Comparative effectiveness of different placebos and comparator groups for hand osteoarthritis exploring the impact of contextual factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the pain relief effects of comparators (placebos and untreated control groups) in hand osteoarthritis trials and the impact of contextual factors. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to December 26, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of people with hand osteoarthritis with a placebo or an untreated control group. We assessed the Risk of Bias with Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool version 2. Each comparator was contrasted with a null-arm, imputed as having a zero change from baseline with the same standard deviation as the comparator. We combined the standardised mean differences with a random effects meta-analysis. The contextual factors' effect was explored in meta-regression and stratified models with pain as the dependent variable. RESULTS: 84 trials (7262 participants) were eligible for quantitative synthesis, of which 76 (6462 participants) were eligible for the stratified analyses. Placebos were superior to their matched null-arms in relieving pain with an effect size of -0.51 (95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.42), while untreated control groups were not. When analysing all comparators, blinded trial designs and low risk of bias were associated with higher pain relief compared to an open-label trial design and some concern or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The placebo response on pain for people with hand osteoarthritis was increased by appropriate blinding and a lower risk of bias assessment. Placebos were superior to a null-arm, while untreated control groups were not. Results emphasise the importance of using appropriate comparators in clinical trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42022298984.

The impact of an illness perception conversation on open-label placebo response in knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of an illness perception conversation (IPC), relative to a research participation conversation (RPC), on 2-week changes in knee pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHOD: This was a randomised single-blind trial. Patients were randomised to two matched conversations. An IP conversation concerning the participant's knee pain-related illness perception (IP) or an RPC concerning the participant's motivation for participating in research. Both conversations were followed by an open-label intraarticular saline injection in the most symptomatic knee. The primary outcome was change in knee pain from baseline to 2 weeks follow-up on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Key secondary outcomes included the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales: Activities of daily living (ADL) and Quality of life (QoL). Main analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population using repeated measures mixed effects linear models. RESULTS: 103 patients were randomised to the IPC group (n = 52) and the RPC group (n = 51). VAS knee pain scores changed statistically significantly from baseline to end of treatment in both groups, -13.7 (standard error [SE]: 3.2) in the IPC group and -13.0 (SE: 3.1) in the RPC group with an adjusted between-group difference of -0.7 (95% CI: -8.3 to 6.9; P = 0.85). Likewise, no group differences were seen in KOOS ADL and KOOS QoL. CONCLUSION: A conversation concerning knee pain-related IP did not augment the pain-relieving effect of an open-label placebo injection when compared to a similar control conversation concerning motivations for participating in research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05225480.

Polyacrylamide gel versus hyaluronic acid for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a randomised controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess non-inferiority of intra-articular injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) to hyaluronic acid (HA) on symptomatic benefit in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial recruited adults with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA from 3 clinical rheumatology sites in Denmark; two private clinics and one public hospital department. Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive a single intra-articular 6 mL injection of either HA or iPAAG on an outpatient basis. Primary outcome was change from baseline in WOMAC pain subscale after 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in WOMAC stiffness and physical function subscales, patients' global assessment of disease impact, EuroQoL-5D-5L, and proportion of positive OMERACT-OARSI responders after 26 and 52 weeks. RESULTS: 239 adults were randomised: 120 to HA and 119 to iPAAG. For the primary outcome, the least squares mean changes in WOMAC pain were -14.8 (95% CI: -18.0 to -11.7) for HA and -18.5 (95% CI: -21.7 to -15.4) for iPAAG; group difference: 3.7 (95% CI: -0.7 to 8.1). The lower boundary of the 95% CI respected the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of 9 WOMAC pain points. No statistically significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. For HA, 9 participants (7.6%) reported 13 adverse device effects (ADEs). For iPAAG, 35 participants (28.9%) reported 41 ADEs. All ADEs were mild/moderate, with no serious ADEs reported. CONCLUSIONS: iPAAG was found to be as effective and safe as HA for treatment of knee OA symptoms for at least 1 year after a single injection.

