OBJECTIVE: Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.
DESIGN: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.
RESULTS: 122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD=0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (relative risk [RR]=0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR=0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR=0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n=22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n=14,218 participants/group).
CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.
INTRODUCTION: The Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade is the most commonly used measure of radiographic disease severity in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Studies suggest that intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) should only be considered in cases of early stage knee OA. The purpose of this review was to determine if trials administering IA-HA in early-moderate knee OA patients demonstrated greater pain relief than studies that also included patients with end-stage disease.METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing IA-HA with saline injections and that diagnosed disease severity using the K-L grade criteria. The primary outcome was mean change in pain from baseline at 4-13 weeks and 22-27 weeks. Safety was evaluated on the total number of participants experiencing a treatment-related adverse event (AE).RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included. In the early-moderate OA subgroup, the mean change in pain scores was statistically significant favoring IA-HA from baseline to 4-13 weeks [SMD = - 0.30, 95% CI - 0.44 to - 0.15, p < 0.0001] and within 22-27 weeks [SMD = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.39 to - 0.16, p < 0.00001]. No significant differences were observed in the late OA subgroup. IA-HA was associated with a significantly greater risk of treatment-related AEs relative to saline in the late OA subgroup [RR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.16-2.67, p = 0.008].CONCLUSION: IA-HA provides significant pain relief compared to saline for patients with early-moderate knee OA, compared to cohorts including patients with end-stage OA (KL grade 4), with no increase in the risk of treatment-related AEs, up to 6 months. Patients with end-stage disease had lower levels of pain relief and may be diluting study results if included in the treatment cohort.Funding: Ferring Pharmaceuticals.
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.
METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.
RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.
DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.
INTRODUCTION: Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a commonly prescribed intra-articular (IA) therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA). While a single series of IA-HA has been well studied, the efficacy and safety of repeated courses of IA-HA injection therapy in knee OA patients have not been evaluated as frequently.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed databases. The primary outcome measure was knee pain reduction after each treatment course and/or last reported follow-up visit. Secondary outcomes were treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).
RESULTS: A total of 17 articles (7 RCTs and 10 cohort studies) met the pre-defined inclusion criteria. Of the RCTs, six were double-blind with two trials including open label extension studies, and one was single-blind. Studies ranged from investigating a single reinjection cycle to four repeat injection cycles. Eleven studies evaluated one reinjection, five studies evaluated ≥2 repeated courses of IA-HA, and one study allowed either one or two repeated courses. All studies reported pain reduction from baseline in the IA-HA treatment group throughout the initial treatment cycle, and either sustained or further reduced pain throughout the repeated courses of treatment. The study with the longest follow-up repeated IA-HA injection every 6 months for 25 months. Pain decreased after the first course and continued to decrease until the end of the study, with an approximate 55% reduction in pain compared to baseline. Common AEs were joint swelling and arthralgia; there were no reported SAEs. All repeated courses were well tolerated, and the number of documented AEs and SAEs was similar to the primary injection regimens.
CONCLUSION: Repeated courses of IA-HA injections are an effective and safe treatment for knee OA. Repeat courses were demonstrated to maintain or further improve pain reduction while introducing no increased safety risk.
BACKGROUND: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) is a common therapy used to treat knee pain and suppress knee inflammation in knee osteoarthritis (OA), typically prescribed in regimens ranging from a single injection to 5 weekly injections given once weekly. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of IA-HA, with subgroup analyses to explore the differences in knee pain and adverse events (AEs) across different dosing regimens.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify studies evaluating IA-HA for the management of knee OA compared to IA-saline. Primary outcome measure was the mean knee pain score at 13 Weeks (3 months) or 26 weeks (6 months). Secondary outcome was the number of treatment-related AEs and treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). We evaluated differences in levels of pain and AEs/SAEs between dosing regimens compared to IA-Saline.
RESULTS: Thirty articles were included. Overall, IA-HA injections were associated with less knee pain compared to IA-Saline injections for all dosing regimens. 2-4 injections of IA-HA vs. IA-Saline produced the largest effect size at both 3-months and 6-months (Standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.76; -0.98 to -0.53, 95% CI, P < 0.00001, and SMD = -0.36; -0.63 to -0.09 95% CI, P = 0.008, respectively). Additionally, single injection studies yielded a non-significant treatment effect at 3 and 6 months, while ≥5 5 injections demonstrated a significant improvement in pain only at 6 months. Five or more injections of IA-HA were associated with a higher risk of treatment-related AEs compared to IA-Saline (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.67; 1.09 to 2.56 95% CI, p = 0.02), which was a result not seen within the 1 and 2-4 injection subgroups.
CONCLUSION: Overall, 2-4 and ≥5 injection regimens provided pain relief over IA-Saline, while single injection did not. Intra-articular injections of HA used in a 2-4 injection treatment regimen provided the greatest benefit when compared to IA-Saline with respect to pain improvement in patients with knee OA, and was generally deemed safe with few to no treatment-related AEs reported across studies. Future research is needed to directly compare these treatment regimens.
Objective To investigate whether the number of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in a sodium hyaluronate (Hyalgan) course of therapy alters effectiveness in reducing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain. Data Sources Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched from January 1980 until November 2015. Study Selection We included clinical studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a course of 3 or 5 weekly intra-articular injections of Hyalgan to treat knee OA pain. We also included clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of a 3-week course of other Food and Drug Administration–approved HA treatments of knee OA pain. Twenty-four studies were identified, comprising 2168 study participants in 30 treated cohorts. Data Extraction We determined effect sizes for selected studies by extracting knee OA pain scores before and after HA or control treatments. Meta-regressions were implemented to determine whether the number of weekly injections in a course of Hyalgan therapy modified outcomes. Data Synthesis The pooled estimate for relief from baseline pain was −31.4 (SE, 5.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], −45.5 to −17.4) with a 3-week course of Hyalgan and −32.2 (SE, 5.25; 95% CI, −45.6 to −18.7) with a 5-week course of Hyalgan. Findings from the meta-analysis indicate relief of knee OA pain with a 3-week course of Hyalgan is similar to that with a 5-week course of Hyalgan ( P =.916). The pooled estimate for relief from baseline pain with a 3-week course of other HA products was −29.4 (SE, 4.98; 95% CI, −42.2 to −16.6), also indicating pain relief with a 3-week course of Hyalgan is similar to that with a 3-week course of other HA products ( P =.696). Conclusions There was no statistical difference between reduction in knee OA pain with a 3-week course of Hyalgan compared with reduction in knee OA pain with a 5-week course of Hyalgan or a 3-week course of other HA products. These findings demonstrate that comparable knee OA pain relief is achieved with a 3-week course of Hyalgan and the 2 control groups.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the number of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in a Hyalgan(®) course of therapy alters effectiveness in reducing knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain.
DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBase, were searched from January 1980 until November 2015.
STUDY SELECTION: We included clinical studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a course of three or five weekly intra-articular injections of Hyalgan to treat knee OA pain. We also included clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of a three-week course of other FDA-approved HA treatments of knee OA pain. Twenty-four studies were identified, comprising 2,168 study participants in 30 treated cohorts.
DATA EXTRACTION: We determined effect sizes for selected studies by extracting knee OA pain scores before and after HA or control treatments. Meta-regressions were implemented to determine whether the number of weekly injections in a course of Hyalgan therapy modified outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The pooled estimate for relief from baseline pain was -31.4 (5.46 SE; 95% confidence interval [CI], -45.5, -17.4) with a three-week course of Hyalgan and -32.2 (5.25; CI, -45.6, -18.7) with a five-week course of Hyalgan. Findings from the meta-analysis indicate relief of knee OA pain with a three-week course of Hyalgan is similar to that with a five-week course of Hyalgan (P = .916). The pooled estimate for relief from baseline pain with a three-week course of other HA products was -29.4 (4.98; CI, -42.2, -16.6), also indicating pain relief with a three-week course of Hyalgan is similar to that with a three-week course of other HA products (P = .696).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistical difference between reduction in knee OA pain with a three-week course of Hyalgan compared to reduction in knee OA pain with a five-week course of Hyalgan or a three-week course of other HA products. These findings demonstrate that comparable knee OA pain relief is achieved with a three-week course of Hyalgan and the two control groups.
