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 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.

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 < 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 < 0.05) and was highest in Scotland, whereas transdermal opioid prescription was highest in Northern Ireland (all P-for-homogeneity-test < 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 HR37weeks=1.80 (1.74 to 1.87), aHR32weeks=3.93 (3.73 to 4.13), aHR28weeks=7.53 (6.95 to 8.16), aHR24weeks=21.58 (18.62 to 25.00)) and from week 41 onwards (aHR42weeks=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.

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.

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.

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.

Relative Efficacy of Different Exercises for Pain, Function, Performance and Quality of Life in Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend exercise as a core treatment for osteoarthritis (OA). However, it is unclear which type of exercise is most effective, leading to inconsistency between different recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to investigate the relative efficacy of different exercises (aerobic, mind-body, strengthening, flexibility/skill, or mixed) for improving pain, function, performance and quality of life (QoL) for knee and hip OA at, or nearest to, 8 weeks. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases up until December 2017 for randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with usual care or with another exercise type. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to estimate the relative effect size (ES) and corresponding 95% credibility interval (CrI) (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016033865). FINDINGS: We identified and analysed 103 trials (9134 participants). Aerobic exercise was most beneficial for pain (ES 1.11; 95% CrI 0.69, 1.54) and performance (1.05; 0.63, 1.48). Mind-body exercise, which had pain benefit equivalent to that of aerobic exercise (1.11; 0.63, 1.59), was the best for function (0.81; 0.27, 1.36). Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises improved multiple outcomes at a moderate level. Mixed exercise was the least effective for all outcomes and had significantly less pain relief than aerobic and mind-body exercises. The trend was significant for pain (p = 0.01), but not for function (p = 0.07), performance (p = 0.06) or QoL (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: The effect of exercise varies according to the type of exercise and target outcome. Aerobic or mind-body exercise may be the best for pain and function improvements. Strengthening and flexibility/skill exercises may be used for multiple outcomes. Mixed exercise is the least effective and the reason for this merits further investigation.

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.

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.

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.