9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a Canadian evidence-based perspective

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic condition characterized by a loss of joint cartilage and is a major cause of disability in Canada, with an estimated CN$195 billion annual cost. Knee OA leads to persistent pain and loss of function, and treatment goals primarily focus on symptom relief and retention of function. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) has therapeutic benefits, and numerous recently published meta-analyses (MAs) and commentaries have highlighted new evidence on the role of IAHA therapy for knee OA. A diverse, multidisciplinary group of specialists met independently in closed sessions to review findings from eight MAs with literature search end dates no earlier than 2012 to address controversies surrounding IAHA therapy for mild-to-moderate knee OA within the Canadian treatment context. Outcomes from a total of eight MAs were reviewed, and consistent and statistically significant improvements in pain, function and stiffness up to 26 weeks were found with IAHA therapy compared with IA placebo or controls, regardless of MA size or trial quality. These findings are in line with those of a Cochrane review, another recent systematic review and patient satisfaction survey. Overall, three MAs reported outcomes based on molecular weight (MW), with the two reporting effect sizes showing significantly improved pain outcomes for higher compared with lower MW HAs. Recent evidence suggests that HA therapy is well tolerated with no increased risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo and the full therapeutic effect of IAHA therapy appears to have considerable clinical importance, consisting of the combined IA placebo and HA therapeutic effects. IAHA therapy is a well-tolerated and effective option for patients with mild-to-moderate knee OA failing first-line pharmacological therapy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Lifetime risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

          To estimate the lifetime risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA), overall and stratified by sex, race, education, history of knee injury, and body mass index (BMI). The lifetime risk of symptomatic OA in at least 1 knee was estimated from logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations among 3,068 participants of the Johnston County Osteoarthritis Project, a longitudinal study of black and white women and men age >or=45 years living in rural North Carolina. Radiographic, sociodemographic, and symptomatic knee data measured at baseline (1990-1997) and first followup (1999-2003) were analyzed. The lifetime risk of symptomatic knee OA was 44.7% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 40.0-49.3%). Cohort members with history of a knee injury had a lifetime risk of 56.8% (95% CI 48.4-65.2%). Lifetime risk rose with increasing BMI, with a risk of 2 in 3 among those who were obese. Nearly half of the adults in Johnston County will develop symptomatic knee OA by age 85 years, with lifetime risk highest among obese persons. These current high risks in Johnston County may suggest similar risks in the general US population, especially given the increase in 2 major risk factors for knee OA, aging, and obesity. This underscores the immediate need for greater use of clinical and public health interventions, especially those that address weight loss and self-management, to reduce the impact of having knee OA.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

            Objective To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data. Study selection All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data. Data synthesis 31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death. Conclusions Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              External Validation of a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)

              Background Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. Methodology AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently. Conclusions The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were −0.19±1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 ‘AMSTAR points’. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease
                Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal
                SAGE Publications
                1759-720X
                1759-7218
                August 2017
                September 12 2017
                : 9
                : 9
                : 231-246
                Article
                10.1177/1759720X17729641
                5600311
                28932293
                64f8085e-7e8c-4fe8-9bf1-d2d7a18858de
                © 2017

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article