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.

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 26 December 2021, for randomised trials of pharmacological interventions for people with hand OA. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the effect sizes for pain (standardised mean differences) using Bayesian random effects models for network meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. Based on a pre-specified protocol, we prospectively registered the study at PROSPERO, CRD42021215393. RESULTS: We included 72 trials with 7609 participants. 65 trials (n=5957) were eligible for the quantitative synthesis, investigating 29 pharmacological interventions. Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral glucocorticoids' NMA effect sizes were -0.18 (95% credible interval -0.36 to 0.02) and -0.54 (-0.83 to -0.24), respectively, compared with placebo, and the result was consistent when limiting evidence to the pairwise meta-analysis of trials without high risk of bias. Intra-articular hyaluronate, intra-articular glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and topical NSAIDs' NMA effect sizes were 0.22 (-0.08 to 0.51), 0.25 (0.00 to 0.51), -0.01 (-0.19 to 0.18), and -0.14 (-0.33 to 0.08), respectively, compared with placebo. Oral NSAIDs were inferior to oral glucocorticoids with an NMA effect size of 0.36 (0.01 to 0.72). No intervention was superior to placebo when stratifying for thumb and finger OA. CONCLUSION: Oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoids are apparently effective pharmacological interventions in hand OA. Intra-articular therapies and topical NSAIDs were not superior to placebo.

Triage Strategies Based on C-Reactive Protein Levels and SARS-CoV-2 Tests among Individuals Referred with Suspected COVID-19: A Prospective Cohort Study.

C-reactive protein (CRP) has prognostic value in hospitalized patients with COVID-19; the importance of CRP in pre-hospitalized patients remains to be tested. Methods: Individuals with symptoms of COVID-19 had a SARS-CoV-2 PCR oropharyngeal swab test, and a measurement of CRP was performed at baseline, with an upper reference range of 10 mg/L. After 28 days, information about possible admissions, oxygen treatments, transfers to the ICU, or deaths was obtained from the patient files. Using logistic regression, the prognostic value of the CRP and SARS-CoV-2 test results was evaluated. Results: Among the 1006 patients included, the SARS-CoV-2 PCR test was positive in 59, and the CRP level was elevated (>10 mg/L) in 131. In total, 59 patients were hospitalized, only 3 of whom were SARS-CoV-2 positive, with elevated CRP (n = 2) and normal CRP (n = 1). The probability of being hospitalized with elevated CRP was 4.21 (95%CI 2.38-7.43, p < 0.0001), while the probability of being hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 positivity alone was 0.85 (95%CI 0.26-2.81, p = 0.79). Conclusions: CRP is not a reliable predictor for the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pre-hospitalized patients. CRP, while not a SARS-CoV-2 positive test, had prognostic value in the total population of patients presenting with COVID-19-related symptoms.