Cost-Effectiveness of Different Forms of Intra-Articular Injections for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Health Economic Assessments of Hyaluronic Acid Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Hyaluronic acid (HA) use to treat knee osteoarthritis (OA) has been extensively investigated in the literature. There are also multiple economic assessments comparing intra-articular HAs with oral anti-inflammatory medicines and other conservative measures (NSAIDs), as well as different types and formulations of HA. Owing to the broad landscape of evidence across this area, it is important to further understand the empirical data comparing HA products, as well as the health economic implications that exist between commercially available HAs. This systematic review aims to identify and summarize the available evidence comparing commercially available HA products in the USA, as well as the health economic evidence and socioeconomic outcomes associated with HA use for knee OA.

METHODS

A systematic literature review within the OVID Medline, Embase, HealthStar, and Cochrane EBM HTA databases was conducted. Articles were screened for eligibility, and a qualitative summary of the findings was provided based on specific themes: (1) trials comparing the safety and/or efficacy of two or more HA products in knee OA, (2) economic/cost analyses of HA use in knee OA, and (3) studies investigating healthcare resource utilization in patients treated with HA for knee OA.

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 398 studies, 27 of which were deemed eligible: 21 health economic analyses with US relevance and six head-to-head trials of HA products available in the USA, cumulatively assessing 5,782,156 patients with knee OA. The evidence demonstrates a clear distinction between high and low molecular weight HAs, as both efficacy and cost analyses provided favorable results for the high molecular weight options. In all but one cost analysis, HA use was a cost-effective option when compared to routine nonoperative care, captured in administrative databases, which typically included NSAID use and/or corticosteroids. HA saw benefits in delaying the need for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), decreasing the use of rescue medication, and limiting the need for additional corticosteroid injection. The included evidence highlights that the treatment's cost-effectiveness is improved when HA is utilized in earlier stages of the disease, as opposed to when HA is reserved for late stages of knee OA. Additionally, among HAs, Bio-HA and Hylan G-F 20 evidence made up the majority of available literature with beneficial efficacy and cost outcomes. Head-to-head evidence between them indicated similar pain outcomes; however, Bio-HA required less rescue with acetaminophen and had fewer joint effusions in this comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

The available efficacy and safety data as well as health economic analyses on the use of HA for knee OA management suggest that there are economic benefits of this treatment option. From a healthcare system perspective, the body of HA literature summarizes favorable costs profile, decreased opioid and corticosteroid use as rescue medication, and a delay to the need for TKA in patients who have HA included in their treatment regimen.

Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Product Properties

INTRODUCTION

There are many intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) products on the market that have known intrinsic differences in molecular size, source, and structure. The current review summarizes existing evidence describing and assessing these differences, while also identifying whether these differences have an impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic review summarized all literature that specifically addresses IA-HA product differences. Included studies summarized basic science and mechanism of action comparisons of IA-HA product differences, or systematic reviews that assess differences in clinical outcomes between IA-HA product differences.

RESULTS

A total of 20 investigations assessed basic science differences between IA-HA products, while 20 investigations provided assessments of the clinical outcome differences between IA-HA product characteristics. The published basic science literature provided a differentiation between low molecular weight (LMW) and high molecular weight (HMW) HA with regard to changes within the synovial fluid, driven by the interactions that these molecules have with receptors in the joint space. These differences in receptor interaction manifest within clinical outcomes, as meta-analyses comparing pain relief after IA-HA suggest that pain reduction is superior in patients who receive HMW HA as opposed to LMW HA.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights differences between IA-HA characteristics, and how important the molecular weight, derivation of the product, and structure are to variances in reported clinical outcomes to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. HMW IA-HAs have shown greater efficacy compared to the alternative of LMW products, while avian-derived and cross-linked products have potentially demonstrated an increase in inflammatory events over non-avian-derived, non-cross-linked HAs.

Transcatheter embolisation in chronic musculoskeletal disorders

Chronic musculoskeletal conditions affect millions of patients worldwide resulting in disability, reduced quality of life, and have a profound economic impact on the individual and society. Current treatment strategies fail patients who have not responded to conservative management but are not surgical candidates. Over the last decade, transcatheter embolisation has emerged as a potential treatment for these difficult to treat patients. By exploiting pathological neovascularisation within conditions such as knee osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and tendinopathy, embolisation has been used to improve patients' pain and function. This review explores the rationale for musculoskeletal transcatheter embolisation, illustrating the technique, and latest evidence for the most common procedures.

Mitochondrial-targeting Mn3O4/UIO-TPP nanozyme scavenge ROS to restore mitochondrial function for osteoarthritis therapy

Excessive reactive oxygen species (ROS)-induced mitochondrial damage has impact on osteoarthritis (OA). Nanozyme mimics as natural enzyme alternatives to scavenge excessive ROS has offered a promising strategy for OA therapy. Herein, we reported a novel mitochondrial-targeting Mn3O4/UIO-TPP nanozyme using metal-organic frameworks with loaded Mn3O4 as the enzyme-like active core combining mitochondria-targeting triphenylphosphine (TPP) groups to serve as ROS scavengers for therapy of OA. With sequential catalysis of superoxide dismutase-like, catalase (CAT)-like, and hydroxyl radical (·OH) scavenging potentials, the nanozyme can target mitochondria by crossing subcellular barriers to effectively eliminate ROS to restore mitochondrial function and inhibit inflammation and chondrocyte apoptosis. It also has favorable biocompatibility and biosafety. Based on anterior cruciate ligament transection-induced OA joint models, this mitochondrial-targeting nanozyme effectively mitigated the inflammatory response with the Pelletier score reduction of 49.9% after 8-week therapy. This study offers a prospective approach to the design of nanomedicines for ROS-related diseases.

Cost-utility analysis and net monetary benefit of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), intra-articular injections in compared to Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA) and ozone in knee osteoarthritis in Iran

PURPOSE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP), Plasma Rich in Growth Factors (PRGF), Hyaluronic Acid (HA) and ozone as effective treatment approaches in knee osteoarthritis management from Iran Health care perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was conducted to assess the cost-effectiveness of four common intra-articular treatment approaches in patients with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. The data on clinical effectiveness was obtained from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in Iran and used to estimate utility values. The direct medical costs were estimated according to tariffs for public medical centers and hospitals, approved by the Iran Ministry of Health and Medical Education in 2021. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and the net monetary benefit (NMB) were used to evaluate the cost-utility analysis. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are performed to investigate the robustness of the results and account for the different sources of uncertainty.

RESULTS

In this study, HA intra-articular injection-related costs ($581.67/patient) were defined as the highest cost, followed by PRGF ($328.10/patient), PRP (318.58/patient), and Ozone (103.20/patient). According to the utility value, PRP and PRGF (0.68) have the same and the most utility among Intra-articular injections in knee osteoarthritis management. However, the PRP injection method was identified as the most cost-effective intervention due to its high NMB and ICER estimates. Based on the Monte Carlo Simulation, PR intervention, compared to other ones, was introduced as the dominant strategy regarding knee OA management, with a WTP of $10,000 for 100% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The study result demonstrated that intra-articular injection of PRP, compare to other injections, is a cost-effective treatment option for patients with mild and moderate knee osteoarthritis. In addition, intra-articular injection of PRP was identified as the best injection, with the highest level of net monetary benefit, for knee OA management.

Cost Effectiveness of Pharmacological Management for Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent, disabling disease requiring chronic management that is associated with an enormous individual and societal burden. This systematic review provides a global cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmacological therapy for the management of OA.

METHODS

Following Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) guidance, a literature search strategy was undertaken using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation database (NHS EED) to identify original articles containing cost-effectiveness evaluation of OA pharmacological treatment published before 4 November 2021. Risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for economic evaluations. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument was used to assess the reporting quality of included articles.

RESULTS

Database searches identified 43 cost-effectiveness analysis studies (CEAs) on pharmacological management of OA that were conducted in 18 countries and four continents, with one study containing multiple continents. A total of four classes of drugs were assessed, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioid analgesics, symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs), and intra-articular (IA) injections. The methodological approaches of these studies showed substantial heterogeneity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) were (in 2021 US dollars) US$44.40 to US$307,013.56 for NSAIDS, US$11,984.84 to US$128,028.74 for opioids, US$10,930.17 to US$27,799.73 for SYSADOAs, and US$258.36 to US$58,447.97 for IA injections in different continents. The key drivers of cost effectiveness included medical resources, productivity, relative risks, and selected comparators.

CONCLUSION

This review showed substantial heterogeneity among studies, ranging from a finding of dominance to very high ICERs, but most studies found interventions to be cost effective based on specific ICER thresholds. Important challenges in the analysis were related to the standardization and methodological quality of studies, as well as the presentation of results.

Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid for Osteoarthritis of the Knee in the United States: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Background:

The economic impact of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) for the treatment of knee pain associated with osteoarthritis (OA) has been evaluated in the United States, but not systematically summarized.

Objective:

We reviewed the literature to determine the economic impact of IAHA for pain associated with knee OA in the United States.

Methods:

A literature review was performed in PubMed (including MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process), Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and was limited to English language human studies published from January 2000 to October 2020.

Results:

The literature search identified 215 unique abstracts; of these, 47 were selected for full-text review and 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections delayed progression to total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and repeated courses of treatment successfully delayed TKA by more than 5 years. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid was found to reduce the use of pain medications overall and reduce the number of patients receiving opioid prescriptions by 6% (P < .001). Several studies showed that IAHA is more cost-effective in treating pain associated with knee OA compared with conventional care with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics, and corticosteroids, and several authors concluded that IAHA should be the dominant treatment strategy.

Conclusions:

Current studies suggest that IAHA may reduce the use of pain medications, such as NSAIDs and opioids, and impact time to TKA procedures, thus potentially decreasing overall treatment costs of knee OA over time. Furthermore, IAHA was determined to be cost-effective against NSAIDs, corticosteroids, analgesics, and conservative treatment. As the safety and efficacy of IAHA for knee OA have been well established, the findings from our literature review may be used to inform future economic evaluations.

Delay to TKA and Costs Associated with Knee Osteoarthritis Care Using Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid: Analysis of an Administrative Database

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a surgical treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) that no longer experience symptom relief from non-operative or pharmacologic treatments. Non-operative KOA management aims to address patient symptoms and improve function, as well as forestall or mitigate the large costs associated with TKA. The primary objective of this study was to examine the relationship between intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) treatment and delaying TKA in patients with KOA compared to patients not receiving IA-HA, as well as to identify differences in KOA-related costs incurred among patients who received or did not receive IA-HA.

Methods

This was a retrospective analysis of an administrative claims database from October 1st, 2010 through September 30th, 2015. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was conducted to determine the TKA-free survival of patients who received IA-HA, stratified by the number of injection courses received versus those who did not receive any IA-HA. Median KOA-related costs per year were calculated for 2 comparisons: (1) patients who received IA-HA versus patients who did not receive IA-HA, among patients who eventually had TKA, and (2) patients who received IA-HA versus patients who did not receive IA-HA, among patients who did not have TKA.

Results

A total of 744 734 patients were included in the analysis. A delay to TKA was observed after IA-HA treatment for patients treated with IA-HA compared to those who did not receive IA-HA. At 1 year, the TKA-free survival was 85.8% (95% CI: 85.6%-86.0%) for patients who received IA-HA and 74.1% (95% CI: 74.0%-74.3%) for those who did not receive IA-HA. At 2 years, the TKA free survival was 70.8% (70.5%-71.1%) and 63.7% (63.5%-63.9%) in the 2 groups, respectively. Patients treated with multiple courses of IA-HA demonstrated an incremental increase in delay to TKA with more courses of IA-HA, suggesting that the risk of TKA over the study time period is reduced with additional IA-HA courses. The hazard ratio for the need of TKA was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86) for a single course and 0.27 (95% CI 0.25-0.28) for ⩾5 courses, both compared to the no IA-HA group. In patients that eventually had TKA, the median KOA-related costs were lower among those who received IA-HA before their TKA ($860.24, 95% CI: 446.65-1722.20), compared to those who did not receive IA-HA ($2659.49, 95% CI: 891.04-7480.38). For patients who did not have TKA, the median and interquartile range (IQR) KOA-related costs per year were similar for patients who received IA-HA compared with those who did not.

Conclusion

These results demonstrate that within a large cohort of KOA patients, individuals who received multiple courses of IA-HA had a progressively greater delay to TKA compared to patients who did not receive IA-HA treatment. Also, for patients who progressed to TKA, IA-HA treatment was associated with a large reduction in KOA-related healthcare costs. Based on these results, multiple, repeat courses of IA-HA may be beneficial in substantially delaying TKA in KOA patients, as well as minimizing KOA-related healthcare costs.

