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.

Gestational age and risk of intellectual disability: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between gestational age at birth and risk of clinically diagnosed intellectual disability (ID) week by week to provide a detailed description of ID risk across the entire range of gestational ages and by severity of ID.

METHODS

All individuals born alive in Sweden 1974-2017 were prospectively followed up from birth until 2017 using national registers. The HRs for ID according to weekly gestational age and gestational age categories were determined using Cox models. Sibling analyses were conducted to adjust for familial confounding.

RESULTS

The study included 3 572 845 live births. During the follow-up, 26 596 ID cases were registered. The adjusted weekly estimates showed a gradual increase in risk of ID from week 40 to week 24 (adjusted HR_37weeks=1.80 (1.74 to 1.87), aHR_32weeks=3.93 (3.73 to 4.13), aHR_28weeks=7.53 (6.95 to 8.16), aHR_24weeks=21.58 (18.62 to 25.00)) and from week 41 onwards (aHR_42weeks=1.26 (1.19 to 1.32)), with statistically significantly higher risks across the range of gestational age compared with infants born at week 40. The associations were consistent in mild, moderate and severe/profound ID but most prominent for severe/profound ID.

CONCLUSION

The risk of ID increased weekly as the date of delivery moved away from 40 weeks, both preterm and post-term. The results remained robust after detailed adjustment for confounding, including familial confounding.

Gestational age and cancer risk up to young adulthood in Swedish population born 1974 to 2013: A population-based cohort study

We examined the association between gestational age and risk of any primary cancer and observed whether the risk patterns differed by sex, birth weight for gestational age categories, cancer site and age of onset. All people live-born in Sweden 1974 to 2013 were prospectively followed up from birth until 2016 using national registers. Gestational age was extracted from the Medical Birth Register and primary malignant cancer diagnoses were from the Swedish cancer register. The adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for any primary cancer according to weekly gestational age and gestational age categories were determined using cox proportional hazards models adjusted for birth year and parental age. The study included 3 137 691 people; 180 363 (5.8%) born preterm and 254 790 (8.1%) born postterm. They were followed up for 71 691 112 person-years, to a maximum of 43 years and recorded 22 604 new cancers. Although aHRs for the predefined GA categories were only increased for moderate to late preterm delivery (aHR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), gestational week-specific aHRs were increased for gestational weeks 30 to 35, with greatest aHR observed for 31 weeks (aHR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05-1.32). Increased cancer risk related to shorter gestational ages were observed particularly for women, those born small for gestational age, childhood cancers and for cancers originating at certain sites (eg, testicular and liver cancer). We provide the first evidence that those born between 30 and 35 weeks gestation may have increased risk of any primary malignant cancer up to young adulthood. Additionally, increasing gestational ages may reduce the risk of testicular and liver cancer.

The global incidence of bullous pemphigoid: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is an autoimmune blistering disorder that mainly affects older people. Although the disease is associated with considerable morbidity and mortality, the burden of disease worldwide is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The study aim is to pool the global incidence of BP and determine whether this varies according to geographic area, age group, setting and study quality.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and grey literature were systematically searched on 7 April 2020. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted data and appraised each study's quality using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Two domains, indicative of selection and survey bias, were used to identify high-quality studies. The cumulative incidence was standardized to 1 year and pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies were identified, of which 23 provided cumulative incidence and four provided incidence rates. The cumulative incidence of BP was 8·2 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4·8-13.7] per million people whereas the incidence rate was 34·2 (95% CI 19·2-60·7) per million person-years. Of the continents that contributed more than one study, the cumulative incidence was 10·3 (95% CI 5·8-18·2) and 5·6 (95% CI 3·5-9·0) per million people in Europe and Asia, respectively. The incidence was highest in studies including adults only (n = 2), in population-based studies (n = 9) and in more recent years. The cumulative incidence was higher (13·3 per million people, 95% CI 6·0-29·5) when restricting the analysis to higher-quality studies (n = 11). High heterogeneity (I² > 82%) was observed across all pooled estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of BP varies globally, is generally low but appears to be increasing over time. The burden of disease is likely to be underestimated.

Comparative efficacy and safety of acetaminophen, topical and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and real-world data

OBJECTIVE

Current global guidelines regarding the first-line analgesics (acetaminophen, topical or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDs]) for knee osteoarthritis remain controversial and their comparative risk-benefit profiles have yet to be adequately assessed.

DESIGN

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from database inception to March 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acetaminophen, topical NSAIDs and oral NSAIDs directly or indirectly in knee osteoarthritis. Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. A propensity-score matched cohort study was also conducted among patients with knee osteoarthritis in The Health Improvement Network database.

RESULTS

122 RCTs (47,113 participants) were networked. Topical NSAIDs were superior to acetaminophen (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.29, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -0.52 to -0.06) and not statistically different from oral NSAIDs (SMD = 0.03, 95% CrI: -0.16 to 0.22) for function. It had lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects (AEs) than acetaminophen (risk ratio [RR] = 0.52, 95%CrI: 0.35 to 0.76) and oral NSAIDs (RR = 0.46, 95%CrI: 0.34 to 0.61) in RCTs. In real-world data, topical NSAIDs showed lower risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 0.68), cardiovascular diseases (HR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.63 to 0.85) and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.41 to 0.69) than acetaminophen during the one-year follow-up (n = 22,158 participants/group). A better safety profile was also observed for topical than oral NSAIDs (n = 14,218 participants/group).

CONCLUSIONS

Topical NSAIDs are more effective than acetaminophen but not oral NSAIDs for function improvement in people with knee osteoarthritis. Topical NSAIDs are safer than acetaminophen or oral NSAIDs in trials and real-world data.

Identifying predictors of response to oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol in osteoarthritis: a hypothesis-driven protocol for an OA Trial Bank individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Symptomatic treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) provide only small-to-moderate efficacy over placebo in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Treatment guidelines therefore have emphasised the need to identify predictors of treatment response through subgroup and multiple regression analysis. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis is recommended as an efficient approach for this purpose. To our knowledge, this has not been undertaken for oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including paracetamol, in OA. In this IPD meta-analysis, we aim to identify RCTs with specific mechanistic features related to OA pain, such as joint inflammation. We hypothesise that NSAIDs may work better for participants with joint inflammation, whereas paracetamol may not.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A comprehensive literature search will be conducted on the databases of Web of Science, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, AMED and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 1998 to 1 December 2020. All RCTs related to oral NSAIDs or paracetamol including placebo-controlled trials in people with OA that have evaluated pain-related peripheral risk factors (eg, clinically detected knee effusion, synovial hypertrophy or effusion on imaging, knee morning stiffness, elevated serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level) and/or central pain risk factors (eg, pain elsewhere, depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance) will be retrieved. The outcome will be change in pain from baseline. Change in function and patient global assessment will also be included as outcomes if available. Investigators of all eligible trials will be contacted for IPD. Multilevel regression models will be used to identify predictors for the specific (active-placebo) and the overall treatment effect (change from baseline in active group).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No identifiable data will be included in this study and no formal ethics approval is required as no new data collection will be processed. Results of this hypothesis-driven IPD meta-analysis will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020165098.

Using electronic health records to inform trial feasibility in a rare autoimmune blistering skin disease in England

Background

Trials of novel agents are required to improve the care of patients with rare diseases, but trial feasibility may be uncertain due to concerns over insufficient patient numbers. We aimed to determine the size of the pool of potential participants in England 2015–2017 for trials in the autoimmune blistering skin disease bullous pemphigoid.

Methods

The size of the pool of potential participants was estimated using routinely collected healthcare data from linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink; CPRD) and secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics; HES) databases. Thirteen consultant dermatologists were surveyed to determine the likelihood that a patient would be eligible for a trial based on the presence of cautions or contra-indications to prednisolone use. These criteria were applied to determine how they influenced the potential pool of participants.

Results

Extrapolated to the population of England, we would expect approximately 10,800 (point estimate 10,747; 95% CI 7191 to 17,239) new cases of bullous pemphigoid to be identified in a three-year period. For a future trial involving oral prednisolone (standard care), the application of cautions to its use as exclusion criteria would result in approximately 365 potential participants unlikely to be recruited, a further 5332 could be recruited with caution, and 5104 in whom recruitment is still possible. 11–17% of potential participants may have pre-existing dementia and require an alternative consent process.

Conclusions

Routinely collected electronic health records can be used to inform the feasibility of clinical trials in rare diseases, such as whether recruitment is feasible nationally and how long recruitment might take to meet recruitment targets. Future trials of bullous pemphigoid in England may use the data presented to inform trial design, including eligibility criteria and consent processes for enrolling people with dementia.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01212-1.

Predicting response to topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in osteoarthritis: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

To identify predictors of the specific (difference between treatment and placebo) and overall (change from baseline in treatment arm) treatment effects of topical NSAIDs in OA.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical NSAIDs in OA were identified through systematic literature searching and inquiry to pharmaceutical companies. The raw, de-identified data were analysed in one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA). Negative values for treatment effects (0–100 scale) indicate pain reduction.

Results

Of 63 eligible RCTs, 15 provided IPD (n = 1951 on topical NSAID), including 11 placebo-controlled RCTs (n = 1587 on topical NSAIDs, 1553 on placebo). Seven potential predictors of response were examined. Topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo [−6 (95% CI −9, −4)], with a small, but statistically significant greater effect in women than men [difference −4 (95% CI −8, −1)]. The overall treatment effect was 4-fold larger than the specific effect [−25 (95% CI −31, −19)] and increased with greater baseline pain severity (P < 0.001). No differences in efficacy were observed for age, BMI, features of inflammation, duration of complaints or radiographic OA severity.

Conclusion

Topical NSAIDs are effective for OA pain relief. Greater overall pain relief in individuals with more baseline pain might be due to contextual and non-specific effects, including regression to the mean. Additional factors that have been linked either mechanistically or through empirical evidence to outcomes should be selected for inclusion across future RCTs in order to facilitate the identification of response predictors through IPD-MA.

Individual responses to topical ibuprofen gel or capsaicin cream for painful knee osteoarthritis: a series of n-of-1 trials

Objectives

To determine individual responses to ibuprofen gel or capsaicin cream for painful, radiographic knee OA using a series of n-of-1 trials.

Methods

Twenty-two participants were allocated 5% ibuprofen gel (A) and 0.025% capsaicin cream (B) in random sequence (AB or BA). Patients underwent up to 3 treatment cycles, each comprising one treatment for 4 weeks, an individualized washout period (maximum 4 weeks), then the other treatment for 4 weeks. Differential (ibuprofen or capsaicin) response was defined when change-from-baseline pain intensity scores (0–10 NRS) differed by ≥1 between treatments in ≥2 cycles within a participant.

Results

A total of 104 treatment periods were aggregated. Mean pain reduction was 1.2 (95% CI: 0.5, 1.8) on ibuprofen and 1.6 (95% CI: 0.9, 2.4) on capsaicin (P = 0.221). Of 22 participants, 4 (18%) had a greater response to ibuprofen, 9 (41%) to capsaicin, 4 (18%) had similar responses, and 5 (23%) were undetermined.

Conclusion

Irrespective of equal efficacy overall, 59% of people displayed a greater response to one treatment over the other. Patients who do not benefit from one type of topical treatment should be offered to try another, which may be more effective. N-of-1 trials are useful to identify individual response to treatment.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03146689

Validation study of bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris recording in routinely collected electronic primary healthcare records in England

OBJECTIVES

The validity of bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris recording in routinely collected healthcare data in the UK is unknown. We assessed the positive predictive value (PPV) for bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris primary care Read codes in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) using linked inpatient data (Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)) as the diagnostic benchmark.

SETTING

Adult participants with bullous pemphigoid or pemphigus vulgaris registered with HES-linked general practices in England between January 1998 and December 2017. Code-based algorithms were used to identify patients from the CPRD and extract their benchmark blistering disease diagnosis from HES.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The PPVs of Read codes for bullous pemphigoid and pemphigus vulgaris.

