A randomized saline-controlled trial of NASHA hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis

Safety and Tolerability of Intra-Articular Injection of Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells GXCPC1 in 11 Subjects With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Nonrandomized Pilot Study Without a Control Arm

The current study aimed to determine the safety profile of intra-articular-injected allogeneic adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ADSCs) GXCPC1 in subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and its preliminary efficacy outcome. The 3 + 3 phase I study was designed with two dose-escalation cohorts: low dose (6.7 × 106 GXCPC1, N = 5) and high dose (4 × 107 GXCPC1, N = 6). The primary endpoint was safety, which was evaluated by recording adverse events throughout the trial; the secondary endpoints included total, pain, stiffness, and function subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, and 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) health survey questionnaire. The GXCPC1 treatment was found to be safe after 1 year of follow-up with no treatment-related severe adverse events observed. When compared to baseline, subjects in both the low- and high-dose cohorts demonstrated improving trends in pain and knee function after receiving GXCPC1 treatment. Generally, the net change in pain (95% confidence interval (CI) = -7.773 to -2.561t at 12 weeks compared to baseline) and knee function (95% CI = -24.297 to -10.036t at 12 weeks compared to baseline) was better in subjects receiving high-dose GXCPC1. Although this study included a limited number of subjects without a placebo arm, it showed that the intra-articular injection of ADSCs was safe and well-tolerated in subjects with therapeutic alternatives to treat knee OA. However, a larger scale study with an appropriate control would be necessary for clinical efficacy in the following study.

Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from – unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are “better” and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.

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.

Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of viscosupplementation for pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases from inception to 11 September 2021. Unpublished trials were identified from the grey literature and trial registries.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials comparing viscosupplementation with placebo or no intervention for knee osteoarthritis treatment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The prespecified primary outcome was pain intensity. Secondary outcomes were function and serious adverse events. Pain and function were analysed as standardised mean differences (SMDs). The prespecified minimal clinically important between group difference was -0.37 SMD. Serious adverse events were analysed as relative risks.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias of trials using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The predefined main analysis was based only on large, placebo controlled trials with ≥100 participants per group. Summary results were obtained through a random effects meta-analysis model. Cumulative meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis under a random effects model were also performed.

RESULTS

169 trials provided data on 21 163 randomised participants. Evidence of small study effects and publication biases was observed for pain and function (Egger's tests with P<0.001 and asymmetric funnel plots). Twenty four large, placebo controlled trials (8997 randomised participants) included in the main analysis of pain indicated that viscosupplementation was associated with a small reduction in pain intensity compared with placebo (SMD -0.08, 95% confidence interval -0.15 to -0.02), with the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval excluding the minimal clinically important between group difference. This effect corresponds to a difference in pain scores of -2.0 mm (95% confidence interval -3.8 to -0.5 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Trial sequential analysis for pain indicated that since 2009 there has been conclusive evidence of clinical equivalence between viscosupplementation and placebo. Similar conclusions were obtained for function. Based on 15 large, placebo controlled trials on 6462 randomised participants, viscosupplementation was associated with a statistically significant higher risk of serious adverse events than placebo (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98).

CONCLUSION

Strong conclusive evidence indicates that viscosupplementation leads to a small reduction in knee osteoarthritis pain compared with placebo, but the difference is less than the minimal clinically important between group difference. Strong conclusive evidence indicates that viscosupplementation is also associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo. The findings do not support broad use of viscosupplementation for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42021236894.

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

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

Acide hyaluronique intra-articulaire dans la gonarthrose: résultats cliniques d'une famille de produits (ARTHRUM), avec méta-analyses comparatives

Introduction

La viscosupplémentation est largement pratiquée, pour réduire la douleur dans l'arthrose (OA), par des injections intra articulaires (IA) d'acide hyaluronique (AH). En Europe, ces produits sont des dispositifs médicaux de classe III, pour lesquels la réglementation Medical Device Regulation (MDR) impose une évaluation clinique, basée sur des études spécifiques et/ou une revue bibliographique des dispositifs équivalents. L'objet de cet article est de présenter une revue comparative entre une famille de dispositifs (ARTHRUM, de LCA Pharmaceuticals, Chartres, France) et un groupe important de dispositifs AH IA présumés équivalents dont les résultats et ceux de leurs contrôles, ont fait l'objet de publications dans des journaux scientifiques.

