The Impact of Excluding Patients with End-Stage Knee Disease in Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Potential of Intra-Articular Therapies in Managing Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common degenerative and progressive joint disorder that negatively influences patients' quality of life. Intra-articular therapies, such as hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), have garnered attention for their potential to manage osteoarthritis OA symptoms effectively. This systematic review aims to identify the effectiveness and safety of HA and PRP treatment modalities in treating KOA.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted across MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science Core Collection, and Science Direct Collection Elsevier. Twenty-three randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and observational studies were included in the review. The selection criteria focused on studies published in English within the last 10 years, involving subjects with KOA treated with intra-articular injections of HA or PRP and reporting on pain, function, or overall treatment efficacy outcomes.

RESULTS

The analysis showed that both HA and PRP significantly improve functionality and reduce pain in KOA patients. High molecular weight HA consistently reduced pain and improved joint mobility in various studies. PRP had better long-term outcomes when combined with HA, leading to greater pain reduction and functional improvement. Both therapies had generally favorable safety profiles, with only minor adverse events reported. However, there were potential biases identified across the studies, such as selection, performance, detection, and reporting biases, which impacted the reliability of the results.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular treatments with HA and PRP show promise in managing knee osteoarthritis, with personalized treatment plans and further research needed to confirm these findings.

A Review of Current Approaches to Pain Management in Knee Osteoarthritis with a Focus on Italian Clinical Landscape

The global cases of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) are projected to increase by 74.9% by 2050. Currently, over half of patients remain dissatisfied with their pain relief. This review addresses unmet needs for moderate-to-severe KOA pain; it offers evidence and insights for improved management. Italian experts from the fields of rheumatology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, orthopedics, primary care, and pain therapy have identified several key issues. They emphasized the need for standardized care protocols to address inconsistencies in patient management across different specialties. Early diagnosis is crucial, as cartilage responds better to early protective and structural therapies. Faster access to physiatrist evaluation and reimbursement for physical, rehabilitative, and pharmacological treatments, including intra-articular (IA) therapy, could reduce access disparities. Concerns surround the adverse effects of oral pharmacological treatments, highlighting the need for safer alternatives. Patient satisfaction with corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid-based IA therapies reduces over time and there is no consensus on the optimal IA therapy protocol. Surgery should be reserved for severe symptoms and radiographic KOA evidence, as chronic pain post-surgery poses significant societal and economic burdens. The experts advocate for a multidisciplinary approach, promoting interaction and collaboration between specialists and general practitioners, to enhance KOA care and treatment consistency in Italy.

Gait kinematics of osteoarthritic knees after intra-articular viscosupplementation: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The utilization of subjective questionnaires for assessing conservative treatment in knee osteoarthritis may present challenges in identifying differences due to inadequate statistical power. Objective tools, such as three-dimensional (3D) kinematic analysis, are accurate and reproducible methods. However, no high-quality studies assessing the effects of intra-articular viscosupplementation (VS) have been published. Therefore, the objective of the study was to evaluate gait kinematics of patients with advanced knee osteoarthritis after VS.

METHODS

Forty-two patients were randomized to receive either VS or saline injection (placebo). They underwent 3D kinematic gait analysis before and at 1, 6, and 12 weeks after treatment and knee angles during stance phase were determined. Patients and the healthcare team responsible for data collection, processing, and analysis were blinded to group allocation. Between-group comparisons were conducted using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Compared with placebo, the VS increased the maximum knee extension (3.2° (0.7-5.7)) and decreased the maximum knee flexion (-3.6° (-6.1 to -1.2)) on the sagittal plane at 1 week. At 6 weeks, the VS group sustained a reduced maximum knee flexion (-2.6° (-5.2 to 0.0)). On the axial plane, the VS group demonstrated an increase in maximum internal rotation at 12 weeks (3.9° (0.3 to 7.7)). The VS group exhibited reduced single-leg stance time at 1 week and increased total stance time at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

VS led to short- and long-term kinematic improvements in the sagittal and axial planes, leading to a gait pattern closer to that observed in individuals with less severe osteoarthritic knees.

Different doses of hyaluronic acid injections in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A multicenter, randomized, prospective, single-blind, clinical study

BACKGROUND

Many formulations and dosing regimens are available for hyaluronic acid (HA).

OBJECTIVE

To compare different doses of linear, high-molecular weight (HMW) HA injections among patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Hundred patients were included in this randomized, single-blinded trial and randomly divided into three HA injection groups. The first group received five weekly 20 mg HA injections, the second group received three weekly 32 mg HA injections, and the third group received a single 48 mg HA injection. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months after the last injection for pain, stiffness, and function using the visual analog scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Quality of life, patient's global assessment, and Timed Up and Go (TUG) test scores were also evaluated.

RESULTS

There was significant improvement in the WOMAC, VAS-pain, quality of life, patient's global assessment, and TUG test mean scores at all follow-up time points (p< 0.001). However, the groups showed no significant differences in WOMAC, VAS-activity pain, and patient global scores at any follow-up point.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular injections of different doses of linear HMW HA can improve pain, stiffness, function, and quality of life in patients suffering from knee OA over a six-month period.

Predictors of Clinical Benefit with Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis - A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of viscosupplementation with intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in knee osteoarthritis. One possible explanation for the inconsistent findings on its efficacy is that only certain subpopulations of patients benefit from this therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this narrative review is to succinctly summarize the existing data on the predictive factors of clinical response to intra-articular hyaluronic acid to identify the patient profile most likely to benefit from this therapy.

METHODS

For this narrative review, a PubMed search was conducted in January 2023, with no date limits, to identify publications reporting predictive factors of response to viscosupplementation using the following terms: hyaluronic acid OR viscosupplem* AND osteoarthritis AND knee AND predict*. Searches were limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta- analyses, or observational studies written in English. Other relevant references were identified by searching the references of retrieved articles.

RESULTS

The disease severity was found to reliably predict response to intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections; patients with less severe disease consistently had a more robust therapeutic response than those with more severe disease. Other clinical variables such as level of baseline pain did not reliably predict response. Body mass index, and possibly age, may also be independent predictors of the response.

CONCLUSION

A review of the existing literature suggests that patients with less severe clinical symptoms and radiological findings, who are younger, and with a lower or normal body mass index are the best candidates for intra-articular hyaluronic acid therapy.

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.

Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: What Does the Evidence Say?

The utilization of platelet-rich-plasma as a therapeutic intervention for knee osteoarthritis has gained immense attention since 2008. The increase in the number of scientific publications dedicated to this area can be attributed to the majority of favorable results reported in clinical trials and basic science studies. However, despite the growing evidence, the use of platelet-rich plasma in clinical practice still poses controversial aspects. The potential mechanisms of action described for platelet-rich-plasma so far indicate that it could serve as a disease-modifying drug, acting to counteract important aspects of knee osteoarthritis pathophysiology (cartilage breakdown, inflammation, and bone remodeling). Nevertheless, its efficacy in slowing down the progression of knee osteoarthritis remains unproven. While inconsistencies have been noted, the majority of controlled clinical trials and meta-analyses advocate for the utilization of platelet-rich-plasma in treating knee osteoarthritis, as it has demonstrated greater efficacy than hyaluronic acid and placebo, with a follow-up of at least 1 year. Despite advancements made in certain areas, significant diversity persists regarding the formulations used, therapeutic regimen, extended follow-up periods, patient selection, and assessment of clinically relevant outcomes. Consequently, the leading clinical practice guidelines do not recommend its use. In light of the emerging evidence, this narrative review aims to provide an objective evaluation of the recent available scientific literature (last 5 years) focused on randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses to present a current overview of the topic.

The value of injectable viscoelastic supplements for joints

Intra-articular viscoelastic supplements are commonly administered by musculoskeletal radiologists for the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA). This article provides an overview of the putative mechanism of action of the agents, a brief review of the evidence base underlying the practice, a commentary on some of the major society guidelines regarding the treatment, and a description of the adverse events that are associated with intra-articular hyaluronic acid administration.

