Knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects almost 9.3 million adults in the US and accounts for $27 billion in annual health care expenses.^1,2 Due to the increasing cost of health care and an aging population, there has been renewed interest in establishing criteria for nonarthroplasty treatment of knee OA.

In 2013, using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) developed an appropriate use criteria (AUC) for nonarthroplasty management of primary OA of the knee, based on orthopaedic literature and expert opinion.³ Interventions such as activity modification, weight loss, prescribed physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tramadol, prescribed oral or transcutaneous opioids, acetaminophen, intra-articular corticosteroids, hinged or unloading knee braces, arthroscopic partial menisectomy or loose body removal, and realignment osteotomy were assessed. An algorithm was developed for 576 patients scenarios that incorporated patient-specific, prognostic/predictor variables to assign designations of “appropriate,” “may be appropriate,” or “rarely appropriate,” to treatment interventions.^4,5 An online version of the algorithm (orthoguidelines.org) is available for physicians and surgeons to judge appropriateness of nonarthroplasty treatments; however, it is not intended to mandate candidacy for treatment or intervention.

Clinical evaluation of the AAOS AUC is necessary to determine how treatment recommendations correlate with current practice. A recent examination of the AAOS Appropriateness System for Surgical Management of Knee OA found that prognostic/predictor variables, such as patient age, OA severity, and pattern of knee OA involvement were more heavily weighted when determining arthroplasty appropriateness than was pain severity or functional loss.⁶ Furthermore, non-AAOS AUC prognostic/predictor variables, such as race and gender, have been linked to disparities in utilization of knee OA interventions.^7-9 Such disparities can be costly not just from a patient perceptive, but also employer and societal perspectives.¹⁰

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system represents a model of equal-access-to care system in the US that is ideal for examination of issues about health care utilization and any disparities within the AAOS AUC model and has previously been used to assess utilization of total knee arthroplasty.⁹ The aim of this study was to characterize utilization of the AAOS AUC for nonarthroplasty treatment of knee OA in a VA patient population. We asked the following questions: (1) What variables are predictive of receiving a greater number of AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments? (2) What variables are predictive of receiving “rarely appropriate” AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatment? (3) What factors are predictive of duration of nonarthroplasty care until total knee arthroplasty (TKA)?

Methods

The institutional review board at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio approved a retrospective chart review of nonarthroplasty treatments utilized by patients presenting to its orthopaedic section who subsequently underwent knee arthroplasty between 2013 and 2016. Eligibility criteria included patients aged ≥ 30 years with a diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral primary knee OA. Patients with posttraumatic OA, inflammatory arthritis, and a history of infectious arthritis or Charcot arthropathy of the knee were excluded. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 or a hemoglobin A_1c > 8.0 at presentation were excluded as nonarthroplasty care was the recommended course of treatment above these thresholds.

Data collected included race, gender, duration of nonarthroplasty treatment, BMI, and Kellgren-Lawrence classification of knee OA at time of presentation for symptomatic knee OA.¹¹ All AAOS AUC-evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments utilized prior to arthroplasty intervention also were recorded (Table 1). 

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was completed with GraphPad Software Prism 7.0a (La Jolla, CA) and Mathworks MatLab R2016b software (Natick, MA). Univariate analysis with Student t tests with Welch corrections in the setting of unequal variance, Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests, and Fisher exact test were generated in the appropriate setting. Multivariable analyses also were conducted. For continuous outcomes, stepwise multiple linear regression was used to generate predictive models; for binary outcomes, binomial logistic regression was used.

Factors analyzed in regression modeling for the total number of AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments utilized and the likelihood of receiving a rarely appropriate treatment included gender, race, function-limiting pain, range of motion (ROM), ligamentous instability, arthritis pattern, limb alignment, mechanical symptoms, BMI, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade. Factors analyzed in timing of TKA included the above variables plus the total number of AUC interventions, whether the patient received an inappropriate intervention, and average appropriateness of the interventions received. Residual analysis with Cook’s distance was used to identify outliers in regression. Observations with Cook’s distance > 3 times the mean Cook’s distance were identified as potential outliers, and models were adjusted accordingly. All statistical analyses were 2-tailed. Statistical significance was set to P ≤ .05 for all outputs.

Results

In the study, 97.8% of participants identified as male, and the mean age was 62.8 years (Table 3). 

Appropriate Use Criteria Interventions

Patients received a mean of 5.2 AAOS AUC evaluated interventions before undergoing arthroplasty management at a mean of 32.3 months (range 2-181 months) from initial presentation. The majority of these interventions were classified as either appropriate or may be appropriate, according to the AUC definitions (95.1%). Self-management and physical therapy programs were widely utilized (100% and 90.1%, respectively), with all use of these interventions classified as appropriate.

Hinged or unloader knee braces were utilized in about half the study patients; this intervention was classified as rarely appropriate in 4.4% of these patients. Medical therapy was also widely used, with all use of NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and tramadol classified as appropriate or may be appropriate. Oral or transcutaneous opioid medications were prescribed in 14.3% of patients, with 92.3% of this use classified as rarely appropriate. Although the opioid medication prescribing provider was not specifically evaluated, there were no instances in which the orthopaedic service provided an oral or transcutaneous opioid prescriptions. Procedural interventions, with the exception of corticosteroid injections, were uncommon; no patient received realignment osteotomy, and only 12.1% of patients underwent arthroscopy. The use of arthroscopy was deemed rarely appropriate in 72.7% of these cases.

Factors Associated With AAOS AUC Intervention Use

There was no difference in the number of AAOS AUC evaluated interventions received based on BMI (mean [SD] BMI < 35, 5.2 [1.0] vs BMI ≥ 35, 5.3 [1.1], P = .49), age (mean [SD] aged < 60 years, 5.4 [1.0] vs aged ≥ 60 years, 5.1 [1.2], P = .23), or Kellgren-Lawrence arthritic grade (mean [SD] grade ≤ 2, 5.5 [1.0] vs grade > 2, 5.1 [1.1], P = .06). These variables also were not associated with receiving a rarely appropriate intervention (mean [SD] BMI < 35, 0.27 [0.5] vs BMI > 35, 0.2 [0.4], P = .81; aged > 60 years, 0.3 [0.5] vs aged < 60 years, 0.2 [0.4], P = .26; Kellgren-Lawrence grade < 2, 0.4 [0.6] vs grade > 2, 0.2 [0.4], P = .1).

Regression modeling to predict total number of AAOS AUC evaluated interventions received produced a significant model (R² = 0.111, P = .006). The presence of ligamentous instability (β coefficient, -1.61) and the absence of mechanical symptoms (β coefficient, -0.67) were negative predictors of number of AUC interventions received. Variance inflation factors were 1.014 and 1.012, respectively. Likewise, regression modeling to identify factors predictive of receiving a rarely appropriate intervention also produced a significant model (pseudo R²= 0.06, P = .025), with lower Kellgren-Lawrence grade the only significant predictor of receiving a rarely appropriate intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 -0.72, per unit increase).

Timing from presentation to arthroplasty intervention was also evaluated. Age was a negative predictor (β coefficient -1.61), while positive predictors were reduced ROM (β coefficient 15.72) and having more AUC interventions (β coefficient 7.31) (model R²= 0.29, P = < .001). Age was the most significant predictor. Variance inflations factors were 1.02, 1.01, and 1.03, respectively. Receiving a rarely appropriate intervention was not associated with TKA timing.

Discussion

This single-center retrospective study examined the utilization of AAOS AUC-evaluated nonarthroplasty interventions for symptomatic knee OA prior to TKA. The aims of this study were to validate the AAOS AUC in a clinical setting and identify predictors of AAOS AUC utilization. In particular, this study focused on the number of interventions utilized prior to knee arthroplasty, whether interventions receiving a designation of rarely appropriate were used, and the duration of nonarthroplasty treatment.

Patients with knee instability used fewer total AAOS AUC evaluated interventions prior to TKA. Subjective instability has been reported as high as 27% in patients with OA and has been associated with fear of falling, poor balance confidence, activity limitations, and lower Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function scores.¹² However, it has not been found to correlate with knee laxity.¹³ Nevertheless, significant functional impairment with the risk of falling may reduce the number of nonarthroplasty interventions attempted. On the other hand, the presence of mechanical symptoms resulted in greater utilization of nonarthroplasty interventions. This is likely due to the greater utilization of arthroscopic partial menisectomy or loose body removal in this group of patients. Despite its inclusion as an AAOS AUC evaluated intervention, arthroscopy remains a contentious treatment for symptomatic knee pain in the setting of OA.^14,15

For every unit decrease in Kellgren-Lawrence OA grade, patients were 54% more likely to receive a rarely appropriate intervention prior to knee arthroplasty. This is supported by the recent literature examining the AAOS AUC for surgical management of knee OA. Riddle and colleagues developed a classification tree to determine the contributions of various prognostic variables in final classifications of the 864 clinical vignettes used to develop the appropriateness algorithm and found that OA severity was strongly favored, with only 4 of the 432 vignettes with severe knee OA judged as rarely appropriate for surgical intervention.⁶

Our findings, too, may be explained by an AAOS AUC system that too heavily weighs radiographic severity of knee OA, resulting in more frequent rarely appropriate interventions in patients with less severe arthritis, including nonarthroplasty treatments. It is likely that rarely appropriate interventions were attempted in this subset of our study cohort based on patient’s subjective symptoms and functional status, both of which have been shown to be discordant with radiographic severity of knee OA.¹⁶

Oral or transcutaneous prescribed opioid medications were the most frequent intervention that received a rarely appropriate designation. Patients with preoperative opioid use undergoing TKA have been shown to have a greater risk for postoperative complications and longer hospital stay, particularly those patients aged < 75 years. Younger age, use of more interventions, and decreased knee ROM at presentation were predictive of longer duration of nonarthroplasty treatment. The use of more AAOS AUC evaluated interventions in these patients suggests that the AAOS AUC model may effectively be used to manage symptomatic OA, increasing the time from presentation to knee arthroplasty.

