Different molecular weights of hyaluronan research in knee osteoarthritis: A state-of-the-art review

Osteoarthritis (OA), the most common form of arthritis, is characterized by progressive cartilage destruction, concomitant adaptive osteogenesis, and loss of joint function. The progression of OA with aging is associated with a decrease in native hyaluronan (HA, hyaluronate or hyaluronic acid) with a high molecular weight (HMW) in synovial fluid and a subsequent increase in lower MW HA and fragments. As HMW HA possesses numerous biochemical and biological properties, we review new molecular insights into the potential of HA to modify OA processes. Different MWs in the formulation of products appear to have varying effects on knee OA (KOA) pain relief, improved function, and postponing surgery. In addition to the safety profile, more evidence indicates that intraarticular (IA) HA administration may be an effective option to treat KOA, with a particular emphasis on the use of HA with fewer injections of higher MW, including potential applications of HA of very HMW. We also analyzed published systemic reviews and meta-analyses of IA HA in treating KOA in order to discuss their conclusions and consensus statements. According to its MW, HA may offer a simple way to refine therapeutic information in selective KOA.

Comparison of polynucleotide, sodium hyaluronate, and crosslinked sodium hyaluronate for the management of painful knee osteoarthritis: a multi-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of sodium polynucleotide, classic hyaluronic acid, and crosslinked hyaluronic acid for the management of painful knee osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group clinical trial.

SETTING

Multicenter study.

SUBJECTS

Patients with chronic painful knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Ninety patients were selected and randomized into polynucleotide, classic hyaluronic acid, and crosslinked hyaluronic acid groups (30 per group). Intra-articular injections of the viscosupplement for each group were administered to the patients three times at one-week intervals. The primary outcome was differences in changes of weight-bearing pain scores at 16 weeks between the groups. The secondary outcomes were changes in the intensity of knee pain during weight-bearing, walking, and rest, and functional disability, quality of life, and adverse events during the 16-week follow-up period.

RESULTS

At 16 weeks, the polynucleotide group showed a higher reduction in pain score using a Visual Analog Scale score (0-100) than the classic hyaluronic acid (-17.6 [95% CI = -35.1 to -0.1]; P = 0.048) and crosslinked hyaluronic acid (-22.4 [95% CI = -41.5 to -3.3]; P = 0.016) groups. The polynucleotide and crosslinked hyaluronic acid groups showed an early-onset reduction in knee pain during weight-bearing, walking, and rest. All three groups showed reductions in functional disability and improved quality of life at 16 weeks without inter-group differences. No severe adverse events were reported throughout the study period.

CONCLUSION

Polynucleotide significantly relieves pain more and relieves pain faster in patients with knee osteoarthritis than classic and crosslinked hyaluronic acid, with improved health-related quality of life.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND REGISTRY URL

Clinical Research Information Service (https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/index.jsp; Identifier: KCT0005308).

Adjunctive therapies in addition to land-based exercise therapy for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee

BACKGROUND

Land-based exercise therapy is recommended in clinical guidelines for hip or knee osteoarthritis. Adjunctive non-pharmacological therapies are commonly used alongside exercise in hip or knee osteoarthritis management, but cumulative evidence for adjuncts to land-based exercise therapy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of adjunctive therapies used in addition to land-based exercise therapy compared with placebo adjunctive therapy added to land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy only for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and clinical trials registries up to 10 June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of people with hip or knee osteoarthritis comparing adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy (experimental group) versus placebo adjunctive therapies alongside land-based exercise therapy, or land-based exercise therapy (control groups). Exercise had to be identical in both groups. Major outcomes were pain, physical function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life (QOL), radiographic joint structural changes, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events. We evaluated short-term (6 months), medium-term (6 to 12 months) and long-term (12 months onwards) effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence for major outcomes using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 62 trials (60 RCTs and 2 quasi-RCTs) totalling 6508 participants. One trial included people with hip osteoarthritis, one hip or knee osteoarthritis and 59 included people with knee osteoarthritis only. Thirty-six trials evaluated electrophysical agents, seven manual therapies, four acupuncture or dry needling, or taping, three psychological therapies, dietary interventions or whole body vibration, two spa or peloid therapy and one foot insoles. Twenty-one trials included a placebo adjunctive therapy. We presented the effects stratified by different adjunctive therapies along with the overall results. We judged most trials to be at risk of bias, including 55% at risk of selection bias, 74% at risk of performance bias and 79% at risk of detection bias. Adverse events were reported in eight (13%) trials. Comparing adjunctive therapies plus land-based exercise therapy against placebo therapies plus exercise up to six months (short-term), we found low-certainty evidence for reduced pain and function, which did not meet our prespecified threshold for a clinically important difference. Mean pain intensity was 5.4 in the placebo group on a 0 to 10 numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) (lower scores represent less pain), and 0.77 points lower (0.48 points better to 1.16 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 10% (6% to 15% better) (22 studies; 1428 participants). Mean physical function on the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) 0 to 68 physical function (lower scores represent better function) subscale was 32.5 points in the placebo group and reduced by 5.03 points (2.57 points better to 7.61 points better) in the adjunctive therapy and exercise therapy group; relative improvement 12% (6% better to 18% better) (20 studies; 1361 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies did not improve QOL (SF-36 0 to 100 scale, higher scores represent better QOL). Placebo group mean QOL was 81.8 points, and 0.75 points worse (4.80 points worse to 3.39 points better) in the placebo adjunctive therapy group; relative improvement 1% (7% worse to 5% better) (two trials; 82 participants). Low-certainty evidence (two trials; 340 participants) indicates adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared to placebo therapies plus exercise (31% versus 13%; risk ratio (RR) 2.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 21.90). Participant-reported global assessment was not measured in any studies. Compared with land-based exercise therapy, low-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive electrophysical agents alongside exercise produced short-term (0 to 6 months) pain reduction of 0.41 points (0.17 points better to 0.63 points better); mean pain in the exercise-only group was 3.8 points and 0.41 points better in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group (0 to 10 NPRS); relative improvement 7% (3% better to 11% better) (45 studies; 3322 participants). Mean physical function (0 to 68 WOMAC subscale) was 18.2 points in the exercise group and 2.83 points better (1.62 points better to 4.04 points better) in the adjunctive therapy plus exercise group; relative improvement 9% (5% better to 13% better) (45 studies; 3323 participants). These results are not clinically important. Mean QOL in the exercise group was 56.1 points and 1.04 points worse in the adjunctive therapies plus exercise therapy group (1.04 points worse to 3.12 points better); relative improvement 2% (2% worse to 5% better) (11 studies; 1483 participants), indicating no benefit (low-certainty evidence). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise probably result in a slight increase in participant-reported global assessment (short-term), with success reported by 45% in the exercise therapy group and 17% more individuals receiving adjunctive therapies and exercise (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.62) (5 studies; 840 participants). One study (156 participants) showed little difference in radiographic joint structural changes (0.25 mm less, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.18 mm); 12% relative improvement (6% better to 18% better). Low-certainty evidence (8 trials; 1542 participants) indicates that adjunctive therapies plus exercise may not increase adverse events compared with exercise only (8.6% versus 6.5%; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.27).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to low-certainty evidence showed no difference in pain, physical function or QOL between adjunctive therapies and placebo adjunctive therapies, or in pain, physical function, QOL or joint structural changes, compared to exercise only. Participant-reported global assessment was not reported for placebo comparisons, but there is probably a slight clinical benefit for adjunctive therapies plus exercise compared with exercise, based on a small number of studies. This may be explained by additional constructs captured in global measures compared with specific measures. Although results indicate no increased adverse events for adjunctive therapies used with exercise, these were poorly reported. Most studies evaluated short-term effects, with limited medium- or long-term evaluation. Due to a preponderance of knee osteoarthritis trials, we urge caution in extrapolating the findings to populations with hip osteoarthritis.

