0
selected
-
1.
The Efficacy and Safety of Intra-articular Low Molecular Weight Fraction of Human Serum Albumin for the Management of Moderate to Moderately Severe Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Nooh, M. H., Alshehri, M. S., Alzahrani, Z. S., Alsolami, H. M., Almutairi, A. O., AlOtaibi, A. S., Aljohani, A. N.
Cureus. 2023;15(6):e41240
Abstract
Osteoarthritis is a chronic degenerative joint disease that affects weight-bearing joints. Low molecular weight fraction of 5% (LMWF-5A) human serum albumin is an intra-articular injection that emerged for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. The aim of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of LMWF-5A versus placebo through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EBSCO, and ClinicalTrials.gov registry databases were utilized to search for studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of LMWF-5A versus placebo were included. Efficacy endpoints were represented by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) A and C scores for pain and function, respectively. Serious adverse events (SAEs), non-serious adverse events (NSAEs), and mortality rates were used to evaluate the safety of the drug. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for the risk of bias assessment. Seven RCTs (n=2939) that met the inclusion criteria were included. The meta-analysis did not find significant improvement in pain (WOMAC A) (standardized mean difference (SMD)= -0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.10 - 0.09, P=0.87, I²=30%). Additionally, no significant change in function was noted (WOMAC C) (SMD=0.01, 95% CI -0.08 - 0.10, P=0.87, I²=22%). The pooled analysis did not find a significant difference between LMWF-5A and placebo regarding the incidence of joint swelling (P=0.84), joint stiffness (P=0.53), arthralgia (P=0.53), extremity pain (P=0.45), NSAEs (P=0.21), SAEs (P=0.92), or mortality (P=1.00). However, the subgroup analysis showed a significant reduction of 42% in NSAEs upon administration of 10 mL of LMWF-5A (risk ratio (RR)=0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.97, P=0.04). In summary, our meta-analysis did not find significant differences between LMWF-5A and placebo regarding the incidence of NSAEs, SAEs, or mortality. On the other hand, LMWF-5A did not demonstrate superiority over saline in terms of efficacy. Therefore, it is not an effective drug for managing knee osteoarthritis.
-
2.
Autologous Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Blood-Derived Products for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review
Ajrawat P, Dwyer T, Chahal J
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2019;35(7):2211-2221
Abstract
PURPOSE To systematically review the available clinical data regarding the use of autologous IL-1 receptor antagonist blood products (AILBPs) and their validity as an alternative intra-articular (IA) therapy for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to June 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and noncomparative studies that evaluated the clinical efficacy of AILBPs (i.e., autologous protein solution and autologous conditioned serum) for knee OA were included. The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. The secondary outcomes measured were the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale score, Short Form 36 (SF-36) score, radiographic scores, and adverse events, which were qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS We included 8 studies, comprising 3 RCTs (Level II) and 5 noncomparative studies (Level IV), with a total of 592 patients (mean age, 56.4 years; 49.7% male patients). The RCTs represented high methodologic quality, whereas the noncomparative studies represented moderate to good quality. With AILBPs, 2 of 4 studies (50%) showed improvements in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score symptom and sport subscales, 5 of 7 studies (71%) achieved improvements in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, and 4 of 5 studies (80%) attained improvements in the visual analog scale pain score from baseline to final follow-up. Most adverse events associated with AILBPs were mild to moderate in severity and were primarily localized to the injection site. CONCLUSIONS Limited evidence substantiates that AILBPs are a safe and tolerable IA injection therapy that may improve pain parameters and functionality for mild to moderate knee OA patients and may be an effective adjunct for those unresponsive to traditional IA therapies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.
-
3.
