Dataset Information

Intra-Articular Therapies in the Treatment of Hand Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT: Local treatments to alleviate symptoms in hand osteoarthritis (OA) are preferred, especially in elderly patients with comorbidities. Therefore, we have summarized the benefits and harms of intra-articular (IA) therapies.We conducted a systematic literature review until May 2015, including all controlled trials investigating efficacy or safety of any IA therapy in carpometacarpal (CMC) and interphalangeal (IP) OA compared with placebo or other treatments. Two authors independently selected trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. The main efficacy outcome was pain. We performed meta-analysis where appropriate.A total of 13 trials (864 patients) studying CMC (n = 11) and IP OA (n = 2) were included, comparing corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid (HA) versus placebo (n = 4 and n = 3), and corticosteroids versus HA (n = 6). Single studies investigated infliximab, dextrose, and different HAs. The overall risk of bias was unclear or high in most trials. Meta-analysis of two trials comparing corticosteroids with placebo in CMC OA showed no improvement in pain [mean difference -3.56, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -13.87 to 6.75, scale 0-100). HA also appeared not efficacious compared with placebo in CMC OA. One trial comparing corticosteroids with placebo in IP OA demonstrated significantly improved pain during movement. No convincing evidence for efficacy of corticosteroids or HA over the other or alternative therapies was found. Only local adverse events were reported. No specific IA therapy appeared more harmful than another.Despite a beneficial short-term safety profile, IA corticosteroids or HA do not appear more effective than placebo in CMC OA. The suggestion that IA corticosteroids might be efficacious in IP OA requires confirmation.

SUBMITTER: Kroon FP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4756050 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intra-Articular Therapies in the Treatment of Hand Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Review.

Kroon Féline P B FP Rubio Roxana R Schoones Jan W JW Kloppenburg Margreet M

Drugs & aging 20160201 2

<h4>Background</h4>Local treatments to alleviate symptoms in hand osteoarthritis (OA) are preferred, especially in elderly patients with comorbidities. Therefore, we have summarized the benefits and harms of intra-articular (IA) therapies.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic literature review until May 2015, including all controlled trials investigating efficacy or safety of any IA therapy in carpometacarpal (CMC) and interphalangeal (IP) OA compared with placebo or other treatments. Two au ...[more]

PMID: 26650235

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis of the knee affects up to 10% of the elderly population. The condition is frequently treated by intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of this treatment.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register from inception until April 2004 using a combination of search terms for knee osteoarthritis and hyaluronic acid and a filter for randomized controlled trials. We extracted data on pain at rest, pain during or immediately after movement, joint function and adverse events.ResultsTwenty-two trials that reported usable quantitative information on any of the predefined end points were identified and included in the systematic review. Even though pain at rest may be improved by hyaluronic acid, the data available from these studies did not allow an appropriate assessment of this end point. Patients who received the intervention experienced a reduction in pain during movement: the mean difference on a 100-mm visual analogue scale was -3.8 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] -9.1 to 1.4 mm) after 2-6 weeks, -4.3 mm (95% CI -7.6 to -0.9 mm) after 10-14 weeks and -7.1 mm (95% CI -11.8 to -2.4 mm) after 22-30 weeks. However, this effect was not compatible with a clinically meaningful difference (expected to be about 15 mm on the visual analogue scale). Furthermore, the effect was exaggerated by trials not reporting an intention-to-treat analysis. No improvement in knee function was observed at any time point. Even so, the effect of hyaluronic acid on knee function was more favourable when allocation was not concealed. Adverse events occurred slightly more often among patients who received the intervention (relative risk 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.15). Only 4 trials explicitly reported allocation concealment, had blinded outcome assessment and presented intention-to-treat data.InterpretationAccording to the currently available evidence, intra-articular hyaluronic acid has not been proven clinically effective and may be associated with a greater risk of adverse events. Large trials with clinically relevant and uniform end points are necessary to clarify the benefit-risk ratio.

Project description:BackgroundIntra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.MethodsAll published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.ResultsIncluded were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).ConclusionsIA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.Prospero trial registration numberCRD42020181928 .

Project description:BackgroundSome controversy exists regarding the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA).ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsDatabase 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).ConclusionsUsing 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.

Project description:IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a progressive joint disease commonly treated with intra-articular injections, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), or corticosteroids (CS). This updated meta-analysis aims to enhance the statistical power of the results and provide comprehensive clinical evidence that reflects the most current research. By doing so, the authors aim to suggest a reliable estimate for the development of guidelines, addressing the pressing need for effective and minimally invasive treatment options.MethodsPubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Central were searched until March 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of intra-articular injectable therapies, including PRP, HA, CS, and placebo, in KOA. Data extraction involved baseline characteristics and outcome measures [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, KOOS, and IKDC scores] at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis, including subgroup analysis, assessment of heterogeneity, and publication bias, was conducted using Review Manager.ResultsOur meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 3696 patients demonstrated that PRP treatment resulted in significant pain relief compared to HA injections, as evidenced by improved WOMAC pain (MD: -0.74; 95% CI: -1.02 to -0.46; P≤0.00001; I 2=94%) and VAS pain (MD: -0.65; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.06; P=0.03; I2=97%) outcomes. Similarly, PRP showed greater efficacy in reducing WOMAC pain (MD: -8.06; 95% CI: -13.62 to -2.51: P=0.004; I 2=96%) and VAS pain (MD: -1.11; 95% CI: -1.64 to -0.59; P≤0.0001; I 2=68%) compared to CS injections, with the most significant improvement observed at 6 months.ConclusionsPRP is an effective treatment for KOA. It provides symptomatic relief, has the potential to reduce disease progression, and has sustained effects up to 12 months. PRP offers superior pain relief and functional enhancement compared to CS and HA injections.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects and safety of intra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells on patients with knee osteoarthritis by a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were retrieved. An assessment of the risk of bias was done through the Cochrane Collaborative Bias Risk Tool, publication bias was assessed by plotting funnel plots and Egger tests. Pain and functional improvements in patients with knee osteoarthritis were determined by changes in VAS scores and WOMAC scores at baseline and follow-up endpoints. For the evaluation of MRI, the WORMS score and changes in cartilage volume were used. In addition, the number of adverse events in the intervention group and the control group were counted to explore the safety.ResultsA total of 10 randomized controlled trials involving 335 patients were included. In the pooled analysis, compared with the control groups, the VAS scores of MSC groups decreased significantly (MD,-19.24; 95% CI: -26.31 to -12.18, P < .00001. All of the WOMAC scores also improved significantly: the total scores (SMD, - 0.66; 95% CI: - 1.09 to -0.23, P = .003), pain scores (SMD, - 0.46; 95% CI: - 0.75 to -0.17, P = .002), stiffness scores (SMD, -0.32; 95% CI: -0.64 to 0.00 P = 0.05), and functional scores (SMD, -0.36; 95% CI: -0.69 to -0.04, P = .03). Two studies with non-double-blind designs were the main source of heterogeneity. In terms of cartilage repair, there was no significant difference in the WORMS score, but there was a significant increase in cartilage volume in the MSC group (SMD, 0.69; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.13, P = .002). The proportion of patients with adverse events in the MSCs treatment group was significantly higher than that in the control group (OR, 3.20; 95% CI: 1.50 to 6.83, P = .003).ConclusionsIntra-articular injection of mesenchymal stem cells is effective and safety to relieve pain and improve motor function of patients with knee osteoarthritis in a short term which is different to conclusions of previous study.

Dataset Information

Intra-Articular Therapies in the Treatment of Hand Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Review.

Publications

Intra-Articular Therapies in the Treatment of Hand Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Literature Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets