Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic interventions for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Second-line treatments for advanced gastric cancer: Interpreting outcomes by network meta-analysis

AIM: To study the effectiveness of second-line treatments for advancer gastric cancer by application of Bayesian network meta-analysis.

METHODS: Our search covered the literature up to February 2015. The following 6 treatments were evaluated: (1) irinotecan (camptothecins); (2) paclitaxel (taxanes class); (3) docetaxel (taxanes); (4) everolimus (mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors); (5) ramucirumab (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 inhibitors); (6) ramucirumab + paclitaxel. Our methodology was based on standard models of Bayesian network meta-analysis. The reference treatment was best supportive care (BSC). The end-point was overall survival. Median survival was the outcome measure along with 95% credible intervals.

RESULTS: Our search identified a total of 7 randomized controlled trials. These trials included 2298 patients (in 15 treatment arms) in whom a total of 6 active treatments were evaluated as well as BSC. There were 21 head-to-head comparisons (6 direct, 15 indirect). The difference in survival between each of two active treatments (paclitaxel and ramucirumab + paclitaxel) vs BSC was statistically significant, while the other 4 showed no statistical difference. In the 6 head-to-head comparisons between active treatments, no significant survival difference was demonstrated.

CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that both paclitaxel monotherapy and ramucirumab + paclitaxel determine a significant prolongation in survival as compared with BSC.

Onset and durability of pain relief in knee osteoarthritis: Pooled results from two placebo trials of naproxen/esomeprazole combination and celecoxib

OBJECTIVE

To further characterize time-to-first pain relief, effect size, correlations between various outcome measures and durability of relief for single-tablet naproxen 500 mg/esomeprazole 20 mg (NAP/ESO) given twice daily and celecoxib (CEL) (200 mg) given once daily versus placebo in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Unpublished data from two double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trials in which patients aged ≥ 50 years with knee OA were randomized to NAP/ESO (n = 487), CEL (n = 486) or placebo (n = 246) were pooled (NCT00664560 and NCT00665431). Acute response endpoints: 1) Time to first significant pain response, 2) Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale and 3) American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire (APS-POQ) scores. Sustainability endpoints: 1) Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID3) and 2) WOMAC Stiffness, Pain and Total scores; and Patient Global Assessment (PGA) at 6 and 12 weeks. Effect sizes for all measures were calculated. Rescue pain medication use also was analyzed, as was the correlation of WOMAC to RAPID3.

RESULTS

NAP/ESO produced statistically significant decreases in WOMAC Pain on Days 2-7 and at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05); most APS-POQ pain assessments with NAP/ESO were significantly improved on Days 2-7 compared with placebo (all p < 0.05). A good or excellent response occurred in a median of 6 days. RAPID3 and WOMAC total/stiffness/function/PGA scores decreased significantly at Weeks 6 and 12 (all p < 0.05). Placebo-adjusted WOMAC pain effect sizes were 0.44, 0.34 and 0.25 at Day 7, week 6 and week 12, respectively. RAPID3 to WOMAC total and WOMAC pain to RAPID3: Pain scores were highly correlated at 6 and 12 weeks (correlation coefficients >0.80). No significant differences in overall responses were found between CEL and NAP/ESO.

CONCLUSION

Naproxen/esomeprazole produced a significant absolute moderate early pain response, which was maintained for 12 weeks. RAPID3 was found to be highly correlated with the typical OA measure (WOMAC) and might be a useful clinical tool for measuring NSAID response. NCT00664560: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00664560, NCT00665431: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00665431.

Safety and efficacy of paracetamol and NSAIDs in osteoarthritis: which drug to recommend?

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis and is a major cause of disability, especially in people ≥ 45 years old. Several international societies recommend the use of both acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) to alleviate OA pain. However, patients with OA often have comorbidities, notably cardiovascular risk factors, which may hamper the use of these analgesics.