RESULTS

Of 2468 incident cases of bullous pemphigoid and 431 of pemphigus vulgaris, 797 (32.3%) and 85 (19.7%) patients, respectively, had a hospitalisation record for a blistering disease. The PPV for bullous pemphigoid Read codes was 93.2% (95% CI 91.3% to 94.8%). Of the bullous pemphigoid cases, 3.0% had an HES diagnosis of pemphigus vulgaris and 3.8% of another blistering disease. The PPV for pemphigus vulgaris Read codes was 58.5% (95% CI 48.0% to 68.9%). Of the pemphigus vulgaris cases, 24.7% had an HES diagnosis of bullous pemphigoid and 16.5% of another blistering disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The CPRD can be used to study bullous pemphigoid, but recording of pemphigus vulgaris needs to improve in primary care.

Initial analgesic prescriptions for osteoarthritis in the United Kingdom, 2000–2016

Objectives

To examine trends in the initial prescription of commonly-prescribed analgesics and patient- as well as practice-level factors related to their selection in incident OA.

Methods

Patients consulting with incident clinical OA between 2000–2016 were identified within The Health Improvement Network in the United Kingdom (UK) general practice. Excluded were patients who had history of cancer or were prescribed the analgesics of interest within 6 months before diagnosis of OA. Initial analgesic prescription included oral non-selective NSAID, oral selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, topical NSAID, paracetamol, topical salicylate or oral/transdermal opioid within 1 month after OA diagnosis.

Results

∼44% of patients with incident OA (n = 125 696) were prescribed one of these analgesics. Incidence of oral NSAID prescriptions decreased whereas other analgesic prescriptions, including oral opioid prescriptions, increased (all P-for-trend &lt; 0.001). Patients with a history of gastrointestinal disease were more likely to receive topical NSAIDs, paracetamol or oral/transdermal opioids. Only 38% of patients with history of gastrointestinal disease and 21% of patients without it had co-prescription of gastroprotective agent with oral NSAIDs. Oral/transdermal opioid prescription was higher among the elderly (≥65 years), women, obesity, current smoker, and patients with gastrointestinal, cardiovascular or chronic kidney disease. Prescription of oral opioids increased with social deprivation (P-for-trend &lt; 0.05) and was highest in Scotland, whereas transdermal opioid prescription was highest in Northern Ireland (all P-for-homogeneity-test &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

The initial prescription pattern of analgesics for OA has changed over time in the UK. Co-prescription of gastroprotective agents with oral NSAIDs remains suboptimal, even among those with prior gastrointestinal disease.

Incidence, prevalence and mortality of bullous pemphigoid in England 1998-2017: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

A rising incidence and high mortality were found for bullous pemphigoid (BP) over a decade ago in the UK. Updated estimates of its epidemiology are required to understand the healthcare needs of an ageing population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the incidence, prevalence and mortality rates of BP in England from 1998 to 2017.

METHODS

We conducted a cohort study of longitudinal electronic health records using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics. Incidence was calculated per 100 000 person-years and annual point prevalence per 100 000 people. Multivariate analysis was used to determine incidence rate ratios by sociodemographic factors. Mortality was examined in an age-, sex- and practice-matched cohort, using linked Office of National Statistics death records. Hazard ratios (HRs) were stratified by matched set.

RESULTS

The incidence was 7·63 [95% confidence interval (CI) 7·35-7·93] per 100 000 person-years and rose with increasing age, particularly for elderly men. The annual increase in incidence was 0·9% (95% CI 0·2-1·7). The prevalence almost doubled over the observation period, reaching 47·99 (95% CI 43·09-53·46) per 100 000 people and 141·24 (95% CI 125·55-158·87) per 100 000 people over the age of 60 years. The risk of all-cause mortality was highest in the 2 years after diagnosis (HR 2·96; 95% CI 2·68-3·26) and remained raised thereafter (HR 1·54; 95% CI 1·36-1·74).

CONCLUSIONS

We report a modest increase in the incidence rate of BP, but show that the burden of disease in the elderly population is considerable. Mortality is high, particularly in the first 2 years after diagnosis.

Efficacy and potential determinants of exercise therapy in knee and hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Exercise is an effective treatment for osteoarthritis. However, the effect may vary from one patient (or study) to another.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of exercise and its potential determinants for pain, function, performance, and quality of life (QoL) in knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

We searched 9 electronic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE Ovid, PEDro, PubMed, SPORTDiscus and Google Scholar) for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise-only interventions with usual care. The search was performed from inception up to December 2017 with no language restriction. The effect size (ES), with its 95% confidence interval (CI), was calculated on the basis of between-group standardised mean differences. The primary endpoint was at or nearest to 8 weeks. Other outcome time points were grouped into intervals, from<1 month to≥18 months, for time-dependent effects analysis. Potential determinants were explored by subgroup analyses. Level of significance was set at P≤0.10.

