A double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing alternate forms of high molecular weight hyaluronan for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee

Advances in viscosupplementation and tribosupplementation for early-stage osteoarthritis therapy

Joint kinematic instability, arising from congenital or acquired musculoskeletal pathoanatomy or from imbalances in anabolism and catabolism induced by pathophysiological factors, leads to deterioration of the composition, structure and function of cartilage and, ultimately, progression to osteoarthritis (OA). Alongside articular cartilage degeneration, synovial fluid lubricity decreases in OA owing to a reduction in the concentration and molecular weight of hyaluronic acid and surface-active mucinous glycoproteins that form a lubricating film over the articulating joint surfaces. Minimizing friction between articulating joint surfaces by lubrication is fundamental for decreasing hyaline cartilage wear and for maintaining the function of synovial joints. Augmentation with highly viscous supplements (that is, viscosupplementation) offers one approach to re-establishing the rheological and tribological properties of synovial fluid in OA. However, this approach has varied clinical outcomes owing to limited intra-articular residence time and ineffective mechanisms of chondroprotection. This Review discusses normal hyaline cartilage function and lubrication and examines the advantages and disadvantages of various strategies for restoring normal joint lubrication. These strategies include contemporary viscosupplements that contain antioxidants, anti-inflammatory drugs or platelet-rich plasma and new synthetic synovial fluid additives and cartilage matrix enhancers. Advanced biomimetic tribosupplements offer promise for mitigating cartilage wear, restoring joint function and, ultimately, improving patient care.

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.

Safety and effectiveness of intra-articular injection of a highly cross-linked hyaluronic acid, LBSA0103 (Synovian): Results from a post-marketing surveillance study in South Korea

This study aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of the highly cross-linked hyaluronic acid-LBSA0103-in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) as per the prescribing information (PI) in South Korea. A total of 3,140 subjects aged ≥19 years were enrolled in this post-marketing surveillance (PMS) study from 2013 to 2019. The subjects received one or two injections of LBSA0103. The median duration of follow-up was 308 days. Adverse events (AEs), adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and serious AEs (SAEs) were monitored. Effectiveness was evaluated based on an index of effectiveness in accordance with the guidelines established by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety and using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) for weight-bearing pain. Overall, 250 subjects (7.96%) experienced 292 AEs and of these, unexpected AEs occurred in 114 subjects (3.63% [95% CI: 3.00-4.35]). Injection site pain was the most frequent AE reported by 81 subjects (2.58% [95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.05-3.20]). One hundred subjects experienced 108 ADRs (3.18% [95% CI: 2.60, 3.86]) and 15 unexpected ADRs were experienced by 13 subjects (0.41% [95% CI: 0.22-0.71]). Seventeen subjects experienced 22 SAEs (0.54% [95% CI: 0.32-0.87]) during the entire PMS period, and all were considered "unlikely" related to the study drug. Most AEs were mild in terms of severity and resolved during the study period. LBSA0103 was also effective in relieving symptomatic pain in knee OA patients. The condition in more than 80% of the subjects was considered to be improved when assessed by the investigators. LBSA0103 resulted in a significant reduction in the mean VAS score at 12 weeks after the first and second injections (24.79 (± 20.55) mm and 17.63 (±12.31) mm, respectively; p<0.0001). In conclusion, LBSA0103, used for the treatment of knee OA in a real-world setting, was well tolerated, with an acceptable safety profile and consistent therapeutic effect.

Efficacy and Safety of Intra-Articular Cross-Linked Sodium Hyaluronate for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Active-Controlled, Randomized, Parallel-Group, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study

The safety and efficacy of Hyruan ONE (test product), an intra-articular cross-linked sodium hyaluronate injection, to treat mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis was compared with that of Durolane (comparator) in a prospective, active-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind (masked-observed), multicenter non-inferiority study. European patients (n = 284) were randomized 1:1 (test product:comparator) and received one injection of cross-linked hyaluronic acid (60 mg/3 mL). In total, 280 patients completed the study. The primary endpoint of mean change in Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC)-Likert Pain sub-scores from baseline at week 13 revealed changes of -5.59 and -5.54 for the test and comparator groups, respectively, demonstrating non-inferiority of the test product (difference, -0.05 [95% confidence interval, -0.838 to 0.729]). Secondary endpoint results, which included changes in WOMAC-Likert Pain sub-score from baseline to 26 weeks post-injection and changes in WOMAC-Likert Total score and Physical Function and Stiffness sub-scores, changes in patients' and investigators' global assessments, use of rescue medication, and responder rates at 13 and 26 weeks post-injection were similar between the groups. Incidence of adverse events was also similar. In both groups, most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild/moderate. Hyruan ONE was non-inferior to the comparator at 13 weeks post-injection in European patients with mild-to-moderate knee osteoarthritis.

A comparative study of the efficacy of intra-articular injection of different drugs in the treatment of mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) has a high clinical prevalence and frequently interferes with patients normal lives. In KOA patients, evidence suggests that intra-articular (IA) injection improves joint function and decreases discomfort. Several IA injection treatments are used in daily practice to improve symptomatic control of knee osteoarthritis, but their efficacy is frequently disputed.

METHODS

This network meta-analysis compares the efficacy of different IA injections for mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis. Seven databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine disc, WanFang, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched for randomized controlled trials published up to and including December 20, 2021, and final follow up indicators were used. Visual analogue scale (VAS) score and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score change from baseline were the primary outcomes. We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess the quality and risks of biases of papers. We calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for each outcome. State (Version 15.1, Texas, USA) and SPSS (Version 20, Chicago, USA) was used in all statistical analyses, and Review Manager (version 5.4) was used in assessing the risks of biases.

RESULTS

Our study included 16 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1652 patients. platelet-rich plasma (PRP) IA injection therapy had the highest likelihood of being the best intervention in reducing WOMAC pain (surface under the cumulative ranking area [SUCRA] 84.7%), stiffness (SUCRA 95.1%), and function (SUCRA 98.5%) scores, according to the SUCRA. The best measures for lowering the WOMAC total and VAS scores were IA injection platelet-rich plasma-derived growth factor (SUCRA 84.9%) and hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma (SUCRA 84.9%). In the VAS score group, PRP outperformed hyaluronic acid (HA) (WMD 1.3, 95% CI 0.55-2.55) and corticosteroids (CS) (WMD 4.85, 95% CI 4.02-5.08), according to the forest map results. PRP also outperformed CS (WMD 14.76, 95% CI 12.11-17.41), ozone (WMD 9.16, 95% CI 6.89-11.43), and PRP + HA (WMD 2.18, 95% CI 0.55-3.81) in the WOMAC total score group. Furthermore, PRP outperforms other drugs in terms of reducing WOMAC function, stiffness, and function score.

CONCLUSION

In patients with mild to moderate KOA, IA injection PRP outperformed IA injection ozone, HA, CS, platelet-rich plasma-derived growth factor, and hyaluronic acid and platelet-rich plasma in terms of pain, stiffness, and dysfunction.

Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Intra-articular Injection after Arthroscopic Knee Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hyaluronic acid (HA) intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery has been widely applied but its efficacy and safety remain controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the efficacy and safety of HA intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery, and to compare the efficacy of HA with different molecular weights.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Google scholar and the Cochrane library from inception to 16 September 2022 for English-written articles, in order to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluated the clinical efficacy and/or safety of HA intra-articular injection after arthroscopic knee surgery. Then we meta-analyzed the outcomes of patients given intra-articular HA injections postoperatively and control patients. We also evaluated the influence of HA with different molecular weights. In every calculation, sensitive analysis was performed. The visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and adverse events were selected as the primary outcome measurements, while Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner score were selected as the secondary outcome measurements. Publication bias of every outcome was evaluated using egger test.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving 951 knees were included and 12 of them were used to performed the meta-analysis. The results showed no significant difference between the HA group and control group according to VAS, whether assessed at less (P = 0.90) or more than 6 months (P = 0.55). Besides, there were no statistical differences between the HA group and control group according to subgroup analysis (Ps = 0.77, 0.91 and 0.81 in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, meniscectomy and overall groups, respectively). Compared to control group, the overall effect of WOMAC score showed no significant differences (P = 0.25), nor did in two subgroups (P = 0.37 and P = 0.22). Outcomes measured by Lysholm (P = 0.13), IKDC (P = 0.86) and Tegner (P = 0.42) scores showed no significant differences, either. The analysis of the risk of adverse events indicated no increase in HA groups (P = 0.06). We found no significant differences between high- and low-molecular-weight HA at 6 (P = 0.96) or 12 months (P = 0.93) postoperatively. Two studies failed to pass the sensitive analysis and the reasons were discussed detailly and acceptable publication bias was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although HA injection after arthroscopic knee surgery is safe, the available evidence does not support its efficacy in pain relief and functional recovery. Therefore, the application of HA injection after arthroscopic knee surgery is not recommended.

Ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid injection for the treatment of insertional Achilles tendinopathy: A prospective case series

BACKGROUND

Heel pain is a common condition and often involves the Achilles tendon and is classified as insertional or non-insertional. Several operative and non-operative treatments have been described, but there is no consensus on the most effective therapy. The aim of this study is to evaluate a case series of patients with insertional Achilles tendinopathy refractory to conservative treatment submitted to a single-dose ultrasound-guided injection of hyaluronic acid (40 mg/2.0 mL).

METHODS

We prospectively included 25 patients (29 feet) who underwent a single ultrasound-guided injection of hyaluronic acid after conservative treatment failure. Clinical outcomes such as pain (using the Visual Analog Scale - VAS), function (using the American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society - AOFAS score), personal satisfaction, and complications were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using the R software.

RESULTS

Most patients were female (80%) and there was a right-side predominance (55%). The median VAS was 8 points [range 4-10] at baseline, decreasing to 3 points [range 0-8] at the six-month follow-up, with statistical significance (p < .001). The median AOFAS score was 71 points [range 38-87] at baseline, increasing to 90 points [range 48-100] at the six-month follow-up (p < .001). The personal satisfaction level was 69%, and 48% of patients considered the result excellent. There were no Achilles tendon ruptures, infections, or allergic reactions post injection.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose injection of hyaluronic acid is a safe treatment option, improving function and reducing pain for six months in patients with insertional Achilles tendinopathy after conservative treatment failure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

First-in-human Study to Evaluate a Single Injection of KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan for Treating Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis

Background:

Single-injection viscosupplementation is currently performed with cross-linked hyaluronan (e.g., Durolane®) for treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Objective:

This first-in-human study evaluated the safety and performance of single-injection treatment with non-crosslinked KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan.

Methods:

Patients with painful knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan (n=63) or Durolane® (n=32) group. Patients were blinded to treatment and followed up for 26 weeks. Durolane® was used as scientific control to ensure the validity of the study and reliability of results. No direct comparison was performed between the two groups. The primary objective was defined as an intra-group effect size of 0.8 at 13 weeks post-injection compared to baseline on WOMAC-A (pain). Secondary outcomes included self-reported knee stiffness and knee function, responder rate, quality-of-life questionnaires, and safety.

Results:

The primary objective for both the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan and the Durolane® groups was met: mean pain reduction of 62.5% (effect size 2.08) for the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan group and 62.4% (effect size 2.28) for the Durolane® group. Secondary performance outcomes showed all clinically relevant treatment effects over 26 weeks for both groups (p<0.05). Treatment-related adverse events were more often reported in the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan than Durolane® group and were limited to local reactions. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusion:

A single intra-articular injection of non-crosslinked KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan is safe and effective for treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis with a high responder rate. Pain reduction is maintained for 6 months with a high responder rate.

The clinical trial registration number: NCT03679208.

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.

Risk of Severe Acute Localized Reactions for Different Intraarticular Hyaluronic Acid Knee Injections in a Real-World Setting

OBJECTIVE

Case reports of severe acute localized reactions (SALR) following intraarticular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been described. We compared surrogate SALR measures between patients using hylan G-F 20 and specific non-hylan G-F 20 HA products.

DESIGN

Knee OA patients were identified from the Optum Clinformatics dataset (January 2006 to June 2016), stratified into hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 HA users, matched by single or multiple injection products. Occurrences of surrogate SALR measures including inflammation/infection, intraarticular corticosteroid (CS) injections, arthrocentesis/aspiration, arthrotomy/incision and drainage, and arthroscopy were evaluated within 3 days post-HA.

RESULTS

Based on 694,404 HA injections, inflammation/infection rate was rare within 3 days of HA (up to 0.03%), with no statistical differences between hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 groups (matched by single or multiple injection products). The risk of knee arthrotomy/incision and drainage, arthroscopy, or arthrocentesis for hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection patients was lower than Hyalgan/Supartz and Orthovisc patients, but greater than Euflexxa patients. Overall, we found that Hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection had lower SALR rates compared to Hyalgan/Supartz and Orthovisc. However, Hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection had slightly higher rates of SALR when compared to Euflexxa. Among the single injection products, Hylan G-F 20 (6 mL) single injection had lower rates of SALR than Monovisc and Gel-One.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows no clear correlation between avian-derived or cross-linked products and SALR and provides evidence against avian-derived products or crosslinking as a source for these reactions.

Intra-Articular Injection of a Novel DVS Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid Manufactured by Biological Fermentation (YYD302) in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Multicenter, Noninferiority Study

PURPOSE

This double-blind, randomized, Phase III clinical trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of the novel divinyl sulfone cross-linked hyaluronate (YYD302) compared with the 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether cross-linked hyaluronate (Synovian) in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A total of 184 patients with osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade I-III) were randomized to 1 of 2 study groups (YYD302 group, n = 95; Synovian group, n = 89). A single injection of YYD302 or Synovian was given to both groups, and 182 participants completed the study (YYD302 group, n = 95; Synovian group, n = 87). The primary end point was the change in weight-bearing pain (WBP) at 12 weeks after the primary single injection. Secondary end points included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score; the Patient Global Assessment and Investigator Global Assessment; the range of motion, swelling, and tenderness of the target knee; OMERACT-OARSI responder rate; WBP responder rate (the proportion of patients achieving at least 20 mm or 40% decrease in WBP); and rate of rescue medicine use and its total consumption at weeks 2, 4, and 12. Based on the efficacy results at week 12, the responders were administered an additional single injection of the same study drug at week 24, and safety and efficacy were additionally assessed at week 36.

FINDINGS

Mean changes of WBP at 12 weeks after the primary injection were -31.76 mm with YYD302 and -29.74 mm with Synovian, proving noninferiority of the YYD302 group to the Synovian group as the lower bound of the 95% CI (-4.3 to 8.3) was well above the predefined margin (-10 mm). At week 2, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (total, pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores (total, stiffness) were significantly better in the YYD302 group than in the Synovian group. There were no significant differences between the groups in all other end points. Local overall adverse events (pain, heat, erythema, or swelling) at the injection site were observed in 48.4% of the YYD302 group and in 47.7% of the Synovian group. No serious reactions were reported. There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups regarding re-injected patients (YYD302 group, n = 54; Synovian group, n = 46) in any of the efficacy outcomes at week 36.