Méthodes

Pour rejoindre les critères utilisés dans la plupart des études ARTHRUM, les sous-scores de l'indice Western Ontario and McMaster Universities ont été sélectionnés pour la douleur (WOMAC A), la raideur (WOMAC B) et la fonction (WOMAC C). Le critère principal était la variation du score WOMAC A depuis T0 (date d'inclusion) jusqu'à T6 (6 mois). Les autres critères WOMAC ont été évalués à T1, T3, T6 et complétés par les taux de répondeurs au traitement selon OMERACT-OARSI. Cinquante articles ont été sélectionnés, incluant des résultats portant sur plus de 12.000 patients. Ceux-ci ont été répartis en trois groupes: ARTHRUM, EQUIVALENTS et CONTROLES. Pour obtenir des comparaisons quantitatives, des méta-analyses furent réalisées pour chaque critère individuel. Les intervalles de confiance (CI) à 95% de chaque variation par rapport à l'inclusion, ont permis d'évaluer la pertinence clinique en se référant à un minimum validé dans la littérature de l'OA. L'investigation a été complétée par des comparaisons entre groupes et par l'évaluation de la tolérance.

Résultats

Pour les scores WOMAC A, B et C, l'intégralité de CI 95% était toujours supérieure à l'amélioration minimale cliniquement perceptible (MPCI), pour les groupes ARTHRUM et EQUIVALENTS, ce qui n'a pas été observé pour la totalité des critères, avec le groupe CONTROLES. Dans les comparaisons, les groupes ARTHRUM et EQUIVALENTS ont été significativement meilleurs que le groupe CONTROLES pour chaque critère. La taille de l'effet (ES) sur la douleur, pour les groupes ARTHRUM et EQUIVALENTS, a varié de 0,28 à 0,56 et de 0,23 to 0,27, respectivement. Globalement, ARTHRUM a toujours été évalué non-inférieur aux EQUIVALENTS, et parfois statistiquement et cliniquement supérieur.

Conclusions

La comparaison des études cliniques ARTHRUM, avec les études tirées de la recherche bibliographique, permet de conclure que l'efficacité clinique des dispositifs médicaux ARTHRUM, pour réduire la douleur et améliorer la fonction dans la gonarthrose, sur une période de six mois, est au moins aussi élevée que celle des dispositifs équivalents. Avec un bon profil de tolérance (taux plus faible d'effets indésirables, et aucun sévère), le rapport risque-bénéfice est en faveur de la viscosupplémentation avec ARTHRUM.

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.

The Long-Lasting Effects of "Placebo Injections" in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the placebo effect of intraarticular injections for knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, function, and objective outcomes. Factors influencing placebo effect were investigated.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; Level of evidence, 2. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and grey literature databases were searched on January 8, 2020, using the string: (knee) AND (osteoarthritis OR OA) AND (injections OR intra-articular) AND (saline OR placebo). The following inclusion criteria were used: double-blind, randomized controlled trials on knee osteoarthritis, including a placebo arm on saline injections. The primary outcome was pain variation. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and quality of evidence was graded following the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines.

RESULTS

Out of 2,363 records, 50 articles on 4,076 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed significant improvements up to the 6-month follow-up: Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-pain -13.4 mean difference (MD) (95% confidence interval [CI]: -21.7/-5.1; P < 0.001), Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)-pain -3.3 MD (95% CI: -3.9/-2.7; P < 0.001). Other significant improvements were WOMAC-stiffness -1.1 MD (95% CI: -1.6/-0.6; P < 0.001), WOMAC-function -10.1 MD (95% CI: -12.2/-8.0; P < 0.001), and Evaluator Global Assessment -21.4 MD (95% CI: -29.2/-13.6; P < 0.001). The responder rate was 52% (95% CI: 40% to 63%). Improvements were greater than the "minimal clinically important difference" for all outcomes (except 6-month VAS-pain). The level of evidence was moderate for almost all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The placebo effect of knee injections is significant, with functional improvements lasting even longer than those reported for pain perception. The high, long-lasting, and heterogeneous effects on the scales commonly used in clinical trials further highlight that the impact of placebo should not be overlooked in the research on and management of knee osteoarthritis.

Safety of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Involving More than 8,000 Patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

We identified randomized controlled trials reporting the safety of IAHA versus IA saline in adults with symptomatic knee OA. Main safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs), local AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs), study withdrawals, and AE-related study withdrawals.

RESULTS

A total of 35 randomized controlled trials with 38 group comparisons comprising 8,078 unique patients (IAHA: 4,295, IA saline: 3,783) were included in the meta-analysis. Comparing IAHA with IA saline over a median of 6 months follow-up, there were no differences in the risk of AEs (42.4% vs. 39.7%, risk ratio [RR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.96-1.07, P = 0.61), SAEs (1.8% vs. 1.2%, RR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.91-2.26, P=0.12), study withdrawals (12.3% vs. 12.7%, RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87-1.12, P = 0.83), or AE-related study withdrawals (2.7% vs. 2.1%, RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97-1.93, P = 0.08). Local AEs, all of which were nonserious, were more common with IAHA vs. IA saline (14.5% vs. 11.7%, RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.07-1.36, P = 0.003) and typically resolved within days.

CONCLUSION

IAHA was shown to be safe for use in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Compared with IA saline, IAHA is associated with an increased risk of nonserious, transient local reactions. There was no evidence to suggest any additional safety risks of IAHA.

Molecular Weight of Hyaluronic Acid Has Major Influence on Its Efficacy and Safety for Viscosupplementation in Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection with different molecular weights (MWs) for treating hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic literature search for relevant studies was conducted in 3 electronic databases, including PubMed, BMJ Journals, and Cochrane Library, from inception to April 2020. Extracted outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) (1, 3, and 6 months), Lequesne index (3 and 6 months), and adverse effects. HAs were classified into low-molecular-weight (LMW), moderate-molecular-weight (MMW), high-molecular-weight (HMW), and ultra-high-molecular-weight (UHMW) groups. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

A total of 15 studies with 614 patients were included. Our meta-analysis showed that the HMW HA group had the best improvement in VAS and Lequesne index compared with other HA groups for all the follow-up visits. Moreover, the HMW group demonstrated significantly better improvement than the other groups in VAS at 6-month follow-up and in Lequesne index at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Analysis for adverse effects revealed low rates of systemic adverse effects (≤0.6%) in all groups and similar rate of local adverse effects (around 10%) among the groups except for UHMW HA group (37.5%).

CONCLUSION

Among different MWs of HA for treating hip OA, HMW HA injection demonstrated the best efficacy for up to 6 months after treatment without increased risk of adverse effects. Further studies with more comprehensive data and a higher level of evidence are required to prove our results.

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: clinical data for a product family (ARTHRUM), with comparative meta-analyses

Introduction

Viscosupplementation is widely practiced, to reduce pain in osteoarthritis (OA), using intra articular (IA) injections of hyaluronic acid (HA). In Europe, these products are class III medical devices, for which the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requires clinical assessment, based on specific studies and/or a bibliographical review of equivalent devices. The purpose of this article is to present a comparative review between a family of devices (ARTHRUM, from LCA Pharmaceuticals, Chartres, France) and an extensive group of presumed equivalent IA HA devices or their controls, whose results have been published in Scientific journals.

