Measures of attributes of locomotor capacity in older people: a systematic literature review following the COSMIN methodology.

BACKGROUND: Locomotor capacity (LC) is an important domain of intrinsic capacity and key determinant of functional ability and well-being in older age. The United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021-2030) calls for strengthening data and research on healthy ageing, including the measurement of older persons' LC. To advance the measurement and monitoring of LC, there is pressing need to identify valid and reliable measures. OBJECTIVE: To identify all the available tools that were validated for measurement of LC or of its specific attributes in older people and to assess the methodological quality of the studies and measurement properties of the tools. DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Anywhere (Community-dwelling; long-term care facility; etc.). SUBJECTS: Older people. METHODS: We used highly sensitive search strategies to search the following databases: Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and PsycINFO. The study was conducted following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology for systematic review of outcome measurement instruments. RESULTS: A total of 125 studies were included, which assessed tools for balance (n = 84), muscle power (n = 12), muscle strength (n = 32, including four studies about tools for balance and muscle power) and endurance (n = 1). No studies on tools for muscle function, joint function, or locomotor capacity overall, were retrieved. We identified 69 clinician-report or objective assessment tools for balance, 30 for muscle strength, 12 for muscle power and 1 endurance assessment tool. The GRADE assessment of quality of evidence showed that only a few tools have high quality evidence for both sufficient validity and reliability: The Balance Evaluation Systems Test (BESTest), the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and the Timed Up and Go (TUG) test. CONCLUSIONS: A few tools with high quality evidence for sufficient validity and reliability are currently available for balance assessment in older people that may be recommended for use in clinical and research settings. Further validation studies are required for muscle strength, muscle power and endurance assessment tools.

Knee osteoarthritis and adverse health outcomes: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition, associated with a high rate of disability and poor quality of life. Despite the importance of such evidence in public health, no umbrella review (i.e., a review of other systematic reviews and meta-analyses) has systematically assessed evidence on association between knee OA and adverse health outcomes. AIMS: To map and grade all health outcomes associated with knee OA using an umbrella review approach. METHODS: The search was made across several databases up to 22 April 2022. We used an umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of observational studies assessing the effect sizes, based on random effect summary, 95% prediction intervals, heterogeneity, small study effects, and excess significance bias. The evidence was then graded from convincing (class I) to weak (class IV). RESULTS: Among 3,847 studies initially considered, five meta-analyses were included for a total of five different outcomes. Three adverse outcomes were significantly associated with knee OA (i.e., cardiovascular mortality, falls, and subclinical atherosclerosis). The presence of knee OA was associated with a significantly higher risk of cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio, OR = 1.17; 95%CI, confidence intervals: 1.02-1.34), falls (RR = 1.34; 95%CI: 1.10-1.64), and conditions associated with subclinical atherosclerosis (OR = 1.43; 95%CI: 1.003-2.05). The certainty of each of this evidence was weak. CONCLUSIONS: Our umbrella review suggests that knee OA can be considered as putative risk factor for some medical conditions, including cardiovascular diseases and falls, however, it is important to note that the evidence is affected by potential biases.

Update on the role of pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin sulfate in the symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent musculoskeletal disease and a major cause of negative relevant outcomes, associated with an ever-increasing societal burden. Pharmaceutical-grade chondroitin sulfate (CS) was repeatedly reported to reduce pain and improve function in patients with knee OA. This treatment was also shown to be cost-effective, compared to placebo, up to 24 months. However, controversies still persist regarding the usefulness of CS for patients with knee OA, mainly due to inconsistent reports from various clinical trials. In this literature review, we aimed to summarize the main most recent findings on the efficacy and safety of CS in OA. Based on the results of studies presenting a low risk of bias, the most recent meta-analysis shows that only the pharmaceutical-grade CS may be considered as an appropriate background treatment for the management of knee OA. Evidence from another recent meta-analysis, using data from full safety reports, confirms the good safety profile of CS in OA. This new evidence on efficacy and safety suggests that recommendations for the use of CS in patients with knee OA cannot be extrapolated to other low-grade preparations as generics, nutraceutical-grade or over-the-counter preparations.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of glucosamine for osteoarthritis based on simulation of individual patient data obtained from aggregated data in published studies.

BACKGROUND: The economic evaluation of treatments usually requires access to individual patient data, which is difficult to obtain. Moreover, in osteoarthritis, health utility scores are unavailable and can be assessed only using a validated equation model based on various clinical data. We aimed to develop and validate a methodology to simulate individual health utility scores from aggregated clinical data available in published studies to calculate the cost-effectiveness of different glucosamine preparations (i.e., crystalline glucosamine sulfate, glucosamine sulfate, and glucosamine hydrochloride) used for osteoarthritis. METHODS: We developed a method to simulate individual utility values and validated the model by comparing the results obtained with the simulation and the results of one trial where the utility scores are available. Then, we simulated the utility scores of 10 published trials that used different glucosamine preparations. The utility estimates were used to calculate the quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the area-under-the-curve method. Costs were for the glucosamine product only. The incremental cost/effectiveness ratio (ICER) was then calculated. RESULTS: The values of utility scores calculated from data sources and those simulated with the model were similar. From 10 studies where utility was simulated, four used crystalline glucosamine sulfate, and six used other formulations. The ICER revealed that compared to placebo, crystalline glucosamine sulfate only was cost-effective at all time points and up to 3 years with a median ICER of 5347.2 €/QALY at month 3, 4807.2 €/QALY at month 6 and 11535.5 €/QALY at year 3. The use of other formulations was not cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Using a new model to simulate individual health utility scores of patients included in ten published trials, ICER analysis showed that the use of crystalline glucosamine sulfate is cost-effective, while other formulations were not. The results confirm the importance of the formulation of glucosamine products.

Is the Rate of Responders to Hyaluronic Acid Injection for Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis Stable Over Time? Post hoc Analyses of a 6-Month Follow-Up Study.

INTRODUCTION: Recently, a study showing the non-inferiority of a single injection of sodium hyaluronate plus sorbitol (Synolis VA®) compared to hylan G-F20 (Synvisc-One®) over a 24-week period in patients with knee osteoarthritis was published. The objective of the present study is to assess if a short-term response to a single injection of sodium hyaluronate plus sorbitol can be maintained over a 6 month-period and if the maintenance of the response to treatment is dependent on the functional status at baseline. METHODS: Responders to treatment at days 28, 84, and 168 were evaluated according to the responder criteria proposed by the OMERACT-OARSI. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) was used to assess functional status at baseline. All analyses were adjusted for age, gender, BMI, and baseline WOMAC total score using data from the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. RESULTS: Out of the 96 patients included in the study who were receiving Synolis VA®, 59.38% were responders at day 28 according to the OMERACT/OARSI responder criteria, 59.78% at day 84, and 64.52% at day 168. Among the responders at D28, the probability of being responder at D84 and D168 was significantly higher than among non-responders, with corresponding odds ratio (95% CI) of 2.85 (1.07-7.59) and 7.28 (2.53-20.93), respectively. Patients with a poorer physical function at baseline were more likely to respond to the treatment at all time points, compared to those with a better physical function (OR 3.74 [1.37-10.21]). CONCLUSIONS: An early response of a single injection of sodium hyaluronate plus sorbitol is predictive of long-term response, up to 24 weeks. Patients with a poorer physical function may best benefit from the treatment.

Health Economic Evaluation of a High and Low Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid Formulation for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis. Post Hoc Analyses from a Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: In a recent randomized placebo-controlled trial, a single intra-articular injection of a high and low molecular weight hyaluronic acid formulation (HA-HL) was shown to be effective in providing a clinically meaningful reduction in pain and functional limitation up to 24 weeks in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of this post hoc analyses is to assess the cost-effectiveness of HA-HL compared with placebo using individual patient data from this clinical trial in a Swiss health care perspective. METHODS: A total of 692 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to HA-HL or placebo groups. Each patient received one intra-articular injection of HA-HL or placebo at baseline and was then followed-up for a total duration of 24 weeks with five follow-up visits (i.e., after weeks 1, 6, 12, 18, and 24). The EQ-5D-5L five-point verbal Likert scale was used to calculate the health utility and the related quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) using the area-under-the-curve (AUC) method. For the costs, the price of HA-HL in Switzerland was used. The primary threshold for the incremental cost/effectiveness ratio (ICER) below which HA-HL was considered as cost-effective was 91,540 Swiss francs (CHF) per QALY (i.e., US $100,000). RESULTS: No significant difference between the baseline characteristics of the HA-HL group and the placebo group was observed. With a mean ICER of 27,212 CHF per QALY (95% CI 20,135-34,289), HA-HL was considered as cost-effective compared to placebo. Sensitivity analyses (e.g., using lower or upper limit prices or using other threshold values) gave similar results, i.e., ICERs far below the threshold values of cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm the role of HA-HL as a cost-effective therapeutic option in the management of OA. However, more studies taking into account the utilization of other health care resources are needed.

