-
1.
A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of mud-bath therapy on knee osteoarthritis.
Mennuni, G, Fontana, M, Perricone, C, Nocchi, S, Rosso, R, Ceccarelli, F, Fraioli, A
La Clinica terapeutica. 2021;(4):372-387
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Osteoarthritis (OA) results from loss of cartilage in-tegrity in association with changes to the structure of the entire joint. Treatment of OA is based on different pharmaceutical and no phar-maceutical approaches and the latter include the use of spa-therapy. The biological effects of mud-bath therapy are mainly secondary to heat stimulation and to physic-chemical properties of mineral waters and mud-packs. Mud-bath therapy likely exerts its effects modulating several cytokines and other molecules involved in inflammation and cartilage degradation. Our aim was to perform an updated meta-analysis of the effectiveness of the mud-bath therapy on knee osteoarthritis and briefly to discuss the mechanisms of action of this treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS A MEDLINE on PubMed for articles on knee OA and spa therapy published from 1995 through up to April 2019 was performed. Then, we checked the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to find additional references included up to April 2019. Articles were included if in accordance with the eligibility cri-teria. Sample size and effect sizes were processed with the MedCalc software package. RESULTS Twenty one studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in meta-analysis. We examined WOMAC Index and VAS pain. We found significant improvements in function scores and painful symptoms after mud-bath therapy in patients with knee joint osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS Spa therapy is a non-drug treatment modalities, non invasive, complication-free, and cost-effective alternative modality for the conservative treatment of knee osteoarthritis. It cannot substitute for conventional therapy but can integrated or alternated to it. Treatment with mud-bath therapy may relieve pain, stiffness and improve functio-nal status in patients with knee OA.
-
2.
Genicular Artery Embolization for Osteoarthritis Related Knee Pain: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes.
Casadaban, LC, Mandell, JC, Epelboym, Y
Cardiovascular and interventional radiology. 2021;(1):1-9
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Objective To systematically review the published literature on genicular artery embolization (GAE) for osteoarthritis (OA) related knee pain. Materials and Methods Using three databases, a systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Outcome measures included the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results Three single-arm studies were included from an initial search yielding 305 results. One hundred and eighty-six knees in 133 patients with either mild-to-moderate (174/186, 94%) or severe (12/186, 6%) OA underwent embolization with either imipenem/cilastatin sodium (159/186, 85%) or embozene (27/186, 15%). Technical success was 100%. Average VAS improved from baseline at 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years (66.5 at baseline vs 33.5, 32.7, 33.8, 28.9, 29.0, 22.3, 14.8 and 14.0, respectively). Average WOMAC scores improved from baseline at 1, 3, 4, 6, 12 and 24 months (45.7 at baseline vs 24.0, 31.0, 14.8, 14.6, 8.2 and 6.2). Severe OA in 12 cases showed initially improved VAS, but was not sustained. Minor adverse events such as erythema in the region of embolization (21/186, 11%), puncture-site hematoma (18/186, 10%), paresthesia (2/186, 1%) and fever (1/186, 0.5%) were reported. Conclusion Limited single-arm studies report GAE is promising for treating OA-related pain. Most treatments performed for mild-to-moderate OA demonstrated durable clinical responses from 6 months to 4 years. Limited data for severe OA suggest a non-durable response. Future studies should be standardized to facilitate comparison and control for placebo effect.
-
3.
Symptomatic Efficacy of Pharmacological Treatments for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and a Network Meta-Analysis with a 6-Month Time Horizon.
Beaudart, C, Lengelé, L, Leclercq, V, Geerinck, A, Sanchez-Rodriguez, D, Bruyère, O, Reginster, JY
Drugs. 2020;(18):1947-1959
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Several pharmacological treatments aiming at a better symptomatic control of osteoarthritis (OA) are used in daily practice but their efficacy is often disputed. The purpose of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to assess the efficacy on pain and function of the drugs that are most widely prescribed against knee OA. METHODS Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane database of systematic reviews were searched for randomized controlled trials published up to August 2019 and assessing the efficacy of knee OA treatments using a 6-month time horizon. Pain and function changes from baseline were the primary outcomes. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was run and standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credibility intervals (95% CrIs) were calculated. RESULTS 9697 references were identified and 80 RCTs were concordant with our inclusion criteria (79 studies involving 15,609 individuals reported pain outcomes and 55 studies involving 13,655 individuals reported function outcomes). A significant decrease in pain was observed for the intra-articular (IA) combination of hyaluronic acid (HA) and triamcinolone (SMD - 0.49, 95% CrI - 0.78; - 0.19), vitamin D (SMD - 0.31, 95% CrI - 0.56; - 0.06), IA HA (SMD - 0.29, 95% CrI - 0.40; - 0.17), prescription-grade crystalline glucosamine sulfate (pCGS) (SMD - 0.29, 95% CrI - 0.58; - 0.004), and prescription-grade chondroitin sulfate (pCS) (SMD - 0.26, 95% CrI - 0.44; - 0.08). Significant improvements in physical function were found with pCGS (SMD - 0.44, 95% CrI - 0.66; - 0.21), vitamin D (SMD - 0.30, 95% CrIs - 0.49; - 0.11) and IA HA (SMD - 0.21, 95% CrIs - 0.31; - 0.11). CONCLUSION Six months of treatment with IA HA, pCGS, pCS, vitamin D and the combination of IA HA and triamcinolone improve pain and/or physical function in patients suffering from knee OA.
-
4.