Interestingly, the use of rarely appropriate interventions did not affect TKA timing, as would be expected in a clinically effective nonarthroplasty treatment model. The reasons for rarely appropriate nonsurgical interventions are complex and require further investigation. One possible explanation is that decreased ROM was a marker for mechanical symptoms that necessitated additional intervention in the form of knee arthroscopy, delaying time to TKA.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. First, the small sample size (N = 90) requires acknowledgment; however, this limitation reflects the difficulty in following patients for years prior to an operative intervention. Second, the study population consists of veterans using the VA system and may not be reflective of the general population, differing with respect to gender, racial, and socioeconomic factors. Nevertheless, studies examining TKA utilization found, aside from racial and ethnic variability, patient gender and age do not affect arthroplasty utilization rate in the VA system.¹⁷

Additional limitations stem from the retrospective nature of this study. While the Computerized Patient Record System and centralized care of the VA system allows for review of all physical therapy consultations, orthotic consultations, and medications within the VA system, any treatments and intervention delivered by non-VA providers were not captured. Furthermore, the ability to assess for confounding variables limiting the prescription of certain medications, such as chronic kidney disease with NSAIDs or liver disease with acetaminophen, was limited by our study design.

Although our study suffers from selection bias with respect to examination of nonarthroplasty treatment in patients who have ultimately undergone TKA, we feel that this subset of patients with symptomatic knee OA represents the majority of patients evaluated for knee OA by orthopaedic surgeons in the clinic setting. It should be noted that although realignment osteotomies were sometimes indicated as appropriate by AAOS AUC model in our study population, this intervention was never performed due to patient and surgeon preference. Additionally, although it is not an AAOS AUC evaluated intervention, viscosupplementation was sporadically used during the study period; however, it is now off formulary at the investigation institution.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that patients without knee instability use more nonarthroplasty treatments over a longer period before TKA, and those patients with less severe knee OA are at risk of receiving an intervention judged to be rarely appropriate by the AAOS AUC. Such interventions do not affect timing of TKA. Nonarthroplasty care should be individualized to patients’ needs, and the decision to proceed with arthroplasty should be considered only after exhausting appropriate conservative measures. We recommend that providers use the AAOS AUC, especially when treating younger patients with less severe knee OA, particularly if considering opiate therapy or knee arthroscopy.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Patrick Getty, MD, for his surgical care of some of the study patients. This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects almost 9.3 million adults in the US and accounts for $27 billion in annual health care expenses.^1,2 Due to the increasing cost of health care and an aging population, there has been renewed interest in establishing criteria for nonarthroplasty treatment of knee OA.

In 2013, using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) developed an appropriate use criteria (AUC) for nonarthroplasty management of primary OA of the knee, based on orthopaedic literature and expert opinion.³ Interventions such as activity modification, weight loss, prescribed physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tramadol, prescribed oral or transcutaneous opioids, acetaminophen, intra-articular corticosteroids, hinged or unloading knee braces, arthroscopic partial menisectomy or loose body removal, and realignment osteotomy were assessed. An algorithm was developed for 576 patients scenarios that incorporated patient-specific, prognostic/predictor variables to assign designations of “appropriate,” “may be appropriate,” or “rarely appropriate,” to treatment interventions.^4,5 An online version of the algorithm (orthoguidelines.org) is available for physicians and surgeons to judge appropriateness of nonarthroplasty treatments; however, it is not intended to mandate candidacy for treatment or intervention.

Clinical evaluation of the AAOS AUC is necessary to determine how treatment recommendations correlate with current practice. A recent examination of the AAOS Appropriateness System for Surgical Management of Knee OA found that prognostic/predictor variables, such as patient age, OA severity, and pattern of knee OA involvement were more heavily weighted when determining arthroplasty appropriateness than was pain severity or functional loss.⁶ Furthermore, non-AAOS AUC prognostic/predictor variables, such as race and gender, have been linked to disparities in utilization of knee OA interventions.^7-9 Such disparities can be costly not just from a patient perceptive, but also employer and societal perspectives.¹⁰

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system represents a model of equal-access-to care system in the US that is ideal for examination of issues about health care utilization and any disparities within the AAOS AUC model and has previously been used to assess utilization of total knee arthroplasty.⁹ The aim of this study was to characterize utilization of the AAOS AUC for nonarthroplasty treatment of knee OA in a VA patient population. We asked the following questions: (1) What variables are predictive of receiving a greater number of AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments? (2) What variables are predictive of receiving “rarely appropriate” AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatment? (3) What factors are predictive of duration of nonarthroplasty care until total knee arthroplasty (TKA)?

Methods

The institutional review board at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio approved a retrospective chart review of nonarthroplasty treatments utilized by patients presenting to its orthopaedic section who subsequently underwent knee arthroplasty between 2013 and 2016. Eligibility criteria included patients aged ≥ 30 years with a diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral primary knee OA. Patients with posttraumatic OA, inflammatory arthritis, and a history of infectious arthritis or Charcot arthropathy of the knee were excluded. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 or a hemoglobin A_1c > 8.0 at presentation were excluded as nonarthroplasty care was the recommended course of treatment above these thresholds.

Data collected included race, gender, duration of nonarthroplasty treatment, BMI, and Kellgren-Lawrence classification of knee OA at time of presentation for symptomatic knee OA.¹¹ All AAOS AUC-evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments utilized prior to arthroplasty intervention also were recorded (Table 1). 

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was completed with GraphPad Software Prism 7.0a (La Jolla, CA) and Mathworks MatLab R2016b software (Natick, MA). Univariate analysis with Student t tests with Welch corrections in the setting of unequal variance, Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests, and Fisher exact test were generated in the appropriate setting. Multivariable analyses also were conducted. For continuous outcomes, stepwise multiple linear regression was used to generate predictive models; for binary outcomes, binomial logistic regression was used.

Factors analyzed in regression modeling for the total number of AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments utilized and the likelihood of receiving a rarely appropriate treatment included gender, race, function-limiting pain, range of motion (ROM), ligamentous instability, arthritis pattern, limb alignment, mechanical symptoms, BMI, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade. Factors analyzed in timing of TKA included the above variables plus the total number of AUC interventions, whether the patient received an inappropriate intervention, and average appropriateness of the interventions received. Residual analysis with Cook’s distance was used to identify outliers in regression. Observations with Cook’s distance > 3 times the mean Cook’s distance were identified as potential outliers, and models were adjusted accordingly. All statistical analyses were 2-tailed. Statistical significance was set to P ≤ .05 for all outputs.

Results

In the study, 97.8% of participants identified as male, and the mean age was 62.8 years (Table 3). 

Appropriate Use Criteria Interventions

Patients received a mean of 5.2 AAOS AUC evaluated interventions before undergoing arthroplasty management at a mean of 32.3 months (range 2-181 months) from initial presentation. The majority of these interventions were classified as either appropriate or may be appropriate, according to the AUC definitions (95.1%). Self-management and physical therapy programs were widely utilized (100% and 90.1%, respectively), with all use of these interventions classified as appropriate.

Hinged or unloader knee braces were utilized in about half the study patients; this intervention was classified as rarely appropriate in 4.4% of these patients. Medical therapy was also widely used, with all use of NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and tramadol classified as appropriate or may be appropriate. Oral or transcutaneous opioid medications were prescribed in 14.3% of patients, with 92.3% of this use classified as rarely appropriate. Although the opioid medication prescribing provider was not specifically evaluated, there were no instances in which the orthopaedic service provided an oral or transcutaneous opioid prescriptions. Procedural interventions, with the exception of corticosteroid injections, were uncommon; no patient received realignment osteotomy, and only 12.1% of patients underwent arthroscopy. The use of arthroscopy was deemed rarely appropriate in 72.7% of these cases.

