Effects of Vitamin D Supplementation on Disabling Foot Pain in Patients With Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis

Randomized Controlled Trials Studying Nonoperative Treatments of Osteoarthritis Often Use Misleading and Uninformative Control Groups: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because there are no known treatments that alter the natural course of the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis, nonoperative treatment needs to be compared with known effective treatments that seek to mitigate symptoms or with similarly invasive inert (placebo) treatments to determine effectiveness. Comparing a treatment to an uninformative control group may inappropriately legitimize and support the use of potentially ineffective treatments. We therefore investigated the prevalence of inappropriate control groups in musculoskeletal research and asked whether these are associated with reporting a positive treatment effect.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We systematically reviewed randomized trials of nonoperative treatments of osteoarthritis and asked: (1) What proportion of randomized trials use uninformative control groups (defined as a treatment less invasive than the tested treatment, or a treatment that might possibly not outperform placebo but is not acknowledged as such)? (2) Is the use of uninformative control groups independently associated with reporting a positive treatment effect (defined as p < 0.05 in favor of the intervention, or as making a recommendation favoring the intervention over the control treatment)?

METHODS

In a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to September 2023 for randomized controlled trials published between 2020 to 2022 that compared one or more nonoperative treatments for the symptoms of osteoarthritis. We excluded studies that contained a surgical treatment group. We identified 103 trials that met eligibility criteria, with a total of 15,491 patients. The risk of bias was high in 60% (n = 62) of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2. Although the high risk of bias in the included studies is concerning, it does not invalidate our design; instead, it highlights that some studies may use flawed methods to recommend treatments with unproven effectiveness beyond nonspecific effects because the kinds of bias observed would tend to increase the apparent benefit of the treatment(s) being evaluated. We used logistic regression to test the association of uninformative control groups with a positive treatment effect, accounting for potential confounders such as conflict of interest and study bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias score.

RESULTS

The use of uninformative control groups (treatments less invasive than the tested treatment, or treatments that might not outperform placebo but are not acknowledged as such) was found in 46% (47 of 103) of included studies. After accounting for potential confounding, there was no association between reporting positive treatment effects and the use of an uninformative control group. Studies with a low risk of bias had a lower likelihood of reporting a positive treatment effect (OR 0.2 [95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.9]; p = 0.04, model pseudo R2 = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

The finding that recent studies that mimic high-level evidence often use uninformative control groups that do not adequately account for nonspecific effects (perceived treatment benefits unrelated to a treatment's direct physiological effects) points to a high risk of legitimizing ineffective treatments. This raises the ethical imperative for patients, clinicians, journal peer reviewers, and journal editors to hold researchers to the standard of an adequate, informative control group. Awareness and risk of bias checklists might help patients and clinicians forgo new treatments based on seemingly high-level evidence that may carry only iatrogenic, financial, and psychological harm (false hope, in particular).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Current Evidence on and Clinical Implications of Vitamin D Levels in Pain and Functional Management of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is a common chronic disease that affects quality of life and increases public health costs. Knee osteoarthritis is a frequent form, marked by joint degeneration, pain, stiffness, and functional restrictions. Factors such as age, genetics, joint injuries, obesity, and vitamin D deficiency can affect knee osteoarthritis progression. While the exact link between vitamin D and osteoarthritis is still being studied, recent research indicates that low vitamin D levels might influence the articular cartilage's structure and function, potentially accelerating osteoarthritis. This review aims to analyze the last decade of research on vitamin D's role in osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Relevant studies from the last ten years were included to evaluate the association between vitamin D levels and knee osteoarthritis. The inclusion criteria were studies examining the role of vitamin D in cartilage health and osteoarthritis progression and the potential clinical implications for disease management.

RESULTS

This review identified a variety of studies exploring the connection between vitamin D and osteoarthritis, with mixed findings.

CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between vitamin D and knee osteoarthritis remains inconclusive, highlighting the need for further research. An updated evaluation of the literature is crucial for osteoarthritis management strategies and to potentially include vitamin D supplementation in therapeutic protocols.

Prospects of Disease-Modifying Osteoarthritis Drugs

Osteoarthritis (OA) causes a massive disease burden with a global prevalence of nearly 23% in 2020 and an unmet need for adequate treatment, given a lack of disease-modifying drugs (DMOADs). The author reviews the prospects of active DMOAD candidates in the phase 2/3 clinical trials of drug development pipeline based on key OA pathogenetic mechanisms directed to inflammation-driven, bone-driven, and cartilage-driven endotypes. The challenges and possible research opportunities are stated in terms of the formulation of a research question known as the PICO approach: (1) population, (2) interventions, (3) comparison or placebo, and (4) outcomes.

Latest insights in disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs development

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent and severely debilitating disease with an unmet medical need. In order to alleviate OA symptoms or prevent structural progression of OA, new drugs, particularly disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs), are required. Several drugs have been reported to attenuate cartilage loss or reduce subchondral bone lesions in OA and thus potentially be DMOADs. Most biologics (including interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors), sprifermin, and bisphosphonates failed to yield satisfactory results when treating OA. OA clinical heterogeneity is one of the primary reasons for the failure of these clinical trials, which can require different therapeutic approaches based on different phenotypes. This review describes the latest insights into the development of DMOADs. We summarize in this review the efficacy and safety profiles of various DMOADs targeting cartilage, synovitis, and subchondral bone endotypes in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. To conclude, we summarize the reasons for clinical trial failures in OA and suggest possible solutions.