AREAS COVERED

This paper reviews the safety of both acetaminophen and NSAIDs in OA. Recent data have pointed to a gastrointestinal and cardiovascular toxicity of acetaminophen, which has been neglected for a long time. In addition, several meta-analyses revealed that acetaminophen is a poor analgesic in OA. Traditional NSAIDs and cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors (coxibs) have similar analgesic effects but vary greatly in their potential gastrointestinal and cardiovascular toxicity.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the putative gastrointestinal and cardiovascular toxicity and poor analgesic properties of acetaminophen in OA, its use in patients with risk factors is questionable. Acetaminophen should be used at the lowest effective dosage and for the shortest time in all OA patients. Given the different safety profiles, the choice of NSAIDs, traditional or coxibs, should be based on individual patient risk factors. A good knowledge of the different strategies to decrease the gastrointestinal and cardiovascular toxic effects of NSAIDs is key to the management of OA.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Intra-articular Knee Injections Show No Superiority Versus Viscosupplementation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disease that will affect almost half the population at some point in their lives through pain and decreased functional capacity. New nonoperative options are being proposed to treat earlier stages of joint degeneration to provide symptomatic relief and delay surgical intervention.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the benefit provided by platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections to treat knee joint degeneration in comparison with hyaluronic acid (HA), the most common injective treatment currently adopted for this condition.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 443 patients were screened, and 192 of them were enrolled in the study according to the following inclusion criteria: (1) unilateral symptomatic knee with history of chronic pain (at least 4 months) or swelling and (2) imaging findings of degenerative changes (Kellgren-Lawrence score of 0-3 at radiographs or MRI evidence of degenerative chondropathy). Patients underwent 3 weekly intra-articular injections of either PRP or HA. Patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline and then at 2, 6, and 12 months of follow-up using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score (main outcome), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, EuroQol visual analog scale, and Tegner score. Range of motion, transpatellar circumference, patient satisfaction, and adverse events were also recorded.

RESULTS

Two patients reported severe pain and swelling after HA injections, while no major adverse events were noted in the PRP group. However, PRP presented overall significantly more postinjection swelling and pain. Both treatments proved to be effective in improving knee functional status and reducing symptoms: the IKDC score in the PRP group rose from 52.4 ± 14.1 to 66.2 ± 16.7 at 12 months (P < .0005), and in the HA group it rose from 49.6 ± 13.0 to 64.2 ± 18.0 at 12 months (P < .0005). A similar trend was observed for all the clinical scores used. The comparative analysis of the 2 treatments showed no significant intergroup difference at any follow-up evaluation in any of the clinical scores adopted.

CONCLUSION

PRP does not provide a superior clinical improvement with respect to HA, and therefore it should not be preferred to viscosupplementation as injective treatment of patients affected by knee cartilage degeneration and OA.

Comments on the discordant recommendations for the use of symptomatic slow-acting drugs in knee osteoarthritis

Despite the near concurrent publication by influential scientific organizations, there are important differences in interpretation of the evidence base and the conclusions derived from the recent Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines (concerning also hip and hand osteoarthritis) and the algorithm recommendations by the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO). This is particularly evident for the drug class of symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis. In this paper, we highlight these differences and try to understand where they derive from, proposing an evidence-based interpretation.

Consensus statement on viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid for the management of osteoarthritis

Viscosupplementation (VS) with hyaluronic acid is currently used by physicians to treat osteoarthritis. However, many aspects of this treatment remain questionable and subject of controversy. A group of 8 experts in this field, from European countries, met to debate on 24 statements previously listed by the group members. Based on an extensive research of the literature and expert opinion, a consensus position has been proposed for each statement. Agreement was achieved on some recommendations. In particular, the expert achieved unanimous agreement in favor of the following statements: VS is an effective treatment for mild to moderate knee OA; VS is not an alternative to surgery in advanced hip OA; VS is a well-tolerated treatment of knee and other joints OA; VS should not be used only in patients who have failed to respond adequately to analgesics and NSAIDs; VS is a "positive" indication but not a "lack of anything better" indication; the dosing regimen must be supported by evidence-based medicine; cross-linking is a proven means for prolonging IA residence time of HA; the best approach to inject accurately knee joint is the lateral mid-patellar one; when VS is performed under fluoroscopy, the amount of radiopaque contrast agent must be as low as possible to avoid viscosupplement dilution. These clear recommendations have been established to help practitioners in the use of viscosupplementation.