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.
La artrosis de rodilla es una enfermedad crónica, invalidante, de evolución progresiva e irreversible. Los corticoides intraarticulares han sido comúnmente utilizados con el fin de disminuir sus síntomas y retrasar la resolución quirúrgica. Sin embargo, hasta el día de hoy, existe debate sobre su eficacia y seguridad. Utilizando la base de datos Epistemonikos, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en 30 bases de datos, se identificaron 12 revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen 41 estudios que contestan la pregunta de interés, entre los cuales se cuentan 40 estudios aleatorizados. Realizamos un metanálisis y tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. Concluimos que los corticoides intraarticulares probablemente llevan a una leve disminución del dolor a corto plazo, hacen poca o ninguna diferencia a mediano plazo y podrían no tener ningún efecto a largo plazo.
ESTADO DE REGISTRO: Este es un registro bibliográfico de una evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias publicadas de un miembro del INAHTA. Ninguna evaluación de la calidad de esta evaluación se ha realizado para la base de datos de HTA. CITACIÓN: CADTH. Viscosuplementación para el tratamiento de la osteoartritis de la rodilla: efectividad clínica y directrices. Ottawa: Agencia Canadiense de Medicamentos y Tecnologías en Salud (CADTH). Respuesta Rápida - Resumen de Resúmenes. 2014
ANTECEDENTES: osteoartritis degenerativa de la rodilla (OA) afecta a 35% de las personas mayores de 65 años. Si el dolor persiste después del tratamiento no invasivo, algunos medicamentos intraarticulares pueden ser juzgados antes del tratamiento quirúrgico.
PREGUNTAS / FINES: El propósito de este artículo es revisar la literatura a partir de 2006 con el objetivo de responder a dos preguntas: (1) ¿Las inyecciones intraarticulares de corticosteroides (CS), ácido hialurónico (HA) y el plasma rico en plaquetas (PRP ) eficaz en la OA de rodilla dolorosa? y (2) ¿Cuál de estos fármacos es más eficaz?
MÉTODOS: Los motores de búsqueda fueron Medline y Cochrane Library. Las palabras clave utilizadas fueron: la rodilla, la osteoartritis, y las inyecciones intra-articulares. Se encontraron ocho cientos cuarenta y cuatro artículos, pero sólo 142 habían sido publicados después de 2006. De ellos, fueron seleccionados y revisados, ya que se han centrado estrictamente en el tema y las preguntas de este artículo sólo 14.
Resultados: La eficacia clínica de las inyecciones intraarticulares de AH y SC en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla, se ha demostrado. La reducción del dolor después de tres a cinco inyecciones semanales de HA dura entre 5 a 13 semanas (a veces hasta 1 año). La reducción del dolor es menos duradero después de las inyecciones de CS (2 a 3 semanas). Informes recientes indican que el PRP podría tener un mejor rendimiento que los HA en pacientes más jóvenes.
CONCLUSIONES: De tres a cinco inyecciones intraarticulares semanales de HA son recomendables en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla antes del tratamiento quirúrgico. Inyecciones CS tienen un efecto muy corto. La eficacia y la duración de las inyecciones de PRP requieren estudios adicionales.
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.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
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.
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.
