The mechanism of action for hyaluronic acid treatment in the osteoarthritic knee: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of disability within the adult population. Current treatment options for OA of the knee include intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA), a molecule found intrinsically within the knee joint that provides viscoelastic properties to the synovial fluid. A variety of mechanisms in which HA is thought to combat knee OA are reported in the current basic literature. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify currently available primary non-clinical basic science articles focussing on the mechanism of action of IA-HA treatment. Included articles were assessed and categorized based on the mechanism of action described within them. The key findings and conclusions from each included article were obtained and analyzed in aggregate with studies of the same categorical assignment. RESULTS: Chondroprotection was the most frequent mechanism reported within the included articles, followed by proteoglycan and glycosaminoglycan synthesis, anti-inflammatory, mechanical, subchondral, and analgesic actions. HA-cluster of differentiation 44 (CD44) receptor binding was the most frequently reported biological cause of the mechanisms presented. High molecular weight HA was seen to be superior to lower molecular weight HA products. HA derived through a biological fermentation process is also described as having favorable safety outcomes over avian-derived HA products. CONCLUSIONS: The non-clinical basic science literature provides evidence for numerous mechanisms in which HA acts on joint structures and function. These actions provide support for the purported clinical benefit of IA-HA in OA of the knee. Future research should not only focus on the pain relief provided by IA-HA treatment, but the disease modification properties that this treatment modality possesses as well.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Knee imaging in clinical trials in osteoarthritis.

Significant advances have occurred in our understanding of the pathogenesis of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and some recent trials have demonstrated the potential for modification of the disease course. The purpose of this expert opinion, consensus driven exercise is to provide detail on how one might use and apply knee imaging in knee OA trials. It includes information on acquisition methods/techniques (including guidance on positioning for radiography, sequence/protocol recommendations/hardware for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)); commonly encountered problems (including positioning, hardware and coil failures, sequences artifacts); quality assurance (QA)/control procedures; measurement methods; measurement performance (reliability, responsiveness, validity); recommendations for trials; and research recommendations.

Efficacy and safety of ginger in osteoarthritis patients: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of oral ginger for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) by carrying out a systematic literature search followed by meta-analyses on selected studies. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral ginger treatment with placebo in OA patients aged >18 years. Outcomes were reduction in pain and reduction in disability. Harm was assessed as withdrawals due to adverse events. The efficacy effect size was estimated using Hedges' standardized mean difference (SMD), and safety by risk ratio (RR). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)). Out of 122 retrieved references, 117 were discarded, leaving five trials (593 patients) for meta-analyses. The majority reported relevant randomization procedures and blinding, but an inadequate intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Following ginger intake, a statistically significant pain reduction SMD = -0.30 ([95% CI: [(-0.50, -0.09)], P = 0.005]) with a low degree of inconsistency among trials (I(2) = 27%), and a statistically significant reduction in disability SMD = -0.22 ([95% CI: ([-0.39, -0.04)]; P = 0.01; I(2) = 0%]) were seen, both in favor of ginger. Patients given ginger were more than twice as likely to discontinue treatment compared to placebo ([RR = 2.33; 95% CI: (1.04, 5.22)]; P = 0.04; I(2) = 0%]). Ginger was modestly efficacious and reasonably safe for treatment of OA. We judged the evidence to be of moderate quality, based on the small number of participants and inadequate ITT populations. Prospero: CRD42011001777.

