A Tale of Bilateral Rapidly Progressive Osteoarthritis of the Hip-It Is Not Always the Steroid Injection: A Case Report

ABSTRACT

Rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip is an unusual subset of hip osteoarthritis in which a >2 mm/yr rate of joint space narrowing occurs. Rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip has been associated with intra-articular steroid injection, with the incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip after intra-articular steroid injection ranging from 2.8% to 21%. The occurrence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip unrelated to intra-articular steroid injection is rare, and not frequently reported. This report presents a unique case of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip in the bilateral hips of one patient. The first hip developed rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip within 6 mos after an intra-articular steroid injection. Three years later, the second hip developed rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip within 4 mos without any injection or use of systemic steroid medication. The etiology of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip in the absence of intra-articular steroid injection is unclear, and this case presents the opportunity to observe the development of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip due to different causes within the same individual.

Fluoroscopy-guided triple hip block for patients with hip osteoarthritis: A new approach

Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is found in approximately 10% of the population and often causes disability and social limitations in elderly patients. Intra-articular injections are among the most frequently applied interventional treatments for the hip joint. Femoral and obturator sensorial nerve blocks have also been reported to be effective for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. A single needle insertion was performed for the blockage of the hip joint and sensory branches. For the sensory branch of the femoral nerve, the needle is advanced at nearly a 45-degree angle toward below the anterior inferior iliac spine near the anterolateral edge of the hip joint. For the sensory branch of the obturator nerve, the needle is advanced at nearly an angle of 45 degrees toward the area below the junction of the pubis and ischium. Finally, for joint injection, the same needle was advanced toward the midline of the anterior femoral head-neck junction at a steeper angle, and blocks were applied. Three patients with hip osteoarthritis were injected with this method and well-being was achieved in a 3-month follow-up. We think that blockage of the hip joint and peripheral sensory branches with a single needle insertion is a fast and effective method. However, prospective controlled studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of the method.

Efficacy of trigger point dry needling on pain and function of the hip joint: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the evidence for the impact of dry needling (DN) on hip pain and function.

METHODS

Medline/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically through June 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of DN on hip pain and function. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Descriptive analysis was conducted to explain the outcomes and adverse events of DN in hip joint diseases. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A total of seven eligible studies (including 273 patients) were included out of 2152 screened records. Five studies were in participants with hip osteoarthritis (OA; n = 3), greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS; n = 1) or piriformis syndrome (n = 1); the other two studies were conducted in healthy athletes (n = 2). Two articles assessed changes in participants' short-term visual analog scale (VAS) scores (<1 week), one of which showed that DN significantly reduced pain (P < 0.05). One-week VAS scores were analyzed in three studies, all of which demonstrated reduced scores following DN (P < 0.05). Hip range of motion (ROM) and muscle force were also improved following DN. No serious side effects were reported.

CONCLUSION

DN may be safe and effective at relieving hip pain and improving hip function. DN performs significantly better than several different types of control intervention (including sham DN, no treatment, corticosteroid injections and laser). Strong evidence (high degree of certainty around the results) is lacking, and future studies should ideally use longer follow-up periods and larger sample sizes.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022297845 (PROSPERO).

Melatonin is a potential novel analgesic agent for osteoarthritis: Evidence from cohort studies in humans and preclinical research in rats

Melatonin exhibits potential for pain relief and long-term safety profile. We examined the analgesic effects of oral melatonin on osteoarthritis (OA) and investigated the underlying mechanism. Using data from a UK primary care database, we conducted a cohort study in individuals with OA to compare the number of oral analgesic prescriptions and the risk of knee/hip replacement between melatonin initiators and hypnotic benzodiazepines (i.e., active comparator) initiators using quantile regression models and Cox-proportional hazard models, respectively. To elucidate causation, we examined the effects of melatonin on pain behaviors and explored several metabolites that may serve as potential regulatory agents of melatonin in the monoiodoacetate rat model of OA. Using data from another community-based cohort study, that is, the Xiangya OA Study, we verified the association between the key serum metabolite and incident symptomatic knee OA. Compared with the hypnotic benzodiazepines cohort (n = 8135), the melatonin cohort (n = 813) had significantly fewer subsequent prescriptions of oral analgesics (50th percentile: 5 vs. 7, 75th percentile: 19 vs. 29, and 99th percentile: 140 vs. 162) and experienced a lower risk of knee/hip replacement (hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% Cl: 0.30-0.73) during the follow-up period. In rats, oral melatonin alleviated pain behaviors and increased serum levels of glycine. There was an inverse association between baseline serum glycine levels and the risk of incident symptomatic knee OA in humans (n = 760). In conclusion, our findings indicate that oral melatonin shows significant potential to be a novel treatment for OA pain. The potential role of glycine in its analgesic mechanism warrants further investigation.

Use of prescribed analgesics before and after exercise therapy and patient education in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis

The aim of this study was to investigate utilisation patterns of prescribed analgesics before, during, and after an exercise therapy and patient education program among patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis. This cohort study is based on data from the nationwide Good Life with osteoarthritis in Denmark (GLA:D®) patient-register linked with national health registries including data on prescribed analgesics. GLA:D® consists of 8-12 weeks of exercise and patient education. We included 35,549 knee/hip osteoarthritis patients starting the intervention between January 2013 and November 2018. Utilisation patterns the year before, 3 months during, and the year after the intervention were investigated using total dispensed defined daily doses (DDDs) per month per 1000 population as outcome. During the year before the intervention, use of prescribed paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and opioids increased with 85%, 79% and 22%, respectively. During the intervention, use of paracetamol decreased with 16% with a stable use the following year. Use of NSAIDs and opioids decreased with 38% and 8%, respectively, throughout the intervention and the year after. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the prescription of most analgesics changed over time. For paracetamol, NSAIDs, and opioids, 10% of analgesic users accounted for 45%, 50%, and 70%, respectively, of the total DDDs dispensed during the study period. In general, analgesic use increased the year before the intervention followed by a decrease during the intervention and the year after. A small proportion of analgesic users accounted for half or more of all paracetamol, NSAIDs, and opioids dispensed during the study period.

Effects of Analgesics on Self-Reported Physical Function and Walking Ability in People With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Hip and knee osteoarthritis are among the leading causes of global disability, and one of the main aims of the management is to improve physical function. The objective of this review was to investigate the effect of analgesics on physical function (self-reported physical function and walking ability).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the findings were performed. Randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of analgesics on self-reported physical function and walking ability were included. Analgesics were orally administered acetaminophen, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or opioids. Data were pooled in a random-effects model, and the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was calculated (SMDs: 0.2-0.4 = small, 0.5-0.7 = medium, and ≥0.8 = large effect sizes). The quality of the evidence was evaluated according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

A total of 1454 studies were identified, of which 33 were included. On self-reported physical function, the results showed low- to moderate-quality evidence for a small beneficial effect of acetaminophen (SMD = -0.13 [95% CI = -0.26 to 0.00]), NSAIDs (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI = -0.37 to -0.27]), or opioids (SMD = -0.20 [95% CI = -0.32 to -0.09]). There was moderate-quality evidence for a small effect of NSAIDs on pain during walking (SMD = -0.34 [95% CI = -0.45 to -0.23]).

CONCLUSION

In people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, there was low- to moderate-quality evidence for small beneficial effects of analgesics on physical function and walking ability.

IMPACT

Analgesics may improve physical function by reducing pain during exercise and walking.

Efficacy of Herbal Medicine in Hand Osteoarthritis: A Narrative Review

OBJECTIVE

Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most prevalent joint disorders in the world that has placed an enormous economic and social burden on governments and healthcare sectors in many countries. Hand OA (HOA) is the most common peripheral arthritis, which is less investigated than knee and hip OA. Due to limited approved drug choices and adverse effects of long-term use of current regimens, we aimed to review the existing evidence that were used as oral herbal medicine to treat HOA.

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched for both observational and interventional studies that have investigated herbal medicine safety and efficacy in HOA, written in English and published between 2010 and 2022.

RESULTS

A total of 5 original articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and each article assessed a different herbal regimen. Overall, it seems desirable to add specific herbal treatments to the regimen of HOA patients, specifically in case of early stages of HOA.

CONCLUSION

Currently, the need for a low-risk alternative treatment in HOA patients is felt more than ever. There are reliable references relating to the safety of Korean red ginseng, GCSB-5, XLGB, and GS-GCu in these patients, although their efficacy was limited. Additionally, herbs like curcumin and Boswellia serrata have positively affected patients with knee osteoarthritis. However, there is a lack of strong evidence supporting their effectiveness in hand osteoarthritis (HOA). This emphasizes the potential benefits that these herbs may have for HOA patients.

Experiences of living with hip osteoarthritis and of receiving advice, education and ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection in the hip injection trial. A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The Hip Injection Trial (HIT) compared the effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of either corticosteroid and local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic alone to advice and education among people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This nested qualitative study explored participants' experiences of living with hip OA and of the trial treatment they received.

METHOD

Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of trial participants after a 2-month trial follow-up. Interviewers were blinded to which injection participants had received. Thematic analysis using constant comparison was undertaken prior to knowing the trial results.

RESULTS

34 trial participants were interviewed across all arms. OA causes pain, physical limitations, difficulties at work, lowered mood, and disrupted sleep. Those who received advice and education alone felt that they had not received 'treatment' and described little/no benefit. Participants in both injection groups described marked improvements in pain, physical function, and other aspects of life (e.g., sleep, confidence). The perceived magnitude of benefit appeared greater among those who received the corticosteroid injection; however, the length of benefit varied in both injection groups. There was uncertainty about the longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections.

CONCLUSION

Hip OA is highly burdensome. Participants perceived little/no benefit from advice and education alone but reported marked improvements when combined with either injection. However, the magnitude of benefit was greater among those who received corticosteroid. The varying duration of response to injection and uncertainty regarding longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections suggests that these areas are important for future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Characterization of adverse joint outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis treated with subcutaneous tanezumab

OBJECTIVE

Due to the risk of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), the phase III studies of subcutaneous (SC) tanezumab in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) included comprehensive joint safety surveillance. This pooled analysis summarizes these findings.

METHOD

Joint safety events in the phase III studies of SC tanezumab (2 placebo- and 1- nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID]-controlled) were adjudicated by a blinded external committee. Outcomes of RPOA1 and RPOA2, primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathological fracture comprised the composite joint safety endpoint (CJSE). Potential patient- and joint-level risk factors for CJSE, RPOA, and total joint replacement (TJR) were explored.

RESULTS

Overall, 145/4541 patients (3.2%) had an adjudicated CJSE (0% placebo; 3.2% tanezumab 2.5 mg; 6.2% tanezumab 5 mg; 1.5% NSAID). There was a dose-dependent risk of adjudicated CJSE, RPOA1, and TJR with tanezumab vs NSAID. Patient-level cross-tabulation found associations between adjudicated RPOA with more severe radiographic/symptomatic (joint pain, swelling, and physical limitation) OA. Risk of adjudicated RPOA1 was highest in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 OA at baseline. Risk of adjudicated RPOA2 or TJR was highest in patients with KL grade 4 joints at baseline. A higher proportion of joints with adjudicated RPOA2 had a TJR (14/26) than those with adjudicated RPOA1 (16/106).

CONCLUSION

In placebo- and NSAID controlled studies of SC tanezumab for OA, adjudicated CJSE, RPOA, and TJR most commonly occurred in patients treated with tanezumab and with more severe radiographic or symptomatic OA. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188.

Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis, Not Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, are Linked to Cardiac Disease

BACKGROUND

In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration placed a black-box warning (the most stringent warning for drugs) on all nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) stating that these agents may cause heart attacks and/or strokes. No level I evidence demonstrates that nonselective NSAIDs increase cardiovascular risk. An alternative hypothesis is that hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) indirectly causes cardiovascular disease (CVD) through decreased activity and NSAIDs are correlated with CVD as an arthritis treatment.

METHODS

Systematic reviews were conducted to find observational studies evaluating the association of hip and/or knee OA, CVD, activity, walking, and step counts. The systematic review found studies correlating hip and/or knee OA and CVD morbidity incidence (n = 2); CVD morbidity prevalence (n = 6); odds ratios, relative risks, or hazard ratios of CVD morbidity (n = 11); relative risk, standardized mortality ratios, or hazard ratios of CVD mortality (n = 14); and all-cause mortality hazard ratios associated with NSAID use (n = 3).

RESULTS

Hip OA (5 studies), knee OA (9 studies), and hip and knee OA (6 studies) are linked to an increased risk of CVD morbidity and mortality. Cardiac risk increases with validated disability scores, use of walking aids, walking difficulties, longer follow-up times, younger ages of OA onset, numbers of joints involved, and OA severities. No study linked NSAID use to cardiac disease.

CONCLUSIONS

All studies with more than 10-year follow-up linked cardiac disease with hip and knee OA. No study linked nonselective NSAID use to CVD. The Food and Drug Administration should reconsider the black-box warnings on naproxen, ibuprofen, and celecoxib.

Outcomes of imaging-guided corticosteroid injections in hip and knee osteoarthritis patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature on the use of image-guided corticosteroid injections in the treatment of patients with knee and hip OA.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We conducted a comprehensive literature search through June 30, 2022. Publication type, study design, imaging guidance modality, osteoarthritis severity, number of injections, steroid type and dose, anesthetic type and dose, the total number of patients, follow-up intervals, and measured outcomes were extracted from the included studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

There were 23 included studies (10 hips, 12 knees, 1 both hip and knee). Hip injections were found to be effective in treating short- and long-term pain and more effective than hyaluronic acid, Mepivacaine, NSAIDs, and normal saline in terms of improvement in pain and/or function. There was less impact on QoL. Knee injections were found either to have little or no impact or were similar or inferior to comparison injections (intra-articular hyaluronic acid, PRP, NSAIDs, normal saline, adductor canal blocks). Study data could not be aggregated because the corticosteroid types and doses, methods of outcome assessment, and follow-up time points varied widely.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic review found generally positive outcomes for the hip, but overall negative outcomes for the knee, although hip injections may carry a risk of serious adverse outcomes. A larger trial with uniform methodology is warranted. Specific studies on the adverse effects of corticosteroid injections are also warranted.

Recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review of clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Guideline adherence for hip and knee osteoarthritis management is often poor, possibly related to the quality and/or inconsistent recommendations. This systematic review of hip and knee osteoarthritis guidelines aimed to appraise the quality and consistency in recommendations across higher-quality guidelines.

METHODS

Eight databases, guideline repositories, and professional associations websites were searched on 27/10/2022. Guideline quality was appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II tool) (six domains). Higher quality was defined as scoring ≥60% for domains 3 (rigour of development), 6 (editorial independence), plus one other. Consistency in recommendations across higher-quality guidelines was reported descriptively. This review was registered prospectively (CRD42021216154).

RESULTS

Seven higher-quality and 18 lesser-quality guidelines were included. AGREE II domain scores for higher-quality guidelines were > 60% except for applicability (average 46%). Higher-quality guidelines consistently recommended in favour of education, exercise, and weight management and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (hip and knee), and intra-articular corticosteroid injections (knee). Higher quality guidelines consistently recommended against hyaluronic acid (hip) and stem cell (hip and knee) injections. Other pharmacological recommendations in higher-quality guidelines (e.g., paracetamol, intra-articular corticosteroid (hip), hyaluronic acid (knee)) and adjunctive treatments (e.g., acupuncture) were less consistent. Arthroscopy was consistently recommended against in higher-quality guidelines. No higher-quality guidelines considered arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Higher-quality guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis consistently recommend clinicians implement exercise, education, and weight management, alongside consideration of Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and intra-articular corticosteroid injections (knee). Lack of consensus on some pharmacological options and adjunctive treatments creates challenges for guideline adherence. Future guidelines must prioritise providing implementation guidance, considering consistently low applicability scores.

How safe are intra-articular corticosteroid injections to the hip?

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (ICSI) are an effective symptomatic treatment for osteoarthritis of the hip. However, the safety of ICSI has been questioned and a relatively high risk for septic arthritis, rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPIO) and periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in patients undergoing subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been suggested.

METHODS

This is a retrospective evaluation of 682 hips that underwent ICSI with 40 mg of Triamcinolone for primary osteoarthritis of the hip. All ICSI were performed using sterile techniques, the number of ICSI in each hip and the cumulative corticosteroid dosage were assessed. Pre- and post-injection radiographs were compared to identify cases with RPIO. Native joint septic arthritis, surgical site infections and PJI were identified by chart review.

