OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intra--articular (IA) glucocorticoid for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients according to the baseline severity of pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. Furthermore, this study aims to assess if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with clinically important effectiveness of IA glucocorticoid. This is an update of an IA glucocorticoid IPD meta-analysis by the OA Trial Bank.
METHOD: Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparations in hip and knee OA, published to May 2018 were selected. IPD of patient and disease characteristics and outcome measures were acquired. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). Potential interaction effect of severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation at baseline were studied using a two-stage approach with general liner model followed by random effects model. Analysis of trend was conducted, assessing if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with the threshold for clinically important treatment effect of IA glucocorticoid compared to placebo.
RESULTS: Four out of 16 eligible randomized clinical trials (n = 641) were combined with the existing OA Trial Bank studies (n = 620), yielding 1261 participants from eleven studies. Participants with severe baseline pain compared to those with less severe pain had greater pain reduction at mid-term (around 12 weeks) (mean reduction: -6.90 (95%CI -10.91; -2.90)), but not at short- and long-term. No interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo at all follow-up time-points. Analysis of trend demonstrated treatment response to IA glucocorticoid from baseline pain levels >50 (0-100 scale) and above.
CONCLUSION: This updated IPD meta-analysis demonstrated that participants with severe pain compared to those with less severe pain at baseline experienced significantly more pain relief with IA glucocorticoid compared with placebo at mid-term.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the evidence on the magnitude and duration of treatment effect of intra-articular corticosteroid (IAC) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to placebo, to evaluate a treatment effect by steroid type, and to describe the reported adverse effects.
DESIGN: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched. The risk of systematic bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's domain-based evaluation framework.
RESULTS: The final sample included eight RCTs with follow-ups from 1 to 26 weeks. The risk of systematic bias was considered low in five and high in three studies. The pooled SMD was -0.58 (95% CI -0.88 to -0.27) and NNT 5.1 (95% CI 10.0 to 3.7). The heterogeneity was considerable. The pooled effect size approached the level of statistical insignificance at four months. The pooled risk ratio of adverse effects was insignificant 0.95 (95% CI 0.34 to 2.55).
CONCLUSION: The IAC had a mild to moderate effect on pain severity up to three months after the injection - much longer than it had previously been reported. The effect may vary substantially in different patient groups and appropriate patient selection is important. The risk of adverse effects was low.
Journal»Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
PURPOSE: We aimed to determine if the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated in the most recent meta-analysis on arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee arthritis included documented trials of appropriate conservative treatment prior to randomization.
METHODS: We selected all RCTs of the most recent meta-analysis by Brignardello-Petersen and recorded for each RCT, if physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory. We compared the treatment effect of arthroscopy in studies in which physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory versus studies in which it was not. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017070091).
RESULTS: Of the 13 RCTs in the meta-analysis, there were 2 in which physiotherapy prior to randomization was mandatory. In 1 additional multicenter RCT, prior conservative treatment was mentioned as mandatory in the publication, but not in the protocol. The treatment effects attributed to arthroscopy in terms of short-term pain (P = .0037), short-term function (P = .0309), and long-term function (P = .0012) were larger in studies in which prior physiotherapy was mandatory.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the most recent meta-analysis claims that it is based "on patients who do not respond to conservative treatment," physiotherapy was mandatory prior to randomization only in 2 of the 13 studies. As several orthopaedic guidelines recommend that the first line of treatment in patients with degenerative arthritis of the knee should be conservative, for instance with physiotherapy, and the question of performing arthroscopy arises once conservative treatment fails, 11 of the 13 RCTs failed to adhere to these accepted guidelines. Therefore, patient selection in these 11 studies may not represent the typical indications for arthroscopy, where patients have tried conservative management prior to being offered surgery. When comparing studies where prior physiotherapy was mandatory to studies in which it was not mandatory, there were statistically significant effects favoring arthroscopy in terms of pain in the short term, and for function both in the short and the long term. These findings suggest that the treatment effects attributed to arthroscopy were higher when prior physiotherapy was mandatory. Given these findings, the external validity of most of these RCTs, and the resulting "strong recommendation against the use of arthroscopy in nearly all patients with degenerative knee disease," is called into question.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
This systematic review was performed to investigate the ethical justification, methodological quality, validity and safety of placebo controls in randomized placebo-controlled surgical trials.Central, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing a surgical procedure to a placebo. "Surgical procedure" was defined as a medical procedure involving an incision with instruments. Placebo was defined as a blinded sham operation involving no change to the structural anatomy and without an expectable physiological response in the target body compartment.Ten randomized placebo-controlled controlled surgical trials were included, all of them published in high-ranking medical journals (mean impact factor: 20.1). Eight of 10 failed to show statistical superiority of the experimental intervention. Serious adverse events did not differ between the groups (rate ratio [RR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92-2.06, P = 0.46). None of the trials had a high risk of bias in any domain. The ethical justification for the use of a placebo control remained unclear in 2 trials.Placebo-controlled surgical trials are feasible and provide high-quality data on efficacy of surgical treatments. The surgical placebo entails a considerable risk for study participants. Consequently, a placebo should be used only if justified by the clinical question and by methodological necessity. Based on the current evidence, a pragmatic proposal for the use of placebo controls in future randomized controlled surgical trials is made.
