Intra-articular hylastan versus steroid for knee osteoarthritis

Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, and Hyaluronic Acid Injections Outperform Corticosteroids in Pain and Function Scores at a Minimum of 6 Months as Intra-Articular Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of common intra-articular injections used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, including corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), with a minimum follow-up of 6-months.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in August 2022 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Level I to II randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 6 months that investigated the treatments of interest were included. Patient-reported outcome scores for pain and function at baseline and at latest follow-up were extracted, and the change in scores was converted to uniform 0 to 100 scales. Arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was created to compare the treatment arms in pain and function.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies comprising a total of 9,338 knees were included. The most studied intra-articular injection was HA (40.9%), followed by placebo (26.2%), PRP (21.5%), CS (8.8%), and then BMAC (2.5%). HA and PRP both led to a significant improvement in pain compared with placebo. HA, PRP, and BMAC all led to a significant improvement in function scores when compared with placebo. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) of the interventions revealed that PRP, BMAC, and HA were the treatments with the highest likelihood of improvement in both pain and function, with overall SUCRA scores of 91.54, 76.46, and 53.12, respectively. The overall SUCRA scores for CS and placebo were 15.18 and 13.70, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 6-month follow-up, PRP demonstrated significantly improved pain and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with placebo. Additionally, PRP exhibited the highest SUCRA values for these outcomes when compared with BMAC, HA, and CS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I to II studies.

The OA Trial Bank: Update of individual patient data meta-analysis of intra-articular glucocorticoids in persons with knee and hip osteoarthritis

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of intra--articular (IA) glucocorticoid for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients according to the baseline severity of pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. Furthermore, this study aims to assess if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with clinically important effectiveness of IA glucocorticoid. This is an update of an IA glucocorticoid IPD meta-analysis by the OA Trial Bank.

Method

Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparations in hip and knee OA, published to May 2018 were selected. IPD of patient and disease characteristics and outcome measures were acquired. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). Potential interaction effect of severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation at baseline were studied using a two-stage approach with general liner model followed by random effects model. Analysis of trend was conducted, assessing if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with the threshold for clinically important treatment effect of IA glucocorticoid compared to placebo.

Results

Four out of 16 eligible randomized clinical trials (n ​= ​641) were combined with the existing OA Trial Bank studies (n ​= ​620), yielding 1261 participants from eleven studies. Participants with severe baseline pain compared to those with less severe pain had greater pain reduction at mid-term (around 12 weeks) (mean reduction: -6.90 (95%CI -10.91; -2.90)), but not at short- and long-term. No interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo at all follow-up time-points. Analysis of trend demonstrated treatment response to IA glucocorticoid from baseline pain levels >50 (0-100 scale) and above.

Conclusion

This updated IPD meta-analysis demonstrated that participants with severe pain compared to those with less severe pain at baseline experienced significantly more pain relief with IA glucocorticoid compared with placebo at mid-term.

Joint interventions in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is among the most common diseases affecting both axial and appendicular joints and the lead cause of disability worldwide. OA incidence is rising due to extended life expectancy and the increasing obesity epidemic. Several joint interventions are available to manage pain and joint function in patients with OA, most of these treatments being widely applied using intra-articular injections. In this chapter, we will describe the different joint interventions available for the management of pain in OA focusing on intra-articular injections, including discussion on the evidence regarding the efficacy of these treatments, based on the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses available. We also discuss the importance of imaging in guiding these treatments, including the different imaging modalities available for intra-articular injection guidance, their advantages, and disadvantages. Finally, we briefly discuss safety data and the consensus regarding the most used intra-articular treatments to manage pain in OA.

Relative Efficacy of Intra-articular Injections in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In younger patients and those without severe degenerative changes, the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) injections as a nonoperative modality for treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA)-related pain while maintaining function has become a subject of increasing interest.

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the efficacy of different IA injections used for the treatment of knee OA, including hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (CS), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF), with a minimum 6-month patient follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. Mean or mean change from baseline and standard deviation for outcome scores regarding pain and function were recorded at the 6-month follow-up and converted to either a 0 to 100 visual analog scale score for pain or a 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score for function. A frequentist network meta-analysis model was developed to compare the effects of HA, CS, PRP, PRGF, and placebo on patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

All IA treatments except CS were found to result in a statistically significant improvement in outcomes when compared with placebo. PRP demonstrated a clinically meaningful difference in function-related improvement when compared with CS and placebo due to large effect sizes. Studies evaluating outcomes of PRGF reported significant improvement when compared with placebo due to large effect sizes, whereas a potential clinically significant difference was detected in the same comparison parameters in pain evaluation. With regard to improvements in pain, function, and both combined, PRP was found to possess the highest probability of efficacy, followed by PRGF, HA, CS, and placebo.

CONCLUSION

PRP yielded improved outcomes when compared with PRGF, HA, CS, and placebo for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA at a minimum 6-month follow-up. Further investigations evaluating different IA and other nonoperative treatment options for patients with knee OA are warranted to better understand the true clinical efficacy and long-term outcomes of nonsurgical OA management.

The Role of Polymeric Biomaterials in the Treatment of Articular Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a high-prevalence joint disease characterized by the degradation of cartilage, subchondral bone thickening, and synovitis. Due to the inability of cartilage to self-repair, regenerative medicine strategies have become highly relevant in the management of osteoarthritis. Despite the great advances in medical and pharmaceutical sciences, current therapies stay unfulfilled, due to the inability of cartilage to repair itself. Additionally, the multifactorial etiology of the disease, including endogenous genetic dysfunctions and exogenous factors in many cases, also limits the formation of new cartilage extracellular matrix or impairs the regular recruiting of chondroprogenitor cells. Hence, current strategies for osteoarthritis management involve not only analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs, and/or viscosupplementation but also polymeric biomaterials that are able to drive native cells to heal and repair the damaged cartilage. This review updates the most relevant research on osteoarthritis management that employs polymeric biomaterials capable of restoring the viscoelastic properties of cartilage, reducing the symptomatology, and favoring adequate cartilage regeneration properties.

Recent Developments in Hyaluronic Acid-Based Hydrogels for Cartilage Tissue Engineering Applications

Articular cartilage lesions resulting from injurious impact, recurring loading, joint malalignment, etc., are very common and encompass the risk of evolving to serious cartilage diseases such as osteoarthritis. To date, cartilage injuries are typically treated via operative procedures such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) and microfracture, which are characterized by low patient compliance. Accordingly, cartilage tissue engineering (CTE) has received a lot of interest. Cell-laden hydrogels are favorable candidates for cartilage repair since they resemble the native tissue environment and promote the formation of extracellular matrix. Various types of hydrogels have been developed so far for CTE applications based on both natural and synthetic biomaterials. Among these materials, hyaluronic acid (HA), a principal component of the cartilage tissue which can be easily modified and biofunctionalized, has been favored for the development of hydrogels since it interacts with cell surface receptors, supports the growth of chondrocytes and promotes the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells to chondrocytes. The present work reviews the various types of HA-based hydrogels (e.g., in situ forming hydrogels, cryogels, microgels and three-dimensional (3D)-bioprinted hydrogel constructs) that have been used for cartilage repair, specially focusing on the results of their preclinical and clinical assessment.

Efficacy and safety of multiple intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of multiple intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections for the treatment of OA.

METHODS

We conducted electronic searches of several databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Standard mean difference was calculated for efficacy, whereas hazard ratio (HR) was used for adverse effects. Results were combined using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included for efficacy assessment. The use of multiple IACS appeared to be better than comparator (standard mean difference for pain -0.47, 95% CI -0.62, 0.31). However, there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 92.6%) and subgroup analysis by comparator showed no separation of regular IACS from placebo, though timing of pain assessments was questionable. Fourteen RCTs and two observational studies were assessed for the safety of multiple IACS. Minor local adverse events were similar in both groups. One RCT found that regular IACS every 3 months for 2 years caused greater cartilage loss compared with saline injection (-0.21 vs 0.10 mm). One cohort study found that multiple IACS injections associated with worsening of joint space narrowing (HR 3.02, 95% CI 2.25, 4.05) and increased risk of joint replacement (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.81, 3.57).

