Intra-articular hylastan versus steroid for knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of one and two intra-articular (IA) injections of the new viscosupplement, hylastan, compared with a single IA corticosteroid injection for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (OA). Hylastan is a high-molecular-weight hyaluronan derivative prepared from bacterial fermented sodium hyaluronate that was developed to remain in the joint for longer than most other viscosupplements. METHODS: This 6-month, double-blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter trial enrolled patients aged ≥40 years who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee OA and had continued pain despite conservative treatment. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three arms: 2 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 129; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, same treatment Week 2); 1 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 130; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2); steroid (n = 132; arthrocentesis then IA methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2). Participants and evaluators were blinded to treatment. The primary clinical outcome measure was change from baseline in WOMAC A pain score over all postbaseline visits to Week 26. RESULTS: Statistically significant pain reduction was observed in all three arms, with similar mean (95 % CI) changes in WOMAC A: 2 × 4 mL hylastan -0.9 (-1.0, -0.7); 1 × 4 mL hylastan -0.8 (-0.9, -0.7); steroid -0.9 (-1.0, -0.8); all P < 0.0001 versus baseline. Changes in secondary outcomes (OMERACT-OARSI and WOMAC A responder rates, patient/clinical observer global assessments, and WOMAC A1 walking pain) were similar in all three arms. Target knee adverse events were comparable for all treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Both IA hylastan injection regimens were effective in relieving pain with an acceptable safety profile. IA hylastan did not show a difference versus IA corticosteroid; therefore, the hypothesis of superior pain relief was not met. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy and safety of hylastan with other viscosupplements.

Etoricoxib in the treatment of osteoarthritis over 52-weeks: a double-blind, active-comparator controlled trial [NCT00242489].

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and tolerability of etoricoxib, a COX-2 selective inhibitor, in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter study was conducted in 617 patients with OA of the knee. The base study was 14 weeks in duration and consisted of 2 parts; in Part I (6 weeks), patients were allocated to once daily oral etoricoxib 5, 10, 30, 60, 90 mg or placebo. In Part II (8 weeks); the placebo, etoricoxib 5 and 10 mg groups were reallocated to etoricoxib 30, 60, or 90 mg qd or diclofenac 50 mg t.i.d. Treatment was continued for consecutive 12 and 26 week extensions. Primary efficacy endpoints were the WOMAC VA 3.0 pain subscale and investigator global assessment of disease status. Safety and tolerability were assessed by collecting adverse events throughout the study. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the etoricoxib groups displayed significant (p < 0.05), dose-dependent efficacy for all primary endpoints in Part I; efficacy was maintained throughout the 52 weeks of the study. During the 46-week active-comparator controlled period, the etoricoxib groups demonstrated clinical efficacy that was similar to that of diclofenac 150 mg and was generally well tolerated, with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) nuisance symptoms compared with diclofenac (13.1, 14.7, and 13.5% for etoricoxib 30, 60, and 90 mg, respectively compared with 22.5% for diclofenac). CONCLUSION: In this extension study, etoricoxib, at doses ranging from 30 to 90 mg, demonstrated a maintenance of significant clinical efficacy in patients with OA through 52 weeks of treatment. Etoricoxib displayed clinical efficacy similar to diclofenac 150 mg and was generally well tolerated.

Refractory immune thrombocytopenia successfully treated with high-dose vitamin D supplementation and hydroxychloroquine: two case reports.

INTRODUCTION: Immune thrombocytopenic purpura is thought to be characterized by an immune response against the host's own platelets. If the thrombocytopenia is severe, patients are initially treated with high-dose steroids. Other more toxic second line treatments are considered if steroids fail. Here, we report the case of two patients in whom conventional treatment was unsuccessful but who responded to hydroxychloroquine and high-dose vitamin D replacement therapy. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first description of successful treatment for immune thrombocytopenia with high-dose vitamin D and hydroxychloroquine. CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1: We report the case of a 79-year-old Caucasian man who presented with high titer antinuclear antibodies, positive anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies and clinically was felt to have an overlap of systemic lupus erythematosus and/or Sjögren's syndrome with profound life-threatening thrombocytopenia. There was no evidence of underlying malignancy. The patient's platelet count significantly increased with vitamin D and hydroxychloroquine treatment, but upon vitamin D discontinuation his platelet levels plummeted. Hydroxychloroquine therapy was maintained throughout treatment. With reinstitution of high-dose vitamin D therapy, platelet counts were restored to normal levels.Case 2: We also report the case of an 87-year-old Caucasian woman who presented with high titer antinuclear antibodies, positive anti-SSA/Ro autoantibodies and was felt to have an overlap of systemic lupus erythematosus and/or Sjögren's syndrome with immune thrombocytopenia; she also had severely low levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D (17ng/mL). There was no evidence of underlying malignancy. She responded to high-dose vitamin D replacement and hydroxychloroquine treatment, thereby alleviating the need for high-dose steroid treatment. She remains in remission while taking vitamin D, hydroxychloroquine and very low-dose prednisone. No untoward side effects were observed in either patient. CONCLUSIONS: In our two case reports, we found an association between vitamin D deficiency and immune thrombocytopenia where platelet levels responded to vitamin D treatment and hydroxychloroquine but not to prednisone. We believe there may be synergism between vitamin D supplementation and hydroxychloroquine. The mechanism by which high-dose vitamin D results in increased platelet counts in immune thrombocytopenia patients is unknown. However, vitamin D has long been thought to play an immunomodulatory role, which may include a dampened immune response in patients with immune thrombocytopenia or other autoimmune diseases.

Hylan G-F 20 improves hip osteoarthritis: a prospective, randomized study.

We compared the efficacy and safety of intra-articular hylan G-F 20 with methylprednisolone acetate (MPA) for treating symptomatic Kellgren-Lawrence grade (KLG) 2 or 3 hip osteoarthritis in a prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial (N = 313). Two injections of hylan G-F 20 were administered 2 weeks apart (n = 150), or 1 injection of 40 mg MPA and 1 sham injection 2 weeks later (n = 155). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) (total and subscale), clinician observations, and patient global assessments were collected at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 26 (intent-to-treat population was analyzed; n = 305). Responder rates were assessed by WOMAC domain A, and criteria were established by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI). At week 26, WOMAC A improved by 16.6 mm for hylan G-F 20 versus 13.6 mm for MPA. Response rates were higher with hylan G-F 20 versus MPA in patients with more advanced disease (KLG 3) and were similar between hylan G-F 20 and MPA in patients with less advanced disease (KLG 2). Adverse events were similar between groups and between patients with KLG 2 or 3. Hylan G-F 20 provided clinically meaningful improvements in pain and function, comparable with those of MPA, with good safety and tolerability. Thus, we conclude it is an appropriate option for treating hip osteoarthritis.