IMPLICATIONS

The results of this study support that YYD302 is comparable to Synovian in terms of the efficacy and safety of the intra-articular injection treatment for osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Furthermore, YYD302 provided faster improvements in some efficacy assessments compared with Synovian. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03561779.

Safety and efficacy of a single intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid in osteoarthritis of the hip: a case series of 87 patients

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent form of joint disease and commonly affects the hip. Hip OA is associated with a high socioeconomic burden. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection may be of benefit but quality evidence for HA use in hip OA is lacking. The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ultrasound guided injection of a high molecular weight, non-animal derived, stabilised HA (NASHA) in patients with mild to moderate hip OA.

Methods

This single site study is an analysis of prospectively collected outcome data for 87 consecutive patients over a 2-year period who received a single HA (Durolane) injection for symptomatic hip OA. Inclusion criteria were male or female patients over 18-years of age with mild to moderate hip OA on x-ray. Patients with severe hip OA were excluded. The primary outcome measure was a modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) questionnaire at baseline and 6-weeks with a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 10 points. All adverse events were recorded and assessed.

Results

Data from 87 patients, 49 women and 38 men with mean age of 54 (SD = 10.8) were analysed. At baseline, mean mHHS was 58.47 (SD 14.31). At the 6 week follow up, mean mHHS improved to 71.30 (SD 16.46), a difference of 12.83 (p < 0.01). This was greater than the MCID of 10. No significant adverse events were encountered. Five patients reported short-lived injection site pain.

Conclusion

A single injection of HA (NASHA) in the setting of hip joint OA was both safe and efficacious in this 87 patient cohort. Improvement in pain and function as measured with mHHS was statistically significant and reached the MCID of 10.

Trial registration

The study was retrospectively registered on the 1st of February 2021 in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry with registry number ACTRN12621000098831. All research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Knee Osteoarthritis Pain Management with an Innovative High and Low Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid Formulation (HA-HL): A Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare a single intra-articular injection of an innovative high and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid formulation (HA-HL) versus placebo in treating moderate-to-severe symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Subjects with primary osteoarthritis knee pain (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2-3) were randomly assigned to intra-articular HA-HL or placebo in a prospective, double-blind, 24-week study. The primary outcome variable was change from screening to week 24 of a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score. Secondary outcomes included Lequesne's algofunctional index, EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire, 5-level version (EQ-5D-5L), Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) response and rescue medication usage.

RESULTS

In a total of 692 randomized patients, a rapid decrease was observed in mean VAS pain score from baseline to week 1 (26 ± 24 mm in the HA-HL group vs. 23 ± 23 mm in the placebo group); pain intensity continued to decrease during 24 weeks of follow-up, reaching a mean change from baseline of 35 ± 28 mm vs. 32 ± 27 mm at week 24. Mixed model analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups in favor of the HA-HL group at weeks 1, 6, 12, and 24. HA-HL was also more effective than placebo in improving Lequesne's algofunctional index, OMERACT-OARSI response, and health-related quality of life. The use of rescue medication (paracetamol 500 mg tablets; ≤ 6 per day) was lower in the HA-HL group. Both treatments were similarly well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

A single intra-articular injection of an innovative high and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid formulation (HA-HL) is effective in providing fast, sustained, and clinically relevant reductions in pain, functional limitation, and health-related quality of life that were apparent at 1 week after the intra-articular injection and maintained throughout the 24-week follow-up in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03200288.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-analysis of 26 Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with adult knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and to explore the most effective and safe protocol by using a meta-analysis method.

METHODS

This study was based on Cochrane methodology for conducting a meta-analysis. Only randomized controlled trials with an experimental group that used PRP and a control group that received HA were eligible for this study. The participants were adults who had KOA. The outcome measures were the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS), the EuroQol VAS, the International Knee Documentation Committee, the Tegner score, the Lequesne Scale, the Knee injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, satisfaction rate, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses was performed for patients with different doses, types, and times of PRP interventions and grades of OA. The Review Manager Database was used to analyze the included studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-six randomized controlled trials involving 2430 patients were included. The WOMAC total scores, WOMAC physical function scores, and VAS scores of the PRP group were better than the those of the HA group at 3, 6, and 12 months. The PRP group had better WOMAC pain, WOMAC stiffness, EuroQol VAS, and International Knee Documentation Committee scores than the HA group at 6 and 12 months. There was no significant difference in adverse events between the 2 groups (relative risk 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.54; P = .13).

CONCLUSIONS

For the nonsurgical treatment of KOA, compared with HA, intra-articular injection of PRP could significantly reduce patients' early pain and improve function. There was no significant difference in adverse events between the 2 groups. PRP was more effective than HA in the treatment of KOA, and the safety of these 2 treatment options was comparable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, meta-analysis of Level I RCTs.

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.

Rheological properties of synovial fluid due to viscosupplements: A review for osteoarthritis remedy

The synovial fluid is a transparent electrolyte solution included in joints to provide lubrication helping the proper movement. It exhibits complex rheological properties due to the interaction among its constituents i.e. hyaluronic acid, albumin, lubricin and phospholipids. In degenerative osteoarthritis and inflammatory rheumatoid arthritis diseases, the quantity of synovial fluid and lubrication efficiency significantly deteriorates. In that case, viscosupplementation with intra-articular hyaluronic acid may be prescribed to replenish the concentration, the molecular weight and the rheological properties of natural synovial fluid. The present review concentrates on the recent advancements in viscosupplementation with emphasis into their rheological properties, its effects on the rheological behavior of synovial fluid, and finally its clinical effectiveness. Initially, the properties of synovial fluid are summarized, and then a discussion on commercial viscosupplements, the role of polymeric properties and their rheological properties are reviewed. Moreover, a detailed discussion on the clinical effectiveness and challenges of viscosupplements are provided.

One-year efficacy and safety of single or one to three weekly injections of hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of single or 1–3 weekly injections of hylan G-F 20 at 1 year following the first injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Searches were conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL and included relevant conference proceedings (January 1, 1995–August 17, 2020). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomized trials, and observational studies investigating 1-year efficacy and safety of 1–3 weekly injections or single hylan G-F 20 injection for knee OA were included. Primary outcomes were WOMAC pain, physical function, and stiffness. Meta-analyses of RCTs and non-randomized studies were conducted separately. Our search identified 24 eligible studies. Hylan G-F 20, in the meta-analyses of RCTs, showed statistically significant improvement in WOMAC pain (SMCC − 0.98, 95% CI − 1.50, − 0.46), physical function (SMCC − 1.05, 95% CI − 1.28, − 0.83), and stiffness (SMCC − 1.07, 95% CI −1.28, −0.86). Improvement was also seen for VAS pain, SF-36 MCS (mental component summary), and SF-36 PCS (physical component summary). Analyses of non-randomized studies showed similar efficacy estimates. There were no significant differences in efficacy based on injection schedule, nor between RCT and non-randomized studies. Rates of adverse events (AEs) were low for most types of AEs. Hylan G-F 20 (either as single or 1–3 weekly injections) showed improvement in 1-year efficacy outcomes in comparison to baseline and was generally well tolerated. While further research will inform the medical field regarding viscosupplementation treatment options for knee OA, these findings show that hylan G-F 20 at both frequencies/dosages are efficacious and generally well tolerated for long-term use.