Effectiveness and safety of polyacrylamide hydrogel injection for knee osteoarthritis: results from a 12-month follow up of an open-label study.

OBJECTIVE: There are few effective osteoarthritis (OA) therapies. A novel injectable polyacrylamide hydrogel (iPAAG) previously demonstrated efficacy and safety up to week 26 in an open-label study of knee OA. Here we report longer-term effectiveness and safety data. METHODS: This multi-centre, open-label study included patients with symptomatic and radiographic knee OA. Primary outcome was WOMAC pain (0-100 scale) at 13 weeks, and patients continued to 26 weeks before entering a further 26-week extension phase. Secondary efficacy outcomes included WOMAC stiffness and function subscales, Patient Global Assessment (PGA) and proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: 49 participants (31 women, mean age 70) received an ultrasound-guided, intra-articular injection of 6 ml iPAAG; 46 completed the extension phase to 52 weeks. There was a significant reduction in the WOMAC pain score from baseline to 52 weeks (- 17.7 points (95% CI - 23.1; - 12.4); p < 0.0001). Similar sustained improvements were observed for WOMAC stiffness (11.0 points; 95% CI - 17.0; - 4.9), physical function (18.0 points; 95% CI - 19.1; - 10.6), and PGA (16.3 points; 95% CI - 23.1; - 9.4). At 52 weeks 62.2% of patients were OMERACT-OARSI responders. From 26 to 52 weeks, 8 adverse effects (AE), including 1 serious AE (cerebrovascular accident) were reported in 5 subjects. None of the new adverse events were thought to be device related. CONCLUSION: This open-label study suggests persistent benefits and safety of iPAAG through 52 weeks after a single injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04179552.

Continuing versus tapering low-dose glucocorticoids in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus in states of low disease activity or remission: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES: To study the benefit and harm associated with continuing versus tapering low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have achieved low disease activity/remission. METHODS: A protocolised (PROSPEROCRD42022325175) systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials was performed. Trials compared, in patients with low disease activity/remission and GCs at baseline, continued low-dose GCs (≤7.5 mg/d prednisone equivalent) with a taper. Co-primary outcomes were time to flare and adverse events (AEs), accompanied by secondary benefit and harm outcomes. We performed meta-analyses and evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence (QoE). Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients with RA. RESULTS: Four trials (three: RA; one: SLE; study duration 24-104 weeks) with 472 participants were included. Tapering GCs resulted in a shorter time to flare (hazard ratio 3.41 [95 %-CI 1.96-5.93]; p<0.01; very low QoE). The risks of AEs, serious AEs, and withdrawal due to AEs were similar in both groups (very low to low QoE). There were more withdrawals due to lack of efficacy with tapered GCs (risk ratio 3.02 [1.56-5.87]; low QoE). In RA, the disease activity score-28 was lower with continued GCs (mean difference 0.49 [0.07-0.91]; low QoE). One of 238 patients in the tapering groups experienced adrenal insufficiency. Subgroup analyses yielded consistent results. CONCLUSION: In RA and SLE with low disease activity, continuing low-dose GCs may provide better sustained disease control, but QoE is insufficient. Adrenal insufficiency is very rare when tapering low-dose GCs. Longer-term safety concerns for GCs remain.

Proton Pump Inhibitor Use and Bone Health in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone microarchitecture as measured by the trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs). METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a prospective single-center cohort (2015 to 2022) of patients with iRMDs were used to evaluate 3 co-primary outcomes: BMD of the left femoral neck and the lumbar spine (as T-scores) and the TBS. Inverse probability weighting adjusted for numerous confounders including age, sex, body mass index, current and cumulative glucocorticoid (GC) dose, C-reactive protein levels, disability, and others. Analyses were based on general linear models, following a prespecified statistical analysis plan. RESULTS: The study included 1495 patients (75% women; mean age, 62.6±13.1 years; 49% and 63% with regular PPI and GC use, respectively). The PPI users had lower BMD at both spine (adjusted contrast -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; P=.02) and femoral neck (-0.17 [-0.35 to 0.01]; P=.07). Differences between PPI users and nonusers were statistically significant only in patients concurrently using GCs at more than 7.5 mg/d prednisone equivalent. The TBS was similar in PPI users and nonusers (adjusted contrast, 0.00 [-0.04 to 0.04]; P=.97). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PPIs lead to a loss of BMD rather than an impairment of bone microarchitecture in patients with iRMDs. The negative association between PPI use and BMD appears to be dependent on concurrent GC use. Clinicians should carefully review the indication for PPI use in patients with iRMDs, especially in those receiving higher dose GCs.

