Therapeutic trajectory following intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in knee osteoarthritis – meta-analysis

SummaryObjectiveTo evaluate the therapeutic trajectory of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) vs placebo for knee osteoarthritis (OA).DesignOur data sources include Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, BIOSIS, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane database; hand searched reviews, manuscripts, and, supplements; author contacts for unpublished data. Randomized trials that reported effects of IAHA vs placebo on knee OA were selected based on inclusion criteria. We computed effect sizes for change from baseline at 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 weeks, using Bayesian random effects model. We performed multivariate analyses adjusting for correlation between time points. Meta-regressions were performed adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsThe 54 eligible trials included 7545 participants. The conduct and quality of these trials varied in number of aspects. The effect size (ES) favored IAHA by week 4 (0.31; 95% CI 0.17, 0.45), reaching peak at week 8 (0.46; 0.28, 0.65), and then trending downwards, with a residual detectable effect at week 24 (0.21; 0.10, 0.31). This therapeutic trajectory was consistent among the subset of high quality trials and on multivariate analysis adjusting for correlation between time points.ConclusionsOur meta-analysis highlights a therapeutic trajectory of IAHA for knee OA pain over 6 months post-intervention. With this additional perspective, we are able to infer that IAHA is efficacious by 4 weeks, reaches its peak effectiveness at 8 weeks and exerts a residual detectable at 24 weeks. On the other hand, the peak effect size (0.46; 0.28, 0.65), is greater than published effects from other OA analgesics [acetaminophen (ES=0.13; 0.04, 0.22); NSAIDs (ES=0.29; 0.22, 0.35); COX-2 inhibitors (ES=0.44; 0.33, 0.55)]. An effect size above 0.20 is considered to be clinically relevant on an individual patient basis in chronic pain conditions such as knee OA. Thus, its properties could have utility for certain clinical situations, or in combination with other therapies

Brief Report: A Phase IIb Trial of a Novel Extended‐Release Microsphere Formulation of Triamcinolone Acetonide for Intraarticular Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis

Objective: FX006 is a novel, microsphere‐based, extended‐release formulation of triamcinolone acetonide for intraarticular (IA) injection designed to maintain treatment concentration in the joint and provide prolonged analgesic benefits in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This study was undertaken to compare the analgesic benefits of 2 FX006 doses with saline placebo injection. Methods: In this phase IIb study, participants with knee OA (Kellgren/Lawrence grade 2–3) and average daily pain (ADP) intensity ≥5 to ≤9 (on a 0–10 Numerical Rating Scale) were randomized (1:1:1) to receive single IA injections of FX006 32 mg (n = 104) or 16 mg (n = 102) or saline placebo (n = 100). The primary end point was the least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to week 12 in weekly mean ADP intensity scores for FX006 32 mg versus saline placebo. Results: The primary end point was not met (LSM change at week 12 −3.1 with FX006 32 mg versus −2.5 with saline placebo; LSM difference [95% confidence interval] −0.58 [−1.22, 0.07]) (P = 0.08). However, improvements in ADP intensity were significantly greater with FX006 32 mg than saline placebo at weeks 1–11 and week 13. Improvements in ADP intensity were significantly greater with FX006 16 mg versus saline placebo at weeks 1–9. A dose‐response effect in duration of maximal analgesic effect was evident (13 weeks with 32 mg versus 9 weeks with 16 mg), with FX006 32 mg providing increased therapeutic benefit relative to FX006 16 mg. All treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion: Although the primary end point was not met, our findings indicate a prolonged reduction in symptoms with FX006 with an evident dose response and a safety profile similar to saline placebo

Future directions for the management of pain in osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the predominant form of arthritis worldwide, resulting in a high degree of functional impairment and reduced quality of life owing to chronic pain. To date, there are no treatments that are known to modify disease progression of OA in the long term. Current treatments are largely based on the modulation of pain, including NSAIDs, opiates and, more recently, centrally acting pharmacotherapies to avert pain. This review will focus on the rationale for new avenues in pain modulation, including inhibition with anti-NGF antibodies and centrally acting analgesics. The authors also consider the potential for structure modification in cartilage/bone using growth factors and stem cell therapies. The possible mismatch between structural change and pain perception will also be discussed, introducing recent techniques that may assist in improved patient phenotyping of pain subsets in OA. Such developments could help further stratify subgroups and treatments for people with OA in future

It Is the time to think about a treat-to-target strategy for knee osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a rheumatic disease that affects the well-being of the patient, compromises physical and mental function, and affects other quality of life aspects. In the literature, several evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) are available. These recommendations list the different therapeutic options rather than addressing a hierarchy between the treatments and defining the real target. Therefore, a question arises: are patients and physicians satisfied with the current management of KOA? Actually, the answer may be negative, thus suggesting a change in our therapeutic strategies. In this article, we address this challenge by suggesting that it is time to develop a “treat to target strategy” for KO