RESULTS

4 hips (0.6%) developed RPIO 2-4 months following ICSI. The cumulative Triamcinolone dose was not associated with the development of RPIO (p = 0.281). 1 case was diagnosed with septic arthritis and treated with staged THA, there were no signs of infection at a 5 years follow-up. 483 hips (75.7%) underwent THA, including 199 hips with THA less than 3 months following ICSI and 181 hips with > 1 ICSI prior to THA. There were 3 superficial surgical site infections/wound dehiscence and no PJI.

CONCLUSION

The rate of RPIO was 0.6%. The current findings suggest that if ICSI is performed under sterile conditions, the risk for septic arthritis or PJI following THA, even in patients with multiple ICSI or ICSI within 3 months prior to surgery, is minimal.

The impact of moderate to severe osteoarthritis on the physical performance and quality of life: a cross-sectional study in Greek patients (PONOS study)

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) represents a leading cause of disability with limited data available for the Greek patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of moderate to severe symptomatic hip/knee OA under treatment on physical performance and quality of life.

METHODS

A non-interventional, cross-sectional, epidemiological study of patients with moderate/severe OA, recruited in a single visit from 9 expert sites in Athens, Greece. Assessments were based on commonly used outcome scales: the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the EuroQol-5-Dimensions 3-levels questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L).

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-four patients were included in the analysis. Most of the patients were females (78.7%), with a mean age of 70.5 ± 10.2 years. Comorbidities were reported by 87.2% of patients with hypertension being the most frequently reported (53.7%), followed by dyslipidemia (31.1%), obesity (24.4%) and diabetes mellitus (23.2%). Paracetamol was the most common treatment (96%), followed by NSAIDs (75%), opioids (50%) and locally applied medications (42.7%). Both hip and knee OA patients showed substantial deterioration in health-related quality of life (QoL) and health status as reflected by the HOOS/KOOS (Function in sport and recreation was the most impaired subscale, followed by Hip- or Knee-related QoL). The mean EQ-5D-3L index score was 0.396 ± 0.319 and the mean EQ-VAS score was 52.1 ± 1.9. When compared indirectly to the local population norms our OA population had worse QoL indices.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest the functional disability and impaired QoL of Greek patients with moderate/severe hip/knee OA under treatment emphasizing the need for novel treatments that will reduce the burden of the disease.

Comparative efficacy of exercise therapy and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol for knee or hip osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, how its analgesic effect compares to analgesics, for example, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol-the most commonly used analgesics for OA, remains unknown.

DESIGN

Network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to January 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise therapy with oral NSAIDs and paracetamol directly or indirectly in knee or hip OA.

RESULTS

A total of n=152 RCTs (17 431 participants) were included. For pain relief, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol at or nearest to 4 (standardised mean difference (SMD)=-0.12, 95% credibility interval (CrI) -1.74 to 1.50; n=47 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.22, 95% CrI -0.05 to 0.49; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.17, 95% CrI -0.77 to 1.12; n=9 RCTs). Similarly, there was no difference between exercise and oral NSAIDs and paracetamol in functional improvement at or nearest to 4 (SMD=0.09, 95% CrI -1.69 to 1.85; n=40 RCTs), 8 (SMD=0.06, 95% CrI -0.20 to 0.33; n=2 RCTs) and 24 weeks (SMD=0.05, 95% CrI -1.15 to 1.24; n=9 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise has similar effects on pain and function to that of oral NSAIDs and paracetamol. Given its excellent safety profile, exercise should be given more prominence in clinical care, especially in older people with comorbidity or at higher risk of adverse events related to NSAIDs and paracetamol.CRD42019135166.

Use of electronic health data to identify patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee and inadequate response to pain medications

BACKGROUND

No algorithms exist to identify important osteoarthritis (OA) patient subgroups (i.e., moderate-to-severe disease, inadequate response to pain treatments) in electronic healthcare data, possibly due to the complexity in defining these characteristics as well as the lack of relevant measures in these data sources. We developed and validated algorithms intended for use with claims and/or electronic medical records (EMR) to identify these patient subgroups.

METHODS

We obtained claims, EMR, and chart data from two integrated delivery networks. Chart data were used to identify the presence or absence of the three relevant OA-related characteristics (OA of the hip and/or knee, moderate-to-severe disease, inadequate/intolerable response to at least two pain-related medications); the resulting classification served as the benchmark for algorithm validation. We developed two sets of case-identification algorithms: one based on a literature review and clinical input (predefined algorithms), and another using machine learning (ML) methods (logistic regression, classification and regression tree, random forest). Patient classifications based on these algorithms were compared and validated against the chart data.

RESULTS

We sampled and analyzed 571 adult patients, of whom 519 had OA of hip and/or knee, 489 had moderate-to-severe OA, and 431 had inadequate response to at least two pain medications. Individual predefined algorithms had high positive predictive values (all PPVs ≥ 0.83) for identifying each of these OA characteristics, but low negative predictive values (all NPVs between 0.16-0.54) and sometimes low sensitivity; their sensitivity and specificity for identifying patients with all three characteristics was 0.95 and 0.26, respectively (NPV 0.65, PPV 0.78, accuracy 0.77). ML-derived algorithms performed better in identifying this patient subgroup (range: sensitivity 0.77-0.86, specificity 0.66-0.75, PPV 0.88-0.92, NPV 0.47-0.62, accuracy 0.75-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Predefined algorithms adequately identified OA characteristics of interest, but more sophisticated ML-based methods better differentiated between levels of disease severity and identified patients with inadequate response to analgesics. The ML methods performed well, yielding high PPV, NPV, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy using either claims or EMR data. Use of these algorithms may expand the ability of real-world data to address questions of interest in this underserved patient population.

What is new in pharmacological treatment for osteoarthritis?

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disease in which structural changes of hyaline articular cartilage, subchondral bone, ligaments, capsule, synovium, muscles, and periarticular changes are involved. The knee is the most commonly affected joint, followed by the hand, hip, spine, and feet. Different pathological mechanisms are at play in each of these various involvement sites. Although systemic inflammation is more prominent in hand OA, knee and hip OA have been associated with excessive joint load and injury. As OA has varied phenotypes and the primarily affected tissues differ, treatment options must be tailored accordingly. In recent years, ongoing efforts have been made to develop disease-modifying options that halt or slow disease progression. Many are still in clinical trials, and as insights into the pathogenesis of OA evolve, novel therapeutic strategies will be developed. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the novel and emerging strategies in the management of OA.

Examining the Relationships Among Treatment, Pain, and Physical Function in Patients With Osteoarthritis: A Mediation-Modeling Approach

OBJECTIVES

To better understand the relationships among treatment, pain, and physical function (PF).

METHODS

Data were collected from 2 published randomized clinical trials of osteoarthritis patients who received tanezumab or a placebo. PF was measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) PF domain. Pain (WOMAC pain domain) was a mediator of the effect of treatment on PF. A set of mediation models were investigated. Variables were treatment (tanezumab vs placebo), WOMAC pain domain, and WOMAC PF domain. Cross-sectional mediation models were assessed separately at different weeks. Longitudinal mediation models used data from all weeks simultaneously. Results could identify a steady-state period.

RESULTS

The cross-sectional and longitudinal mediation models showed a stable indirect effect of treatment through the pain on PF across time, indicating that a pseudo-steady-state model was appropriate. Therefore, the longitudinal steady-state mediation models were used with all available data assuming relationships among variables in the model being the same at all time points; results showed that the indirect effect of the treatment on PF was 77.8% in study 1 (NCT02697773) and 74.1% in study 2 (NCT02709486), both P <0.0001, whereas the direct effect was 22.2% for study 1 ( P = 0.0003) and 25.9% for study 2 ( P = 0.0019).

DISCUSSION

At least 75% of the treatment effect of tanezumab on physical functioning can be explained by the improvements in pain. However, tanezumab had an additional effect on physical functioning (~25%) that, was independent of improvements in pain. Such independent effects are of considerable interest and require further research to determine their mechanisms.

Prevalence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip following intra-articular steroid injections

INTRODUCTION

Numerous studies have indicated that intra-articular steroid injections to the hip are beneficial for short-term pain relief. However, recent studies have drawn concerns of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis of the hip (RPOH) following intra-articular steroid injections. The prevalence of RPOH following intra-articular steroid injections varies widely in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the prevalence of RPOH following intra-articular steroid injections, and to compare baseline characteristics between patients with and without RPOH.

DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

Tertiary academic hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 924 patients (median [interquartile range; IQR] age: 59 [45-70] years; 579 female) who received an intra-articular hip steroid/anesthetic injection from January 2016 to March 2018 and had available pre- and post-injection imaging (prior to surgical intervention) were included in the study.

INTERVENTIONS

Baseline and injection-related data-including demographics, age, body mass index, medical history, laterality, and steroid type-were collected from electronic medical records.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Post-injection RPOH was determined via imaging review by a physiatry fellow, followed by an attending physiatrist and a musculoskeletal radiologist to confirm findings.

RESULTS

The majority of patients received unilateral injections into the hip, and the most common steroids used were triamcinolone and methylprednisolone. Review of pre- and post-injection imaging revealed 26 cases of RPOH, for an overall prevalence of 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9%-4.1%). Compared to those without RPOH, patients with RPOH were significantly older (median age [IQR]: 64 [60-73] vs. 59 [44-70] years, p = .003) and had a shorter duration of symptoms prior to their injections (median [IQR]: 3 vs. 12 [6-36] months, p < .001). Adjusted regression analyses showed that age was associated with greater odds of RPOH (odds ratio [OR], 95% CI: 1.04, 1.01 to 1.07; p = .003).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of RPOH following intra-articular steroid injections into the hip was lower than previously reported but still clinically relevant. This should be considered when counseling patients prior to intra-articular hip steroid injections.

Protocol for the RETHINK study: a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, non-inferiority clinical trial comparing acetaminophen and NSAIDs for treatment of chronic pain in elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee

INTRODUCTION

In patients with chronic pain, oral analgesics are essential treatment options to manage pain appropriately, improve activities of daily living abilities and achieve a higher quality of life (QOL). It is desirable to select analgesics for elderly patients based on comparative data on analgesic effect and risk of adverse events; however, there are few comparative studies so far. The purpose of this study is to determine whether the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen are non-inferior to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee in elderly patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a multicentre, randomised controlled, double-blind, parallel-group study to compare the analgesic effect and adverse events between acetaminophen or NSAIDs (loxoprofen or celecoxib). A total of 400 elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee will be recruited from five institutions in Japan. Patients of 65 years or older with osteoarthritis-related pain will be registered and randomly assigned to acetaminophen, loxoprofen or celecoxib with 2:1:1 allocation. The primary endpoint is change in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) item 3 (worst pain) score from baseline to week 8. The secondary endpoints are BPI item 3 score change from baseline to week 4, health-related QOL measured by Short Form-8 Health Survey, and occurrence of adverse events including gastrointestinal disorders and abnormal liver function. Data will be analysed in accordance with a predefined statistical analysis plan.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol was approved by the Kyushu University Hospital Certified Institutional Review Board for Clinical Trials on 28 January 2021 (KD2020004) and the chief executive of each participating hospital. The results of the study will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals, and the main findings will be presented at international scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

jRCTs071200112.

A Two-Step, Trajectory-Focused, Analytics Approach to Attempt Prediction of Analgesic Response in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

We sought to predict analgesic response to daily oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (every 8 weeks) at week 16 in patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis, based on initial treatment response over 8 weeks.

METHODS

Data were derived from three randomized controlled trials of osteoarthritis. A two-step, trajectory-focused, analytics approach was used to predict patients as responders or non-responders at week 16. Step 1 identified patients using a data-element combination method (based on pain score at baseline, pain score at week 8, pain score monotonicity at week 8, pain score path length at week 8, and body site [knee or hip]). Patients who could not be identified in step 1 were predicted in step 2 using a k-nearest neighbor method based on pain score and pain response level at week 8.

RESULTS

Our approach predicted response with high accuracy in NSAID-treated (83.2-90.2%, n = 931) and tanezumab-treated (84.6-91.0%, n = 1430) patients regardless of the efficacy measure used to assess pain, or the threshold used to define response (20%, 30%, or 50% improvement from baseline). Accuracy remained high using 50% or 20% response thresholds, with 50% and 20% yielding generally slightly better negative and positive predictive value, respectively, relative to 30%. Accuracy was slightly better in patients aged ≥ 65 years relative to younger patients across most efficacy measure/response threshold combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyzing initial 8-week analgesic responses using a two-step, trajectory-based approach can predict future response in patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis treated with NSAIDs or 2.5 mg tanezumab. These findings demonstrate that prediction of treatment response based on a single dose of a novel therapeutic is possible and that predicting future outcomes based on initial response offers a way to potentially advance the approach to clinical management of patients with osteoarthritis.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIERS

NCT02528188, NCT02709486, NCT02697773.

A multiple-session mesotherapy protocol for the management of hip osteoarthritis in police working dogs

OBJECTIVE

To describe the effect of a mesotherapy protocol in dogs with osteoarthritis.

ANIMALS

30 dogs.

PROCEDURES

Dogs were randomly assigned to a control (CG; n = 10) or a mesotherapy group (MG; 20). CG received meloxicam for 70 days. MG was treated with a combination of lidocaine, piroxicam, and thiocolchicoside, injected in intradermal points. Seven treatment sessions were conducted. Response to treatment was measured with different instruments: the Canine Brief Pain Inventory (divided into Pain Interference Score [PIS] and Pain Severity Score [PSS]), Liverpool Osteoarthritis in Dogs (LOAD), and Canine Orthopedic Index (COI; divided into function, gait, stiffness, and quality of life), at time 0 (T0), +15 days, +30 days, +60 days, and +90 days after T0. At each time point, the results of the 2 groups with each instrument were analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed ranks test, P < .05. Kaplan-Meier estimators were compared with the Breslow test.

RESULTS

Dogs had a mean age of 6.9 ± 2.7 years and a body weight of 31.0 ± 6.4 kg. Hip osteoarthritis was classified as mild (n = 9), moderate (17), or severe (4). No differences were found at T0. Better results were observed in MG at +15 days (P < .01 for PSS and PIS, P = .03 for function), +30 days (P = .01 for PIS and LOAD, P = .03 for PSS, and P = .04 for function, gait, and COI), +60 days (P < .01 for PSS and PIS, P = .01 for LOAD, and P = .02 for function), and +90 days (P = .01 for PSS and PIS, P = .03 for LOAD, and P = .04 for function). Kaplan-Meier estimators showed MG had longer periods with better results than CG in various scores.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This mesotherapy protocol reduced pain scores and other clinical metrology instrument scores lasting for longer periods.

Evaluating the impact of metformin targets on the risk of osteoarthritis: a mendelian randomization study

OBJECTIVE

To provide some causal evidence concerning the effects of metformin on osteoarthritis (OA) using two metformin targets, namely AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) as metformin proxies.

METHODS

This is a 2-sample Mendelian randomization design. We constructed 44 AMPK-related variants genetically predicted in HbA1c (%) as instruments for AMPK and five variants strongly predicted GDF-15 as instruments for GDF-15. Summary-level data for three OA phenotypes, including OA at any site, knee OA, and hip OA were obtained from the largest genome-wide meta-analysis across the UK Biobank and arcOGEN with 455,211 Europeans. Main analyses were conducted using the inverse-variance weighted method. Weighted median and MR-Egger were conducted as sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our results.

RESULTS

Genetically predicted AMPK were negatively associated with OA at any site (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43-0.83) and hip OA (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.22-0.80), but with not knee OA (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.49-1.50). Higher levels of genetically predicted GDF-15 reduced the risk of hip OA (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-0.99), but not OA at any site (OR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.02) and knee OA (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.07).

CONCLUSION

This study indicates that AMPK and GDF-15 can be potential therapeutic targets for OA, especially for hip OA, and metformin would be repurposed for OA therapy which needs to be verified in randomized controlled trials.

