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.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy of the following interventions for improving clinical outcomes in adults with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee: cell-based therapies; glucosamine, chondroitin, or glucosamine plus chondroitin; strength training, agility, or aerobic exercise (land or water based); balneotherapy, mud bath therapy; electrical stimulation techniques (including transcutaneous electrical stimulation [TENS], neuromuscular electrical stimulation, and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy [PEMF]); whole body vibration; heat, infrared, or ultrasound; orthoses (knee braces, shoe inserts, or specially designed shoes); weight loss diets; and home-based therapy or self-management.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed®, Embase®, the Cochrane Collection, Web of Science, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDRO) from 2006 to September 2016, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the proceedings from the 2015 American College of Rheumatology annual meetings.
REVIEW METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials conducted in adults 18 years or over diagnosed with OA of the knee, comparing any of the interventions of interest with placebo (sham) or any other intervention of interest that reported a clinical outcome (including pain, function, and quality of life). We also included single-arm and prospective observational studies that analyzed the effects of weight loss in individuals with OA of the knee on a clinical outcome. Standard methods were used for data abstraction and analysis, assessment of study quality, and assessment of the quality of the evidence, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Methods Guide. Findings were stratified according to duration of interventions and outcomes: short term (4–12 weeks), medium term (12–26 weeks), and long term (>26 weeks).
RESULTS: Evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of many interventions, largely due to heterogeneous and poor-quality study design, which limited the number of studies that met inclusion criteria and could be pooled. Interventions that show beneficial effects on short-term outcomes of interest include TENS for pain (moderate strength of evidence [SoE]); strength and resistance training on Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) total scores; tai chi on pain and function; and agility training, home-based programs, and PEMF on pain (low SoE). Interventions that show beneficial effects on medium-term outcomes include weight loss for pain (moderate SoE) and function, intra-articular platelet-rich plasma on pain and quality of life, glucosamine plus chondroitin on pain and function, chondroitin sulfate alone on pain, general exercise programs on pain and function, tai chi on pain and function, whole-body vibration on function, and home-based programs on pain and function (low SoE). Interventions that show beneficial long-term effects include agility training and general exercise programs for pain and function, and manual therapy and weight loss for pain (low SoE). Moderate SoE supports a lack of long-term benefit of glucosamine-chondroitin on pain or function, and glucosamine or chondroitin sulfate alone on pain. No consistent serious adverse effects were reported for any intervention. Almost no studies conducted subgroup analysis to assess the participant characteristics associated with better outcomes, and few studies systematically compared interventions head to head. Additional limitations included lack of blinding and sham controls in studies of physical interventions and the potentially limited applicability of study results to patients seen in nonacademic health care settings.
CONCLUSIONS: A variety of interventions assessed for their efficacy in treating OA of the knee in this review demonstrate shorter term beneficial effects on pain and function. With the exception of weight loss, agility training, and general exercise programs, few have been tested for or show long-term benefits. Larger randomized controlled trials are needed, with more attention to appropriate comparison groups and longer duration, to assess newer therapies and to determine which types of interventions are most effective for which patients.
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.
This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of glucosamine, chondroitin, the two in combination, or celecoxib in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched through from inception to February 2015. A total of 54 studies covering 16427 patients were included. Glucosamine plus chondroitin, glucosamine alone, and celecoxib were all more effective than placebo in pain relief and function improvement. Specifically, celecoxib is most likely to be the best treatment option, followed by the combination group. All treatment options showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain, but only glucosamine plus chondroitin showed clinically significant improvement from baseline function. In terms of the structure-modifying effect, both glucosamine alone and chondroitin alone achieved a statistically significant reduction in joint space narrowing. Although no significant difference was observed among the five options with respect to the three major adverse effects (withdrawal due to adverse events, serious adverse events and the number of patients with adverse events), the additional classical meta-analysis showed that celecoxib exhibited a higher rate of gastrointestinal adverse effect comparing with the placebo group. The present study provided evidence for the symptomatic efficacy of glucosamine plus chondroitin in the treatment of knee OA.
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.
