Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background/aims
Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been trialed in osteoarthritis (OA). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has shown its effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis, has been trialed for the treatment of OA; however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate efficacy and safety of HCQ for the treatment of OA.Methods
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through June 2020. Two reviewers independently screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HCQ with placebo or other active-comparators for the treatment of knee, hand, or hip OA, extracted data, and performed Cochrane risk of bias assessments.Results
Six RCTs, four in hand OA, two in knee OA, consisting of 842 patients (436 in HCQ arm, 406 in control arm) were included. RCTs were conducted between 2012 and 2020, one each at UK, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Iran, and Egypt; follow-up period ranged 24 to 52 weeks. High-quality evidence showed no clinically important pain reduction with HCQ compared to placebo/active-control in hand OA (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.20 to 0.48). Effect on pain reduction in knee and hand OA was small and non-significant (SMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.25). High-quality evidence showed no improvement in dysfunction with HCQ compared to placebo in hand OA patients (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.40). Effect on dysfunction improvement in knee and hand OA was modest and statistically non-significant (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI,-0.57 to 0.18). No improvement in quality of life was observed in hand OA.Conclusion
HCQ has no benefit in reducing pain and improving physical function in hand or knee OA patients.
SUBMITTER: Singh A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8747931 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tanezumab for the treatment of patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to July 2020. Randomized-controlled trials comparing tanezumab with placebo or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in patients with OA. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data, and conventional meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3. The outcomes were pain relief, functional improvement, and risk of adverse events (AEs).ResultsA total of 8 articles, comprising 9 randomized-controlled trials, were included. Overall, tanezumab was superior to placebo for relieving pain and improving function, as well as in the patient's global assessment. Tanezumab also had significant advantages over nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for relieving pain and improving function, as well as in the patient's global assessment. Significantly more patients discontinued treatment because of AEs after treatment with tanezumab. However, the differences in serious AEs and total joint replacement were not significant. Moreover, tanezumab-treated patients experienced significantly more rapid progression of osteoarthritis.DiscussionTanezumab can alleviate pain and improve function for patients with OA of the hip or knee. Although tanezumab does not cause serious AEs, rapid progression of OA occurred in a small number of participants, so more clinical trials are needed to explore its safety.
| S-EPMC8579990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is currently being examined for COVID-19. No previous meta-analysis has evaluated its side effects versus placebo. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the safety of HCQ versus placebo. METHODS:Two authors independently searched PubMed and EMBASE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults comparing the adverse events (AEs) of HCQ versus placebo for any indication. Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated based on random-effects models. The heterogeneity (I2) was assessed using Cochran's Q test. RESULTS:Nine RCTs (eight were double-blind) with a total of 916 patients were included. HCQ caused significantly more skin pigmentation than placebo (Peto OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 1.13 to 19.00; P-value?=?0.033; I2?=?0%). The increase in other AEs did not reach statistical significance: rash (Peto OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.3 to 3.77; P-value?=?0.03; I2?=?0%); gastrointestinal AEs (Peto OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.72; P-value?=?0.46; I2?=?15.17%); headache (Peto OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 5.78; P-value?=?0.23; I2?=?9.99%); dizziness (Peto OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.49 to 3.52; P-value?=?0.58; I2?=?0%); fatigue (Peto OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.76 to 5.98; P-value?=?0.15; I2?=?0%); and visual AEs (Peto OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.76 to 3.41; P-value?=?0.22; I2?=?0%). Cardiac toxicity was not reported. CONCLUSIONS:This meta-analysis of RCTs found a significantly higher risk of skin pigmentation in HCQ users versus placebo. More data are needed to evaluate HCQ in the context of COVID-19 treatment.