First-in-human Study to Evaluate a Single Injection of KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan for Treating Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis

Background:

Single-injection viscosupplementation is currently performed with cross-linked hyaluronan (e.g., Durolane®) for treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Objective:

This first-in-human study evaluated the safety and performance of single-injection treatment with non-crosslinked KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan.

Methods:

Patients with painful knee osteoarthritis were randomly assigned to the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan (n=63) or Durolane® (n=32) group. Patients were blinded to treatment and followed up for 26 weeks. Durolane® was used as scientific control to ensure the validity of the study and reliability of results. No direct comparison was performed between the two groups. The primary objective was defined as an intra-group effect size of 0.8 at 13 weeks post-injection compared to baseline on WOMAC-A (pain). Secondary outcomes included self-reported knee stiffness and knee function, responder rate, quality-of-life questionnaires, and safety.

Results:

The primary objective for both the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan and the Durolane® groups was met: mean pain reduction of 62.5% (effect size 2.08) for the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan group and 62.4% (effect size 2.28) for the Durolane® group. Secondary performance outcomes showed all clinically relevant treatment effects over 26 weeks for both groups (p<0.05). Treatment-related adverse events were more often reported in the KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan than Durolane® group and were limited to local reactions. No serious treatment-related adverse events were reported.

Conclusion:

A single intra-articular injection of non-crosslinked KiOmedine®CM-Chitosan is safe and effective for treating symptomatic knee osteoarthritis with a high responder rate. Pain reduction is maintained for 6 months with a high responder rate.

The clinical trial registration number: NCT03679208.

Thermo-Responsive Gel Containing Hydroxytyrosol-Chitosan Nanoparticles (Hyt@tgel) Counteracts the Increase of Osteoarthritis Biomarkers in Human Chondrocytes

Although osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic inflammatory degenerative disease affecting millions of people worldwide, the current therapies are limited to palliative care and do not eliminate the necessity of surgical intervention in the most severe cases. Several dietary and nutraceutical factors, such as hydroxytyrosol (Hyt), have demonstrated beneficial effects in the prevention or treatment of OA both in vitro and in animal models. However, the therapeutic application of Hyt is limited due to its poor bioavailability following oral administration. In the present study, a localized drug delivery platform containing a combination of Hyt-loading chitosan nanoparticles (Hyt-NPs) and in situ forming hydrogel have been developed to obtain the benefits of both hydrogels and nanoparticles. This thermosensitive formulation, based on Pluronic F-127 (F-127), hyaluronic acid (HA) and Hyt-NPs (called Hyt@tgel) presents the unique ability to be injected in a minimally invasive way into a target region as a freely flowing solution at room temperature forming a gel at body temperature. The Hyt@tgel system showed reduced oxidative and inflammatory effects in the chondrocyte cellular model as well as a reduction in senescent cells after induction with H₂O₂. In addition, Hyt@tgel influenced chondrocytes gene expression under pathological state maintaining their metabolic activity and limiting the expression of critical OA-related genes in human chondrocytes treated with stressors promoting OA-like features. Hence, it can be concluded that the formulated hydrogel injection could be proposed for the efficient and sustained Hyt delivery for OA treatment. The next step would be the extraction of “added-value” bioactive polyphenols from by-products of the olive industry, in order to develop a green delivery system able not only to enhance the human wellbeing but also to promote a sustainable environment.

Health Economic Evaluation of a High and Low Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid Formulation for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis. Post Hoc Analyses from a Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

In a recent randomized placebo-controlled trial, a single intra-articular injection of a high and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid formulation (HA-HL) was shown to be effective in providing a clinically meaningful reduction in pain and functional limitation up to 24 weeks in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this post hoc analyses is to assess the cost-effectiveness of HA-HL compared with placebo using individual patient data from this clinical trial in a Swiss health care perspective.

METHODS

A total of 692 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to HA-HL or placebo groups. Each patient received one intra-articular injection of HA-HL or placebo at baseline and was then followed-up for a total duration of 24 weeks with five follow-up visits (i.e., after weeks 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24). The EQ-5D-5L five-point verbal Likert scale was used to calculate the health utility and the related quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the area-under-the-curve (AUC) method. For the costs, the price of HA-HL in Switzerland was used. The primary threshold for the incremental cost/effectiveness ratio (ICER) below which HA-HL was considered as cost-effective was 91,540 Swiss francs (CHF) per QALY (i.e., US $100,000).

RESULTS

No significant difference between the baseline characteristics of the HA-HL group and the placebo group was observed. With a mean ICER of 27,212 CHF per QALY (95% CI 20,135-34,289), HA-HL was considered as cost-effective compared to placebo. Sensitivity analyses (e.g., using lower or upper limit prices or using other threshold values) gave similar results, i.e., ICERs far below the threshold values of cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

These results confirm the role of HA-HL as a cost-effective therapeutic option in the management of OA. However, more studies taking into account the utilization of other health care resources are needed.

Evaluation of a single-shot of a high-density viscoelastic solution of hyaluronic acid in patients with symptomatic primary knee osteoarthritis: the no-dolor study

BACKGROUND

Pronolis®HD mono 2.5% is a novel, one-shot, high-density sterile viscoelastic solution, recently available in Spain, which contains a high amount of intermediate molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HA), highly concentrated (120 mg in 4.8 mL solution: 2.5%). The objective of the study was to analyze the efficacy and safety of this treatment in symptomatic primary knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

This observational, prospective, multicenter, single-cohort study involved 166 patients with knee OA treated with a single-shot of Pronolis®HD mono 2.5% and followed up as many as 24 weeks.

RESULTS

Compared with baseline, the score of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale reduced at the 12-week visit (primary endpoint, median: 9 interquartile range [IQR]: 7-11 versus median: 4; IQR: 2-6; p < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving > 50% improvement in the pain subscale increased progressively from 37.9% (at 2 weeks) to 66.0% (at 24 weeks). Similarly, WOMAC scores for pain on walking, stiffness subscale, and functional capacity subscale showed significant reductions at the 12-week visit which were maintained up to the 24-week visit. The EuroQol visual analog scale score increased after 12 weeks (median: 60 versus 70). The need for rescue medication (analgesics/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) also decreased in all post-injection visits. Three patients (1.6%) reported local adverse events (joint swelling) of mild intensity.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, a single intra-articular injection of the high-density viscoelastic gel of HA was associated with pain reduction and relief of other symptoms in patients with knee OA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial# NCT04196764.

