Why Does Menopause Worsen Rheumatoid Arthritis?

By Pat Anson, Editor

A large new study is confirming what many women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) already know – menopause and hormonal changes can significantly worsen their pain and other symptoms. But it's not clear why that happens.

Researchers at the University of Nebraska Medical Center enrolled over 8,000 women with RA – both young and old -- in their observational study. They found that post-menopausal women with RA had a significant increase in the level and rate of functional physical decline. Menopause was also associated with a worsening progression of the disease.

RA is a chronic and disabling autoimmune disease in which the body’s own defenses attack joint tissues, causing pain, inflammation and joint erosion. Women experience RA at a rate three times greater than men, have more severe symptoms and increased disability.

Previous studies have shown that women with RA experience changes in their disease during reproductive and hormonal changes. During pregnancy, women are less likely to develop RA, yet the disease is more likely to progress and flare during the post-partum period. Similarly, women who experience early menopause are more likely to develop RA compared to those who experience normal or late menopause.

Hormone levels of estrogen increase during pregnancy and decline during menopause – but the association with RA is not fully understood.

"Further study is needed as to why women with rheumatoid arthritis are suffering a greater decline in function after menopause," said the study's lead author, Elizabeth Mollard, PhD, an assistant professor in the College of Nursing at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

"Not only is this decline causing suffering for women, it is costly to both individuals and the healthcare system as a whole. Research is specifically needed on the mechanism connecting these variables with the eventual goal of identifying interventions that can maintain or improve function in postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis."

The study is published in the journal Rheumatology.

RA affects about 1.3 million Americans and about one percent of the global population. Until the late 1990s, one in three RA patients were permanently disabled within five years of disease onset.

Although there are still no cures for RA, in recent years there has been significant improvement in treatment, with disease control now possible for many patients who receive biologic drugs. Those treatments are expensive, with some biologic therapies costing $25,000 a year.

Stem Cells: Signs of Progress in a Rigged Game

By A. Rahman Ford, Columnist

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article on the use of stem cell therapies for knee problems, including arthritis.  Overall, the perspective of the piece was positive and it has several laudable aspects.  Physicians from large academic institutions, such as Harvard University and Stanford University, were interviewed to provide their opinions on the use of autologous stem cells derived from a patient’s own fat or bone marrow for certain painful orthopedic indications. 

The article rightly acknowledges the high patient demand for these autologous therapies. It also mentions how the U.S. lags behind other countries in offering them and the disturbing fact that this therapy is not covered by medical insurance.  The doctors who were interviewed also discussed how conventional approaches to osteoarthritis in knees – meniscus surgery, microfracture surgery, etc. – often fail to demonstrate long-term benefit.  These doctors, along with many others around the world, recognize that we need new therapies for orthopedic conditions.

Any positive portrayal of the clinical uses of stem cells should be welcomed. The unfortunate truth is that many potential patients are scared off by publications that focus their reporting on the alleged malfeasance of a few bad-actor stem cell clinics.  These same publications often neglect to cover the countless stem cell success stories from clinics in the U.S. and abroad. 

A focus on these promising results may help allay those fears and convince some of those fearful patients that stem cells are, in fact, a viable medical option for their chronic orthopedic pain. 

Less fear can lead to self-education and increased awareness of the safety and potential of stem cells.  Patients may even try stem cell therapy and become advocates.  In this sense, the WSJ piece is good public relations for stem cell therapies overall.

However, there is an unsettling undertone in the WSJ piece and media coverage in general of stem cells, which places too much emphasis on the opinions of clinicians from certain large institutions.  That diminishes the value of work being done in smaller stem cell clinics, which have been safely and effectively treating patients with orthopedic conditions for years. 

The unintended implication is that Harvard and Stanford physicians’ assessments are more legitimate because of the perceived prestige of their employers, and because they follow the guidelines that the FDA set forth for pursuing such treatments.  Of course, these institutions have millions of dollars in capital that it takes to conduct clinical studies and comply with these guidelines, while smaller clinics often do not.  We must take care to avoid creating or reinforcing illegitimate hierarchies that give some physicians more scientific authority than others, based solely on money, perceived prestige, or the ability to adhere to an unfair set of rules.

The sad truth is that the stem cell game is rigged.  The FDA’s rules regarding the use of autologous stem cell therapies favor those with more financial resources because they can afford expensive clinical trials.  Medical innovation cannot be strictly the domain of wealthy institutions with the finances to play on a tilted field.  The FDA’s “minimal manipulation” and “homologous use” regulatory standards for using stem cells are unduly burdensome and need to be relaxed for autologous stem cell uses. 

Recently, the FDA issued a warning letter to American Cryostem, a company involved in the manufacture of adipose stem cell products derived from a patient’s body fat.  In addition to manufacturing violations, the company was accused of violating the FDA’s “minimal manipulation” and “homologous use” standards. 

Setting the merits of the case aside, it is emblematic of the FDA’s crackdown on clinics that are much smaller than Harvard and Stanford, but which have been relieving patients’ pain with autologous therapies for years.  Their scientific contributions must not be subordinated or dismissed as illegitimate or inconsequential.

Stories of how stem cells are entering mainstream medicine can help us realize the goal of available, affordable stem cell therapy for all Americans.  However, valorization of those institutions with the means to “play within the rules” must not come at the expense of sounding the alarm that the rules themselves are patently unfair.

A. Rahman Ford, PhD, is a lawyer and research professional. He is a graduate of Rutgers University and the Howard University School of Law, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the Howard Law Journal. He earned his PhD at the University of Pennsylvania.

Rahman lives with chronic inflammation in his digestive tract and is unable to eat solid food. He has received stem cell treatment in China.  

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Legal Battles Brew Over High Cost of Arthritis Drugs

By Julie Appleby, Kaiser Health News

Early last winter, Pfizer launched its new rheumatoid arthritis treatment, Inflectra, pricing it 15 percent below the $4,000-a-dose wholesale price of Remicade, the drug for which it is a close copy.

Pfizer figured its lower price would attract cost-conscious insurers.

A year later, though, its drug has barely scratched the market and Pfizer has filed an antitrust suit against its rivals, alleging they are thwarting lower-priced competition through “exclusionary contracts” and rebates.