CONCLUSION

Multiple IACS injections are no better than placebo for OA pain according to current evidence. The preliminary finding of a detrimental effect on structural OA progression warrants further investigation. Efficacy and safety of multiple IACS reflecting recommended best practice has yet to be assessed.

Efficacy of intra-articular corticosteroid injections in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a frequent degenerative disease representing an important health and economic burden. Symptomatic medical treatments available include intra-articular (IA) injections of corticosteroids (GC) but their efficacy and safety profile are debated.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature review (SLR) and a meta-analysis (MA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of IA GC injections for knee OA. The effect of the interventions on pain and function was extracted from the single studies and pooled. Standardized mean differences (SMD) are reported.

RESULTS

Of 520 studies screened, 23 were included in the SLR and 15 subsequently included in the MA. IA GC showed a trend towards a superior effect compared to control on both pain (SMD -0.61 (95% CI: -1.25, 0.03)) and function (SMD -1.02 (95% CI: -2.14, 0.10)) in short term follow-up (≤6 weeks), while long term follow-up (≥24 weeks) analysis showed a trend towards superiority of controls (IA HA, IA NSAID, physiotherapy) for pain (SMD 0.68 (95% CI: -0.11, 1.47)) and function (SMD 0.88 (95% CI: -0.36, 2.12). There were no differences between interventions in medium term (>6 weeks &<24 weeks).

CONCLUSION

In this work, IA GC injections reduced pain and improved function early after administration (≤6 weeks) compared to placebo; while this result was no longer statistically significant with other comparators (IA hyaluronic acid or physiotherapy). Other interventions seem to be more efficient in the long term (≥24 weeks) but this effect was largely driven by single studies with large effect sizes.

Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Combined With Hyaluronic Acid Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis Is Superior to Platelet-Rich Plasma or Hyaluronic Acid Alone in Inhibiting Inflammation and Improving Pain and Function

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness and explore the therapeutic mechanisms of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHODS

In total, 122 knees were randomly divided into HA (34 knees), PRP (40 knees), and PRP+HA (48 knees) groups. Platelet densities in whole blood and PRP were examined using Wright-Giemsa staining. Visual analogue scale, Lequesne, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Lysholm scores, and postoperative complications were evaluated. High-frequency color Doppler imaging was used to observe the synovium and cartilage. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to quantify interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, matrix metalloproteinase-3, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 levels in synovial fluid.

RESULTS

The platelet density in PRP was 5.13-times that in whole blood (P = .002). At 24 months, pain and function scores in the PRP+HA group were better than those in the HA-alone and PRP-alone groups (P_pain = .000; P_function = .000). At 6 and 12 months, synovial hyperplasia in the PRP and PRP+HA groups was improved (P < .05). After 6 and 12 months, the synovial peak systolic velocity, synovial end-diastolic velocity, systolic/diastolic ratio, and resistance index were improved in the PRP+HA group (P < .05). Complications were greatest in the PRP group (P = .008). After 6 and 12 months, interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, matrix metalloproteinase-3, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 in the PRP and PRP+HA groups decreased (P < .05), with more apparent inhibition in the PRP+HA group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PRP combined with HA is more effective than PRP or HA alone at inhibiting synovial inflammation and can effectively improve pain and function and reduce adverse reactions. Its mechanism involves changes in the synovium and cytokine content.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, Prospective cohort study.

Intra-Articular Injections of Hyaluronic Acid or Steroids Associated With Better Outcomes Than Platelet-Rich Plasma, Adipose Mesenchymal Stromal Cells, or Placebo in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical effects of hyaluronic acid (HA), steroids, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), or adipose mesenchymal stromal cell (MSC) injections in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials with OA of the knee that compared HA, steroids, PRP, adipose MSC, or their combination with placebo or in head-to-head combination were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and SCOPUS databases up to June 30, 2019. We performed a network meta-analysis of the relevant literature to determine whether there was benefit from HA, steroids, PRP, or adipose MSC treatment as compared with placebo.