A Review of the Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Hybrid Cooperative Complexes in Intra-articular Viscosupplementation

Viscosupplementation by intra-articular (i.a.) injection of the non-sulfated glycosaminoglycan (GAG) hyaluronic acid (HA) is a conservative therapy widely accepted in clinical practice for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) and joint diseases. The aim of viscosupplementation is to restore the rheological properties of the synovial fluid to relieve joint inflammation and pain and improve joint function through a chondroprotective effect. However, there is a range of hyaluronic acid products for OA that differ in preparation, molecular weight, rheological characteristics and concentration, and different i.a. formulations are more suited to particular patient populations and clinical situations, in part because of anatomical differences between joints. This paper focuses on innovative hybrid cooperative complexes of high and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HA-HL) and hyaluronic acid plus sodium chondroitin (HA-SC) that have been developed. Both products are formulated with pharmaceutical-grade, highly purified hyaluronic acid obtained with a multi-step biofermentation process, with properties that make them suitable across a range of degenerative joint diseases. They represent progress in building on the symptomatic and functional benefits of viscosupplementation in joint disease, with the additional beneficial effect of treating the patient with a high concentration of GAGs by a low number of injections. Here, we review the clinical evidence for the efficacy of a hybrid cooperative compound of HA-HL in various degenerative joint diseases, which suggests a synergistic effect of the different molecular weight hyaluronans that together more closely mimic the physiological composition of synovial fluid. Similarly, the evidence shows that HA-SC is safe, effective, and well tolerated in hip OA, with rapid and clinically significant improvements in pain symptoms and functionality. Such innovations in viscosupplementation expand the usefulness of the modality in the management of OA and other joint diseases, complemented by a lack of systemic or local side effects that allow the concurrent use of other drugs if needed.

Nanoforming Hyaluronan-Based Thermoresponsive Hydrogels: Optimized and Tunable Functionality in Osteoarthritis Management

Hyaluronic acid (HA) constitutes a versatile chemical framework for the development of osteoarthritis pain treatment by means of injection in the joints, so-called viscosupplementation. Without appropriate physico-chemical tuning, such preparations are inherently hindered by prompt in vivo degradation, mediated by hyaluronidases and oxidative stress. To prolong hydrogel residence time and confer optimized product functionality, novel thermoresponsive nanoforming HA derivatives were proposed and characterized. Combined use of sulfo-dibenzocyclooctyne-PEG4-amine linkers and poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) in green chemistry process enabled the synthesis of HA-based polymers, with in situ obtention of appropriate viscoelastic properties. Spontaneous and reversible thermoformation of nanoparticles above 30 °C was experimentally confirmed. Lead formulations were compared to a commercially available HA-based product and shown significantly better in vitro resistance to enzymatic and oxidative degradation, required half the injection force with optimal viscoelastic hydrogel properties in equine synovial fluids. Results highlighted the vast potential of appropriately engineered HA-based systems as next-generation long-acting viscosupplementation products for osteoarthritic patients.

Pharmacological Management of Osteoarthritis With a Focus on Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs: Recommendations From Leading Russian Experts

BACKGROUND

This article describes an updated stepwise algorithm for the pharmacological management of osteoarthritis (OA) to establish a treatment method for patients with OA.

SUMMARY

In step 1, background maintenance therapy includes symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA, especially prescription crystalline glucosamine sulfate product, for which the high-quality evidence base of efficacy is unequivocal, or prescription chondroitin sulfate. Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or paracetamol only as rescue analgesia is given on top of the background therapy. Step 2: For patients with persistent OA symptoms, the use of oral NSAIDs is mandatory for maintaining supportive therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA. It is recommended to properly stratify patients and carefully select oral NSAID therapy to maximize the benefit-to-risk ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid and intra-articular corticosteroids are recommended as well in step 2 of the algorithm, especially for patients who do not respond to the previous therapies. Step 3: Duloxetine is considered along with the previous procedures, especially in patients with pain from central sensitization. Step 4: Total joint replacement is recommended for patients with severe symptoms and poor quality of life.

MAJOR CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines and literature review provide evidence-based recommendations supported by clinical experience on how to organize the treatment process in patients with knee OA applicable in the Russian clinical practice.

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

International evidence-based guidelines lack consensus on different treatments, including the use of prescription crystalline glucosamine sulfate, NSAIDs, and intra-articular hyaluronic acid. The content of this article needs a further discussion about the clinical evidence and harmonization of recommendations for knee OA management.

Risk of Severe Acute Localized Reactions for Different Intraarticular Hyaluronic Acid Knee Injections in a Real-World Setting

OBJECTIVE

Case reports of severe acute localized reactions (SALR) following intraarticular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been described. We compared surrogate SALR measures between patients using hylan G-F 20 and specific non-hylan G-F 20 HA products.

DESIGN

Knee OA patients were identified from the Optum Clinformatics dataset (January 2006 to June 2016), stratified into hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 HA users, matched by single or multiple injection products. Occurrences of surrogate SALR measures including inflammation/infection, intraarticular corticosteroid (CS) injections, arthrocentesis/aspiration, arthrotomy/incision and drainage, and arthroscopy were evaluated within 3 days post-HA.

RESULTS

Based on 694,404 HA injections, inflammation/infection rate was rare within 3 days of HA (up to 0.03%), with no statistical differences between hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 groups (matched by single or multiple injection products). The risk of knee arthrotomy/incision and drainage, arthroscopy, or arthrocentesis for hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection patients was lower than Hyalgan/Supartz and Orthovisc patients, but greater than Euflexxa patients. Overall, we found that Hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection had lower SALR rates compared to Hyalgan/Supartz and Orthovisc. However, Hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection had slightly higher rates of SALR when compared to Euflexxa. Among the single injection products, Hylan G-F 20 (6 mL) single injection had lower rates of SALR than Monovisc and Gel-One.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows no clear correlation between avian-derived or cross-linked products and SALR and provides evidence against avian-derived products or crosslinking as a source for these reactions.

Severe Acute Localized Reactions Following Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Concerns have been raised about severe acute localized reactions (SALR) following intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA). We compared surrogate SALR measures between hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 HA patients and evaluated corresponding SALR risk factors for hylan G-F 20 patients.

DESIGN

Knee OA patients were identified from the Optum Clinformatics dataset (January 2006 to June 2016), stratified into hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 HA users. Occurrences of surrogate SALR measures including inflammation/infection, intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections, arthrocentesis/aspiration, and office visits were evaluated within 3 days of HA use. Risk factors were evaluated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

The cohort involved 748,428 HA patients (23.2% in the hylan G-F 20 group). Inflammation/infection rate was 0.001% for hylan G-F 20 and 0.002% for non-hylan G-F 20 HA groups. Risk of CS injection (any diagnosis) was greater for hylan G-F 20 patients by 28% (P < 0.001). Combined rates of CS injection and arthrocentesis/aspiration (any diagnosis) were comparable for both groups (hylan G-F 20, 2.2%; non-hylan G-F 20 HA, 2.6%). The risk of any visit or studied responses was lower for the hylan G-F 20 cohort by 12% (P < 0.001). Clinical characteristics, such as CS injections within 1 week before HA and fluoroscopic imaging, were associated with the outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of inflammations or infections within 3 days of the HA injection was extremely rare. The overall risk of surrogate SALR measures was similar for hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 HA patients.

Intra-articular Injections of Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid in Japanese Patients with Symptomatic Osteoarthritis of the Hip

Objectives

We investigated the efficacy and safety of Hylan G-F 20 for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis in Japanese patients.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) received Hylan G-F 20 injection into the hip. The visual analog scale of pain during gait (VAS-G), VAS of pain at rest, hip joint function evaluated by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and adverse events were evaluated before, immediately after, and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after injection. Patients were categorized according to the severity of OA (mild and severe OA groups) and dysplasia (dysplastic and non-dysplastic groups) and these groups were compared.

