Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of disability within the adult population. Current treatment options for OA of the knee include intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA), a ...molecule found intrinsically within the knee joint that provides viscoelastic properties to the synovial fluid. A variety of mechanisms in which HA is thought to combat knee OA are reported in the current basic literature.
We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify currently available primary non-clinical basic science articles focussing on the mechanism of action of IA-HA treatment. Included articles were assessed and categorized based on the mechanism of action described within them. The key findings and conclusions from each included article were obtained and analyzed in aggregate with studies of the same categorical assignment.
Chondroprotection was the most frequent mechanism reported within the included articles, followed by proteoglycan and glycosaminoglycan synthesis, anti-inflammatory, mechanical, subchondral, and analgesic actions. HA-cluster of differentiation 44 (CD44) receptor binding was the most frequently reported biological cause of the mechanisms presented. High molecular weight HA was seen to be superior to lower molecular weight HA products. HA derived through a biological fermentation process is also described as having favorable safety outcomes over avian-derived HA products.
The non-clinical basic science literature provides evidence for numerous mechanisms in which HA acts on joint structures and function. These actions provide support for the purported clinical benefit of IA-HA in OA of the knee. Future research should not only focus on the pain relief provided by IA-HA treatment, but the disease modification properties that this treatment modality possesses as well.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The discovery of rare genetic variants is accelerating, and clear guidelines for distinguishing disease-causing sequence variants from the many potentially functional variants present in any human ...genome are urgently needed. Without rigorous standards we risk an acceleration of false-positive reports of causality, which would impede the translation of genomic research findings into the clinical diagnostic setting and hinder biological understanding of disease. Here we discuss the key challenges of assessing sequence variants in human disease, integrating both gene-level and variant-level support for causality. We propose guidelines for summarizing confidence in variant pathogenicity and highlight several areas that require further resource development.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IJS, IZUM, KILJ, KISLJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Summary Objective Develop a radiographic atlas of osteoarthritis (OA) to be used as a template and guide for grading radiographs of osteoarthritic lesions of the hand, hip and knee. Method The 1995 ...atlas was reviewed for the images most useful for clinical trials. Replacement images were selected from the Stanford University Radiology Department Picture Archive and Communications System by reviewing consecutive radiographs obtained from patients. Selected images were downloaded without patient identification information. Images were organized by hand, hip and knee. They were reviewed for findings of OA and images grouped into image files by individual findings and degree of change. Both investigators individually selected the most promising images. Final images were selected by consensus. Original electronic images were then cropped and placed in sequence. Results Individual radiographic features (e.g., osteophytes, joint space narrowing) were recorded for hand (distal interphalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, trapeziometacarpal joint), hip (acetabular, femoral) and knee (medial compartment, lateral compartment, tibial, femoral); they were also sequenced for normal, 1+, 2+, and 3+ change. Images were made available in print and electronic formats. Conclusion An updated atlas of radiographic images was produced to assist in grading individual radiographic features of the hand, hip and knee for clinicians and for use in clinical trials.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Summary Purpose To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and ...designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world. Methods Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale. Results Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies 0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34 and pharmacological therapies (ES = 0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided. Conclusion Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009.
A ...systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence.
Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36 in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo.
Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Summary Purpose As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society ...International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies. Methods Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0–100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated. Results Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively ( P = 0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI −0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI −0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI −0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR = 5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive. Conclusion Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Background: The relation between knee meniscal structural damage and cartilage degradation is plausible but not yet clearly proven. Objectives: To quantitate the cartilage volume changes in knee ...osteoarthritis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and determine whether meniscal alteration predicts cartilage volume loss over time. Methods: 32 patients meeting ACR criteria for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were studied. MRI knee acquisitions were done every six months for two years. The cartilage volumes of different knee regions were measured. Three indices of structural change in the medial and lateral menisci were evaluated—degeneration, tear, and extrusion—using a semiquantitative scale. Results: 24 patients (75%) had mild to moderate or severe meniscal damage (tear or extrusion) at baseline. A highly significant difference in global cartilage volume loss was observed between severe medial meniscal tear and absence of tear (mean (SD), −10.1 (2.1)% v −5.1 (2.4)%, p = 0.002). An even greater difference was found between the medial meniscal changes and medial compartment cartilage volume loss (−14.3 (3.0)% in the presence of severe tear v −6.3 (2.7)% in the absence of tear; p<0.0001). Similarly, a major difference was found between the presence of a medial meniscal extrusion and loss of medial compartment cartilage volume (−15.4 (4.1)% in the presence of extrusion v −4.5 (1.7)% with no extrusion; p<0.001). Conclusions: Meniscal tear and extrusion appear to be associated with progression of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.