Effects of Hyaluronan Molecular Weight on the Lubrication of Cartilage-Emulating Boundary Layers

Osteoarthritic joints contain lower-molecular-weight (MW) hyaluronan (hyaluronic acid, HA) than healthy joints. To understand the relevance of this HA size effect for joint lubrication, the friction and surface structure of cartilage-emulating surfaces with HA of different MWs were studied using a surface force balance (SFB) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Gelatin (gel)-covered mica surfaces were coated with high-MW HA (HHA), medium-MW HA (MHA), or low-MW HA (LHA), and lipids of hydrogenated soy l-α-phosphatidylcholine (HSPC) in the form of small unilamellar vesicles, using a layer-by-layer assembly method. SFB results indicate that the gel-HHA-HSPC boundary layer provides very efficient lubrication, attributed to hydration lubrication at the phosphocholine headgroups exposed by the HA-attached lipids, with friction coefficients (COF) as low as 10^–3–10^–4 at contact stresses at least up to P = 120 atm. However, for the gel-MHA-HSPC and gel-LHA-HSPC surfaces, the friction, initially low, increases sharply at much lower pressures (up to 30–60 atm at most). This higher friction with the shorter chains may be due to their weaker total adhesion energy to the gelatin, where the attraction between the negatively charged HA and the weakly positively charged gelatin is attributed largely to counterion-release entropy. Thus, the complexes of LHA and MHA with the lubricating HSPC lipids are more easily removed by shear during sliding, especially at high stresses, than the HHA-HSPC complex, which is strongly adhered to gelatin. This is ultimately the reason for lower-pressure lubrication breakdown with the shorter polysaccharides. Our results provide molecular-level insight into why the decrease in HA molecular weight in osteoarthritic joints may be associated with higher friction at the articular cartilage surface, and may have relevance for treatments of osteoarthritis involving intra-articular HA injections.

Viscosupplementation may preserve tibial cartilage and collagen in osteoarthritis: findings from a preclinical model of osteoarthritis

PURPOSE

Intraarticular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injection is used to reduce pain and improve mobility in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Little is known about histopathological changes underlying HA efficacy. This study investigated dose-related effects of 1% sodium hyaluronate (BioHA) on knee joint histopathology and pain responses in a medial meniscal tear (MMT) rat model of OA.

METHODS

Following MMT surgery, rats were randomized into treatment groups: single IA injection of vehicle, BioHA, or an avian-derived hyaluronic acid (hylan G-F 20) on Day 7; or 3 weekly injections of vehicle or BioHA on Days 7, 14, and 21. On Day 35, joints were evaluated by microscopic histopathology for cartilage degeneration, collagen degeneration, synovitis, and cytokine expression (tumor necrosis factor α, transforming growth factor β).

RESULTS

Joint pathology for control animals was consistent with that expected for the MMT model. Rats treated with 3 injections of IA-BioHA had significantly reduced collagen degeneration (21%) relative to control animals. No significant change in collagen degeneration was observed for rats given a single injection of hylan G-F 20 or IA-BioHA compared to control animals. HA treatment did not affect cytokine expression.

CONCLUSIONS

IA-BioHA viscosupplementation in a rat MMT model of OA showed preservation of joint cartilage and collagen. This effect was most pronounced on tibial surfaces having less severe injury, suggesting that treatment should be initiated early in the disease process. A comparison of responses to IA-BioHA or hylan G-F 20 in the MMT rat OA model suggest IA-BioHA may be more effective in preserving joint connective tissue.

Viscosupplementation for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis from an Indian Perspective: An Expert Consensus Report

INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive degenerative condition and is a significant contributor toward physical disability in the aging population. The current treatment modalities for this condition focus on joint preservation with alleviation of symptoms. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) injections have emerged as the promising mainstay of nonsurgical treatment of OA, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate OA and in certain subgroups of severe OA with comorbidities or with poor response to first-line therapy. The absence of standard guidelines or recommendations for the use of IAHA in India has led to vast variations in the usage of IAHA among practitioners. Hence, this consensus-based document aims to address the issue and establish simplified and easily implemented recommendations on the use of IAHA.

METHODS

A group of 78 expert orthopedic surgeons discussed in detail the evidence on appropriate criteria for diagnosis, patient selection, and follow-up evaluation for knee OA at two national meetings. In subsequently held regional meetings, key discussion points and clinical experience-based answers were translated into a questionnaire to develop the final expert consensus-based statements for the use of IAHA in patients with knee OA.

RESULTS

Various consensus statements were obtained on the basis of scientific evidence obtained from PubMed, Cochrane-indexed database, and guidelines related to viscosupplementation and knee OA as well as the experts' clinical experience. This document was drafted, reviewed, validated, and modified by the expert panel until a final agreement was reached.

CONCLUSION

In this pioneering attempt, the document lays down structured, expert consensus-based statements to guide and align practitioners on the appropriate use of IAHA in the Indian setting.

FUNDING

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact analysis of viscosupplementation with hylan G-F 20 for knee and hip osteoarthritis

Purpose

To estimate the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of viscosupplementation with one intra-articular (IA) injection of 6 mL hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc-One^®) and with three injections of 2 mL hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc^®3×2) in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients compared with conventional support therapy (CST - eg, NSAIDs and acetaminophen) and the cost-effectiveness of one IA injection of 2 mL hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc^®1×2) in hip OA patients compared with CST from an Italian Health System perspective.

Methods

The model used was a Markov model with states for stages II-IV on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale and runs on 6-month cycles over a 5-year time horizon. A 3.5% discount was applied to both costs and utilities. Direct costs were determined from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. A one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted for both comparisons.

Results

Hylan G-F 20 1×6 mL and hylan G-F 20 3×2 mL for knee OA were very likely to be cost-effective when compared to acetaminophen (ICER = €3,160.61 and €3,845.81 per QALY, respectively) and NSAIDs as both ICERs are below €25,000. The hip OA treatment by hylan G-F 20 1×2 mL was dominant compared to NSAIDs and very likely compared to acetaminophen. The results of the cost-effectiveness analysis were confirmed by one-way sensitivity analysis. The budget impact analysis for knee and hip OA showed a small increase in expenditure during 5 years.

Conclusions

Hylan G-F 20 1×6 mL/hylan G-F 20 is a cost-effectiveness treatment compared to NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the treatment of knee/hip OA in Italy. The treatment of hip and knee OA resulted in cost-saving with hylan G-F 20 1×2 mL and economically sustainable with hylan G-F 20 1×6 mL. However, Real Word Evidence studies should be conducted in order to estimate costs associated with both prosthetics and to understand the reduction of physiotherapy and medication due to hylan G-F 20.

Hyaluronic Acid: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Trajectory

Hyaluronic acid (also known as hyaluronan or hyaluronate) is naturally found in many tissues and fluids, but more abundantly in articular cartilage and synovial fluid (SF). Hyaluronic acid (HA) content varies widely in different joints and species. HA is a non-sulfated, naturally occurring non-protein glycosaminoglycan (GAG), with distinct physico-chemical properties, produced by synoviocytes, fibroblasts, and chondrocytes. HA has an important role in the biomechanics of normal SF, where it is partially responsible for lubrication and viscoelasticity of the SF. The concentration of HA and its molecular weight (MW) decline as osteoarthritis (OA) progresses with aging. For that reason, HA has been used for more than four decades in the treatment of OA in dogs, horses and humans. HA produces anti-arthritic effects via multiple mechanisms involving receptors, enzymes and other metabolic pathways. HA is also used in the treatment of ophthalmic, dermal, burns, wound repair, and other health conditions. The MW of HA appears to play a critical role in the formulation of the products used in the treatment of diseases. This review provides a mechanism-based rationale for the use of HA in some disease conditions with special reference to OA.

Frictional characterization of injectable hyaluronic acids is more predictive of clinical outcomes than traditional rheological or viscoelastic characterization

Hyaluronic acid injections have been a mainstay of arthritis treatment for decades. However, much controversy remains about their clinical efficacy and their potential mechanism of action. This approach to arthritis therapy is often called viscosupplementation, a term which is rooted in the elevated viscosity of the injected solutions. This terminology also suggests a mechanical pathway of action and further implies that their efficacy is dependent on viscosity. Notably, previous studies of the relationship between viscous properties of hyaluronic acid solutions and their clinical efficacy have not been definitive. Recently we developed an experimental and analytical framework for studying cartilage lubrication that captures the Stribeck-like behavior of cartilage in an elastoviscous transition curve. Here we apply this framework to study the lubricating behavior of six hyaluronan products currently used for injectable arthritis therapy in the US. Despite the fact that the source and chemical modifications endow these products with a range of lubricating properties, we show that the lubricating effect of all of these materials can be described by this Stribeck-like elastoviscous transition. Fitting this data to the elastoviscous transition model enables the calculation of effective lubricating viscosities for each material, which differ substantially from the viscosities measured using standard rheometry. Further we show that while data from standard rheometry are poor predictors of clinical performance of these materials, measurements of friction coefficient and effective lubricating viscosity correlate well (R2 = 0.77; p < 0.005) with assessments of improved clinical function reported previously. This approach offers both a novel method that can be used to evaluate potential clinical efficacy of hyaluronic acid formulations and provide new insight on their mode of action.

A comparative review of network meta-analysis models in longitudinal randomized controlled trial

Network meta-analysis (NMA) technique extends the standard meta-analysis methods, allowing pairwise comparison of all treatments in a network in the absence of head-to-head comparisons. Traditional NMA models consider a single endpoint for each trial. However, in many cases, trials in the network have different durations and/or report data at multiple time points. Moreover, these time points are often not the same for all trials. In this work, we review the most relevant methods that incorporate multiple time points and allow indirect comparisons of treatment effects across different longitudinal studies. In particular, we focus on the mixed treatment comparison developed by Dakin et al,[10] on the Bayesian evidence synthesis techniques-integrated two-component prediction developed by Ding et al,[11] and on the more recent method based on fractional polynomials by Jansen et al.[12] We highlight the main features of each model and illustrate them in simulations and in a real data application. Our study shows that methods based on fractional polynomials offer a flexible modeling strategy in most applications.

Effects of blood flow restriction exercise with very low load and low volume in patients with knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a randomized trial

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by chronic pain, physical dysfunction, and reduced quality of life. Low-load resistance exercises with blood flow restriction (BFR) have presented results similar to those of high-intensity resistance exercise (HIRE) without BFR provided that the exercise volume in both is paired. However, it is unclear whether BFR exercise with reduced load and volume generates clinical improvements similar to those of HIRE. The aim of the proposed study is to evaluate the effects of BFR resistance exercise with very low load and low volume against HIRE in patients with knee OA for the outcomes of knee pain, muscle performance, physical function, disease severity, quality of life, perceived exertion during the exercises, adherence, and patient satisfaction with treatment.

Methods

This two-arm, prospectively registered, randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors and volunteers will involve 40 patients with knee OA. Two weekly treatment sessions will be provided for 12 weeks. Patients will perform very low-load (10% of 1-RM) and low-volume BFR exercise or HIRE (60% of 1-RM) for strengthening thigh muscles. The primary outcome will be the knee pain measured after 12 weeks of treatment. The secondary outcomes include knee pain 6 months after randomization, physical function, disease severity, quality of life, muscle performance, knee pain and perceived exertion during exercise, adherence, and patient satisfaction with treatment.

Discussion

If the improvements in the outcomes are similar in the two groups, BFR exercise with reduced load and volume may be an interesting alternative in the treatment of knee OA, especially when exercises with high loads generate joint pain.

Trial registration

Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (REBEC), RBR-6pcrfm. Registered on July 10, 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3238-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Platelet-rich plasma versus hyaluronic acid injections for knee osteoarthritis: a propensity-score analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intra-articular injections of viscosupplements have been an option in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Platelet-rich plasma is an experimental treatment in osteoarthritis. Previous studies have shown that platelet-rich plasma reduces osteoarthritis symptoms in similar proportions as viscosupplements. The aim of this study was to compare platelet-rich plasma versus viscosupplements in terms of symptoms' relief and time to arthroplasty.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 190 patients included in this retrospective study received either intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (94 patients) or hyaluronic acid (86 patients) between January 2014 and October 2017. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Visual Analogue Scale, and range of motion were measured before injection, at 15 days, 6 months, 12 months, and at last follow-up. We compared outcomes between these two groups using propensity score analysis for risk adjustment in multivariate analysis and for one-to-one matching.

RESULTS

Hyaluronic acid-treated patients experienced a higher arthroplasty rate (36.0% vs 5.3%, p < 0.001), lower range of motion, worse Visual Analogue Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores, and increased risk of any arthroplasty occurrence (log-rank < 0.001) than platelet-rich plasma patients. Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed a tendency to decrease the risk of knee arthroplasty for the patients treated by platelet-rich plasma (hazard ratio = 0.23, 95% confidence interval, 0.05-1.05, p = 0.058). When the treatment method was adjusted for propensity score in the propensity score-matched pairs (n = 78), we found that platelet-rich plasma group still showed significant improvement over the hyaluronic acid group in arthroplasty rate (12.8% vs 41.0%, p = 0.010), Visual Analogue Scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores, but not in the range of motion, during the mean follow-up of 16.7 months.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma associated with better outcomes than hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis. Platelet-rich plasma might prolong the time to arthroplasty and provide a valid therapeutic option in selected patients with knee osteoarthritis not responding to conventional treatments. Further larger studies are needed to validate this promising treatment modality.

Treatment satisfaction with pharmaceutical interventions in Japanese adults with osteoarthritis and chronic knee pain: an analysis of a web-based survey

Purpose

Patient satisfaction is an important outcome in successful osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate treatment satisfaction for medication (TSM) in people with knee OA (KOA), identify the factors predictive of treatment satisfaction, and describe the burden of illness.

Patients and methods

This cross-sectional, patient-reported study used an Internet-based survey and analyzed responses of respondents with KOA (N=400) on characteristics including pain sites and levels (including pain ratings using the Numerical Rating Scale and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire), treatment satisfaction (Global, Effectiveness, and Convenience scores) based on the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9), and quality of life (QoL; based on the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2-Short Form). Respondents with only KOA (n=237) were compared with those having KOA and additional painful sites (KOA+; n=163). Factors predicting TSM were identified using multivariable linear regression analyses.

Results

Respondents with KOA were more likely to report intermittent pain for 3 months or more compared with those with KOA+ (58.6% vs 48.5%, respectively; P=0.044), while those with KOA+ were more likely to report consistent pain for 3 months or more (P=0.022). Respondents with KOA+ also had more difficulty due to their knee pain while sleeping (P=0.022) and resting (P=0.015). Reported TSM did not differ significantly across KOA vs KOA+ groups, with both groups reporting low satisfaction; all domains of QoL were worse for those with KOA+. Knee pain reduction by medication predicted higher satisfaction across domains, while lower pre-medication pain and post-medication pain matching expectations predicted higher TSQM-9 Global and Effectiveness scores.

Conclusion

Medication treatment satisfaction rates were low among Japanese respondents with KOA. Given that lower pain, greater pain reduction post-medication, and meeting pain management expectations were predictive of higher satisfaction, treatment strategies that can better address pain may prove beneficial for overall patient satisfaction.