Efficacy and safety of tanezumab, NSAIDs, and placebo in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee osteoarthritis and a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia: post-hoc analysis of phase 3 trials

Objective: Treatment outcomes for chronic pain can be poor in patients with depression, anxiety, or insomnia. This analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of subcutaneous tanezumab, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) and a history of these conditions using data from three phase 3 studies.Methods: A post-hoc analysis of data from two pooled placebo-controlled studies and one NSAID-controlled study of subcutaneous tanezumab. All patients had moderate to severe knee or hip OA that was inadequately controlled with standard-of-care analgesics. Efficacy outcomes were least-squares mean change from baseline to Week 16 in Western Ontario McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, Patient's global assessment of OA, and EQ-5D-5L scores. Results were summarized for patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia at baseline.Results: 1545 patients were treated in the pooled placebo-controlled studies (history of depression, 12%; anxiety, 8%; insomnia, 10%; any, 23%) and 2996 in the NSAID-controlled study (16%, 11%, 13%, 28%, respectively). In groups with positive histories, 38-80% took antidepressant or anxiolytic medications at baseline. Within treatments, largely similar improvements in efficacy outcomes were observed in patients with and without a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia; the types of treatment-emergent adverse events were similar.Conclusions: Patients with OA and a history of depression, anxiety, or insomnia did not appear to experience reduced efficacy outcomes or an altered safety profile in response to tanezumab or NSAID treatment as compared with those without. NCT02697773; NCT02709486; NCT02528188.

Antidepressants for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000.  Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.

Drug utilization, clinical and economic outcomes of patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee treated with long-term use of traditional NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and COX-2 inhibitors

OBJECTIVES

To describe and compare baseline characteristics, healthcare and drug utilization, and negative clinical outcomes of commercially-insured patients diagnosed with OA of the hip and/or knee who initiated treatment on traditional oral NSAIDs (tNSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors (COX-2s).

METHODS

A commercial claims database (1/2012-3/2017) was used to identify patients ≥18 years old, with ≥2 diagnoses of hip and/or knee OA, and ≥90 days supply of NSAIDs. Patients were assigned to cohorts based on the type of NSAID initially prescribed and observed in the 6 months before (baseline) and 36 months after (follow-up) the date of their first NSAID prescription after the first OA diagnosis. Analyses estimated baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and follow-up period drug utilization. Logistic regressions assessed the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and acute renal failure (ARF) events.

RESULTS

tNSAIDs were the most frequently prescribed treatment. During the follow-up period, less than 15% of patients prescribed tNSAIDs switched to either COX-2s or topical NSAIDs and 37% of patients prescribed a COX-2 and 56% of patients prescribed a topical NSAID switched to tNSAIDs. GI and ARF events during the follow-up period ranged from 7.3-8.1% and 8.0-11.0%, respectively, across cohorts. The tNSAIDs and COX-2s cohorts had increased risk of both types of events relative to patients prescribed topical NSAIDs, controlling for other characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses characterize the long-term real-world utilization of NSAIDs and associated outcomes for patients with OA of the hip and/or knee. Study results highlight the likelihood of switching and the risk of negative clinical outcomes associated with long-term use.

Clinical effectiveness of one ultrasound guided intra-articular corticosteroid and local anaesthetic injection in addition to advice and education for hip osteoarthritis (HIT trial): single blind, parallel group, three arm, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of corticosteroid and local anaesthetic to advice and education in adults with hip osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, three arm, parallel group, single blind, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Two community musculoskeletal services in England.

PARTICIPANTS

199 adults aged ≥40 years with hip osteoarthritis and at least moderate pain: 67 were randomly assigned to receive advice and education (best current treatment (BCT)), 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of triamcinolone and lidocaine, and 66 to BCT plus ultrasound guided injection of lidocaine.

INTERVENTIONS

BCT alone, BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide and 4 mL 1% lidocaine hydrochloride, or BCT plus ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of 5 mL 1% lidocaine. Participants in the ultrasound guided arms were masked to the injection they received.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was self-reported current intensity of hip pain (0-10 Numerical Rating Scale) over six months. Outcomes were self-reported at two weeks and at two, four, and six months.

RESULTS

Mean age of the study sample was 62.8 years (standard deviation 10.0) and 113 (57%) were women. Average weighted follow-up rate across time points was 93%. Greater mean improvement in hip pain intensity over six months was reported with BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT: mean difference -1.43 (95% confidence interval -2.15 to -0.72), P<0.001; standardised mean difference -0.55 (-0.82 to -0.27). No difference in hip pain intensity over six months was reported between BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine compared with BCT plus ultrasound-lidocaine (-0.52 (-1.21 to 0.18)). The presence of ultrasound confirmed synovitis or effusion was associated with a significant interaction effect favouring BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine (-1.70 (-3.10 to -0.30)). One participant in the BCT plus ultrasound-triamcinolone-lidocaine group with a bioprosthetic aortic valve died from subacute bacterial endocarditis four months after the intervention, deemed possibly related to the trial treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound guided intra-articular hip injection of triamcinolone is a treatment option to add to BCT for people with hip osteoarthritis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Observed efficacy and clinically important improvements in participants with osteoarthritis treated with subcutaneous tanezumab: results from a 56-week randomized NSAID-controlled study

BACKGROUND

A recent phase 3 study demonstrated that treatment with tanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor, or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) improves pain and physical function in participants with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. Here, we evaluated the time course and clinical importance of these initial efficacy findings using a mixture of primary, secondary, and post hoc endpoints.

METHODS

Participants on stable NSAID therapy and with a history of inadequate response to other standard OA analgesics were enrolled in an 80-week (56-week treatment/24-week safety follow-up), randomized, NSAID-controlled, phase 3 study primarily designed to assess the safety of tanezumab for moderate-to-severe OA of the knee or hip. Participants received oral NSAID (twice daily naproxen, celecoxib, or diclofenac) or subcutaneous tanezumab (2.5mg or 5mg every 8 weeks). Non-responders were discontinued at week 16. Changes from baseline in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function, Patient's Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis (PGA-OA), and average pain in the index joint were compared between tanezumab and NSAID groups over the 56-week treatment period. Clinically meaningful response (e.g., ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in WOMAC Pain and Physical Function), rescue medication use, and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

All groups improved WOMAC Pain, WOMAC Physical Function, PGA-OA, and average pain in the index joint over the 56-week treatment period relative to baseline. Across all groups, improvements generally occurred from the time of first assessment (week 1 or 2) to week 16 and then slightly decreased from week 16 to 24 before stabilizing from weeks 24 to 56. The magnitude of improvement and the proportion of participants achieving ≥30% and ≥50% improvement in these measures was greater (unadjusted p≤0.05) with tanezumab than with NSAID at some timepoints on or before week 16. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation, prespecified joint safety events, and total joint replacement surgery occurred more frequently with tanezumab than with NSAID.

CONCLUSIONS

Tanezumab and NSAID both provided early and sustained (up to 56 weeks) efficacy relative to baseline. Improvements in pain and function were clinically meaningful in a substantial proportion of participants. Adverse events of abnormal peripheral sensation and joint safety events occurred more frequently with tanezumab than with NSAID.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02528188 . Registered on 19 July 2015.

A review of the efficacy of intraarticular hip injection for patients with hip osteoarthritis: To inject or not to inject in hip osteoarthritis?

Hip injection (HI) for osteoarthritis (OA) are in vogue nowadays. Corticosteroids (CSs) and hyaluronic acid (HA) gel are the two most common agents injected into the hip. Off late, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), mesenchymal stem cell (MSC), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), local anesthetic (LA) agents, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and their different combinations have also been injected in hips to provide desired pain relief. However, there is a group of clinicians who vary of these injections. A search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and DOAJ using the keywords “hip osteoarthritis injection”. Data were analyzed and compiled. Intraarticular CSs are effective in providing the desired pain relief in OA hip, but repeated injections should be avoided and the interval between HI and hip arthroplasty must be kept for more than three months. Methylprednisolone or triamcinolone are combined with 1% lidocaine or 0.5% bupivacaine. Chondrotoxic effects of LA is a concern. Although national guidelines do not favor the use of HA for hip OA, numerous publications have favored its usage for a moderate grade of OA. The PRP, MSC, and BMAC are treatment options with great potential; however, currently, the evidence is conflicting on their role in hip OA. There is always a risk of septic arthritis, particularly when aseptic precautions are not followed, and clinicians must vary of this complication.