Researchers in rheumatology should avoid categorization of continuous predictor variables

BACKGROUND

Rheumatology researchers often categorize continuous predictor variables. We aimed to show how this practice may alter results from observational studies in rheumatology.

METHODS

We conducted and compared the results of two analyses of the association between our predictor variable (percentage change in body mass index [BMI] from baseline to four years) and two outcome variable domains of structure and pain in knee and hip osteoarthritis. These two outcome variable domains covered 26 different outcomes for knee and hip combined. In the first analysis (categorical analysis), percentage change in BMI was categorized as ≥ 5% decrease in BMI, < 5% change in BMI, and ≥ 5% increase in BMI, while in the second analysis (continuous analysis), it was left as a continuous variable. In both analyses (categorical and continuous), we used generalized estimating equations with a logistic link function to investigate the association between the percentage change in BMI and the outcomes.

RESULTS

For eight of the 26 investigated outcomes (31%), the results from the categorical analyses were different from the results from the continuous analyses. These differences were of three types: 1) for six of these eight outcomes, while the continuous analyses revealed associations in both directions (i.e., a decrease in BMI had one effect, while an increase in BMI had the opposite effect), the categorical analyses showed associations only in one direction of BMI change, not both; 2) for another one of these eight outcomes, the categorical analyses suggested an association with change in BMI, while this association was not shown in the continuous analyses (this is potentially a false positive association); 3) for the last of the eight outcomes, the continuous analyses suggested an association of change in BMI, while this association was not shown in the categorical analyses (this is potentially a false negative association).

CONCLUSIONS

Categorization of continuous predictor variables alters the results of analyses and could lead to different conclusions; therefore, researchers in rheumatology should avoid it.

Epidemiology of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current state of the evidence regarding osteoarthritis (OA) prevalence, incidence and risk factors at the person-level and joint-level.

DESIGN

This was a narrative review that took a comprehensive approach regarding inclusion of potential risk factors. The review complements prior reviews of OA epidemiology, with a focus on new research and emerging topics since 2017, as well as seminal studies.

RESULTS

Studies continue to illustrate the high prevalence of OA worldwide, with a greater burden among older individuals, women, some racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with lower socioeconomic status. Modifiable risk factors for OA with the strongest evidence are obesity and joint injury. Topics of high interest or emerging evidence for a potential association with OA risk or progression include specific vitamins and diets, high blood pressure, genetic factors, metformin use, bone mineral density, abnormal joint shape and malalignment, and lower muscle strength/quality. Studies also continue to highlight the heterogenous nature of OA, with strong interest in understanding and defining OA phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

OA is an increasingly prevalent condition with worldwide impacts on many health outcomes. The strong evidence for obesity and joint injury as OA risk factors calls for heightened efforts to mitigate these risks at clinical and public health levels. There is also a need for continued research regarding how potential person- and joint-level risk factors may interact to influence the development and progression of OA.

Osteoarthritis complications and the recent therapeutic approaches

The accelerated prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) disease worldwide and the lack of convenient management led to the frequent search for unprecedented and specific treatment approaches. OA patients usually suffer from many annoying complications that negatively influence their quality of life, especially in the elderly. Articular erosions may lead eventually to the loss of joint function as a whole which occurs over time according to the risk factors presented in each case and the grade of the disease. Conventional therapies are advancing, showing most appropriate results but still greatly associated with many adverse effects and have restricted curative actions as well. Hence, novel management tools are usually required. In this review, we summarized the recent approaches in OA treatment and the role of natural products, dietary supplements and nanogold application in OA treatment to provide new research tracks for more therapeutic opportunities to those who are in care in this field.

New Trends in Pharmacological Treatments for Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the leading cause of function loss and disability among the elderly, with significant burden on the individual and society. It is a severe disease for its high disability rates, morbidity, costs, and increased mortality. Multifactorial etiologies contribute to the occurrence and development of OA. The heterogeneous condition poses a challenge for the development of effective treatment for OA; however, emerging treatments are promising to bring benefits for OA management in the future. This narrative review will discuss recent developments of agents for the treatment of OA, including potential disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) and novel therapeutics for pain relief. This review will focus more on drugs that have been in clinical trials, as well as attractive drugs with potential applications in preclinical research. In the past few years, it has been realized that a complex interaction of multifactorial mechanisms is involved in the pathophysiology of OA. The authors believe there is no miracle therapeutic strategy fitting for all patients. OA phenotyping would be helpful for therapy selection. A variety of potential therapeutics targeting inflammation mechanisms, cellular senescence, cartilage metabolism, subchondral bone remodeling, and the peripheral nociceptive pathways are expected to reshape the landscape of OA treatment over the next few years. Precise randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are expected to identify the safety and efficacy of novel therapies targeting specific mechanisms in OA patients with specific phenotypes.