The outcome of the case — filed in September in U.S. District Court against Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Remicade, and Janssen Biotech — could affect the future of biosimilars, a new class of drugs. Some policy experts say these near-copies of biologics are key to slowing spending on complex and expensive specialty medications like those used to treat rheumatoid arthritis.

At the heart of the case are rebates, which are discounts off the wholesale price of drugs.

Manufacturers offer them to help keep their products on insurers’ lists of covered drugs. The money mainly goes back to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, who say the rebates help reduce health care spending.

But Pfizer alleges that those rebates are being used to thwart biosimilars’ entry into the marketplace.

“This is the first antitrust case we’ve seen like this around biosimilars,” said Michael Carrier, a Rutgers Law School professor “Pfizer is claiming that one form of anti-competitive behavior involves withholding rebates from insurers.”

Biosimilars are costly to produce, so they are not likely to trigger the same sharp pricing drop triggered by generics. Still, their manufacturers say they could bring consumers some relief to rival biologics’ high price tags.

Pfizer’s Inflectra is one of the first biosimilars to hit the market since Congress passed legislation in 2010 to pave the way.

According to Pfizer, weeks after Inflectra gained Food and Drug Admininstration approval, J&J moved to stake out its biologic turf.

J&J began requiring insurers and PBMs to sign “exclusionary contracts … designed to block both insurers from reimbursing and hospitals and clinics from purchasing Inflectra or other biosimilars of Remicade despite their lower pricing,” alleges the case filed in federal district court in Philadelphia.

If insurers don’t agree to the J&J contracts, the loss of rebates could “for some insurers, run into the tens of millions of dollars annually,” the Pfizer case alleges.

Even with its lower price, Pfizer faced an uphill battle to win market share.

Remicade is the fifth-biggest-selling drug by revenue in the U.S., reaping more than $4.8 billion in 2016 for makers J&J and Janssen, the suit said. Often, patients are reluctant to switch once they are established on an RA drug that is working for them.

Still, Pfizer thought it would pick up newly diagnosed patients and gain ground that way. But its lawsuit says the drug accounted for only about 4 percent of total sales, with Remicade getting the rest, by early September.

“We stand by our contracts,” said J&J and Janssen Biotech in a written statement. The firms also defend rebates as “competition that is doing what competition is meant to do: driving deeper discounts that will lead to overall lower costs.”

Yet the price of Remicade has not fallen, the Pfizer case says.

Since approval of Inflectra, J&J has raised the list price of Remicade by close to 9 percent, the lawsuit alleges. As of September, Remicade’s average sales price –after discounts and rebates — is more than 10 percent higher than Inflectra.

“This case is a big deal, because it has the potential to bring to light some of the anti-competitive contracting practices at work to keep … prices extremely high,” said Jaime King, a professor at University of California-Hastings College of the Law.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Rising Cost of Arthritis Drugs Defies Economics

By Julie Appleby, Kaiser Health News

Renda Bower knows well the cost of drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis – her husband, son and daughter all have the painful, disabling autoimmune disease. And the family’s finances revolve around paying for them.

Even with insurance, Bower’s family last year faced $600 a month in copayments for the drug, plus additional payments on another $16,000 in medical bills racked up in 2016 when a former insurer refused to cover all the doses her 9-year-old daughter needed.

Bowers, of Warsaw, Ind., said her family tries to keep up with prices by cutting back on her children’s sports and extracurriculars and skipping family vacations. She also works as a part-time teacher.

But financially, it’s hard. “The cost should not be this high,” she said.

Wholesale prices for Humira and Enbrel, the two most commonly used treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, known as RA, increased more than 70 percent in the past three years.

Since the first RA drug came to market a decade ago, nearly a dozen have been added. If basic economics prevailed, RA treatments and patients would have benefited from competition.

But, because of industry price-setting practices, legal challenges and marketing tactics, they haven’t. The first RA drug cost $10,000 a year. It now lists for more than $40,000 — even as alternatives have entered the U.S. market.

“Competition generally doesn’t work to lower prices in branded specialty drugs,” said Peter Bach, director of Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Center for Health Policy and Outcomes.

Humira is the world’s No. 1 prescription drug by revenue. AbbVie manufactures and markets the drug and is on track to reach revenue from the product of $17 billion this year.

Other RA treatments are also among the top 10 drugs by revenue sold in the U.S. Enbrel, made by Amgen, ranks as No. 3. Remicade, by Janssen Biotech, is fifth. Some RA medications are approved for other conditions, including psoriatic arthritis, Crohn’s disease and psoriasis.

About 1.5 million Americans have rheumatoid arthritis. The Bowers found some relief this year but not because prices dropped. Rather, Renda’s husband left his job at an engineering firm to work as a machinist at a medical device company that has an insurance plan with lower copayments. Her daughter was accepted into a clinical trial at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. The trial covers the drug’s cost but not the associated expense of weekly travel, among other things.

Middlemen Benefit As Wholesale Price Rises

The complicated pharmaceutical supply chain in the United States means middlemen — such as pharmacy benefit managers (PBM) and, in some cases, hospitals and doctors’ offices — can gain financially by choosing more expensive drugs. That’s because PBMs usually get a rebate from the drugmakers on top of whatever profit they get from selling or administering the drug.

Those rebates often are based on a percentage of the list, or wholesale, price. So, the middlemen who get the rebates take in more money when drugmakers raise those sticker prices.

But who pockets the rebates? PBM firms, which oversee drug benefits for millions of Americans, say they share all or part of them with the insurers or employers who hire them. In some cases, the rebates go directly to specialty pharmacies, medical clinics or physicians dispensing the treatments.

The rebates rarely end up directly in patients’ pockets.

Those rebates affect the market in another way: They can make it harder for some companies to offer new treatments or they can thwart less costly rival products.

“We could give [our new drug] away for free and … it would still be more economically advantageous” for insurers and PBMs to send patients to Humira first, said Andreas Kuznik, a senior director at Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, at a conference examining the cost and value of RA treatments.

Thomas Amoroso, medical director for medical policy at Tufts Health Plan, said at the same March conference that he has found drug industry sales representatives to be persistent in tracking how their drugs are positioned on plan formularies.

