Análisis de costes del tratamiento con viscosuplementación con ácido hialurónico estabilizado en pacientes con artrosis de rodilla candidatos a implantación de prótesis

A single intra-articular injection of 2.0% non-chemically modified sodium hyaluronate vs 0.8% hylan G-F 20 in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A 6-month, multicenter, randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a single intra-articular injection of 2.0% non-chemically modified sodium hyaluronate (SH) vs 0.8% hylan G-F 20 (control) in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial conducted in patients with painful tibiofemoral osteoarthritis (American College of Rheumatology criteria) with insufficient response or intolerance to first-line analgesics and regular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Subjects received a single intra-articular injection of either SH or hylan G-F 20. The primary outcome was the 6-month change from baseline in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale (WOMAC A), with a pre-specified lower margin for non-inferiority of 8 mm.

RESULTS

Of the 292 patients randomized (SH: 144), 288 received an injection (SH: 142), 266 completed the study (SH: 134). In the Per Protocol dataset (SH: 113, control: 112), the WOMAC A change at 6 months was -34.3 mm (95% confidence interval (CI): -37.8, -30.8) and -36.2 mm (95% CI: -40.3, -32.1) for the SH and hylan G-F 20 patients, respectively (P = 0.5). The intergroup difference was -1.9 mm (95% CI: -7.3, 3.5). Results were similar in the Full Analysis Set (SH: 139, control: 141) with a difference between the groups of -2.9 mm (95% CI: -7.9, 2.2). A total of 31.3% of the injected patients reported a treatment-emergent adverse event, including injection site reactions (pain, inflammation or effusion) which occurred in 8.5% of the SH patients vs 13.0% of the hylan G-F 20 patients. No serious reactions were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical trial demonstrated the non-inferiority of a single intra-articular injection of SH vs hylan G-F 20 on the WOMAC A change from baseline at 6 months.

Do intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections delay total knee replacement in patients with osteoarthritis - A Cox model analysis

Due to the growing worldwide prevalence of knee osteoarthritis, the optimal management of this issue is critical for reducing its burden.

Knee Viscosupplementation: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis between Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid in a Single Injection versus Five Injections of Standard Hyaluronic Acid

Given the wide difference in price per vial between various presentations of hyaluronic acid, this study seeks to compare the effectiveness and treatment cost of stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) in a single injection with standard preparations of hyaluronic acid (HA) in five injections in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Fifty-four patients with knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren–Lawrence Grade II and III) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score greater than 7, with a homogeneous distribution of age, sex, BMI, and duration of disease, were included in this study. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group I was treated with NASHA (Durolane^®) and Group II with HA (Go-ON^®). Patient’s evolution was followed up at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 8th, 12th, and 26th week after treatment. A statistically significant improvement in WOMAC score was observed for patients treated with NASHA versus those who received HA at Week 26. In addition, the need for analgesia was significantly reduced at Week 26 in the NASHA-treated group. Finally, the economic analysis showed an increased cost of overall treatment with HA injections. Our data support the use of the NASHA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

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.

Hyaluronic Acid Injections Are Associated with Delay of Total Knee Replacement Surgery in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Evidence from a Large U.S. Health Claims Database

BACKGROUND

The growing prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) and the medical costs associated with total knee replacement (TKR) surgery for end-stage OA motivate a search for agents that can delay OA progression. We test a hypothesis that hyaluronic acid (HA) injection is associated with delay of TKR in a dose-dependent manner.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We retrospectively evaluated records in an administrative claims database of ~79 million patients, to identify all patients with knee OA who received TKR during a 6-year period. Only patients with continuous plan enrollment from diagnosis until TKR were included, so that complete medical records were available. OA diagnosis was the index event and we evaluated time-to-TKR as a function of the number of HA injections. The database included 182,022 patients with knee OA who had TKR; 50,349 (27.7%) of these patients were classified as HA Users, receiving ≥1 courses of HA prior to TKR, while 131,673 patients (72.3%) were HA Non-users prior to TKR, receiving no HA. Cox proportional hazards modelling shows that TKR risk decreases as a function of the number of HA injection courses, if patient age, gender, and disease comorbidity are used as background covariates. Multiple HA injections are therefore associated with delay of TKR (all, P < 0.0001). Half of HA Non-users had a TKR by 114 days post-diagnosis of knee OA, whereas half of HA Users had a TKR by 484 days post-diagnosis (χ2 = 19,769; p < 0.0001). Patients who received no HA had a mean time-to-TKR of 0.7 years; with one course of HA, the mean time to TKR was 1.4 years (χ2 = 13,725; p < 0.0001); patients who received ≥5 courses delayed TKR by 3.6 years (χ2 = 19,935; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

HA injection in patients with knee OA is associated with a dose-dependent increase in time-to-TKR.

Comparison of two hyaluronic acid formulations for safety and efficacy (CHASE) study in knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 26-week non-inferiority trial comparing Durolane to Artz

INTRODUCTION

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is often used as therapy for knee osteoarthritis because it is less expensive and less aggressive than total knee replacement. Therefore, it is important to document whether HA is safe and efficacious. We tested whether single and multiple injection viscosupplementation with HA is associated with clinically meaningful pain relief in a new randomized clinical trial (RCT). Our objective was to compare safety and efficacy of intra-articular HA in two formulations: one 3.0 ml injection of Durolane versus five 2.5 ml injections of Artz for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis pain.

METHODS

Patients (N=349) from the People's Republic of China were randomized to treatment (Durolane=175, Artz=174). The Durolane group received a 3.0 ml injection at week 0 (baseline), with sham skin punctures at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Artz group received one 2.5 ml injection at each of the same time points. The primary assessment tool was the Likert-type Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) pain scale at weeks 0, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 26. Secondary assessments were WOMAC physical function, knee stiffness, and global self-assessment, at identical time points. Statistically-controlled analyses were non-inferiority of Durolane over 18, then over 26 weeks, with a priori non-inferiority defined as 8% of the relevant scale. Acetaminophen was permitted as rescue analgesia and all adverse events (AEs) were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall study retention was excellent; 332 patients (95.1%) completed 18 weeks and 319 (91.4%) completed 26 weeks, with no significant retention difference between treatment arms. All variables met non-inferiority criteria over 18 and 26 weeks. Efficacy response in both arms was >90%. Treatment-related AEs were 9.8% (17/174) for Artz and 13.1% (23/175) for Durolane.

CONCLUSIONS

A single injection of Durolane is non-inferior to 5 injections of Artz over 18 and 26 weeks for pain, physical function, global self-assessment, and knee stiffness. Both treatments were efficacious, safe, and well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295580 . Registered 11 February 2011.