Multimodal Multidisciplinary Management of Patients with Moderate to Severe Pain in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Need to Meet Patient Expectations.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common and disabling medical conditions. In the case of moderate to severe pain, a single intervention may not be sufficient to allay symptoms and improve quality of life. Examples include first-line, background therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOAs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Therefore, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) performed a review of a multimodal/multicomponent approach for knee OA therapy. This strategy is a particularly appropriate solution for the management of patients affected by knee OA, including those with pain and dysfunction reaching various thresholds at the different joints. The multimodal/multicomponent approach should be based, firstly, on different combinations of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Potential pharmacological combinations include SYSADOAs and NSAIDs, NSAIDs and weak opioids, and intra-articular treatments with SYSADOAs/NSAIDs. Based on the available evidence, most combined treatments provide benefit beyond single agents for the improvement of pain and other symptoms typical of knee OA, although further high-quality studies are required. In this work, we have therefore provided new, patient-centered perspectives for the management of knee OA, based on the concept that a multimodal, multicomponent, multidisciplinary approach, applied not only to non-pharmacological treatments but also to a combination of the currently available pharmacological options, will better meet the needs and expectations of patients with knee OA, who may present with various phenotypes and trajectories.

Assessment of the Response Profile to Hyaluronic Acid Plus Sorbitol Injection in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Post-Hoc Analysis of a 6-Month Randomized Controlled Trial.

In a previous randomized trial, the non-inferiority of two hyaluronic acid injections (Synolis VA versus Synvisc-One) was assessed in patients with knee OA, with a response rate of 79% for Synolis VA. To assess whether a responder profile could be established for this treatment modality, we used the Synolis VA arm of a published 6-month prospective, multicenter, comparative, randomized, double-blinded trial. At baseline and during the study, pain and function were assessed using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) questionnaire. Ninety-six subjects from the intention-to-treat trial were included in the analysis. The 6-month change of WOMAC Pain with Synolis VA was not associated with any baseline clinical data. However, the change in WOMAC Function was significantly associated with its baseline level, even after adjustment for potential confounding variables (p = 0.028), i.e., a poorer physical function at baseline was associated with a better response. In conclusion, in addition to the high absolute response rate to Synolis VA, the probability of success is even increased if administered in patients with more limited physical function at baseline. Further research with other potential confounding clinical variables is warranted in order to better applicate the concept of personalized medicine.

Role of Collagen Derivatives in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Repair: A Systematic Scoping Review With Evidence Mapping.

INTRODUCTION: There is currently no disease-modifying drug for osteoarthritis (OA), and some safety concerns have been identified about the leading traditional drugs. Therefore, research efforts have focused on alternatives such as supplementation with collagen derivatives. The objective of this scoping review is to examine the extent, range, and nature of research, and to summarize and disseminate research findings on the effects of collagen derivatives in OA and cartilage repair. The purpose is to identify gaps in the current body of evidence in order to further help progress research in this setting. METHODS: The databases Medline, Scopus, CENTRAL, TOXLINE, and CDSR were comprehensively searched from inception to search date. After studies selection against eligibility criteria, following recommended methods, data were charted from the retrieved articles and these were subsequently synthesized. Numerical and graphical descriptive statistical methods were used to show trends in publications and geographical distribution of studies. RESULTS: The systematic literature search identified a total of 10,834 records. Forty-one published studies were ultimately included in the review, 16 of which were preclinical studies and 25 were clinical studies (including four systematic reviews/meta-analyses). Collagen hydrolysate (CH) and undenatured collagen (UC) were the two types of collagen derivatives studied, with a total of 28 individual studies on CH and nine on UC. More than a third of studies originated from Asia, and most of them have been published after 2008. Oral forms of collagen derivatives were mainly studied; three in vivo preclinical studies and three clinical trials investigated intra-articularly injected CH. In most of the clinical trials, treatment durations varied between 3 and 6 months, with the shortest being 1.4 months and the longest 11 months. All in vivo preclinical studies and clinical trials, regardless of their quality, concluded on beneficial effects of collagen derivatives in OA and cartilage repair, whether used as nutritional supplement or delivered intra-articularly, and whatever the manufacturers of the products, the doses and the outcomes considered in each study. CONCLUSIONS: Although current evidence shows some potential for the use of CH and UC as an option for management of patients with OA, there is still room for progress in terms of laboratory and clinical research before any definitive conclusion can be made. Harmonization of outcomes in preclinical studies and longer randomized placebo-controlled trials in larger populations with the use of recommended and validated endpoints are warranted before collagen derivatives can be recommended by large scientific societies.