Safety and efficacy of retreatment with a bioengineered hyaluronate for painful osteoarthritis of the knee: results of the open-label Extension Study of the FLEXX Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety of repeated intra-articular (IA) injections of Euflexxa® (1% sodium hyaluronate; IA--BioHA) for painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Participants who completed the randomized, double-blind, 26-week FLEXX Trial comparing IA-BioHA to IA saline (IA-SA) for knee OA(1) received three weekly IA-BioHA injections in a 26-week Extension Study. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded and the effect of treatment on knee pain was measured immediately following a 50-foot walk test using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Responder rate, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 scores, Patient's Global Assessment, and intake of rescue medication were also evaluated. RESULTS: The Extension Study included 433 subjects, 219 who received IA-BioHA and 214 who received IA-SA during the FLEXX Trial. Safety results from the Extension Study indicated that 43.4% (188/433) of subjects had AEs, of which 4.8% (21/433) were deemed treatment-related AEs. Two AEs in the Extension Study led to discontinuation, and no joint effusion was reported. Patients who continued with IA-BioHA in the Extension Study maintained their improvement from baseline, with an average reduction in pain in the VAS score of -3.5 mm. Patients initially treated with IA-SA in the FLEXX Trial also had a reduction in VAS score of -9.0 mm. Secondary efficacy variables also improved during the Extension Study. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat injections of IA-BioHA were effective, safe, well tolerated, and not associated with an increase in AEs, such as synovial effusions. Additional symptom improvements were noted for subjects who received either IA-BioHA or IA-SA in the FLEXX Trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00379236.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: part III: Changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009.

OBJECTIVE: To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence. RESULTS: Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36] in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo. CONCLUSION: Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.

Symptomatic efficacy and safety of diacerein in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy and safety of diacerein as a pain-reducing agent in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), using meta-analysis of published randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Systematic searches of the bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Chemical Abstracts, Cochrane and Web of Science for RCTs concerning diacerein treatment of OA. INCLUSION CRITERIA: explicit statement about randomization to either diacerein or placebo, and co-primary outcomes being reduction in pain and improvement in function. Efficacy effect size (ES) was estimated using Hedges's standardized mean difference. Safety was measured via the risk ratio (RR) of patients having at least one episode of diarrhoea, or withdrawal due to adverse events. Trials were combined by using random-effects meta-analysis. Consistency was evaluated via the I-squared index. RESULTS: Six trials (seven sub-studies; 1533 patients) contributed to the meta-analysis, revealing a large degree of inconsistency among the trials (I(2)=56%) in regard to pain reduction: the combined ES was -0.24 [95% confidence intervals (CI): -0.39 to -0.08, P=0.003], favouring diacerein. The statistically significant improvement in function (P=0.01) was based on a small amount of heterogeneity (I(2)=11%), but presented a questionable clinical effect size (ES=-0.14). Risk of publication bias could not be excluded, and trials with duration of more than 6 months did not favour diacerein. There was an increased risk of diarrhoea with diacerein (RR=3.51 [2.55-4.83], P<0.0001), and some withdrawal from therapy following adverse events (RR=1.58 [1.05-2.36], P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Diacerein may be an alternative therapy for OA for patients who cannot take paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) because of adverse effects or lack of benefit. However, it is associated with increased risk of diarrhoea, and the symptomatic benefit after 6 months remains unknown.

A 4-week randomized study of acetaminophen extended-release vs rofecoxib in knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of acetaminophen extended-release (APAP ER) with rofecoxib for the management of pain associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Four hundred and three adult patients with moderate pain secondary to knee OA were randomized to receive APAP ER 1300 mg three times daily, rofecoxib 12.5mg once daily, or rofecoxib 25mg once daily. Primary end point was change from baseline at week 4 in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale score using a visual analog scale. This 4-week study was conducted at 23 US research sites from October 1999 to October 2000. RESULTS: APAP ER was noninferior to rofecoxib 12.5mg because the upper 95% confidence limit (CL) for the least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline (35.27 mm at week 4) did not exceed the prespecified noninferiority limit of 50mm. The upper CL (57.39 mm) exceeded the noninferiority limit for APAP ER compared with rofecoxib 25mg at week 4. There were no significant differences among groups in the overall incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: APAP ER 3900 mg daily was noninferior to rofecoxib 12.5mg daily, but noninferiority was not established to rofecoxib 25mg daily. APAP ER was well tolerated and no safety issues were identified. Based on the results of this study, APAP ER 3900 mg daily is an alternative to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as rofecoxib, in treating pain associated with knee OA.