The Disease-Modifying Effects of Hyaluronan in the Osteoarthritic Disease State

Hyaluronic acid (HA) has been a treatment modality for patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) for many years now. Since HA was first introduced for the treatment of painful knee OA, much has been elucidated regarding both the etiology of this disease and the mechanisms by which HA may mitigate joint pain and tissue destruction. The objectives of this article are to (1) describe the etiology and pathophysiology of OA including both what is known about the genetics and biochemistry, (2) describe the role of HA on disease progression, (3) detail the antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory actions of HA in OA, and (4) present evidence of disease-modifying effects of HA in the preservation and restoration of the extracellular matrix. These data support that HA is not only just a simple device used for viscosupplementation but also a biologically active molecule that can affect the physiology of articular cartilage.

Appropriate Use Criteria for Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in the United States

OBJECTIVE

A workgroup of clinical experts has developed an Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The increasingly broad and varied use of HA injections, lack of published clinical guidance, and limited coverage for their use has created the imperative to establish appropriateness criteria.

METHODS

The experts of this workgroup represent rheumatology, orthopedic surgery, physiatry, sports medicine, and nursing clinicians with substantive knowledge of intra-articular HA therapy. This workgroup utilized the results of a systematic review of evidence, expert clinical opinion, and current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to develop appropriateness criteria for the use of intra-articular HA for knee OA in 17 real-world clinical scenarios.

RESULTS

The workgroup scored the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as appropriate (7-9), uncertain (4-6), or inappropriate (1-3). Six scenarios were scored as appropriate, 10 scenarios were scored as uncertain, and 1 scenario was scored as inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

This article can assist clinicians in shared decision-making by providing best practices in considering HA injections for knee OA treatment. Moreover, this AUC article can aid payers and policy makers in determining reimbursement and preauthorization policies and more appropriately managing health care resources. It is clear that further research is still necessary-particularly in patient populations differentiated by OA severity-that may benefit the greatest from the use of HA injections for the treatment of knee OA.

Efficacy and safety of single injection of cross-linked sodium hyaluronate vs. three injections of high molecular weight sodium hyaluronate for osteoarthritis of the knee: a double-blind, randomized, multi-center, non-inferiority study

BACKGROUND

This randomized, double-blind, multi-center, non-inferiority trial was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of a cross-linked hyaluronate (XLHA, single injection form) compared with a linear high molecular hyaluronate (HMWHA, thrice injection form) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty seven patients with osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade I to III) were randomized to each group. Three weekly injections were given in both groups but two times of saline injections preceded XLHA injection to maintain double-blindness. Primary endpoint was the change of weight-bearing pain (WBP) at 12 weeks after the last injection. Secondary endpoints included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index; patient's and investigator's global assessment; pain at rest, at night, or in motion; OMERACT-OARSI responder rate; proportion of patients achieving at least 20 mm or 40% decrease in WBP; and rate of rescue medicine use and its total consumption.

RESULTS

Mean changes of WBP at 12 weeks after the last injection were -33.3 mm with XLHA and -29.2 mm with HMWHA, proving non-inferiority of XLHA to HMWHA as the lower bound of 95% CI (-1.9 mm, 10.1 mm) was well above the predefined margin (-10 mm). There were no significant between-group differences in all secondary endpoints. Injection site pain was the most common adverse event and no remarkable safety issue was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that a single injection of XLHA was non-inferior to three weekly injections of HMWHA in terms of WBP reduction, and supports XLHA as an effective and safe treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01510535 ). This trial was registered on January 6, 2012.

CK2.1, a bone morphogenetic protein receptor type Ia mimetic peptide, repairs cartilage in mice with destabilized medial meniscus

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee involves degeneration of articular cartilage of the diarthrodial joints. Current treatment options temporarily relieve the joint pain but do not restore the lost cartilage. We recently designed a novel bone morphogenetic protein receptor type I (BMPRI) mimetic peptide, CK2.1, that activates BMPRIa signaling in the absence of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP). Our previous research demonstrated that CK2.1 induced chondrogenesis in vitro and in vivo; however, it is unknown if CK2.1 restores damaged articular cartilage in vivo. In this study, we demonstrate that CK2.1 induced articular cartilage (AC) repair in an OA mouse model.

METHODS

We designed hyaluronic acid (HA)-based hydrogel particles (HGPs) that slowly release CK2.1. HGP-CK2.1 particles were tested for chondrogenic potency on pluripotent mesenchymal stem cells (C3H10T1/2 cells) and locally injected into the intra-articular capsule in mice with cartilage defects. C57BL/6J mice were operated on to destabilize the medial meniscus and these mice were kept for 6 weeks after surgery to sustain OA-like damage. Mice were then injected via the intra-articular capsule with HGP-CK2.1; 4 weeks after injection the mice were sacrificed and their femurs were analyzed for cartilage defects.

RESULTS

Immunohistochemical analysis of the cartilage demonstrated complete repair of the AC compared to sham-operated mice. Immunofluorescence analysis revealed collagen type IX production along with collagen type II in the AC of mice injected with HGP-CK2.1. Mice injected with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and HGP alone had greater collagen type X and osteocalcin production, in sharp contrast to those injected with HGP-CK2.1, indicating increased chondrocyte hypertrophy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that the slow release HGP-CK2.1 drives cartilage repair without the induction of chondrocyte hypertrophy. The peptide CK2.1 could be a powerful tool in understanding the signaling pathways contributing to the repair process, and also may be used as a potential therapeutic for treating degenerative cartilage diseases such as OA.

Regenerative Engineering for Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment: Biomaterials and Cell-Based Technologies

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis worldwide. The incidence of this disease is rising and its treatment poses an economic burden. Two early targets of knee OA treatment include the predominant symptom of pain, and cartilage damage in the knee joint. Current treatments have been beneficial in treating the disease but none is as effective as total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, while TKA is an end-stage solution of the disease, it is an invasive and expensive procedure. Therefore, innovative regenerative engineering strategies should be established as these could defer or annul the need for a TKA. Several biomaterial and cell-based therapies are currently in development and have shown early promise in both preclinical and clinical studies. The use of advanced biomaterials and stem cells independently or in conjunction to treat knee OA could potentially reduce pain and regenerate focal articular cartilage damage. In this review, we discuss the pathogenesis of pain and cartilage damage in knee OA and explore novel treatment options currently being studied, along with some of their limitations.

Hyaluronic Acid Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma: A Prospective, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Clinical Outcomes and Effects on Intra-articular Biology for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) has demonstrated mixed clinical outcomes in randomized controlled trials when compared with hyaluronic acid (HA), an accepted nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic OA. Biological analysis of PRP has demonstrated an anti-inflammatory effect on the intra-articular environment.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and biological effects of an intra-articular injection of PRP with those of an intra-articular injection of HA in patients with mild to moderate knee OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 111 patients with symptomatic unilateral knee OA received a series of either leukocyte-poor PRP or HA injections under ultrasound guidance. Clinical data were collected before treatment and at 4 time points across a 1-year period. Synovial fluid was also collected for analysis of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory markers before treatment and at 12 and 24 weeks after treatment. Several measures were used to assess results: (1) Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale; (2) International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Lysholm knee score; and (3) difference in intra-articular biochemical marker concentrations.