Methods

To meet the criteria used in most ARTHRUM studies, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ index sub-scores were selected for pain (WOMAC A), stiffness (WOMAC B) and function (WOMAC C). The main criterion was the variation of the WOMAC A score from T0 (date of inclusion) to T6 (6 months). The other WOMAC criteria were assessed at T1, T3, T6 and complemented by OMERACT-OARSI rates of responders to the treatment. Fifty articles were selected, containing treatment details on more than 12,000 patients. These were divided into three groups: ARTHRUM, EQUIVALENTS and CONTROLS. To get quantitative comparisons, meta-analyses were performed for each criterion individually. The 95% confidence interval of each difference from baseline, was used to assess the clinical relevance, with reference to a minimum validated in OA literature. Comparisons between groups and tolerance assessment completed the investigation.

Results

For the WOMAC A, B and C scores, the full 95% CI was always above the minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI), in the ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups, but not for all criteria in the CONTROLS group. In the comparisons, both ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups were significantly better than the CONTROLS group for each criterion. The effect size (ES) on pain, for the ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups, varied from 0.28 to 0.56 and from 0.23 to 0.27, respectively. Overall, ARTHRUM was estimated always non-inferior to EQUIVALENTS, and sometimes statistically and clinically superior.

Conclusions

The comparison of ARTHRUM clinical studies, with studies selected through bibliographic research, leads to the conclusion that the clinical efficacy of the ARTHRUM medical devices, to reduce pain and improve the function in knee OA, during a six-month period, is at least as great as those of equivalent products. With good tolerance results (lowest rate of adverse events, and none of them serious), the risk benefit ratio favours using viscosupplementation with ARTHRUM.

Efficacy and safety of a single intra-articular injection of 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 compared to placebo in Chinese patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis : C-SOUND study, a 26-week multicenter double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial in China

BACKGROUND

Single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection, is indicated for knee osteoarthritis patients who have failed to respond to non-pharmacologic therapy and/or simple analgesics. To obtain more thorough understanding of the clinical efficacy and safety, a randomized clinical trial was conducted comparing intra-articular (IA) administration of single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection versus placebo in knee OA patients of Chinese ethnicity.

METHODS

This was a randomized, multi-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in 21 centers across China. Four hundred forty adults with knee OA received a single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 or placebo injection and were evaluated for clinical efficacy and safety outcomes over 26 weeks. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA (WOMAC) A1 index, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and standard safety parameters were measured at pre-injection, and at weeks 1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 26 post-injection.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty patients (male: 98 [22.3%]; female: 342 [77.7%]) were randomized. The mean age [standard deviation (SD)] was 61.5 (7.9) years. All patients were of East Asian ethnicity. Mean WOMAC A1 score at baseline was 5.3 (1.2) and 5.2 (1.3) in single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection and placebo groups, respectively. Significant reductions of WOMAC A1 score were observed in both treatment groups when compared to baseline at 26 weeks post-injection, with the mean reduction of [standard error (SE)/percentage] -2.146 (0.108)/- 40.5% and - 2.271 (0.110) /- 43.7% in the single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection and the placebo groups, respectively. Additionally, clinically important reductions in pain at 26 weeks was reported in 67.0 and 68.2% in single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection and placebo groups (p = 0.36). Regarding safety, TEAEs were similar between the two treatment groups (hylan G-F 20 single: 61.5%; placebo: 64.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

While the magnitude of the effect of a single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection in this study is consistent with previously published literature with respect to the efficacy and safety of the drug, the current study shows a strong IA placebo effect and did not established superiority of single 6 ml Hylan G-F 20 injection over IA placebo in Chinese knee OA patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered Jun 16, 2017 at www.clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03190369 ).

Mesenchymal Stem Cells: A New Choice for Nonsurgical Treatment of OA? Results from a Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Objective

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disease, causing joint pain, stiffness, and even disability. Guidelines recommend intra-articular injections as an alternative treatment to relieve OA symptoms for patients who demonstrate poor tolerability or compliance to oral administration of drugs. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a potential treatment for of OA. We conducted this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (GCs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and MSCs.

Design

Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Data Sources. Relevant studies, published from January 2000 to January 2020, in the PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and CKNI databases.

