The effectiveness of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis: an application of two sets of response criteria developed by the OARSI and one set developed by OMERACT-OARSI

Objective: Secondary analyses of a previously conducted 1-year randomized controlled trial were performed to assess the application of responder criteria in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) using different sets of responder criteria developed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) (Propositions A and B) for intra-articular drugs and Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT)-OARSI (Proposition D). Methods: Two hundred fifty-five patients with knee OA were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 (AC + H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20 (AC). A patient was defined as a responder at month 12 based on change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function (0-100 normalized scale) and patient global assessment of OA in the study knee (at least one-category improvement in very poor, poor, fair, good and very good). All propositions incorporate both minimum relative and absolute changes. Results: Results demonstrated that statistically significant differences in responders between treatment groups, in favor of hylan G-F 20, were detected for Proposition A (AC + H = 53.5%, AC = 25.2%), Proposition B (AC + H = 56.7%, AC = 32.3%) and Proposition D (AC + H = 66.9%, AC = 42.5%). The highest effectiveness in both treatment groups was observed with Proposition D, whereas Proposition A resulted in the lowest effectiveness in both treatment groups. The treatment group differences always exceeded the required 20% minimum clinically important difference between groups established a priori, and were 28.3%, 24.4% and 24.4% for Propositions A, B and D, respectively. Conclusion: This analysis provides evidence for the capacity of OARSI and OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria to detect clinically important statistically detectable differences between treatment groups. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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.

A Cochrane review (update 2004): Hylan G-F 20 vs placebo for knee OA

Aim of study: As part of a Cochrane review of viscosupplementation in knee OA, randomised controlled trials (RCT) were reviewed to evaluate evidence for the efficacy of viscosupplementation with Hylan G-F 20 compared to placebo. Methods: Electronic searches were conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Premedline, Current Contents, and CENTRAL. Human, RCT involving Hylan G-F 20 compared to placebo, published prior to 1Q2004, were included. Trials were selected and data extracted by two independent reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed with the Jadad criteria by two reviewers. Data on the OARSI and OMERACT core set clinical outcome measures were extracted where possible. Weighted mean difference (WMD), based on post-test scores, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for continuous outcome measures and relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcome measures. Results: Seven RCT met the inclusion criteria. Median methodological quality was 4 (range 1–5). A further two studies were only reported in abstract form (Jadad score Z 1) and contained insufficient extractable data for inclusion in the analysis. Nine RCT, which compared Hylan G-F 20 to other interventions such as intra-articular corticosteroid, physiotherapy, NSAID, appropriate care, intra-articular gaseous oxygen and other hyaluronan, are not reported here. Twenty-three studies failed to meet inclusion criteria and were excluded. Hylan G-F 20 was more efficacious than placebo at 1–4 weeks post-injection for pain on weight-bearing WMD (random effects [RE]) 13 mm on a 0–100 mm VAS (P Z 0.002) based on 6 RCT. This difference was even greater at 5–13 weeks post-injection, 22 m (RE) (P Z 0.001) based on 5 RCT, and at 14–6 weeks postinjection, 21 m (RE) (P Z 0.006) based on 4 RCT. Hylan G-F 20 was more efficacious than placebo at 1–4 weeks post-injection for pain at night, WMD 7 mm on a 0–100 mm VAS (P Z 0.003) based on 5 RCT. This difference was even greater at 5–13 weeks post-injection, 11 mm (P Z 0.008) based on 4 RCT, and at 14–26 weeks post-injection, 17 mm (P ! 0.00001) based on 3 RCT. There was no significant difference (WMD 8 mm) between Hylan G-F 20 C oral placebo and arthrocentesis C oral placebo at 5–13 weeks post-injection for WOMAC Pain, but Hylan G-F 20 C oral placebo was more efficacious than arthrocentesis C oral placebo for WOMAC Function, WMD 9 mm on a 0–100 mm VAS (P Z 0.01) (Dickson, 2001). Hylan G-F 20 was more effective than placebo at 1–4 weeks postinjection for the variable designed treatment efficacy, WMD 22 mm on a 0–100 mm VAS (P ! 0.00001) based on improvement in 4 RCT. This difference was even greater at 5–13 weeks post injection, 35 mm (P ! 0.00001). Conclusions: Evidence from this updated Cochrane review supports the superior efficacy of Hylan G-F 20 compared to placebo on weight-bearing pain, night pain, function and treatment efficacy in the treatment of knee OA.