Mesenchymal stem cells for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for chronic knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central to September 2023 for trials that (1) enrolled patients with chronic pain associated with knee OA, and (2) randomized them to MSC therapy vs. placebo or usual care. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to assess the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 16 trials (807 participants). At 3-6 months, MSC therapy probably results in little to no difference in pain relief (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.74 cm on a 10 cm visual analog scale [VAS], 95% confidence interval [95%CI] -1.16 to -0.33; minimally important difference [MID] 1.5 cm) or physical functioning (WMD 2.23 points on 100-point 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical functioning subscale, 95%CI -0.97 to 5.43; MID 10-points; both moderate certainty). At 12 months, injection of MSCs probably results in little to no difference in pain (WMD -0.73 cm on a 10 cm VAS, 95%CI -1.69 to 0.24; moderate certainty) and may improve physical functioning (WMD 19.36 points on 100-point SF-36 PF subscale, 95%CI -0.19 to 38.9; low certainty). MSC therapy may increase risk of any adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 2.67, 95%CI 1.19 to 5.99; low certainty) and pain and swelling of the knee joint (RR 1.58, 95%CI 1.04 to 2.38; low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-articular injection of MSCs for chronic knee pain associated with OA probably provides little to no improvement in pain or physical function.

Therapist-guided remote versus in-person cognitive behavioural therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective for several psychiatric and somatic conditions; however, most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have administered treatment in person and whether remote delivery is similarly effective remains uncertain. We sought to compare the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote CBT and in-person CBT. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to July 4, 2023, for RCTs that enrolled adults (aged ≥ 18 yr) presenting with any clinical condition and that randomized participants to either therapist-guided remote CBT (e.g., teleconference, videoconference) or in-person CBT. Paired reviewers assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently and in duplicate. We performed random-effects model meta-analyses to pool patient-important primary outcomes across eligible RCTs as standardized mean differences (SMDs). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance to assess the certainty of evidence and used the Instrument to Assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to rate the credibility of subgroup effects. RESULTS: We included 54 RCTs that enrolled a total of 5463 patients. Seventeen studies focused on treatment of anxiety and related disorders, 14 on depressive symptoms, 7 on insomnia, 6 on chronic pain or fatigue syndromes, 5 on body image or eating disorders, 3 on tinnitus, 1 on alcohol use disorder, and 1 on mood and anxiety disorders. Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of therapist-guided remote and in-person CBT on primary outcomes (SMD -0.02, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.07). INTERPRETATION: Moderate-certainty evidence showed little to no difference in the effectiveness of in-person and therapist-guided remote CBT across a range of mental health and somatic disorders, suggesting potential for the use of therapist-guided remote CBT to facilitate greater access to evidence-based care. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/7asrc).

The buffering effect of family functioning on the psychological consequences of headache.

The current study aimed to examine whether high family functioning mitigates the association between headache intensity and distress. The sample consisted of 124 patients with chronic or recurrent headache. Patients completed validated questionnaires about headache intensity, family functioning, and distress. Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to examine the interaction between headache intensity and family functioning on distress. Headache intensity was positively associated with distress (r = .28, p = .002). As hypothesized, family functioning moderated this association (B = -.01, p = .023). More specifically, the positive association between headache intensity and distress was significant only among patients with lower family functioning (B = .01, p < .001) and not among patients with higher levels of family functioning (B = .006, p = .075). Functional families appear to buffer the distress level in patients; they showed relatively low levels of distress regardless of the severity of their headache. In contrast, patients with dysfunctional families who experienced more pain reported more distress, presumably because they did not receive adequate help and support from these families. This study underlines the importance of a broader perspective on family dynamics in coping with pain.