Methods

Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. Pain relief, functional improvement, improvement in joint stiffness, and risk of adverse effects (AEs) were assessed.

Results

Twenty-five articles with 4642 patients were included. Overall, MSC therapy was the most effective treatment for pain relief (standardized mean difference compared with placebo = 3.61, 95% CI [1.87 to 5.35]). Both MSC and PRP therapies improved every symptom of OA effectively and have an advantage over HA and GCs which are recommended by guidelines. MSCs, PRP, HA, and GCs are tolerated well for patients in long-term treatment of OA compared with placebo.

Conclusions

The results show that MSCs relieve pain, stiffness, and dysfunction due to OA better than PRP, HA, and GCs and are not statistically correlated with greater safety concerns. More high-quality trials are needed to reconfirm the findings of this study, however, standardization of preparation of MSCs and PRP should be investigated in the future.

Recommendations of the French Society of Rheumatology on pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

To establish recommendations for pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis specific to France.

METHODS

On behalf of the French Society of Rheumatology (SFR), a bibliography group analyzed the literature on the efficacy and safety of each pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. This group joined a multidisciplinary working group to draw up recommendations. Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence level were assigned to each recommendation. A review committee gave its level of agreement.

RESULTS

Five general principles were established: 1) need to combine pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments, 2) personalization of treatment, 3) symptomatic and/or functional aim of pharmacological treatments, 4) need to regularly re-assess the treatments and 5) discussion about arthroplasty if medical treatment fails. Six recommendations involved oral treatments: 1) paracetamol should not necessarily be prescribed systematically and/or continuously, 2) NSAIDs, possibly as first-line, 3) weak opioids, 4) strong opioids, 5) symptomatic slow-acting drugs of osteoarthritis, and 6) duloxetine (off-label use). Two recommendations involved topical agents (NSAIDs and capsaicin<1%). Three recommendations involved intra-articular treatments: corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid injections that can be proposed to patients. The experts did not draw a conclusion about the benefits of platelet-rich plasma injections.

CONCLUSION

These are the first recommendations of the SFR on the pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

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

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

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

OBJECTIVES

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) sought to revisit the 2014 algorithm recommendations for knee osteoarthritis (OA), in light of recent efficacy and safety evidence, in order to develop an updated stepwise algorithm that provides practical guidance for the prescribing physician that is applicable in Europe and internationally.

METHODS

Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process, a summary of evidence document for each intervention in OA was provided to all members of an ESCEO working group, who were required to evaluate and vote on the strength of recommendation for each intervention. Based on the evidence collected, and on the strength of recommendations afforded by consensus of the working group, the final algorithm was constructed.

RESULTS

An algorithm for management of knee OA comprising a stepwise approach and incorporating consensus on 15 treatment recommendations was prepared by the ESCEO working group. Both "strong" and "weak" recommendations were afforded to different interventions. The algorithm highlights the continued importance of non-pharmacological interventions throughout the management of OA. Benefits and limitations of different pharmacological treatments are explored in this article, with particular emphasis on safety issues highlighted by recent literature analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated ESCEO stepwise algorithm, developed by consensus from clinical experts in OA and informed by available evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatments, provides practical, current guidance that will enable clinicians to deliver patient-centric care in OA practice.

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

Introduction

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

Méthodes

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

Résultats

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

Discussion

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

NASHA hyaluronic acid for the treatment of shoulder osteoarthritis: a prospective, single-arm clinical trial

Background: Osteoarthritis of the shoulder or glenohumeral joint is a painful condition that can be debilitating. Intra-articular injection with hyaluronic acid should be considered for patients not responding adequately to physical therapy or anti-inflammatory medication.

Methods: This was a single-arm, open-label, prospective study of a single intra-articular injection of NASHA (non-animal hyaluronic acid) in patients with symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Patients were followed up for 26 weeks post-treatment, during which time rescue medication with acetaminophen was permissible. The study objective was to demonstrate that a single injection of NASHA is well tolerated with an over-6-month 25% reduction in shoulder pain on movement, assessed using a 100-mm visual analog scale.

Results: Forty-one patients were enrolled, all of whom received study treatment. The mean decrease in shoulder pain on movement score over the 6-month study period was −20.1 mm (95% CI: −25.2, −15.0 mm), corresponding to a mean reduction of 29.5% (22.0, 37.0%). Statistically significant improvements were also observed in shoulder pain at night and patient global assessment. There was no clear change over time in the percentage of patients using rescue medication and mean weekly doses were below 3500 mg. Seventeen patients (41.5%) experienced adverse events, all of which were mild or moderate. Two adverse events (both shoulder pain) were deemed related to study treatment.

Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence that a single injection of NASHA may be efficacious over 6 months and well tolerated in patients with symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Larger studies are needed for confirmation.

Safety of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Some controversy exists regarding the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to re-assess the safety profile of IAHA in patients with OA, through a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with IAHA in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, respiratory, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, musculoskeletal, renal and urinary disorders, infections and infestations, and hypersensitivity reaction.

RESULTS

Database searches initially identified 1481 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 22 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies having adequate data were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. From the studies excluded according to the pre-specified selection criteria, 21 with other pharmacological OA treatments permitted during the trials were a posteriori included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which eight studies with adequate data were finally included in a parallel meta-analysis. Since this meta-analysis was designed to assess safety, the exclusion criterion on concomitant anti-OA medication was crucial. However, due to the high number of studies that allowed mainly concomitant oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we decided to include them in a post hoc parallel analysis in order to compare the results from the two analyses. No statistically significant difference in odds was found between IAHA and placebo for all types of SOC-related disorders, except for infections and infestations, for which significantly lower odds were found with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.93; I² = 0%) and in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89). There were significant increased odds of reporting serious AEs with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.21-2.63; I² = 0%) and in studies with concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.10-2.89), but not in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 0.92-3.47).

CONCLUSIONS

Using the available data on studies without any concomitant anti-OA medication permitted during clinical trials, IAHA seems not to be associated with any safety issue in the management of OA. However, this evidence was associated with only a "low" to "moderate" certainty. A possible association with increased risk of serious AEs, particularly when used with concomitant OA medications, requires further investigation.

Nonanimal Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis: AProspective, Single-Arm Cohort Study

Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) can cause disabling symptoms, and some patients prefer to be treated with minimally invasive procedures. Nonanimal hyaluronic acid (NASHA) is a cross-linked hyaluronic acid product that has a prolonged intra-articular residence time. The authors report the first study of NASHA for the treatment of ankle OA. Thirty-seven patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III ankle OA received an intra-articular injection of NASHA (1 mL). Outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain and disability. At baseline, the mean VAS pain score was 50.1 ± 14.5mm. During the 26-week follow-up period, the least squares (LS) mean change from baseline in the ankle OA VAS pain score was -20.5mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -25.5 to -15.6 mm), an LS mean percentage reduction of 40.0% (95% CI 30.2% to 49.9%). The LS mean change from baseline in the VAS disability score during 26 weeks was -19.2mm (95% CI -24.8 to -13.6 mm), a percentage reduction of 34% (95% CI 22.3% to 45.7%). Five participants experienced a total of 7 adverse events considered to be related to study treatment (injection site pain, n = 3; injection site joint pain, n = 3; plantar fasciitis, n = 1). This study shows promise for viscosupplementation with NASHA in the treatment of ankle OA. A single injection was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in pain and disability during a 26-week period and, in general, was well tolerated.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

BACKGROUND

There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses.

METHODS

Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs.

RESULTS

These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Introduction

The Kellgren–Lawrence (K–L) grade is the most commonly used measure of radiographic disease severity in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Studies suggest that intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) should only be considered in cases of early stage knee OA. The purpose of this review was to determine if trials administering IA-HA in early-moderate knee OA patients demonstrated greater pain relief than studies that also included patients with end-stage disease.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing IA-HA with saline injections and that diagnosed disease severity using the K–L grade criteria. The primary outcome was mean change in pain from baseline at 4–13 weeks and 22–27 weeks. Safety was evaluated on the total number of participants experiencing a treatment-related adverse event (AE).