Results

After the injection, VAS-G improved significantly for 12 weeks. VAS-G was lower (less pain) in the mild OA group than in the severe OA group at each time point. There were no differences in VAS-G between the dysplastic and non-dysplastic groups throughout the observation period. VAS-G improved significantly in the dysplastic group after the injection. The JOA score and HRQoL demonstrated the same tendency as VAS-G. Three patients experienced worsening of local pain immediately after the injection; however, the pain on the following day was less than that before the injection in all three hips.

Conclusions

Hylan G-F 20 injection into the hip joint was effective in reducing hip pain and can be used as a non-operative treatment option for hip OA in the Japanese population.

Comparison of three treatment protocols with intra-articular low or intermediate molecular weight hyaluronic acid in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid (HA) is indicated for non-responders to non-pharmacological therapy, to analgesics or when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are contraindicated. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and costs of three different HA treatments (Sinovial® Forte, sinovial one and hyalgan).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Ninety patients with grade I/II Kellgren-Lawrence knee osteoarthritis were included in three groups, the first was treated with hyalgan (weekly for 5 weeks), the second with Sinovial® Forte (weekly for 3 weeks) and the third group with a single injection of sinovial one.

RESULTS

All three treatments were effective, with an average reduction in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score of 18.9 points for hyalgan, 18.04 points for Sinovial® Forte and 17.92 points for sinovial one. The comparison of the three groups did not show any statistical difference in terms of efficacy. National health system (NHS) and social costs are, respectively, €419.12 and €853.43 for hyalgan, €338.64 and €599.22 for Sinovial® Forte, €221.56 and €308.42 for sinovial one.

CONCLUSION

All three treatments were equally effective with no statistically significant differences; thus, the treatment with sinovial one may be considered as clinically effective as the other two regimens, but with a very efficient cost profile in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

New Trends in Injection-Based Therapy for Thumb-Base Osteoarthritis: Where Are We and where Are We Going?

Thumb-base osteoarthritis (TBOA) is a common condition, mostly affecting post-menopausal women, often inducing a significant impact on quality of life and hand functionality. Despite its high prevalence and disability, the therapeutic options in TBOA are still limited and few have been investigated. Among the pharmacological strategies for TBOA management, it would be worthwhile to mention the injection-based therapy. Unfortunately, its efficacy is still the subject of debate. Indeed, the 2018 update of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA) stated that intra-articular (IA) injections of glucocorticoids should not generally be used, but may be considered in patients with painful interphalangeal joints, without any specific mention to the TBOA localization and to other widely used injections agents, such as hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Even American College of Rheumatology (ACR) experts conditionally recommended against IA HA injections in patients with TBOA, while they conditionally encouraged IA glucocorticoids. However, the recommendations from international scientific societies don’t often reflect the clinical practice of physicians who routinely take care of TBOA patients; indeed, corticosteroid injections are a mainstay of therapy in OA, especially for patients with pain refractory to oral treatments and HA is considered as a safe and effective treatment. The discrepancy with the literature data is due to the great heterogeneity of the clinical trials published in this field: indeed, the studies differ for methodology and protocol design, outcome measures, treatment (different formulations of HA, steroids, PRP, and schedules) and times of follow-up. For these reasons, the current review will provide deep insight into the injection-based therapy for TBOA, with particular attention to the different employed agents, the variety of the schedule treatments, the most common injection techniques, and the obtained results in terms of efficacy and safety. In depth, we will discuss the available literature on corticosteroids and HA injections for TBOA and the emerging role of PRP and other injection agents for this condition. We will consider in our analysis not only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) but also recent pilot or retrospective studies trying to step forward to identify satisfactory management strategies for TBOA.

Effects of repeated intra-articular hyaluronic acid on cartilage degeneration evaluated by T1ρ mapping in knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (IAHA) has been used for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), but its effectiveness remains controversial. This study analyzed knee OA over time by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T1ρ mapping to objectively evaluate whether long-term repeated administration of IAHA influences cartilage degeneration.

METHODS

Sixty knees of 60 patients [58.3 ± 12.5 years (mean ± standard deviation)] who had multiple T1ρ mapping images were retrospectively analyzed. We calculated the T1ρ values of the medial femorotibial cartilage and classified changes in degenerative areas over time into 3 groups: Improvement, No Change, and Deterioration.

RESULTS

Average time between 2 MRI scans was 7.6 ± 1.2 months. The number of IAHA administrations was 15.5 ± 21.3, 8.39 ± 7.19, and 5.80 ± 7.49 in the Improvement, No Change, and Deterioration groups, respectively. Body mass index and number of IAHA administrations were significant factors causing change in the area of degeneration (p < .05) independent of age, sex, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and posterior horn meniscus tears.

CONCLUSION

Cartilage degeneration may be improved with a higher number of administrations of IAHA, based on T1ρ mapping results. This highlights the possibility of increased treatment effectiveness of IAHA for knee OA with repeated administrations.

Improved outcomes after mesenchymal stem cells injections for knee osteoarthritis: results at 12-months follow-up: a systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

According to the World Health organization (WHO), more than 10% in people older than 60 years suffer from osteoarthritis (OA). Over the last years, there has been an increased interest around regenerative medicine, especially regarding stem cell treatments and related applications. We hypothesize that stem cell therapies can represent a feasible option for idiopathic knee OA, delaying or even avoiding the joint replacement. To emphasize the potential of percutaneous injections of mesenchymal stem cells for knee OA, a comprehensive systematic review of the literature was conducted.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two independent authors (FM, GC) performed the literature search. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). The main databases were accessed: Pubmed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, Scopus, AMED. For this systematic review, all articles treating percutaneous injections of mesenchymal stem cells for knee OA were considered. Because of the rapid advancements promoted by the scientific progress on stem cell expansion and processing, only articles published within the last five years were included. Solely articles reporting the outcomes of interest across 6- and 12-month follow-up were recruited for eligibility. We included only studies reporting quantitative data under the outcomes of interest. We referred for the quality assessment to the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS). The statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager Software 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen).

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were enrolled in the present study, comprising 1069 treated knees. The mean age of the samples was 57.39 ± 7.37 years. 72% of the included studies harvested the stem cells from the iliac crest (bone marrow-derived MSCs), the remaining 28% from the adipose tissue (adipose-derived MSCs). The mean visual analogic scale improved from 18.37 to 30.98 and 36.91 at 6- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. The mean WOMAC score improved from 25.66 to 25.23 and 15.60 at 6- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. The mean walking distance improved from 71.90 to 152.22 and 316.72 at 6- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. The mean Lequesne scale improved from 33.76 to 12.90 at 12-month follow-up. The KOOS score improved from 41.07 to 8.47% and 18.94 at 6- and 12-month follow-up. All the KOOS subscales improved significantly from the baseline. A total of 136 (12.7%) local complications were detected.

CONCLUSION

According to the current evidences and the main findings of this systematic review, we reported that MSC infiltrations for knee OA can represent a feasible option, leading to an overall remarkable improvement of all clinical and functional considered outcomes, regardless of the cell source. Patients treated at earlier-degeneration stages reported statistically significant greater outcomes. The pain and function scores were improved considerably, thus, leading to a significant improvement of patient participation in recreational activities and quality of life.

Comparison of patient-reported outcomes of treatment with low- and intermediate molecular weight hyaluronic acid in Japanese patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: A prospective, randomized, single-blind trial

Objectives

The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of treatment with low- or intermediate-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

In total, 59 patients with OA who fulfilled the criteria of the American College of Rheumatology for OA were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the low- or intermediate-molecular-weight HA group. An intraarticular injection of HA into the knee joint was performed five times per week. The visual analog scale for pain (pain VAS) and Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM) score were analyzed at baseline and week 6 to assess the outcomes.