If insurers decide to add a new, lower-cost drug as the preferred alternative, “our Humira rep would be knocking on our door next week and saying, ‘Hey, that rebate we gave you? We’re taking it back,’” Amoroso said.

The roundtable at which they spoke was part of an assessment of RA drug pricing convened by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, a nonprofit that evaluates the value of medical tests and treatments for insurers and other clients.

PBMs won’t disclose the rebates they provide to clients, but studies provide a clue. It’s a huge amount of money.

The Berkeley Research Group, a consulting firm that advises major employers, said that rebates and other discounts paid to insurers, PBMs and the U.S. government for brand-name drugs grew from $67 billion in 2013 to $106 billion in 2015.

Most RA drugs are a complex type of medication, called biologics, which are made in living organisms. Nearly identical copies of biologics are called biosimilars. They hold the promise of lower prices, just as generic drugs did for less complex medications.

While several biosimilar RA treatments have won Food and Drug Administration approval, including replicas of Humira, Enbrel and Remicade, most are tied up in court battles over patents. And those biosimilars that have made it to market are now the subject of new areas of legal challenge.

In mid-September, Pfizer filed what will be a closely watched antitrust lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. The case alleges that J&J is using exclusionary contracts and the threat of withdrawing rebates to protect Remicade from Pfizer’s lower-priced biosimilar, Inflectra, which hit the market last winter.

J&J defends its contracts, saying they are “driving deeper discounts that will lead to overall lower costs.”

Arguments For And Against Rebates

Rebates are under increasing scrutiny, amid growing alarm about soaring prescription drug prices in the United States. But the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the PBM industry’s trade lobby, said that complaints that rebates help fuel higher prices are unfounded.

These rebates, the lobby says, help save the health system millions of dollars by shifting dollars back to insurers or other clients, who can then use them to lower future premium increases. This year, it commissioned a study that found no correlation between rebates and the rising list prices of the top 200 brand-name drugs, suggesting higher rebates didn’t necessarily drive higher prices.

“The rebate system exists because [insurers, employers and other clients] want discounts,” said Steve Miller, chief medical officer for Express Scripts, one of the nation’s three largest PBMs.

Express Scripts offers clients an option to give patients the discount directly, but most choose not to, he said.

“While individual patients would get the benefit, everyone else’s premiums would go up [because the rebate savings would not flow back to the insurer],” Miller said. “Changing where the rebate goes doesn’t lower the price of the drug.”

But rebates play a role in what some patients pay at the pharmacy counter.

It stems from a simple calculation: whether a patient’s insurance copayment is based on a percentage of the drug’s wholesale price or the drug’s price after rebates are given to the middlemen.

Heidi Barrett , a mother of five from Everett, Wash., faces a 10 percent copay whenever she or one of her four children who have RA, all of whom have been on medication for years, go for their monthly infusion of Remicade.

Although Barrett is shielded from much of the cost because she has good employer-based insurance through her husband’s job, the question of whether her monthly copayments are based on the wholesale price or the after-rebate price rankles her.

“I have asked that question of the insurance company. I’ve asked that of our union,” said Barrett, 47, a paralegal who isn’t working because she spends so much time on her children’s treatments. “I never got any answers back.”

Based on data analyzed by Bach’s group at Sloan Kettering to determine the cost of 100 milligrams of Remicade, it appears she is paying based on the pre-rebate price.

Here’s how that works: Barrett’s 18-year-old son recently received a 600 mg dose that required a copay of $655. That is close to 10 percent of Remicade’s average U.S. wholesale price for that dose of $6,450, the Bach analysis showed.

Barrett is not benefiting from the rebate that middlemen receive.

Rebates and discounts, however, drive down the price for pharmacy benefit managers, hospitals or doctors.

According to the analysis, the average net cost of a 600 mg dose is $4,140, once all discounts are calculated. If Barrett could use that base price as her copay, she would save more than $240. For her entire family — all her children and Barrett take similar doses — that equals a savings of $1,000 a month.

With her current insurance, Barrett quickly meets a yearly $12,900 deductible. She considers herself lucky that her insurer then picks up the drug’s full cost. But the experience has changed her motherly advice to her children, who are 10, 18, 19 and 25, about what to hope for in life.

“I tell them, you can be anything you want when you go grow up. But you need to go to a company with good health insurance, even before you look at the salary or whether you’ll be happy there, your first priority is health insurance,” Barrett said. “It’s an insane world we live in.”

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service. It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

9 Holistic Approaches to Relieve Joint Pain

By Nicole Noel, Guest Columnist

Whatever your ailment may be, holistic medicine has an answer.

A therapeutic method that dates back to early civilizations, holistic medicine takes into account the mind, body, emotions and spirit -- with the aim of helping patients achieve or restore proper balance in life and prevent or heal a range of conditions, including musculoskeletal pain. Holistic treatments offer a ray of hope for many patients suffering from arthritis, osteoporosis, fibromyalgia and other conditions that cause joint pain.

Not all alternative medicine is created equal, and some natural healing methods will produce better and quicker results. If you want to treat arthritis and other joint aches with holistic treatments, here are a few natural pain relievers you can try.

1. Tai Chi

A low-impact activity that can increase range of motion and strengthen joints and surrounding muscle tissue, tai chi is an ancient physical and spiritual practice that can help arthritis patients soldier through their pain.

According to a 2013 study, tai chi can relieve pain, stiffness, and other side-effects of osteoarthritis. In addition to pain relief, tai chi can help improve range of motion and alleviate joint pain for people living with fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis.

2. Yoga

Another ancient technique which promotes natural healing, yoga is perfect for individuals suffering from lower back and joint pain. Gentle stretches and poses opening the joints can help prevent and alleviate chronic soreness in the shoulders, hips, and knees.

A form of yoga called mudras utilizes a series of hand gestures to increase energy, and improve mood and concentration.

3. Massage

An invigorating massage with warm essential oil can help many conditions, and joint pain is one of them.

By enhancing blood flow, relaxing the muscle tissue and soothing inflammation, a well-timed massage can ease joint stiffness and increase range of motion in individuals suffering from arthritis, fibromyalgia, and osteoporosis.

