In patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI, as compared with medical therapy alone, improved the outcome. Patients without ischemia had a favorable outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).

Objective To examine all cause and disease specific mortality in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.Design Population based cohort study.Setting General practices in the southwest of England.Participants 1163 patients aged 35 years or over with symptoms and radiological confirmation of osteoarthritis of the knee or hip.Main outcome measures Age and sex standardised mortality ratios and multivariable hazard ratios of death after a median of 14 years’ follow-up.Results Patients with osteoarthritis had excess all cause mortality compared with the general population (standardised mortality ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.41 to 1.70). Excess mortality was observed for all disease specific causes of death but was particularly pronounced for cardiovascular (standardised mortality ratio 1.71, 1.49 to 1.98) and dementia associated mortality (1.99, 1.22 to 3.25). Mortality increased with increasing age (P for trend <0.001), male sex (adjusted hazard ratio 1.59, 1.30 to 1.96), self reported history of diabetes (1.95, 1.31 to 2.90), cancer (2.28, 1.50 to 3.47), cardiovascular disease (1.38, 1.12 to 1.71), and walking disability (1.48, 1.17 to 1.86). However, little evidence existed for increased mortality associated with previous joint replacement, obesity, depression, chronic inflammatory disease, eye disease, or presence of pain at baseline. The more severe the walking disability, the higher was the risk of death (P for trend <0.001).Conclusion Patients with osteoarthritis are at higher risk of death compared with the general population. History of diabetes, cancer, or cardiovascular disease and the presence of walking disability are major risk factors. Management of patients with osteoarthritis and walking disability should focus on effective treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and comorbidities, as well as on increasing physical activity.

Arco Foundation.

Objective To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points. Main outcome measure Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at −0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. Data sources Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was −0.4 cm (95% credible interval −0.7 to −0.1 cm) for glucosamine, −0.3 cm (−0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and −0.5 cm (−0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged. INTRODUCTIONOsteoarthritis of the hip or knee is a chronic condition mostly treated with analgesics and non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, but these drugs can cause serious gastrointestinal and cardiovascular adverse events, especially with long term use.1 2 Disease modifying agents that not only reduce joint pain but also slow the progression of the condition would be desirable. Throughout the world for the past 10 years, the cartilage constituents chondroitin and glucosamine have been increasingly recommended in guidelines, prescribed by general practitioners and rheumatologists, and used by patients as over the counter medications to modify the clinical and radiological course of the condition.3 Global sales of glucosamine supplements reached almost $2bn (£1.3bn, €0.8bn) in 2008, which represents an increase of about 60% compared with 2003, with a forecasted continued growth through 2013 reaching $2.3bn. 4 The oral administration of cartilage constituents in patients with osteoarthritis is thought to make up for the apparent cartilage loss in affected joints....

Objective To examine the presence and extent of small study effects in clinical osteoarthritis research. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources 13 meta-analyses including 153 randomised trials (41 605 patients) that compared therapeutic interventions with placebo or nonintervention control in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee and used patients' reported pain as an outcome.Methods We compared estimated benefits of treatment between large trials (at least 100 patients per arm) and small trials, explored funnel plots supplemented with lines of predicted effects and contours of significance, and used three approaches to estimate treatment effects: meta-analyses including all trials irrespective of sample size, meta-analyses restricted to large trials, and treatment effects predicted for large trials. Results On average, treatment effects were more beneficial in small than in large trials (difference in effect sizes −0.21, 95% confidence interval −0.34 to −0

Jürgen Barth and colleagues use network meta-analysis - a novel methodological approach - to reexamine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adults with depression. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Background: Previous meta-analyses comparing the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression were clouded by a limited number of within-study treatment comparisons. This study used network meta-analysis, a novel methodological approach that integrates direct and indirect evidence from randomised controlled studies, to re-examine the comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for adult depression.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02075840.