AMSSM scientific statement concerning viscosupplementation injections for knee osteoarthritis: importance for individual patient outcomes.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling disease that produces severe morbidity reducing physical activity. Our position statement on treatment of knee OA with viscosupplementation injection (hyaluronic acid, HA) versus steroid (intra-articular corticosteroids, IAS) and placebo (intra-articular placebo, IAP) is based on the evaluation of treatment effect by examining the number of participants within a treatment arm who met the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria, which is different and more relevant than methods used in other reviews which examined if the average change across the treatment groups were clinically different. We performed a systematic literature search for all relevant articles from 1960 to August 2014 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of the relevant literature to determine if there is a benefit from HA as compared with IAS and IAP. 11 papers met the inclusion criteria from the search strategy. On NMA, those participants receiving HA were 15% and 11% more likely to respond to treatment by OMERACT-OARSI criteria than those receiving IAS or IAP, respectively (p<0.05 for both). In the light of the aforementioned results of our NMA, the American Medical Society for Sport Medicine recommends the use of HA for the appropriate patients with knee OA.

AMSSM Scientific Statement Concerning Viscosupplementation Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: Importance for Individual Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a disabling disease that produces severe morbidity reducing physical activity. Our position statement on treatment of knee OA with viscosupplementation injection [hyaluronic acid (HA)] versus steroid [intra-articular corticosteroid (IAS)] and placebo [intra-articular placebo (IAP)] is based on the evaluation of treatment effect by examining the number of subjects within a treatment arm that met the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria, which is different and more relevant than methods used in other reviews which examined if the average change across the treatment groups was clinically different. DATA SOURCES: We performed a systematic literature search for all relevant articles from 1960 to August 2014 in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) of the relevant literature to determine if there is a benefit from HA as compared with IAS and IAP. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven articles met the inclusion criteria from the search strategy. On NMA, those subjects receiving HA were 15% and 11% more likely to respond to treatment by the OMERACT-OARSI criteria than those receiving IAS or IAP, respectively (P < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In light of the aforementioned results of our NMA, the American Medical Society for Sport Medicine recommends the use of HA for the appropriate patients with knee OA.

Cardiac MRI-confirmed mesalamine-induced myocarditis.

A 38-year-old Caucasian man with a medical history significant for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and mesalamine use presented to the emergency department with stabbing, pleuritic, substernal chest pain over the previous 2 days. Findings of leucocytosis, elevated cardiac enzymes and inflammatory markers, T-wave or ST-segment abnormalities and left ventricular systolic dysfunction suggested mesalamine-induced myocarditis. However, a cardiac MRI confirmed the diagnosis. Signs and symptoms improved within days of withdrawal of mesalamine, and initiation of corticosteroids and follow-up studies within the next year were unremarkable. Importantly, the diagnosis of mesalamine-induced myocarditis confirmed via cardiac MRI is a step rarely performed in published cases.

Comparative efficacy and safety of antidiabetic drug regimens added to metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: When first line therapy with metformin is insufficient for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D), the optimal adjunctive therapy is unclear. We assessed the efficacy and safety of adjunctive antidiabetic agents in patients with inadequately controlled T2D on metformin alone. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, regulatory websites was performed. We included randomized controlled trials of 3-12 months duration, evaluating Food and Drug Administration or European Union approved agents (noninsulin and long acting, once daily basal insulins) in patients experiencing inadequate glycemic control with metformin monotherapy (≥ 1500 mg daily or maximally tolerated dose for ≥ 4 weeks). Random-effects network meta-analyses were used to compare the weighted mean difference for changes from baseline in HbA1c, body weight (BW) and systolic blood pressure (SBP), and the risk of developing hypoglycemia, urinary (UTI) and genital tract infection (GTI). RESULTS: Sixty-two trials evaluating 25 agents were included. All agents significantly reduced HbA1c vs. placebo; albeit not to the same extent (range, 0.43% for miglitol to 1.29% for glibenclamide). Glargine, sulfonylureas (SUs) and nateglinide were associated with increased hypoglycemia risk vs. placebo (range, 4.00-11.67). Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogs, miglitol and empagliflozin/linagliptin significantly reduced BW (range, 1.15-2.26 kg) whereas SUs, thiazolindinediones, glargine and alogliptin/pioglitazone caused weight gain (range, 1.19-2.44 kg). SGLT2 inhibitors, empagliflozin/linagliptin, liraglutide and sitagliptin decreased SBP (range, 1.88-5.43 mmHg). No therapy increased UTI risk vs. placebo; however, SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of GTI (range, 2.16-8.03). CONCLUSIONS: Adding different AHAs to metformin was associated with varying effects on HbA1c, BW, SBP, hypoglycemia, UTI and GTI which should impact clinician choice when selecting adjunctive therapy.