. Gabriel
    SE
    Jaakkimainen
    L
    Bombardier
    C
    Risk for serious gastrointestinal complications related to use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A meta-analysis
    Ann Intern Med
    1991
    115
    787-96
     PubMed
  58. Griffin
    MR
    Piper
    JM
    Daugherty
    JR
    Snowden
    M
    Ray
    WA
    Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and increased risk for peptic ulcer disease in elderly persons
    Ann Intern Med
    1991
    114
    257-63
     PubMed
  59. Silverstein
    FE
    Graham
    DY
    Senior
    JR
    Davies
    HW
    Struthers
    BJ
    Bittman
    RM
    et al.
    Misoprostol reduces serious gastrointestinal complications in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
    Ann Intern Med
    1995
    123
    241-9
     PubMed
  60. Bombardier
    C
    Laine
    L
    Reicin
    A
    Shapiro
    D
    Burgos-Vargas
    R
    Davis
    B
    et al.
    Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group
    N Engl J Med
    2000
    343
    1520-8
     PubMed
  61. Silverstein
    FE
    Faich
    G
    Goldstein
    JL
    Simon
    LS
    Pincus
    T
    Whelton
    A
    et al.
    Gastrointestinal toxicity with celecoxib vs nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: the CLASS study. A randomized controlled trial. Celecoxib Long-term Arthritis Safety Study
    JAMA
    2000
    284
    1247-1255
     PubMed
  62. Langman
    MJ
    Jensen
    DM
    Watson
    DJ
    Harper
    SE
    Zhao
    PL
    Quan
    H
    et al.
    Adverse upper gastrointestinal effects of rofecoxib compared with NSAIDs
    JAMA
    1999
    282
    1929-33
     PubMed
  63. Simon
    LS
    Weaver
    AL
    Graham
    DY
    Kivitz
    AJ
    Lipsky
    PE
    Hubbard
    RC
    et al.
    Anti-inflammatory and upper gastrointestinal effects of celecoxib in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized controlled trial
    JAMA
    1999
    282
    1921-8
     PubMed
  64. Koch
    M
    Dezi
    A
    Ferrario
    F
    Capurso
    L
    Prevention of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced gastrointestinal mucosal injury: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials
    Arch Intern Med
    1996
    156
    2321-32
     PubMed
  65. Yeomans
    ND
    Tulassay
    Z
    Juhász
    L
    Rácz
    I
    Howard
    JM
    van Rensburg
    CJ
    et al.
    A comparison of omeprazole with ranitidine for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Acid Suppression Trial: Ranitidine versus Omeprazole for NSAID-associated Ulcer Treatment (ASTRONAUT) Study Group
    N Engl J Med
    1998
    338
    719-26
     PubMed
  66. Hawkey
    CJ
    Karrasch
    JA
    Szczepañski
    L
    Walker
    DG
    Barkun
    A
    Swannell
    AJ
    et al.
    Omeprazole compared with misoprostol for ulcers associated with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. Omeprazole versus Misoprostol for NSAID-induced Ulcer Management (OMNIUM) Study Group
    N Engl J Med
    1998
    338
    727-34
     PubMed
  67. Lanza
    FL
    A guideline for the treatment and prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers. Members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology
    Am J Gastroenterol
    1998
    93
    2037-46
     PubMed
  68. Hochberg
    MC
    Altman
    RD
    Brandt
    KD
    Clark
    BM
    Dieppe
    PA
    Griffin
    MR
    et al.
    Guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis. Part I. Osteoarthritis of the hip. American College of Rheumatology
    Arthritis Rheum
    1995
    38
    1535-40
     PubMed
  69. Hochberg
    MC
    Altman
    RD
    Brandt
    KD
    Clark
    BM
    Dieppe
    PA
    Griffin
    MR
    et al.
    Guidelines for the medical management of osteoarthritis. Part II. Osteoarthritis of the knee. American College of Rheumatology
    Arthritis Rheum
    1995
    38
    1541-6
     PubMed
  70. Callahan
    CM
    Drake
    BG
    Heck
    DA
    Dittus
    RS
    Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis
    JAMA
    1994
    271
    1349-57
     PubMed
  71. Zicat
    B
    Rorabeck
    CH
    Bourne
    RB
    Devane
    PA
    Nott
    L
    Total knee arthroplasty in the octogenarian
    J Arthroplasty
    1993
    8
    395-400
     PubMed
  72. Towheed
    TE
    Hochberg
    MC
    Health-related quality of life after total hip replacement
    Semin Arthritis Rheum
    1996
    26
    483-91
     PubMed
  73. White
    RH
    McCurdy
    SA
    Marder
    RA
    Early morbidity after total hip replacement: rheumatoid arthritis versus osteoarthritis
    J Gen Intern Med
    1990
    5
    304-9
     PubMed
  74. Coventry
    MB
    Beckenbaugh
    RD
    Nolan
    DR
    Ilstrup
    DM
    2,012 total hip arthroplasties. A study of postoperative course and early complications
    J Bone Joint Surg Am
    1974
    56
    273-84
     PubMed
  75. Kavanagh
    BF
    Dewitz
    MA
    Ilstrup
    DM
    Stauffer
    RN
    Coventry
    MB
    Charnley total hip arthroplasty with cement. Fifteen-year results
    J Bone Joint Surg Am
    1989
    71
    1496-503
     PubMed
  76. Beckenbaugh
    RD
    Ilstrup
    DM
    Total hip arthroplasty
    J Bone Joint Surg Am
    1978
    60
    306-13
     PubMed
  77. Total hip replacement
    NIH Consens Statement
    1994
    12
    1-31
  78. Osteoarthritis of the Hip. Clinical Policies. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    Rosemont, IL
    American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    1991

Table 1.

