disease management

High-quality primary care is the foundation of a high-functioning health care system. When it is high-quality, primary care provides continuous, personcentered, relationship-based care that considers the needs and preferences of individuals, families, and communities. Without access to high-quality primary care, minor health problems can spiral into chronic disease, chronic disease management becomes difficult and uncoordinated, visits to emergency departments increase, preventive care lags, and health care spending soars to unsustainable levels.

Unequal access to primary care remains a concern, and the COVID-19 pandemic amplified pervasive economic, mental health, and social health disparities that ubiquitous, high-quality primary care might have reduced. Primary care is the only health care component where an increased supply is associated with better population health and more equitable outcomes. For this reason, primary care is a common good, which makes the strength and quality of the country’s primary care services a public concern.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine formed the Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care in 2019. Building on the recommendations of the 1996 Institute of Medicine report Primary Care: America’s Health in a New Era, the committee was tasked to develop an implementation plan for high-quality primary care in the United States.

The committee’s definition of high-quality primary care (see Box 1) describes what it should be, not what most people in the United States experience today. To rebuild a strong foundation for the U.S. health care system, the committee’s implementation plan includes objectives and actions targeting primary care stakeholders and balancing national needs for scalable solutions while allowing for adaptations to meet local needs.

The committee set five implementation objectives to make high-quality primary care available to all people living in the United States:

1. Pay for primary care teams to care for people, not doctors to deliver services.

2.Ensure that high-quality primary care is available to every individual and family in every community.

3.Train primary care teams where people live and work.

4.Design information technology that serves the patient, family, and the interprofessional care team.

5.Ensure that high-quality primary care is implemented in the United States.

IMPORTANCE:

Even though osteoarthritis is a chronic and progressive disease, pharmacological agents are mainly studied over short-term periods, resulting in unclear recommendations for long-term disease management.

OBJECTIVE:

To search, review, and analyze long-term (≥12 months) outcomes (symptoms, joint structure) from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of medications for knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION:

The databases of MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched until June 30, 2018 (MEDLINE alerts through August 31, 2018) for RCTs of patients with knee osteoarthritis that had treatment and follow-up lasting 1 year or longer.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:

Data at baseline and at the longest available treatment and follow-up of 12 months' duration or longer (or the change from baseline) were extracted. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

The primary outcome was the mean change from baseline in knee pain. Secondary outcomes were physical function and joint structure (the latter was measured radiologically as joint space narrowing). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and mean differences with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrIs) were calculated. Findings were interpreted as associations when the 95% CrIs excluded the null value.

RESULTS:

Forty-seven RCTs (22 037 patients; mean age range, mostly 55-70 years; and a higher mean proportion of women than men, around 70%) included the following medication categories: analgesics; antioxidants; bone-acting agents such as bisphosphonates and strontium ranelate; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; intra-articular injection medications such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids; symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis such as glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate; and putative disease-modifying agents such as cindunistat and sprifermin. Thirty-one interventions were studied for pain, 13 for physical function, and 16 for joint structure. Trial duration ranged from 1 to 4 years. Associations with decreases in pain were found for the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug celecoxib (SMD, -0.18 [95% CrI, -0.35 to -0.01]) and the symptomatic slow-acting drug in osteoarthritis glucosamine sulfate (SMD, -0.29 [95% CrI, -0.49 to -0.09]), but there was large uncertainty for all estimates vs placebo. The association with pain improvement remained significant only for glucosamine sulfate when data were analyzed using the mean difference on a scale from 0 to 100 and when trials at high risk of bias were excluded. Associations with improvement in joint space narrowing were found for glucosamine sulfate (SMD, -0.42 [95% CrI, -0.65 to -0.19]), chondroitin sulfate (SMD, -0.20 [95% CrI, -0.31 to -0.07]), and strontium ranelate (SMD, -0.20 [95% CrI, -0.36 to -0.05]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis of studies of patients with knee osteoarthritis and at least 12 months of follow-up, there was uncertainty around the estimates of effect size for change in pain for all comparisons with placebo. Larger RCTs are needed to resolve the uncertainty around efficacy of medications for knee osteoarthritis.