Rheumatic manifestations in HIV-1 infected in-patients and literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To report the rate and spectrum of the rheumatic manifestations of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) since the advent of highly active anti-retroviral therapy (HAART). METHODS: A retrospective record review of 888 inpatients with HIV for rheumatic manifestations was performed from January 1995 to March 2006. We then searched the 888 records for rheumatic diseases using International Classification Diagnostic (ICD) Codes. The medical records of the cases of HIV with the rheumatic conditions were then reviewed. A computer-assisted search of Medline/Pubmed for the medical literature from January 1981 to August 2007 using the keywords HIV, acquired immune-deficiency syndrome, rheumatic manifestations, combining with text words like systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Only English language literature was included. RESULTS: The demographic data of 888 cases of HIV included men (64%) and women (36%) with a mean age of 41.5+/-10.2 years. Race consisted of Black (70%), White (22.8%), Hispanic (6.5%), and others (1.1%). Rheumatic manifestations were present in 80 (9%) with arthritis/arthralgia 49 (5.5%), septic arthritis 9 (1%), and osteomyelitis 8 (0.9%), connective tissue diseases (CTDs) 6 (0.7%) (SLE 3, rheumatoid arthritis 1, polymyositis 1, and systemic sclerosis 1), avascular necrosis 6 (0.7%) (hips 3, knees 2, and shoulder 1). There were no cases of seronegative spondyloarthritis or Sjögren's syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: There was an association of HIV with rheumatic conditions in 9%, including CTDs and avascular necrosis. In addition, there were no cases of the seronegative spondyloarthritis subsets. This change in spectrum from prior reports suggests the rheumatic manifestations of HIV have changed, perhaps related to HAART.

Does the hip powder of Rosa canina (rosehip) reduce pain in osteoarthritis patients?--a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)--of a hip powder of Rosa canina (rosehip) preparation for symptomatic treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), in order to estimate the empirical efficacy as a pain reducing compound. METHOD: RCTs from systematic searches were included if they explicitly stated that OA patients were randomized to either rosehip or placebo. The primary outcome was reduction in pain calculated as effect size (ES), defined as the standardized mean difference (SMD). As secondary analysis the number of responders to therapy was analyzed as Odds Ratios (OR), and expressed as the Number Needed to Treat (NNT). Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) methods were applied for the meta-analyses using mixed effects models. RESULTS: The three studies (287 patients and a median trial-duration of 3 months)--all supported by the manufacturer (Hyben-Vital International)--showed a reduction in pain scores by rosehip powder (145 patients) compared to placebo (142 patients): ES of 0.37 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.13-0.60], P=0.002. Test for homogeneity seemed to support that the efficacy was consistent across trials (I(2)=0%). Thus it seems reasonable to assume that the three studies were measuring the same overall effect. It seemed twice as likely that a patient allocated to rosehip powder would respond to therapy, compared to placebo (OR=2.19; P=0.0009); corresponding to a NNT of six (95% CI: 4-13) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although based on a sparse amount of data, the results of the present meta-analysis indicate that rosehip powder does reduce pain; accordingly it may be of interest as a nutraceutical, although its efficacy and safety need evaluation and independent replication in a future large-scale/long-term trial.

Should subchondral bone turnover be targeted when treating osteoarthritis?

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritic disease, and it is a major cause of disability and impaired quality of life in the elderly. OA is a complex disease of the entire joint, including bone and cartilage, thereby presenting alternative approaches for treatment. This review summarizes emerging observations from cell biology to preliminary clinical trials, describing interactions between the bone and cartilage components. We speculate whether a treatment for OA would be possible without targeting the bone compartment? METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles found using pre-defined search criteria and published in the PubMed database until June 2007 are summarized. In addition, abstracts from the OsteoArthritis Research Society International (OARSI) conferences in the time period 2000-2007 were included. RESULTS: Bone and cartilage health seem to be tightly associated. Ample evidence is found for bone changes during progression of OA, including, but not limited to, increased turnover in the subchondral bone, thinning of the trabecular structure, osteophytes, bone marrow lesions and sclerosis of the subchondral plate. In addition, a range of investigations has described secondary positive effects on cartilage health when bone resorption was suppressed, or deterioration of the cartilage when resorption is increased. CONCLUSION: An optimal treatment for OA might include targeting both the bone and cartilage compartments. Hence, as several cell systems are to be targeted in a safe manner, limited options seem possible.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines.