RESULTS

A total of 43 trials covering 5554 patients were included. Steroids were ranked most likely to be effective for the management of pain or function, with adipose MSC and multiple PRP appearing least likely to be effective. Although no significant difference was observed among the 6 interventions, except for single PRP with respect to adverse effects, steroids and HA exhibited a lower rate of AEs compared with the placebo. In view of severe adverse effects, only single PRP was superior to placebo. Direct pairwise meta-analysis for pain relief showed that HA was superior to placebo or single PRP, but steroids had a significantly worse effect than single PRP. In addition, direct pairwise meta-analysis for adverse effects favored steroids in comparison to HA.

CONCLUSIONS

The ranking statistics like surface under the cumulative ranking curve values of our network meta-analysis support the use of steroids and HA for appropriate patients with knee OA. For pain relief and AEs, steroids are most likely the best treatment, followed by HA. Single PRP, multiple PRP, and adipose MSC interventions do not result in a relevant reduction of joint pain nor improvement of joint function compared with placebo. However, treatment effect differences were small and potentially not clinically meaningful, indicating that other factors, such as cost and patient preferences, may be more important in patients with knee OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

meta-analysis of non-homogenous randomized controlled trials, Level II.

Efficacy and Safety of Hylan G-F 20 Versus Intra-Articular Corticosteroids in People with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background:

Direct injection of corticosteroids into the joint is a standard treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the treatment is somewhat controversial with regard to the benefit of both single and repeated injections; evidence that they are beneficial comes from small studies that show only modest improvements. The aim of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term clinical efficacy and safety of hylan G-F 20 versus intra-articular corticosteroids (IACS) for the treatment of pain in knee OA using Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Methods:

Based on a pre-specified protocol, MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 2018 to identify randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the included studies. Hylan G-F 20 and IACS were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Efficacy was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, and at the final follow-up for safety outcomes. A pain hierarchy was used to select 1 pain outcome per study.

Results:

Forty-two trials were included for analysis. The network meta-analysis of pain showed that hylan G-F 20 may be equivalent to IACS in the short-term, but by 6 months the benefit relative to IACS was statistically significant, standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): –0.13 (–0.26, –0.01). There were no statistical differences in adverse events.

Conclusions:

Hylan G-F 20 may perform better in relieving pain at 6 months post-injection compared to IACS. Both agents were relatively well tolerated, with no clear differences in safety.

Lack of standardization among clinical trials of injection therapies for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review

Purpose: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a debilitating, expensive, and prevalent disease, and interest in the non-surgical management of knee OA has grown recently. Our objective was to systematically assess the level of heterogeneity among all clinical trials and published studies regarding injections for knee osteoarthritis, in terms of treatment of interest, outcomes evaluated, and time points of outcome assessment. Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were utilized to review all published studies and publically available clinical trials from 1 January 2013 to 3 May 2019evaluating intra-articular injections to treat knee OA. Their treatment group and specifics of methodology were scrutinized and compared. Results: 84 published studies and 114 clinical trials were included. Within the 84 published studies, the most common injection treatment studied was hyaluronic acid [N = 22; 26.2%]. In total, 29 different injection treatment groups were utilized. The most common time point for patient evaluation post-injection was 6 months (N = 33 studies; 50.0%), and ranged from 1 week (N = 9 studies; 13.6%) to 7 years (N = 1 study; 1.5%). The most common patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure assessed in the included studies was Western Ontario and McMaster's University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) [N = 44 studies; 66.7%]. For the 114 clinical trials identified, the most common injection treatment studied is platelet-rich plasma in isolation (N = 19; 16.7%). Forty-two different injection treatment types/groups are utilized. The most common PRO measure assessed was WOMAC (N = 77 trials; 67.5%). Overall there were 34 different patient-reported outcome measures used. Conclusions: Research efforts to find the most effective injection therapy for knee OA continue with a tremendous number of injection therapies still being evaluated. Substantial heterogeneity exists in these completed and ongoing trials in terms of patient demographics, OA grades, outcome scores and relatively short-term timing of assessments, with no clear standardization of testing protocol despite proposing to answer the same clinical question. We recommend that studies of this genre going forward be standardized in terms of outcome measures and longer-term follow-up time points, and should incorporate functional assessment evaluations and imaging studies.

Risk factors for pain and functional impairment in people with knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for pain and functional deterioration in people with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) to form the basis of a future 'stratification tool' for OA development or progression.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

An electronic search of the literature databases, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science (1990-February 2020), was conducted. Studies that identified risk factors for pain and functional deterioration to knee and hip OA were included. Where data and study heterogeneity permitted, meta-analyses presenting mean difference (MD) and ORs with corresponding 95% CIs were undertaken. Where this was not possible, a narrative analysis was undertaken. The Downs & Black tool assessed methodological quality of selected studies before data extraction. Pooled analysis outcomes were assessed and reported using the Grading of Reccomendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

RESULTS

82 studies (41 810 participants) were included. On meta-analysis: there was moderate quality evidence that knee OA pain was associated with factors including: Kellgren and Lawrence≥2 (MD: 2.04, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.81; p<0.01), increasing age (MD: 1.46, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.66; p=0.02) and whole-organ MRI scoring method (WORMS) knee effusion score ≥1 (OR: 1.35, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.83; p=0.05). On narrative analysis: knee OA pain was associated with factors including WORMS meniscal damage ≥1 (OR: 1.83). Predictors of joint pain in hip OA were large acetabular bone marrow lesions (BML; OR: 5.23), chronic widespread pain (OR: 5.02) and large hip BMLs (OR: 4.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study identified risk factors for clinical pain in OA by imaging measures that can assist in predicting and stratifying people with knee/hip OA. A 'stratification tool' combining verified risk factors that we have identified would allow selective stratification based on pain and structural outcomes in OA.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018117643.

Therapies for osteoarthritis today and tomorrow: Review

Osteoarthritis is a common human disease with well understood pathophysiology, signs and symptoms, prevalence, risk factors, pain, and suffering with great understanding of personal, economic and social effects around the world. There are no drugs or treatments considered "disease modifying", with symptomatic control aiming to stave off the final solution of total joint replacement. Regenerative medicine and use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) promised hope to change that but have so far fallen short. This review focuses on current knowledge and use of MSC in clinic, completed research, and future directions for development of this once so promising biological treatment. Powerful treatment for pain in form of monoclonal antibodies against Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) are getting close to FDA approval in the US. Wnt signaling pathway modulators that decrease inflammation, increase function and potential to regenerate cartilage should be presented to the FDA early next year.

Long-term effectiveness of arthrocentesis with and without hyaluronic acid injection for treatment of temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis

This study evaluated the long-term effectiveness of intra-articular temporomandibular joint arthrocentesis for patients with osteoarthritis and compared arthrocentesis/lavage alone with arthrocentesis/lavage and injected hyaluronic acid. Forty patients met the inclusion criteria, and 37 completed long-term follow-up (approximately 4 years). The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: arthrocentesis with lavage alone (A-group, n = 17) or combined with hyaluronic acid treatment (AS-group, n = 20). Standard two-needle arthrocentesis was performed. Pain and joint sounds were measured at baseline and approximately 4 years after treatment. Reported pain, as indicated by visual analogue scale (VAS) score, significantly decreased from baseline to the final follow-up examination in both groups. Mean VAS score decreased from 64 to 16 (P < 0.001) in the A-group and from 63 to 25 (P < 0.001) in the AS-group. Average maximum incisor opening increased significantly in both groups but did not significantly differ between groups (P = 0.223). Joint sounds did not significantly improve within groups (A-group, P = 0.495; AS-group, P = 0.236). Both methods resulted in significant long-term improvements in pain and jaw function.

