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

Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, and Hyaluronic Acid Injections Outperform Corticosteroids in Pain and Function Scores at a Minimum of 6 Months as Intra-Articular Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of common intra-articular injections used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, including corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), with a minimum follow-up of 6-months.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in August 2022 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Level I to II randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 6 months that investigated the treatments of interest were included. Patient-reported outcome scores for pain and function at baseline and at latest follow-up were extracted, and the change in scores was converted to uniform 0 to 100 scales. Arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was created to compare the treatment arms in pain and function.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies comprising a total of 9,338 knees were included. The most studied intra-articular injection was HA (40.9%), followed by placebo (26.2%), PRP (21.5%), CS (8.8%), and then BMAC (2.5%). HA and PRP both led to a significant improvement in pain compared with placebo. HA, PRP, and BMAC all led to a significant improvement in function scores when compared with placebo. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) of the interventions revealed that PRP, BMAC, and HA were the treatments with the highest likelihood of improvement in both pain and function, with overall SUCRA scores of 91.54, 76.46, and 53.12, respectively. The overall SUCRA scores for CS and placebo were 15.18 and 13.70, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 6-month follow-up, PRP demonstrated significantly improved pain and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with placebo. Additionally, PRP exhibited the highest SUCRA values for these outcomes when compared with BMAC, HA, and CS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Histological features of knee osteoarthritis treated with triamcinolone acetonide and hyaluronic acid

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common degenerative joint diseases leading to disability in the end stage. Although intra-articular triamcinolone acetonide (TA) is one of the OA treatments that have been widely used, the side effects of such corticosteroids are still controversial. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection is another therapeutic option for patients with OA who do not want to use corticosteroids because of their side effects. However, the difference between the histological features associated with TA and HA in the treatment of OA remains unclear. Thus, the present study aimed to compare the histological effects of TA and HA on the cartilage of patients with knee OA. In the current study, 31 patients diagnosed with grade 3-4 knee OA on the Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic grading scale were separated into three groups: TA (n=12); HA (n=7) and untreated group (n=12). Histological examination of the whole articular cartilages of the patients was performed with hematoxylin and eosin and Alcian staining, as well as using a TUNEL assay. Clinical data such as cartilage thickness, structural and component deterioration, proteoglycan levels, apoptosis and empty lacunae were compared between the three groups. The results showed a high level of deterioration in both TA and HA groups but not in the untreated group, although the thickness of cartilage in the HA group was lower compared with that in the TA and untreated groups. The proteoglycan levels in the TA group were lower compared with those in the HA group. Moreover, the number of empty lacunae in the HA group was higher compared with that in the TA group, while no difference in apoptosis was found between TA and HA groups. A significant difference was not found in the histological staining between TA and HA groups. On the other hand, a significant difference was found in cartilage deterioration between the medial and lateral sides in these groups. TA and HA groups showed comparable histological results. TA injection is cheaper and easier but has more adverse effects for patients with knee OA than HA injection. Therefore, orthopaedists should select TA or HA based on the economic and specific needs of patients.

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.

Intra-articular placebo effect in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a survey of the current clinical evidence

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a debilitating disease characterized by chronic pain, stiffness, and decreased mobility. Intra-articular injectable therapies show good clinical efficacy in improving symptoms; however, these therapies and their comparators (intra-articular saline) have been associated with a large underlying placebo effect. We aimed to describe the existing evidence on the challenges, hypotheses, and potential solutions to mitigate the intra-articular placebo effect in clinical trials in KOA. A targeted literature review was conducted by searching Embase, MEDLINE®, and CENTRAL using predefined study selection criteria. All eligible studies identified were extracted for relevant data, and results were narratively summarized. Forty-three studies were included following screening. Challenges associated with the intra-articular placebo effect included its ability to mask the comparative efficacy of active treatments in trials (n = 7 studies), long-lasting effects (up to 6 months; n = 3), and substantial variation of placebo effect sizes across populations (n = 3). Hypotheses for the mechanism of the placebo effect included aspiration of synovial fluid during administration (n = 6) and dilution of inflammatory mediators (n = 2). Factors affecting the placebo effect size were more invasive routes of administration (e.g., injection versus oral; n = 4) and patient expectations (n = 2). Proposed solutions included the suggestion for readers to weigh the relevance of clinical trial evidence against the presence of large underlying placebo effects (n = 9), discontinuation of intra-articular saline as an appropriate placebo (n = 5), and inclusion of 'no treatment' or sham injection as a control (n = 4). The intra-articular placebo effect is a well-documented occurrence in KOA clinical trials, and it is suggested that it be accounted for when designing randomized controlled trials. Awareness and understanding of the intra-articular placebo effect in KOA are required for fair interpretation of clinical trial evidence.