Dataset Information

A Comparison of Treatment Effects for Nonsurgical Therapies and the Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was developed to ascertain the smallest change in an outcome that patients perceive as beneficial. The objectives of the present review were (1) to compare the MCIDs for pain assessments used among guidelines and meta-analyses investigating different nonsurgical therapies for knee osteoarthritis and (2) to compare the effect estimates of different nonsurgical interventions against a single commonly-utilized MCID threshold.

Methods

Systematic and manual searches were conducted to identify guidelines and meta-analyses evaluating pain outcomes for nonsurgical knee osteoarthritis interventions. Individual treatment effects for pain were presented on a common scale (the standardized mean difference [SMD]). To evaluate the perception of the relative benefit of each nonsurgical treatment, the variation in MCIDs selected from the published MCID literature was assessed.

Results

Thirty-seven guidelines and meta-analyses were included. MCIDs were often presented as an SMD or a mean difference (MD) on a validated scale and varied in magnitude across sources. This analysis demonstrated that intra-articular hyaluronic acid, intra-articular corticosteroids, and acetaminophen all had relatively larger effect sizes than topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Higher-molecular-weight intra-articular hyaluronic acid had a greater relative effect compared with both non-selective and cyclooxygenase-2-selective oral NSAIDs. Evaluating the treatment effect estimates against a commonly utilized MCID revealed similarities in which observations attained clinical significance among treatments; however, this observation varied across the range of reported MCIDs.

Conclusions

The present review confirmed the variability in the MCIDs for pain assessments that are used across guidelines and meta-analyses evaluating nonsurgical interventions for knee osteoarthritis. This variability may yield conflicting treatment recommendations, ranging from rejecting treatments that are indeed efficacious to accepting treatments that may not be beneficial. Additional research is required to determine why some nonsurgical therapies are more consistently recommended in knee osteoarthritis guidelines than others as these findings suggest similarities in their effect estimates for pain. Relevant stakeholders need to reach a consensus on a standard approach to determining the MCIDs for these therapies to ensure that appropriate and effective treatment options are available to patients prior to invasive surgical intervention.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

SUBMITTER: Concoff A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6727942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMinimal clinically important change (MCIC) represents the minimum patient-perceived improvement in an outcome after treatment, in an individual or within a group over time. This study aimed to determine MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach.MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched for studies of randomised clinical trials of non-surgical interventions with intervention duration of ≤ 3 months that reported change in (Δ) (mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention) knee flexion with Δ pain or Δ function measured using tools that have established MCIC values. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Bayesian meta-analytic models were used to determine relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function after non-surgical interventions and MCIC of knee flexion.ResultsSeventy-two studies (k = 72, n = 5174) were eligible. Meta-analyses included 140 intervention arms (k = 61, n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain using the visual analog scale (pain-VAS) and Δ function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale (function-WOMAC). Linear relationships between Δ pain at rest-VAS (0-100 mm) with Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.44; - 0.15) (β: posterior median (CrI: credible interval)). Relationships between Δ pain during activity VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.41, - 0.18), and Δ pain-general VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.33 (- 0.42, - 0.23). The relationship between Δ function-WOMAC (out of 100) and Δ flexion was - 0.15 (- 0.25, - 0.07). Increased Δ flexion was associated with decreased Δ pain-VAS and increased Δ function-WOMAC. The point estimates for MCIC of knee flexion ranged from 3.8 to 6.4°.ConclusionsThe estimated knee flexion MCIC values from this study are the first to be reported using a novel meta-analytical method. The novel meta-analytical method may be useful to estimate MCIC for other measures where anchor questions are problematic.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022323927.

Project description:BackgroundTanezumab is a nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody that may regulate pain in hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA). This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of low and moderate doses of tanezumab in treating hip or knee OA.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were comprehensively searched for clinical trials published before 1 May 2021. Patients were assessed via efficacy and safety outcomes.ResultsTwelve randomized controlled trials including 6022 patients were identified. Both low and moderate doses of tanezumab significantly improved efficacy outcomes. However, only the point estimates (mean difference, MD) of moderate-dose tanezumab significantly exceeded the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). There were no significant differences in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (AEs), withdrawals due to AEs, serious AEs, and total joint replacement between the tanezumab and placebo groups, whereas the incidence of AEs was higher in the tanezumab group (relative risk, RR = 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI = 1.04-1.17). The incidence of rapidly progressive OA was significantly higher in the combined low- and moderate-dose tanezumab groups than in the placebo group (RR = 5.01; 95% CI = 1.17-21.33). Furthermore, both low and moderate doses of tanezumab significantly increased the incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation (RR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.21-3.28; RR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.91-3.67, respectively). Compared with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids, tanezumab showed significantly improved efficacy outcomes (p < 0.05). However, the point estimates (MD) of tanezumab were not greater than the MCID. Pooled analysis showed no significant differences between tanezumab and NSAIDs and opioids in safety outcomes (p > 0.05).ConclusionTanezumab is efficacious in patients with hip or knee OA. Tanezumab is relatively well tolerated and safe but increases the incidence of AEs and reversible abnormal peripheral sensation. Additional studies on the occurrence of rapidly progressive OA are needed. A moderate dose of tanezumab may maximize the benefits for hip or knee OA.