Viscosupplementation improves pain, function and muscle strength, but not proprioception, in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a prospective randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of intra-articular infiltration with hyaluronic acid and dexamethasone alone and in combination in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

This prospective randomized trial evaluated 44 patients undergoing treatment for OA. Patients were selected through clinical and radiological analysis using the American College of Rheumatology criteria. We included patients aged between 50 and 70 years who presented with K-L stage ≤2 knee OA and normal limb alignment. Patients with a previous history of knee injury (ligamentous, meniscal or traumatic), infection, patellofemoral OA or chondroprotective drug use in the previous year were excluded. Participants were randomized into 3 groups and underwent treatment with viscosupplementation (VS, n=16), viscosupplementation plus dexamethasone (VD, n=16) or dexamethasone (DX, n=12). All patients were evaluated before and 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after infiltration. Analysis included a physical examination, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire (total score and domain subscores) and an evaluation of knee extensor and flexor strength and proprioception using an isokinetic dynamometer.

RESULTS

VS significantly improved the WOMAC total score and subscores for pain, stiffness and function for up to 6 months after infiltration. It also improved knee extensor and flexor strength during the same period. Proprioception was not affected by any of the treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

VS alone improved pain, stiffness and function according to the WOMAC total score and subscores and improved knee extensor and flexor strength, but not proprioception, for up to six months after infiltration. These findings suggest that VS has a positive effect on quadriceps arthrogenic inhibition.

Intra-articular injection of the anti-inflammatory compound LMWF-5A in adults with severe osteoarthritis: a double-blind prospective randomized controlled multi-center safety and efficacy trial

BACKGROUND

There are limited efficacious treatment options for severe osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK). The Low Molecular Weight Fraction of 5% human serum Albumin (LMWF-5A) is in development to treat severe OAK. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of LMWF-5A for the signs and symptoms of OAK.

METHODS

This 12-week randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial was conducted at thirteen sites across the United States. Patients with symptomatic, severe OAK (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4 disease) who were fully ambulatory and had no other conditions interfering with the study knee were randomized to a single 4 ml intra-articular injection of LMWF-5A or saline, randomized 6:1. The primary endpoint was Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) responder rate (%), examined with a one-sided exact binomial test compared to a clinically meaningful response rate of 30%. Efficacy of LMWF-5A was also evaluated as controlled responder (%), defined as 20% improvements in both pain and function, compared to historical saline control from three previous trials. Safety was examined as the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). This trial was registered (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03182686).

RESULTS

In total, 168 patients were randomized; 144 subjects treated with LMWF-5A were analysed. Overall, 71% (95% CI: 63.4%-78.3%) of subjects treated with LMWF-5A met the OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria, exceeding the 30% threshold (p < 0.001). There were also significantly more responders at week 12 in the LMWF-5A arm than historical saline control (65% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). There were no drug-related serious AEs reported and no deaths or withdrawals due to adverse events.

CONCLUSION

LMWF-5A provides relief for the signs and symptoms of severe osteoarthritis, and may be an alternative therapeutic treatment option for patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee.

Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Nonsurgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Network Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.

METHODS

We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.

RESULTS

For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.

DISCUSSION

Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.

LMWF-5A for the Treatment of Severe Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Integrated Analysis of Safety and Efficacy

The low-molecular-weight fraction of 5% human serum albumin (LMWF-5A) is being developed to treat the signs and symptoms of severe osteoarthritis of the knee. This study was a post hoc pooled analysis of 3 randomized placebo-controlled trials of a single intra-articular injection of LMWF-5A, focusing on the subset of patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4). Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive a single 4-mL intra-articular knee injection of either LMWF-5A or saline. Safety was assessed as the incidence and severity of adverse events. Efficacy was assessed as the change from baseline to week 12 on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain (primary outcome), stiffness, and physical function subscores and on patient global assessment scores and was presented as the least squares mean difference and 95% confidence interval. The proportion of responders was defined with the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International criteria for scenario D and examined with Pearson's chi-square test. For 417 patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee, treatment with LMWF-5A resulted in a significant decrease in pain at 12 weeks compared with saline (mean difference, -0.19; 95% confidence interval, -0.34 to -0.04; P=.016), with improvements in function (mean difference, -0.15; 95% confidence interval, -0.31 to 0.01) and patient global assessment (mean difference, -0.30; 95% confidence interval, -0.49 to -0.12) and higher responder rates (64.25% vs 50.90%, P=.006). No drug-related serious adverse events and no deaths occurred, and the incidence and severity of adverse events were similar across treatment groups. This pooled analysis supports the use of LMWF-5A as a safe therapeutic agent for relief of the signs and symptoms of severe osteoarthritis of the knee. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(1):e77-e83.].

