OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disorder involving deterioration of articular cartilage and underlying bone and is associated with symptoms of pain and disability. Glucosamine is a component of articular cartilage naturally synthesized in the body from glucose and incorporated into substances contained in the cartilage. It has been suggested that consumption of glucosamine may reduce the pain of OA and may have favorable effects on structural changes in the cartilage. This article presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of orally consumed glucosamine sulfate (GS) on OA-related pain and joint structural changes.
METHODS: PubMed and Ovid Embase were searched using specific search terms to find randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials on the effects of GS on pain and/or joint-space narrowing. The outcome measure was the standardized mean difference (SMD), which was the improvement in the placebo groups minus the improvement in the GS groups divided by the pooled standard deviation.
RESULTS: There were 17 studies meeting the review criteria for pain, and the summary SMD was -0.35, with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -0.54 to -0.16 (negative SMD is in favor of GS). Of the 17 studies, 7 showed a statistically significant reduction in pain from GS use. Four studies met the review criteria for joint space narrowing with a summary SMD = -0.10 (95% CI = -0.23 to +0.04). Studies without involvement of the commercial glucosamine industry had a lower (but still significant) pain reduction efficacy (summary SMD = -0.19, 95% CI = -0.39 to -0.02) than those with industry involvement. Several smaller dosages throughout the day had larger pain reduction effects than a single daily large dose (1500 mg).
CONCLUSION: These data indicate that GS may have a small to moderate effect in reducing OA-related pain but little effect on joint-space narrowing. Until there is more definitive evidence, healthcare providers should be cautious in recommending use of GS to their patients. Because GS dosages used in studies to date resulted in mild and transient adverse effects, and these were similar to that experienced by patients receiving placebos, larger GS doses possibly could be investigated in future studies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacies of oral glucosamine, chondroitin, the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin, acetaminophen and celecoxib on the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and the reference lists of relevant articles published from inception to October 23, 2017. A Bayesian hierarchical random effects model was used to examine the overall effect size among mixed multiple interventions.
RESULTS: We identified 61 randomised controlled trials of patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. There was no obvious difference in the results between the traditional meta-analysis and the network meta-analysis. The network meta-analysis demonstrated that celecoxib was most likely the best option (SMD, -0.32 [95% CI, -0.38 to -0.25]) for pain, followed by the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin. For physical function, all interventions were significantly superior to oral placebo except for acetaminophen. In terms of stiffness, glucosamine (SMD, -0.36 [95% CI, -0.67 to -0.06]) and celecoxib (SMD, -0.29 [95% CI, -0.51 to -0.08]) were significantly better compared to placebo. In view of safety, compared to placebo only, celecoxib and acetaminophen presented significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the effectiveness of these non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and symptomatic slow-acting drugs, oral celecoxib is more effective than placebo on relieving pain and improving physical function, followed by the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin. Acetaminophen is likely the least efficacious intervention option. This information, accompanied by the tolerability and economic costs of the included treatments, would be conducive to making decisions for clinicians.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the symptomatic effectiveness and safety of oral symptomatic slow-acting drugs (SYSADOAs) on the treatment of knee and/or hip osteoarthritis, such as chondroitin, glucosamine, and combination treatment with chondroitin plus glucosamine.
METHODS: We searched electronic database including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the reference lists of relevant articles published from inception to May 22, 2018. An updated meta-analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of these slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis.
RESULTS: Twenty-six articles describing 30 trials met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The estimates between chondroitin and placebo showed that chondroitin could alleviate pain symptoms and improve function. Compared with placebo, glucosamine proved significant effect only on stiffness improvement. However, the combination therapy did not have enough evidence to be superior to placebo. Additionally, there was no significant difference in the incidence of AEs and discontinuations of AEs when compared with placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the effectiveness of these symptomatic slow-acting drugs, oral chondroitin is more effective than placebo on relieving pain and improving physical function. Glucosamine showed effect on stiffness outcome. Regarding on the limited number of combination therapy, further studies need to investigate the accurate effectiveness. This information accompanied with the tolerability and economic costs of included treatments would be conducive to making decisions for clinicians.