Factors Associated With AAOS AUC Intervention Use

There was no difference in the number of AAOS AUC evaluated interventions received based on BMI (mean [SD] BMI < 35, 5.2 [1.0] vs BMI ≥ 35, 5.3 [1.1], P = .49), age (mean [SD] aged < 60 years, 5.4 [1.0] vs aged ≥ 60 years, 5.1 [1.2], P = .23), or Kellgren-Lawrence arthritic grade (mean [SD] grade ≤ 2, 5.5 [1.0] vs grade > 2, 5.1 [1.1], P = .06). These variables also were not associated with receiving a rarely appropriate intervention (mean [SD] BMI < 35, 0.27 [0.5] vs BMI > 35, 0.2 [0.4], P = .81; aged > 60 years, 0.3 [0.5] vs aged < 60 years, 0.2 [0.4], P = .26; Kellgren-Lawrence grade < 2, 0.4 [0.6] vs grade > 2, 0.2 [0.4], P = .1).

Regression modeling to predict total number of AAOS AUC evaluated interventions received produced a significant model (R² = 0.111, P = .006). The presence of ligamentous instability (β coefficient, -1.61) and the absence of mechanical symptoms (β coefficient, -0.67) were negative predictors of number of AUC interventions received. Variance inflation factors were 1.014 and 1.012, respectively. Likewise, regression modeling to identify factors predictive of receiving a rarely appropriate intervention also produced a significant model (pseudo R²= 0.06, P = .025), with lower Kellgren-Lawrence grade the only significant predictor of receiving a rarely appropriate intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 -0.72, per unit increase).

Timing from presentation to arthroplasty intervention was also evaluated. Age was a negative predictor (β coefficient -1.61), while positive predictors were reduced ROM (β coefficient 15.72) and having more AUC interventions (β coefficient 7.31) (model R²= 0.29, P = < .001). Age was the most significant predictor. Variance inflations factors were 1.02, 1.01, and 1.03, respectively. Receiving a rarely appropriate intervention was not associated with TKA timing.

Discussion

This single-center retrospective study examined the utilization of AAOS AUC-evaluated nonarthroplasty interventions for symptomatic knee OA prior to TKA. The aims of this study were to validate the AAOS AUC in a clinical setting and identify predictors of AAOS AUC utilization. In particular, this study focused on the number of interventions utilized prior to knee arthroplasty, whether interventions receiving a designation of rarely appropriate were used, and the duration of nonarthroplasty treatment.

Patients with knee instability used fewer total AAOS AUC evaluated interventions prior to TKA. Subjective instability has been reported as high as 27% in patients with OA and has been associated with fear of falling, poor balance confidence, activity limitations, and lower Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function scores.¹² However, it has not been found to correlate with knee laxity.¹³ Nevertheless, significant functional impairment with the risk of falling may reduce the number of nonarthroplasty interventions attempted. On the other hand, the presence of mechanical symptoms resulted in greater utilization of nonarthroplasty interventions. This is likely due to the greater utilization of arthroscopic partial menisectomy or loose body removal in this group of patients. Despite its inclusion as an AAOS AUC evaluated intervention, arthroscopy remains a contentious treatment for symptomatic knee pain in the setting of OA.^14,15

For every unit decrease in Kellgren-Lawrence OA grade, patients were 54% more likely to receive a rarely appropriate intervention prior to knee arthroplasty. This is supported by the recent literature examining the AAOS AUC for surgical management of knee OA. Riddle and colleagues developed a classification tree to determine the contributions of various prognostic variables in final classifications of the 864 clinical vignettes used to develop the appropriateness algorithm and found that OA severity was strongly favored, with only 4 of the 432 vignettes with severe knee OA judged as rarely appropriate for surgical intervention.⁶

Our findings, too, may be explained by an AAOS AUC system that too heavily weighs radiographic severity of knee OA, resulting in more frequent rarely appropriate interventions in patients with less severe arthritis, including nonarthroplasty treatments. It is likely that rarely appropriate interventions were attempted in this subset of our study cohort based on patient’s subjective symptoms and functional status, both of which have been shown to be discordant with radiographic severity of knee OA.¹⁶

Oral or transcutaneous prescribed opioid medications were the most frequent intervention that received a rarely appropriate designation. Patients with preoperative opioid use undergoing TKA have been shown to have a greater risk for postoperative complications and longer hospital stay, particularly those patients aged < 75 years. Younger age, use of more interventions, and decreased knee ROM at presentation were predictive of longer duration of nonarthroplasty treatment. The use of more AAOS AUC evaluated interventions in these patients suggests that the AAOS AUC model may effectively be used to manage symptomatic OA, increasing the time from presentation to knee arthroplasty.

Interestingly, the use of rarely appropriate interventions did not affect TKA timing, as would be expected in a clinically effective nonarthroplasty treatment model. The reasons for rarely appropriate nonsurgical interventions are complex and require further investigation. One possible explanation is that decreased ROM was a marker for mechanical symptoms that necessitated additional intervention in the form of knee arthroscopy, delaying time to TKA.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. First, the small sample size (N = 90) requires acknowledgment; however, this limitation reflects the difficulty in following patients for years prior to an operative intervention. Second, the study population consists of veterans using the VA system and may not be reflective of the general population, differing with respect to gender, racial, and socioeconomic factors. Nevertheless, studies examining TKA utilization found, aside from racial and ethnic variability, patient gender and age do not affect arthroplasty utilization rate in the VA system.¹⁷

Additional limitations stem from the retrospective nature of this study. While the Computerized Patient Record System and centralized care of the VA system allows for review of all physical therapy consultations, orthotic consultations, and medications within the VA system, any treatments and intervention delivered by non-VA providers were not captured. Furthermore, the ability to assess for confounding variables limiting the prescription of certain medications, such as chronic kidney disease with NSAIDs or liver disease with acetaminophen, was limited by our study design.

Although our study suffers from selection bias with respect to examination of nonarthroplasty treatment in patients who have ultimately undergone TKA, we feel that this subset of patients with symptomatic knee OA represents the majority of patients evaluated for knee OA by orthopaedic surgeons in the clinic setting. It should be noted that although realignment osteotomies were sometimes indicated as appropriate by AAOS AUC model in our study population, this intervention was never performed due to patient and surgeon preference. Additionally, although it is not an AAOS AUC evaluated intervention, viscosupplementation was sporadically used during the study period; however, it is now off formulary at the investigation institution.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that patients without knee instability use more nonarthroplasty treatments over a longer period before TKA, and those patients with less severe knee OA are at risk of receiving an intervention judged to be rarely appropriate by the AAOS AUC. Such interventions do not affect timing of TKA. Nonarthroplasty care should be individualized to patients’ needs, and the decision to proceed with arthroplasty should be considered only after exhausting appropriate conservative measures. We recommend that providers use the AAOS AUC, especially when treating younger patients with less severe knee OA, particularly if considering opiate therapy or knee arthroscopy.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Patrick Getty, MD, for his surgical care of some of the study patients. This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) affects almost 9.3 million adults in the US and accounts for $27 billion in annual health care expenses.^1,2 Due to the increasing cost of health care and an aging population, there has been renewed interest in establishing criteria for nonarthroplasty treatment of knee OA.

In 2013, using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) developed an appropriate use criteria (AUC) for nonarthroplasty management of primary OA of the knee, based on orthopaedic literature and expert opinion.³ Interventions such as activity modification, weight loss, prescribed physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tramadol, prescribed oral or transcutaneous opioids, acetaminophen, intra-articular corticosteroids, hinged or unloading knee braces, arthroscopic partial menisectomy or loose body removal, and realignment osteotomy were assessed. An algorithm was developed for 576 patients scenarios that incorporated patient-specific, prognostic/predictor variables to assign designations of “appropriate,” “may be appropriate,” or “rarely appropriate,” to treatment interventions.^4,5 An online version of the algorithm (orthoguidelines.org) is available for physicians and surgeons to judge appropriateness of nonarthroplasty treatments; however, it is not intended to mandate candidacy for treatment or intervention.

Clinical evaluation of the AAOS AUC is necessary to determine how treatment recommendations correlate with current practice. A recent examination of the AAOS Appropriateness System for Surgical Management of Knee OA found that prognostic/predictor variables, such as patient age, OA severity, and pattern of knee OA involvement were more heavily weighted when determining arthroplasty appropriateness than was pain severity or functional loss.⁶ Furthermore, non-AAOS AUC prognostic/predictor variables, such as race and gender, have been linked to disparities in utilization of knee OA interventions.^7-9 Such disparities can be costly not just from a patient perceptive, but also employer and societal perspectives.¹⁰

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system represents a model of equal-access-to care system in the US that is ideal for examination of issues about health care utilization and any disparities within the AAOS AUC model and has previously been used to assess utilization of total knee arthroplasty.⁹ The aim of this study was to characterize utilization of the AAOS AUC for nonarthroplasty treatment of knee OA in a VA patient population. We asked the following questions: (1) What variables are predictive of receiving a greater number of AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments? (2) What variables are predictive of receiving “rarely appropriate” AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatment? (3) What factors are predictive of duration of nonarthroplasty care until total knee arthroplasty (TKA)?