Objective: Though there is no consensus on its efficacy, knee osteoarthritis is symptomatically managed with intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA). Recent reports suggest that IAHA may delay the need for total knee replacement, with the magnitude of delay proportional to the number of injection series. However, the safety of repeated injection series is reported to vary between commercial products. This report describes a systematic review of safety data on repeated treatment courses of SUPARTZ. Design: We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Cochrane database, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and unpublished data. We included all human randomized controlled trials or observational studies with adverse event (AE) data for SUPARTZ in knee osteoarthritis. Two independent reviewers extracted data and evaluated study quality. Data were analyzed separately for the first and subsequent series of injections. Results: The primary sources for repeated-injection data on SUPARTZ were a postmarket registry (N = 7404), 4 prospective studies (N = 127 total), and a retrospective study (N = 220). None of the sources reported increased frequency or severity of AEs with repeated injections. In the registry, 95% of multiple-injection-series patients who reported an AE did so during the first series. None of the AEs was serious, and most resolved spontaneously without medical intervention. The overall adverse event rate after repeat courses of SUPARTZ was 0.008 (95% confidence interval: 0.001-0.055). Conclusions: Multiple courses of SUPARTZ injections appear to be at least as safe, and probably safer, than the first course. This study supports the safety of repeat courses of SUPARTZ injections for knee osteoarthritis.
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."
BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common and often disabling joint disorder among adults that may result in impaired activity and daily function. A variety of treatment options are currently available and prescribed for knee OA depending on the severity of the disorder and physician preference. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) injection is a treatment for knee OA that reportedly provides numerous biochemical and biological benefits, including shock absorption, chondroprotection, and anti-inflammatory effects within the knee. Clarity is needed as to whether the available IA-HA products should be considered for therapy as a group or whether there are significant differences in the products that need to be considered in treatment of OA of the knee.
PURPOSE: To determine whether there are differences in efficacy and safety with respect to intrinsic properties of available IA-HA injections for knee OA.
STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed databases was conducted for all existing randomized trials of IA-HA. The primary outcome measure analyzed was the mean pain score at the reported follow-up nearest to 26 weeks after injection. Pooled efficacy and safety results were recorded for subgroupings of HA product characteristics.
RESULTS: A total of 68 studies were included for analysis. Products with an average molecular weight ≥3000 kDa provided favorable efficacy results when compared with products of an average molecular weight <3000 kDa. Products with a molecular weight ≥3000 kDa demonstrated significantly fewer discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events than did ≤1500 kDa counterparts, while trial discontinuation rates were similar between biological fermentation-derived HA products and avian-derived HA. The results did not demonstrate a significant difference in the occurrence of effusion across molecular weight subgroups. Additionally, biological fermentation-derived HA had a significantly smaller incidence of effusion than did avian-derived HA. Biological fermentation-derived HA demonstrated fewer acute flare-ups at the injection site than did avian-derived HA products, while high-molecular-weight products demonstrated the highest rate of injection site flare-up.
CONCLUSION: Despite similarities, IA-HA products should not be treated as a group, as there are differences in IA-HA products that influence both efficacy and safety. In the available literature, IA-HA products with a molecular weight ≥3000 kDa and those derived from biological fermentation relate to superior efficacy and safety-factors that may influence selection an IA-HA product for OA of the knee.
Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.
DESIGN:
Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.
RESULTS:
122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD]=-0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD=0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (relative risk [RR]=0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR=0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR=0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR=0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n=22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n=14,218 participants/group).
CONCLUSIONS:
Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.