Weight Loss for Patients With Gout and Concomitant Obesity: A Proof-of-Concept Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Despite scarce evidence, guidelines recommend weight loss as a management strategy for patients with gout. We investigated the effect of an intensive dietary intervention on body weight and clinical measures of gout severity in individuals with obesity and gout. METHODS: We conducted a 16-week randomized nonmasked parallel-group trial in Denmark, randomly assigning (one-to-one) individuals with obesity and gout to a low-energy diet or a control diet. The primary outcome was change in body weight. Key secondary outcomes were changes in serum urate (SU) level and visual analog scale-assessed pain and fatigue. RESULTS: Between December 1, 2018, and June 1, 2019, 61 participants were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to the intensive diet group (n = 29) or control diet group (n = 32). Participants had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 9.9) years and mean body mass index of 35.6 (SD 5.0), and 59 (97%) were men. After 16 weeks, there was a significant difference in change in body weight between the diet and control groups (-15.4 vs -7.7 kg; difference -7.7 kg [95% confidence interval -10.7 to -4.7], P < 0.001). Despite results being potentially in favor of a low-energy diet, we could not confirm differences in SU level changes and fatigue between groups. No differences in pain and gout flares were observed between groups. No serious adverse events or deaths occurred during the trial. CONCLUSION: An intensive dietary intervention was safe and effectively lowered body weight in people with obesity and gout, but the weight loss did not directly translate into effects on SU level, fatigue, and pain.

Colchicine twice a day for hand osteoarthritis (COLOR): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been suggested for osteoarthritis treatment, but evidence is contradictory. We aimed to investigate colchicine's efficacy and safety compared with placebo in people with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial we recruited adults with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and finger pain of at least 40 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale from an outpatient clinic in Denmark. The hand with the most severe finger pain at inclusion was the target hand. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 0·5 mg colchicine or placebo taken orally twice a day for 12 weeks, stratified by BMI (≥30 kg/m2), sex, and age (≥75 years). Participants, outcome assessors, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in target hand finger pain, assessed on a 100 mm visual analogue scale with a pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 15 mm, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed at week 12 in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04601883, and with EudraCT, 2020-002803-20. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2021, and March 3, 2022, 186 people were screened for eligibility, and 100 were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (n=50) or placebo (n=50). Participants had a mean age of 70·9 (SD 7·5) years, 69 (69%) of 100 were women and 31 (31%) were men. All participants completed the study. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in finger pain were -13·9 mm (SE 2·8) in the colchicine group and -13·5 mm (2·8) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (colchicine vs placebo) of -0·4 mm (95% CI -7·6 to 6·7; p=0·90). In the colchicine group, there were 76 adverse events in 36 (72%) of 50 participants and one serious adverse advent (migraine attack leading to hospital admission). In the placebo group, there were 42 adverse events in 22 (44%) of 50 participants and two serious adverse events (cholecystitis and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations, in the same patient). INTERPRETATION: In people with painful hand osteoarthritis, treatment with 0·5 mg of colchicine twice day for 12 weeks did not effectively relieve pain, and treatment with colchicine was associated with more adverse events. FUNDING: The Oak Foundation, IMK Almene Fond, Minister Erna Hamilton's Scholarship for Science and Art, AP Moller and Wife Chastine McKinney Moller's Foundation for Medical Science Advancement, The Danish Medical Association, the Velux Foundation, Aase and Ejnar Danielsen's Foundation, and Director Emil C Hertz and Wife Inger Hertz's foundation.