Although glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate have showed beneficial effects on joint tissues in osteoarthritis (OA), their therapeutic use in the clinical setting is still debatable. Hence, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials was conducted to investigate the efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate on knee OA symptoms. Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials evaluating the effect of orally administered glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulfate on OA symptoms using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and/or the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and generic inverse-variance method. Heterogeneity was tested using the I2 statistic index. Treatments with glucosamine and chondroitin were found to significantly reduce pain in VAS [weighted mean difference (WMD) - 7.41 mm, 95% CI - 14.31, - 0.51, p = 0.04 and WMD - 8.35 mm, 95% CI - 11.84, - 4.85, p < 0.00001, respectively]. Their combination did not show this behavior (WMD - 0.28 mm, 95% CI - 8.87, 8.32, p = 0.95). None of the glucosamine, chondroitin or their combination had a significant positive effect on the total WOMAC index and its subscores. Oral supplementation with glucosamine or chondroitin sulfate reduces pain in knee OA. However, there is no additional effect using both therapeutic agents in combination for the management of symptomatic knee OA.
BACKGROUND: Osteoarthritis, a common joint disorder, is one of the leading causes of disability. Chondroitin has emerged as a new treatment. Previous meta-analyses have shown contradictory results on the efficacy of chondroitin. This, in addition to the publication of more trials, necessitates a systematic review.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefit and harm of oral chondroitin for treating osteoarthritis compared with placebo or a comparator oral medication including, but not limited to, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics, opioids, and glucosamine or other "herbal" medications.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched seven databases up to November 2013, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Current Controlled Trials. We searched the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) websites for adverse effects. Trial registers were not searched.
SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials lasting longer than two weeks, studying adults with osteoarthritis in any joint, and comparing chondroitin with placebo, an active control such as NSAIDs, or other "herbal" supplements such as glucosamine.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed all title assessments, data extractions, and risk of bias assessments.
MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three randomized controlled trials including 4,962 participants treated with chondroitin and 4,148 participants given placebo or another control were included. The majority of trials were in knee OA, with few in hip and hand OA. Trial duration varied from 1 month to 3 years. Participants treated with chondroitin achieved statistically significantly and clinically meaningful better pain scores (0-100) in studies less than 6 months than those given placebo with an absolute risk difference of 10% lower (95% confidence interval (CI), 15% to 6% lower; number needed to treat (NNT) = 5 (95% CI, 3 to 8; n = 8 trials) (level of evidence, low; risk of bias, high); but there was high heterogeneity between the trials (T(2) = 0.07; I(2) = 70%, which was not easily explained by differences in risk of bias or study sample size). In studies longer than 6 months, the absolute risk difference for pain was 9% lower (95% CI 18% lower to 0%); n = 6 trials; T(2) = 0.18; I(2) = 83% ), again with low level of evidence.For the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (WOMAC MCII Pain subscale) outcome, a reduction in knee pain by 20% was achieved by 53/100 in the chondroitin group versus 47/100 in the placebo group, an absolute risk difference of 6% (95% CI 1% to 11%), (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.24; T(2) = 0.00; I(2) = 0%) (n = 2 trials, 1253 participants; level of evidence, high; risk of bias, low).Differences in Lequesne's index (composite of pain,function and disability) statistically significantly favoured chondroitin as compared with placebo in studies under six months, with an absolute risk difference of 8% lower (95% CI 12% to 5% lower; T(2)= 0.78; n = 7 trials) (level of evidence, moderate; risk of bias, unclear), also clinically meaningful. Loss of minimum joint space width in the chondroitin group was statistically significantly less than in the placebo group, with a relative risk difference of 4.7% less (95% CI 1.6% to 7.8% less; n = 2 trials) (level of evidence, high; risk of bias, low). Chondroitin was associated with statistically significantly lower odds of serious adverse events compared with placebo with Peto odds ratio of 0.40 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.82; n = 6 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Chondroitin did not result in statistically significant numbers of adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo or another drug. Adverse events were reported in a limited fashion, with some studies providing data and others not.Comparisons of chondroitin taken alone or in combination with glucosamine or another supplement showed a statistically significant reduction in pain (0-100) when compared with placebo or an active control, with an absolute risk difference of 10% lower (95% CI 14% to 5% lower); NNT = 4 (95% CI 3 to 6); T(2) = 0.33; I(2) = 91%; n = 