Dataset Information

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osteoarthritis 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.

Methods

We 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.

Results

Twenty-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.

Interpretation

According 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.

SUBMITTER: Arrich J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC556045 | biostudies-literature | 2005 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Arrich Jasmin J Piribauer Franz F Mad Philipp P Schmid Daniela D Klaushofer Klaus K Müllner Marcus M

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20050401 8

<h4>Background</h4>Osteoarthritis 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.<h4>Methods</h4>We 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 ...[more]

PMID: 15824412

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundRecently, in an open pilot study, we found up to two years, a potential pain-relieving effect of intra-articular gold micro-particles using the patient's synovial fluid for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). During the study the excluded group of patients, due to multisite pain, co-morbidities, and other exclusion criteria., received intra-articular gold micro-particles using hyaluronic acid,. We aimed to identify if pre-treatment characteristics influence the global outcome two years after intra-articular treatment for painful KOA with gold microparticles using hyaluronic acid.MethodsUsing hyaluronic acid as the carrier, 136 patients with KOA received intraarticular injections with 20 mg gold microparticles (72.000 particles, 20-40 μm in diameter). In the analysis, we included the Global Rating of Change Scale, Pain Detect Questionnaire (PDQ), Body Mass Index (BMI), and Kellgren & Lawrence score at the inclusion, Western Ontario, and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) sub-scores for pain, stiffness, and function at inclusion and two years.ResultsOn the Global Rating Change Scale, 69.1% of patients reported a positive effect, 28.7% no effect, and 2.2% worse. PDQ and the three WOMAC subscores all improved at two years of follow-up. PDQ ≥ 13 (P = 0.028), BMI (P = 0.022) and Kellgren & Lawrence grade 4 (P = 0.028) at inclusion reduced the effect with a minor odds ratio compared to the baseline effect of treatment (P = 0.025). WOMAC subscores at inclusion did not influence the outcome (P > 0.5).ConclusionsSevere osteoarthritis, obesity, and neuropathic pain, reduced the effect of intra-articular gold microparticles for knee OA.Trial registrationThe study followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the local ethics committee of the North Denmark Region by 27/07/2016 (N-20,160,045). The regional data protection agency approved the project by 06/07/2016 (2008-58-0028, ID 2016 - 116) and registered in ClinicalTrial.Gov by 04/01/2018 (NCT03389906).

Project description:IntroductionViscosupplementation 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.MethodsTo 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.ResultsFor 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

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:OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to describe patients treated for knee osteoarthritis between 2006 and 2013 in France and to compare the delay from diagnosis to total knee replacement between patients who received intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections and those who did not receive the injections. A second objective was to compare direct medical costs for ambulatory care between treatment groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients were selected from a representative sample of the real world administrative claims database using an algorithm developed by experts from the scientific committee of the study. Data were matched with the medico-administrative database for hospital care. A Cox proportional hazards model was stratified for the treatment group and adjusted for available socio-demographic and medical covariates to compare restricted mean survival times at different time points (1, 3, 5 and 7.5 years) between groups. Costs were expressed in 2013 euros. RESULTS:A total of 14,782 patients were treated for knee osteoarthritis (67% women; mean age = 68 years). Among this population, 1,662 patients had total knee replacement (11.2%). At each time point, restricted mean survival time without total knee replacement was significantly higher (p-values<0.001) for hyaluronic acid group, from +51 to +217 days at 1 and 7.5 years, respectively. For the year preceding total knee replacement, the means for total direct medical costs were similar between groups, €744 vs €805 for treatment and control groups, respectively, (p-value = 0.104). Intra-articular injections accounted for less than 10% of the total costs. CONCLUSION:This is the first retrospective longitudinal study involving knee osteoarthritis patients using medico-administrative databases in France. The results support the effectiveness of hyaluronic acid injections in delaying total knee replacement and show that patients treated with hyaluronic acid have similar direct medical costs for ambulatory care compared to patients treated with corticosteroids only.

Dataset Information

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets