BACKGROUND: Nutritional supplements are commonly used for a variety of musculoskeletal conditions, including knee and hip degenerative joint disease. Although these supplements are occasionally recommended for patients with degenerative disc disease and spinal degenerative joint disease, the evidence supporting this use is unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically search and assess the quality of the literature on the use of glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and methylsulfonylmethane for the treatment of spinal osteoarthritis / degenerative joint disease, and degenerative disc disease.
DATA SOURCES: The Index of Chiropractic Literature, AMED, Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials in English from 1984 to July 2009.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria was extracted and reviewed by three reviewers. The Jadad scale was used to assess study quality. No attempts were made at meta-analysis due to variation in study design.
RESULTS: Two articles met the inclusion criteria. One study was found to have good quality but reported negative results for the supplemented group compared with placebo, the other study had low quality but reported significant positive results for the supplemented group when compared with a no intervention control group.
CONCLUSION: There was little literature found to support the use of common nutritional supplements for spinal degeneration, making it difficult to determine whether clinicians should recommend them.
BACKGROUND: Pain is the most debilitating symptom in osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK).
AIM AND METHODS: To determine the short-term pain-relieving effects of seven commonly used pharmacological agents for OAK pain by performing a systematic review of randomised placebo-controlled trials.
RESULTS: In total, 14,060 patients in 63 trials were evaluated. Opioids and oral NSAIDs therapy in patients with moderate to severe pain (mean baseline 64.3 and 72.8 mm on VAS respectively) had maximum efficacies compared to placebo at 2-4 weeks of 10.5 mm [95% CI: 7.4-13.7] and 10.2 mm [95% CI: 8.8-11.2] respectively. The efficacy of opioids may be inflated by high withdrawal rates (24-50%) and "best-case" scenarios reported in intention-to-treat analyses. In patients with moderate pain scores on VAS (mean range from 51 to 57 mm), intra-articular steroid injections and topical NSAIDs had maximum efficacies at 1-3 weeks of 14.5mm [95% CI: 9.7-19.2] and 11.6 mm [95% CI: 7.4-15.7], respectively. Paracetamol, glucosamin sulphate and chondroitin sulphate had maximum mean efficacies at 1-4 weeks of only 4.7 mm or lower. Heterogeneity tests revealed that best efficacy values of topical NSAIDs may be slightly deflated, while data for oral NSAIDs may be slightly inflated due to probable patient selection bias.
CONCLUSION: Clinical effects from pharmacological interventions in OAK are small and limited to the first 2-3 weeks after start of treatment. The pain-relieving effects over placebo in OAK are smaller than the patient-reported thresholds for relevant improvement.
Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability. Objectives: To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease, Euflexxa, Nuflexxa), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), Hyruan, NRD-101 (Suvenyl), Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum). Search methods: MEDLINE (up to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to December 2005 were handsearched. Selection criteria: RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997). Data collection and analysis: Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). However, where different scales were used to measure the same outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR). Main results: Seventy-six trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and eighteen months. Forty trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo (saline or arthrocentesis), ten trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, six trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), three trials included comparisons of physical therapy, two trials included comparisons of exercise, two trials included comparisons of arthroscopy, two trials included comparisons of conventional treatment, and fifteen trials included comparisons of other hyaluronans/hylan. The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 28 to 54% for pain and 9 to 32% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses. Authors' conclusions: Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.2 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.2 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the structural and symptomatic efficacy and safety of glucosamine in knee osteoarthritis (OA). DATA SOURCES: Clinical trials of glucosamine were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, EMB review, the Cochrane Library) using the key words glucosamine, osteoarthritis, degenerative joint disease, degenerative arthritis, osteoarthrosis, gonarthrosis, knee, disease progression, and clinical trial. The bibliographic databases were searched from their respective inception dates to August 2004. We also hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were included if they were double-blind, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated oral glucosamine long-term treatment in knee OA; lasting at least one year; and reporting as outcome measures the symptom severity and disease progression as assessed by joint space narrowing. Two authors interpreted data independently. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: Glucosamine sulfate was more effective than placebo in delaying structural progression in knee OA. The risk of disease progression was reduced by 54% (pooled RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.73; p = 0.0011). The number-needed-to-treat was 9 (95% CI 6 to 20). The pooled effect sizes for pain reduction and improvement in physical function were 0.41 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.60; p < 0.0001) and 0.46 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.66; p < 0.0001), respectively, in favor of glucosamine sulfate. Glucosamine sulfate caused no more adverse effects than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that glucosamine sulfate may be effective and safe in delaying the progression and improving the symptoms of knee OA. Due to the sparse data on structural efficacy and safety, further studies are warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular viscosupplementation therapy with hyaluronic acid for pain relief of knee osteoarthritis, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials.
METHODS: We searched systematically for randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials of hyaluronic acid (hyaluronan and hylan G-F20) for pain relief of knee osteoarthritis. Studies reporting pain visual analogue scale (VAS) differences were included in the meta-analysis. Changes in pain were measured by VAS for placebo and treatment, and summary estimates of the differences between the 2 arms were calculated at 1 week, 5 to 7 weeks, 8 to 12, and 15 to 22 weeks after the last intra-articular injection. Sources of heterogeneity were assessed using information on quality score, type of viscosupplementation, and VAS change in pain with activity or rest. Heterogeneity across the studies was significant in all analyses (P<.01); therefore a random effect model was used. Pain was measured either on activity or at rest.
RESULTS: Eleven trials (9 hyaluronan and 2 hylan G-F 20) allowed calculation of the summary estimate of difference in change of VAS pain at 1 week, 6 of the 11 allowed the estimation between 5 to 7 weeks and 8 to 12 weeks, and only 3 at 15 to 22 weeks. The summary estimates of VAS differences between therapy and placebo injection: at 1 week, 4.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-7.2); at 5 to 7 weeks, 17.7 (7.5-28.0); at 8 to 12 weeks, 18.1 (6.3-29.9) and at 15 to 22 weeks, 4.4 (-15.3 to 24.1).
CONCLUSION: Intra-articular viscosupplementation was moderately effective in relieving knee pain in patients with osteoarthritis at 5 to 7 and 8 to 10 weeks after the last injection but not at 15 to 22 weeks.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis of the knee affects up to 10% of the elderly population. The condition is frequently treated by intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of this treatment.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from inception until April 2004 using a combination of search terms for knee osteoarthritis and hyaluronic acid and a filter for randomized controlled trials. We extracted data on pain at rest, pain during or immediately after movement, joint function and adverse events.
RESULTS: Twenty-two trials that reported usable quantitative information on any of the predefined end points were identified and included in the systematic review. Even though pain at rest may be improved by hyaluronic acid, the data available from these studies did not allow an appropriate assessment of this end point. Patients who received the intervention experienced a reduction in pain during movement: the mean difference on a 100-mm visual analogue scale was -3.8 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -9.1 to 1.4 mm) after 2-6 weeks, -4.3 mm (95% CI -7.6 to -0.9 mm) after 10-14 weeks and -7.1 mm (95% CI -11.8 to -2.4 mm) after 22-30 weeks. However, this effect was not compatible with a clinically meaningful difference (expected to be about 15 mm on the visual analogue scale). Furthermore, the effect was exaggerated by trials not reporting an intention-to-treat analysis. No improvement in knee function was observed at any time point. Even so, the effect of hyaluronic acid on knee function was more favourable when allocation was not concealed. Adverse events occurred slightly more often among patients who received the intervention (relative risk 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15). Only 4 trials explicitly reported allocation concealment, had blinded outcome assessment and presented intention-to-treat data.
INTERPRETATION: According to the currently available evidence, intra-articular hyaluronic acid has not been proven clinically effective and may be associated with a greater risk of adverse events. Large trials with clinically relevant and uniform end points are necessary to clarify the benefit-risk ratio.
BACKGROUND: The magnitude of the therapeutic effects of intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid on osteoarthritis of the knee is still in question. The aim of this meta-analysis was to elucidate the therapeutic efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis of the knee. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of twenty blinded randomized controlled trials that compared the therapeutic effect of intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid with that of intra-articular injection of a placebo to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. The outcome end points were classified into three categories: pain with activities, pain without activities, and function. The outcome measures of the efficacy of hyaluronic acid were the mean differences in the efficacy scores between the hyaluronic acid and placebo groups. The outcome measure of the safety of hyaluronic acid was the relative risk of adverse events. RESULTS: Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid can decrease symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee. We found significant improvements in pain and functional outcomes with few adverse events. However, there was significant between-study heterogeneity in the estimates of the efficacy of hyaluronic acid. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis showed that lower methodological quality such as a single-blind or single-center design resulted in higher estimates of hyaluronic acid efficacy, that introduction of acetaminophen as an escape analgesic in the trial resulted in lower estimates of hyaluronic acid efficacy, and that patients older than sixty-five years of age and those with the most advanced radiographic stage of osteoarthritis (complete loss of the joint space) were less likely to benefit from intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis confirmed the therapeutic efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Additional well-designed randomized controlled trials with high methodological quality are needed to resolve the continued uncertainty about the therapeutic effects of different types of hyaluronic acid products on osteoarthritis of the knee in various clinical situations and patient populations. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, Level II-3b (systematic review; nonhomogeneous Level-I studies). See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the structural and symptomatic efficacy of oral glucosamine sulfate and chondroitin sulfate in knee osteoarthritis through independent meta-analyses of their effects on joint space narrowing, Lequesne Index, Western Ontario MacMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale for pain, mobility, safety, and response to treatment.
METHODS: An exhaustive systematic research of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials published or performed between January 1980 and March 2002 that assessed the efficacy of oral glucosamine or chondroitin on gonarthrosis was performed using MEDLINE, PREMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Contents, BIOSIS Previews, HealthSTAR, EBM Reviews, manual review of the literature and congressional abstracts, and direct contact with the authors and manufacturers of glucosamine and chondroitin. Inclusion, quality scoring, and data abstraction were performed systematically by 2 independent reviewers who were blinded to sources and authors. Conservative approaches were used for clear assessment of potential efficacy.
RESULTS: Our results demonstrated a highly significant efficacy of glucosamine on all outcomes, including joint space narrowing and WOMAC. Chondroitin was found to be effective on Lequesne Index, visual analog scale pain, mobility, and responding status. Safety was excellent for both compounds.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the structural efficacy of glucosamine and indistinguishable symptomatic efficacies for both compounds. Regarding the relatively sparse data on glucosamine and joint space narrowing and the absence of data on structural effects of chondroitin, further studies are needed to investigate the relationship among time, dose, patient baseline characteristics, and structural efficacy for an accurate, disease-modifying characterization of these 2 compounds.
CONTEXT: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, its efficacy is controversial.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether intra-articular hyaluronic acid is efficacious in treating knee OA.
DATA SOURCES: We searched for human clinical trials in MEDLINE (1966 through February 2003) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, using the search terms (osteoarthritis, osteoarthrosis, or degenerative arthritis) and (hyaluronic acid, Hyalgan, Synvisc, Artzal, Suplasyn, BioHy, or Orthovisc). We also hand searched manuscript bibliographies that met inclusion criteria, selected rheumatic disease journals, and abstracts from scientific meetings.
STUDY SELECTION: Included were published or unpublished, English and non-English, single- or double-blinded, randomized controlled trials comparing intra-articular hyaluronic acid with intra-articular placebo injection for the treatment of knee OA. Trials also were required to have extractable data on pain reported by 1 of the outcome measures recommended by the Osteoarthritis Research Society.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently performed data extraction using standardized data forms. For each trial, we calculated an effect size (small-effect sizes, 0.2-0.5; large-effect sizes, 1.0-1.8, equivalent to a total knee replacement). We used a random-effects model to pool study results, the Cochrane Q test to evaluate heterogeneity, and a funnel plot and the Egger test to evaluate publication bias.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The overall dropout rate in the 22 selected trials was 12.4%. The pooled effect size for hyaluronic acid was 0.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.47). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (P<.001). Two outlier trials, both evaluating the highest-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, had effect sizes in excess of 1.5. However, the third trial of the same compound showed a nearly null effect. When the 3 trials of this compound were removed, heterogeneity was no longer significant (P =.58), and the pooled effect size for intra-articular hyaluronic acid decreased to 0.19 (95% CI, 0.10-0.27). There was evidence of publication bias with an asymmetric funnel plot, a positive Egger test, and identification of 2 unpublished trials whose pooled effect size was 0.07 (95% CI, - 0.15 to 0.28).
CONCLUSION: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid has a small effect when compared with an intra-articular placebo. The presence of publication bias suggests even this effect may be overestimated. Compared with lower-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, the highest-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid may be more efficacious in treating knee OA, but heterogeneity of these studies limits definitive conclusions.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy of chondroitin sulfate (CS) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) on the basis of a metaanalysis of controlled clinical trials.
METHODS: After personal, Medline, and Embase searches, a decision tree analysis of the available publications was performed, with respect to types of joint involvement studied, study designs, numbers of patients enrolled, and variables analyzed. The Lequesne index and pain rating on visual analog scale (VAS) were considered the main variables. Of a total of 16 publications found, 7 trials of 372 patients taking CS could be enrolled into the metaanalysis. Although all selected studies claimed to be randomized, double blind designs in parallel groups, it should be noted that CS was given along with analgesics or nonsteroidal antiiflammatory drugs, making required dosage of comedication an important factor.
RESULTS: Following patients to 120 or more days, CS was shown to be significantly superior to placebo with respect to the Lequesne index and pain VAS. Pooled data confirmed these results and showed at least 50% improvement in the study variables in the CS group compared to placebo.
CONCLUSION: CS may be useful in OA, but further investigations in larger cohorts of patients for longer time periods are needed to prove its usefulness as a symptom modifying drug in OA.
Nutritional supplements are commonly used for a variety of musculoskeletal conditions, including knee and hip degenerative joint disease. Although these supplements are occasionally recommended for patients with degenerative disc disease and spinal degenerative joint disease, the evidence supporting this use is unknown.
OBJECTIVE:
To systematically search and assess the quality of the literature on the use of glucosamine, chondroitin sulfate, and methylsulfonylmethane for the treatment of spinal osteoarthritis / degenerative joint disease, and degenerative disc disease.
DATA SOURCES:
The Index of Chiropractic Literature, AMED, Medline, and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials in English from 1984 to July 2009.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:
Data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria was extracted and reviewed by three reviewers. The Jadad scale was used to assess study quality. No attempts were made at meta-analysis due to variation in study design.
RESULTS:
Two articles met the inclusion criteria. One study was found to have good quality but reported negative results for the supplemented group compared with placebo, the other study had low quality but reported significant positive results for the supplemented group when compared with a no intervention control group.
CONCLUSION:
There was little literature found to support the use of common nutritional supplements for spinal degeneration, making it difficult to determine whether clinicians should recommend them.