Results

Pain VAS and JKOM score were significantly improved in both groups. At follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in pain VAS or total JKOM score. Moreover, reduction in pain VAS and JKOM score was not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Both low- and intermediate-molecular-weight HA have significant efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with knee OA as indicated by patient-reported outcomes. However, there does not appear to be any difference between the efficacy of low- and intermediate-molecular-weight HA as indicated by the JKOM score. We believe that the results of this study provide important insights into the clinical management of Japanese patients with knee OA.

Hyaluronic acid has chondroprotective and joint-preserving effects on LPS-induced synovitis in horses

The intra-articular use of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of synovitis and osteoarthritis is still controversial. As a consequence, corticosteroids remain the most frequently employed therapeutic agents, despite their potential systemic and local deleterious effects. This study examined the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and chondroprotective activities of low and high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (LMW-HA and HMW-HA) on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced synovitis in horses compared to triamcinolone acetonide (TA). LPS was injected in the metacarpophalangeal joints, which were treated intra-articularly with either TA (as control) or LMW-HA or HMW-HA. Joint clinical evaluation and synovial fluid (SF) analysis were performed at 0, 8, 24, and 48 h. The white blood cell counts (WBC), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor-α, chondroitin sulfate (CS) and HA concentrations, oxidative burst, and HA molecular weights were measured. TA reduced the lameness, swelling, and PGE2 release but increased the SF CS concentrations enormously at 24h and 48h, and decreased the SF HA modal molecular weight. These results indicate the breakdown of articular cartilage aggrecan and SF HA. In contrast, LMW-HA and HMW-HA were less effective in reducing the inflammation symptoms, but preserved the joints because only a modest increase in CS occurred at 24 h, decreasing at 48 h, and the SF HA was maintained. The HA-treatment also had anti-inflammatory actions, and LMW-HA was the most effective in reducing the release of cytokine. In summary, the HA treatment inhibited efficiently the digestion of cartilage proteoglycans and SF HA breakdown.

Minimally Invasive Treatment of Chronic Ankle Instability: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic ankle pain is a prevalent and significant cause of chronic pain. While the definition of chronic ankle pain is heterogeneous and poorly defined in the literature, systematic reviews and meta-analyses have estimated this condition to be a prevalent and debilitating source of chronic pain. The most identifiable and prominent cause of chronic ankle pain is chronic ankle instability (CAI), a condition defined by instability of the ankle-joint complex. It is a common consequence of lateral ankle sprains or ligamentous injuries and can be described as a failure of the lateral ankle joint complex after an acute, or recurring, ankle injury. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a comprehensive review of CAI diagnosis and our current understanding of minimally invasive treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

First-line treatment is conservative management, some of which includes neuromuscular rehabilitation, balance training, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), manual mobilization, ice therapy, and compression. While conservative management is effective, additional treatments for those who fail conservative management, or who seek alternative options also have been explored. Recent advances and modern techniques have expanded available treatment options, many of which are becoming less invasive, and have shown improving functionality, recovery, and patient satisfaction. Minimally invasive treatments highlighted in this review include: arthroscopic surgery, steroid injections, plasma-rich plasma injections, hyaluronic acid (HA) injections, medicinal signaling cell injections, radiofrequency therapies, and shockwave therapies. This review will discuss some of these current treatments for minimally invasive treatment of CAI, as well as suggest novel treatments for clinical trials and further investigation.

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO)

OBJECTIVES

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) sought to revisit the 2014 algorithm recommendations for knee osteoarthritis (OA), in light of recent efficacy and safety evidence, in order to develop an updated stepwise algorithm that provides practical guidance for the prescribing physician that is applicable in Europe and internationally.

METHODS

Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process, a summary of evidence document for each intervention in OA was provided to all members of an ESCEO working group, who were required to evaluate and vote on the strength of recommendation for each intervention. Based on the evidence collected, and on the strength of recommendations afforded by consensus of the working group, the final algorithm was constructed.

RESULTS

An algorithm for management of knee OA comprising a stepwise approach and incorporating consensus on 15 treatment recommendations was prepared by the ESCEO working group. Both "strong" and "weak" recommendations were afforded to different interventions. The algorithm highlights the continued importance of non-pharmacological interventions throughout the management of OA. Benefits and limitations of different pharmacological treatments are explored in this article, with particular emphasis on safety issues highlighted by recent literature analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

The updated ESCEO stepwise algorithm, developed by consensus from clinical experts in OA and informed by available evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatments, provides practical, current guidance that will enable clinicians to deliver patient-centric care in OA practice.

Elucidation of the time-dependent degradation process in insoluble hyaluronic acid formulations with a controlled degradation rate

Degradation rate of hyaluronic acid to prolong its stability in vivo would be beneficial. We investigated a potential solution for prolonging the stability of hyaluronic acid within the body. We focused on decreasing the swelling ratio to slow the degradation rate of hyaluronic acid by insolubilizing sodium hyaluronate without using potentially harmful substances such as crosslinkers or modifiers. Hyaluronic acid formulations were created with three different swelling ratios and time-dependent morphological changes in hyaluronic acid formulations and were scored based on each swelling ratio. In vivo degradation was modeled in simulated body fluid and the extent of decay of test membranes were monitored over time. Results showed that, by adjusting the swelling ratio, the degradation rate of hyaluronic acid formulation could be controlled. Our research could lead to improvements in many products, not only preventive materials for postoperative adhesions, but also pharmaceutical products such as osteoarthritis treatments and cosmetic medicines.

Lubrication by biomacromolecules: mechanisms and biomimetic strategies

Biomacromolecules play a key role in protecting human biointerfaces from friction and wear, and thus enable painless motion. Biomacromolecules give rise to remarkable tribological properties that researchers have been eager to emulate. In this review, we examine how molecules such as mucins, lubricin, hyaluronic acid and other components of biotribological interfaces provide a unique set of rheological and surface properties that leads to low friction and wear. We then highlight how researchers have used some of the features of biotribological contacts to create biomimetic systems. While the brush architecture of the glycosylated molecules present at biotribological interfaces has inspired some promising polymer brush systems, it is the recent advance in the understanding of synergistic interaction between biomacromolecules that is showing the most potential in producing surfaces with a high lubricating ability. Research currently suggests that no single biomacromolecule or artificial polymer successfully reproduces the tribological properties of biological contacts. However, by combining molecules, one can enhance their anchoring and lubricating capacity, thus enabling the design of surfaces for use in biomedical applications requiring low friction and wear.

Hyaluronic Acid: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Trajectory

Hyaluronic acid (also known as hyaluronan or hyaluronate) is naturally found in many tissues and fluids, but more abundantly in articular cartilage and synovial fluid (SF). Hyaluronic acid (HA) content varies widely in different joints and species. HA is a non-sulfated, naturally occurring non-protein glycosaminoglycan (GAG), with distinct physico-chemical properties, produced by synoviocytes, fibroblasts, and chondrocytes. HA has an important role in the biomechanics of normal SF, where it is partially responsible for lubrication and viscoelasticity of the SF. The concentration of HA and its molecular weight (MW) decline as osteoarthritis (OA) progresses with aging. For that reason, HA has been used for more than four decades in the treatment of OA in dogs, horses and humans. HA produces anti-arthritic effects via multiple mechanisms involving receptors, enzymes and other metabolic pathways. HA is also used in the treatment of ophthalmic, dermal, burns, wound repair, and other health conditions. The MW of HA appears to play a critical role in the formulation of the products used in the treatment of diseases. This review provides a mechanism-based rationale for the use of HA in some disease conditions with special reference to OA.

