Need for common internal controls when assessing the relative efficacy of pharmacologic agents using a meta-analytic approach: case study of cyclooxygenase 2-selective inhibitors for the treatment of osteoarthritis

Methotrexate to treat hand osteoarthritis with synovitis (METHODS): an Australian, multisite, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hand osteoarthritis is a disabling condition with few effective therapies. Hand osteoarthritis with synovitis is a common inflammatory phenotype associated with pain. We aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of methotrexate at 6 months in participants with hand osteoarthritis and synovitis.

METHODS

In this multisite, parallel-group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants (aged 40-75 years) with hand osteoarthritis (Kellgren and Lawrence grade ≥2 in at least one joint) and MRI-detected synovitis of grade 1 or more were recruited from the community in Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide, and Perth, Australia. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation, stratified by study site and self-reported sex, to receive methotrexate 20 mg or identical placebo orally once weekly for 6 months. The primary outcome was pain reduction (measured with a 100 mm visual analogue scale; VAS) in the study hand at 6 months assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12617000877381).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 22, 2017, and Nov 8, 2021, of 202 participants who were assessed for eligibility, 97 (48%) were randomly assigned to receive methotrexate (n=50) or placebo (n=47). 68 (70%) of 97 participants were female and 29 (30%) were male. 42 (84%) of 50 participants in the methotrexate group and 40 (85%) of 47 in the placebo group provided primary outcome data. The mean change in VAS pain at 6 months was -15·2 mm (SD 24·0) in the methotrexate group and -7·7 mm (25·3) in the placebo group, with a mean between-group difference of -9·9 (95% CI -19·3 to -0·6; p=0·037) and an effect size (standardised mean difference) of 0·45 (0·03 to 0·87). Adverse events occurred in 31 (62%) of 50 participants in the methotrexate group and 28 (60%) of 47 participants in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Treatment of hand osteoarthritis and synovitis with 20 mg methotrexate for 6 months had a moderate but potentially clinically meaningful effect on reducing pain, providing proof of concept that methotrexate might have a role in the management of hand osteoarthritis with an inflammatory phenotype.

FUNDING

National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

[Conservative treatment options for arthritis of the ankle : What is possible, what is effective?]

In this article the causes of arthritis in the region of the ankle are introduced and the conservative treatment options are described and discussed more extensively. The risks of treatment with nonopioid analgesics (NOPA) are presented in detail. The topical use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) should always be considered in the clinical routine. If contraindications for oral NSAIDs are present, intra-articular treatment is a meaningful option. The best evidence is currently available for viscosupplementation but the study situation for the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is still not sufficiently comprehensive and there are only a few case reports on the use of mesenchymal stem cells..

Safety of Oral Non-Selective Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Osteoarthritis: What Does the Literature Say?

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely recommended and prescribed to treat pain in osteoarthritis. While measured to have a moderate effect on pain in osteoarthritis, NSAIDs have been associated with wide-ranging adverse events affecting the gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal systems. Gastrointestinal toxicity is found with all NSAIDs, which may be of particular concern when treating older patients with osteoarthritis, and gastric adverse events may be reduced by taking a concomitant gastroprotective agent, although intestinal adverse events are not ameliorated. Cardiovascular toxicity is associated with all NSAIDs to some extent and the degree of risk appears to be pharmacotherapy specific. An increased risk of acute myocardial infarction and heart failure is observed with all NSAIDs, while an elevated risk of hemorrhagic stroke appears to be restricted to the use of diclofenac and meloxicam. All NSAIDs have the potential to induce acute kidney injury, and patients with osteoarthritis with co-morbid conditions including hypertension, heart failure, and diabetes mellitus are at increased risk. Osteoarthritis is associated with excess mortality, which may be explained by reduced levels of physical activity owing to lower limb pain, presence of comorbid conditions, and the adverse effects of anti-osteoarthritis medications especially NSAIDs. This narrative review of recent literature identifies data on the safety of non-selective NSAIDs to better understand the risk:benefit of using NSAIDs to manage pain in osteoarthritis.