17 trials) (level of evidence, low). For physical function, chondroitin in combination with glucosamine or another supplement showed no statistically significant difference from placebo or an active control, with an absolute risk difference of 1% lower (95% CI 6% lower to 3% higher with T(2) = 0.04; n = 5 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Differences in Lequesne's index statistically significantly favoured chondroitin as compared with placebo, with an absolute risk difference of 8% lower (95% CI, 12% to 4% lower; T(2) = 0.12; n = 10 trials) (level of evidence, moderate). Chondroitin in combination with glucosamine did not result in statistically significant differences in the numbers of adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, or in the numbers of serious adverse events compared with placebo or with an active control.The beneficial effects of chondroitin in pain and Lequesne's index persisted when evidence was limited to studies with adequate blinding or studies that used appropriate intention to treat (ITT) analyses. These beneficial effects were uncertain when we limited data to studies with appropriate allocation concealment or a large study sample (> 200) or to studies without pharmaceutical funding.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A review of randomized trials of mostly low quality reveals that chondroitin (alone or in combination with glucosamine) was better than placebo in improving pain in participants with osteoarthritis in short-term studies. The benefit was small to moderate with an 8 point greater improvement in pain (range 0 to 100) and a 2 point greater improvement in Lequesne's index (range 0 to 24), both seeming clinically meaningful. These differences persisted in some sensitivity analyses and not others. Chondroitin had a lower risk of serious adverse events compared with control. More high-quality studies are needed to explore the role of chondroitin in the treatment of osteoarthritis. The combination of some efficacy and low risk associated with chondroitin may explain its popularity among patients as an over-the-counter supplement.
BACKGROUND: To conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with the aims of comparing relevant clinical outcomes (that is, visual analog scores (VAS), total and sub-Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scores, Lequesne algofunctional index, joint space width change, and adverse events) between diacerein, glucosamine, and placebo.
METHODS: Medline and Scopus databases were searched from inception to 29 August 2014, using PubMed and Scopus search engines and included RCTs or quasi-experimental designs comparing clinical outcomes between treatments. Data were extracted from original studies. A network meta-analysis was performed by applying weight regression for continuous outcomes and a mixed-effect Poisson regression for dichotomous outcomes.
RESULTS: Thirty-one of 505 identified studies were eligible. Compared to placebo, glucosamine showed a significant improvement with unstandardized mean differences (UMD) in total WOMAC, pain WOMAC, function WOMAC, and Lequesne score of -2.49 (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.14, -0.83), -0.75 (95% CI: -1.18, -0.32), -4.78 (95% CI: -5.96, -3.59), and -1.03 (95% CI: -1.34, -0.72), respectively. Diacerein clinically improves visual analog scores, function WOMAC, and stiffness WOMAC with UMD values of -2.23 (95% CI: -2.82, -1.64), -6.64 (95% CI: -10.50, -2.78), and -0.68 (95% CI: -1.20, -0.16) when compared to placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: The network meta-analysis suggests that diacerein and glucosamine are equally efficacious for symptom relief in knee OA, but that the former has more side effects.
BACKGROUND: Structure-modifying medications or nutraceuticals may be an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. This study identified 12 treatments that may possess chondroprotective properties: oral glucosamine; chondroitin; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); polyunsaturated fatty acids; S-adenosylmethionine; avocado and soybean unsaponifiable fractions; methylsulfonylmethane; vitamins C, D, and E; intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid; and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials for the effectiveness of each agent in preserving articular cartilage of the knee and delaying the progression of osteoarthritis.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were performed using "treatment," "osteoarthritis," and "knee" as keywords. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials of ≥12 months, with a placebo control, measuring radiographic changes in joint space width, cartilage volume, or radiographic progression of osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was changes in joint integrity measures.
RESULTS: A total of 3514 studies were identified from the initial search, 13 of which met inclusion criteria. Treatment with chondroitin sulfate showed a significant reduction in cartilage loss in 3 of 4 studies identified compared with placebo. Two of 3 trials identified for glucosamine also reported significant structural effects relative to placebo. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid was effective in lowering the rate of cartilage loss in only 1 of 3 studies identified versus placebo. Of the 6 studies identified for NSAIDs, vitamin E, and vitamin D, none showed any structural effect compared with placebo. No studies were found that met the inclusion criteria for polyunsaturated fatty acids, S-adenosylmethionine, avocado and soybean unsaponifiable fractions, methylsulfonylmethane, vitamin C, or PRP.