Hyaluronic acid vs corticosteroids in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a mini-review of the literature

Introduction

Although intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) are common non-operative measures used in clinical practice in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis, there is a great controversy on their efficacy and safety compared to corticosteroids (CSs).

Efficacy

Conflicting results have been reported in clinical trials and meta-analysis due to methodological differences in study design, along with collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Even if some studies reported small or no differences of HA compared with CSs (or inferred that HA is not more effective than saline as a placebo), in general CSs have shown to be superior in the short term (especially on pain control), while better results have been reported with HA at subsequent evaluations, but with only a moderate effect after 26 weeks.

Safety

Mild or moderate adverse events have generally been reported after HA injections, the most common being injection site pain. HA is generally considered safe compared to CSs or saline. Furthermore, HA has shown to be safe also after a previous course of injections.

Conclusions

Conflicting results have been reported on the efficacy and safety of HA. Guidelines are controversial and in most of the cases "uncertain" recommendations are provided due to inconclusive evidence in literature. However, HA does not seem to have significantly higher side effects when compared to saline or CSs injections, and provides better medium-term control of symptoms in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.

Multiple PRP injections are more effective than single injections and hyaluronic acid in knees with early osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of intraarticular (IA) multiple and single platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections as well as hyaluronic acid (HA) injections in different stages of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.

METHODS

A total of 162 patients with different stages of knee OA were randomly divided into four groups receiving 3 IA doses of PRP, one dose of PRP, one dose of HA or a saline injection (control). Then, each group was subdivided into two groups: early OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 with cartilage degeneration or grade I-III) and advanced OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade IV). The patients were evaluated before the injection and at the 6-month follow-ups using the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores. Adverse events and patient satisfaction were recorded.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant improvement in the IKDC and EQ-VAS scores in all the treatment groups compared with the control group. The knee scores of patients treated with three PRP injections were significantly better than those patients of the other groups. There was no significant difference in the scores of patients injected with one dose of PRP or HA. In the early OA subgroups, significantly better clinical results were achieved in the patients treated with three PRP injections, but there was no significant difference in the clinical results of patients with advanced OA among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

The clinical results of this study suggest IA PRP and HA treatment for all stages of knee OA. For patients with early OA, multiple (3) PRP injections are useful in achieving better clinical results. For patients with advanced OA, multiple injections do not significantly improve the results of patients in any group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Therapeutic Review of Methylprednisolone Acetate Intra-Articular Injection in the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee - Part 1: Clinical Effectiveness

Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections are a common approach in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The effectiveness of injections and particular injection products is often discussed and debated in clinical arenas. The following therapeutic review examines the evidence for intra-articular methylprednisolone acetate (MPA) injections in the management of OA knee. A review of research evidence, published guidelines and clinical literature was undertaken following an electronic database and relevant literature search. The review found that there is limited evidence which indicates that a single dose intra-articular MPA injection can provide short to medium term benefits for pain, with less evidence for beneficial effects on function or stiffness. There is heterogeneity across studies and until recently, most studies had only short to medium term follow-up periods, thus limiting the evidence available on longer term benefit. There was also evidence indicating equivalent overall efficacy of MPA to that of other corticosteroid products. Most guideline recommendations concerning IA injections for OA knee have drawn on evidence from pooled data for several corticosteroid products. The review also found there was limited reporting of the incidence of adverse events in most studies. Overall, MPA shows efficacy for symptom relief in OA knee. At an individual management level, evidence for a limited duration of effect needs consideration in injections decisions. Furthermore, consensus across clinical guidelines suggests that the management of OA knee should be individualized to a person's clinical history, degree of disability, risk factors, quality of life and personal preferences, whereby injecting involves a shared decision and forms part of a multimodal approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Will a single periarticular lidocaine-corticosteroid injection improve the clinical efficacy of intraarticular hyaluronic acid treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis?

PURPOSE

A local injection of corticosteroid-lidocaine into the periarticular soft tissue structures is used commonly for rapid pain relief. It is hypothesized that knee pain associated with knee osteoarthritis would be relieved quickly and effectively in patients receiving intraarticular hyaluronic acid combined with a periarticular lidocaine-corticosteroid injection. To test this hypothesis, the clinical effect of the combined treatment with hyaluronic acid injection alone in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis as compared in this prospective single-blinded randomized trial.

METHODS

This study included 70 patients. Group 1 (n = 35) received intraarticular hyaluronic acid injections only, whereas group 2 (n = 35) received intraarticular hyaluronic acid injections combined with a single local injection of corticosteroid-lidocaine. Injections were administered to the most painful areas of the anterior or posterior medial condyle of the femur or tibia. The outcome was measured by independent assessors (blinded to treatment) using a linear VAS pain scale and WOMAC and HSS knee scores. Assessments were performed at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks.

RESULTS

During the first 3 weeks, group 2 patients showed significantly better all scores than did group 1 patients (p < 0.01). However, no significant differences were detected at 6, 12, 26 or 52 weeks (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

The combined treatment may lead to earlier pain relief compared with intraarticular hyaluronic acid alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis and can be considered a useful adjunctive treatment modality. This combined method may provide early return to patient's daily activity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, Level I.

AMSSM Scientific Statement Concerning Viscosupplementation Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: Importance for Individual Patient Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling disease that produces severe morbidity reducing physical activity. Our position statement on treatment of knee OA with viscosupplementation injection [hyaluronic acid (HA)] versus steroid [intra-articular corticosteroid (IAS)] and placebo [intra-articular placebo (IAP)] is based on the evaluation of treatment effect by examining the number of subjects within a treatment arm that met the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria, which is different and more relevant than methods used in other reviews which examined if the average change across the treatment groups was clinically different.

DATA SOURCES

We performed a systematic literature search for all relevant articles from 1960 to August 2014 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of the relevant literature to determine if there is a benefit from HA as compared with IAS and IAP.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria from the search strategy. On NMA, those subjects receiving HA were 15% and 11% more likely to respond to treatment by the OMERACT-OARSI criteria than those receiving IAS or IAP, respectively (P < 0.05 for both).

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the aforementioned results of our NMA, the American Medical Society for Sport Medicine recommends the use of HA for the appropriate patients with knee OA.

Effectiveness and Implications of Alternative Placebo Treatments: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Osteoarthritis Trials

BACKGROUND

Placebo controls are essential in evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments. Although it is unclear whether different placebo interventions for osteoarthritis vary in efficacy, systematic differences would substantially affect interpretation of the results of placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of alternative placebo types on pain outcomes in knee osteoarthritis.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Database from inception through 1 June 2015 and unpublished data.

STUDY SELECTION

149 randomized trials of adults with knee osteoarthritis that reported pain outcomes and compared widely used pharmaceuticals against oral, intra-articular, topical, and oral plus topical placebos.

DATA EXTRACTION

Study data were independently double-extracted; study quality was assessed by using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Placebo effects that were evaluated by using a network meta-analysis with 4 separate placebo nodes (differential model) showed that intra-articular placebo (effect size, 0.29 [95% credible interval, 0.09 to 0.49]) and topical placebo (effect size, 0.20 [credible interval, 0.02 to 0.38]) had significantly greater effect sizes than did oral placebo. This differential model showed marked differences in the relative efficacies and hierarchy of the active treatments compared with a network model that considered all placebos equivalent. In the model accounting for differential effects, intra-articular and topical therapies were superior to oral treatments in reducing pain. When these differential effects were ignored, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were superior.

LIMITATIONS

Few studies compared different placebos directly. The study could not decisively conclude whether disease severity and co-interventions systematically differed between trials evaluating different placebos.

CONCLUSION

All placebos are not equal, and some can trigger clinically relevant responses. Differential placebo effects can substantially alter estimates of the relative efficacies of active treatments, an important consideration for the design of clinical trials and interpretation of their results.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.