PURPOSE: To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world. METHODS: Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided. CONCLUSION: Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, part I: critical appraisal of existing treatment guidelines and systematic review of current research evidence.

PURPOSE: As a prelude to developing updated, evidence-based, international consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) Treatment Guidelines Committee undertook a critical appraisal of published guidelines and a systematic review (SR) of more recent evidence for relevant therapies. METHODS: Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care two, rheumatology 11, orthopaedics one and evidence-based medicine two), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. Three additional experts were invited to take part in the critical appraisal of existing guidelines in languages other than English. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, AMED, Cochrane Library, seven Guidelines Websites and Google were searched systematically to identify guidelines for the management of hip and/or knee OA. Guidelines which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were assigned to four groups of four appraisers. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) instrument and standardised percent scores (0-100%) for scope, stakeholder involvement, rigour, clarity, applicability and editorial independence, as well as overall quality, were calculated. Treatment modalities addressed and recommended by the guidelines were summarised. Agreement (%) was estimated and the best level of evidence to support each recommendation was extracted. Evidence for each treatment modality was updated from the date of the last SR in January 2002 to January 2006. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Oxman and Guyatt, and Jadad scales for SRs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), respectively. Where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk (RR) or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life year gained (QALY) were estimated. RESULTS: Twenty-three of 1462 guidelines or consensus statements retrieved from the literature search met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six were predominantly based on expert opinion, five were primarily evidence based and 12 were based on both. Overall quality scores were 28%, 41% and 51% for opinion-based, evidence-based and hybrid guidelines, respectively (P=0.001). Scores for aspects of quality varied from 18% for applicability to 67% for scope. Thirteen guidelines had been developed for specific care settings including five for primary care (e.g., Prodigy Guidance), three for rheumatology (e.g., European League against Rheumatism recommendations), three for physiotherapy (e.g., Dutch clinical practice guidelines for physical therapy) and two for orthopaedics (e.g., National Institutes of Health consensus guidelines), whereas 10 did not specify the target users (e.g., Ontario guidelines for optimal therapy). Whilst 14 guidelines did not separate hip and knee, eight were specific for knee but only one for hip. Fifty-one different treatment modalities were addressed by these guidelines, but only 20 were universally recommended. Evidence to support these modalities ranged from Ia (meta-analysis/SR of RCTs) to IV (expert opinion). The efficacy of some modalities of therapy was confirmed by the results of RCTs published between January 2002 and 2006. These included exercise (strengthening ES 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23, 0.42, aerobic ES 0.52, 95% CI 0.34, 0.70 and water-based ES 0.25, 95% CI 0.02, 0.47) and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (ES 0.32, 95% CI 0.24, 0.39). Examples of other treatment modalities where recent trials failed to confirm efficacy included ultrasound (ES 0.06, 95% CI -0.39, 0.52), massage (ES 0.10, 95% CI -0.23, 0.43) and heat/ice therapy (ES 0.69, 95% CI -0.07, 1.45). The updated evidence on adverse effects also varied from treatment to treatment. For example, while the evidence for gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity of non-selective NSAIDs (RR=5.36, 95% CI 1.79, 16.10) and for increased risk of myocardial infarction associated with rofecoxib (RR=2.24, 95% CI 1.24, 4.02) were reinforced, evidence for other potential drug related adverse events such as GI toxicity with acetaminophen or myocardial infarction with celecoxib remained inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Twenty-three guidelines have been developed for the treatment of hip and/or knee OA, based on opinion alone, research evidence or both. Twenty of 51 modalities of therapy are universally recommended by these guidelines. Although this suggests that a core set of recommendations for treatment exists, critical appraisal shows that the overall quality of existing guidelines is sub-optimal, and consensus recommendations are not always supported by the best available evidence. Guidelines of optimal quality are most likely to be achieved by combining research evidence with expert consensus and by paying due attention to issues such as editorial independence, stakeholder involvement and applicability. This review of existing guidelines provides support for the development of new guidelines cognisant of the limitations in existing guidelines. Recommendations should be revised regularly following SR of new research evidence as this becomes available.

Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised.

OBJECTIVE: Develop a radiographic atlas of osteoarthritis (OA) to be used as a template and guide for grading radiographs of osteoarthritic lesions of the hand, hip and knee. METHOD: The 1995 atlas was reviewed for the images most useful for clinical trials. Replacement images were selected from the Stanford University Radiology Department Picture Archive and Communications System by reviewing consecutive radiographs obtained from patients. Selected images were downloaded without patient identification information. Images were organized by hand, hip and knee. They were reviewed for findings of OA and images grouped into image files by individual findings and degree of change. Both investigators individually selected the most promising images. Final images were selected by consensus. Original electronic images were then cropped and placed in sequence. RESULTS: Individual radiographic features (e.g., osteophytes, joint space narrowing) were recorded for hand (distal interphalangeal joint, proximal interphalangeal joint, trapeziometacarpal joint), hip (acetabular, femoral) and knee (medial compartment, lateral compartment, tibial, femoral); they were also sequenced for normal, 1+, 2+, and 3+ change. Images were made available in print and electronic formats. CONCLUSION: An updated atlas of radiographic images was produced to assist in grading individual radiographic features of the hand, hip and knee for clinicians and for use in clinical trials.

Three-month efficacy and safety of acetaminophen extended-release for osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the efficacy and safety of two doses of long-acting acetaminophen in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of acetaminophen extended-release (ER) 650 mg and 1300 mg given three times daily for the treatment of moderate to moderately severe OA of the hip or knee. Primary efficacy end points were mean change from baseline through 12 weeks in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscale scores and mean patient global assessment of response to therapy at week 12. Safety assessments included monitoring vital signs, adverse events, study joint assessments, and clinical laboratory results at each study visit. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-three patients were randomized to treatment and included in the intent-to-treat analysis. All groups were similar with respect to baseline demographics except for gender, weight, and body mass index. Acetaminophen ER 3900 mg was significantly superior to placebo for all three primary end points; acetaminophen ER 1950 mg was significantly superior to placebo only with respect to patient assessment of response to therapy. Study treatments were generally well tolerated, and there was no significant difference among the groups in the overall number of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Acetaminophen ER 3900 mg/d administered for up to 12 weeks was effective in treating moderate to moderately severe chronic OA pain of the hip or knee and was generally well tolerated.

Calcitonin is involved in cartilage homeostasis: is calcitonin a treatment for OA?

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of degenerative joint diseases and a major cause of disability and impaired quality of life in the elderly. Recent observations suggest that calcitonin may act on both osteoclasts and chondrocytes. The present review was sought to summarize emerging observations from the molecular level to the preliminary clinical findings of possible chondroprotective effects of calcitonin. METHOD: This review summarizes peer-reviewed articles found using pre-defined search criteria and published in the PubMed database before January 2006. In addition, abstracts from the OsteoArthritis Research Society International (OARSI) conferences in the time period 2000-2005 have been included in the search. RESULTS: Ample evidence for the effect of calcitonin on bone resorption was found. Support for direct effects of calcitonin on chondrocytes on matrix synthesis and inhibition of cartilage degradation have been published. In addition, clinical evidence for the effect of calcitonin on cartilage degradation is emerging. CONCLUSION: Several independent lines of evidence suggest a direct chondroprotective effect of calcitonin in addition to the well-established effect on bone resorption. Given the currently limited availability of chondroprotective agents, much expectation regards the ongoing clinical assessment of calcitonin therapy for the prevention and treatment of OA.

