Since a clear definition of early osteoarthritis (EOA) has not been set up, some critical questions concern its diagnosis and treatment. The upcoming of newly available drugs and innovative therapeutic approaches, such as regenerative medicine, foster a better knowledge of the problem by medical community. We have carried out an updated systematic review on both PubMed and Embase databases, searching for all the studies and researches published in medical literature in the last 32 years, addressing the issue of EOA definition, diagnosis, and treatment, with a special focus on EOA at hip and knee. Our review found out 211 and 447 (published from 1973 to 2015) articles, when searching on PubMed and Embase database, respectively. Among the 132 papers that met our inclusion criteria, only 1 article explicitly addressed the issue of EOA definition, but it was only an expert opinion, while all the other researches were focused on diagnosis or management of EOA. EOA has been defined with regards to the younger age of osteoarthritis onset and radiological damage (grade I–II of the Kellgren and Lawrence classification). A more clear classification of EOA, based on characteristics and symptoms of affected patients, should be delivered by scientific community in order to better identify subjects who might benefit from new expensive drugs and innovative therapeutic approaches.
Knee osteoarthritis is a chronic disabling condition that is both progressive and irreversible. Intraarticular steroids are commonly used to reduce osteoarthritis symptoms and to minimize the need for surgery. Nevertheless, debate still exists regarding the efficacy and safety of steroids. To address this point, we searched Epistemonikos database which is maintained by screening 30 separate databases and identified 12 systematic reviews including 41 studies addressing steroids use in knee osteoarthritis. Of these, 40 were randomized trials. The evidence from these studies was combined using meta-analysis, and a summary of findings table was constructed following the GRADE approach. We concluded intraarticular steroid use slightly decreases short-term pain, makes little or no difference in the mid-term, and may have no effects in the long-term.
BACKGROUND: Degenerative osteoarthritis of the knee (OA) affects 35% of persons older than 65 years. If pain persists after non-invasive treatment, some intra-articular drugs can be tried before surgical treatment.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this article is to review the literature after 2006 with the aim of answering two questions: (1) Are intra-articular injections of corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) effective in painful knee OA? and (2) Which of these drugs is more effective?
METHODS: The search engines were MedLine and the Cochrane Library. The keywords used were: knee, osteoarthritis, and intra-articular injections. Eight hundred and forty-four articles were found but only 142 had been published after 2006. Of those, only 14 were selected and reviewed because they were strictly focused on the topic and the questions of this article.
RESULTS: The clinical efficacy of intra-articular injections of HA and CS in patients with knee OA has been demonstrated. Pain reduction after three to five weekly injections of HA lasts between 5 to13 weeks (sometimes up to 1 year). Pain reduction is less durable after CS injections (2 to 3 weeks). Recent reports indicate that PRP could have a better performance than HA in younger patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Three to five weekly intra-articular injections of HA are recommendable in patients with knee OA before surgical treatment. CS injections have a very short effect. The efficacy and duration of PRP injections require further studies.
INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis of the knee affects about 10% of adults aged over 60 years, with risk increased in those with obesity, and joint damage or abnormalities. Progression of disease on x rays is commonplace, but x ray changes don't correlate well with clinical symptoms.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? What are the effects of surgical treatments for osteoarthritis of the knee? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS: We found 74 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, capsaicin, chondroitin, education to aid self-management, exercise and physiotherapy, glucosamine, insoles, intra-articular corticosteroids, intra-articular hyaluronan, joint bracing, knee replacement, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), opioid analgesics, osteotomy, simple analgesics, and taping.
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.
Since a clear definition of early osteoarthritis (EOA) has not been set up, some critical questions concern its diagnosis and treatment. The upcoming of newly available drugs and innovative therapeutic approaches, such as regenerative medicine, foster a better knowledge of the problem by medical community. We have carried out an updated systematic review on both PubMed and Embase databases, searching for all the studies and researches published in medical literature in the last 32 years, addressing the issue of EOA definition, diagnosis, and treatment, with a special focus on EOA at hip and knee. Our review found out 211 and 447 (published from 1973 to 2015) articles, when searching on PubMed and Embase database, respectively. Among the 132 papers that met our inclusion criteria, only 1 article explicitly addressed the issue of EOA definition, but it was only an expert opinion, while all the other researches were focused on diagnosis or management of EOA. EOA has been defined with regards to the younger age of osteoarthritis onset and radiological damage (grade I–II of the Kellgren and Lawrence classification). A more clear classification of EOA, based on characteristics and symptoms of affected patients, should be delivered by scientific community in order to better identify subjects who might benefit from new expensive drugs and innovative therapeutic approaches.