Interventions for dysphagia in long-term, progressive muscle disease
Jones K, Pitceathly RD, Rose MR, McGowan S, Hill M, Badrising UA, Hughes T
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016;((2)):CD004303.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Normal swallowing function is divided into oral, pharyngeal, and oesophageal phases. The anatomy and physiology of the oral cavity facilitates an oral preparatory phase of swallowing, in which food and liquid are pushed towards the pharynx by the tongue. During pharyngeal and oesophageal phases of swallowing, food and liquid are moved from the pharynx to the stomach via the oesophagus. Our understanding of swallowing function in health and disease has informed our understanding of how muscle weakness can disrupt swallowing in people with muscle disease. As a common complication of long-term, progressive muscle disease, there is a clear need to evaluate the current interventions for managing swallowing difficulties (dysphagia). This is an update of a review first published in 2004. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of interventions for dysphagia in people with long-term, progressive muscle disease. SEARCH METHODS On 11 January 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, LILACS, and CINAHL. We checked references in the identified trials for additional randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 12 January 2016 for ongoing or completed but unpublished clinical trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of interventions for managing dysphagia in adults and children with long-term, progressive muscle disease, compared to other interventions, placebo, no intervention, or standard care. Quasi-randomised controlled trials are trials that used a quasi-random method of allocation, such as date of birth, alternation, or case record number. Review authors previously excluded trials involving people with muscle conditions of a known inflammatory or toxic aetiology. In this review update, we decided to include trials of people with sporadic inclusion body myositis (IBM) on the basis that it presents as a long-term, progressive muscle disease with uncertain degenerative and inflammatory aetiology and is typically refractory to treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We applied standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS There were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported results in terms of the review's primary outcome of interest, weight gain or maintenance. However, we identified one RCT that assessed the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin on swallowing function in people with IBM. The trial authors did not specify the number of study participants who had dysphagia. There was also incomplete reporting of findings from videofluoroscopic investigations, which was one of the review's secondary outcome measures. The study did report reductions in the time taken to swallow, as measured using ultrasound. No serious adverse events occurred during the study, although data for the follow-up period were lacking. It was also unclear whether the non-serious adverse events reported occurred in the treatment group or the placebo group. We assessed this study as having a high risk of bias and uncertain confidence intervals for the review outcomes, which limited the overall quality of the evidence. Using GRADE criteria, we downgraded the quality of the evidence from this RCT to 'low' for efficacy in treating dysphagia, due to limitations in study design and implementation, and indirectness in terms of the population and outcome measures. Similarly, we assessed the quality of the evidence for adverse events as 'low'. From our search for RCTs, we identified two other non-randomised studies, which reported the effects of long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in adults with IBM and lip-strengthening exercises in children with myotonic dystrophy type 1. Headaches affected two participants treated with long-term intravenous immunoglobulin therapy, who received a tailored dose reduction; there
-
4.
Systematic review of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs for juvenile idiopathic arthritis
Kemper AR, Van Mater HA, Coeytaux RR, Williams JW Jr, Sanders GD
BMC Pediatrics. 2012;12:29
Abstract
BACKGROUND Treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) may improve outcomes compared to conventional therapy (e.g., non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids). The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness and safety of DMARDs versus conventional therapy and versus other DMARDs. RESULTS A systematic evidence review of 156 reports identified in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and by hand searches. There is some evidence that methotrexate is superior to conventional therapy. Among children who have responded to a biologic DMARD, randomized discontinuation trials suggest that continued treatment decreases the risk of having a flare. However, these studies evaluated DMARDs with different mechanisms of action (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, etanercept, intravenous immunoglobulin, tocilizumab) and used varying comparators and follow-up periods. Rates of serious adverse events are similar between DMARDs and placebo in published trials. This review identified 11 incident cases of cancer among several thousand children treated with one or more DMARD. CONCLUSIONS Few data are available to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of either specific DMARDs or general classes of DMARDs. However, based on the overall number, quality, and consistency of studies, there is moderate strength of evidence to support that DMARDs improve JIA-associated symptoms. Limited data suggest that short-term risk of cancer is low.