4.2 Article

Treatment patterns of knee osteoarthritis patients in Korea

期刊

KOREAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 5, 页码 1145-+

出版社

KOREAN ASSOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2017.304

关键词

Knee; Osteoarthritis; Therapeutics

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology RAMP
  2. D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea [HC15C3388]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: To evaluate the treatment patterns of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients in South Korea. Methods: Using the Korean nationwide claims database, all knee OA patients in Korea during 2014 were identified by the knee OA diagnostic code (M17) or any OA diagnostic code (M15 to M19) in combination with a procedure for a knee X-ray. Patterns of medications such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids (CSs), analgesics, and symptomatic slow acting drugs for OA (SYS-ADOA) were analyzed. Prevalence and characteristics of knee OA patients who received a CS intra-articular injection (IAI) were also evaluated. Results: We identified 2,016,516 knee OA patients whose age (mean +/- standard deviation) was 63.2 +/- 10.8 years. The number of patients with at least one use of NSAIDs, analgesics, CS, and SYSADOA were 82.5%, 32.2%, 8.6%, and 43.4%, respectively. The use of herbal SYSADOAs was 29.7%. For regular users (medication possession ratios a >= 50%), the use of NSAI Ds was substantially decreased (48.8%), while the use of SYSADOA (37.3%) and CS (6.7%) were not significantly changed. The number of CS IAI users among knee OA patients was 0.18%; they were slightly older (64.4 +/- 10.9 vs. 63.2 +/- 10.8, p < 0.01) and more skewed towards females (75.7% vs. 71.5%, p < 0.01) than patients who had not received CS IAI. Conclusions: In Korea, the use of SYSADOA or CS in knee OA patients was relatively high. Further studies on the effectiveness and the safety of these treatment options for knee OA are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据