Summary The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of oral ginger for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) by carrying out a systematic literature search followed by ...meta-analyses on selected studies. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral ginger treatment with placebo in OA patients aged >18 years. Outcomes were reduction in pain and reduction in disability. Harm was assessed as withdrawals due to adverse events. The efficacy effect size was estimated using Hedges' standardized mean difference (SMD), and safety by risk ratio (RR). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index ( I2 ). Out of 122 retrieved references, 117 were discarded, leaving five trials (593 patients) for meta-analyses. The majority reported relevant randomization procedures and blinding, but an inadequate intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Following ginger intake, a statistically significant pain reduction SMD = −0.30 (95% CI: (−0.50, −0.09), P = 0.005) with a low degree of inconsistency among trials (I2 = 27%), and a statistically significant reduction in disability SMD = −0.22 (95% CI: (−0.39, −0.04); P = 0.01; I2 = 0%) were seen, both in favor of ginger. Patients given ginger were more than twice as likely to discontinue treatment compared to placebo (RR = 2.33; 95% CI: (1.04, 5.22); P = 0.04; I2 = 0%). Ginger was modestly efficacious and reasonably safe for treatment of OA. We judged the evidence to be of moderate quality, based on the small number of participants and inadequate ITT populations. Prospero: CRD42011001777.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Background: The OARSI Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative had developed two sets of responder criteria to present the results of changes after treatment in three ...symptomatic domains (pain, function, and patient’s global assessment) as a single variable for clinical trials (1). For each domain, a response was defined by both a relative and an absolute change, with different cut-offs with regard to the drug, the route of administration and the OA localization.
Objective: To propose a simplified set of responder criteria with a similar cut-off, whatever the drug, the route or the OA localization.
Methods: Data driven approach:
(1)
Two databases were considered
•
The ‘elaboration’ database with which the formal OARSI sets of responder criteria were elaborated and
•
The ‘revisit’ database.
(2)
Six different scenarios were evaluated:
•
The two formal OARSI sets of criteria
•
Four proposed scenarios of simplified sets of criteria
Data from clinical randomized blinded placebo controlled trials were used to evaluate the performances of the two formal scenarios with two different databases (‘elaboration’
versus ‘revisit’) and those of the four proposed simplified scenarios within the ‘revisit’ database. The placebo effect, active effect, treatment effect, and the required sample arm size to obtain the placebo effect and the active treatment effect observed were the performances evaluated for each of the six scenarios.
Experts’ opinion approach: Results were discussed among the participants of the OMERACT VI meeting, who voted to select the definite OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria (one of the six evaluated scenarios).
Results: Data driven approach: Fourteen trials totaling 1886 OA patients and fifteen studies involving 8164 OA patients were evaluated in the ‘elaboration’ and the ‘revisit’ databases respectively.
The variability of the performances observed in the ‘revisit’ database when using the different simplified scenarios was similar to that observed between the two databases (‘elaboration’
versus ‘revisit’) when using the formal scenarios. The treatment effect and the required sample arm size were similar for each set of criteria.
Experts’ opinion approach: According to the experts, these two previous performances were the most important of an optimal set of responder criteria. They chose the set of criteria considering both pain and function as evaluation domain and requiring an absolute change and a relative change from baseline to define a response, with similar cut-offs whatever the drug, the route of administration or the OA localization.
Conclusion: This data driven and experts’ opinion approach is the basis for proposing an optimal simplified set of responder criteria for OA clinical trials. Other studies, using other sets of OA patients, are required in order to further validate this proposed OMERACT
–
OARSI set of criteria.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Summary Significant advances have occurred in our understanding of the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and some recent trials have demonstrated the potential for modification of the disease ...course. The purpose of this expert opinion, consensus driven exercise is to provide detail on how one might use and apply knee imaging in knee OA trials. It includes information on acquisition methods/techniques (including guidance on positioning for radiography, sequence/protocol recommendations/hardware for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)); commonly encountered problems (including positioning, hardware and coil failures, sequences artifacts); quality assurance (QA)/control procedures; measurement methods; measurement performance (reliability, responsiveness, validity); recommendations for trials; and research recommendations.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
PDF