Local Administration of Low-Dose Nerve Growth Factor Antibody Reduced Pain in a Rat Osteoarthritis Model

Systemic injection of a nerve growth factor (NGF) antibody has been proven to have a significant relevance in relieving osteoarthritis (OA) pain, while its adverse effects remain a safety concern for patients. A local low-dose injection is thought to minimize adverse effects. In this study, OA was induced in an 8-week-old male Sprague–Dawley (SD) rat joint by monoiodoacetate (MIA) injection for 2 weeks, and the effect of weekly injections of low-dose (1, 10, and 100 µg) NGF antibody or saline (control) was evaluated. Behavioral tests were performed, and at the end of week 6, all rats were sacrificed and their knee joints were collected for macroscopic and histological evaluations. Results showed that 100 µg NGF antibody injection relieved pain in OA rats, as evidenced from improved weight-bearing performance but not allodynia. In contrast, no significant differences were observed in macroscopic and histological scores between rats from different groups, demonstrating that intra-articular treatment does not worsen OA progression. These results suggest that local administration yielded a low effective NGF antibody dose that may serve as an alternative approach to systemic injection for the treatment of patients with OA.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Platelet-Rich Plasma Compared With Hyaluronic Acid Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of a series (total of 3 injections) of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in comparison to that of hyaluronic acid (HA) viscosupplementation for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Outcome data regarding the use of PRP or HA injections for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were determined from the highest-quality data (Level I) available in the literature until 2015. Health utility values were then derived from these high-quality data. Costs were determined by examining typical charges for patients undergoing a series of either PRP or HA injections for the treatment of this condition at a large private orthopaedic practice. These health utility values and costs were used to create an expected-value decision analysis model.

RESULTS

The results of the model revealed that the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of a series of PRP injections was $8,635.23/QALY and that of a series of HA injections was $5,331.75/QALY. A series of PRP injections was associated with a higher initial cost than a series of HA injections (difference, $1,433.67); however, PRP was also more effective (higher utility value) than HA by 0.11 QALYs (0.69 vs 0.58, P = .0062) at 1 year. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the use of PRP injections as opposed to HA was $12,628.15/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

Although a series of either PRP ($8,635.23/QALY) or HA ($5,331.75/QALY) injections for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis would be considered cost-effective (cost per QALY < $50,000), PRP injections were not more cost-effective than HA injections. However, PRP was significantly more effective at 1 year, and being associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,628.15/QALY when compared with HA, a series of PRP injections should be considered a reasonable and acceptable alternative to HA injections for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, economic and decision analysis of Level I studies.

The perspectives of intra-articular therapy in the management of osteoarthritis

Management of Osteoarthritis (OA) still is a challenge for clinicians. Taking into account a multidisciplinary approach including pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, intra-articular (IA) injection could be considered as an effective local therapy. Areas covered This review provides a new perspective of IA treatment going beyond current available IA agents. We describe novel biological targets for developing new IA agents and innovative modalities of delivery systems. Additional topics include predictors of response for a better choice of IA agents for each patient, diagnostic and prognostic role of biomarkers, accuracy of IA injection, and cost-effectiveness of IA injection. Expert opinion IA treatments seem to be very promising for the management of OA. Identifying clinical and biochemical predictive factors could drive clinician to the appropriate therapeutic approach. To date, there is a gap regarding the benefit of IA treatments in the 'real practice' once they have been adopted. However, considering these promising effects of IA approach, several open questions remain not clarified.

What Is the Appropriate Price for Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Based on Evidence From Level I Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To identify the price of treatment at which platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is cost-effective relative to hyaluronic acid (HA) and saline solution intra-articular injections.

METHODS

A systemized review process of the PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases was undertaken to identify randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with HA and saline solution with up to 1 year of follow-up. Level I trials that reported Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Likert scores were included. These scores were converted into utility scores. Cost data were obtained from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services fee schedules. Total costs included the costs of the injectable, clinic appointments, and procedures. The change in utility scores from baseline to 6 months and 1 year for the PRP, HA, and saline solution groups was divided by total cost to determine utility gained per dollar and to identify the price needed for PRP to be cost-effective relative to these other injection options.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 882 patients were included: 483 in the PRP group, 338 in the HA group, and 61 in the saline solution group. Baseline mean utility scores ranged from 0.55 to 0.57 for the PRP, HA, and saline solution groups. The 6-month gains in utility were 0.12, 0.02, and -0.06, respectively. The 12-month gains in utility from before injection were 0.14, 0.03, and 0.06, respectively. The lowest total costs for HA and saline solution were $681.93 and $516.29, respectively. For PRP to be cost-effective, the total treatment cost would have to be less than $3,703.03 and $1,192.08 for 6- and 12-month outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, PRP is cost-effective, from the payer perspective, at a total price (inclusive of clinic visits, the procedure, and the injectable) of less than $1,192.08 over a 12-month period, relative to HA and saline solution.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review.

Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Early to Moderate Stage Knee Osteoarthritis with Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Compared to Conservative Interventions

INTRODUCTION

Evidence has demonstrated greater benefit of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) within earlier stages of knee osteoarthritis (OA) rather than waiting for patients to have progressed to later stages of disease progression. High molecular weight (HMW) HA has also been shown to be more effective than low molecular weight (LMW) HA products in mild to moderate knee OA, providing an important distinction to make within the class of IA-HA therapies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating patients with knee OA with HMW HA compared to LMW and conservative treatment, while taking into account disease stage.

METHODS

Decision analytic models were created for early/moderate, as well as late stage knee OA. Models for late stage knee OA were created by assuming a range of response rates to IA-HA treatments from 10% to 50%. These models included conservative treatment using physical therapy/exercise, braces/orthosis, and medications such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and analgesics. The models compared the cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained for these treatments to the use of either LMW or HMW HA. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for each treatment in relation to HMW HA.

RESULTS

When evaluating treatment in early to moderate knee OA, HMW HA was dominant over LMW HA and physical therapy/exercise, as it was less expensive and provided greater benefit. HMW HA was cost-effective versus braces/orthosis and NSAID/analgesic medications based on a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000. In the model of 50% response rate to IA-HA for late stage OA, HMW HA remained cost-effective in comparison to physical therapy/exercise and braces/orthosis at a willingness to pay threshold of $50,000; but not NSAID/analgesic medications. In the worst-case scenario of a 10% responder rate to IA-HA, HMW HA was no longer cost-effective in any circumstance.

CONCLUSION

IA-HA, particularly HMW formulations, demonstrate cost-effectiveness when compared to conservative treatment options and LMW HA in patients with early/mid stage knee OA. The cost-effectiveness of HMW HA in patients with later stage knee OA was not as apparent, particularly because of the uncertainty in the proportion of patients with late stage OA who have a meaningful improvement after receiving IA-HA. This cost-effectiveness finding supports the use of IA-HA in patients with early and moderate knee OA, as the benefits of IA-HA are apparent within the patient population with mild to moderate knee OA. The findings of this study suggest that there is a potential cost savings benefit as a result of utilizing HMW HA in earlier stages of knee OA as opposed to later stages.

FUNDING

Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Injections intra articulaires (IA) d'acide hyaluronique (AH) dans le traitement symptomatique de la gonarthrose : une méta-analyse des injections uniques (mono-injections)

Introduction

La viscosupplémentation du liquide synovial par injections intra articulaires (IA) d'acide hyaluronique (AH), est un traitement symptomatique bien connu dans la gonarthrose. La question se pose de savoir si les traitements par injection unique (mono-injection) peuvent présenter autant d'efficacité que les multi-injections (3 à 5).

Méthodes

Une méta-analyse des résultats publiés pour les essais de mono-injections IA de AH a été réalisée. Le critère d'efficacité retenu a été le sous-score douleur de l'indice Western Ontario and MacMaster universities (WOMAC A). Toutes les conceptions d'études ont été admises, depuis les essais randomisés contrôlés jusqu'aux études observationnelles ouvertes à simple bras. Une recherche extensive a été effectuée à partir de PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, et des listes de références trouvées dans les méta-analyses récentes, pour obtenir tous les articles publiés avant fin avril 2018. Les profils des populations furent analysés en termes d'âge, de sexe, d'indice de masse corporelle (IMC) et de stade radiologique selon Kellgren-Lawrence (KL). Les résultats d'injection IA unique de placebo, ont été pris en compte pour créer une base permettant des comparaisons post-hoc. Chaque bras AH IA étudié a été comparé à un bras placebo IA (seul ou mixé), de manière à présenter un profil KL similaire, contrôlé à l'aide du test Chi². Les tailles de l'effet (ES) avec intervalles de confiance (IC 95%) et p-valeurs furent calculées et synthétisées pour chacune des visites de contrôle à 1, 2, 3 et 6 mois. En parallèle, une approche globale a été utilisée afin de représenter les variations par rapport à la baseline, pour chacun des sous-groupes étudiés.

Résultats

En partant de 1 547 citations, 28 études ont été incluses dans la méta-analyse, décrivant 4 129 patients traités par mono-injection: 3 360 ont reçu de l'AH IA et 769 patients ont reçu du placebo IA. Le patient moyen (SD) traité par AH IA était âgé de 61,2 (9,6) ans dont 63% de femmes, avec un IMC de 28,0 (4,1) kg/m², et un stade radiologique à 47% KL III pour 3% KL IV. Un bon appariement du profil KL a été obtenu pour 26 des 31 bras AH IA. Sur l'ensemble de la population AH IA, ES = 0,30 (0,25; 0,35) à 3 mois et ES = 0,39 (0,33; 0,44) à 6 mois. Dans une analyse restreinte, après élimination des cas aberrants, des KL mal appariés et des bras actifs < 30 patients, les résultats sont restés inchangés, ES = 0,29 (0,23; 0,34) et ES = 0,40 (0,34; 0,45) à 3 et 6 mois respectivement, tandis que l'hétérogénéité était améliorée.

Discussion

Il existe certainement des limites à la méthode de comparaison post-hoc versus placebo, appliquée à des essais individuels. Mais pour chaque synthèse par sous-groupe ou groupe, les résultats ont été confirmés en utilisant plusieurs approches statistiques et différentes méthodes de pondération. Cette méta-analyse suggère que les résultats des mono-injections sont similaires à ceux des multi-injections d'acide hyaluronique intra articulaire en termes de soulagement de la douleur, dans le traitement de la gonarthrose.

Comparative Effectiveness of Alternative Dosing Regimens of Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Viscosupplementation is widely used for management of knee osteoarthritis. Many formulations of hyaluronic acid (HA) are available, ranging from a single injection to a series of up to 5 injections per treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy between single and multiple HA injection formulations.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus databases were all searched.

STUDY SELECTION

Full-text prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled human trials, cohort studies, and cost-effectiveness evaluations in the English language comparing different injection regimens of viscosupplementation were included.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 1.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were collected using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Four databases were searched by a librarian and the principal investigator, identifying 6196 articles for screening.

RESULTS

Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the studies comparing single- with multiple-injection formulations of HA for treatment of knee osteoarthritis, there was no consistent difference in patient-reported outcomes. Furthermore, 5-injection formulations do not appear to be superior to 3-injection formulations.

CONCLUSION

There are limited head-to-head trials comparing viscosupplementation formulations that differ based on number of injections, and in particular, there is a paucity of trials evaluating single-injection formulations. Based on the currently available data, there appears to be similar efficacy with the possibility for greater cost-effectiveness and less patient inconvenience with single-injection formulations.

BRAZILIAN CONSENSUS STATEMENT ON VISCOSUPPLEMENTATION OF THE KNEE (COBRAVI)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this consensus statement on viscosupplementation is to serve as a reference document based on relevant literature and clinical experience in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis using an intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid, covering key aspects such as clinical indications, effectiveness, and tolerability.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary panel including two sports medicine physicians, six orthopedists, four physiatrists, and two rheumatologists were selected based on their clinical and academic experience of viscosupplementation. Sixteen statements were prepared and discussed, after which a vote was held. Each member of the panel gave a score between 0 and 10 on a Likert scale, specifying their level of agreement with the statement.

RESULTS

The panel reached a consensus on several issues. Specifically, the panel agreed that the best indication is for mild to moderate knee arthrosis; prior or concomitant use of intraarticular triamcinolone hexacetonide may optimize the effect of hyaluronic acid; viscosupplementation should not be performed as an isolated procedure but in conjunction with other rehabilitative and pharmacological measures; viscosupplementation has analgesic, anti-inflammatory, and chondroprotective effects; and viscosupplementation is cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

This consensus statement provides clear information and guidance for both individuals and payers. Level of evidence V, Consensus statement.

Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid in the Symptomatic Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Single-Injection Products

Background

Viscosupplementation of the synovial fluid with intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA HA) is a well-known symptomatic treatment of knee osteoarthritis. The question arises whether a monoinjection (ie, single injection) could be as efficient as multi-injection (ie, 3-5 injections) regimens.

Methods

A meta-analysis of published studies relating to IA HA monoinjection trials was performed. The efficacy criterion was the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities pain subscore. Any study design was accepted, from randomized control trials to single-arm observational open-label studies. An extensive search was performed using PubMed, Google, Google Scholar, and references found in recent meta-analyses, for all articles published before end of April 2018. Population profiles were analyzed in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) radiology grades. Results of intra-articular single injection of placebo were collected to create a database allowing post hoc comparisons. Each IA HA study arm was compared to an IA placebo arm (either pooled or not), to present a similar KL profile controlled with the χ² test. The effect size (ES) (95% CI) and P values were calculated and synthesized for each follow-up visit at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months. In parallel, a global approach was used to represent the variations from baseline for each group or subgroup studied.