Methods

The institutional review board at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio approved a retrospective chart review of nonarthroplasty treatments utilized by patients presenting to its orthopaedic section who subsequently underwent knee arthroplasty between 2013 and 2016. Eligibility criteria included patients aged ≥ 30 years with a diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral primary knee OA. Patients with posttraumatic OA, inflammatory arthritis, and a history of infectious arthritis or Charcot arthropathy of the knee were excluded. Patients with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 or a hemoglobin A_1c > 8.0 at presentation were excluded as nonarthroplasty care was the recommended course of treatment above these thresholds.

Data collected included race, gender, duration of nonarthroplasty treatment, BMI, and Kellgren-Lawrence classification of knee OA at time of presentation for symptomatic knee OA.¹¹ All AAOS AUC-evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments utilized prior to arthroplasty intervention also were recorded (Table 1). 

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was completed with GraphPad Software Prism 7.0a (La Jolla, CA) and Mathworks MatLab R2016b software (Natick, MA). Univariate analysis with Student t tests with Welch corrections in the setting of unequal variance, Mann-Whitney nonparametric tests, and Fisher exact test were generated in the appropriate setting. Multivariable analyses also were conducted. For continuous outcomes, stepwise multiple linear regression was used to generate predictive models; for binary outcomes, binomial logistic regression was used.

Factors analyzed in regression modeling for the total number of AAOS AUC evaluated nonarthroplasty treatments utilized and the likelihood of receiving a rarely appropriate treatment included gender, race, function-limiting pain, range of motion (ROM), ligamentous instability, arthritis pattern, limb alignment, mechanical symptoms, BMI, age, and Kellgren-Lawrence grade. Factors analyzed in timing of TKA included the above variables plus the total number of AUC interventions, whether the patient received an inappropriate intervention, and average appropriateness of the interventions received. Residual analysis with Cook’s distance was used to identify outliers in regression. Observations with Cook’s distance > 3 times the mean Cook’s distance were identified as potential outliers, and models were adjusted accordingly. All statistical analyses were 2-tailed. Statistical significance was set to P ≤ .05 for all outputs.

Results

In the study, 97.8% of participants identified as male, and the mean age was 62.8 years (Table 3). 

Appropriate Use Criteria Interventions

Patients received a mean of 5.2 AAOS AUC evaluated interventions before undergoing arthroplasty management at a mean of 32.3 months (range 2-181 months) from initial presentation. The majority of these interventions were classified as either appropriate or may be appropriate, according to the AUC definitions (95.1%). Self-management and physical therapy programs were widely utilized (100% and 90.1%, respectively), with all use of these interventions classified as appropriate.

Hinged or unloader knee braces were utilized in about half the study patients; this intervention was classified as rarely appropriate in 4.4% of these patients. Medical therapy was also widely used, with all use of NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and tramadol classified as appropriate or may be appropriate. Oral or transcutaneous opioid medications were prescribed in 14.3% of patients, with 92.3% of this use classified as rarely appropriate. Although the opioid medication prescribing provider was not specifically evaluated, there were no instances in which the orthopaedic service provided an oral or transcutaneous opioid prescriptions. Procedural interventions, with the exception of corticosteroid injections, were uncommon; no patient received realignment osteotomy, and only 12.1% of patients underwent arthroscopy. The use of arthroscopy was deemed rarely appropriate in 72.7% of these cases.

Factors Associated With AAOS AUC Intervention Use

There was no difference in the number of AAOS AUC evaluated interventions received based on BMI (mean [SD] BMI < 35, 5.2 [1.0] vs BMI ≥ 35, 5.3 [1.1], P = .49), age (mean [SD] aged < 60 years, 5.4 [1.0] vs aged ≥ 60 years, 5.1 [1.2], P = .23), or Kellgren-Lawrence arthritic grade (mean [SD] grade ≤ 2, 5.5 [1.0] vs grade > 2, 5.1 [1.1], P = .06). These variables also were not associated with receiving a rarely appropriate intervention (mean [SD] BMI < 35, 0.27 [0.5] vs BMI > 35, 0.2 [0.4], P = .81; aged > 60 years, 0.3 [0.5] vs aged < 60 years, 0.2 [0.4], P = .26; Kellgren-Lawrence grade < 2, 0.4 [0.6] vs grade > 2, 0.2 [0.4], P = .1).

Regression modeling to predict total number of AAOS AUC evaluated interventions received produced a significant model (R² = 0.111, P = .006). The presence of ligamentous instability (β coefficient, -1.61) and the absence of mechanical symptoms (β coefficient, -0.67) were negative predictors of number of AUC interventions received. Variance inflation factors were 1.014 and 1.012, respectively. Likewise, regression modeling to identify factors predictive of receiving a rarely appropriate intervention also produced a significant model (pseudo R²= 0.06, P = .025), with lower Kellgren-Lawrence grade the only significant predictor of receiving a rarely appropriate intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 -0.72, per unit increase).

Timing from presentation to arthroplasty intervention was also evaluated. Age was a negative predictor (β coefficient -1.61), while positive predictors were reduced ROM (β coefficient 15.72) and having more AUC interventions (β coefficient 7.31) (model R²= 0.29, P = < .001). Age was the most significant predictor. Variance inflations factors were 1.02, 1.01, and 1.03, respectively. Receiving a rarely appropriate intervention was not associated with TKA timing.

Discussion

This single-center retrospective study examined the utilization of AAOS AUC-evaluated nonarthroplasty interventions for symptomatic knee OA prior to TKA. The aims of this study were to validate the AAOS AUC in a clinical setting and identify predictors of AAOS AUC utilization. In particular, this study focused on the number of interventions utilized prior to knee arthroplasty, whether interventions receiving a designation of rarely appropriate were used, and the duration of nonarthroplasty treatment.

Patients with knee instability used fewer total AAOS AUC evaluated interventions prior to TKA. Subjective instability has been reported as high as 27% in patients with OA and has been associated with fear of falling, poor balance confidence, activity limitations, and lower Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function scores.¹² However, it has not been found to correlate with knee laxity.¹³ Nevertheless, significant functional impairment with the risk of falling may reduce the number of nonarthroplasty interventions attempted. On the other hand, the presence of mechanical symptoms resulted in greater utilization of nonarthroplasty interventions. This is likely due to the greater utilization of arthroscopic partial menisectomy or loose body removal in this group of patients. Despite its inclusion as an AAOS AUC evaluated intervention, arthroscopy remains a contentious treatment for symptomatic knee pain in the setting of OA.^14,15

For every unit decrease in Kellgren-Lawrence OA grade, patients were 54% more likely to receive a rarely appropriate intervention prior to knee arthroplasty. This is supported by the recent literature examining the AAOS AUC for surgical management of knee OA. Riddle and colleagues developed a classification tree to determine the contributions of various prognostic variables in final classifications of the 864 clinical vignettes used to develop the appropriateness algorithm and found that OA severity was strongly favored, with only 4 of the 432 vignettes with severe knee OA judged as rarely appropriate for surgical intervention.⁶

Our findings, too, may be explained by an AAOS AUC system that too heavily weighs radiographic severity of knee OA, resulting in more frequent rarely appropriate interventions in patients with less severe arthritis, including nonarthroplasty treatments. It is likely that rarely appropriate interventions were attempted in this subset of our study cohort based on patient’s subjective symptoms and functional status, both of which have been shown to be discordant with radiographic severity of knee OA.¹⁶

Oral or transcutaneous prescribed opioid medications were the most frequent intervention that received a rarely appropriate designation. Patients with preoperative opioid use undergoing TKA have been shown to have a greater risk for postoperative complications and longer hospital stay, particularly those patients aged < 75 years. Younger age, use of more interventions, and decreased knee ROM at presentation were predictive of longer duration of nonarthroplasty treatment. The use of more AAOS AUC evaluated interventions in these patients suggests that the AAOS AUC model may effectively be used to manage symptomatic OA, increasing the time from presentation to knee arthroplasty.

Interestingly, the use of rarely appropriate interventions did not affect TKA timing, as would be expected in a clinically effective nonarthroplasty treatment model. The reasons for rarely appropriate nonsurgical interventions are complex and require further investigation. One possible explanation is that decreased ROM was a marker for mechanical symptoms that necessitated additional intervention in the form of knee arthroscopy, delaying time to TKA.

Limitations

There are several limitations of this study. First, the small sample size (N = 90) requires acknowledgment; however, this limitation reflects the difficulty in following patients for years prior to an operative intervention. Second, the study population consists of veterans using the VA system and may not be reflective of the general population, differing with respect to gender, racial, and socioeconomic factors. Nevertheless, studies examining TKA utilization found, aside from racial and ethnic variability, patient gender and age do not affect arthroplasty utilization rate in the VA system.¹⁷

Additional limitations stem from the retrospective nature of this study. While the Computerized Patient Record System and centralized care of the VA system allows for review of all physical therapy consultations, orthotic consultations, and medications within the VA system, any treatments and intervention delivered by non-VA providers were not captured. Furthermore, the ability to assess for confounding variables limiting the prescription of certain medications, such as chronic kidney disease with NSAIDs or liver disease with acetaminophen, was limited by our study design.