The use of platelet-rich plasma in studies with early knee osteoarthritis versus advanced stages of the disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Reports have concluded that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective and safe biological approach to treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the effectiveness of PRP in advanced stages of the disease is not entirely clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the use of PRP would be as effective in studies with early-moderate knee OA patients compared to studies including patients with end-stage OA, based on the Kellgren-Lawrence classification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of PRP injections versus other intra-articular treatments on pain and functionality. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and the generic inverse variance method.

RESULTS

We included 31 clinical trials that reported data of 2705 subjects. Meta-analysis revealed an overall significant improvement of both pain [MD, - 1.05 (95% CI - 1.41 to - 0.68); I² = 86%; P ≤ 0.00001] and function [SMD, - 1.00 (95% CI - 1.33, to - 0.66); I² = 94%; P ≤ 0.00001], favoring PRP. Subanalysis for pain and functional improvement showed a significant pain relief in studies with 1-3 and 1-4 Kellgren-Lawrence OA stages and a significant functional improvement in studies with 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 knee OA stages, favoring PRP.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that including patients with advanced knee OA does not seem to affect the outcomes of clinical trials in which the effectiveness of the PRP in knee OA is assessed.

Enriched Peripheral Blood-Derived Mononuclear Cells for Treating Knee Osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common chronic skeletal disease in the elderly. There is no effective therapy to reverse disease severity and knee OA (KOA) progression, particularly at the late stage. This study aims to examine the effect of peripheral blood-derived mononuclear cells (PBMNCs) on pain and motor function rescue in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade II to IV KOA. Participants received one intra-articular (IA) injection of autologous PBMNCs. The mononuclear cells were isolated from peripheral blood, enriched by a specialized medium (MoFi medium), and separated by Ficoll-Paque solution. The isolated and enriched PBMNCs could differentiate into M1 and M2 macrophages in vitro. The in vivo anti-inflammatory effect of the PBMNCs was similar to that of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells, evaluated by complete Freund's adjuvant-induced arthritis in rodents. A single-arm and open-label pilot study showed that patients' knee pain and motor dysfunction were significantly attenuated after the cell transplantation, assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Notably, the therapeutic effect of the PBMNCs treatment can be stably maintained for 24 months, as revealed by the KOOS scores. These preclinical and pilot clinical data suggest that IA injection of MoFi-PBMNCs might serve as a novel medical technology to control the pain and the progress of KOA.

Comparing efficacy of a single intraarticular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with different hyaluronans for knee osteoarthritis: a randomized-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Intraarticular plasma-rich platelet (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) have each been shown to be effective for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). Evidence supporting the combination therapy is controversial. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a single intraarticular PRP injection combined with different HAs in patients with knee OA.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized-controlled trial, 99 patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 knee OA with average knee pain ≥ 30 mm on a 0-100 mm pain visual analog scale (VAS) were randomized into two groups. The PRP + Artz group received a single intraarticular HA (Artz, 2.5 ml, 10 mg/ml) followed by 3 ml PRP (n = 50). The PRP + HYAJOINT Plus group received a single intraarticular cross-linked HA (HYAJOINT Plus, 3 ml, 20 mg/ml) followed by 3 ml PRP (n = 49). All patients were evaluated before and at 1, 3 and 6 months after injections. The primary outcome was the VAS pain reduction from baseline at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequesne index, single leg stance (SLS) test and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Ninety-five patients were analyzed by intention-to-treat analysis. Both groups improved significantly in VAS pain, WOMAC, Lequesne index and SLS at 1, 3 and 6 months post intervention (p < 0.05). Between-group comparisons showed no significant differences at most follow-up time points, except better improvements in Lequesne index at 1 month (p = 0.003) and WOMAC-stiffness score at 6 months (p = 0.020) in the PRP + Artz group, and superiority in SLS at 1, 3 and 6 months in the PRP+ HYAJOINT Plus group (p < 0.001, p = 0.003 and p = 0.004). Additional Johnson-Neyman analyses showed that among the patients with baseline WOMAC-pain score > 8.5, WOMAC-function score > 21.7 and WOMAC-total score > 32.0, respectively, those treated with PRP + HYAJOINT Plus injections had better effects in WOMAC-pain, WOMAC-function and WOMAC-total scores than those treated with PRP + Artz at 3 months postinjection (p < 0.05). Both groups reported high satisfaction. No serious adverse events occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

A single PRP injection combined with Artz or HYAJOINT Plus is effective and safe for 6 months in patients with knee OA. Both injection regimens are potential treatment options for knee OA. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04931719), retrospectively. Date of registration 18/6/2021.

NAME OF TRIAL REGISTRY

Comparing efficacy of single PRP combined with different hyaluronans for knee osteoarthritis.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level 1.

Intra-articular injection of stromal vascular fraction for knee degenerative joint disease: a concise review of preclinical and clinical evidence

Autologous fat-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) is a mixed cell population that has been used for many years in regenerative plastic surgery. In terms of animal and clinical research, this concise review was performed to evaluate the efficacy of SVF in knee degenerative joint disease (KDJD), which could cause pain, disability and severely affect patients' lives. Thirteen studies retrieved and screened from the databases were included, including six animal studies and seven clinical trials. The meta-analysis of clinical research shows that intra-articular injection of SVF, in combination with adjuvant surgery, could alleviate pain and improve early functional recovery for patients with KDJD at Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grades II-III.

Comparing the Efficacy of Intra-Articular Single Platelet-Rich Plasma(PRP) versus Novel Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid for Early-Stage Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and Objectives: For the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and novel crosslinked single-dose hyaluronic acid (HA) have both been reported to improve outcomes, but no study has compared them for the treatment of knee OA. We hypothesized patients with early-stage knee OA who received PRP injections would have more WOMAC score changes than those who received HA injections. This is the first prospective, double-blind, parallel, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of intra-articular single-dose PRP versus novel crosslinked HA (HyajointPlus) for treating early-stage knee OA. Materials and Methods: This study analyzed 110 patients randomized into the PRP (n = 54) or HA (n = 56) groups. The primary outcome is the change of WOMAC score at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups compared to baseline. Results: The data revealed significant improvements in all WOMAC scores in the PRP group at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up visits compared with the baseline level except for the WOMAC stiffness score at the 1-month follow up. In the HA group, significant improvements were observed only in the WOMAC pain score for all the follow-up visits and in WOMAC stiffness, function, and total scores at 6-month follow-up. When comparing the change of WOMAC score at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups, no significant differences were found between PRP and HA group. Conclusions: This study revealed that both PRP and HA can yield significant improvements in WOMAC scores at 6-month follow-up without any between-group differences at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Thus, both the single-injection regimens of PRP and HA can improve the functional outcomes for treating early-stage knee OA.

Viscosupplementation in the Therapy for Osteoarthritic Knee

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease that is spreading worldwide due to an aging population. This is not simply a disease caused by worn out joints, but a complex disease accompanied by various mechanisms such as inflammatory reactions. Among various joints, knee joints show degenerative changes earlier than other joints because they carry most of the weight load, causing social-economic problems. In the case of OA of the knee that does not respond to relatively simple conservative treatments such as physical therapy or medication, intra-articular injection is preferred. However, intra-articular injection drugs have limited effectiveness and uncertainties. There are several intra-articular viscous supplement drugs such as hyaluronic acid. Tissue regeneration active materials such as polydeoxyribonucleotide and polynucleotide are also newly used. The objective of this paper was to compare effects of intra-articular supplementation drugs used for degenerative arthritis of the knee.

Intraarticular Hyaluronic Acid Preparations for Knee Osteoarthritis: Are Some Better Than Others?

