La artrosis es la enfermedad articular crónica que presenta mayor prevalencia, en la cual el dolor es uno de los principales síntomas y el mayor determinante de la pérdida de funcionalidad. Se han planteado múltiples opciones terapéuticas, entre ellas el condroitín sulfato, pero su real utilidad aún no ha sido claramente demostrada. Para aclarar esta interrogante utilizamos la base de datos Epistemonikos, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información. Identificamos 13 revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyen 50 estudios aleatorizados que responden la pregunta de este resumen. Extrajimos la información relevante, realizamos un metanálisis y preparamos una tabla de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. Concluimos que no está claro si el uso de condroitín sulfato produce una mejoría en el dolor o la funcionalidad en la artrosis porque la certeza de la evidencia es muy baja.

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.

Introducción La artrosis de rodilla es un problema de salud relevante dada su alta prevalencia y discapacidad asociada. Dentro de las alternativas de manejo no farmacológico se ha planteado el uso de bastones, sin embargo no existe consenso en la literatura respecto a su indicación. Métodos Para responder esta pregunta utilizamos Epistemonikos, la mayor base de datos de revisiones sistemáticas en salud, la cual es mantenida mediante búsquedas en múltiples fuentes de información, incluyendo MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, entre otras. Extrajimos los datos desde las revisiones identificadas, reanalizamos los datos de los estudios primarios, realizamos un metanálisis, preparamos tablas de resumen de los resultados utilizando el método GRADE. Resultados y conclusiones Identificamos tres revisiones sistemáticas que en conjunto incluyeron cuatro estudios primarios, de los cuales, uno es ensayo aleatorizado. Concluimos que el uso de bastón contralateral en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla probablemente disminuye el dolor. Además, podría aumentar levemente la funcionalidad, pero la certeza de la evidencia es baja.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic, highly prevalent and disabling disease that is expected to increase in prevalence secondary to longer life expectancy and a disproportionately aging population. Treatment of OA is only marginally effective and has been focused primarily on symptom control using weight loss, physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acetaminophen, intra-articular steroids or viscosupplementation, topical NSAIDs and analgesics, diacerein (an oral interleukin-1β inhibitor) and finally joint replacement surgery. The use of nutraceuticals in the treatment of OA is common, and scientific studies examining the effects of nutraceuticals on the pathogenesis and treatment of OA are increasing. This review examines the efficacy and safety of select nutraceuticals for the treatment of OA. The reviewed nutraceuticals include glucosamine, chondroitin, collagen hydrolysates (CHs) and avocado-soybean unsaponifiables (ASUs). There have been several clinical trials examining the efficacy of these products and the results demonstrate significant heterogeneity. Significant improvements in pain, function and structural outcomes have been shown for some of the treatment arms or subgroups of patients, but the effects are not consistent across the studies. Glucosamine, chondroitin and the two in combination have been the most extensively studied. Significant improvement in pain and functional indices and a decrease in the loss of joint space width were demonstrated in some but not all studies. CHs showed significant improvement in pain and functional indices for several subgroups of patients, but these findings were not pervasive amongst the treatment arms. ASU has demonstrated positive results with respect to decreased NSAID use in several studies and functional and pain end points in most of the reviewed studies; however, in the two studies examining structural end points, the results were mixed. The safety of these nutraceuticals has been demonstrated across all of the reviewed trials, and there were no significant issues with tolerance. Given the good safety profile of nutraceuticals, the marginal efficacy of conventional treatments, the high prevalence and rate of disability from OA and the possible benefit of nutraceuticals to patients with OA, use of nutraceuticals in select patients is appropriate. An overall recommendation to use nutraceuticals in the treatment of all patients with OA is not strongly supported by the available data. Future studies should focus on standardization of symptomatic and structural outcome measures, be of longer duration and pay careful attention to the content of the investigational product.

Intra-articular steroid therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee has been reassessed by two placebo-controlled trials of 20 mg of triamcinalone hexacetonide in 48 joints. Steroid injections caused a significantly greater reduction in pain and tenderness than placebo, and were preferred by patients. However, the benefits were small and transient. Maximum pain reduction occurred one week after injection, and was accompanied by a fall in the thermographic index suggesting an anti-inflammatory mode of action. Synovial fluid was unafffected by injections, and there was no correlation between synovial fluid cell counts or the radiological grading, and the degree of pain reduction.

RECORD STATUS:

None

CITATION:

Luhmann D, Hauschild B, Raspe H. Hip replacement with osteoarthritis. Hannover Medical School, Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (MHH). Volume 18. 2000

RECORD STATUS:

None

CITATION:

Luehmann D, Hauschild B, Raspe H. Hip replacement with osteoarthritis. German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA@ DIMDI). 2000

BACKGROUND:

Osteoarthritis is a chronic disease characterized by joint pain, tenderness, and limitation of movement. At present, no cure is available. Thus only treatment of the person's symptoms and treatment to prevent further development of the disease are possible. Clinical trials indicate that aquatic exercise may have advantages for people with osteoarthritis. This is an update of a published Cochrane review.

OBJECTIVES:

To evaluate the effects of aquatic exercise for people with knee or hip osteoarthritis, or both, compared to no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS:

We searched the following databases up to 28 April 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2014), MEDLINE (from 1949), EMBASE (from 1980), CINAHL (from 1982), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), and Web of Science (from 1945). There was no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomized controlled clinical trials of aquatic exercise compared to a control group (e.g. usual care, education, social attention, telephone call, waiting list for surgery) of participants with knee or hip osteoarthritis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the included trials. We analysed the pooled results using standardized mean difference (SMD) values.

MAIN RESULTS:

Nine new trials met the inclusion criteria and we excluded two earlier included trials. Thus the number of participants increased from 800 to 1190 and the number of included trials increased from six to 13. Most participants were female (75%), with an average age of 68 years and a body mass index (BMI) of 29.4. Osteoarthritis duration was 6.7 years, with a great variation of the included participants. The mean aquatic exercise duration was 12 weeks. We found 12 trials at low to unclear risk of bias for all domains except blinding of participants and personnel. They showed that aquatic exercise caused a small short term improvement compared to control in pain (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; 12 trials, 1076 participants) and disability (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.17; 12 trials, 1059 participants). Ten trials showed a small effect on quality of life (QoL) (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.01; 10 trials, 971 participants). These effects on pain and disability correspond to a five point lower (95% CI three to eight points lower) score on mean pain and mean disability compared to the control group (scale 0 to 100), and a seven point higher (95% CI 0 to 13 points higher) score on mean QoL compared with control group (scale 0 to 100). No included trials performed a radiographic evaluation. No serious adverse events were reported in the included trials with relation to aquatic exercise.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

There is moderate quality evidence that aquatic exercise may have small, short-term, and clinically relevant effects on patient-reported pain, disability, and QoL in people with knee and hip OA. The conclusions of this review update does not change those of the previous published version of this Cochrane review.

BACKGROUND:

Paracetamol is a recommended symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), but in clinical trials sample sizes have been relatively small and variable daily doses of paracetamol have been used.

OBJECTIVES:

To determine the therapeutic efficacy of paracetamol in OA of the knee and identify predictive factors of clinical response to treatment.

METHODS:

A double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled trial of analgesic efficacy and safety of paracetamol versus placebo including 779 patients with OA of the knee. Patients were randomly assigned to receive paracetamol 4 g/day (n = 405) or placebo (n = 374) for 6 weeks. Symptomatic OA of the knee was required at inclusion with global pain intensity of the knee during physical activities for the past 24 hours of >or=30 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. The primary end point was a 30% decrease of global pain intensity of the knee. Intention to treat analyses were performed.

RESULTS:

The percentage of responders did not differ significantly between groups: 52.6% and 51.9% in paracetamol and placebo groups, respectively (p = 0.840). In a subgroup of patients with chronic mechanical knee pain without signs of inflammation (n = 123), the mean change in pain intensity from baseline was 25.2 mm v 15.2 mm, in the paracetamol (n = 63) and placebo (n = 60) groups, respectively-mean difference 10.0 mm; 95% CI 1.0 to 19.0; p = 0.0294. No serious adverse events were attributable to treatment.

CONCLUSION:

A statistically significant symptomatic effect of oral paracetamol 4 g/day over placebo was not found, suggesting that paracetamol use in symptomatic OA of the knee should be further explored. The tolerability and safety of paracetamol, at the recommended maximum dose of 4 g/day, was confirmed over 6 weeks.

OBJECTIVE:

Investigators in trials of glucosamine report a range of estimates for efficacy, making conclusions difficult. We undertook this study to identify factors that explain heterogeneity in trials of glucosamine.

METHODS:

We searched for reports of trial results in Ovid Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and proceedings of scientific conferences. We selected reports of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of glucosamine for pain from osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. We extracted data regarding features of design, subjects, and markers of industry involvement, including industry funding, whether a drug was supplied by industry, industry participation, and industry-affiliated authorship. We examined which factors best accounted for differences in the effect sizes of studies grouped by these characteristics, and we examined changes in I(2), a measure of heterogeneity.

RESULTS:

Fifteen trials met our inclusion criteria. The summary effect size was 0.35 (95% confidence interval 0.14, 0.56). I(2) was 0.80. Except for allocation concealment, no feature of study design explained this substantial heterogeneity. Summary effect sizes ranged from 0.05 to 0.16 in trials without industry involvement, but the range was 0.47-0.55 in trials with industry involvement. The effect size was 0.06 for trials using glucosamine hydrochloride and 0.44 for trials using glucosamine sulfate. Trials using Rottapharm products had an effect size of 0.55, compared with 0.11 for the rest.

CONCLUSION:

Heterogeneity among trials of glucosamine is larger than would be expected by chance. Glucosamine hydrochloride is not effective. Among trials with industry involvement, effect sizes were consistently higher. Potential explanations include different glucosamine preparations, inadequate allocation concealment, and industry bias.