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

Objective: First, to assess the clinical effectiveness of hylan G-F 20 in an appropriate care treatment regimen (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 1995 guidelines) as measured by validated disease-specific outcomes and health-related quality of life endpoints for patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Second, to utilize the measures of effectiveness and costs in an economic evaluation (see accompanying manuscript). Design: A total of 255 patients with OA of the knee were enrolled by rheumatologists or orthopedic surgeons into a prospective, randomized, open-label, 1-year, multi-centred trial, conducted in Canada. Patients were randomized to 'Appropriate care with hylan G-F 20' (AC+H) or 'Appropriate care without hylan G-F 20' (AC). Data were collected at clinic visits (baseline, 12 months) and by telephone (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months). Results: The AC+H group was superior to the AC group for all primary (% reduction in mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scale: 38% vs 13%, P=0.0001) and secondary effectiveness outcome measures. These differences were all statistically significant and exceeded the 20% difference between groups seta priori by the investigators as the minimum clinically important difference. Health-related quality of life improvements in the AC+H group were statistically superior for the WOMAC pain, stiffness and physical function (all P

Evaluation of WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response criteria in patients treated with hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis

Objective: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. Methods: 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20'' (AC+H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20'' (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: ( 1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score ( WOMAC 20P); ( 2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score ( WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. Results: The hylan G- F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. Conclusions: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels ( WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold ( WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.

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.

Predictors of osteoarthritis(OA) improvement in patients treated with Hylan G-F for knee OA.

Aim of study: Different criteria for treatment response were explored to identify predictors of OA improvement. Analyses were based on data from a previously reported 1-year randomized controlled trial of appropriate care with or without hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee OA. Methods: Five definitions of ‘‘patient responder’’ from baseline to month 12 were examined: at least 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score; at least 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least 20% reduction in either the WOMAC stiffness or function score; OARSI responder criteria (Propositions A and B) for intra-articular drugs; and OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria (Proposition D). As an a posteriori analysis, multivariable logistic regression models for each definition of patient responder were developed using a forward selection method. The following variables were defined prior to modeling and considered in the model along with two-way interactions: age (O65 years), BMI, gender, X-ray grade (0, I, II vs III, IV), co-morbidity (1 or 2 conditions vs 3 or more), duration of OA in study knee (years), previous surgery of study knee, hylan G-F 20 injection technique, WOMAC pain, stiffness and function, and treatment group. Results: Hylan G-F 20 was a predictor of improvement for all patient responder definitions P ! 0.001; odds of improvement were 2.7 or higher for patients in the hylan G-F 20 group compared to appropriate care without hylan G-F 20. For three of the five patient responder definitions, X-ray grade was a predictor of improvement (P ! 0.10; lower X-ray grade increased the odds of improvement). For four of the five patient responder definitions, duration of OA was a predictor of improvement (P ! 0.10; shorter duration of OA increased the odds of improvement). Conclusion: Analyses showed that appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 is the dominant predictor of patient improvement. While high grade structural damage does not preclude a response, patients who are targeted early in the disease process when less structural damage has occurred, may have a greater chance of improvement.