Although our study suffers from selection bias with respect to examination of nonarthroplasty treatment in patients who have ultimately undergone TKA, we feel that this subset of patients with symptomatic knee OA represents the majority of patients evaluated for knee OA by orthopaedic surgeons in the clinic setting. It should be noted that although realignment osteotomies were sometimes indicated as appropriate by AAOS AUC model in our study population, this intervention was never performed due to patient and surgeon preference. Additionally, although it is not an AAOS AUC evaluated intervention, viscosupplementation was sporadically used during the study period; however, it is now off formulary at the investigation institution.

Conclusion

Our study suggests that patients without knee instability use more nonarthroplasty treatments over a longer period before TKA, and those patients with less severe knee OA are at risk of receiving an intervention judged to be rarely appropriate by the AAOS AUC. Such interventions do not affect timing of TKA. Nonarthroplasty care should be individualized to patients’ needs, and the decision to proceed with arthroplasty should be considered only after exhausting appropriate conservative measures. We recommend that providers use the AAOS AUC, especially when treating younger patients with less severe knee OA, particularly if considering opiate therapy or knee arthroscopy.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Patrick Getty, MD, for his surgical care of some of the study patients. This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Louis Stokes Cleveland VA Medical Center in Ohio.

Clinical trials represent future hope for patients seeking better care, and there is no disease more in need of better care than Alzheimer’s disease. While death rates among most cancers, as well as heart disease, HIV-related illness, and other categories, have declined in the past decade, there has been no progress for Alzheimer’s disease. Better health and wellness overall may be having a beneficial effect that has produced a reduction in age-adjusted dementia rates, but with the aging of the population there are a greater absolute number of dementia cases than ever before, and that number is expected to continue rising. Finding a disease-modifying therapy seems to be the best hope for changing this dim outlook. Clinical trials intend to do just that but are hampered by patient enrollment rates that remain low. Far fewer eligible patients enroll than are needed, causing studies to take longer to complete, driving up their costs and essentially slowing progress. There is a need to increase patient enrollment, and there has been a variety of efforts intended to address this, not the least of which has been an explosion of media coverage of Alzheimer’s disease.

The Global Alzheimer’s Platform (GAP) Foundation, a nonprofit, self-described patient-centric entity dedicated to reducing the time and cost of Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials, recently announced an initiative to increase participation in Alzheimer’s clinical trials by supporting and collaborating with “memory fitness programs” through select Medicare Advantage plans. At worst, this seems a harmless way to increase attention and hopefully interest in clinical trial participation. At best, this may be a cost-effective way to increase enrollment and even improve dementia care. Dementia is notoriously underdiagnosed, especially by overworked, busy primary care providers who simply lack the time to perform the time-consuming testing that is typically required to diagnose and follow such patients.

There are some caveats to consider. First, memory fitness programs are of dubious benefit. They generally fit the description of being harmless, but there is little compelling evidence that they preserve or improve memory.

Second, enrollment in a clinical trial, for a patient, is not always a winning proposition. To date, there has been little success and in the absence of benefit, any downside – even if simply an inconvenience – is a net negative. Recently at the 2018 Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease meeting, Merck reported that patients with mild cognitive impairment receiving active treatment in the BACE1 inhibitor verubecestat trial actually declined at a more rapid rate than did those on placebo. While the absolute difference was small, and one could argue whether it was clinically significant or simply a random occurrence, it was a reminder that intervention with an experimental agent is not necessarily benign.

Third, Medicare Advantage plans, while popular in some circles, are not considered advantageous to providers so that the proliferation of inadequate reimbursement will potentially fuel the accelerating number of providers who opt out of insurance plans altogether. This is not necessarily an issue for the GAP Foundation specifically but is nonetheless an issue for anything that promotes MA plans).

Finally, it remains important to help patients and families maintain a positive outlook, especially when we have nothing better to offer. Alzheimer’s disease is not a death sentence for every patient affected. While many have difficult and heartbreaking courses, some have slowly progressive courses with relatively little impairment for an extended period of time. There are also the dementia-phobic, cognitively unimpaired individuals (or who simply have normal age-associated cognitive changes) in whom the continued drumbeat of dementia awareness and memory testing raises their paranoia ever higher. We treat deficits (or try to), but we have to live based on our preserved skills. The challenge clinicians must face with patients and families is how to maximize function while compensating for deficits and making sure that patients and families maintain their hope.

Dr. Caselli is professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and associate director and clinical core director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Disease Center.

Clinical trials represent future hope for patients seeking better care, and there is no disease more in need of better care than Alzheimer’s disease. While death rates among most cancers, as well as heart disease, HIV-related illness, and other categories, have declined in the past decade, there has been no progress for Alzheimer’s disease. Better health and wellness overall may be having a beneficial effect that has produced a reduction in age-adjusted dementia rates, but with the aging of the population there are a greater absolute number of dementia cases than ever before, and that number is expected to continue rising. Finding a disease-modifying therapy seems to be the best hope for changing this dim outlook. Clinical trials intend to do just that but are hampered by patient enrollment rates that remain low. Far fewer eligible patients enroll than are needed, causing studies to take longer to complete, driving up their costs and essentially slowing progress. There is a need to increase patient enrollment, and there has been a variety of efforts intended to address this, not the least of which has been an explosion of media coverage of Alzheimer’s disease.

The Global Alzheimer’s Platform (GAP) Foundation, a nonprofit, self-described patient-centric entity dedicated to reducing the time and cost of Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials, recently announced an initiative to increase participation in Alzheimer’s clinical trials by supporting and collaborating with “memory fitness programs” through select Medicare Advantage plans. At worst, this seems a harmless way to increase attention and hopefully interest in clinical trial participation. At best, this may be a cost-effective way to increase enrollment and even improve dementia care. Dementia is notoriously underdiagnosed, especially by overworked, busy primary care providers who simply lack the time to perform the time-consuming testing that is typically required to diagnose and follow such patients.

There are some caveats to consider. First, memory fitness programs are of dubious benefit. They generally fit the description of being harmless, but there is little compelling evidence that they preserve or improve memory.

Second, enrollment in a clinical trial, for a patient, is not always a winning proposition. To date, there has been little success and in the absence of benefit, any downside – even if simply an inconvenience – is a net negative. Recently at the 2018 Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease meeting, Merck reported that patients with mild cognitive impairment receiving active treatment in the BACE1 inhibitor verubecestat trial actually declined at a more rapid rate than did those on placebo. While the absolute difference was small, and one could argue whether it was clinically significant or simply a random occurrence, it was a reminder that intervention with an experimental agent is not necessarily benign.

Third, Medicare Advantage plans, while popular in some circles, are not considered advantageous to providers so that the proliferation of inadequate reimbursement will potentially fuel the accelerating number of providers who opt out of insurance plans altogether. This is not necessarily an issue for the GAP Foundation specifically but is nonetheless an issue for anything that promotes MA plans).

Finally, it remains important to help patients and families maintain a positive outlook, especially when we have nothing better to offer. Alzheimer’s disease is not a death sentence for every patient affected. While many have difficult and heartbreaking courses, some have slowly progressive courses with relatively little impairment for an extended period of time. There are also the dementia-phobic, cognitively unimpaired individuals (or who simply have normal age-associated cognitive changes) in whom the continued drumbeat of dementia awareness and memory testing raises their paranoia ever higher. We treat deficits (or try to), but we have to live based on our preserved skills. The challenge clinicians must face with patients and families is how to maximize function while compensating for deficits and making sure that patients and families maintain their hope.

Dr. Caselli is professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and associate director and clinical core director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Disease Center.

Clinical trials represent future hope for patients seeking better care, and there is no disease more in need of better care than Alzheimer’s disease. While death rates among most cancers, as well as heart disease, HIV-related illness, and other categories, have declined in the past decade, there has been no progress for Alzheimer’s disease. Better health and wellness overall may be having a beneficial effect that has produced a reduction in age-adjusted dementia rates, but with the aging of the population there are a greater absolute number of dementia cases than ever before, and that number is expected to continue rising. Finding a disease-modifying therapy seems to be the best hope for changing this dim outlook. Clinical trials intend to do just that but are hampered by patient enrollment rates that remain low. Far fewer eligible patients enroll than are needed, causing studies to take longer to complete, driving up their costs and essentially slowing progress. There is a need to increase patient enrollment, and there has been a variety of efforts intended to address this, not the least of which has been an explosion of media coverage of Alzheimer’s disease.

The Global Alzheimer’s Platform (GAP) Foundation, a nonprofit, self-described patient-centric entity dedicated to reducing the time and cost of Alzheimer’s disease clinical trials, recently announced an initiative to increase participation in Alzheimer’s clinical trials by supporting and collaborating with “memory fitness programs” through select Medicare Advantage plans. At worst, this seems a harmless way to increase attention and hopefully interest in clinical trial participation. At best, this may be a cost-effective way to increase enrollment and even improve dementia care. Dementia is notoriously underdiagnosed, especially by overworked, busy primary care providers who simply lack the time to perform the time-consuming testing that is typically required to diagnose and follow such patients.

There are some caveats to consider. First, memory fitness programs are of dubious benefit. They generally fit the description of being harmless, but there is little compelling evidence that they preserve or improve memory.

Second, enrollment in a clinical trial, for a patient, is not always a winning proposition. To date, there has been little success and in the absence of benefit, any downside – even if simply an inconvenience – is a net negative. Recently at the 2018 Clinical Trials on Alzheimer’s Disease meeting, Merck reported that patients with mild cognitive impairment receiving active treatment in the BACE1 inhibitor verubecestat trial actually declined at a more rapid rate than did those on placebo. While the absolute difference was small, and one could argue whether it was clinically significant or simply a random occurrence, it was a reminder that intervention with an experimental agent is not necessarily benign.

Third, Medicare Advantage plans, while popular in some circles, are not considered advantageous to providers so that the proliferation of inadequate reimbursement will potentially fuel the accelerating number of providers who opt out of insurance plans altogether. This is not necessarily an issue for the GAP Foundation specifically but is nonetheless an issue for anything that promotes MA plans).

Finally, it remains important to help patients and families maintain a positive outlook, especially when we have nothing better to offer. Alzheimer’s disease is not a death sentence for every patient affected. While many have difficult and heartbreaking courses, some have slowly progressive courses with relatively little impairment for an extended period of time. There are also the dementia-phobic, cognitively unimpaired individuals (or who simply have normal age-associated cognitive changes) in whom the continued drumbeat of dementia awareness and memory testing raises their paranoia ever higher. We treat deficits (or try to), but we have to live based on our preserved skills. The challenge clinicians must face with patients and families is how to maximize function while compensating for deficits and making sure that patients and families maintain their hope.

Dr. Caselli is professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic Arizona in Scottsdale and associate director and clinical core director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Disease Center.

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

PRP vs placebo. Three RCTs compared PRP with saline placebo injections and 2 found that PRP improved the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC, a standardized scale assessing knee pain, function, and stiffness) by 40% to 70%; the third found 24% to 32% improvements in the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores at 6 months^1-3 (TABLE^1-12).

The first 2 studies enrolled patients (mean age early 60s, approximately 50% women) with clinically and radiographically evaluated knee OA of mostly moderate severity (baseline WOMAC scores about 50).^1,2 Investigators in the first RCT injected PRP once in one subgroup and twice in another subgroup, compared with a single injection of saline in a third subgroup.¹ They gave 3 weekly injections of PRP or saline in the second RCT.²

The third study enrolled mainly patients with early osteoarthritis (mean age early 50s, slightly more women). Investigators injected PRP 3 times in one subgroup and once (plus 2 saline injections) in another, compared with 3 saline injections, and evaluated patients at baseline and 6 months.³

PRP vs HA. Nine RCTs compared PRP with HA injections. Six studies (673 patients) found no significant difference; 3 studies (376 patients) found that PRP improved standardized knee assessment scores by 35% to 40% at 24-48 weeks.^7,8,10 All studies enrolled patients (mean age early 60s, approximately 50% women) with clinically and radiographically evaluated knee OA of mostly moderate severity. In 7 RCTs, ^4-6,9-12 investigators injected PRP or HA weekly for 3 weeks, in one RCT⁸ they gave 4 weekly injections, and in one⁷they gave 2 PRP injections separated by 4 weeks.

Three RCTs used the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, considered the most reliable standardized scoring system, which quantifies subjective symptoms (pain, stiffness, swelling, giving way), activity (climbing stairs, rising from a chair, squatting, jumping), and function pre- and postintervention.^5,9,12 All 3 studies using the IKDC found no difference between PRP and HA injections. Most RCTs used the WOMAC standardized scale, scoring 5 items for pain, 2 for stiffness, and 17 for function.^1,2,4,6-8.10

Risk for bias

A systematic review¹³ that evaluated methodologic quality of the 3 studies comparing PRP with placebo rated 2^1,3 at high risk of bias and one² at moderate risk. Another meta-analysis¹⁴ performed a quality assessment including 4 of the 9 RCTs^,8-10,12 comparing PRP with HA and concluded that 3 had a high risk of bias; the fourth RCT had a moderate risk. No independent quality assessments of the other RCTs were available.^4-7,11

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons doesn’t recommend for or against PRP injections because of insufficient evidence and strongly recommends against HA injections based on multiple RCTs of moderate quality that found no difference between HA and placebo.¹⁵

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

PRP vs placebo. Three RCTs compared PRP with saline placebo injections and 2 found that PRP improved the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC, a standardized scale assessing knee pain, function, and stiffness) by 40% to 70%; the third found 24% to 32% improvements in the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores at 6 months^1-3 (TABLE^1-12).

The first 2 studies enrolled patients (mean age early 60s, approximately 50% women) with clinically and radiographically evaluated knee OA of mostly moderate severity (baseline WOMAC scores about 50).^1,2 Investigators in the first RCT injected PRP once in one subgroup and twice in another subgroup, compared with a single injection of saline in a third subgroup.¹ They gave 3 weekly injections of PRP or saline in the second RCT.²

The third study enrolled mainly patients with early osteoarthritis (mean age early 50s, slightly more women). Investigators injected PRP 3 times in one subgroup and once (plus 2 saline injections) in another, compared with 3 saline injections, and evaluated patients at baseline and 6 months.³

PRP vs HA. Nine RCTs compared PRP with HA injections. Six studies (673 patients) found no significant difference; 3 studies (376 patients) found that PRP improved standardized knee assessment scores by 35% to 40% at 24-48 weeks.^7,8,10 All studies enrolled patients (mean age early 60s, approximately 50% women) with clinically and radiographically evaluated knee OA of mostly moderate severity. In 7 RCTs, ^4-6,9-12 investigators injected PRP or HA weekly for 3 weeks, in one RCT⁸ they gave 4 weekly injections, and in one⁷they gave 2 PRP injections separated by 4 weeks.

Three RCTs used the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, considered the most reliable standardized scoring system, which quantifies subjective symptoms (pain, stiffness, swelling, giving way), activity (climbing stairs, rising from a chair, squatting, jumping), and function pre- and postintervention.^5,9,12 All 3 studies using the IKDC found no difference between PRP and HA injections. Most RCTs used the WOMAC standardized scale, scoring 5 items for pain, 2 for stiffness, and 17 for function.^1,2,4,6-8.10

Risk for bias

A systematic review¹³ that evaluated methodologic quality of the 3 studies comparing PRP with placebo rated 2^1,3 at high risk of bias and one² at moderate risk. Another meta-analysis¹⁴ performed a quality assessment including 4 of the 9 RCTs^,8-10,12 comparing PRP with HA and concluded that 3 had a high risk of bias; the fourth RCT had a moderate risk. No independent quality assessments of the other RCTs were available.^4-7,11

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons doesn’t recommend for or against PRP injections because of insufficient evidence and strongly recommends against HA injections based on multiple RCTs of moderate quality that found no difference between HA and placebo.¹⁵

EVIDENCE SUMMARY

PRP vs placebo. Three RCTs compared PRP with saline placebo injections and 2 found that PRP improved the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC, a standardized scale assessing knee pain, function, and stiffness) by 40% to 70%; the third found 24% to 32% improvements in the EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores at 6 months^1-3 (TABLE^1-12).

The first 2 studies enrolled patients (mean age early 60s, approximately 50% women) with clinically and radiographically evaluated knee OA of mostly moderate severity (baseline WOMAC scores about 50).^1,2 Investigators in the first RCT injected PRP once in one subgroup and twice in another subgroup, compared with a single injection of saline in a third subgroup.¹ They gave 3 weekly injections of PRP or saline in the second RCT.²

The third study enrolled mainly patients with early osteoarthritis (mean age early 50s, slightly more women). Investigators injected PRP 3 times in one subgroup and once (plus 2 saline injections) in another, compared with 3 saline injections, and evaluated patients at baseline and 6 months.³

PRP vs HA. Nine RCTs compared PRP with HA injections. Six studies (673 patients) found no significant difference; 3 studies (376 patients) found that PRP improved standardized knee assessment scores by 35% to 40% at 24-48 weeks.^7,8,10 All studies enrolled patients (mean age early 60s, approximately 50% women) with clinically and radiographically evaluated knee OA of mostly moderate severity. In 7 RCTs, ^4-6,9-12 investigators injected PRP or HA weekly for 3 weeks, in one RCT⁸ they gave 4 weekly injections, and in one⁷they gave 2 PRP injections separated by 4 weeks.

Three RCTs used the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, considered the most reliable standardized scoring system, which quantifies subjective symptoms (pain, stiffness, swelling, giving way), activity (climbing stairs, rising from a chair, squatting, jumping), and function pre- and postintervention.^5,9,12 All 3 studies using the IKDC found no difference between PRP and HA injections. Most RCTs used the WOMAC standardized scale, scoring 5 items for pain, 2 for stiffness, and 17 for function.^1,2,4,6-8.10

Risk for bias

A systematic review¹³ that evaluated methodologic quality of the 3 studies comparing PRP with placebo rated 2^1,3 at high risk of bias and one² at moderate risk. Another meta-analysis¹⁴ performed a quality assessment including 4 of the 9 RCTs^,8-10,12 comparing PRP with HA and concluded that 3 had a high risk of bias; the fourth RCT had a moderate risk. No independent quality assessments of the other RCTs were available.^4-7,11

RECOMMENDATIONS

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons doesn’t recommend for or against PRP injections because of insufficient evidence and strongly recommends against HA injections based on multiple RCTs of moderate quality that found no difference between HA and placebo.¹⁵

SVS is soliciting abstracts for a late-breaking session at the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting. Preference will be given to prospective, multi-institutional trials and investigational device exemption studies. As the intent is to provide attendees with true “late-breaking” trial data, retrospective analyses will not be considered for this session. Abstracts must be submitted here by 3 p.m. Central Daylight Time, Wednesday, March 27. For more information, contact the SVS Education Department by email at education@vascularsociety.org.

SVS is soliciting abstracts for a late-breaking session at the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting. Preference will be given to prospective, multi-institutional trials and investigational device exemption studies. As the intent is to provide attendees with true “late-breaking” trial data, retrospective analyses will not be considered for this session. Abstracts must be submitted here by 3 p.m. Central Daylight Time, Wednesday, March 27. For more information, contact the SVS Education Department by email at education@vascularsociety.org.

SVS is soliciting abstracts for a late-breaking session at the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting. Preference will be given to prospective, multi-institutional trials and investigational device exemption studies. As the intent is to provide attendees with true “late-breaking” trial data, retrospective analyses will not be considered for this session. Abstracts must be submitted here by 3 p.m. Central Daylight Time, Wednesday, March 27. For more information, contact the SVS Education Department by email at education@vascularsociety.org.

Registration and housing have officially opened for the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting! This year’s event will be held on June 12-15 in National Harbor, Md., (near Washington, D.C.) As always, attendees will learn about cutting-edge vascular research, attend innovative education sessions, have the opportunity to network with other thought leaders in the field and do much more. You can find the link to register for VAM here.

Registration and housing have officially opened for the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting! This year’s event will be held on June 12-15 in National Harbor, Md., (near Washington, D.C.) As always, attendees will learn about cutting-edge vascular research, attend innovative education sessions, have the opportunity to network with other thought leaders in the field and do much more. You can find the link to register for VAM here.

Registration and housing have officially opened for the 2019 Vascular Annual Meeting! This year’s event will be held on June 12-15 in National Harbor, Md., (near Washington, D.C.) As always, attendees will learn about cutting-edge vascular research, attend innovative education sessions, have the opportunity to network with other thought leaders in the field and do much more. You can find the link to register for VAM here.

John Krais, PhD, a researcher at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, has received a $75,000 grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance.

Dr. Krais received the 2-year grant to fund his investigation into DNA repair processes in BRCA1-mutant cancers, which will focus on the RNF168 protein.

Seven other early career researchers have joined the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy as part of the Parker Scholars, Parker Bridge Scholars, and Parker Fellows programs.

jensmith@mdedge.com

John Krais, PhD, a researcher at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, has received a $75,000 grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance.

Dr. Krais received the 2-year grant to fund his investigation into DNA repair processes in BRCA1-mutant cancers, which will focus on the RNF168 protein.

Seven other early career researchers have joined the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy as part of the Parker Scholars, Parker Bridge Scholars, and Parker Fellows programs.

jensmith@mdedge.com

John Krais, PhD, a researcher at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, has received a $75,000 grant from the Ovarian Cancer Research Alliance.

Dr. Krais received the 2-year grant to fund his investigation into DNA repair processes in BRCA1-mutant cancers, which will focus on the RNF168 protein.

Seven other early career researchers have joined the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy as part of the Parker Scholars, Parker Bridge Scholars, and Parker Fellows programs.

jensmith@mdedge.com

CHEST 2019 will be in New Orleans, Louisiana, this year, October 19-23. Here are a few ways to be engaged leading up to the meeting.

Submit Abstracts and Case Reports

Do you have original investigative research to share? There’s still some time to submit your abstracts and case reports for presentation at CHEST 2019 through Friday, March 15. If accepted, all abstracts and case reports will be published as submitted in an online CHEST® journal abstract supplement. No corrections will be made once submission is complete.

View submission details (https://chestmeeting.chestnet.org/abstracts-and-case-reports/)
 

Call for Moderators

CHEST is currently requesting moderators to facilitate discussions, questions, and answers within assigned sessions on-site at CHEST 2019 in New Orleans. Moderators will be notified June to September of their acceptance as a moderator.

View complete details (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdSWFSyKAeIjfyYgGRF6km_95znba63bx6iM9TWl08gpdqzEQ/viewform)
 

CHEST Challenge 2019

US-based CHEST fellows-in-training - does your fellowship have what it takes to win CHEST Challenge 2019? CHEST Challenge is a fun and exciting competition in which CHEST fellows-in-training compete against programs around the country for honor and prizes! The first round of the competition consists of two parts: social media challenges and online quiz. The aggregate score for both of these components will be used to identify the top three highest scoring teams. These top three teams will then be invited to send three fellows each to the CHEST Challenge Championship, a Jeopardy-style game show that takes place live during the CHEST Annual Meeting.

See the rules and how to participate. (chestchallenge.org)
 

Apply for CHEST Foundation Grants

The CHEST Foundation has awarded more than $10 million in grant funding to nearly 800 recipients worldwide for clinical research and community service. Each year, the CHEST Foundation offers grants to worthy research candidates, generous community service volunteers, and distinguished scholars in a field of expertise.

The CHEST Foundation is accepting grant applications now through April 8, 2019, in the following areas:

• CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP – Up to $15,000 (multiple recipients selected)*

• The GlaxoSmithKline Distinguished Scholar in Respiratory Health – $150,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Cystic Fibrosis – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Lung Cancer – $50,000 – $100,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Diseases – $30,000 – $60,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Fibrosis – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Venous Thromboembolism – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Women’s Lung Health – $10,000*

*Amount contingent on funding.


Learn more on how to apply now. (https://foundation.chestnet.org/grants/apply-for-a-grant/)


 

CHEST 2019 will be in New Orleans, Louisiana, this year, October 19-23. Here are a few ways to be engaged leading up to the meeting.

Submit Abstracts and Case Reports

Do you have original investigative research to share? There’s still some time to submit your abstracts and case reports for presentation at CHEST 2019 through Friday, March 15. If accepted, all abstracts and case reports will be published as submitted in an online CHEST® journal abstract supplement. No corrections will be made once submission is complete.

View submission details (https://chestmeeting.chestnet.org/abstracts-and-case-reports/)
 

Call for Moderators

CHEST is currently requesting moderators to facilitate discussions, questions, and answers within assigned sessions on-site at CHEST 2019 in New Orleans. Moderators will be notified June to September of their acceptance as a moderator.

View complete details (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdSWFSyKAeIjfyYgGRF6km_95znba63bx6iM9TWl08gpdqzEQ/viewform)
 

CHEST Challenge 2019

US-based CHEST fellows-in-training - does your fellowship have what it takes to win CHEST Challenge 2019? CHEST Challenge is a fun and exciting competition in which CHEST fellows-in-training compete against programs around the country for honor and prizes! The first round of the competition consists of two parts: social media challenges and online quiz. The aggregate score for both of these components will be used to identify the top three highest scoring teams. These top three teams will then be invited to send three fellows each to the CHEST Challenge Championship, a Jeopardy-style game show that takes place live during the CHEST Annual Meeting.

See the rules and how to participate. (chestchallenge.org)
 

Apply for CHEST Foundation Grants

The CHEST Foundation has awarded more than $10 million in grant funding to nearly 800 recipients worldwide for clinical research and community service. Each year, the CHEST Foundation offers grants to worthy research candidates, generous community service volunteers, and distinguished scholars in a field of expertise.

The CHEST Foundation is accepting grant applications now through April 8, 2019, in the following areas:

• CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP – Up to $15,000 (multiple recipients selected)*

• The GlaxoSmithKline Distinguished Scholar in Respiratory Health – $150,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Cystic Fibrosis – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Lung Cancer – $50,000 – $100,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Diseases – $30,000 – $60,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Fibrosis – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Venous Thromboembolism – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Women’s Lung Health – $10,000*

*Amount contingent on funding.


Learn more on how to apply now. (https://foundation.chestnet.org/grants/apply-for-a-grant/)


 

CHEST 2019 will be in New Orleans, Louisiana, this year, October 19-23. Here are a few ways to be engaged leading up to the meeting.

Submit Abstracts and Case Reports

Do you have original investigative research to share? There’s still some time to submit your abstracts and case reports for presentation at CHEST 2019 through Friday, March 15. If accepted, all abstracts and case reports will be published as submitted in an online CHEST® journal abstract supplement. No corrections will be made once submission is complete.

View submission details (https://chestmeeting.chestnet.org/abstracts-and-case-reports/)
 

Call for Moderators

CHEST is currently requesting moderators to facilitate discussions, questions, and answers within assigned sessions on-site at CHEST 2019 in New Orleans. Moderators will be notified June to September of their acceptance as a moderator.

View complete details (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdSWFSyKAeIjfyYgGRF6km_95znba63bx6iM9TWl08gpdqzEQ/viewform)
 

CHEST Challenge 2019

US-based CHEST fellows-in-training - does your fellowship have what it takes to win CHEST Challenge 2019? CHEST Challenge is a fun and exciting competition in which CHEST fellows-in-training compete against programs around the country for honor and prizes! The first round of the competition consists of two parts: social media challenges and online quiz. The aggregate score for both of these components will be used to identify the top three highest scoring teams. These top three teams will then be invited to send three fellows each to the CHEST Challenge Championship, a Jeopardy-style game show that takes place live during the CHEST Annual Meeting.

See the rules and how to participate. (chestchallenge.org)
 

Apply for CHEST Foundation Grants

The CHEST Foundation has awarded more than $10 million in grant funding to nearly 800 recipients worldwide for clinical research and community service. Each year, the CHEST Foundation offers grants to worthy research candidates, generous community service volunteers, and distinguished scholars in a field of expertise.

The CHEST Foundation is accepting grant applications now through April 8, 2019, in the following areas:

• CHEST Foundation Community Service Grant Honoring D. Robert McCaffree, MD, Master FCCP – Up to $15,000 (multiple recipients selected)*

• The GlaxoSmithKline Distinguished Scholar in Respiratory Health – $150,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Asthma – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Cystic Fibrosis – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Lung Cancer – $50,000 – $100,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Nontuberculous Mycobacteria Diseases – $30,000 – $60,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Pulmonary Fibrosis – $25,000 – $50,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Venous Thromboembolism – $15,000 – $30,000*

• CHEST Foundation Research Grant in Women’s Lung Health – $10,000*

*Amount contingent on funding.


Learn more on how to apply now. (https://foundation.chestnet.org/grants/apply-for-a-grant/)


 

The American College of Chest Physicians® (CHEST) has published updates to the evidence-based guidelines on therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In the latest evidence-based guideline, Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Adults: Update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report, experts provide 78 evidence-based recommendations for appropriate use in treating patients with PAH.

“New recommendations and ungraded consensus-based statements were developed in this update based on new studies that were published since the 2014 guidelines. In addition, an evidence-based and consensus-driven treatment algorithm was created to guide the clinician through an organized approach to management,” says CHEST Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Guidelines Committee Co-Chair, Deborah Jo Levine, MD, FCCP.

As part of the guideline development process, the panel updated the systematic review on the same clinical questions and criteria. Based on the results of the systematic review, the panel developed two new recommendations about pharmacologic therapy for PAH: 

•For treatment-naive patients with PAH who are World Health Organization (WHO)  functional class II and III, we suggest initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil to improve 6-minute walk distance (6MWD).

•For stable or symptomatic patients with PAH on background therapy with ambrisentan, we suggest the addition of tadalafil to improve 6MWD. 

The complete guideline article is free to view in the Online First section of the journal CHEST®.

The American College of Chest Physicians® (CHEST) has published updates to the evidence-based guidelines on therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In the latest evidence-based guideline, Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Adults: Update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report, experts provide 78 evidence-based recommendations for appropriate use in treating patients with PAH.

“New recommendations and ungraded consensus-based statements were developed in this update based on new studies that were published since the 2014 guidelines. In addition, an evidence-based and consensus-driven treatment algorithm was created to guide the clinician through an organized approach to management,” says CHEST Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Guidelines Committee Co-Chair, Deborah Jo Levine, MD, FCCP.

As part of the guideline development process, the panel updated the systematic review on the same clinical questions and criteria. Based on the results of the systematic review, the panel developed two new recommendations about pharmacologic therapy for PAH: 

•For treatment-naive patients with PAH who are World Health Organization (WHO)  functional class II and III, we suggest initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil to improve 6-minute walk distance (6MWD).

•For stable or symptomatic patients with PAH on background therapy with ambrisentan, we suggest the addition of tadalafil to improve 6MWD. 

The complete guideline article is free to view in the Online First section of the journal CHEST®.

The American College of Chest Physicians® (CHEST) has published updates to the evidence-based guidelines on therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). In the latest evidence-based guideline, Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Adults: Update of the CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report, experts provide 78 evidence-based recommendations for appropriate use in treating patients with PAH.

“New recommendations and ungraded consensus-based statements were developed in this update based on new studies that were published since the 2014 guidelines. In addition, an evidence-based and consensus-driven treatment algorithm was created to guide the clinician through an organized approach to management,” says CHEST Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Guidelines Committee Co-Chair, Deborah Jo Levine, MD, FCCP.

As part of the guideline development process, the panel updated the systematic review on the same clinical questions and criteria. Based on the results of the systematic review, the panel developed two new recommendations about pharmacologic therapy for PAH: 

•For treatment-naive patients with PAH who are World Health Organization (WHO)  functional class II and III, we suggest initial combination therapy with ambrisentan and tadalafil to improve 6-minute walk distance (6MWD).

•For stable or symptomatic patients with PAH on background therapy with ambrisentan, we suggest the addition of tadalafil to improve 6MWD. 

The complete guideline article is free to view in the Online First section of the journal CHEST®.

The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) received reaccreditation from the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) for the 2018-2023 term in the areas of Teaching/Education, Assessment, and Research. In 2013, CHEST became the first and only medical specialty society to achieve SSH accreditation, a distinction that continues today. Currently, CHEST joins over 125 SSH-accredited programs worldwide, including universities, hospitals, and medical education companies.

The reaccreditation process was the result of months of preparation on behalf of CHEST Simulation Program staff, CHEST Accreditation staff, CHEST Outcomes staff, as well as CHEST’s Live Learning Domain Task Force chairs and other education leadership. This culminated in mid-November at a face-to-face on-site interview with site reviewers representing SSH and CHEST Simulation Program faculty and staff and CHEST leadership. Throughout the process, CHEST was given the opportunity to highlight the unique and innovative ways in which we are utilizing simulation-based education to provide greater clinical insights to enhance patient care.

We recognize that this isn’t only an every-4-year commitment, but it is resultant of the ongoing efforts from a group of dedicated individuals. Thank you to all whose contributions ensured our success! 

The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) received reaccreditation from the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) for the 2018-2023 term in the areas of Teaching/Education, Assessment, and Research. In 2013, CHEST became the first and only medical specialty society to achieve SSH accreditation, a distinction that continues today. Currently, CHEST joins over 125 SSH-accredited programs worldwide, including universities, hospitals, and medical education companies.

The reaccreditation process was the result of months of preparation on behalf of CHEST Simulation Program staff, CHEST Accreditation staff, CHEST Outcomes staff, as well as CHEST’s Live Learning Domain Task Force chairs and other education leadership. This culminated in mid-November at a face-to-face on-site interview with site reviewers representing SSH and CHEST Simulation Program faculty and staff and CHEST leadership. Throughout the process, CHEST was given the opportunity to highlight the unique and innovative ways in which we are utilizing simulation-based education to provide greater clinical insights to enhance patient care.

We recognize that this isn’t only an every-4-year commitment, but it is resultant of the ongoing efforts from a group of dedicated individuals. Thank you to all whose contributions ensured our success! 

The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) received reaccreditation from the Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SSH) for the 2018-2023 term in the areas of Teaching/Education, Assessment, and Research. In 2013, CHEST became the first and only medical specialty society to achieve SSH accreditation, a distinction that continues today. Currently, CHEST joins over 125 SSH-accredited programs worldwide, including universities, hospitals, and medical education companies.

The reaccreditation process was the result of months of preparation on behalf of CHEST Simulation Program staff, CHEST Accreditation staff, CHEST Outcomes staff, as well as CHEST’s Live Learning Domain Task Force chairs and other education leadership. This culminated in mid-November at a face-to-face on-site interview with site reviewers representing SSH and CHEST Simulation Program faculty and staff and CHEST leadership. Throughout the process, CHEST was given the opportunity to highlight the unique and innovative ways in which we are utilizing simulation-based education to provide greater clinical insights to enhance patient care.

We recognize that this isn’t only an every-4-year commitment, but it is resultant of the ongoing efforts from a group of dedicated individuals. Thank you to all whose contributions ensured our success! 

CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.

We extend our sincere condolences.



Faroque A. Khan, MBBS

Venessa Holland, MD, FCCP
 

CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.

We extend our sincere condolences.



Faroque A. Khan, MBBS

Venessa Holland, MD, FCCP
 

CHEST has been notified of the following deaths.

We extend our sincere condolences.



Faroque A. Khan, MBBS

Venessa Holland, MD, FCCP