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.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
Revista»Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
OBJETIVO: Realizar una revisión sistemática de la superposición de los meta-análisis comparando el tratamiento de la osteoartritis de rodilla (OA) con viscosuplementación intraarticular (ácido hialurónico intraarticular [IA-HA]) frente a los fármacos anti-inflamatorios no esteroides orales (AINE), intra corticosteroides articulares (IA-corticosteroides), plasma rico en plaquetas intraarticular (IA-PRP), o placebo intraarticular (IA-placebo) para determinar qué metanálisis proporcionan la mejor evidencia actual e identificar las posibles causas de discordancia.
MÉTODOS: Literatura búsquedas se realizaron para meta-análisis examinando el uso de IA-HA frente a AINE, IA-corticoides, IA-PRP o IA-placebo. Los datos clínicos se obtuvieron, y la calidad metanálisis se evaluó. El algoritmo de Jadad se aplicó para determinar qué meta-análisis proporciona el más alto nivel de evidencia.
RESULTADOS: Catorce metanálisis cumplen los criterios de elegibilidad y se extendieron en la calidad del nivel I al IV pruebas. En los estudios que informaron el número de pacientes, hubo un total de 20.049 pacientes: 13.698 que reciben IA-HA, 355 recibieron AINE, 294 recibieron IA-corticosteroides y 5702 recibieron IA-placebo. Diez estudios examinaron los efectos de IA-HA frente IA-placebo; de estos, 5 encontraron que IA-HA mejoró el dolor y encontró que 4 IA-HA función mejorada. No se encontraron diferencias clínicamente relevantes en la eficacia de la IA-HA frente a los AINE sobre el dolor y la función. En cuanto a IA-HA frente IA-PRP, función de la rodilla mejorada IA-HA a los 2 y 6 meses después de la inyección, pero los efectos fueron menos robustos que los de IA-PRP. En cuanto a IA-HA frente IA-corticoides, los efectos positivos de IA-HA fueron mayores a las 5 a 13 semanas y persistieron durante un máximo de 26 semanas. Después de la aplicación del algoritmo de Jadad, se seleccionaron 2 de alta calidad meta-análisis concordantes y ambos mostraron que IA-HA proporcionado mejoras clínicamente relevantes en el dolor y la función en comparación con IA-placebo.
Conclusiones: Esta revisión sistemática de los meta-análisis que comparan IA-HA con otras modalidades de tratamiento no quirúrgico para la OA de rodilla superposición muestra que el nivel más alto de la evidencia actual sugiere que el IA-HA es una opción viable para la OA de rodilla. Sus resultados en el uso de las mejoras en el dolor y la función de la rodilla que puede persistir por hasta 26 semanas. IA-HA tiene un buen perfil de seguridad, y su uso debe ser considerado en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla temprano.
Nivel de evidencia: Nivel IV, revisión sistemática de Nivel I a IV estudios.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
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.