RESULTS

There were 49 patients randomized to treatment with PRP and 50 randomized to treatment with HA. No difference was seen between the groups in the primary outcome measure (WOMAC pain score). In the secondary outcome measure, linear contrasts identified a significantly higher IKDC score in the PRP group compared with the HA group at 24 weeks (mean ± standard error [SE], 65.5 ± 3.6 vs 55.8 ± 3.8, respectively; P = .013) and at final follow-up (52 weeks) (57.6 ± 3.37 vs 46.6 ± 3.76, respectively; P = .003). Linear contrasts also identified a statistically lower VAS score in the PRP group versus the HA group at 24 weeks (mean ± SE, 34.6 ± 3.24 vs 48.6 ± 3.7, respectively; P = .0096) and 52 weeks (44 ± 4.6 vs 57.3 ± 3.8, respectively; P = .0039). An examination of fixed effects showed that patients with mild OA and a lower body mass index had a statistically significant improvement in outcomes. In the biochemical analysis, differences between groups approached significance for interleukin-1β (mean ± SE, 0.14 ± 0.05 pg/mL [PRP] vs 0.34 ± 0.16 pg/mL [HA]; P = .06) and tumor necrosis factor α (0.08 ± 0.01 pg/mL [PRP] vs 0.2 ± 0.18 pg/mL [HA]; P = .068) at 12-week follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We found no difference between HA and PRP at any time point in the primary outcome measure: the patient-reported WOMAC pain score. Significant improvements were seen in other patient-reported outcome measures, with results favoring PRP over HA. Preceding a significant difference in subjective outcomes favoring PRP, there was a trend toward a decrease in 2 proinflammatory cytokines, which suggest that the anti-inflammatory properties of PRP may contribute to an improvement of symptoms. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT02588872).

Prospective Evaluation of Intra-Articular Sodium Hyaluronate Injection in the Ankle

Viscosupplementation by injection of hyaluronic acid into the ankle can be used to provide pain relief and to delay the need for surgery in patients with osteoarthritis of the ankle. In the present investigation, we prospectively evaluated 50 consecutive patients (25 males and 25 females) undergoing a 3-injection protocol of sodium hyaluronate viscosupplementation in the ankle from January 2014 to January 2015. The Foot and Ankle Outcomes Score was used to compare the patients' pre- and post-treatment opinions about their ankle problems. The mean pretreatment Foot and Ankle Outcomes Score was 48 ± 6.3 (range 25 to 84) and the 6-month post-treatment score was 78 ± 5.8 (range 48 to 100). This difference was statistically significant (p = .003). From our findings in the present prospective cohort study, we have concluded that intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate viscosupplementation is a useful conservative therapy for osteoarthritis of the ankle.

THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OSTEOPOROSIS AND OSTEOARTHRITIS (ESCEO) ALGORITHM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS IS APPLICABLE TO RUSSIAN CLINICAL PRACTICE: A CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF LEADING RUSSIAN AND ESCEO OSTEOARTHRITIS EXPERTS

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), published in December 2014, provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. This current paper represents an assessment and endorsement of the algorithm by Russian experts in OA for use in Russian clinical practice, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA, in support of the clinicians’ individualized assessment of the patient. Medications recommended by the ESCEO algorithm are available in Russia. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) is advised, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulphate (pCGS) (Rottapharm/Meda) and prescription chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs but without the systemic safety concerns. To be effective, topical NSAIDs must have high bioavailability, and among NSAIDs molecules like etofenamate have high absorption and bioavailability alongside evidence for accumulation in synovial tissues. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk: benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.

Single versus multiple dose hyaluronic acid: Comparison of the results

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of three injections of standard linear HA versus single injection of lightly cross-linking HA in patients with knee OA.

METHODS

Forty subjects were randomized into two groups. The first group received single dose intraarticular injection of 4 ml lightly cross-linking sodium hyaluronate (Monovisc), and the second group received three consecutive intraarticular injections of 2.5 ml standard linear sodium hyaluronate (Adant) with one week intervals. Visual analog scale (VAS)-pain and Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were measured.

RESULTS

In both groups, VAS-pain and WOMAC scores (except WOMAC-stiffness) were improved statistically lasting up to the 6th month with respect to before injection values (p< 0.001). There were no statistical differences in VAS-pain and WOMAC scores after injections (p> 0.05) in both groups. But in the 6th month visit, VAS-resting values were found to be statistically improved in standard linear HA group compared to lightly cross-linking HA group (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although three-dose administration was significantly superior to single-dose at the sixth month, current knowledge is not sufficient to decide whether single-dose or multiple-dose HA injection should be chosen. There is a clear need for verification of our results with long-term studies on larger patient groups.

Safety and efficacy of intra-articular injections of a combination of hyaluronic acid and mannitol (HAnOX-M) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: Results of a double-blind, controlled, multicenter, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

To compare both safety and efficacy of a novel intra-articular viscosupplement made of intermediate molecular weight (MW) hyaluronic acid (HA) mixed with high concentration of mannitol with a marketed high MW HA, in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic knee OA, with radiological OARSI grades 1 to 3, were enrolled in a controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial. They were randomized to receive three intra-articular injections, at weekly intervals, of either HAnOX-M made of a combination of HA (MW one to 1.5MDa, 31mg/2ml) and mannitol (70mg/2ml) or Bio-HA (MW 2.3 to 3.6MDa, 20mg/2ml). The primary outcome was six-month change in the WOMAC pain subscale (0 to 20). Sample size was calculated according to a non-inferiority margin of 1.35. Secondary endpoints included six-month change in function and walking pain, analgesic consumption and safety.

RESULTS

The intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations consisted of 205 and 171 patients. HAnOX-M and Bio-Ha groups did not differ statistically at baseline. The primary analysis was conducted in the PP population, then in the ITT population. The average WOMAC pain score at baseline was 9.5 in both groups. Mean (SD) variations in WOMAC pain score were -4.4 (3.8) and -4.5 (4.3) mm, for HAnOX and Bio-HA respectively, satisfying the claim for non-inferiority. Similar results were obtained for all other secondary endpoints.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with of HAnOX-M is effective to alleviate knee OA symptoms and to improve joint function over six months, with similar safety than conventional HA viscosupplement.

Product Differences in Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acids for Osteoarthritis of the Knee

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common and often disabling joint disorder among adults that may result in impaired activity and daily function. A variety of treatment options are currently available and prescribed for knee OA depending on the severity of the disorder and physician preference. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) injection is a treatment for knee OA that reportedly provides numerous biochemical and biological benefits, including shock absorption, chondroprotection, and anti-inflammatory effects within the knee. Clarity is needed as to whether the available IA-HA products should be considered for therapy as a group or whether there are significant differences in the products that need to be considered in treatment of OA of the knee.

PURPOSE

To determine whether there are differences in efficacy and safety with respect to intrinsic properties of available IA-HA injections for knee OA.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, and PubMed databases was conducted for all existing randomized trials of IA-HA. The primary outcome measure analyzed was the mean pain score at the reported follow-up nearest to 26 weeks after injection. Pooled efficacy and safety results were recorded for subgroupings of HA product characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 68 studies were included for analysis. Products with an average molecular weight ≥3000 kDa provided favorable efficacy results when compared with products of an average molecular weight <3000 kDa. Products with a molecular weight ≥3000 kDa demonstrated significantly fewer discontinuations due to treatment-related adverse events than did ≤1500 kDa counterparts, while trial discontinuation rates were similar between biological fermentation-derived HA products and avian-derived HA. The results did not demonstrate a significant difference in the occurrence of effusion across molecular weight subgroups. Additionally, biological fermentation-derived HA had a significantly smaller incidence of effusion than did avian-derived HA. Biological fermentation-derived HA demonstrated fewer acute flare-ups at the injection site than did avian-derived HA products, while high-molecular-weight products demonstrated the highest rate of injection site flare-up.

CONCLUSION

Despite similarities, IA-HA products should not be treated as a group, as there are differences in IA-HA products that influence both efficacy and safety. In the available literature, IA-HA products with a molecular weight ≥3000 kDa and those derived from biological fermentation relate to superior efficacy and safety-factors that may influence selection an IA-HA product for OA of the knee.

Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Medicare Knee Osteoarthritis Patients Are Associated With Longer Time to Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Few nonoperative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis (OA) are available, but there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections. We investigated whether the formulation of IA HA, or its combined use with IA corticosteroid (CS), may be contributing to some of the reported variation in clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The 5% Part B Medicare data (2005-2012) were used to identify knee OA patients who underwent knee arthroplasty (KA). The time from diagnosis of OA to KA was compared between patients with (HA) and without (no HA) IA HA use, using quantile regression with propensity score adjustment. These were further stratified by type of IA HA. Patient factors associated with time to KA were also assessed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The "HA" cohort was associated with a longer time to KA of 8.7 months (95% confidence interval: 8.3-9.1 months; P < .001) compared with the "no HA" cohort, with extended time to KA in the bioengineered Euflexxa IA HA cohort. Patient factors associated with longer time to KA included women, younger patients, minority patients, patients with fewer comorbidities, and IA CS injection use. Patients with both IA HA and IA CS had an additional 6.3 months (95% confidence interval: 5.5-7.0 months; P < .001) to KA over those with only IA HA.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of elderly patients undergoing KA, there was a significant longer time from diagnosis of OA to KA in those receiving IA HA. It is unclear if the extended time may lead to less KA utilization.

Analysis for Prognostic Factors from a Database for the Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid (Euflexxa) Treatment for Osteoarthritis of the Knee

INTRODUCTION

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) injections are a treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA), although current literature provides mixed results with regard to their efficacy. We will review a randomized controlled trial (RCT) and subsequent extension trial in order to identify factors that are associated with outcomes in patients with knee OA who received IA-HA.

METHODS

We used data recorded by the FLEXX trial and extension trial for secondary analysis of potential prognostic factors. Linear regression was used to examine the predictors of outcomes at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of all patients presented with a Kellgren Lawrence (K-L) grade 3. Patients with high baseline outcome scores and a K-L grade 3 demonstrated less response than individuals within an earlier stage of knee OA, although results for both K-L grade 2 and K-L grade 3 patients still showed benefit. Those with more severe radiographic change K-L grade 3 often had a better response with the second series of IA-HA injections. Significantly greater positive response in all outcomes was demonstrated for the patient subgroup classified as K-L grade 2, when compared with K-L grade 3 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that IA-HA for knee OA was of greater benefit in those with less severe radiographic changes. However, those with more severe radiographic change often had a better response with the second course of IA-HA. Similar analyses are required in order to determine if these results are unique to Euflexxa, or if these results are consistent with other available IA-HA agents.

Clinical and cost outcomes from different hyaluronic acid treatments in patients with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a US health plan claims database

Background:

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) for knee osteoarthritis (OA) effectively reduces pain and delays total knee replacement (TKR) surgery; however, little is known about relative differences in clinical and cost outcomes among different HA products.

Objective:

To compare disease-specific costs and risk of TKR among patients receiving different HA treatments in a commercially insured cohort of patients with knee OA in the USA.

Method:

Retrospective analyses using IMS Health’s PharMetrics Plus Health Plan Claims Database were conducted by identifying knee OA patients with claims indicating initiation of HA treatment at an ‘index date’ during the selection period (2007–2010). Patients were required to be continuously enrolled in the database for 12 months preindex to 36 months postindex. A generalized linear model (GLM) with a gamma distribution and log-link function was used to model aggregate patient-based changes in disease-specific costs. A Cox proportional hazards model (PHM) was used to model the risk of TKR. Both multivariate models included covariates such as age, gender, comorbidities, and preindex healthcare costs.

Results:

50,389 patients with HA treatment for knee OA were identified. 18,217 (36.2%) patients were treated with HA products indicated for five injections per treatment course (Supartz and Hyalgan). The remainder were treated with HA products indicated for fewer than five injections per treatment course, with 20,518 patients (40.7%) receiving Synvisc; 6,263 (12.4%), Euflexxa; and 5,391 (10.7%), Orthovisc. Synvisc- and Orthovisc-injected patients had greater disease-specific costs compared to Supartz/Hyalgan (9.0%, p<0.0001 and 6.8%, p=0.0050, respectively). Hazard ratios (HRs) showed a significantly higher risk of TKR for patients receiving Synvisc compared to Supartz/Hyalgan (HR=1.069, p=0.0009). Patients treated with Supartz/Hyalgan, Euflexxa, and Orthovisc had longer delays to TKR than those treated with Synvisc.

Conclusion:

Analysis of administrative claims data provides real-world evidence that meaningful differences exist among some HA products in disease-specific cost and time to knee replacement surgery.

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

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA), as one of the leading causes of disability, decreases the quality of life for those suffering from the disease and creates a substantial financial burden. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) can provide relief from the symptoms of OA and multiple HA products are prescribed. The purpose of this study is to examine the single payer cost-effectiveness of various HA products in the treatment of knee OA.

Methods

A single payer economic evaluation was conducted comparing Synvisc^® (Sanofi, USA), Durolane^® (Bioventus, USA), Hyalgan^® (Fidia Pharma Inc., USA), Supartz™ (Bioventus, USA), and Euflexxa^® (Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., USA). Utility scores for HA products were obtained by extracting Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain, stiffness and function from randomized controlled trials and converting them to health utilities index mark 3 scores. The cost of a treatment included the cost of the HA injection, cost of a knee injection procedure and cost of a doctor’s visit for each required injection. Cost–utility in 2015 USD per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved was calculated for each HA product, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to compare the effectiveness of HA products to one another and to conventional care.

Results

When compared to conventional care, all investigated HA products were cost-effective, assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/QALY gained. The HA product Euflexxa had the most favorable cost–utility ratio ($5785.52/QALY) when compared to all other HA brands.

Conclusion

The present study showed several HA products to be cost-effective in comparison to conventional care, with Euflexxa having the most favorable cost/QALY gained ratio compared to the other HA products.

Funding

Ferring Pharmaceutics Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-016-0331-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinicians' Perspectives on the Use of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid as a Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis: A North American, Multidisciplinary Survey

INTRODUCTION

This study aims to describe the perceptions of orthopedic surgeons on the efficacy of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA), the influence of IA-HA product characteristics on its efficacy, and to identify patterns and factors related to the use of IA-HA. Additionally, this study examines factors that influence IA-HA brand selection, focusing on Euflexxa(®) (1% sodium hyaluronate).

METHODS

We developed survey questions by reviewing the current literature and consulting with experts on the use of IA-HA in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The survey included questions on demographics, previous experience with knee OA treatment, opinions on different treatment methods, and where information regarding treatments is obtained. Additionally, questions specific to opinions regarding IA-HA and the reasoning behind these opinions were asked.

RESULTS

A total of 117 orthopedic surgeons and physicians completed the survey. IA-HA is most frequently prescribed to patients with early-stage (82%) or mid-stage (82.8%) OA, while fewer orthopedic surgeons and physicians use IA-HA for patients with late-stage OA (57.4%). Respondents were generally uncertain of the effects that intrinsic characteristics, such as molecular weight, cross-linking, and production process, had on patient outcomes. Respondents typically use their own clinical experience and results as a deciding factor in utilizing IA-HA treatment, as well as in choosing an IA-HA brand.

CONCLUSION

Uncertainty regarding the efficacy of IA-HA treatments is likely due to inconsistency within clinical guidelines and the current literature. Additional research investigating the efficacy of IA-HA treatment and how product characteristics affect outcome and safety is required to provide clarity to the controversy surrounding IA-HA treatment for knee OA.