Glucosamine sulphate: an umbrella review of health outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glucosamine sulphate (GS) can be used as background therapy in people affected by knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knowledge regarding the efficacy and safety of GS is of importance since its use worldwide is increasing. Therefore, the present study aimed to map and grade the diverse health outcomes associated with GS using an umbrella review approach. METHODS: Medline, Cinahl and Embase databases were searched until 1 April 2020. An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was carried out. The evidence from the RCTs was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: From 140 articles returned, 11 systematic reviews, for a total of 21 outcomes (37 RCTs; 3949 participants; almost all using 1500 mg/day), were included. No systematic reviews/meta-analyses of observational studies were included. Regarding the findings of the meta-analyses, 9/17 outcomes were statistically significant, indicating that GS is more effective than placebo. A high certainty of evidence, as assessed by GRADE, supported the use of GS (versus placebo) in improving the Lequesne Index, joint space width change, joint space width change after 3 years of follow up, joint space narrowing and OA progression. No difference in terms of adverse effects was found between GS and placebo. In systematic reviews, GS was associated with a better glucose profile and a better physical function performance than placebo. CONCLUSION: GS, when used as a prescription drug (i.e. crystalline glucosamine sulphate) at 1500 mg daily dosage, can positively affect the cartilage structure, reduce pain, improve function and glucose metabolism in people with knee OA, without having a greater incidence of adverse effects than placebo.

Efficacy of Chondroitin Sulfate in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Exploring Inconsistencies in Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: There are some controversies about treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA), including chondroitin sulfate (CS). The objective of this study was to determine whether CS is effective at alleviating pain and improving function in patients with knee OA and to identify the factors that explain inconsistencies in clinical trial results. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized, placebo-controlled trials, searching the databases Medline, Cochrane central register for controlled trials and Scopus. Random effects meta-analysis was then performed, using tau2 and I2 statistics to assess heterogeneity. The pain and Lequesne index (LI) scores were expressed as standardized mean differences (SMDs), with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was explored by stratifying the analyses according to pre-specified study-level characteristics and assessing the sources of funnel plot asymmetry. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria yielded 18 trials. Overall, CS significantly but inconsistently reduced pain (SMD: - 0.63; 95% CI: - 0.91, - 0.35; I2 = 94%) and improved function (SMD: - 0.82; 95% CI: - 1.31, - 0.33; I2 = 95%). When limiting the analysis to studies with a low risk of bias, the pharmaceutical grade CS of IBSA origin showed a greater reduction in pain (SMD: - 0.25; 95% CI: - 0.34, - 0.16; I2 = 75%) and function (SMD: - 0.33; 95% CI: - 0.47, - 0.20; I2 = 53%, p = 0.07) compared with the other preparations (SMDPain: - 0.08; 95% CI: - 0.19, + 0.02; I2 = 20%; SMDFunction: - 0.18; 95% CI: - 0.36, +0.01; I2 = 0%). Assessing funnel plot asymmetry in the studies with a low risk of bias, we found strong correlations between the treatment effects and study size (pain: rS = 0.93; LI: rS = 0.86; p < 0.05). Ultimately, there was no residual heterogeneity in the CS effects when the smallest studies were removed from the analyses. CONCLUSION: This new meta-analysis suggests that CS provides a moderate benefit for pain and has a large effect on function in knee OA, however with large inconsistency. The risks of bias, brand and study size were the factors explaining heterogeneity among the clinical trial results.

Consequences of maternal postpartum depression: A systematic review of maternal and infant outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The postpartum period represents the time of risk for the emergence of maternal postpartum depression. There are no systematic reviews of the overall maternal outcomes of maternal postpartum depression. The aim of this study was to evaluate both the infant and the maternal consequences of untreated maternal postpartum depression. METHODS: We searched for studies published between 1 January 2005 and 17 August 2016, using the following databases: MEDLINE via Ovid, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials registry. RESULTS: A total of 122 studies (out of 3712 references retrieved from bibliographic databases) were included in this systematic review. The results of the studies were synthetized into three categories: (a) the maternal consequences of postpartum depression, including physical health, psychological health, relationship, and risky behaviors; (b) the infant consequences of postpartum depression, including anthropometry, physical health, sleep, and motor, cognitive, language, emotional, social, and behavioral development; and (c) mother-child interactions, including bonding, breastfeeding, and the maternal role. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that postpartum depression creates an environment that is not conducive to the personal development of mothers or the optimal development of a child. It therefore seems important to detect and treat depression during the postnatal period as early as possible to avoid harmful consequences.

Safety of Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to assess the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with COX-2 inhibitors in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs, drug-related AEs and mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once). RESULTS: Database searches identified 2149 records from which, after exclusions, 40 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of COX-2 inhibitors in OA was associated with a significant increased risk of drug-related AEs compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.09-1.46; I2 = 24%). The risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (including dyspepsia, gastritis and heartburn) was significantly increased with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03-1.38; I2 = 0%), particularly for abdominal pain, which increased by 40% with COX-2 inhibitors (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08-1.80; I2 = 0%). The risk of hypertension increased by 45% overall (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01-2.10; I2 = 25%); however, when rofecoxib was removed from the analysis the risk of hypertension in the COX-2 inhibitor group was no longer significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80-1.83; I2 = 20%). The overall risk of heart failure and edema was increased by nearly 70% with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.22-2.31; 0%) and this level of risk did not change appreciably when rofecoxib was excluded (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21-2.29; 0%). CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis, COX-2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain. We also found an increased risk of cardiovascular AEs with COX-2 inhibitors, namely hypertension, heart failure and edema.

Safety of Topical Non-steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the safety of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with topical NSAIDs in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, vascular, cardiac, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, musculoskeletal and connective tissue. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1209 records, from which 25 papers were included in the qualitative synthesis and 19 were included in the meta-analysis, after exclusions. Overall, more total AEs (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.29; I2 = 0.0%) and more withdrawals due to AEs (OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.92; I2 = 0.0%) were observed with topical NSAIDs compared with placebo. The same results were achieved with topical diclofenac, largely driven by an increase in skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (OR 1.73, 95% CI 0.96-3.10), although the difference was not statistically significant compared with placebo. No significant difference in the odds for gastrointestinal disorders was observed between topical NSAIDs and placebo (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs may be considered safe in the management of OA, especially with regard to low gastrointestinal toxicity. The use of topical NSAIDs in OA should be considered, taking into account their risk: benefit profile in comparison with other anti-OA treatments.

Safety of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some controversy exists regarding the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to re-assess the safety profile of IAHA in patients with OA, through a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with IAHA in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, respiratory, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, musculoskeletal, renal and urinary disorders, infections and infestations, and hypersensitivity reaction. RESULTS: Database searches initially identified 1481 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 22 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies having adequate data were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. From the studies excluded according to the pre-specified selection criteria, 21 with other pharmacological OA treatments permitted during the trials were a posteriori included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which eight studies with adequate data were finally included in a parallel meta-analysis. Since this meta-analysis was designed to assess safety, the exclusion criterion on concomitant anti-OA medication was crucial. However, due to the high number of studies that allowed mainly concomitant oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we decided to include them in a post hoc parallel analysis in order to compare the results from the two analyses. No statistically significant difference in odds was found between IAHA and placebo for all types of SOC-related disorders, except for infections and infestations, for which significantly lower odds were found with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.93; I2 = 0%) and in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89). There were significant increased odds of reporting serious AEs with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.21-2.63; I2 = 0%) and in studies with concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.10-2.89), but not in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 0.92-3.47). CONCLUSIONS: Using the available data on studies without any concomitant anti-OA medication permitted during clinical trials, IAHA seems not to be associated with any safety issue in the management of OA. However, this evidence was associated with only a "low" to "moderate" certainty. A possible association with increased risk of serious AEs, particularly when used with concomitant OA medications, requires further investigation.

Safety of Symptomatic Slow-Acting Drugs for Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) are an important drug class in the treatment armamentarium for osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to re-assess the safety of various SYSADOAs in a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials, using, as much as possible, data from full safety reports. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and random-effects meta-analyses of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with various SYSADOAs in patients with OA. The databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus were searched. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as AEs involving the following Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) system organ classes (SOCs): gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue, musculoskeletal and connective tissue, renal and urinary system. RESULTS: Database searches initially identified 3815 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 25 studies on various SYSADOAs were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 13 studies with adequate data were included in the meta-analyses. Next, from the studies previously excluded according to the protocol, 37 with mainly oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) permitted as concomitant medication were included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which 18 studies on various SYSADOAs were included in parallel meta-analyses. This post hoc parallel inclusion was conducted because of the high number of studies allowing concomitant anti-OA medications. Indeed, primarily excluding studies with concomitant anti-OA medications was crucial for a meta-analysis on safety. The decision for parallel inclusion was made for the purpose of comparative analyses. Glucosamine sulfate (GS), chondroitin sulfate (CS) and avocado soybean unsaponifiables (ASU; Piascledine®) were not associated with increased odds for any type of AEs compared with placebo. Overall, with/without concomitant OA medication, diacerein was associated with significantly increased odds of total AEs (odds ratio [OR] 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-3.13; I2 = 52.8%), gastrointestinal disorders (OR 2.85; 95% CI 2.02-4.04; I2 = 62.8%) and renal and urinary disorders (OR 3.42; 95% CI 2.36-4.96; I2 = 17.0%) compared with placebo. In studies that allowed concomitant OA medications, diacerein was associated with significantly more dermatological disorders (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.42-4.31; I2 = 0%) and more dropouts due to AEs (OR 3.18; 95% CI 1.85-5.47; I2 = 13.4%) than was placebo. No significant increase in serious or severe AEs was found with diacerein versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: GS and CS can be considered safe treatments for patients with OA. All eligible studies on ASU included in our analysis used the proprietary product Piascledine® and allowed other anti-OA medications; thus, the safety of ASU must be confirmed in future studies without concomitant anti-OA medications. Given the safety concerns with diacerein, its usefulness in patients with OA should be assessed, taking into account individual patient characteristics.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses. METHODS: Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs. RESULTS: These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

Safety of Opioids in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the safety of opioids in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL), and Scopus electronic databases. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with opioids in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, renal and urinary disorders, respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs and drug-related AEs. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once). RESULTS: Database searches identified 2189 records, from which, after exclusions, 17 papers were included in the meta-analysis. More disorders of the lower GI tract (constipation, fecaloma) were reported with both immediate-release (IR) and extended-release (ER) formulations of opioids versus placebo: IR opioids (relative risk [RR] 5.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.42-7.89); ER opioids (RR 4.22, 95% CI 3.44-5.17). The risk of upper GI AEs increased fourfold with ER opioids compared with placebo (RR 4.03, 95% CI 0.87-18.62), and the risk of nausea, vomiting or loss of appetite increased four- to fivefold with both formulations: IR opioids (RR 3.39, 95% CI 2.22-5.18); ER opioids (RR 4.03, 95% CI 3.37-4.83). An increased risk of dermatologic AEs (rash and pruritis; IR opioids: RR 3.60, 95% CI 1.74-7.43; ER opioids: RR 7.87, 95% CI 5.20-11.89) and central nervous system disorders (dizziness, headache, fatigue, somnolence, insomnia; IR opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.90-4.02; ER opioids: RR 2.76, 95% CI 2.19-3.47) was found with all opioid formulations versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that there are considerable safety and tolerability issues surrounding the use of opioids in OA, and support the recommendation of international and national guidelines to use opioids in OA after other analgesic options, and for short time periods.

An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

OBJECTIVES: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) sought to revisit the 2014 algorithm recommendations for knee osteoarthritis (OA), in light of recent efficacy and safety evidence, in order to develop an updated stepwise algorithm that provides practical guidance for the prescribing physician that is applicable in Europe and internationally. METHODS: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process, a summary of evidence document for each intervention in OA was provided to all members of an ESCEO working group, who were required to evaluate and vote on the strength of recommendation for each intervention. Based on the evidence collected, and on the strength of recommendations afforded by consensus of the working group, the final algorithm was constructed. RESULTS: An algorithm for management of knee OA comprising a stepwise approach and incorporating consensus on 15 treatment recommendations was prepared by the ESCEO working group. Both "strong" and "weak" recommendations were afforded to different interventions. The algorithm highlights the continued importance of non-pharmacological interventions throughout the management of OA. Benefits and limitations of different pharmacological treatments are explored in this article, with particular emphasis on safety issues highlighted by recent literature analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The updated ESCEO stepwise algorithm, developed by consensus from clinical experts in OA and informed by available evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatments, provides practical, current guidance that will enable clinicians to deliver patient-centric care in OA practice.