CONCLUSION: For patients with or at risk for osteoarthritis, the use of glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate may serve as a nonoperative means to protect joint cartilage and delay osteoarthritis progression. Hyaluronic acid injections showed variable efficacy, while NSAIDs and vitamins E and D showed no effect on osteoarthritis progression. The other agents evaluated had no evidence in the literature to support or refute their use for chondroprotection.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether study sponsor, chemical formulation, brand of glucosamine, and/or risk of bias explain observed inconsistencies in trials of glucosamine's efficacy for treating pain in osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS: A systematic review and stratified meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials was performed, and random-effects models were applied with inconsistency (I(2) ) and heterogeneity (tau(2) ) estimated using Review Manager and SAS, respectively. The major outcome was reduction of pain; the standardized mean difference (SMD [95% confidence interval (95% CI)]) served as effect size.
RESULTS: The inclusion criteria yielded 25 trials (3,458 patients). Glucosamine moderately reduced pain (SMD -0.51 [95% CI -0.72, -0.30]), although a high level of between-trial inconsistency was observed (I(2) = 88%). The single most important explanation (i.e., covariate) was brand, reducing heterogeneity by 41% (P = 0.00032). Twelve trials (1,437 patients) using the Rottapharm/Madaus product resulted in significant pain reduction (SMD -1.07 [95% CI -1.47, -0.67]), although a sensitivity analysis of 3 low risk of bias trials using the Rottapharm/Madaus product showed less promising results (SMD -0.27 [95% CI -0.43, -0.12]), which is only a small effect size. Thirteen trials (1,963 patients) using non-Rottapharm/Madaus products consistently failed to show a reduction in pain (SMD -0.11 [95% CI -0.46, 0.24]). The second most important explanation was overall risk of bias (reducing heterogeneity by 32%).
CONCLUSION: Most of the observed heterogeneity in glucosamine trials is explained by brand. Trials using the Rottapharm/Madaus glucosamine product had a superior outcome on pain in OA compared to other preparations of glucosamine. Large inconsistency was found, however. Low risk of bias trials, using the Rottapharm/Madaus product, revealed a small effect size.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacies of different preparations of glucosamine for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).
METHODS: Systematic searches of the bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) concerning glucosamine treatment of OA. Effect size (ES) was estimated using Cohen's standardised mean difference. Consistency was evaluated via the I(2) index.
RESULTS: Nineteen trials (3159 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, revealing a large degree of inconsistency among the trials in terms of pain-reduction outcome: the combined ES in glucosamine sulphate (GS) trials was -0.22 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.48, 0.04], I(2) was 82.3%. The combined ES in glucosamine hydrochloride (GH) trials was -0.03 (95% CI -0.14, 0.08), with an absence of heterogeneity. No treatment ES was observed [-0.38 (95% CI -0.99, 0.23)] favouring GS in trials of less than 24 weeks duration and the I(2) remained high (I(2) = 88.5%). No significant treatment ES -0.09 (95% CI -0.21, 0.03) was observed in trials of more than 24 weeks duration compared with placebo, with a heterogeneity of zero. In terms of function-modifying outcomes, GS showed no significant effect on Lequesne Index reduction vs. placebo in trials of less than 24 weeks duration (ES -0.55 (95% CI -1.22, 0.11)) with a high degree of heterogeneity (I(2) = 92.9%). Pooling data from studies with durations of more than 24 weeks presented a significant combined ES of -0.36 (95% CI: -0.56, -0.17) with an absence of heterogeneity. No risk of publication bias could be detected using Egger test.
CONCLUSIONS: GH is ineffective for pain reduction in patients with knee OA. GS may have function-modifying effects in patients with knee OA when administered for more than 6 months. However, it showed no pain-reduction benefits after 6 months of therapy.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.
DESIGN:
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES:
Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:
Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:
The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.
REVIEW METHODS:
Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.
RESULTS:
192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).
CONCLUSIONS:
Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:
PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