Results

From 1547 citations, 28 studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 4129 patients treated with monoinjection: 3360 received IA HA and 769 patients received IA placebo. The mean (SD) IA HA patient was 61.2 (9.6) years, 63% women, BMI 28.0 (4.1), 47% KL III, and 3% KL IV. A good placebo KL profile matching was obtained for 26 of the 31 IA HA arms. For the whole IA HA population, ES = 0.30 (95% CI, 0.25-0.35) at 3 months and ES = 0.39 (95% CI, 0.33-0.44) at 6 months. In a restricted analysis, after removal of outliers, poorly KL matched and active arms <30 patients, results remained unchanged, ES = 0.29 (95% CI, 0.23-0.34) and ES = 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34-0.45) at 3 and 6 months respectively, whilst heterogeneity was improved.

Conclusions

There are certainly limits to the post hoc placebo comparison method, for individual studies. But for each synthesis per subgroup or group, the results were properly confirmed using multiple statistical approaches and weighing methods. This meta-analysis suggests that monoinjections produce results similar to multi-injections of IA HA in terms of pain relief in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2019; 80:XXX-XXX).

Disease-modifying drugs in osteoarthritis: current understanding and future therapeutics

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of pain and disability among adults with a current prevalence of around 15% and a predicted prevalence of 35% in 2030 for symptomatic OA. It is increasingly recognized as a heterogeneous multi-faceted joint disease with multi-tissue involvement of varying severity. Current therapeutic regimens for OA are only partially effective and often have significant associated toxicities. There are no disease-modifying drugs approved by the regulatory bodies. Areas covered: We reviewed the opportunities within key OA pathogenetic mechanism: cartilage catabolism/anabolism, pathological remodeling of subchondral bone and synovial inflammation to identify targeted disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs, based on compounds currently in Phase II and III stages of clinical development in which x-ray and/or MRI was used as the structural outcome with/without symptomatic outcomes according to regulatory requirements. Expert opinion: Given the heterogeneity of the OA disease process and complex overlapping among these phenotypes, a 'one size fits all' approach used in most clinical trials would unlikely be practical and equally effective in all patients, as well as in all anatomical OA sites. On the other hand, it is a challenge to develop a targeted drug with high activity, specificity, potency, and bioavailability in the absence of toxicity for long-term use in this chronic disease of predominantly older adults. Further research and insight into evaluation methods for drug-targeted identification of early OA and specific characterization of phenotypes, improvement of methodological designs, and development/refinement of sensitive imaging and biomarkers will help pave the way to the successful discovery of disease-modifying drugs and the optimal administration strategies in clinical practice.

Intra-Articular Injection of Fructus Ligustri Lucidi Extract Attenuates Pain Behavior and Cartilage Degeneration in Mono-Iodoacetate Induced Osteoarthritic Rats

Fructus Ligustri Lucidi (FLL) has been widely used as a traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating soreness and weakness of waist and knees. It has potential for treating OA owing to its kidney-tonifying activity with bone-strengthening effects, but there is so far no report of its anti-OA effect. This study established a rat OA model by intra-articular (IA) injection of mono-iodoacetate (1.5 mg) and weekly treated by IA administration of FLL at 100 μg/mL for 4 weeks. Thermal withdrawal latency, mechanical withdrawal threshold, and spontaneous activity were tested for evaluation of pain behavior, and histopathological (HE, SO, and ABH staining) and immunohistochemical (Col2, Col10, and MMP13) analyses were conducted for observation of cartilage degradation. In vitro effect of FLL on chondrocytes was evaluated by MTT assay and qPCR analysis. Moreover, HPLC analysis was performed to determine its chemoprofile. The pain behavioral data showed that FLL attenuated joint pain hypersensitivity by increasing thresholds of mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia as well as spontaneous activity. The histopathological result showed that FLL reversed OA cartilage degradation by protecting chondrocytes and extracellular matrix in cartilage, and the immunohistochemical analysis revealed its molecular actions on protein expressions of MMP13, Col2, and Col10 in cartilage. The MTT assay showed its proliferative effects on chondrocytes, and qPCR assay clarified its mechanism associated with gene expressions of Mmp13, Col2, Col10, Adamts5, Aggrecan, and Runx2 in TNF-α treated chondrocytes. Our results revealed an anti-OA effect of FLL on pain behavior and cartilage degradation in OA rats and clarified a molecular mechanism in association with the suppression of chondrocyte hypertrophy and catabolism. IA FLL can be regarded as novel and promising option for OA therapy.