The U.K. NICE 2014 Guidelines for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Lessons Learned in a Narrative Review Addressing Inadvertent Limitations and Bias

Several systematic reviews suggest that acupuncture is effective for knee osteoarthritis (OA), and furthermore a safe and cost-effective treatment for this condition. A recent clinical practice guideline (CPG) from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), in the United Kingdom, recommended against the use of acupuncture on the grounds that the effect size (ES) in comparison with sham acupuncture is too small. Safety data were not considered in the review, in addition the levels of evidence for acupuncture against other recommended therapies were not compared. Consequently, it is argued that this NICE guideline has limitations that lead to several potential biases in its evaluation of acupuncture, which were not addressed correctly: (1) NICE's prior scoping process limited its review. (2) NICE introduced the method of developing recommendations based on the consideration of which interventions make "minimal important differences" of an ES of 0.5 or greater, rather than the statistical significance of the effect of an intervention when compared with an appropriate comparison. (3) Evidence that sham acupuncture is not physiologically inert and has some level of beneficial effect, hence artificially reducing the magnitude of the ES in comparison with sham. (4) The low adverse effects profile of acupuncture. (5) Evidence from trials comparing acupuncture with usual or standard care was not considered, nor was cost-effectiveness data. (6) Lack of the usual CPG "head-to-head" comparisons between interventions. If the same criteria and methods that have been applied to acupuncture were applied to other NICE-recommended therapies for knee OA, including patient centeredness, patient education, self-management and weight loss, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs), and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor (COX-2 inhibitors), these too would no longer be recommended and opiates would become the first line of drug prescription. Given the problems with sham acupuncture, perhaps now is the time to embrace pragmatic studies and employ comparative effectiveness studies instead.

Placebo effect in osteoarthritis: Why not use it to our advantage?

Osteoarthritis is a major cause of pain and reduced quality of life in the elderly, as well as a major economic burden. Unfortunately, there is no currently effective therapeutic strategy to prevent the progression of Osteoarthritis, and its treatment poses a great challenge to the medical community. Most of the treatment modalities currently available for osteoarthritis have small to moderate effect sizes, according to main meta-analyses and treatment guidelines. On the other hand, literature has demonstrated that placebo is considerably effective. The present article discusses the history of placebo effect and its scientific evidence, comments on ethical issues and provides insights about how it may be used to our advantage when treating osteoarthritic patients.

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

BACKGROUND

The relative efficacy of available treatments of knee osteoarthritis (OA) must be determined for rational treatment algorithms to be formulated.

PURPOSE

To examine the efficacy of treatments of primary knee OA using a network meta-analysis design, which estimates relative effects of all treatments against each other.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through 15 August 2014, and unpublished data.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized trials of adults with knee OA comparing 2 or more of the following: acetaminophen, diclofenac, ibuprofen, naproxen, celecoxib, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA hyaluronic acid, oral placebo, and IA placebo.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two reviewers independently abstracted study data and assessed study quality. Standardized mean differences were calculated for pain, function, and stiffness at 3-month follow-up.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Network meta-analysis was performed using a Bayesian random-effects model; 137 studies comprising 33,243 participants were identified. For pain, all interventions significantly outperformed oral placebo, with effect sizes from 0.63 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.39 to 0.88) for the most efficacious treatment (hyaluronic acid) to 0.18 (CrI, 0.04 to 0.33) for the least efficacious treatment (acetaminophen). For function, all interventions except IA corticosteroids were significantly superior to oral placebo. For stiffness, most of the treatments did not significantly differ from one another.

LIMITATION

Lack of long-term data, inadequate reporting of safety data, possible publication bias, and few head-to-head comparisons.