Lower Extremity Osteoarthritis: A Risk Factor for Mental Health Disorders, Prolonged Opioid Use, and Increased Resource Utilization After Single-Level Lumbar Spinal Fusion

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have examined the effect of hip or knee osteoarthritis, together described as lower extremity osteoarthritis (LEOA) on patient outcomes after lumbar fusion. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of LEOA on postoperative outcomes and resource utilization in patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion.

METHODS

Using a national deidentified database, TriNetX, a retrospective observational study of 17,289 patients undergoing single-level lumbar fusion with or without a history of LEOA before September 1, 2019, was conducted. The no-LEOA and LEOA groups were propensity score matched, and 2-year outcomes were compared using univariate statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, 2289 patients with no differences in demographics or comorbidities remained in each group. No differences in the rate of repeat lumbar surgery were observed between groups (all P > 0.30). In comparison with patients with no LEOA, patients with LEOA experienced higher rates of overall and new onset depression or anxiety, prolonged opioid use, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and ambulatory visits over the 2-year postoperative period (all P < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Patients with LEOA undergoing single-level lumbar fusion surgery are at higher risk for suboptimal outcomes and increased resource utilization postoperatively. This complex population may benefit from additional individualized education and multidisciplinary management.

No evidence that drugs reduce progression of osteoarthritis

Overview of: Yang W, Sun C, He SQ et al The efficacy and safety of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs for knee and hip osteoarthritis-a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2021;36:2085-93.

State of art in intra-articular hip injections of different medications for osteoarthritis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intra-articular hip injections for osteoarthritis represent a useful instrument to reduce pain and disability in the common clinical practice. Several medications can be injected locally with different level of evidence-based efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the effectiveness of intra-articular injections of different medications or substances for the pain treatment and the management of disability in subjects affected by hip osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Two reviewers selected independently randomised controlled trials published in the last 10 years, using PubMed and Scopus databases. The risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane library assessment tool.

RESULTS

12 randomised controlled trials have been selected. We found 8 papers comparing hyaluronic acid with platelet rich plasma, with corticosteroids and with saline solution; 1 paper compares two types of hyaluronic acid with different molecular weights; 3 papers study the effects of corticosteroids alone or compared to ketorolac or saline solution.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies reviewed were heterogeneous regarding sample size, level of osteoarthritis, evaluated with Kellegren-Lawrence score, medications used and follow up timings. However, we have observed that intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma seem to decrease pain at short term and disability at long term, in patients affected by hip osteoarthritis better than hyaluronic acid. The association of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids could give better results compared to hyaluronic acid alone, while the use of intra-articular ketorolac and saline solution requires more studies.

Clinical therapeutic effects of combined diacerein and glucosamine in the treatment of osteoarthritis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis (OA) has been identified as a common musculoskeletal condition. As a chronic condition, OA adversely impact the hip and knee joints. Surgical treatment for hip and knee osteoarthritis is associated with high financial and long recovery processes. Therefore, patients are continually searching for alternative methods of treatment. Diacerein is regarded as symptom-modifying, slow-acting drug that could most likely change the disease structure of OA. The present systematic review protocol explains methods utilized to evaluate the clinical therapeutic effects of combining diacerein and glucosamine to treat OA.

METHODS

The authors will conduct a search for randomized controlled trials comparing diacerein plus glucosamine with diacerein alone, glucosamine alone, or another treatment in patients with OA. The search will be done in the following online-based databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Database. All related RCTs included from inception to September 29, 2021 are included. Two authors will independently conduct data abstraction and quality assessment, and the comparative analysis will compare the results. The present meta-analysis will be performed with the RevMan software (version 5.3), where the results will be expressed as relative risk, mean differences, or standardized mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

This study will be conducted to evaluate the clinical therapeutic effects of combined diacerein and glucosamine in the treatment of OA.

CONCLUSION

The summary presented in the study will ascertain whether diacerein plus glucosamine intervention is an efficient and feasible method of treatment for OA patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

10.17605/OSF.IO/VHPZC.

Effect of preoperative duloxetine treatment on postoperative chronic residual pain after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

A key predictor for developing chronic residual pain after total knee or hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA) is sensitisation. Sensitisation can be defined as an 'increased responsiveness of nociceptive neurons in the nervous system'. Aim of this study is to investigate the effects of preoperative treatment with duloxetine in sensitised knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) patients on postoperative chronic residual pain up to 1 year after arthroplasty.

SETTING

A multicentre, pragmatic, prospective, randomised clinical trial was conducted in three secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with primary knee/hip OA who were planned for TKA/THA were screened using the modified painDETECT Questionnaire. Patients whose painDETECT score indicated that sensitisation may be present were eligible for participation. 111 participants were included and randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention or control group. The intervention group received additional duloxetine treatment, the control group did not receive any additional treatment but was allowed to continue with any pain medication they were already taking.

INTERVENTIONS

Preoperative oral treatment for 7 weeks with 60 mg/day of duloxetine was compared with usual care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was pain at 6 months after arthroplasty, assessed with the Pain Subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) or the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) with a 0-100 scale. Secondary outcome measures were Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and neuropathic-like pain measured using the modified PainDETECT Questionnaire. Longitudinal data collection included time points directly after duloxetine treatment, 1-day preoperatively, and 6 weeks, 6 months and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Mean improvement in the KOOS/HOOS pain subscale at 6 months postoperatively was 37 (SD 28.1) in the intervention group and 43 (SD 26.5) in the control group. No statistically significant difference was found in change score 6 months postoperatively between the two groups (p=0.280). 12 patients from the intervention group (21%) discontinued duloxetine due to adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative targeted treatment with duloxetine in end-stage knee and hip OA patients with sensitisation does not influence postoperative chronic residual pain after TKA/THA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR4744.

Effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis.

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo.

RESULTS

192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%).

CONCLUSIONS

Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO number CRD42020213656.

Is There Any Role for Opioids in the Management of Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Opioids have long been prescribed for chronic pain conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA). However, there is little information about their temporal efficacy, or differences in efficacy and safety between opioids with strong versus weak/intermediate μ opioid receptor-binding affinity. To explore these research questions, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in patients with knee and/or hip OA.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2019 and sought unpublished data. Placebo-controlled RCTs of oral opioids in patients with knee and/or hip OA were included. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for pain and function at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Subgroup analyses for strong and weak/intermediate opioids were conducted. Meta-regression was performed to assess the impact of dosage (morphine equivalency) on pain relief. Risk ratios were calculated for safety at the final follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs (9,283 participants) were included. Opioids demonstrated small benefits on pain at each time point, with SMDs ranging from -0.28 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.38, -0.17) to -0.19 (95% CI -0.29, -0.08); similar effects were observed for function. Strong opioids demonstrated consistently inferior efficacy and overall worse safety than weak/intermediate opioids. Meta-regression revealed that incremental pain relief achieved beyond 20-50-mg doses was not substantial in the context of increased safety risks.

CONCLUSION

Opioids provide minimal relief of OA symptoms within a 12-week period, and they are known to cause discomfort in a majority of patients. Clinicians and policy makers should reconsider the utility of opioids in the management of OA.

Factors Associated With Functional Decline in Hand and Hip/Knee Osteoarthritis After One Year: Data From a Population-Based Study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate factors that together with hand or hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA) could contribute to functional decline over a year's time in elderly individuals.

METHODS

The data of 1,886 individuals between ages 65 and 85 years in a prospective, observational population-based study with 12-18 months of follow-up in the context of the European Project on Osteoarthritis were analyzed. The outcome measures were self-reported hand and hip/knee functional decline, evaluated using a minimum clinically important difference of 4 on the Australian/Canadian Hand OA Index and of 2 on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index hip/knee physical function subscales, both normalized to 0-100. Using regression models adjusted for sex, age, country, and education level, the baseline factors considered were clinical hand or hip/knee OA, pain, analgesic/antiinflammatory medications, comorbidities, social isolation, income, walking time, grip strength, physical activity time, and medical/social care.

RESULTS

After a year, 453 participants were identified as having worse hand functionality and 1,389 as not worse. Hand OA, anxiety, walking time, and grip strength were risk factors for hand functional decline; pain was a confounder of the effect of hand OA. Analgesic/antiinflammatory medications mediated the combined effect of hip/knee OA plus pain on functional decline in the 554 individuals classified as having worse hip/knee functionality and the 1,291 persons who were not worse. Peripheral artery disease, obesity, and cognitive impairment were other baseline risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Study findings showed that together with emotional status and chronic physical and cognitive conditions, OA affects hand and hip/knee functional decline.

Clinical Outcomes Of Intra-Articular High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid Injection For Hip Osteoarthritis- A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Osteoarthritis is the most common degenerative disease of the synovial joints in the elderly population with hip osteoarthritis as the second most commonly affected joint. A multitude of conservative treatments is used for pain relief and functional improvement including acetaminophen, NSAID, intra-articular corticosteroid, and viscosupplementation (VS). Different preparations of VS based on different molecular weights are commercially available. No systematic review or meta-analysis regarding the use of intra-articular high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMWHA) injection for the hip joint was published before. This review analyzes the efficacy of intra-articular HMWHA for hip osteoarthritis.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library for randomized trials describing the efficacy of HMWHA for hip osteoarthritis was searched. The search terms were osteoarthritis, hip joint, outcomes, viscosupplementation, and high molecular weight hyaluronic acid in different combinations. Standardized mean difference (SMD) in VAS for pain relief and Lequesne index for functional outcomes while risk ratio (RR) for complications was used for data pooling.

RESULTS

Four studies comprising 185 and 189 patients in HMWHA and control groups were included, respectively. SMD for VAS and Lequesne index was -0.056 and -0.114, respectively while RR for complication was 0.879.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular HMWHA injection provided pain relief, functional improvement, and no severe complications on immediate short term basis. However, the results do not favor treatment with HMWHA over other treatment methods. Randomized trials are further necessary to provide data regarding comparisons between HMWHA for hip osteoarthritis concerning clinicians' convenience, compliance, duration of relief, and cost-effectiveness.

The intra-articular administration of triamcinolone hexacetonide in the treatment of osteoarthritis. Its effects in a naturally occurring canine osteoarthritis model

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of an intra-articular (IA) administration of triamcinolone hexacetonide, compared with saline.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Forty (N = 40) hip joints were randomly assigned to a treatment group (THG, n = 20, receiving IA triamcinolone hexacetonide) and a control group (CG, n = 20, receiving IA saline). On treatment day (T0), and at 8, 15, 30, 90 and 180 days post-treatment, weight distribution, joint range of motion, thigh girth, digital thermography, radiographic signs, synovial fluid interleukin-1 and C-reactive protein levels were evaluated. Data from four Clinical Metrology Instruments was also gathered. Results were compared Repeated Measures ANOVA, with a Huynh-Feldt correction, Paired Samples T-Test or Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test. A Kaplan-Meier test was performed to compare both groups, with p<0.05.

RESULTS

Joints were graded as mild (65%), moderate (20%) and severe (15%). Patients of both sexes, with a mean age of 6.5±2.4 years and bodyweight of 26.7±5.2kg, were included. No differences were found between groups at T0. Comparing THG to CG, weight distribution showed significant improvements in THG from 8 (p = 0.05) up to 90 days (p = 0.01). THG showed lower values during thermographic evaluation in the Lt view (p<0.01). Pain and function scores also improved from 30 to 180 days. Increasing body weight, age, and presence of caudolateral curvilinear osteophyte corresponded to worse response to treatment. Results of the Kaplan Meier test showed significant differences between groups, with THG performing better considering several evaluations and scores.

CONCLUSION

THG recorded significant improvements in weight-bearing and in with the considered CMIs, particularly pain scores. Lower thermographic values were registered in THG up to the last evaluation day. Age, sex, and radiographic findings did significantly influenced response to treatment.

Hip osteoarthritis treatment with intra-articular injections: hyaluronic acid versus glucocorticoid - a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of intra-articular injection of glucocorticoid (GC) and hyaluronic acid (HA) on pain and disability caused by hip osteoarthritis (HO).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out within MEDLINE (via PubMed), Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, using the keywords (MeSH words): "hip osteoarthritis", "glucocorticoid", "corticosteroid", "corticoid", "hyaluronic acid" and "viscosupplementation". Two independent authors applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, selecting randomized clinical trials with direct comparison between intra-articular injection of GC and HA in patients with HO.

RESULTS

157 articles were found in the initial search. After applying the exclusion criteria, 36 articles were read, with final selection of 3 randomized clinical trials (n = 484). Two studies compared the administration of these products with placebo (saline) - and one also compared it with a fourth group of patients undergoing only physical therapy. Qvistgaard et al. demonstrated clinical superiority of GC (moderate clinical benefit) and HA (marginal clinical benefit) in pain, at 4 weeks, both compared to placebo; however, there was no statistically significant difference between GC and HA during the 12-week follow-up. Atchia et al. reported a statistically significant improvement in pain and function in patients treated with GC during 8 weeks. Spitzer et al. demonstrated an overall clinical response in patients in both groups throughout the study, with a faster response for those treated with GC. However, the authors highlight the superiority in all outcome measures of HA compared to GC in cases of moderate HO, at 26 weeks.

DISCUSSION

Few studies directly compare the clinical effect between intra-articular injections of GC and HA in HO, showing heterogeneity in the type of population, number of administrations, formulation of HA and follow-up period. The analyzed studies had a short follow-up time. The results obtained seem to demonstrate a superiority of GC compared to HA in managing pain, namely in the speed of clinical response. However, Spitzer et al. demonstrated an overall superiority of HA in patients with moderate HO, which suggests that optimal selection of patients remains to be defined.

Safety and efficacy of fulranumab in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: results from four early terminated phase III randomized studies

Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of fulranumab as adjunct or monotherapy in patients with knee or hip pain related to moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis.Methods: Osteoarthritic patients (aged ≥18 years) from four phase 3 randomized, double-blind (DB), placebo-controlled studies were randomized to receive placebo, fulranumab 1 mg every 4 weeks (Q4wk), or 3 mg Q4wk in 16-week DB phase, followed by a 52-week post-treatment follow-up phase. Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and neurological, sympathetic, and joint-related events of interest. Efficacy assessments included pain and physical function sub-scales of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores.Results: Of 245 patients from the ITT set (median age = 64 years; 62% women), 84 (34%) completed the DB phase; the majority of discontinuations (57%) were due to early study termination. In the DB phase, the incidence of TEAEs in fulranumab 3 mg (57.8%) and 1 mg (56.8%) was similar to placebo (56.8%). Two events adjudicated as joint-related events of interest include rapidly progressive osteoarthritis and fracture of unknown etiology. There were no new neurological TEAEs. Fulranumab showed evidence of efficacy in improving pain and physical function based on WOMAC sub-scale scores. Due to premature study termination, the number of patients enrolled were too small to make any definitive efficacy claims.Conclusions: Treatment with fulranumab was generally tolerated with no new safety signals. Within the limited sample analyzed, fulranumab showed evidence of improvement of pain and function in patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis who had failed prior therapy and were candidates for joint replacement surgery.Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT02336685; NCT02336698; NCT02289716; NCT02301234KEY POINTSFulranumab as adjuvant or monotherapy was well tolerated with no new safety signalsFulranumab demonstrated evidence suggestive of efficacy in osteoarthritic pain of hip and kneeFulranumab demonstrated evidence suggestive of improvement of pain and physical function in osteoarthritis.

Do β-adrenoreceptor blocking drugs associate with reduced risk of symptomatic osteoarthritis and total joint replacement in the general population? A primary care-based, prospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

INTRODUCTION

To investigate if β-adrenoreceptor blocking drug (β-blocker) prescription reduces the risk of knee or hip osteoarthritis, total joint replacement and analgesic prescription.

SETTING

Primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Two separate analyses will be performed. Study 1 will be on the association between β-blocker prescription and incident knee/hip osteoarthritis. Inclusion criteria will be age ≥40 years. Exposed participants will be those with ≥2 continuous β-blocker prescriptions, and the index date will be the date of the first prescription of β-blocker. Unexposed participants will include up to four controls matched for age, sex, general practice surgery and propensity score for β-blocker prescription. Exclusion criteria will include contraindications to β-blockers, consultations for osteoarthritis or potent analgesic prescription before the index date. Outcomes will be knee osteoarthritis (primary outcome), hip osteoarthritis, knee pain and hip pain. Study 2 will be on the association between β-blocker prescription and total joint replacement and analgesic prescription in people with osteoarthritis. Inclusion criteria will be age ≥40 years, knee or hip osteoarthritis, and index date will be as in study 1. Unexposed participants will be as in study 1, additionally matched for consultation for knee or hip osteoarthritis prior to the index date. Exclusion criteria will include contraindications to β-blockers and osteoarthritis in other joints prior to the index date. Outcomes will be total knee replacement (primary outcome), total hip replacement and new analgesic prescription.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Kaplan-Meier curves will be plotted, and Cox proportional HRs and 95% CIs will be calculated. Stratified analysis will be performed by class of β-blocker, intrinsic sympathomimetic effect and indication(s) for prescription.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was ethically approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medicines and Healthcare Authority (Ref 18_227R). The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.