The prostate cancer conundrum revisited

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer mortality rates in the United States declined by >40% between 1991 and 2005. The impact of changes in primary treatment and adjuvant and neoadjuvant hormone therapy on this decline is unknown. METHODS: The authors applied 3 independently developed models of prostate cancer natural history and disease detection under common assumptions about treatment patterns, treatment efficacy, and survival in the population. Primary treatment patterns were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry; data on the frequency of hormone therapy were obtained from the CaPSURE (Cancer of the Prostate Strategic Urologic Research Endeavor) database; and treatment efficacy was based on estimates from randomized trials and comparative effectiveness studies of treatment alternatives. The models projected prostate cancer mortality without prostate‐specific antigen screening and in the presence and absence of treatment benefit. The impact of primary treatment was expressed as a fraction of the difference between observed mortality and projected mortality in the absence of treatment benefit. RESULTS: The 3 models projected that changes in treatment explained 22% to 33% of the mortality decline by 2005. These contributions were accounted for mostly by surgery and radiation therapy, which increased in frequency until the 1990s, whereas hormone therapies contributed little to the mortality decline by 2005. Assuming that treatment benefit was less for older men, changes in treatment explained only 16% to 23% of the mortality decline by 2005. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in primary treatment explained a minority of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality. The remainder of the decline probably was because of other interventions, such as prostate‐specific antigen screening and advances in the treatment of recurrent and progressive disease. Cancer 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. Three models of prostate cancer natural history are combined with data on patterns of primary treatment, including hormone therapies and trial‐based estimates of treatment efficacy. The results indicate that changes in these treatments explain 22% to 33% of the observed decline in prostate cancer mortality between 1991 and 2005.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/94469/1/27594_ftp.pd

How can we explain the differences between the OARSI and ESCEO Guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis?

peer reviewe

Sensitivity to Change of Patient-Preference Measures for Pain in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From Two Trials

© 2016, The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology. Objective: In osteoarthritis (OA) clinical trials, a pain measure that is most sensitive to change is considered optimal. We compared sensitivity to change of patient-reported pain outcomes, including a patient-preference measure (where the patient nominates an activity that aggravates their pain). Methods: We used data from 2 trials of patients with confirmed (American College of Rheumatology criteria) knee OA: a trial of brace treatment for patellofemoral OA, and a trial of intraarticular steroids in knee OA. Both trials reported an improvement in pain following treatment. Participants rated pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS), in the activity that caused them the most knee pain (VAS NA ), as well as completing questions on overall knee pain and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores were also calculated from the KOOS. Standardized changes in each outcome were generated between treatment and control after 6 weeks intervention in the BRACE trial, and 1–2 weeks following intervention in the steroid trial. Results: The VAS NA produced standardized changes following treatment that were at least as large as other pain outcomes. In the BRACE trial, the between-groups standardized change with the VAS NA was −0.63, compared with the KOOS pain subscale change of −0.33, and pain in the last week VAS change of −0.56. In the steroid study, within-group change following treatment in the VAS NA was −0.60, compared to the last week VAS change of −0.51, and KOOS pain subscale change of −0.58. Conclusion: Pain on nominated activity appears to be at least as, and in some cases more, sensitive to change than the KOOS/WOMAC questionnaire

Recommendations for the reporting of harms in manuscripts on clinical trials assessing osteoarthritis drugs: A consensus statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

Background: There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal. Objective: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses. Methods: Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs. Results: These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance. Conclusions: These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications

The design and protocol of heat-sensitive moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial on the rules of selecting moxibustion location

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Knee osteoarthritis is a major cause of pain and functional limitation. Complementary and alternative medical approaches have been employed to relieve symptoms and to avoid the side effects of conventional medication. Moxibustion has been widely used to treat patients with knee osteoarthritis. Our past researches suggested heat-sensitive moxibustion might be superior to the conventional moxibustion. Our objective is to investigate the effectiveness of heat-sensitive moxibustion compared with conventional moxibustion or conventional drug treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study consists of a multi-centre (four centers in China), randomised, controlled trial with three parallel arms (A: heat-sensitive moxibustion; B: conventional moxibustion; C: conventional drug group). The moxibustion locations are different from A and B. Group A selects heat-sensitization acupoint from the region consisting of Yin Lingquan(SP9), Yang Lingquan(GB34), Liang Qiu(ST34), and Xue Hai (SP10). Meanwhile, fixed acupoints are used in group B, that is Xi Yan (EX-LE5) and He Ding (EX-LE2). The conventional drug group treats with intra-articular Sodium Hyaluronate injection. The outcome measures above will be assessed before the treatment, the 30 days of the last moxibustion session and 6 months after the last moxibustion session.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will utilize high quality trial methodologies in accordance with CONSORT guidelines. It will provide evidence for the effectiveness of moxibustion as a treatment for moderate and severe knee osteoarthritis. Moreover, the result will clarify the rules of heat-sensitive moxibustion location to improve the therapeutic effect with suspended moxibustion, and propose a new concept and a new theory of moxibustion to guide clinical practices.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>The trial is registered at Controlled Clinical Trials: ChiCTR-TRC-00000600.</p