Eficacia y seguridad de la glucosamina, la diacereína y AINEs en la artrosis de rodilla: una revisión sistemática y metanálisis en red

Categoría Revisión sistemática
RevistaEuropean journal of medical research
Año 2015
Cargando información sobre las referencias

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.
Epistemonikos ID: 8b776ef981e55b30eaba2db672f737d5c1bdb37e
First added on: Apr 20, 2015