OBJECTIVE

This literature review summarizes evidence on the safety and efficacy of intraarticular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) preparations approved in the United States for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases. Only studies in which clinical outcomes of individual IAHA preparations alone could be assessed when compared to placebo, no treatment, other standard knee osteoarthritis treatments, and IAHA head-to-head studies were selected.

RESULTS

One hundred nine articles meeting our inclusion criteria were identified, including 59 randomized and 50 observational studies. Hylan G-F 20 has been the most extensively studied preparation, with consistent results confirming efficacy in placebo-controlled studies. Efficacy is also consistently reported for Supartz, Monovisc, and Euflexxa, but not for Hyalgan, Orthovisc, and Durolane. In the head-to-head trials, high-molecular-weight (MW) Hylan G-F 20 was consistently superior to low MW sodium hyaluronate preparations (Hyalgan, Supartz) up to 20 weeks, whereas one study reported that Durolane was noninferior to Supartz. Head-to-head trials comparing high versus medium MW preparations all used Hylan G-F 20 as the high MW preparation. Of the IAHA preparations with strong evidence of efficacy in placebo-controlled studies, Euflexxa was found to be noninferior to Hylan G-F 20. There are no direct comparisons to Monovisc. One additional IAHA preparation (ie, Synovial), which has not been assessed in placebo-controlled studies, was also noninferior to Hylan G-F 20.

CONCLUSION

IAHA efficacy varies widely across preparations. High-quality studies are required to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of IAHA preparations.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of intra-articular administration of highly purified hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis in real clinical practice

Knee osteoarthritis (kOA) is a common cause of turning for medical advice, associated with chronic pain and disability. One of the methods of OA treatment is the local administration of hyaluronic acid (HA) drugs.Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness of intra-articular (IA) administration of highly purified HA (Armaviskon Plus) in kOA.Patients and methods. The study group consisted of 58 patients (74.1% women and 25.9% men, aged 59.5±11.8 years) with kOA, experiencing moderate/severe pain (≥40 mm on a visual analogue scale, VAS). All patients received IA injection of HA Armaviskon Plus (2 ml of a 1.5% solution), 2 injections with an interval of 7 days. The effectiveness criterion was the dynamics of pain at rest and during movement (VAS 0-100 mm) and the function of the knee joint according to a numerical rating scale (NRS 0-100 points) 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months after administration of therapy.Results and discussion. During the treatment, there was a significant improvement in all indicators. The average severity of pain during movement at baseline, after 2 weeks, 1 and 3 months was 50 [40; 60], 30 [20; 40], 15 [0; 30], 20 [0; 30] mm (p<0.001), at rest 20 [10; 40], 5 [0; 20], 0 [0; 20], 10 [0; 20] mm (p<0.05) by VAS. The average values of functional indicators were 40 [10; 60], 10 [0; 40], 20 [0; 40], 10 [10; 30] scores according to the NRS. A decrease in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs demand was recorded: 67.1% of patients were initially taking them, after 3 months – 36.1% (p<0.001). No serious adverse reactions were noted.Conclusion. IA administration of HA is an effective and safe method for the treatment of kOA. Armaviskon Plus, a highly purified high-molecular- weight HA drug, has shown good results in pain reduction and improvement of function in knee OA as well as a favorable safety profile, which makes it possible to recommend its use in real clinical practice.