RESULTS

Data from 77 RCTs (6472 participants) confirmed statistically significant exercise benefits for pain (ES 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.68), function (0.50, 0.38-0.63), performance (0.46, 0.35-0.57), and QoL (0.21, 0.11-0.31) at or nearest to 8 weeks. Across all outcomes, the effects appeared to peak around 2 months and then gradually decreased and became no better than usual care after 9 months. Better pain relief was reported by trials investigating participants who were younger (mean age<60 years), had knee OA, and were not awaiting joint replacement surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise significantly reduces pain and improves function, performance and QoL in people with knee and hip OA as compared with usual care at 8 weeks. The effects are maximal around 2 months and thereafter slowly diminish, being no better than usual care at 9 to 18 months. Participants with younger age, knee OA and not awaiting joint replacement may benefit more from exercise therapy. These potential determinants, identified by study-level analyses, may have implied ecological bias and need to be confirmed with individual patient data.

The relative efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and capsaicin in osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with topical capsaicin for pain relief in osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining any topical NSAID or capsaicin in OA. Pain relief at or nearest to 4 weeks was pooled using a random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) in a Frequentist and Bayesian setting. Analysis was conducted for all trials and for trials using drugs listed as licensed for OA in the British National Formulary (BNF).

RESULTS

The trial network comprised 28 RCTs (7372 participants), of which 17 RCTs (3174 participants) were included in the as licensed analyses. No RCTs directly compared topical NSAIDs with capsaicin. Placebo was the only common comparator for topical NSAIDs and capsaicin. Frequentist and Bayesian effect size (ES) estimates were in agreement. Topical NSAIDs were statistically superior to placebo overall (ES 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19 to 0.41) and as licensed (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.39). However, capsaicin was only statistically superior to placebo when used at licensed doses (ES 0.41, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.64). No significant differences were observed in pain relief between topical NSAIDs and capsaicin (overall: ES 0.04, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.33; as licensed: ES-0.09, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence indicates that topical NSAIDs and capsaicin in licensed doses may be equally effective for pain relief in OA. Whether the equivalence varies between individuals remains unknown.

Conventional and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

The role of inflammation in OA is controversial and it is unclear whether suppressing inflammation with conventional or biologic DMARDs is effective. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare DMARDs with placebo in participants with symptomatic OA.

Methods

Databases (Medline, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), conference abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to end of November 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of DMARDs, including biologics, in symptomatic OA. Pain data at treatment peak time point were extracted and combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. Markers of inflammation and adverse events were extracted and reviewed. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using Cochrane's tool.

Results

Eleven RCTs (1205 participants) were meta-analysed, including six for conventional DMARDs (757 participants) and five for biologics (448 participants). Overall, DMARDs were statistically superior to placebo [effect size (ES) = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.34], although the difference was not clinically significant (0.5 ES threshold). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in sub-analysis of high-quality trials (ES = 0.11, 95% CI : -0.06, 0.28), biologics (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.34) or conventional DMARDs (ES = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.05, 0.54). No difference was found between erosive vs non-erosive hand OA, hand vs knee OA or anti-IL1 vs anti-TNF biologics.

Conclusion

DMARDs did not offer clinically significant pain relief above placebo in OA. This poor efficacy indicates that inflammation may not be a prime driver for OA pain.

Relative efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies

Objectives

To compare the efficacy and safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including salicylate, for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science were searched from 1966 to January 2017. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical NSAIDs with placebo or each other in patients with OA and observational studies comparing topical NSAIDs with no treatment or each other irrespective of disease were included. Two investigators identified studies and independently extracted data. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. The primary outcomes were pain relief for RCTs and risk of adverse effects (AEs) for observational studies.

Results

43 studies, comprising 36 RCTs (7 900 patients with OA) and seven observational studies (218 074 participants), were included. Overall, topical NSAIDs were superior to placebo for relieving pain (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.30, 95% CI −0.40 to –0.20) and improving function (SMD=−0.35, 95% CI −0.45 to –0.24) in OA. Of all topical NSAIDs, diclofenac patches were most effective for OA pain (SMD=−0.81, 95% CI −1.12 to –0.52) and piroxicam was most effective for functional improvement (SMD=−1.04, 95% CI −1.60 to –0.48) compared with placebo. Although salicylate gel was associated with higher withdrawal rates due to AEs, the remaining topical NSAIDs were not associated with any increased local or systemic AEs.

Conclusions

Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe for OA. Diclofenac patches may be the most effective topical NSAID for pain relief. No serious gastrointestinal and renal AEs were observed in trials or the general population. However, confirmation of the cardiovascular safety of topical NSAIDs still warrants further observational study.

Identifying placebo responders and predictors of response in osteoarthritis: a protocol for individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of osteoarthritis (OA) is unsatisfactory, as most treatments are not clinically effective over placebo and most drugs have considerable side effects. On average, 75 % of the analgesic effect from OA treatments in clinical trials can be attributed to a placebo response, and this response varies greatly from patient to patient. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aims to identify placebo responders and the potential determinants of the placebo response in OA.

METHODS

This study is undertaken in conjunction with the OA Trial Bank, an ongoing international consortium aiming to collect IPD from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for all treatments of OA. RCTs for each treatment of OA have been systematically searched for, and authors of the relevant trials have been contacted to request the IPD. We will use the IPD of placebo-controlled RCTs held by the OA Trial Bank for this project. The IPD in placebo groups will be used to investigate the placebo response according to the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (e.g. 20 % pain reduction). Responders to placebo will be compared with non-responders to identify predictors of response. The quality of the trials will be assessed and potential determinants will be examined using multilevel logistic regression analyses.

DISCUSSION

This study explores the varying magnitude of the placebo response and the proportion of participants that experience a clinically important placebo effect in OA RCTs. Potential determinants of the placebo response will also be investigated. These determinants may be useful for future studies as it may allow participants to be stratified into groups based on their likely response to placebo. The results of this study may also be useful for pharmaceutical companies, who could improve the design of their studies in order to separate the specific treatment from the non-specific contextual (i.e. placebo) effects.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016033212.

Relative efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and topical capsaicin in osteoarthritis: protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain is the most troubling issue to patients with osteoarthritis (OA), yet current pharmacological treatments offer only small-to-moderate pain reduction. Current guidelines therefore emphasise the need to identify predictors of treatment response. In line with these recommendations, an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis will be conducted. The study aims to investigate the relative treatment effects of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and topical capsaicin in OA and to identify patient-level predictors of treatment response.

METHODS

IPD will be collected from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical NSAIDs and capsaicin in OA. Multilevel regression modelling will be conducted to determine predictors for the specific and the overall treatment effect.

DISCUSSION

Through the identification of treatment responders, this IPD meta-analysis may improve the current understanding of the pain mechanisms in OA and guide clinical decision-making. Identifying and prescribing the treatment most likely to be beneficial for an individual with OA will improve the efficiency of patient management.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42016035254.

Relative efficacy of different types of exercise for treatment of knee and hip osteoarthritis: protocol for network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

'Exercise' is universally recommended as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). However, there are very few head-to-head comparative trials to determine the relative efficacy between different types of exercise. The aim of this study is to benchmark different types of exercises against each other through the use of a common comparator in a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

This study will include only RCTs published in peer-reviewed journals. A systematic search will be conducted in several electronic databases and other relevant online resources. No limitations are imposed on language or publication date. Participants must be explicitly identified by authors as having OA. Interventions that involved exercise or comparators in any form will be included. Pain is the primary outcome of interest; secondary outcomes will include function and quality of life measures. Quality assessment of studies will be based on the modified Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. At least two investigators will be involved throughout all stages of screening and data acquisition. Conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Conventional meta-analysis will be performed based on random effects model and network meta-analysis on a Bayesian model. Subgroup analysis will also be conducted based on study, patient and disease characteristics.

DISCUSSION

This study will provide for the first time comprehensive research evidence for the relative efficacy of different exercise regimens for treatment of OA. We will use network meta-analysis of existing RCT data to answer this question.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016033865.