OBJECTIVES: Hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids are common intra-articular (IA) therapies widely used for the management of mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis (OA). Many trials evaluating the efficacy of IA administered therapies commonly use IA saline injections as a placebo comparator arm. Using a systematic review and meta-analysis, our objective was to assess the clinical benefit associated with use of IA saline in trials of IA therapies in the treatment of patients with painful knee OA.
METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for articles published up to and including August 14th, 2014. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of potential reports and the risk of bias of included trials. We analyzed short (≤3 months) and long-term (6-12 months) pain reduction of the saline arm of included trials using standardized mean differences (SMDs; estimated assuming a null effect in a comparator group) that were combined and weighted using a random effects model. Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were tabulated and presented using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: From 40 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion only 38 provided sufficient data to be included in the meta-analysis. Based on data with moderate inconsistency IA saline was found to significantly improve short-term knee pain in 32 studies involving 1705 patients (SMD = -0.68; 95% CI: -0.78 to -0.57; P < 0.001; I(2) = 50%). Long-term knee pain was significantly decreased following IA injection with saline in 19 studies involving 1445 patients (SMD = -0.61; 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.45; P < 0.001) with a substantial degree of inconsistency (I(2) = 74%). Overall, 29 of the included trials reported on adverse events, none of which found any serious treatment-related AEs following IA injection with saline.
CONCLUSIONS: Pain relief observed with IA saline should prompt health care providers to consider the additional effectiveness of current IA treatments that use saline comparators in clinical studies, and challenges of identifying IA saline injection as a "placebo."
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoids for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients with severe pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials.
DESIGN: Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparation in patients with knee or hip OA, published from 1995 up to June 2012 were selected from the literature. IPD obtained from original trials included patient and disease characteristics and outcomes measured. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). The subgroup factors assessed included severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation (dichotomized in present or not) at baseline. Multilevel regression analyses were applied to estimate the magnitude of the effects in the subgroups with the individuals nested within each study.
RESULTS: Seven out of 43 published randomized clinical trials (n = 620) were included. Patients with severe baseline pain had a significantly larger reduction in short-term pain, but not in mid- and long-term pain, compared to those with less severe pain at baseline (Mean Difference 13.91; 95% Confidence Interval 1.50-26.31) when receiving IA glucocorticoid injection compared to placebo. No statistical significant interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo and to tidal irrigation at all follow-up points.
CONCLUSIONS: This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with severe knee pain at baseline derive more benefit from IA glucocorticoid injection at short-term follow-up than those with less severe pain at baseline.
OBJECTIVE: To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and physical function.
DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.
RESULTS: The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5 mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.
CONCLUSIONS: The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009145.
BACKGROUND: Placebo controls are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments. Although it is unclear whether different placebo interventions for osteoarthritis vary in efficacy, systematic differences would substantially affect interpretation of the results of placebo-controlled trials.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of alternative placebo types on pain outcomes in knee osteoarthritis.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database from inception through 1 June 2015 and unpublished data.
STUDY SELECTION: 149 randomized trials of adults with knee osteoarthritis that reported pain outcomes and compared widely used pharmaceuticals against oral, intra-articular, topical, and oral plus topical placebos.
DATA EXTRACTION: Study data were independently double-extracted; study quality was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Placebo effects that were evaluated by using a network meta-analysis with 4 separate placebo nodes (differential model) showed that intra-articular placebo (effect size, 0.29 [95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.49]) and topical placebo (effect size, 0.20 [credible interval, 0.02 to 0.38]) had significantly greater effect sizes than did oral placebo. This differential model showed marked differences in the relative efficacies and hierarchy of the active treatments compared with a network model that considered all placebos equivalent. In the model accounting for differential effects, intra-articular and topical therapies were superior to oral treatments in reducing pain. When these differential effects were ignored, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were superior.