Outcomes of hyaluronic acid injections for glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is an analgesic and chondroprotective agent often used for the nonoperative treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). The effects of HA injections are well studied in the treatment of knee OA, but the effects in glenohumeral OA remain unclear. This study evaluated the efficacy of HA to reduce pain in patients with glenohumeral OA.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Embase were searched from the database inception date through January 16, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. A methodological quality assessment was completed for all included studies, including assessment of risk of bias. The primary outcome was change in visual analog scale for pain. The secondary outcomes were functional outcome and adverse events.

RESULTS

In the HA arm, the reduction of visual analog scale pain score at 3 months was 26.2 mm (95% confidence interval, 22.0-30.3 mm; I² = 31%) and at 6 months was 29.5 mm (95% confidence interval, 25.5-33.4 mm; I² = 19%). All studies reported an improvement in functional outcome. Similar clinical improvements were reported in the intervention and control groups, suggesting that these improvements may not be directly related to HA. Commonly reported adverse events were rare and included swelling and mild pain at the injection site, local effusion, lethargy, and face rash.

CONCLUSION

Intra-articular HA injection is safe and improves pain for patients with glenohumeral OA. Pain improvements also reported in the control group suggest that a significant placebo effect may be present with respect to intra-articular shoulder injection. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the efficacy of HA and identify optimal dosing and route of administration.

Intra-articular Injection of Platelet-Rich Plasma Is Superior to Hyaluronic Acid or Saline Solution in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Triple-Parallel, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) with a sham control group (normal saline solution [NS]) for knee osteoarthritis in a randomized, dose-controlled, placebo-controlled, double-blind, triple-parallel clinical trial.

METHODS

A total of 87 osteoarthritic knees (53 patients) were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups receiving 3 weekly injections of either leukocyte-poor PRP (31 knees), HA (29 knees), or NS (27 knees). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score were collected at baseline and at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months after treatment. Data were analyzed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

All 3 groups showed statistically significant improvements in both outcome measures at 1 month; however, only the PRP group sustained the significant improvement in both the WOMAC score (63.71 ± 20.67, increased by 21%) and IKDC score (49.93 ± 17.74, increased by 40%) at 12 months. For the intergroup comparison, except for the first month, there was a statistically significant difference between the PRP and NS groups in both scores throughout the study duration (regression coefficients of 8.72 [P = .0015], 7.94 [P = .0155], and 11.92 [P = .0014] at 2, 6, and 12 months, respectively, for WOMAC score, and 9.1 [P = .0001], 10.28 [P = .0002], and 13.97 [P < .0001], respectively, for IKDC score). There was no significant difference in both functional outcomes between the HA and NS groups at any time point. Only the PRP group reached the minimal clinically important difference in the WOMAC score at every evaluation (15%, 21%, 18%, and 21% at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months, respectively) and the minimal clinically important difference in the IKDC score at 6 months (improvement of 11.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular injections of leukocyte-poor PRP can provide clinically significant functional improvement for at least 1 year in patients with mild to moderate osteoarthritis of the knee.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled single-center trial.

Intra-articular Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for the Human Joint: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Stem cell therapy is emerging as a potential treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and chondral defects (CDs). However, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the literature. The indications for stem cell use, the ideal tissue source, and the preferred outcome measures for stem cell-based treatments have yet to be determined.

PURPOSE

To provide clinicians with a comprehensive overview of the entire body of the current human literature investigating the safety and efficacy of intra-articular mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy in all joints.

METHODS

To provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature, all clinical studies investigating the safety and efficacy of intra-articular MSC therapy were included. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for published human clinical trials involving the use of MSCs for the treatment of OA and CDs in all joints. A total of 3867 publications were screened.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies met the criteria to be included in this review. Fourteen studies treating osteoarthritis and 14 studies treating focal chondral defects were included. MSCs originating from bone marrow (13), adipose tissue (12), synovial tissue (2), or peripheral blood (2) were administered to 584 distinct individuals. MSCs were administered into the knee (523 knees), foot/ankle (61), and hip (5). The mean follow-up time was 24.4 months after MSC therapy. All studies reported improvement from baseline in at least 1 clinical outcome measure, and no study reported major adverse events attributable to MSC therapy.

DISCUSSION

The studies included in this review suggest that intra-articular MSC therapy is safe. While clinical and, in some cases, radiological improvements were reported for both OA and CD trials, the overall quality of the literature was poor, and heterogeneity and lack of reproducibility limit firm conclusions regarding the efficacy of these treatments.

CONCLUSION

This review provides strong evidence that autologous intra-articular MSC therapy is safe, with generally positive clinical outcomes.

Hyaluronic acid vs corticosteroids in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a mini-review of the literature

Introduction

Although intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) are common non-operative measures used in clinical practice in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis, there is a great controversy on their efficacy and safety compared to corticosteroids (CSs).

Efficacy

Conflicting results have been reported in clinical trials and meta-analysis due to methodological differences in study design, along with collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Even if some studies reported small or no differences of HA compared with CSs (or inferred that HA is not more effective than saline as a placebo), in general CSs have shown to be superior in the short term (especially on pain control), while better results have been reported with HA at subsequent evaluations, but with only a moderate effect after 26 weeks.

Safety

Mild or moderate adverse events have generally been reported after HA injections, the most common being injection site pain. HA is generally considered safe compared to CSs or saline. Furthermore, HA has shown to be safe also after a previous course of injections.

Conclusions

Conflicting results have been reported on the efficacy and safety of HA. Guidelines are controversial and in most of the cases "uncertain" recommendations are provided due to inconclusive evidence in literature. However, HA does not seem to have significantly higher side effects when compared to saline or CSs injections, and provides better medium-term control of symptoms in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.

Intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in treating knee osteoarthritis: assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews with ROBIS tool

OBJECTIVES

Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is a common, yet controversial therapeutic option in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of the present study was to assess the risk of bias (RoB) of systematic reviews (SRs) and to summarize available evidence of HA in treating knee OA.

METHODS

A systematic search of SRs published through to December 2016 was conducted using the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library. The RoB of included SRs was assessed by ROBIS tool. In addition, the methodological quality of primary studies in SRs with low RoB was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook. The evidence quality of each primary outcome of SRs with low RoB was determined by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system.

RESULTS

Thirty-one SRs were eligible for inclusion. According to the ROBIS tool, there were 13 SRs with low RoB, 16 with high RoB and two with unclear RoB. The methodological quality of a total of 135 primary studies was evaluated and summarized. Forty-two outcomes from these 13 SRs were classified into the four following quality levels based on the GRADE approach: three outcomes with high quality, eight with moderate quality, 12 with low quality and 19 with very low quality.

CONCLUSIONS

This study evaluated RoB in SRs for managing knee OA with HA and assessed the evidence quality of each primary outcome in SRs with low RoB. These results can help users of SRs to improve the process of SR assessment in developing overviews or guidelines, leading to more reliable recommendations for improvements in treating knee OA. Registration: PROSPERO ((http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO) [CRD42017057384].