| S-EPMC7342171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant morbidity and mortality worldwide and an effective treatment is needed. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) have shown in vitro antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 which causes the disease, but the evidence from in vivo studies so far has been inconclusive.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19.Data sourcesWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Scopus, Joanna Briggs Institute Database, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) for all articles published between 01 January 2020 to 15 September 2020 on CQ/HCQ and COVID-19 using a predefined search protocol; without any language restrictions. A search of grey literature repositories (New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature and Open Grey), and pre-publication server deposits (medRxIV and bioRxIV) was also performed.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCT) which compared CQ/HCQ to standard supportive therapy in treating COVID-19 were included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted from original publications by four independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's assessment tool. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effect models. Results are reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): The primary prespecified efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any adverse effect attributed to use of CQ/HCQ.ResultsEight RCTs were included and pooled in the mortality meta-analysis (6,592 unique participants; mean age = 59.4 years; 42% women). CQ/HCQ did not show any mortality benefit when compared to standard supportive therapy (Pooled Relative Risk [RR] 1.07; 95% CI = 0.97-1.18; I2 statistic = 0.00%). Sensitivity and sub-group analyses showed similar findings. Any adverse event was significantly higher in patients randomized to CQ/HCQ (RR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.53-4.12; n = 1,818 patients), but the risk of developing severe adverse event was not statistically significant (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.53-1.86; n = 6,456 patients).Conclusions and relevanceEvidence from currently published RCTs do not demonstrate any added benefit for the use of CQ or HCQ in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC8012280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPopulations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19.Methods and findingsWe electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty).ConclusionAlthough pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis.
| S-EPMC7787432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is some evidence that corticosteroids may have a beneficial effect in hand osteoarthritis. We examined the efficacy of corticosteroids on symptoms and structural outcomes in hand osteoarthritis.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to October 2021 for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) was calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed.ResultsOf 13 included trials, 3 examined oral corticosteroids and clinical outcomes in any hand joints, 9 examined intra-articular injection of corticosteroids and clinical outcomes at the first carpometacarpal joint and one in the interphalangeal joints. In meta-analysis, oral corticosteroids reduced pain (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.28) and improved stiffness (MD -5.03, 95% CI -9.91 to -0.15; Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index stiffness subscale) and function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.12) at 4-6 weeks. However, there was no significant persistent effect on pain and function at 3 months which was 6-8 weeks after study medication was stopped. There was no significant effect of intra-articular corticosteroids on pain or function at 4-6 weeks or over 3-12 months in first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Two trials evaluated joint structure at 4-6 weeks: one study showed oral corticosteroids reduced synovial thickening, neither showed an effect on synovitis.ConclusionsThere was low-certainty evidence for a medium effect of oral corticosteroids on pain relief and stiffness improvement and small-to-medium effect on functional improvement at 4-6 weeks, with no significant effect for intra-articular corticosteroids. Corticosteroids had no significant effect on any outcomes over longer term (3-12 months) off treatment. No trials examined the effect of corticosteroids on disease progression. The role of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis is limited.
| S-EPMC9277790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Oncolytic virotherapy is a promising antitumor therapeutic strategy. It is based on the ability of viruses to selectively kill cancer cells and induce host antitumor immune responses. However, the clinical outcomes of oncolytic viruses (OVs) vary widely. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to illustrate the efficacy and safety of oncolytic viruses. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to January 31, 2020. The data for objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs) were independently extracted by two investigators from 11 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In subgroup analyses, the objective response rate benefit was observed in patients treated with oncolytic DNA viruses (odds ratio (OR) = 4.05; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96-8.33; p = 0.0002), but not in those treated with oncolytic RNA viruses (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66-1.52, p = 0.99). Moreover, the intratumoral injection arm yielded a statistically significant improvement (OR = 4.05, 95% CI: 1.96-8.33, p = 0.0002), but no such improvement was observed for the intravenous injection arm (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.66-1.52, p = 0.99). Among the five OVs investigated in RCTs, only talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC) effectively prolonged the OS of patients (hazard ratio (HR), 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63-0.99; p = 0.04). None of the oncolytic virotherapies improved the PFS (HR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.85-1.19, p = 0.96). Notably, the pooled rate of severe AEs (grade ?3) was higher for the oncolytic virotherapy group (39%) compared with the control group (27%) (risk difference (RD), 12%; risk ratio (RR), 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.78; p = 0.0006). This review offers a reference for fundamental research and clinical treatment of oncolytic viruses. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these results.