4. Acupuncture

A 2013 review of medical studies has shown that acupuncture can help relieve musculoskeletal pain caused by fibromyalgia. By activating the body’s natural pain relief system and stimulating the nerves, muscles and connective tissue, acupuncture can relieve joint aches for people who are resistant to other holistic pain relief techniques.

A 2010 study found that acupuncture can also be a beneficial for peripheral joint osteoarthritis.

5. Diet Changes

An apple a day may or may not keep the doctor away, but a custom-tailored diet can help you with joint pain. Nutritional tweaks can begin with increased intake of chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine, and Omega 3 fatty acids, which can reduce joint pain in arthritis and osteoporosis patients.

To ease joint problems, your pantry should be stocked with foods that promote healing and reduce inflammation, such as onions, carrots, and flaxseed. Herbs and spices such as turmeric (curcumin) and cayenne pepper can also help with pain relief.

6. Aromatherapy

If you think pain relief can’t smell good, you’re mistaken. Studies have shown that peppermint and eucalyptus oil can reduce swelling, pain and discomfort in patients with inflamed joints. For joint soreness and stiffness caused by arthritis, aromatherapy experts recommend regular application of myrrh, turmeric, orange, or frankincense oil to ease inflammation and pain, and to increase range of motion.

You can also combine aromatherapy with heat and cold treatments.  Be sure to keep the tender joints elevated during treatment to reduce swelling.

7. Spa Treatments

Few things can beat the appeal of a full-scale spa experience. If you’re suffering from knee, hip, shoulder or elbow pain and other holistic methods haven’t helped, try balneotherapy, which combines aqua massage with deep soaks in heated mineral water and medicinal mud baths.

One study found that balneotherapy significantly reduced knee and back pain in older adults.

8. Aquatic Sports

If you don’t want to immerse yourself in mud, you can supplement your holistic pain therapy with water aerobics, swimming, aqua jogging or aqua spinning. According to a 2014 study, water exercises can ease pain and improve joint function for osteoarthritis patients.

Additionally, a 2015 study found that aquatic circuit training can help relieve knee pain in cases of progressed osteoarthritis.

9. Capsaicin cream

Another natural treatment for joint pain and stiffness is homemade capsaicin cream, which can help reduce swelling and increase range of motion. To stay on the safe side, you should be careful when handling hot peppers when preparing the cream, and avoid using it on sensitive and damaged skin.

As our bodies age, joint pain can become a chronic. If you don’t want to take your chances with conventional pharmaceuticals, you can always turn to holistic medicine for answers and help. When musculoskeletal pain hits home, one or more of these holistic treatments can help.

Nicole Noel is a lifestyle blogger who is passionate about yoga and healthy living. She enjoys sharing her experiences and ideas on how to lead a happy and healthy life. If you want to read more from Nicole, you can find her on Twitter and Facebook.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represent the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Study Finds Rain Not Linked to Joint Pain

By Pat Anson, Editor

The debate over weather’s influence on pain is heating up again, with the release of a new study that showed warmer temperatures -- not rainy conditions -- are associated with an increase in online searches about joint pain.

The apparent increase in knee and hip pain may be due to increased outdoor physical activity, according to researchers who reported their findings in PLOS ONE.

Investigators used Google Trends to analyze how often people used Google’s search engine to look up words and phrases associated with hip pain, knee pain and arthritis. Then they compared the results with local weather conditions at 45 U.S. cities. The weather data included temperature, precipitation, relative humidity and barometric pressure - conditions previously associated with increases in musculoskeletal pain.

Researchers found that as temperatures rose, Google searches about knee and hip pain rose steadily, too. But knee-pain searches peaked at 73 degrees Fahrenheit and became less frequent at higher temperatures. And searches for hip-pain peaked at 83 degrees and then tailed off.

Surprisingly, rain actually dampened search volumes for both knee and hip pain.

"We were surprised by how consistent the results were throughout the range of temperatures in cities across the country," said Scott Telfer, a researcher in orthopedics and sports medicine at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

Searches about arthritis, which was the study's main impetus, had no correlation with weather conditions.

"You hear people with arthritis say they can tell when the weather is changing," he said. "But with past studies there's only been vague associations, nothing very concrete, and our findings align with those."

What do the findings mean?

Because knee and hip-pain searches increased until it grew warm, and rainy days tended to slightly reduce searches for hip and knee pain, the researchers speculate that changes in outdoor physical activity may be primarily responsible for those searches.

"What we think is much more likely explanation is the fact that people are more active on nice days, so more prone to have overuse and acute injuries from that and to search online for relevant information,” Telfer said, adding that web searches are often the first response people have to health symptoms.

Researchers in Australia recently reported that cold, rainy weather has no impact on symptoms associated with back pain or osteoarthritis. Warmer temperatures did slightly increase the chances of lower back pain, but the amount of the increase was not considered clinically important. 

A previous study on back pain and weather by The George Institute for Global Health had similar findings, but received widespread criticism from the public, a sign of just how certain many people are that weather affects how much pain they feel.

“I know it is going to rain or have a thunderstorm before the weather person announces it on the news,” says Denee Hand, who suffers back pain from arachnoiditis, a chronic inflammation of the spinal membrane. She says the pain spreads down to her toes when the weather changes. 

“It is like my nervous system and muscles react to the coming weather and finally I get pain that feels like the tops of both my feet are being crushed,” she said in an email to PNN. “I have compression of the spinal cord with nerve damage to my nerves from the scar tissue and when the weather changes the scar tissue presses down against the damaged nerves.”

Researchers at the University of Manchester recently ended a study involving thousands of people who used smartphone apps to report their pain levels, giving investigators the ability to compare the pain data with real-time local weather. Researchers are now analyzing the database compiled over the last 15 months and will release their results next spring.

Insurance Claims Climb for Lyme Disease

By Pat Anson, Editor

Private insurance claims with a diagnosis of Lyme disease have soared in the U.S. over the past decade, according to a new report by FAIR Health, a nonprofit that tracks healthcare costs and insurance trends.

Lyme disease is a bacterial illness spread by ticks. It can also lead to other chronic pain conditions such as joint and back pain, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia and neuropathy.

Fair Health analyzed a database of 23 billion private insurance claims from 2007 to 2016, and found that claims with a diagnosis of Lyme disease increased by 185 percent in rural areas and 40 percent in urban areas.

A recent CDC study also found the number of Lyme disease cases increasing, with nearly 40,000 confirmed and probable cases in 2015.

"Lyme disease is growing as a public health concern,” said FAIR Health President Robin Gelburd

Although Lyme disease historically has been concentrated in the Northeast and upper Midwest, the FAIR Health study suggests that it is spreading geographically. In 2007, insurance claims with diagnoses of Lyme disease were highest in New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York.

By 2016, the top states were Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, North Carolina and New York -- with the emergence of North Carolina suggesting significant expansion to a new region.

Summer is the peak season for Lyme disease, with insurance claims more common in rural than in urban settings, according to the FAIR Health report. In the winter and early spring (December through April), claims involving Lyme disease were reported more often in urban than rural settings.

Age is also a differing factor in rural and urban environments. In rural settings, claims with Lyme disease diagnoses were more common for middle-aged and older people. Patients aged 41 years and older accounted for nearly two-thirds of the rural diagnoses. In urban populations, younger individuals with Lyme disease accounted for a higher percentage of claims.

Lyme disease is usually treated with antibiotics, but some patients experience complications that lead to Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), with long-term symptoms such as fatigue, muscle and joint pain and cognitive issues. Autoimmune diseases have also been associated with chronic Lyme disease.

Left untreated, Lyme disease can lead to serious chronic conditions, as Sarah Elizabeth Hirschle shared with us recently.

For patients with a Lyme disease diagnosis, FAIR Health reported the most common subsequent diagnoses were:

• Joint pain (dorsalgia, low back pain, hip and knee pain)
• Chronic fatigue  
• Soft tissue disorders (myalgia, neuralgia, fibromyalgia)
• Hypothyroidism

lyme disease rash

Early symptoms of Lyme disease include fever, chills, headaches, fatigue, muscle and joint aches, and swollen lymph nodes. A delayed rash often appears at the site of the tick bite. The rash grows in size and sometimes resembles a bulls-eye.

To see some tips from the CDC on how to avoid tick bites, click here.

FDA Gives Fast Track Designation to New Pain Med

By Pat Anson, Editor

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has granted “fast track” designation to a new, non-opioid pain medication for patients with osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain -- even though the drug has a history of safety issues.

Tanezumab is an investigational humanized monoclonal antibody that targets nerve growth factor (NGF), a protein that increases in the body as a result of injury, inflammation or chronic pain. Tanezumab binds to NGF and inhibits pain signals from reaching the spinal cord and brain.

Tanezumab is the first NGF inhibitor to receive fast track designation from the FDA, a process that speeds up the development and review of new therapies to treat serious conditions with unmet medical needs.

“If approved, tanezumab would be the first in a new class of non-opioid chronic pain medications,” said Ken Verburg, Chief Development Officer, Neuroscience & Pain, Pfizer Global Product Development. “We believe it would represent an important medical advance in the treatment of debilitating osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain for patients who do not experience adequate pain relief or cannot tolerate currently available pain medications.”

Pfizer is jointly developing tanezumab with Eli Lilly. The two drug makers are currently recruiting patients for Phase 3 studies of tanezumab in 7,000 patients with osteoarthritis, low back pain or cancer pain. Participants will be injected with tanezumab once every eight weeks for treatment periods ranging from 16 to 56 weeks, followed by a 24-week safety follow-up period.  Results from the clinical trials are not expected until next year.

"It is estimated that there are more than 27 million Americans currently living with osteoarthritis and 23 million living with chronic low back pain, many of whom fail to achieve adequate pain relief despite treatment with various types of pain medications,” said Christi Shaw, Senior Vice President and President, Lilly Bio-Medicines.

“We are committed to offering innovative solutions to people suffering from chronic pain conditions, and look forward to working closely with the FDA to facilitate the development of tanezumab.”

Ironically, it was the FDA that slowed the development of NGF inhibitors in 2010 because of safety concerns. The agency ordered a partial halt to clinical studies after Pfizer said a small number of osteoarthritis patients receiving tanezumab experienced worsening of their disease and needed joint replacements. Another safety issue arose in 2012 because the drug caused “adverse changes in the sympathetic nervous system of mature animals.” 

Most clinical studies of tanezumab did not resume until 2015. Pfizer says the current Phase 3 studies include risk mitigation measures for joint safety and sympathetic nervous system safety.

A clinical study of fasinumab, another nerve growth factor drug being developed by Teva and  Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, was stopped by the FDA last year after a patient showed signs of severe joint disease. Regeneron and Teva said they would redesign the study of patients with chronic low back pain to exclude participants with advanced osteoarthritis.

Study Finds No Evidence Copaiba Oil Relieves Pain

By Pat Anson, Editor

An essential oil made from the resin of a tree that grows in the Amazon rain forest shows promising results as a treatment for arthritis, but there is no clinical evidence to support its use, according to researchers at Florida Atlantic University.

Copaiba (koh-pey-buh) is an oleoresin obtained from the trunk of several pinnate-leaved leguminous trees. The resin has been used for centuries in folk medicine, and is also used in the manufacture of paint, varnish, perfume and soap. Brazil produces about 95 percent of the world’s supply of copaiba and exports more than 500 tons a year.

Essential oil made from copaiba is increasingly available in health food stores and online, where it is touted as a “wonderful analgesic” and “one of the most anti-inflammatory substances on earth.”

"Copaiba is an essential oil that is used topically with little or no side effects, but there is insufficient evidence to judge whether it reduces pain and inflammation in patients with arthritis," said Charles Hennekens, MD, senior academic advisor at Florida Atlantic’s College of Medicine and senior author of a commentary published in the journal Integrative Medicine.

"In case reports, individuals with joint pain and inflammation who used copaiba reported favorable results, however, this hypothesis is promising but as of yet unproven."

COPAIBA ESSENTIAL OIL

Hennekens and his colleagues say the evidence to support copaiba as a treatment for inflammatory arthritis is limited to basic research and uncontrolled clinical observations in humans. They caution that randomized trials are necessary to discern whether copaiba oil is effective or if it turns out to be "yet another beautiful hypothesis slain by ugly facts."

"Basic research has suggested mechanisms of benefit of this essential oil in treating inflammatory arthritis," said Hennekens. "Nonetheless, the only published data on copaiba on humans includes one case series and one small randomized trial of another inflammatory condition and not arthritis."

The researchers conclude that the totality of the evidence for copaiba is insufficient to judge either its benefits or risks for the relief of arthritis pain and inflammation. Despite this lack of evidence, sales of copaiba oils continue to increase as patients look for alternatives to pharmaceutical pain relievers.

"Copaiba should be first tested in a randomized trial against a placebo in patients with inflammatory arthritis," said Hennekens. "If such a trial shows a net benefit, then the next step would be direct randomized comparisons against NSAIDs and COXIBs (cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors).”

Can Vitamin D and Good Sleep Reduce Pain?

By Pat Anson, Editor

Vitamin D supplements, along with good sleeping habits, could help manage chronic pain from fibromyalgia, rheumatoid arthritis, back pain and other conditions, according to a new study.

The importance of vitamin D – the “sunshine vitamin” – in maintaining bone strength and overall health has long been known.  But recent research has focused on the role it plays in inflammation, musculoskeletal pain and sleep disorders.

“Vitamin D status seems to have an important role in the bidirectional relationship observed between sleep and pain,” said senior author Dr. Monica Levy Andersen in the Journal of Endocrinology. “We can hypothesize that suitable vitamin D supplementation combined with sleep hygiene may optimize the therapeutic management of pain-related diseases, such as fibromyalgia."

Andersen and her colleagues at Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo in Brazil reviewed 35 clinical studies of vitamin D, and concluded that vitamin D supplements could increase the effectiveness of pain treatments by stimulating an anti-inflammatory response.

"This research is very exciting and novel. We are unraveling the possible mechanisms of how vitamin D is involved in many complex processes, including what this review shows - that a good night's sleep and normal levels of vitamin D could be an effective way to manage pain," said Sof Andrikopoulos, assistant professor at the University of Melbourne and Editor of the Journal of Endocrinology.

Sources of Vitamin D include oily fish and eggs, but it can be difficult to get enough through diet alone. Ultraviolet rays in sunlight are a principal source of Vitamin D for most people.

Several recent studies have found an association between chronic pain and low levels of Vitamin D in the blood.  Researchers at National Taiwan University Hospital found low levels of serum vitamin D in over 1,800 fibromyalgia patients. Danish researchers have also found an association between lack of sunlight and multiple sclerosis.

But some question quality of the studies and whether Vitamin D supplements do any good.

“Evidence does not support vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis or for improving depression/mental well-being,” wrote Michael Allan, a professor of Family Medicine and director of Evidence Based Medicine at the University of Alberta in the Journal of General Internal Medicine.

Allan says much of the research is of low quality. He doesn’t dispute the overall health benefits of Vitamin D – such as building strong bones and teeth -- but thinks taking supplements is unnecessary and could even be harmful in large doses.

"The 40 year old person is highly unlikely to benefit from vitamin D," said Allan. "And when I say highly unlikely, I mean it's not measurable in present science."

New Warning About Arthroscopic Knee Surgery

By Pat Anson, Editor

Yet another study is warning against arthroscopic knee surgery, a common orthopedic procedure performed worldwide over two million times a year and at a cost of $3 billion in the U.S. alone.

An international panel of surgeons, physical therapists and clinicians reviewed 25 studies involving nearly two million patients and concluded that arthroscopic knee surgery does not improve long term pain or function in patients with degenerative knee conditions such as osteoarthritis.

Some patients may feel a small amount of pain relief three months after surgery, but the panel said the benefit was usually not sustained after one year.

“We make a strong recommendation against the use of arthroscopy in nearly all patients with degenerative knee disease, based on linked systematic reviews; further research is unlikely to alter this recommendation,” the panel reported in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

The one exception raised by the review is for people with mechanical locking or clicking symptoms in their knee, which is often caused by meniscal tears in the cartilage of the knee joint.

Knee arthroscopies are a type of “keyhole” surgery in which the surgeon makes a small incision in the knee and inserts a tiny camera and instruments to diagnose and repair damaged ligaments or torn meniscus. Risks associated with arthroscopic knee surgery, although rare, include deep vein thrombosis (DVT), infection, pulmonary embolism, and death.

Over the past decade, the number of arthroscopic knee surgeries have soared in many Western countries where the population is aging. About 25 percent of people older than 50 experience  pain from degenerative knee disease.

SOURCE: THE BMJ

Over the past decade, the number of arthroscopic knee surgeries have soared in many Western countries where the population is aging. About 25 percent of people older than 50 experience  pain from degenerative knee disease.

Previous studies in The BMJ found the benefits of knee surgery “inconsequential” and said the procedure was “not an economically attractive treatment option” compared to physical therapy, exercise and pain medication.

The studies are part of The BMJ's “Too Much Medicine” campaign, which highlights the waste of resources and potential harm caused by unnecessary medical care.

A 2014 report by a German health organization also found that arthroscopic knee surgery provides no benefit to patients with osteoarthritis, and does not relieve pain any better than physical therapy or over-the-counter pain medications. The same conclusion was reached by a large study in Australia.

The American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) lists arthroscopic knee surgery as one of five procedures that are not always necessary in the Choosing Wisely campaign. The AMSSM advises physicians to avoid recommending knee arthroscopy as a treatment for patients with degenerative meniscal tears.

Depending on insurance, hospital charges and the surgeon, arthroscopic knee surgery costs about $4,000.

Opioids vs. NSAIDs for Chronic Pain

 By Roger Chriss, Columnist

The latest shot in the debate over opioids versus non-steroidal inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for chronic pain has been fired, with the Minneapolis Star Tribune reporting on a new study that found “patients with chronic pain fared no better with the potentially addictive painkillers than they did with non-opioid meds.”

The research was conducted by Erin Krebs, MD, who is investigating the efficacy of medications for osteoarthritis aspart of a study called the Strategies for Prescribing Analgesics Comparative Effectiveness (SPACE).

