Numerous meta-analyses have been conducted aiming to compare hyaluronic acid (HA) and placebo in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). Nevertheless, the conclusions of these meta-analyses are not in consistency. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses investigating the efficacy and safety of HA for Knee OA and to provide treatment recommendations through the best evidence. A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews that compared HA and placebo for knee OA were identified. AMSTAR instrument was used to evaluate the methodological quality of individual study. The information of heterogeneity within each variable was fetched for the individual studies. Which meta-analyses can provide best evidence was determined according to Jadad algorithm. Twelve meta-analyses met the eligibility requirements. The Jadad decision making tool suggests that the highest quality review should be selected. As a result, a high-quality Cochrane review was included. The present systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses demonstrates that HA is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose among discordant meta-analyses.
Journal»Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) with intra-articular viscosupplementation (intra-articular hyaluronic acid [IA-HA]) versus oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-corticosteroids), intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP), or intra-articular placebo (IA-placebo) to determine which meta-analyses provide the best current evidence and identify potential causes of discordance.
METHODS: Literature searches were performed for meta-analyses examining use of IA-HA versus NSAIDs, IA-corticosteroids, IA-PRP, or IA-placebo. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence.
RESULTS: Fourteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and ranged in quality from Level I to IV evidence. In studies reporting patient numbers, there were a total of 20,049 patients: 13,698 receiving IA-HA, 355 receiving NSAIDs, 294 receiving IA-corticosteroids, and 5,702 receiving IA-placebo. Ten studies examined the effects of IA-HA versus IA-placebo; of these, 5 found that IA-HA improved pain and 4 found that IA-HA improved function. No clinically relevant differences in the efficacy of IA-HA versus NSAIDs regarding pain and function were found. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-PRP, IA-HA improved knee function at 2 and 6 months after injection but the effects were less robust than those of IA-PRP. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-corticosteroids, the positive effects of IA-HA were greater at 5 to 13 weeks and persisted for up to 26 weeks. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 2 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected and both showed that IA-HA provided clinically relevant improvements in pain and function compared with IA-placebo.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IA-HA with other nonoperative treatment modalities for knee OA shows that the current highest level of evidence suggests that IA-HA is a viable option for knee OA. Its use results in improvements in knee pain and function that can persist for up to 26 weeks. IA-HA has a good safety profile, and its use should be considered in patients with early knee OA.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
Due to the rising number of patients affected by osteoarthritis (OA), appropriate management decisions for minimizing pain and improving physical function for patients with OA are important. Hyaluronic acid (HA) knee injections have become a common tool for the management of OA of the knee, and the number of randomized controlled trials on the efficacy and safety of this treatment is growing. We performed a systematic review of the five published meta-analyses, which include single- or double-blinded randomized trials performed at one center or multiple centers (Level I evidence). Within each meta-analysis, a quality assessment tool for each trial was used based on outcome measures of OA-related pain, disease severity, trial period, and mean efficacy. We analyzed and compared the data collection and qualitative analysis methods, outcomes, and conclusions presented for each meta-analysis. Although they used different strategies, each used scientifically sound methods for analysis of many of the same trials; however, each used a different measure of trial quality and heterogeneity. Despite these differences, all come to a similar conclusion that when the strictest quality tools and interpretation of heterogeneity are used, Level I evidence demonstrates that the use of HA in patients with OA results in modest improvement in validated outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Systematic review of outcomes of three treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee: intra-articular viscosupplementation; oral glucosamine, chondroitin or the combination; and arthroscopic lavage or debridement.
DATA SOURCES: We abstracted data from: 42 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of viscosupplementation, all but one synthesized among six meta-analyses; 21 RCTs of glucosamine/chondroitin, 16 synthesized among 6 meta-analyses; and 23 articles on arthroscopy. The search included foreign-language studies and relevant conference proceedings.
REVIEW METHODS: The review methods were defined prospectively in a written protocol. We sought systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and RCTs published in full or in abstract. Where randomized trials were few, we sought other study designs. We independently assessed the quality of all primary studies.
RESULTS: Viscosupplementation trials generally report positive effects on pain and function scores compared to placebo, but the evidence on clinical benefit is uncertain, due to variable trial quality, potential publication bias, and unclear clinical significance of the changes reported. The Glucosamine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trial (GAIT), a large (n=1,583), high-quality, National Institutes of Health-funded, multicenter RCT showed no significant difference compared to placebo. Glucosamine sulfate has been reported to be more effective than glucosamine hydrochloride, which was used in GAIT, but the evidence is not sufficient to draw conclusions. Clinical studies of glucosamine effect on glucose metabolism are short term, or if longer (e.g., 3 years), excluded patients with metabolic disorders. The best available evidence for arthroscopy, a single sham-controlled RCT (n=180), showed that arthroscopic lavage with or without debridement was equivalent to placebo. The main limitations of this trial are the use of a single surgeon and enrollment of patients at a single Veterans Affairs Medical Center. No studies reported separately on patients with secondary OA of the knee. The only comparative study was an underpowered, poor-quality trial comparing viscosupplementation to arthroscopy with debridement.
CONCLUSIONS: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a common condition. The three interventions reviewed in this report are widely used in the treatment of OA of the knee, yet the best available evidence does not clearly demonstrate clinical benefit. Uncertainty regarding clinical benefit can be resolved only by rigorous, multicenter RCTs. In addition, given the public health impact of OA of the knee, research on new approaches to prevention and treatment should be given high priority.
Numerous meta-analyses have been conducted aiming to compare hyaluronic acid (HA) and placebo in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). Nevertheless, the conclusions of these meta-analyses are not in consistency. The purpose of the present study was to perform a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses investigating the efficacy and safety of HA for Knee OA and to provide treatment recommendations through the best evidence. A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The meta-analyses and/or systematic reviews that compared HA and placebo for knee OA were identified. AMSTAR instrument was used to evaluate the methodological quality of individual study. The information of heterogeneity within each variable was fetched for the individual studies. Which meta-analyses can provide best evidence was determined according to Jadad algorithm. Twelve meta-analyses met the eligibility requirements. The Jadad decision making tool suggests that the highest quality review should be selected. As a result, a high-quality Cochrane review was included. The present systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses demonstrates that HA is an effective intervention in treating knee OA without increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the present conclusions may help decision makers interpret and choose among discordant meta-analyses.