Effect of Patient Education on Pain and Disability among Patients with Arthritis

Table 1.

Table 2.

Effects of Misoprostol and H2-Receptor Antagonists on the Development of Endoscopic Lesions among Patients Treated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs

Table 2.

Table 3.

Effects of Omeprazole, Ranitidine, and Misoprostol on Prevalent Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers among Patients Continuously Treated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Summary of the Healing Phase Results from ASTRONAUT and the OMNIUM Study

Table 3.

Table 4.

Effects of Omeprazole, Ranitidine, and Misoprostol on the Recurrence of Gastric and Duodenal Ulcers among Patients Continuously Treated with Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Summary of the Maintenance Phase Results from ASTRONAUT and the OMNIUM Study

Table 4.

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.

This feature is available only to Registered Users

Subscribe/Learn More
Submit a Comment

0 Comments

PDF
Not Available
Citations
Citation

MacLean CH. Quality Indicators for the Management of Osteoarthritis in Vulnerable Elders. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:711–721. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-135-8_Part_2-200110161-00010

Download citation file:

  • Ris (Zotero)
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • Medlars
  • ProCite
  • RefWorks
  • Reference Manager

© 2019

×
Permissions

Published: Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(8_Part_2):711-721.

DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-8_Part_2-200110161-00010

48 Citations

See Also

ACOVE Quality Indicators
View MoreView Less

Related Articles

Effectiveness and Implications of Alternative Placebo Treatments: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Osteoarthritis Trials
Annals of Internal Medicine; 163 (5): 365-372
Review: Some NSAIDs, notably diclofenac, improved knee or hip pain and function in osteoarthritis vs other NSAIDs
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (2): JC9
Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (7): 514-530
Systemic Pharmacologic Therapies for Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review for an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (7): 480-492
View MoreView Less

Journal Club

Review: Some NSAIDs, notably diclofenac, improved knee or hip pain and function in osteoarthritis vs other NSAIDs
Annals of Internal Medicine; 165 (2): JC9
Nonopioids and opioids gave similar relief for back pain or osteoarthritis but nonopioids had fewer adverse effects
Annals of Internal Medicine; 168 (12): JC64
Guideline: In acute gout, steroids, NSAIDs, or low-dose colchicine recommended; lifestyle changes not supported
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (4): JC14
Current vs past use of NSAIDs was linked to increased risk for first HF hospitalization; risk varied by drug
Annals of Internal Medicine; 166 (4): JC23
View MoreView Less

Related Point of Care

Osteoarthritis
Annals of Internal Medicine; 147 (3): ITC8-1
Osteoarthritis
Annals of Internal Medicine; 161 (1): ITC1-1
Sickle Cell Disease
Annals of Internal Medicine; 155 (5): ITC3-1
Herpes Zoster
Annals of Internal Medicine; 154 (5): ITC3-1
View MoreView Less

Related Topics

Osteoarthritis
Prevention/Screening
Rheumatology

Osteoarthritis, Prevention/Screening, Rheumatology.

PubMed Articles

Orally consumed cannabinoids provide long-lasting relief of allodynia in a mouse model of chronic neuropathic pain.
Neuropsychopharmacology 2019.
Validation of the recently developed Total Disability Index: a single measure of disability in neck and back pain patients.
J Neurosurg Spine 2019.
View More

Results provided by: PubMed

CME/MOC Activity Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
The Comments Feature Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
link to top

Content

  • Home
  • Latest
  • Issues
  • Channels
  • CME/MOC
  • In the Clinic
  • Journal Club
  • Web Exclusives

Information For

  • Author Info
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Readers
  • Institutions / Libraries / Agencies
  • Advertisers

Services

  • Subscribe
  • Renew
  • Alerts
  • Current Issue RSS
  • Latest RSS
  • In the Clinic RSS
  • Reprints & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • Help
  • About Annals
  • About Mobile
  • Patient Information
  • Teaching Tools
  • Annals in the News
  • Share Your Feedback

Awards and Cover

  • Personae (Cover Photo)
  • Junior Investigator Awards
  • Poetry Prize

Other Resources

  • ACP Online
  • Career Connection
  • ACP Advocate Blog
  • ACP Journal Wise

Follow Annals On

  • Twitter Link
  • Facebook Link
acp link acp
silverchair link silverchair

Copyright © 2019 American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.

Print ISSN: 0003-4819 | Online ISSN: 1539-3704

Privacy Policy

|

Conditions of Use

This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our website, you are agreeing to our privacy policy. | Accept
×

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.

×
PDF Downloads Require Access to the Full Article.
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
INSTITUTIONAL SIGN IN
Open Athens|Shibboleth|Log In
Annals of Internal Medicine
PURCHASE OPTIONS
Buy This Article|Subscribe
You will be redirected to acponline.org to sign-in to Annals to complete your purchase.
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×
Access to this Free Content Requires Users to be Registered and Logged In. Please Choose One of the Following Options
Sign in below to access your subscription for full content
INDIVIDUAL SIGN IN
Sign In|Set Up Account
You will be directed to acponline.org to register and create your Annals account
Annals of Internal Medicine
CREATE YOUR FREE ACCOUNT
Create Your Free Account|Why?
To receive access to the full text of freely available articles, alerts, and more. You will be directed to acponline.org to complete your registration.
×