CONCLUSION

This method allowed comparison of common treatments of knee OA according to their relative efficacy. Intra-articular treatments were superior to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, possibly because of the integrated IA placebo effect. Small but robust differences were observed between active treatments. All treatments except acetaminophen showed clinically significant improvement from baseline pain. This information, along with the safety profiles and relative costs of included treatments, will be helpful for individualized patient care decisions.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Role of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors in exacerbation of inflammatory bowel disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In the general population, selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors have been associated with fewer gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than NSAIDs, but whether they are associated with exacerbations in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to review published and unpublished findings to determine whether the use of COX-2 inhibitors increased the risk for IBD exacerbations relative to placebo in the treatment of IBD.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (1966-July 2007), EMBASE (1980-July 2007), the Cochrane Library (2007 Issue 4), US Food and Drug Administration records, and data on file at Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Pfizer US Pharmaceutical Group, and Merck & Co., Inc., using the search terms celecoxib, rofecoxib, valdecoxib, etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, and inflammatory bowel disease, was performed to identify randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials of 5 COX-2 inhibitors in patients with IBD. The publications were fully reviewed for quality. Data on trial design, patient characteristics, intervention drugs, dosages, and outcomes were collected using a predetermined data-extraction form. A meta-analysis was performed based on the publications that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Of 588 studies identified in the electronic search, 574 were excluded after screening the titles and abstracts. Fourteen related to the use of COX-2 inhibitors in patients with IBD were reviewed. Two randomized, controlled trials comparing COX-2 inhibitors with placebo were identified. In the first trial, 82 patients were randomized to receive etoricoxib (60-120 mg/d) and 77 to receive placebo. The exacerbation rates were 10.5% (8/76) in the active-treatment group and 11.4% (8/70) in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.37-2.32). In the second trial, 112 patients were treated with celecoxib (200 mg BID) and 110 received placebo. The exacerbation rates were 3.7% (4/107) in the celecoxib group and 2.7% (3/110) in the placebo group (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.17-3.18). Of these patients, 5 were lost to follow-up because of AEs. In the meta-analysis comparing COX-2 inhibitors and placebo, the RR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.39-1.88). No statistically significant differences in IBD relapse rates were found between COX-2 inhibitors and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this meta-analysis suggest that insufficient data were available to determine the impact of COX-2 inhibitors on IBD exacerbations. The relatively smaller risk for AEs makes the short-term use of COX-2 inhibitors potentially attractive, but the long-term benefits remain unclear. Further studies with sound methodology and large sample sizes are needed to evaluate the tolerability of COX-2 inhibitors in the treatment of IBD.

Future directions for the management of pain in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the predominant form of arthritis worldwide, resulting in a high degree of functional impairment and reduced quality of life owing to chronic pain. To date, there are no treatments that are known to modify disease progression of OA in the long term. Current treatments are largely based on the modulation of pain, including NSAIDs, opiates and, more recently, centrally acting pharmacotherapies to avert pain. This review will focus on the rationale for new avenues in pain modulation, including inhibition with anti-NGF antibodies and centrally acting analgesics. The authors also consider the potential for structure modification in cartilage/bone using growth factors and stem cell therapies. The possible mismatch between structural change and pain perception will also be discussed, introducing recent techniques that may assist in improved patient phenotyping of pain subsets in OA. Such developments could help further stratify subgroups and treatments for people with OA in future.

OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals worldwide.

METHOD

Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March 2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores.

RESULTS

Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise (land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training, and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin, cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein, glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal), rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular electrical stimulation).

CONCLUSION

These evidence-based consensus recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.

Adjuvant therapy of ulcerative colitis with Bupi Yichang Pill: A meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bupi Yichang Pill in the therapy of ulcerative colitis (UC).

METHODS: Keyword and Mesh searches of Medline, EMbase, the Cochrane Database, Science Citation Index, Full-text Database of Chinese Journals, the Database of Chinese Science Journals and Wanfang Database from the inception of each database to May 2012 were used to identify all available randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers assessed studies for inclusion and exclusion based on methodological quality criteria. Summary estimates of treatment effects and safety were produced with Review Manager 4.2.10, using relative risk (RR).

RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials comparing Bupi Yichang Pill with 5-aminosalicylic acid preparation qualified for the meta-analysis according to inclusion criteria. Total efficacy rate of Bupi Yichang Pill combined with aminosalicylic acid preparation was superior to aminosalicylic acid preparation alone (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.25; P < 0.05). Compared with the control group, patients adjunctively treated with Bupi Yichang Pill had lower recurrence rate or adverse event rate (RR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.14, 0.48; P < 0.05 or RR = 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.58; P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: Combined therapy with aminosalicylic acid preparation and Bupi Yichang Pill is superior to aminosalicylic acid preparation alone in the treatment of UC. Bupi Yichang Pill provides a new therapeutic option for patients with UC.

Efficacy of etoricoxib, celecoxib, lumiracoxib, non-selective NSAIDs, and acetaminophen in osteoarthritis: a mixed treatment comparison

Objective:

To compare the efficacy of etoricoxib, lumiracoxib, celecoxib, non-selective (ns) NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA)

Methods:

Randomized placebo controlled trials investigating the effects of acetaminophen 4000mg, diclofenac 150mg, naproxen 1000mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, celecoxib 100-400mg, lumiracoxib 100-400mg, and etoricoxib 30-60mg with treatment duration of at least two weeks were identified with a systematic literature search. The endpoints of interest were pain, physical function and patient global assessment of disease status (PGADS). Pain and physical function reported on different scales (VAS or LIKERT) were translated into effect sizes (ES). An ES 0.2 - 0.5 was defined as a “small” treatment effect, whereas ES of 0.5 – 0.8 and > 0.8 were defined as “moderate” and “large”, respectively. A negative effect indicated superior effects of the treatment group compared to the control group. Results of all trials were analyzed simultaneously with a Bayesian mixed treatment comparison.