Total joint replacement of hip or knee as an outcome measure for structure modifying trials in osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: The Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES) organized a working group to assess the value of time to joint surgery as a potential therapeutic failure outcome criterion for osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee in the assessment of potential structure modifying agents. METHODS: PubMed was searched for manuscripts from 1976 to 2004. Relevant studies were discussed at a 1-day meeting. RESULTS: There are no accepted guidelines for 'time to' and 'indications for' joint replacement surgery. A limited number of trials have examined joint replacement surgery within the study population. Several parameters, particularly joint space narrowing (interbone distance), correlate with surgical intervention. However, at the level of the knee, none of the parameters have positive predictive value for joint replacement surgery better than 30%. In contrast, lack of significant joint space narrowing has a strong negative predictive value for joint replacement surgery (>90%), that remains after controlling for OA pain severity. CONCLUSION: At this time, GREES cannot recommend time to joint surgery as a primary endpoint of failure for structure modifying trials of hip or knee OA-as the parameter has sensitivity but lacks specificity. In contrast, in existing trials, a lack of progression of joint space narrowing has predictive value of >90% for not having surgery. GREES suggests utilizing joint space narrowing (e.g., >0.3-0.7 mm) combined with a lack of clinically relevant improvement in symptoms (e.g., >/=20-25%) for 'failure' of a secondary outcome in structure modifying trials of the hip and knee.

Meniscal tear and extrusion are strongly associated with progression of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis as assessed by quantitative magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: The relation between knee meniscal structural damage and cartilage degradation is plausible but not yet clearly proven. OBJECTIVES: To quantitate the cartilage volume changes in knee osteoarthritis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and determine whether meniscal alteration predicts cartilage volume loss over time. METHODS: 32 patients meeting ACR criteria for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were studied. MRI knee acquisitions were done every six months for two years. The cartilage volumes of different knee regions were measured. Three indices of structural change in the medial and lateral menisci were evaluated--degeneration, tear, and extrusion--using a semiquantitative scale. RESULTS: 24 patients (75%) had mild to moderate or severe meniscal damage (tear or extrusion) at baseline. A highly significant difference in global cartilage volume loss was observed between severe medial meniscal tear and absence of tear (mean (SD), -10.1 (2.1)% v -5.1 (2.4)%, p = 0.002). An even greater difference was found between the medial meniscal changes and medial compartment cartilage volume loss (-14.3 (3.0)% in the presence of severe tear v -6.3 (2.7)% in the absence of tear; p<0.0001). Similarly, a major difference was found between the presence of a medial meniscal extrusion and loss of medial compartment cartilage volume (-15.4 (4.1)% in the presence of extrusion v -4.5 (1.7)% with no extrusion; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Meniscal tear and extrusion appear to be associated with progression of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Measurement of structural progression in osteoarthritis of the hip: the Barcelona consensus group.

OBJECTIVE: To outline the best available method of measurement for detecting progression of osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip especially in therapeutic trials. METHOD: A Medline search of articles related to progression of hip OA was performed. A group of experts met over a 1.5-day session to review available literature and new research. Specific questions were addressed in order to reach a consensus on measuring progression of OA of the hip. RESULTS: Of the available surrogate measures, a single yearly standing or reclined antero-posterior plain radiograph of the pelvis with feet internally rotated 15-20 degrees, can be evaluated with the use of an atlas for joint space width (JSW, interbone distance). There should be a minimum JSW upon baseline screening that may be 1 or 2 mm. Digitization of films offers a slight reduction in variability of measurements. Progression of OA can be calculated by measurement of the JSW on paired and blinded films. A reduction of > or = 0.5 mm is greater than the 'minimum perceptible difference' as well as the variation of most imaging techniques, and represents a clinically relevant and significant reduction in the JSW. Narrowing of the superomedial or superolateral JSW may tend to progress more rapidly than other changes. In clinical trials, patients who discontinue the study treatment need to be followed after discontinuation, and an imputation strategy which provides unbiased estimates of both the treatment effect and its variance is an appropriate technique for intent-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSION: For the development of new agents intended to prevent, retard, stabilize or reverse the progress of OA of the hip, the radiographic methodology presently available is adequate to detect changes in hip JSW of OA.