Intra-Articular Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cells, and Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Associated With Better Outcomes Than Hyaluronic Acid and Saline in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate clinical efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA), leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP), leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), adipose mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs), and saline (placebo) during 6 and 12 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. Outcome assessment included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) pain subscore, WOMAC score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and treatment-related AEs. Main inclusion criteria were at least one of the aforementioned outcome measurements, a minimum follow-up period of 5 months, and >80% patient follow-up. Treatments combined with the use of other operations or drugs were excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. At 6 months, VAS scores and WOMAC pain subscores showed that AD-MSCs were the best treatment option (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 96.7%, SUCRA = 85.3%, respectively). According to WOMAC scores and subjective IKDC scores, LP-PRP was the most effective treatment (SUCRA = 86.0%, SUCRA = 80.5%, respectively). At 12 months, only AD-MSCs were associated with improved VAS scores compared with the placebo (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -20.93, 95% credibility interval [CrI], -41.71 to -0.78). Both LP-PRP and AD-MSCs were more beneficial than the placebo for improving WOMAC pain subscores (WMD = -30.08; 95% CrI, -53.59 to -6.25; WMD = -34.85; 95% CrI, -68.03 to -4.86, respectively). For WOMAC scores, LP-PRP and LR-PRP were significantly associated with improved WOMAC scores compared with the placebo after sensitivity analysis was performed (WMD = -35.26; 95% CrI, -64.99 to -6.01; WMD = -38.69; 95% CrI, -76.21 to -2.76). LP-PRP exhibited relatively better efficacy in improving subjective IKDC scores than the placebo (WMD = 13.67; 95% CrI, 4.05-23.39). Regarding safety, all treatments except for LP-PRP (relative risk = 1.83; 95% CrI, 0.89-4.64) increased treatment-related AEs compared with the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of current research findings, during 6 months of follow-up, AD-MSCs relieved pain the best; LP-PRP was most effective for functional improvement. During the 12-month follow-up, both AD-MSCs and LP-PRP showed potential clinical pain relief effects; functional improvement was achieved with LP-PRP. Unfortunately, AD-MSC/LP-PRP functional comparisons were only based on WOMAC scores due to missing IKDC scores. BM-MSCs seem to have potentially beneficial effects, but the wide credibility interval makes it impossible to draw a well-supported conclusion. HA viscosupplementation clinical efficacy was lower than that of biological agents during follow-up, which may be related to the properties of the drugs. Considering the evaluation of treatment-related AEs, LP-PRP is the most advisable choice; although the AEs of these treatments are not serious, they may affect treatment compliance and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Comprehensive Review of Knee Osteoarthritis Pharmacological Treatment and the Latest Professional Societies' Guidelines

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal progressive disease, with the knee as the most commonly affected joint in the human body. While several new medications are still under research, many symptomatic therapy options, such as analgesics (opioid and non-opioid), nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis, and preparations for topical administration, are being used, with a diverse clinical response and inconsistent conclusions across various professional societies guidelines. The concept of pharmacogenomic-guided therapy, which lies on principles of the right medication for the right patient in the right dose at the right time, can significantly increase the patient’s response to symptom relief therapy in knee osteoarthritis. Corticosteroid intra-articular injections and hyaluronic acid injections provoke numerous discussions and disagreements among different guidelines, even though they are currently used in daily clinical practice. Biological options, such as platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cell injections, have shown good results in the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms, greatly increasing the patient’s quality of life, especially when combined with other therapeutic options. Non-inclusion of the latter therapies in the guidelines, and their inconsistent stance on numerous therapy options, requires larger and well-designed studies to examine the true effects of these therapies and update the existing guidelines.

Intra-Articular Injection of Amniotic Membrane and Umbilical Cord Particulate for the Management of Moderate to Severe Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective

To evaluate the long-term benefit of a single injection of amniotic membrane/umbilical cord (AM/UC) particulate in patients with moderate to severe knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A single-center, investigator-initiated, retrospective study of patients who received intra-articular injection of 100 mg lyophilized and micronized AM/UC for radiographically confirmed, Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grade 3 or 4 symptomatic knee OA. Data regarding demographics, OA severity, comorbidities, treatment regimens, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were collected and assessed. Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) was assessed on a 7-point scale, and Global Perceived Improvement (GPI), expressed as percent improvement relative to baseline, was used to further quantify the degree of symptomatic change. Clinically important response to treatment was assessed at 12 months using simplified OMERACT–OARSI responder criteria.

Results

A total of 42 patients with KL grade 3 (36%) and 4 (64%) knee OA were included for analysis. Prior to injection, patient-rated pain was 6.6 ± 1.5 out of 10 (median: 7, range: 3–10) despite prior treatment with oral/topical NSAIDs (62%) and intra-articular injection(s) of corticosteroids (57%) and/or hyaluronic acid (48%). Twelve months following AM/UC injection, 31 patients (74%) reported significant clinical improvement via PGIC, and the OMERACT–OARSI treatment response rate was 81% (34/42). GPI of pain and function was 62 ± 24%, 69 ± 27%, 69 ± 27%, and 64 ± 31% at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Symptomatic improvement was maintained for an average duration of 12.1 ± 4.5 months (median: 12, range: 3–22). One patient developed swelling in the knee within 36 hours of injection. No other adverse events or complications were reported.

Conclusion

Intra-articular injection of AM/UC particulate may be effective in alleviating pain and improving function in patients with moderate to severe knee OA, with the potential to delay total knee replacement for up to 12 months.

Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment Costs in the Medicare Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Several nonoperative options have been recommended for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), with varying degrees of evidence. Adhering to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines has been suggested to decrease direct treatment costs by 45% in the year before knee arthroplasty, but this does not consider the cost of the entire episode of care, including the cost of surgery and postsurgery care.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the total treatment costs after a diagnosis of knee OA, as well as the proportion of arthroplasty interventions as part of the total knee OA-related costs, and whether the total costs differed for patients who received intra-articular hyaluronic acid and/or had knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

We identified patients newly diagnosed with knee OA using the 5% Medicare data sample from January 2010 to December 2015. Patients were excluded if they were aged <65 years, had incomplete claim history, did not reside in any of the 50 states, had claim history <12 months before knee OA diagnosis, or did not enroll in Medicare Part A and Part B. The study analyzed knee OA-related costs from a payer perspective in terms of reimbursements provided by Medicare, as well as the time from the diagnosis of knee OA to knee arthroplasty for patients who had knee arthroplasty, and the time from the first hyaluronic acid injection to knee arthroplasty for those who received the injection. We compared patients who received hyaluronic acid and those who did not receive hyaluronic acid injections. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injection who subsequently had knee arthroplasty were also compared with those who did not have subsequent knee arthroplasty.

RESULTS

Of the 275,256 patients with knee OA, 45,801 (16.6%) received a hyaluronic acid injection and 35,465 (12.9%) had knee arthroplasty during the study period. The median time to knee arthroplasty was 16.4 months for patients who received hyaluronic acid versus 5.7 months for those who did not receive hyaluronic acid. Non-arthroplasty-related therapies and knee arthroplasty accounted for similar proportions of knee OA-related costs, with hyaluronic acid injection comprising 5.6% of the total knee OA-related costs. For patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and subsequently had knee arthroplasty, hyaluronic acid injection contributed 1.8% of the knee OA-related costs versus 76.6% of the cost from knee arthroplasty. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and did not have knee arthroplasty incurred less than 10% of the knee OA-related costs that patients who had surgery incurred.

CONCLUSION

Although limiting hyaluronic acid use may reduce the knee OA-related costs, in this study hyaluronic acid injection only comprised a small fraction of the overall costs related to knee OA. Among patients who had knee arthroplasty, those who received treatment with hyaluronic acid had surgery delayed by a median of 10.7 months and associated costs for a significant period. The ability to delay or avoid knee arthroplasty altogether can have a substantial impact on healthcare costs.

Development and Prospect of Intra-Articular Injection in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Review

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative disease that affects the vast majority of the elderly and may eventually embark on the road of the total knee arthroplasty (TKA), although controversy still exists in the medical community about the best therapies for osteoarthritis. Compared with physical therapy, oral analgesics and other non-operative treatments, intra-articular injection is more safe and effective. Moreover, intra-articular injection is much less invasive and has fewer adverse reactions than surgical treatment. This article reviews mechanism, benefits and adverse reactions of corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs), stromal vascular fraction (SVF) and other new therapies (for example: gene therapy). The application prospect of intra-articular injection was analyzed according to the recent progress in drug research.

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.