| S-EPMC7352817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurcuminoids (CURs) are the principal ingredients of Curcuma longa L. [Zingiberaceae] (CL)-an herbal plant used in east Asia to alleviate pain and inflammation. Thus far, the therapeutic effects of CURs for knee osteoarthritis (OA) uncovered by multiple reviews remained uncertain due to broadly involving trials with different agents-combined or CURs-free interventions. Therefore, we formed stringent selection criteria and assessment methods to summarize current evidence on the efficacy and safety of CURs alone in the treatment of knee OA.MethodsA series of databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of CURs for knee OA. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using meta-analysis and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for both statistical and clinical significance.ResultsFifteen studies with 1670 patients were included. CURs were significantly more effective than placebo in the improvements of VAS for pain ( WMD: - 1.77, 95% CI: - 2.44 to - 1.09), WOMAC total score ( WMD: - 7.06, 95% CI: - 12.27 to - 1.84), WOMAC pain score ( WMD: - 1.42, 95% CI: - 2.41 to - 0.43), WOMAC function score ( WMD: - 5.04, 95% CI: - 7.65 to - 2.43), and WOMAC stiffness score ( WMD: - 0.54, 95% CI: - 1.03 to - 0.05). Meanwhile, CURs were not inferior to NSAIDs in the improvements of pain- and function-related outcomes. Additionally, CURs did not significantly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) compared with placebo ( RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.53, P = 0.899, I2 = 23.7%) and NSAIDs (RR: 0.71 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57 0.41 to 0.90 1.03).ConclusionsCURs alone can be expected to achieve considerable analgesic and functional promotion effects for patients with symptomatic knee OA in short term, without inducing an increase of adverse events. However, considering the low quality and substantial heterogeneity of present studies, a cautious and conservative recommendation for broader clinical use of CURs should still be made. Further high-quality studies are necessary to investigate the impact of different dosages, optimization techniques and administration approaches on long-term safety and efficacy of CURs, so as to strengthen clinical decision making for patients with symptomatic knee OA.
| S-EPMC9580113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chinese herbal medicine is commonly used as a treatment for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), but its efficacy and safety remain to be examined. To compare the efficacy and adverse events of Chinese herbal medicine alone or used adjuvantly with Western medications for BPH. Two independent reviewers searched the major electronic databases for randomized controlled trials comparing Chinese herbal medicine, either in single or adjuvant use with Western medication, with placebo or Western medication. Relevant journals and grey literature were also hand-searched. The outcome measures included changes in urological symptoms, urodynamic measures, prostate volume and adverse events. The frequency of commonly used herbs was also identified. Out of 13 922 identified citations of publications, 31 studies were included. Eleven studies with a Jadad score ≥ 3 were selected for meta-analysis. Chinese herbal medicine was superior to Western medication in improving quality of life and reducing prostate volume. The frequency of adverse events in Chinese herbal medicine was similar to that of placebo and less than that of Western medication. The evidence is too weak to support the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine for BPH due to the poor methodological quality and small number of trials included. The commonly used herbs identified here should provide insights for future clinical practice and research. Larger randomized controlled trials of better quality are needed to truly evaluate the efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine.
| S-EPMC3739225 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFibromyalgia is a chronic pain syndrome characterized by persistent and widespread musculoskeletal pain. Telerehabilitation is a promising treatment for patients with fibromyalgia through long-term monitoring, intervention, supervision, consultation, and education.ObjectiveThis study aimed to perform a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of telerehabilitation in patients with fibromyalgia.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to fibromyalgia and telerehabilitation were systematically searched in the PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases from inception to November 13, 2022. Two independent researchers screened the literatures and evaluated the methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The outcome measures included the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire scale, pain intensity, depression, pain catastrophizing, quality of life (QoL), and adverse events. Pooled effect sizes were calculated by Stata SE 15.1; a fixed effects model was used when I2<50%, whereas a random effects model was used when I2≥50%.ResultsA total of 14 RCTs with 1242 participants were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that the telerehabilitation improved the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire score (weighted mean difference -8.32, 95% CI -11.72 to -4.91; P<.001), pain intensity (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.62, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.47; P<.001), depression levels (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.22; P<.001), pain catastrophizing (weighted mean difference -5.81, 95% CI -9.40 to -2.23; P=.001), and QoL (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.47; P<.001) in patients with fibromyalgia compared to control interventions. Only 1 RCT reported a mild adverse event of telerehabilitation; the other 13 RCTs did not mention this.ConclusionsTelerehabilitation can improve the symptoms and QoL of fibromyalgia. However, the safety of telerehabilitation remains uncertain due to the lack of sufficient evidence for the management of fibromyalgia. More rigorously designed trials are needed in the future to verify the safety and efficacy of telerehabilitation in fibromyalgia.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022338200; https://tinyurl.com/322keukv.
| S-EPMC10170363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesRandomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.Data extractionTwo independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions.Results12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference -0.5, 95% confidence interval -2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, -1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, -0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was "high quality" evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (-3.7, -5.5 to -1.9) and disability (-2.9, -4.9 to -0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. "High quality" evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain.ConclusionsParacetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.
| S-EPMC4381278 | biostudies-literature