Cost Effectiveness of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid and Disease-Modifying Drugs in Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The place of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs (DMOADs) and intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the therapeutic arsenal for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains uncertain. Indeed, these treatments have demonstrated symptomatic efficacy but no efficacy for disease modification.

OBJECTIVE

This report reviews the cost effectiveness of IAHA and DMOADs used in the treatment of knee OA.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane databases was performed independently by two rheumatologists who used the same predefined eligibility criteria to identify relevant articles. Papers without abstracts and in languages other than English or French were excluded. Extracted costs were annualised and converted to 2015 euros (€) using the Consumer Price Index of the relevant countries and the 2013 Purchasing Power Parities between these countries and the European Union average.

RESULTS

A total of 95 abstracts were selected, and 13 articles were considered for the review: nine articles on IAHA and four on DMOADs. Only one article directly compared different IAHA compounds. Articles showed substantial heterogeneity in methodological approaches. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranged from €4000 to €57,550 and from €240 to €53,225 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for DMOADs and IAHA, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights substantial heterogeneity between studies, ranging from a cost saving (or dominating) position to very high ICERs, far above the acceptability threshold of €50,000/QALY. Additional research is needed to determine reliable and robust ICER estimates for knee OA therapies.

Viscosupplementation for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Key Opinion Leader Panel Discussion

With a sharp rise in the prevalence of osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK) in a younger population, new management strategies are needed to preserve mobility, improve patients' quality of life, and reduce the effects of potential disease-related comorbidities. Viscosupplementation with the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) injection is a treatment option for OAK that can provide lubrication and elastic shock absorption, leading to potential pain relief, improved function, and reduced stiffness. A key opinion leader (KOL) panel discussion was held December 3, 2016, with the objective of sharing opinions, ideas, information, and trends regarding OAK and the potential treatment and management offered by viscosupplementation. The panel concluded that viscosupplementation with HA injections presents a viable, cost-effective, and safe alternative for the treatment of OAK.

DISCLOSURES

This panel discussion and report was facilitated by Magellan Rx Manage-ment and funded by Sanofi. Bert and Ruane report fees from Sanofi outside of this project. Sgaglione reports royalty payments from Zimmer Biomet and Wolters Kluwer. Dasa has received fees from Bioventus and Myoscience. All the authors received an honorarium for work on this project. Lopes is employed by Magellan Rx Management.

Comparison of the 3 Different Injection Techniques Used in a Randomized Controlled Study Evaluating a Cross-Linked Sodium Hyaluronate Combined With Triamcinolone Hexacetonide (Cingal) for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Subgroup Analysis

A recent trial demonstrated that patients with knee osteoarthritis treated with a sodium hyaluronate and corticosteroid combination (Cingal) experienced greater pain reductions compared with those treated with sodium hyaluronate alone (Monovisc) or saline up to 3 weeks postinjection. In this study, injections were administered by 1 of 3 approaches; however, there is currently no consensus on which, if any, of these techniques produce a more favorable outcome. To provide additional insight on this topic, the results of the previous trial were reanalyzed to determine whether (1) the effect of Cingal was significant within each injection technique and (2) pain reductions were similar between injection techniques across all treatment groups. Greater pain reductions with Cingal up to 3 weeks were only significant in the anteromedial subgroup. Across all therapies, both the anteromedial and anterolateral techniques demonstrated significantly greater pain reductions than the lateral midpatellar approach at 18 and 26 weeks.

Cost-Utility of a Single-Injection Combined Corticosteroid-Hyaluronic Acid Formulation vs a 2-Injection Regimen of Sequential Corticosteroid and Hyaluronic Acid Injections

Research has shown early and sustained relief with a combination therapy of a corticosteroid (CS) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This can be administered via a single injection containing both products or as separate injections. The former may be more expensive when considering only product cost, but the latter incurs the additional costs and time of a second procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost-utility of the single injection with the 2-injection regimen. The results of this analysis revealed that the single-injection formulation of a CS and HA may be cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, for symptomatic relief of OA symptoms. This treatment may also be more desirable to patients who find injections to be inconvenient or unpleasant.