Results:

There is a >95% probability that etoricoxib (30 or 60mg) shows the greatest improvement in pain and physical function of all interventions compared. ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.66 (95% Credible Interval -0.83; -0.49), -0.32 (-0.50; -0.14), -0.25 (-0.53; 0.03), and -0.17 (-0.41; 0.08), respectively. Regarding physical functioning, ESs of etoricoxib 30mg relative to placebo, celecoxib 200mg, ibuprofen 2400mg, and diclofenac 150mg were -0.61 (-0.76; -0.46), -0.27 (-0.43; -0.10), -0.20 (-0.47; 0.07), and -0.09 (- 0.33; 0.14) respectively. The greatest improvements in PGADS were expected with either etoricoxib or diclofenac.

Conclusion:

The current study estimated the efficacy of acetaminophen, nsNSAIDs, and COX-2 selective NSAIDs in OA and found that etoricoxib 30 mg is likely to result in the greatest improvements in pain and physical function. Differences in PGADS between interventions were smaller.

Therapeutic trajectory following intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in knee osteoarthritis--meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the therapeutic trajectory of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) vs placebo for knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

Our data sources include Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane database; hand searched reviews, manuscripts, and, supplements; author contacts for unpublished data. Randomized trials that reported effects of IAHA vs placebo on knee OA were selected based on inclusion criteria. We computed effect sizes for change from baseline at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 weeks, using Bayesian random effects model. We performed multivariate analyses adjusting for correlation between time points. Meta-regressions were performed adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

The 54 eligible trials included 7545 participants. The conduct and quality of these trials varied in number of aspects. The effect size (ES) favored IAHA by week 4 (0.31; 95% CI 0.17, 0.45), reaching peak at week 8 (0.46; 0.28, 0.65), and then trending downwards, with a residual detectable effect at week 24 (0.21; 0.10, 0.31). This therapeutic trajectory was consistent among the subset of high quality trials and on multivariate analysis adjusting for correlation between time points.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis highlights a therapeutic trajectory of IAHA for knee OA pain over 6 months post-intervention. With this additional perspective, we are able to infer that IAHA is efficacious by 4 weeks, reaches its peak effectiveness at 8 weeks and exerts a residual detectable at 24 weeks. On the other hand, the peak effect size (0.46; 0.28, 0.65), is greater than published effects from other OA analgesics [acetaminophen (ES=0.13; 0.04, 0.22); NSAIDs (ES=0.29; 0.22, 0.35); COX-2 inhibitors (ES=0.44; 0.33, 0.55)]. An effect size above 0.20 is considered to be clinically relevant on an individual patient basis in chronic pain conditions such as knee OA. Thus, its properties could have utility for certain clinical situations, or in combination with other therapies.

Mixture of Arnebia euchroma and Matricaria chamomilla (Marhame-Mafasel) for pain relief of osteoarthritis of the knee - a two-treatment, two-period crossover trial

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis is the most prevalent chronic non-infective joint arthritis. Because of its chronic disease nature, local drugs are preferred due to lower complications. In the present study, the new herbal pomade Marhame-Mafasel for knee osteoarthritis was used in a double-blind crossover trial. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of Marhame-Mafasel pomade, which consists of several medical herbs including Arnebia euchroma and Matricaria chamomilla, in osteoarthritis of the knee.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was a placebo-controlled double-blind crossover trial. Forty-two patients with pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee (diagnosed by criteria of the European League against Rheumatism and physical examination) were drawn from patients attending the Clinic of Mostafa-Khomeini Hospital. In this study we assessed efficacy (analgesic effect and improved function) of herbal pomade Marhame-Mafasel, which was used locally in patients with primary osteoarthritis of the knee over three weeks. The instrument of the study was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) LK3.1 standard questionnaires.

RESULTS

The participants in each group were 21 patients; 30 (71.4%) were women and 12 (28.6%) of them were men. The participants were between 40 and 76 years old. Six patients had mild arthritis, 15 had moderate arthritis and 21 had severe arthritis. The positive analgesic effect of the herbal pomade Marhame-Mafasel in primary knee osteoarthritis was proven. The herbal joint pomade Marhame-Mafasel had a significantly greater mean change in score compared to the placebo group for osteoarthritis severity (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Herbal pomade Marhame-Mafasel in comparison to placebo has more effect on reduction of pain of primary knee osteoarthritis.