Efficacy of intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in hip osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

There is less credible evidence of using of intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) to treat hip osteoarthritis (OA). This study is to determine the therapeutic effects and risk of adverse events of HA administration for hip OA. The MEDLINE, Cochrane of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trial Register and EMBASE, were searched for articles published. Eligible studies were limited to trials of HA with a randomized design. A total of six studies were included in this the meta-analysis. The pooled effect size of improved pain scores from pretreatment was –0.72 (95%CI; –1.06 to –0.39; P < 0.05). The standardized mean difference (SMD) of improved Lequesne's index and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was –0.74 (95%CI, –1.42 to –0.51; P < 0.05) and –7.75 (95%CI, –14.28 to –1.21; P < 0.05), respectively. The pooled effect size of improved pain scores compared HA with different controls was 0.03 (95%CI; –0.20 to 0.26; P < 0.05). The SMD of improved Lequesne's index and WOMAC was –0.24 (95%CI, –0.50 to 0.02; P > 0.05) and –0.13 (95%CI, 0.64 to 0.37; P > 0.05). There were no significant differences between HA and control group in adverse events (RR: 0.94; 95%CI, 0.41 to 2.20; P > 0.05). Intra-articular HA in hip OA can significantly reduce pain and improve functional recovery when compared with the condition before treatment. However, there seems no significant difference between HA and saline or other treatments. Currently, available evidence indicated that intra-articular HA in hip OA would not be increased risk of adverse events.

The safety of intra-articular injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a critical narrative review

INTRODUCTION

International guidelines recommend that the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) combine both nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Intra-articular (IA) therapies are considered part of this multimodal approach and are well-established Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved treatments. Areas covered: Safety data for knee OA, including IA corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma and botulinum toxin are critically reviewed, and evidence- and pratice-based measures to improve safety of IA therapies are discussed. Expert opinion: The incidence of AEs attributable to IA therapies across clinical trials in knee OA is very low, and barely reaches significance when compared to the incidence of AEs in the comparator group. These events are exceptionally serious. Mild differences between products have been inconsistently reported mainly for IA HA. One can distinguish self-limited AEs such as post-injection pain and swelling that are the most frequently reported AEs, from AEs that are not self-limited but rare such as septic arthritis. The safety of IA therapies can be improved by applying simple measures designed to prevent AEs. However, even though no specific safety concerns have been raised to date about IA therapies, the quality of evidence is low, and there is a need to improve the monitoring and reporting of safety data from clinical trials and post-marketing surveillance.

Improvement in condition-specific and generic quality of life outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis following single-injection Synvisc: results from the LOBRAS study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of viscosupplementation with single-injection hylan G-F20 (Synvisc-One) in knee osteoarthritis (OA), during routine clinical care, in a 52 week observational study.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The LOBRAS study involved a 1 year long, multi-center, quasi-experimental, repeated measures, observational study. Consenting patients in Australia fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria under the care of a medical specialist in routine clinical practice were enrolled. Prior to, and for 52 weeks following, intra-articular single-injection hylan G-F20, patients were repeatedly evaluated using the WOMAC NRS4.1 Index and the SF-36 questionnaire. The WOMAC NRS4.1 was administered by mobile phone (with paper back-up), and the SF-36 was administered on paper. Patients were monitored for adverse events.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) OA Index, and the Short Form 36 questionnaire (SF-36 v2).

RESULTS

A total of 131 patients with knee OA were enrolled, of whom 119 provided both pre- and post-intervention WOMAC data. Statistically significant improvements (with a maximum of p ≤ .025) from baseline to Week 12, Month 6 and Week 52 were detected, by intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses, in WOMAC Pain, Stiffness, Function, PGA, and Total Score, SF-36 PCS, and WOMAC-derived HUI3. Adverse event (AE) monitoring detected treatment-related AEs in 5.3% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness of single-injection hylan G-F20 in routine clinical care is supported by the detection of statistically significant, clinically important improvements in WOMAC Pain, Stiffness, Function, Total, and PGA outcomes, and statistically significant improvements in SF-36 PCS and WOMAC-derived HUI3 outcomes at multiple time points. Limitations of this study include lack of a control group or blinding. No predictive indicators of the response to treatment were identified. In general single-injection hylan G-F20 was well tolerated with very few patients experiencing any treatment-related adverse events. Collectively, these observations attest to the effectiveness of single-injection hylan G-F20 and complement previous observations in routine clinical care.

Prospective Evaluation of Intra-Articular Sodium Hyaluronate Injection in the Ankle

Viscosupplementation by injection of hyaluronic acid into the ankle can be used to provide pain relief and to delay the need for surgery in patients with osteoarthritis of the ankle. In the present investigation, we prospectively evaluated 50 consecutive patients (25 males and 25 females) undergoing a 3-injection protocol of sodium hyaluronate viscosupplementation in the ankle from January 2014 to January 2015. The Foot and Ankle Outcomes Score was used to compare the patients' pre- and post-treatment opinions about their ankle problems. The mean pretreatment Foot and Ankle Outcomes Score was 48 ± 6.3 (range 25 to 84) and the 6-month post-treatment score was 78 ± 5.8 (range 48 to 100). This difference was statistically significant (p = .003). From our findings in the present prospective cohort study, we have concluded that intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate viscosupplementation is a useful conservative therapy for osteoarthritis of the ankle.

THE EUROPEAN SOCIETY FOR CLINICAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF OSTEOPOROSIS AND OSTEOARTHRITIS (ESCEO) ALGORITHM FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS IS APPLICABLE TO RUSSIAN CLINICAL PRACTICE: A CONSENSUS STATEMENT OF LEADING RUSSIAN AND ESCEO OSTEOARTHRITIS EXPERTS

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), published in December 2014, provides practical guidance for the prioritization of interventions. This current paper represents an assessment and endorsement of the algorithm by Russian experts in OA for use in Russian clinical practice, with the aim of providing easy-to-follow advice on how to establish a treatment flow in patients with knee OA, in support of the clinicians’ individualized assessment of the patient. Medications recommended by the ESCEO algorithm are available in Russia. In step 1, background maintenance therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOA) is advised, for which high-quality evidence is provided only for the formulations of patented crystalline glucosamine sulphate (pCGS) (Rottapharm/Meda) and prescription chondroitin sulfate. Paracetamol may be added for rescue analgesia only, due to limited efficacy and increasing safety signals. Topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may provide additional symptomatic treatment with the same degree of efficacy as oral NSAIDs but without the systemic safety concerns. To be effective, topical NSAIDs must have high bioavailability, and among NSAIDs molecules like etofenamate have high absorption and bioavailability alongside evidence for accumulation in synovial tissues. Oral NSAIDs maintain a central role in step 2 advanced management of persistent symptoms. However, oral NSAIDs are highly heterogeneous in terms of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety profile, and patient stratification with careful treatment selection is advocated to maximize the risk: benefit ratio. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid as a next step provides sustained clinical benefit with effects lasting up to 6 months after a short-course of weekly injections. As a last step before surgery, the slow titration of sustained-release tramadol, a weak opioid, affords sustained analgesia with improved tolerability.

Hyaluronic acid versus saline intra-articular injections for amelioration of chronic knee osteoarthritis: A canine model

The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) versus saline for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). Twenty-five adult purpose-bred dogs underwent meniscal release of one knee. Clinical, arthroscopic, and radiographic signs of OA were confirmed in all dogs prior to treatment. Dogs were randomized into five groups: HA-1 (n = 5), HA-3 (n = 5), HA-5 (n = 5), Saline-1 (n = 5), and Saline-3 (n = 5). Each dog received intra-articular injections of the respective substance into the affected knee at the pre-determined time points. Dogs were assessed for heat, swelling, and erythema after each injection and for lameness, pain, effusion, range of motion, kinetics, radiographic OA scoring, and arthroscopic scoring prior to treatment and for 6 months after injection. Dogs were then humanely euthanatized and the knees assessed grossly and histologically. Only mild heat, swelling, and/or erythema were noted in some dogs following injection and resolved within 1 week. Dogs treated with HA-1, HA-3, and HA-5 were significantly (p < 0.05) better than dogs treated with Saline-1 and Saline-3 at the 4, 8, and 12 week time points based on at least one outcome measure. OA severity was not significantly different among groups at any time point, but increased in severity over time in all groups. Gross and histologic OA scores were not significantly different among groups. These data suggest the three HA injection protocols were safe, superior to saline for short-term amelioration of symptoms associated with chronic OA, and can be translated to human OA treatment. © 2016 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 34:1772-1779, 2016.

Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Medicare Knee Osteoarthritis Patients Are Associated With Longer Time to Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Few nonoperative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis (OA) are available, but there is ongoing debate about the effectiveness of intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections. We investigated whether the formulation of IA HA, or its combined use with IA corticosteroid (CS), may be contributing to some of the reported variation in clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The 5% Part B Medicare data (2005-2012) were used to identify knee OA patients who underwent knee arthroplasty (KA). The time from diagnosis of OA to KA was compared between patients with (HA) and without (no HA) IA HA use, using quantile regression with propensity score adjustment. These were further stratified by type of IA HA. Patient factors associated with time to KA were also assessed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

The "HA" cohort was associated with a longer time to KA of 8.7 months (95% confidence interval: 8.3-9.1 months; P < .001) compared with the "no HA" cohort, with extended time to KA in the bioengineered Euflexxa IA HA cohort. Patient factors associated with longer time to KA included women, younger patients, minority patients, patients with fewer comorbidities, and IA CS injection use. Patients with both IA HA and IA CS had an additional 6.3 months (95% confidence interval: 5.5-7.0 months; P < .001) to KA over those with only IA HA.

CONCLUSION

In a large cohort of elderly patients undergoing KA, there was a significant longer time from diagnosis of OA to KA in those receiving IA HA. It is unclear if the extended time may lead to less KA utilization.

Boiogito, a Kampo medicine, improves hydrarthrosis in a rat model of knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Hydrarthrosis, which is associated with knee pain and limited range of motion, decreases the quality of life (QOL) of patients with osteoarthritis (OA). The Kampo medicine boiogito is prescribed for the treatment of knee OA with hydrarthrosis; however, its precise mechanisms of action remain unknown. The purposes of this study were to assess the pharmacological effects of boiogito and its mechanisms of action on joint effusion in rats with surgically induced OA.

METHODS

A rat OA model was produced by transecting the anterior (cranial) cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament, and medial meniscus in the right knee joints of 7-week-old female Wistar rats. The rats were given chow containing boiogito (1 or 2%) or indomethacin (0.002 %) for 4 weeks after surgical transection. Levels of interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and hyaluronic acid (HA) were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Knee joint pain was assessed using an incapacitance tester. Osmotic water permeability in cultured rabbit synovial cells was assessed using stopped-flow analysis.

RESULTS

Increased synovial fluid volume and knee joint pain were observed in rats with surgically induced OA. In rats with OA, levels of IL-1β and HA in the articular cavity were higher but concentration of HA in synovial fluid was lower than in sham-operated rats, suggesting excessive synovial fluid secretion. Administration of boiogito improved hydrarthrosis, IL-1β, and HA concentrations and alleviated knee joint pain in rats with OA. Indomethacin reduced IL-1β and knee joint pain but failed to improve hydrarthrosis or HA concentration in rats with OA. Osmotic water permeability in synovial cells, which is related to the function of the water channel aquaporin, was decreased by treatment with boiogito.

CONCLUSION

Boiogito ameliorates the increased knee joint effusion in rats with OA by suppressing pro-inflammatory cytokine IL-1β production in the articular cavity and regulating function of water transport in the synovium. The improvement of hydrarthrosis by boiogito results in the increased HA concentration in synovial fluid, thus reducing joint pain. Boiogito may be a clinically useful treatment of QOL in patients with OA with hydrarthrosis.

[Injection treatment with hyaluronic acid]

This article presents the spectrum of indications for the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) based on the recommendations of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), the American College of Rheumatology (ACR), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI), the International Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) taking the reality of patient care in Europe into account.

Is Local Viscosupplementation Injection Clinically Superior to Other Therapies in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) with intra-articular viscosupplementation (intra-articular hyaluronic acid [IA-HA]) versus oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-corticosteroids), intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP), or intra-articular placebo (IA-placebo) to determine which meta-analyses provide the best current evidence and identify potential causes of discordance.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed for meta-analyses examining use of IA-HA versus NSAIDs, IA-corticosteroids, IA-PRP, or IA-placebo. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence.

RESULTS

Fourteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and ranged in quality from Level I to IV evidence. In studies reporting patient numbers, there were a total of 20,049 patients: 13,698 receiving IA-HA, 355 receiving NSAIDs, 294 receiving IA-corticosteroids, and 5,702 receiving IA-placebo. Ten studies examined the effects of IA-HA versus IA-placebo; of these, 5 found that IA-HA improved pain and 4 found that IA-HA improved function. No clinically relevant differences in the efficacy of IA-HA versus NSAIDs regarding pain and function were found. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-PRP, IA-HA improved knee function at 2 and 6 months after injection but the effects were less robust than those of IA-PRP. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-corticosteroids, the positive effects of IA-HA were greater at 5 to 13 weeks and persisted for up to 26 weeks. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 2 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected and both showed that IA-HA provided clinically relevant improvements in pain and function compared with IA-placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IA-HA with other nonoperative treatment modalities for knee OA shows that the current highest level of evidence suggests that IA-HA is a viable option for knee OA. Its use results in improvements in knee pain and function that can persist for up to 26 weeks. IA-HA has a good safety profile, and its use should be considered in patients with early knee OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Assessment of clinical practice guideline methodology for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular hyaluronic acid

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines are of increasing importance in the decision making for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Inconsistent recommendations regarding the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis have led to confusion among treating physicians.

METHODS

Literature search to identify clinical practice guidelines that provide recommendations regarding the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis was conducted. Included guidelines were appraised using the AGREE II instrument. Guideline development methodologies, how the results were assessed, the recommendation formation, and work group composition were summarized.

RESULTS

Overall, 10 clinical practice guidelines were identified that met our inclusion criteria. AGREE II domain scores were variable across the included guidelines. The methodology utilized across the guidelines was heterogeneous regarding the evidence inclusion criteria, analysis of evidence results, formulation of clinical practice recommendations, and work group composition. The recommendations provided by the guidelines for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis are highly inconsistent as a result of the variability in guideline methodology. Overall, 30% of the included guidelines recommended against the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, while 30% deemed the treatment an appropriate intervention under certain scenarios. The remaining 40% of the guidelines provided either an uncertain recommendation or no recommendation at all, based on the high variability in reviewed evidence regarding efficacy and trial quality.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for a standard "appropriate methodology" that is agreed upon for osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines in order to prevent the development of conflicting recommendations for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment for knee osteoarthritis, and to assure that treating physicians who are utilizing these guidelines are making their clinical decisions on the best available evidence. At present, the inconsistent recommendations provided for intra-articular hyaluronic acid treatment make it difficult for clinical professionals to determine its appropriateness when treating patients with knee osteoarthritis.