Results

Twenty RCTs were included. In the early-moderate OA subgroup, the mean change in pain scores was statistically significant favoring IA-HA from baseline to 4–13 weeks [SMD = − 0.30, 95% CI − 0.44 to − 0.15, p < 0.0001] and within 22–27 weeks [SMD = − 0.27, 95% CI − 0.39 to − 0.16, p < 0.00001]. No significant differences were observed in the late OA subgroup. IA-HA was associated with a significantly greater risk of treatment-related AEs relative to saline in the late OA subgroup [RR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.16–2.67, p = 0.008].

Conclusion

IA-HA provides significant pain relief compared to saline for patients with early-moderate knee OA, compared to cohorts including patients with end-stage OA (KL grade 4), with no increase in the risk of treatment-related AEs, up to 6 months. Patients with end-stage disease had lower levels of pain relief and may be diluting study results if included in the treatment cohort.

Funding

Ferring Pharmaceuticals.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0847-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic clinical evidence review of NASHA (Durolane hyaluronic acid) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

Background

Pain and limitations in joint mobility associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA) are clinically challenging to manage, and advanced progression of disease can often lead to total knee arthroplasty. Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA), also referred to as viscosupplementation, is a non-surgical treatment approach for OA, the effectiveness of which may depend on the HA composition, and the length of time over which it resides in the joint. One of the available options for such therapies includes NASHA (Durolane HA), a non-animal, biofermentation-derived product, which is manufactured using a process that stabilizes the HA molecules to slow down their rate of degradation and produce a unique formulation with a terminal half-life of ~1 month. The objectives of the current review were to assess, in patients with OA of the knee, the efficacy and safety of intra-articular treatment with NASHA relative to control (saline) injections, other HA products, and other injectables (corticosteroids, platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cells).

Methods

This systematic evidence review examines patient outcomes following NASHA treatment as described in published data from studies conducted in subjects with knee OA. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant literature search strategy yielded 11 eligible clinical studies with a variety of comparator arms. Outcomes assessed at various time points following intra-articular treatment included measures of pain, function, quality of life, and incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs).

Results

The available evidence reported for the clinical studies assessed demonstrates sustained and effective relief of knee OA symptoms following a single injection of NASHA. In addition, an excellent biocompatibility profile is observed for NASHA as an intra-articular therapy for OA, as reflected by the low rate of AEs associated with treatment.

Conclusion

Treatment with NASHA is an effective and safe single-injection procedure, which can be beneficial in the clinical management of knee OA.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

The efficacy of multiple versus single hyaluronic acid injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) is a common therapy used to treat knee pain and suppress knee inflammation in knee osteoarthritis (OA), typically prescribed in regimens ranging from a single injection to 5 weekly injections given once weekly. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy of IA-HA, with subgroup analyses to explore the differences in knee pain and adverse events (AEs) across different dosing regimens.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of the literature to identify studies evaluating IA-HA for the management of knee OA compared to IA-saline. Primary outcome measure was the mean knee pain score at 13 Weeks (3 months) or 26 weeks (6 months). Secondary outcome was the number of treatment-related AEs and treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). We evaluated differences in levels of pain and AEs/SAEs between dosing regimens compared to IA-Saline.

RESULTS

Thirty articles were included. Overall, IA-HA injections were associated with less knee pain compared to IA-Saline injections for all dosing regimens. 2-4 injections of IA-HA vs. IA-Saline produced the largest effect size at both 3-months and 6-months (Standard mean difference [SMD] = -0.76; -0.98 to -0.53, 95% CI, P < 0.00001, and SMD = -0.36; -0.63 to -0.09 95% CI, P = 0.008, respectively). Additionally, single injection studies yielded a non-significant treatment effect at 3 and 6 months, while ≥5 5 injections demonstrated a significant improvement in pain only at 6 months. Five or more injections of IA-HA were associated with a higher risk of treatment-related AEs compared to IA-Saline (Risk ratio [RR] = 1.67; 1.09 to 2.56 95% CI, p = 0.02), which was a result not seen within the 1 and 2-4 injection subgroups.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 2-4 and ≥5 injection regimens provided pain relief over IA-Saline, while single injection did not. Intra-articular injections of HA used in a 2-4 injection treatment regimen provided the greatest benefit when compared to IA-Saline with respect to pain improvement in patients with knee OA, and was generally deemed safe with few to no treatment-related AEs reported across studies. Future research is needed to directly compare these treatment regimens.

Single-arm open-label study of Durolane (NASHA nonanimal hyaluronic acid) for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the thumb

Introduction

Osteoarthritis of the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint of the thumb – also known as rhizarthrosis – is painful and has a significant impact on quality of life. Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid may potentially meet the need for effective, minimally invasive intervention in patients not responding adequately to initial treatment. We aimed to confirm the safety and effectiveness of viscosupplementation with Durolane (NASHA nonanimal hyaluronic acid) in rhizarthrosis.

Patients and methods

This was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter, open-label study with a 6-month follow-up period. Eligible patients had Eaton–Littler grade II–III rhizarthrosis in one TMC joint with pain and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score ≥4 (scale: 0–10). A single injection of NASHA was administered to the affected TMC joint. The primary effectiveness variable was change from baseline in VAS pain score.

Results

Thirty-five patients (mean age 60.8 years; 85.7% female) received NASHA and completed the study. The least-squares mean change from baseline in VAS pain score over 6 months was −2.00, a reduction of 27.8% (p<0.001). The reduction in pain exceeded 25% as early as month 1 (26.5%), and gradual improvement was observed throughout the 6-month follow-up period. Secondary effectiveness parameters included QuickDASH (shortened version of Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH]), Kapandji thumb opposition test, radial abduction, metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint flexion, and pinch (clamp) strength. Most of these measurements showed statistically significant improvements from baseline over 6 months. Five adverse events (injection site reactions) were reported in four patients (11.4%), and there were no serious or allergic reactions.

Conclusion

This study suggests that viscosupplementation using NASHA is effective and well tolerated in treating the symptoms of rhizarthrosis.

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.

A randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical study on intra-articular hyaluronan treatment in equine lameness originating from the metacarpophalangeal joint

Background

Intra-articular inflammation resulting in lameness is a common health problem in horses. Exogenous intra-articular hyaluronic acid has been shown to provide an analgesic effect and reduce pain in equine and human osteoarthritis. High molecular weight non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) has gained popularity in the treatment of human arthritic conditions due to its long-acting pain-relieving effects. The aim of this study was to compare the response to treatment of lameness localized in the equine metacarpophalangeal joint injected with non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) and placebo (saline). Twenty-seven clinically lame horses with a positive response to diagnostic intra-articular anaesthesia of the metacarpophalangeal joint and with no, or at most mild, radiographic changes in this joint were included in the study. Horses in the treatment group (n = 14) received 3 mL of a NASHA product intra-articularly, and those in the placebo group (n = 13) received an equivalent volume of sterile 0.9 % saline solution.

Results

The change in the lameness score did not significantly differ between NASHA and placebo groups (P = 0.94). Scores in the flexion test improved more in the NASHA group compared with placebo (P = 0.01). The changes in effusion and pain in flexion were similar (P = 0.94 and P = 0.27, respectively) when NASHA and placebo groups were compared. A telephone interview follow-up of the owners three months post-treatment revealed that 14 of the 21 horses (67 %) were able to perform at their previous level of exercise.

Conclusions

In the present study, a single IA NASHA injection was not better than a single saline injection for reducing lameness in horses with synovitis or mild osteoarthritis. However, the results of this study indicate that IA NASHA may have some beneficial effects in modifying mild clinical signs but more research is needed to evaluate whether the positive effect documented ie. reduced response in the flexion test is a true treatment effect.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.