A walking model to assess the onset of analgesia in osteoarthritis knee pain

OBJECTIVE

To assess a walking model utilizing a set of standardized treadmill walks to measure acute analgesic response in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple dose, three-period crossover study. Patients > or =45 years of age (N=22) with symptomatic knee OA were randomized to naproxen 500 mg bid, tramadol/acetaminophen 37.5 mg/325 mg in forced titration, or placebo in each of three periods. Patients performed multiple 20-minute treadmill walks on Day 1 and Day 3 at a consistent self-selected pace predetermined at screening. Pain intensity (PI) during the walks was assessed on an 11-point numerical rating scale at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, and 20 min. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted average (TWA) change from baseline PI on Day 3 for the two self-paced walks for the active treatments vs placebo. Time to moderate pain (TTMP) was a key secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, the TWA change from baseline PI on Day 3 was significantly better with tramadol/acetaminophen (P=0.043) but not with naproxen (P=0.089). TWA change from baseline on Day 1 was also significantly better with both tramadol/acetaminophen (P=0.001) and naproxen (P=0.048) compared with placebo. TTMP was significantly better for tramadol/acetaminophen and naproxen than placebo (P<0.001 to P=0.015) for walks on Day 1 after a single dose and on Day 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel OA pain model was able to discriminate both tramadol/acetaminophen and naproxen from placebo after single and multiple doses. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00772967.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: part III: Changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009

OBJECTIVE

To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence.

RESULTS

Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36] in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo.

CONCLUSION

Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.

COX-2 selective inhibitors in the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors (coxibs) in osteoarthritis (OA) and their gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, renovascular, and hepatic side effects compared with traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen.

METHODS

Bibliographic database searches for randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and literature reviews.

RESULTS

Coxibs are comparable to traditional NSAIDs, providing moderate benefit for OA patients in pain and function versus placebo. NSAIDs, including coxibs, are superior to acetaminophen for OA, particularly in patients with moderate to severe pain. Coxibs decrease gastroduodenal ulcers (74% relative risk reduction) and ulcer complications (61% reduction) versus traditional NSAIDs. Meta-analysis of randomized trials indicates that coxibs increase the risk of myocardial infarctions approximately twofold versus placebo and versus naproxen, but do not increase the risk versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. NSAIDs, including coxibs, commonly cause fluid retention and increase blood pressure and uncommonly induce congestive heart failure or significant renal dysfunction; risk factors include advanced age, hypertension, and heart or kidney disease. NSAIDs are a rare cause of clinical hepatotoxicity (<1 liver-related death per 100,000 NSAID users in clinical studies). Increased rates of aminotransferase elevations occur with rofecoxib (2%) and high-dose lumiracoxib (3%), and postmarketing cases of clinical liver injury with lumiracoxib have been reported recently.

CONCLUSIONS

Coxibs are as effective as traditional NSAIDs and superior to acetaminophen for the treatment of OA. Coxibs cause fewer gastrointestinal complications than traditional NSAIDs. Coxibs increase cardiovascular risk versus placebo and naproxen-but probably not versus nonnaproxen NSAIDs. Blood pressure commonly increases after initiation of selective or nonselective NSAIDs, especially in hypertensive patients.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence

PURPOSE

As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies.

METHODS

Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0-100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated.

RESULTS

Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively (P=0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI -0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI -0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI -0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR=5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR=2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.

Cardiovascular risk with cyclooxygenase inhibitors: general problem with substance specific differences?

Randomised clinical trials and observational studies have shown an increased risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension and heart failure during treatment with cyclooxygenase inhibitors. Adverse cardiovascular effects occurred mainly, but not exclusively, in patients with concomitant risk factors. Cyclooxygenase inhibitors cause complex changes in renal, vascular and cardiac prostanoid profiles thereby increasing vascular resistance and fluid retention. The incidence of cardiovascular adverse events tends to increase with the daily dose and total exposure time. A comparison of individual selective and unselective cyclooxygenase inhibitors suggests substance-specific differences, which may depend on differences in pharmacokinetic parameters or inhibitory potency and may be contributed by prostaglandin-independent effects. Diagnostic markers such as N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) or high-sensitive C-reactive protein might help in the early identification of patients at risk, thus avoiding the occurrence of serious cardiovascular toxicity.