(Editor's note: Dr. Krebs appeared in a lecture series on opioid prescribing that was funded by the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation, which is the fiscal sponsor of Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing (PROP), an anti-opioid activist group.)

Her research involved 240 veterans who were treated for back, hip and knee pain with either opioids or non-opioids for 12 months. She presented her findings recently at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and the Society of General Internal Medicine.

"For long-term treatment of chronic back pain and osteoarthritis pain, non-opioid medication therapy is superior to opioid therapy for both pain and side effects,” Dr. Krebs said.

A summary of the SPACE research states that the “findings showed no significant advantage of opioid therapy compared with non-opioid medication therapy.”

Naturally, critics of opioid prescribing weighed in.

“If pain doctors still think these medicines are effective, then they have a lot of explaining to do and their competence and professionalism deserve to be challenged,” said Chris Johnson, MD, who is a board member of PROP as well as the Steve Rummler Hope Foundation.

But the study did not show that opioids were ineffective, only that non-opioids were more effective in this particular study. Thus, pain doctors are justified in claiming they are effective. Of course, so are NSAIDs, but this is not a new or surprise finding. Similar results have been obtained before, though only in shorter-term studies.

Dr. Krebs’ results are an important addition to our understanding of which medications are useful for certain types of pain management. In some cases, NSAIDs may be better than opioids, and in other cases, opioids may be better.

But a response like the one from Dr. Johnson is another example of over-generalization and simplification of a complex medical result, and how anti-opioid activists often spin research findings to fit their agendas.  

It also insults the expertise of physicians like Roger Chou, MD,  a Professor at Oregon Health & Science University’s School of Medicine and one of the lead authors of the CDC guidelines; and Sean Mackey, MD, Chief of the Division of Pain Medicine at Stanford University and immediate past president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine.

In a recent Medscape interview, Dr. Chou said, "I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with maintaining somebody on low doses of opioids, as long as it's doing what it's supposed to in terms of helping their pain and function and not causing harm." 

And in a recent Vox interview, Dr. Mackey said, "The fact is if you go looking, there’s clearly data out there that opioids improve pain. These drugs would have never been approved by the FDA if they didn’t."

More importantly, statements like Dr. Johnson’s ignore the difficult challenges that people with chronic pain conditions face.

"Everything we know about pain is that this is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon,” said Dr. Chou.

Or as Forest Tennant, MD, put it in Practical Pain Management: “A major point to be made about painful genetic diseases is that pain will almost always worsen as the patient ages.”

Chronic Pain is a Complex Problem

Chronic pain management is thus a long-term endeavor requiring as many tools as possible. What works for one person may be ineffective or even contraindicated in another person. NSAIDs may cause intolerable levels of nausea or gastrointestinal pain, and can be contraindicated in some patients because of kidney disease or bleeding disorders. A major study released this week also found that NSAIDs increase the risk of a heart attack.

The converse also holds. Some people do not tolerate opioids well, have too much brain fog or get constipated. And opioids may be contraindicated in a person with respiratory illness or a history of substance abuse. So having an effective alternative such as NSAIDs is important.

Thus, the “risk profile” of each person must be considered. No medication is perfectly safe. According to the FDA, as many as 20,000 people die from NSAID use every year.

At the same time, opioids have risks. Practical Pain Management reported in 2013 that mortality was higher in patients receiving opioids than other analgesics. The risk of addiction to opioids is well-publicized and makes good headlines, but in chronic pain patients it is less than 5 percent.

The unfortunate reality is that pain management is often a lifelong necessity for people who suffer from chronic pain disorders. Such people don’t have the luxury of ideological debates or moralistic disputes. They need a pain toolkit that is as well-equipped as possible, and they have to deal with medication trade-offs in order to address their medical problems.

Prescribing decisions are best left to experienced physicians who know their patients and the medical conditions they have, and can work with them on the risks and benefits of opioids and NSAIDs.

In reality, there is no “versus” here. Opioids and NSAIDs are both valuable tools for chronic pain management. To pretend that one is inherently better than the other is to miss the essential point: Both work and should be available for use as medically appropriate.

Roger Chriss suffers from Ehlers Danlos syndrome and is a proud member of the Ehlers-Danlos Society.

Roger is a technical consultant in Washington state, where he specializes in mathematics and research.

The information in this column should not be considered as professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. It is for informational purposes only and represents the author’s opinions alone. It does not inherently express or reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of Pain News Network.

Stem Cell Vaccine Could Reverse Arthritis

By Pat Anson, Editor

A team of researchers has successfully used gene-editing technology to “rewire” mouse stem cells to fight inflammation – a finding that could pave the way for a new class of biologic drug that replaces cartilage and protect joints from damage caused by arthritis.

The stem cells, known as “smart” cells (stem cells modified for autonomous regenerative therapy), were developed at Washington University School of Medicine and Shriners Hospitals for Children in St. Louis, in collaboration with investigators at Duke University and Cytex Therapeutics in North Carolina.

The research findings are published in the journal Stem Cell Reports.

"Our goal is to package the rewired stem cells as a vaccine for arthritis, which would deliver an anti-inflammatory drug to an arthritic joint but only when it is needed," said senior author Farshid Guilak, PhD, a professor of orthopedic surgery at Washington University School of Medicine.

Guilak and his colleagues grew mouse stem cells in a test tube and then used a gene-editing tool called CRISPR to remove a gene that plays a key role in inflammation. That gene was replaced with a gene that releases a biologic drug that combats inflammation.

Within a few days, the modified stem cells grew into cartilage cells and produced cartilage tissue. Further experiments showed that the engineered cartilage was protected from inflammation.

"We hijacked an inflammatory pathway to create cells that produced a protective drug," explained Jonathan Brunger, PhD, the paper's first author and a postdoctoral fellow in cellular and molecular pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco.

IMAGE CREDIT: ELLA MARUSHCHENKO

Many current biologic drugs used to treat arthritis – such as Enbrel, Humira and Remicade -- attack an inflammation-promoting molecule called TNF-alpha. But the problem with these drugs is that they interfere with the immune system throughout the body and can make patients susceptible to side effects such as infections.

"We want to use our gene-editing technology as a way to deliver targeted therapy in response to localized inflammation in a joint, as opposed to current drug therapies that can interfere with the inflammatory response through the entire body," said Guilak. “If this strategy proves to be successful, the engineered cells only would block inflammation when inflammatory signals are released, such as during an arthritic flare in that joint."

Researchers have begun testing the engineered stem cells in mouse models of rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory diseases. If the work can be replicated in living laboratory animals and then developed into a clinical therapy, the cartilage grown from stem cells would respond to inflammation by releasing a drug that protects them from further damage.

"When these cells see TNF-alpha, they rapidly activate a therapy that reduces inflammation," Guilak explained. "We believe this strategy also may work for other systems that depend on a feedback loop. In diabetes, for example, it's possible we could make stem cells that would sense glucose and turn on insulin in response.

"The ability to build living tissues from 'smart' stem cells that precisely respond to their environment opens up exciting possibilities for investigation in regenerative medicine."

Farshid Guilak and co-author Vincent Willard have a financial interest in Cytex Therapeutics, a startup founded by some of the investigators. They may license the technology and realize financial gain if it is eventually is approved for clinical use.

Guilak and his colleagues at Cytex have also used stem cells to grow new cartilage that could someday be implanted into arthritic hips, delaying or eliminating the need for hip replacement surgery.

Stem cells are found throughout the body and are increasingly being used to develop new treatments to repair damaged tissue and reduce inflammation. The Food and Drug Administration considers most stem cell treatments experimental because their safety and efficacy haven’t been proven through clinical studies.

High Fat Diet Raises Osteoarthritis Risk

By Pat Anson, Editor

Saturated fatty acids are prime suspects in the onset of osteoarthritis, according a new study by Australian researchers who say fat changes the composition of cartilage, particularly in the hip and knee.

It’s one of the first studies to look at the association between osteoarthritis and saturated fatty acids found in foods such as butter, coconut oil, palm oil and animal fat.

When combined with simple carbohydrates in a high-fat, high carbohydrate diet – often called "junk food" – researchers found that fatty acids weaken cartilage and produce osteoarthritis-like changes in the knee.

"We also found changes in the bone under the cartilage on a diet rich in saturated fat," said Professor Yin Xiao of Queensland University of Technology’s Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation. "Our findings suggest that it's not wear and tear but diet that has a lot to do with the onset of osteoarthritis

"Saturated fatty acid deposits in the cartilage change its metabolism and weaken the cartilage, making it more prone to damage. This would, in turn, lead to osteoarthritic pain from the loss of the cushioning effect of cartilage.”

Osteoarthritis is a joint disorder that leads to progressive joint damage. It can affect any joint in the body, but is most commonly felt in weight bearing joints such as the knees and hips. Nearly 40 percent of Americans over the age of 45 have some degree of knee osteoarthritis.

Xiao and his colleagues tested a variety of saturated fats and found that long term use of animal fat, butter and palm oil was the most damaging to cartilage. There was less damage caused by  lauric acid, a saturated fatty acid found in coconut oil.

"Interestingly, when we replaced the meat fat in the diet with lauric acid we found decreased signs of cartilage deterioration and metabolic syndrome so it seems to have a protective effect," said Sunder Sekar, a PhD student.

"Replacement of traditional diets containing coconut-derived lauric acid with palm oil-derived palmitic acid or animal fat-derived stearic acid has the potential to worsen the development of both metabolic syndrome and osteoarthritis."

Professor Xiao's previous research has found that antioxidants and anti-cholesterol drugs could slow the progression of joint damage caused by fatty acids.

The study was funded by the Prince Charles Hospital Research Foundation.

Study Questions Value of Knee Replacement Surgery

By Pat Anson, Editor

New research is raising questions about the value of knee replacement surgeries, one of the fastest growing elective procedures in the United States.

In an analysis of over 7,400 patients with osteoarthritis who had knee replacement surgeries, researchers concluded the procedure often had minimal effects on quality of life and wasn’t worth the cost. But when the surgeries are performed on patients with more severe knee pain, their effectiveness increases, researchers reported in The BMJ.

The annual rate of total knee replacements in the U.S. has doubled since 2000, with more than 640,000 surgeries now performed annually at a cost of $10.2 billion.

"Given its limited effectiveness in individuals with less severely affected physical function, performance of total knee replacement in these patients seems to be economically unjustifiable," wrote lead author Bart Ferket, MD, an assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City.

"Considerable cost savings could be made by limiting eligibility to patients with more symptomatic knee osteoarthritis,"

Osteoarthritis is a joint disorder that leads to thinning of cartilage and progressive joint damage. Nearly 40 percent of Americans over the age of 45 have some degree of knee osteoarthritis, and those numbers are expected to grow as the population ages.

Ferket and his colleagues found that about a third of the patients who had their knees replaced continued to experience chronic pain after the procedure. Their quality of life generally improved, but the change was small. The improvement in quality of life was higher when patients with lower physical scores before surgery were operated on.

“The practice of total knee replacement as performed in a recent U.S. cohort of patients with knee osteoarthritis had minimal effects on quality of life. If the procedure were restricted to patients with more severe functional status, however, its effectiveness would rise, with practice becoming economically more attractive,” they concluded.

"Our findings emphasize the need for more research comparing total knee replacement with less expensive, more conservative interventions, particularly in patients with less severe symptoms.”

Previous studies have also questioned the value of many knee surgeries. A five year study of 175 knee replacement patients by the National Institutes of Health found that over a third of the surgeries were inappropriate. Many patients had pain and other symptoms that were too mild to justify having their knees replaced.  

Another study found that arthroscopic knee surgery is “not an economically attractive treatment option” compared to physical therapy, exercise and medication.

In arthroscopic surgery, a doctor makes a small incision in the knee and inserts a tiny camera and instruments to repair damaged ligaments or torn meniscus. Arthroscopic surgery is far less invasive than a total knee replacement. Depending on insurance, hospital charges and the surgeon, arthroscopic surgeries cost about $4,000.  A total knee replacement costs about $28,000 according to HealthCare Bluebook.