LIMITATIONS: Few studies compared different placebos directly. The study could not decisively conclude whether disease severity and co-interventions systematically differed between trials evaluating different placebos.
CONCLUSION: All placebos are not equal, and some can trigger clinically relevant responses. Differential placebo effects can substantially alter estimates of the relative efficacies of active treatments, an important consideration for the design of clinical trials and interpretation of their results.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
OBJECTIVE: To determine benefits and harms of arthroscopic knee surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for middle aged or older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain and physical function.
DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches for benefits and harms were carried out in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to August 2014. Only studies published in 2000 or later were included for harms.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials assessing benefit of arthroscopic surgery involving partial meniscectomy, debridement, or both for patients with or without radiographic signs of osteoarthritis were included. For harms, cohort studies, register based studies, and case series were also allowed.
RESULTS: The search identified nine trials assessing the benefits of knee arthroscopic surgery in middle aged and older patients with knee pain and degenerative knee disease. The main analysis, combining the primary endpoints of the individual trials from three to 24 months postoperatively, showed a small difference in favour of interventions including arthroscopic surgery compared with control treatments for pain (effect size 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.03 to 0.26). This difference corresponds to a benefit of 2.4 (95% confidence interval 0.4 to 4.3) mm on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale. When analysed over time of follow-up, interventions including arthroscopy showed a small benefit of 3-5 mm for pain at three and six months but not later up to 24 months. No significant benefit on physical function was found (effect size 0.09, -0.05 to 0.24). Nine studies reporting on harms were identified. Harms included symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (4.13 (95% confidence interval 1.78 to 9.60) events per 1000 procedures), pulmonary embolism, infection, and death.
CONCLUSIONS: The small inconsequential benefit seen from interventions that include arthroscopy for the degenerative knee is limited in time and absent at one to two years after surgery. Knee arthroscopy is associated with harms. Taken together, these findings do not support the practise of arthroscopic surgery for middle aged or older patients with knee pain with or without signs of osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009145.
Knee arthroscopy has historically been a common treatment for knee osteoarthritis. A Cochrane review of the literature up to 2006 has resulted in guidance that arthroscopy is not effective in knee osteoarthritis. It cited that deficiencies in the evidence base prevented widespread acceptance of the recommendations. The aim of this review is to update the evidence base for the efficacy of arthroscopy in knee osteoarthritis. The authors searched CINHAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CENTRAL for randomised controlled trials that compared arthroscopic surgery in knee osteoarthritis with a control group (e.g. lavage, best medical care). The primary outcome measure was patient reported functional outcome. The study methodology was registered on Prospero, a systematic review register: Registration number CRD42012002891. Five randomised controlled trials included 516 patients, almost double the 271 episodes contained in previous reviews. Two high quality studies, according to the Jadad classification, published since the Cochrane review, addressed many of the methodological flaws criticised in previous reviews. However, certain subgroup analyses (e.g. patients with meniscal tears and mechanical symptoms) are still underpowered.
To evaluate the efficacy of intra--articular (IA) glucocorticoid for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients according to the baseline severity of pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. Furthermore, this study aims to assess if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with clinically important effectiveness of IA glucocorticoid. This is an update of an IA glucocorticoid IPD meta-analysis by the OA Trial Bank.
METHOD:
Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparations in hip and knee OA, published to May 2018 were selected. IPD of patient and disease characteristics and outcome measures were acquired. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). Potential interaction effect of severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation at baseline were studied using a two-stage approach with general liner model followed by random effects model. Analysis of trend was conducted, assessing if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with the threshold for clinically important treatment effect of IA glucocorticoid compared to placebo.
RESULTS:
Four out of 16 eligible randomized clinical trials (n = 641) were combined with the existing OA Trial Bank studies (n = 620), yielding 1261 participants from eleven studies. Participants with severe baseline pain compared to those with less severe pain had greater pain reduction at mid-term (around 12 weeks) (mean reduction: -6.90 (95%CI -10.91; -2.90)), but not at short- and long-term. No interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo at all follow-up time-points. Analysis of trend demonstrated treatment response to IA glucocorticoid from baseline pain levels >50 (0-100 scale) and above.
CONCLUSION:
This updated IPD meta-analysis demonstrated that participants with severe pain compared to those with less severe pain at baseline experienced significantly more pain relief with IA glucocorticoid compared with placebo at mid-term.
