Viscosupplementation for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Viscosupplementation, the intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid, is widely used for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee (Review)

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability. Objectives To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease, Euflexxa, Nuflexxa), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), Hyruan, NRD-101 (Suvenyl), Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum). Search strategy MEDLINE (up to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to December 2005 were handsearched. Selection criteria RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997). Data collection and analysis Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). However, where different scales were used to measure the same outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR). Main results Seventy-six trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and eighteen months. Forty trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo (saline or arthrocentesis), ten trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, six trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), three trials included comparisons of physical therapy, two trials included comparisons of exercise, two trials included comparisons of arthroscopy, two trials included comparisons of conventional treatment, and fifteen trials included comparisons of other hyaluronans/hylan. The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 28 to 54% for pain and 9 to 32% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses. Authors' conclusions Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.2 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.2 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

Eficacia del plasma rico en plaquetas en procedimientos médicos estéticos faciales . Evaluación en contorno de ojos.

Introducción: En la actualidad se están implementando nuevas técnicas, para el tratamiento de líneas de expresión facial. El Plasma Rico en Plaquetas (PRP) utiliza factores de crecimiento humano autólogos con fines médicos estéticos. El objetivo de este trabajo fue evaluar el tratamiento con plasma rico en plaquetas en el manejo del rejuvenecimiento periocular. Materiales y métodos: Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo en una cohorte de 27 pacientes entre 30 a 70 años de ambos sexos,tratados con PRP sin tratamientos médicos estéticos previos . Se compararon fotografías del sistema VISIA®, previo y posterior el PRP, para determinar los cambios del área periocular. Con análisis comparativo de medias utilizando pruebas t de student. Resultados: De 27 historias clínicas revisadas 96,3% eran mujeres, la edad promedio fue de 52.67 años. Se observaron cambios clínicos satisfactorios en el manejo del foto envejecimiento periocular con mejoría estadísticamente significativa entre el promedio inicial y el post tratamiento en arrugas, textura y porfirinas (p: 0.000). No se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos de edad (p = 0,62). Los pacientes analizados posterior al tratamiento se encuentran en mejor estado que el 63,78% de la población de su mismo sexo, edad y fototipo de piel. Los eventos adversos fueron disminuyendo en su frecuencia en cada una de las sesiones siguientes. Discusión: El PRP proporciona una mejoría global en los parámetros de envejecimiento periocular lo cual se correlaciono con los estudios previos in vitro. Conclusiones: El PRP es seguro y eficaz en contorno de ojos.

Efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan or hyaluronic acids for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan and 2 hyaluronic acids (HAs) in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: This was a multicenter, patient-blind, randomized controlled trial in 660 patients with symptomatic knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 cycle of 3 intraarticular injections per knee of 1 of 3 preparations: a high molecular weight cross-linked hylan, a non-cross-linked medium molecular weight HA of avian origin, or a non-cross-linked low molecular weight HA of bacterial origin. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included local adverse events (effusions or flares) in injected knees. During months 7-12, patients were offered a second cycle of viscosupplementation. RESULTS: Pain relief was similar in all 3 groups. The difference in changes between baseline and 6 months between hylan and the combined HAs was 0.1 on the WOMAC pain score (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.2, 0.3). No relevant differences were observed in any of the secondary efficacy outcomes, and stratified analyses provided no evidence for differences in effects across different patient groups. There was a trend toward more local adverse events in the hylan group than in the HA groups during the first cycle (difference 2.2% [95% CI -2.4, 6.7]), and this trend became more pronounced during the second cycle (difference 6.4% [95% CI 0.6, 12.2]). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence for a difference in efficacy between hylan and HAs. In view of its higher costs and potential for more local adverse events, we see no rationale for the continued use of hylan in patients with knee OA.

Conservative treatment of asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis

This review article summarizes the currently available (poor) evidence of conservative treatment of asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis in the literature and adds the authors' experience with the particular technique. The use of dietary supplementation, viscosupplementation, platelet-rich plasma, nonsteroidal anti-inflammotory drugs, corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, shoe modifications and orthoses, and patient's education in asymmetric ankle osteoarthritis is outlined. There definitively is a place for conservative treatment with reasonable success in patients whose ankles do not qualify anymore for joint-preserving surgery and in patients with medical or orthopedic contraindications for realignment surgery, total ankle replacement, and ankle arthrodesis.

Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

A double blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group study of the effectiveness and tolerance of intraarticular hyaluronan in osteoarthritis of the knee

Objective. To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of a course of 5 injections of hyaluronan (HA) given at intervals of one week in patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Methods: A double blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter (17 centers), saline vehicle-controlled study was conducted over 18 weeks. Patients received either 25 mg (2.5 ml) HA in a phosphate buffered solution or 2.5 ml vehicle containing only the buffer by intraarticular injection. Five injections were given at one week intervals and the patients were followed for a further 13 weeks. The Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) OA instrument was used as the primary efficacy variable and repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to compare the 2 treatments over Weeks 6, 10, 14, and 18. Results. Of 240 patients randomized for inclusion in the study, 223 were evaluable for the modified intention to treat analysis. The active treatment and control groups were comparable for demographic details, OA history, and previous treatments. Scores for the pain and stiffness subscales of the WOMAC were modestly but significantly lower in the HA-treated group overall (Weeks 6 to 18; p < 0.05) and the statistically significant difference from the control was not apparent until after the series of injections was complete. The physical function subscale did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.064). Tolerability of the procedure was good and there were no serious adverse events that were considered to have a possible causal relationship with the study treatment. Conclusion. Intraarticular HA treatment was significantly more effective than saline vehicle in mild to moderate OA of the knee for the 13 week postinjection period of the study.

An integrated analysis of five double-blind, randomized controlled trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of a hyaluronan product for intra-articular injection in osteoarthritis of the kneel

Objective: Five double-blind, randomized, saline-controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the United States marketing application for an intra-articular hyaluronan (IA-HA) product for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. We report an integrated analysis of the primary Case Report Form (CRF) data from these trials. Method. Trials were similar in design, patient population and outcome measures - all included the Lequesne Algofunctional Index (LI), a validated composite index of pain and function, evaluating treatment over 3 months. Individual patient data were pooled; a repeated measures analysis of covariance was performed in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Analyses utilized both fixed and random effects models. Safety data from the five RCTs were summarized. Results: A total of 1155 patients with radiologically confirmed knee OA were enrolled: 619 received three or five IA-HA injections; 536 received. placebo saline injections. In the active and control groups, mean ages were 61.8 and 61.4 years; 62.4% and 58.8% were women; baseline total Lequesne scores 11.03 and 11.30, respectively. Integrated analysis of the pooled data set found a statistically significant reduction (P < 0.001) in total Lequesne score with hyaluronan (HA) (-2.68) vs placebo (-2.00); estimated difference -0.68 (95% CI: -0.56 to -0.79), effect size 0.20. Additional modeling approaches confirmed robustness of the analyses. Conclusions: This integrated analysis demonstrates that multiple design factors influence the results of RCTs assessing efficacy of intra-articular (IA) therapies, and that integrated analyses based on primary data differ from meta-analyses using transformed data. (C) 2006 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.