Effectiveness and safety of repeat courses of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of repeat treatment with hylan G-F 20 based on data from a randomized, controlled trial [Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, Goldsmith CH, Tugwell P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:506-17]. The hypotheses tested were whether the single-course and repeat-course subgroups would be superior to appropriate care and not different from each other. Method: A total of 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20. The hylan G-F 20 group was partitioned into two subgroups: (1) patients who received a single course of hylan G-F 20; and (2) patients who received two or more courses of hylan G-F 20. Results: For the primary effectiveness measure, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score as a percent of baseline, the single-course subgroup improved by 41%, the repeat-course subgroup by 35%, and the appropriate care group by 14%. Both subgroups improved significantly more than the appropriate care group (P < 0.05), and were not statistically significantly different from each other (70% power to detect a 20% difference). Secondary effectiveness measures showed similar results. In the repeat-course subgroup, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of local adverse events, the number of patients with local adverse events, or arthrocentesis rates between the first and repeat courses of treatment. Conclusions: Although the study was neither designed nor powered to examine repeat treatment, this a posteriori analysis provides support for a favorable effectiveness and safety profile of hylan G-F 20 in repeat course patients. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Letter from Harrassowitz to Ignaz Goldziher

Knee osteoarthritis is associated with structural changes in the joint. Despite its many drawbacks, radiography is the current standard for evaluating joint structure in trials of potential disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs. MRI is a non-invasive alternative that provides comprehensive imaging of the whole joint. Frequently used MRI measurements in knee osteoarthritis are cartilage volume and thickness; others include synovitis, synovial fluid effusions, bone marrow lesions (BML) and meniscal damage. Joint replacement is considered a clinically relevant outcome in knee osteoarthritis; however, its utility in clinical trials is limited. An alternative is virtual knee replacement on the basis of symptoms and structural damage. MRI may prove to be a good alternative to radiography in definitions of knee replacement. One of the MRI parameters that predicts knee replacement is medial compartment cartilage volume/thickness, which correlates with radiographic joint space width, is sensitive to change, and predicts outcomes in a continuous manner. Other MRI parameters include BML and meniscal lesions. MRI appears to be a viable alternative to radiography for the evaluation of structural changes in knee osteoarthritis and prediction of joint replacement. <br/