ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 0708

Differences in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis by Clinician Specialty

Denise Baldock1 and Casey Zhang2, 1Ipsos MORI, London, England, United Kingdom, 2Ipsos Insight, New York, NY

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2020

Keywords: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Osteoarthritis, X-ray

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Saturday, November 7, 2020

Title: Osteoarthritis & Joint Biology – Basic Science Poster

Session Type: Poster Session B

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: Current treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is focused primarily around pain relief offering sustained mobility and prioritizing symptom relief over disease progression potentially impacts treatment outcome in the longer term for patients. With candidate therapies being investigated to address disease progression, it is important to examine if and where differences exist, with the prescribing behavior of current treaters of knee OA.

Methods: A cross-sectional chart review survey was conducted in Q2 2019 among US rheumatologists (rheums), orthopedic surgeons (orthos), primary care physicians with a focus in sports medicine (SM PCPs), and pain specialists practicing across hospital and private practices. Recruited from a large access panel, physicians were screened for duration of practice in their specialty (3-50 years) and caseload (35 or more knee OA patients, at least 10 of which must be classified as moderate-severe). Participants were asked to complete a 3-part survey: (1) a doctor demographic questionnaire, (2) a perceptual questionnaire, assessing perception of available and upcoming OA therapies, and (3) patient charts for the next 5 knee OA patients seen following receipt of the survey, capturing demographics and treatment history. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results: A total of 275 physicians were recruited, reporting on 1375 patients in total (Table 1). When focusing primarily on patients with moderate-severe knee OA, this represented 65% of patients for SM PCPs and orthos. Pain specialists and rheums by comparison, had a significantly larger caseload of moderate-severe patients, at 79% and 77% respectively.

When looking at the proportion of patients treated with prescription medication for their knee OA, pain specialists and rheums stated an average of 69% and 68% of their managed patients, while SM PCPs stated 66%. Orthos stated a significantly lower proportion of patients treated with prescription therapy, at 55%.

Looking at therapies across specialties, orthos state greater use of traditional NSAIDs to treat their knee OA patients compared to pain specialists and SM PCPs (53% vs 36% vs 44%), with a significant difference to the stated use of rheums (35%). Rheums on the other hand, state significantly greater use of opioids compared to orthos, 18% vs 12% for mild opioids and 8% vs 1% for strong opioids.

From commonly used imaging techniques, X-ray and Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used in greater proportion over ultrasound or computed tomography (CT) scan and when considering evidence of radiographic progression from imaging, rheums reported a significantly lower proportion of patients demonstrating radiographic evidence of bone erosion, compared to all specialties researched- 36% compared to 65% reported by orthos, 65% by SM PCPs and 75% by pain specialists.

Conclusion: From the sample surveyed, knee OA patients may exhibit differing outcomes based on the management adopted by their presiding clinician. With candidate therapies offering alternatives to how we currently treat knee OA, understanding nuances between treaters may prove an important consideration, when examining treatment outcomes in the longer term. 

Table 1. Physician and patient sample size


Disclosure: D. Baldock, None; C. Zhang, None.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Baldock D, Zhang C. Differences in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis by Clinician Specialty [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020; 72 (suppl 10). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/differences-in-treating-knee-osteoarthritis-by-clinician-specialty/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2020

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/differences-in-treating-knee-osteoarthritis-by-clinician-specialty/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology