Jones, Lynne C.

Background/Objectives: Diagnostic evaluation and management of nontraumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) vary substantially. This systematic review was conducted to inform development of the Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) clinical practice guideline for diagnosis and treatment of ARCO stages I to III ONFH. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, Global Index Medicus, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating imaging modalities and treatments for adult ONFH. We assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2, the ROB-2, and the ROBINS-I tools; conducted meta-analyses using random-effects regression; and evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. Results: Among 36 included studies, 18 addressed diagnostic test accuracy and 18 addressed comparative effectiveness of treatments. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) demonstrated the highest pooled sensitivity (0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.87 to 0.94) and specificity (0.96; 95% CI, 0.87 to 0.99) for ONFH diagnosis. Bone marrow edema and grade 2+ joint effusion on MRI differentiated symptomatic versus asymptomatic disease. Computed tomography and MRI better detected subchondral fractures than plain radiography. Very low-grade evidence suggested lower rates of femoral head collapse with core decompression plus bone marrow concentrate compared with core decompression alone (pooled relative risk [RR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.83), and with vascularized versus non-vascularized bone grafting (RR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.84) over a ≤5-year follow-up. Based on three non-comparative case series, osteotomies might have a lower risk of collapse over a 10- to 20-year follow-up, but this needs to be evaluated in future comparative research. Inconsistent outcome reporting hindered treatment outcome pooling. There were no comparative studies that evaluated observation only versus intervention in asymptomatic disease or strategies for monitoring treatment response. Conclusions: Evidence supporting optimal imaging modalities and early joint-preserving interventions remains limited and predominantly observational, underscoring the need for high-quality comparative studies with consistently defined core outcomes to guide clinical decision-making.

Introduction: There are many treatment options for patients who have osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) and management strategies vary widely both among and within individual countries. Although many researchers have attempted to elucidate the optimal strategies for managing this disease, the lack of large-scale randomized control trials and the lack of agreement on disease staging have curtailed the development of clear-cut guidelines. Materials and Methods: The Association Research Circulation Osseous (ARCO) group sought to address three questions for the management of patients who have ONFH: 1) What imaging studies are most sensitive and specific for the diagnostic evaluation of patients who have ONFH?; 2) What is the best treatment strategy for preventing disease progression in patients who have pre-collapse lesions?; and 3) What is the best treatment strategy for patients who have post-collapse disease? The Patient, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) format was used to formulate the search strategy for each research question. A systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. ARCO participants have been allocated to three groups, each representing one of the PICO questions. After qualitative and quantitative analysis of the data extracted from studies pertaining to each of the three research questions, a set of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines will be proposed for the management of patients who have ONFH. Discussion: It is not always clear which treatment method is optimal for the management of ONFH. Thus, many surgeons have developed and performed various procedures based on patient-specific factors. As there is no consensus on the optimal treatment for various stages of disease, it was clear that developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines would provide more structure and uniformity to management of these patients. Therefore, the results of this systematic review will lead to the development guidelines that may improve patient-care strategies and result in better outcomes for patients who have ONFH.

AbstractObjectiveThe Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects evaluates familial frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) kindreds with MAPT, GRN, or C9orf72 mutations. Objectives were to examine whether health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) correlates with clinical symptoms and caregiver burden, and whether self‐rated and informant‐rated HRQoL would correlate with each other.MethodsIndividuals were classified using the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR®) Scale plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) FTLD. HRQoL was measured with DEMQOL and DEMQOL‐proxy; caregiver burden with the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI). For analysis, Pearson correlations and weighted kappa statistics were calculated.ResultsThe cohort of 312 individuals included symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. CDR® plus NACC FTLD was negatively correlated with DEMQOL (r = −0.20, P = .001), as were ZBI and DEMQOL (r = −0.22, P = .0009). There was fair agreement between subject and informant DEMQOL (κ = 0.36, P <.0001).ConclusionLower HRQoL was associated with higher cognitive/behavior impairment and higher caregiver burden. These findings demonstrate the negative impact of FTLD on individuals and caregivers.

AbstractIntroductionWe created global rating scoring rules for the CDR® plus NACC FTLD to detect and track early frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) and to conduct clinical trials in FTLD.MethodsThe CDR plus NACC FTLD rating was applied to 970 sporadic and familial participants from the baseline visit of Advancing Research and Treatment in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ARTFL)/Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects (LEFFTDS). Each of the eight domains of the CDR plus NACC FTLD was equally weighed in determining the global score. An interrater reliability study was completed for 40 participants.ResultsThe CDR plus NACC FTLD showed very good interrater reliability. It was especially useful in detecting clinical features of mild non‐fluent/agrammatic variant primary progressive aphasia participants.DiscussionThe global CDR plus NACC FTLD score could be an attractive outcome measure for clinical trials in symptomatic FTLD, and may be useful in natural history studies and clinical trials in FTLD spectrum disorders.