SUMMARY

This prospective cohort study will evaluate the analgesic potential of commonly used drugs for osteoarthritis pain.

Effect of Tanezumab on Joint Pain, Physical Function, and Patient Global Assessment of Osteoarthritis Among Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Patients with osteoarthritis (OA) may remain symptomatic with traditional OA treatments.

OBJECTIVE

To assess 2 subcutaneous tanezumab dosing regimens for OA.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial from January 2016 to May 14, 2018 (last patient visit). Patients enrolled were 18 years or older with hip or knee OA, inadequate response to OA analgesics, and no radiographic evidence of prespecified joint safety conditions.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received by subcutaneous administration either tanezumab, 2.5 mg, at day 1 and week 8 (n = 231); tanezumab, 2.5 mg at day 1 and 5 mg at week 8 (ie, tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; n = 233); or placebo at day 1 and week 8 (n = 232).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Co-primary end points were change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain (0-10, no to extreme pain), WOMAC Physical Function (0-10, no to extreme difficulty), and patient global assessment of osteoarthritis (PGA-OA) (1-5, very good to very poor) scores.

RESULTS

Among 698 patients randomized, 696 received 1 or more treatment doses (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [9.6] years; 65.1% women), and 582 (83.6%) completed the trial. From baseline to 16 weeks, mean WOMAC Pain scores decreased from 7.1 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg, group; 7.3 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg, group; and 7.3 to 4.4 in the placebo group (least squares mean differences [95% CI] vs placebo were -0.60 [-1.07 to -0.13; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.73 [-1.20 to -0.26; P = .002] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean WOMAC Physical Function scores decreased from 7.2 to 3.7 in the 2.5-mg group, 7.4 to 3.6 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 7.4 to 4.5 with placebo (differences vs placebo, -0.66 [-1.14 to -0.19; P = .007] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.89 [-1.37 to -0.42; P < .001] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean PGA-OA scores decreased from 3.4 to 2.4 in the 2.5-mg group, 3.5 to 2.4 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 3.5 to 2.7 with placebo (differences vs placebo, -0.22 [-0.39 to -0.05; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.25 [-0.41 to -0.08; P = .004] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Rapidly progressive OA occurred only in tanezumab-treated patients (2.5 mg: n = 5, 2.2%; 2.5/5 mg: n = 1, 0.4%). The incidence of total joint replacements was 8 (3.5%), 16 (6.9%), and 4 (1.7%) in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg; tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; and placebo groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with moderate to severe OA of the knee or hip and inadequate response to standard analgesics, tanezumab, compared with placebo, resulted in statistically significant improvements in scores assessing pain and physical function, and in PGA-OA, although the improvements were modest and tanezumab-treated patients had more joint safety events and total joint replacements. Further research is needed to determine the clinical importance of these efficacy and adverse event findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697773.

Predictors of placebo response to local (intra-articular) therapy in osteoarthritis: an individual patient data meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition with limited safe and effective treatment options. Intra-articular therapies are increasingly being used, however whether the effect of these agents is due to active treatment or placebo remains unclear. As the placebo response can be attributed to multiple factors, assessment of the placebo response using individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis will give insight into the different modifiers of response to placebo. The aim of this IPD meta-analysis is to investigate the predictors of placebo response in intra-articular injection trials in OA. IPD meta-analysis is considered to be superior to conventional meta-analysis, as it combines multiple trial data, facilitates the standardisation of analyses across different studies and allows measuring derivation of the desired information.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

A systematic literature search will be conducted for randomised clinical trials comparing corticosteroid and viscosupplementation/hyaluronic acid intra-articular injections with placebo for knee and hip OA. Pubmed (Medline), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and SCOPUS will be searched from inception to September 2018. Corresponding authors of the original trials will be contacted to obtain IPD. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The primary outcome will be change in pain from baseline. Secondary outcomes will be change in function and patient's global assessment. Potential predictors of placebo response assessed will include patient's characteristics, pain mechanism characteristics, radiographic severity, pain severity, intervention characteristics and trial design characteristics. A multilevel logistic regression analyses will be applied. Results will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis -IPD guidelines.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not include identifiable data and ethical approval was obtained by the original investigators. Results of the IPD meta-analysis will be disseminated for publication in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018095188.

Paracetamol versus placebo for knee and hip osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is vastly recommended as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. However, there has been controversy about this recommendation given recent studies have revealed small effects of paracetamol when compared with placebo. Nonetheless, past studies have not systematically reviewed and appraised the literature to investigate the effects of this drug on specific osteoarthritis sites, that is, hip or knee, or on the dose used.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of paracetamol compared with placebo in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the hip or knee.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts to 3 October 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) portal on 20 October 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing paracetamol with placebo in adults with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Major outcomes were pain, function, quality of life, adverse events and withdrawals due to adverse events, serious adverse events, and abnormal liver function tests.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors used standard Cochrane methods to collect data, and assess risk of bias and quality of the evidence. For pooling purposes, we converted pain and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function) scores to a common 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability) scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 10 randomised placebo-controlled trials involving 3541 participants with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The paracetamol dose varied from 1.95 g/day to 4 g/day, and the majority of trials followed participants for three months only. Most trials did not clearly report randomisation and concealment methods and were at unclear risk of selection bias. Trials were at low risk of performance, detection, and reporting bias.At 3 weeks' to 3 months' follow-up, there was high-quality evidence that paracetamol provided no clinically important improvements in pain and physical function. Mean reduction in pain was 23 points (0 to 100 scale, lower scores indicated less pain) with placebo and 3.23 points better (5.43 better to 1.02 better) with paracetamol, an absolute reduction of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 9%) and relative reduction of 5% (2% better to 8% better) (seven trials, 2355 participants). Physical function improved by 12 points on a 0 to 100 scale (lower scores indicated better function) with placebo and was 2.9 points better (0.95 better to 4.89 better) with paracetamol, an absolute improvement of 3% (1% better to 5% better, minimal clinical important difference 10%) and relative improvement of 5% (2% better to 9% better) (7 trials, 2354 participants).High-quality evidence from eight trials indicated that the incidence of adverse events was similar between groups: 515/1586 (325 per 1000) in the placebo group versus 537/1666 (328 per 1000, range 299 to 360) in the paracetamol group (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.11). There was less certainty (moderate-quality evidence) around the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and the rate of abnormal liver function tests, due to wide CIs or small event rates, indicating imprecision. Seventeen of 1480 (11 per 1000) people treated with placebo and 28/1729 (16 per 1000, range 8 to 29) people treated with paracetamol experienced serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.53; 6 trials). The incidence of withdrawals due to adverse events was 65/1000 participants in with placebo and 77/1000 (range 59 to 100) participants with paracetamol (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.55; 7 trials). Abnormal liver function occurred in 18/1000 participants treated with placebo and 70/1000 participants treated with paracetamol (RR 3.79, 95% CI 1.94 to 7.39), but the clinical importance of this effect was uncertain. None of the trials reported quality of life.Subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of paracetamol on pain and function did not differ according to the dose of paracetamol (3.0 g/day or less versus 3.9 g/day or greater).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on high-quality evidence this review confirms that paracetamol provides only minimal improvements in pain and function for people with hip or knee osteoarthritis, with no increased risk of adverse events overall. Subgroup analysis indicates that the effects on pain and function do not differ according to the dose of paracetamol. Due to the small number of events, we are less certain if paracetamol use increases the risk of serious adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and rate of abnormal liver function tests.Current clinical guidelines consistently recommend paracetamol as the first-line analgesic medication for hip or knee osteoarthritis, given its low absolute frequency of substantive harm. However, our results call for reconsideration of these recommendations.