Effect and safety of acupotomy in treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Fang, T, Li, Q, Zhou, F, Liu, F, Liu, Z, Zhao, M, Chen, M, You, J, Jin, Y, Xie, J
Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan. 2020;(3):355-364
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of acupotomy in treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS Extensive literature searches were carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (Issue 5, 2017), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database and Wanfang Database. All databases were retrieved from their inception until May 31, 2017. Randomized controlled trials incorporating acupotomy versus intra-articular sodium hyaluronate for knee osteoarthritis were included. According to Cochrane Reviews' Handbook (5.2), two reviewers screened each article and extracted data independently and were blinded to the findings of each reviewer. Meta-analysis was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration's RevMan 5.3 software. RESULTS We identified 12 studies involving 1150 patients aged between 40 and 78 years old. The pooled analysis indicated that acupotomy showed a significant improvement for short-term effect [cure rate: odds ratio (OR) = 2.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.46, 2.85), P < 0.01; total effective rate: OR = 2.25, 95% CI (1.55, 3.28), P < 0.01; pain score: standard mean difference (SMD) = -1.02; 95% CI (-1.72, -0.31); P = 0.005; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Questionnaire (WOMAC) score: SMD = -0.74; 95% CI (-1.11, -0.37); P < 0.01]; and also for long-term effect [total effective rate: OR = 2.99, 95%CI (1.88, 4.76), Z = 4.64, P < 0.01; pain score: SMD = -1.68; 95% CI (-2.14, -1.22); P < 0.001; WOMAC score: SMD = -0.91; 95% CI (-1.40, -0.41); P < 0.001]. In addition, there was no obvious difference between acupotomy group and control group in adverse events [OR = 2.13, 95%CI (0.14, 32.28), P = 0.58]. CONCLUSION Acupotomy is a safe and effective treatment for KOA. However, due to the methodological deficiency of the included studies, well-designed randomized controlled trials are required to further confirm the findings.
-
5.
Non-Pharmacological and Non-Surgical Interventions for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Ferreira, RM, Torres, RT, Duarte, JA, Gonçalves, RS
Acta reumatologica portuguesa. 2019;(3):173-217
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis is to know, based on the available randomized controlled trials, if the non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions commonly used for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients are effective and which are the most effective ones. MATERIAL AND METHODS RCTs were identified through electronic databases respecting the following terms to guide the search strategy: PICO (Patients - Humans with knee OA; Intervention - Non-surgical and non-pharmacological interventions; Comparison - Pharmacological, surgical, placebo, no intervention, or other non-pharmacological/non-surgical interventions; Outcomes - Pain, physical function and patient global assessment). The methodological quality of the selected publications was evaluated using the PEDro and GRADE scales. Additionally, a meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan. Only studies with similar control group, population characteristics, outcomes, instruments and follow-up, were compared in each analysis. RESULTS Initially, 52 RCTs emerge however, after methodological analysis, only 39 had sufficient quality to be included. From those, only 5 studies meet the meta-analysis criteria. Exercise (especially resistance training) had the best positive effects on knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others. Balance Training, Diet, Diathermy, Hydrotherapy, High Level Laser Therapy, Interferential Current, Mudpack, Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation, Musculoskeletal Manipulations, Shock Wave Therapy, Focal Muscle Vibration, stood out, however more studies are needed to fully recommend their use. Other interventions did not show to be effective or the results obtained were heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS Exercise is the best intervention for knee OA patients. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields and Moxibustion showed to be the most promising interventions from the others options available.
-
6.
Weight loss exclusively through diet for knee osteoarthritis.
Ríos, C, Irarrázaval, S
Medwave. 2019;(4):e7623
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Knee osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent chronic disease, associated with various risk factors and with multiple treatment options. Overweight is among the main risk factors and also constitutes an aggravating factor of the symptoms. It has been suggested that weight loss would be able to improve symptoms and to stop the progression. It can be achieved by several methods: exercise, diet, drugs, surgery, or a combination of them. Apparently, diet is a reasonable option given its availability, low technical complexity and greater acceptability, especially in the population susceptible to developing knee osteoarthritis, but it is not clear whether the benefit of diet as the only intervention leads to symptomatic improvement. METHODS We searched in Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS We identified seven systematic reviews including six primary studies overall, all corresponding to randomized trials. We concluded diet may improve functionality and quality of life, with probably minimal or no adverse effects. However, we are uncertain whether diet reduces pain as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low.
-
7.
Efficacy of curcumin and Boswellia for knee osteoarthritis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bannuru, RR, Osani, MC, Al-Eid, F, Wang, C
Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism. 2018;(3):416-429
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE The unfavorable safety profiles of commonly prescribed knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatments have led clinicians and patients to seek safer alternatives. Research has suggested that curcuminoid and boswellia formulations could moderate key inflammatory pathways that are associated with worsening symptoms and disease progression. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these treatments vs. placebo or NSAIDs for knee OA. METHODS We searched Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science and the Cochrane database from inception to February 21, 2018. We also hand searched reference lists and reviewed conference proceedings. We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing curcuminoid or boswellia formulations with placebo or NSAIDs for knee OA. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) for all relevant outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Eleven RCTs (N = 1009) were eligible for analysis. Study quality was low overall, and most included RCTs were conducted on fewer than 100 participants. Both curcuminoid and boswellia formulations were statistically significantly more effective than placebo for pain relief and functional improvement. There were no significant differences between curcuminoids or boswellia and placebo in safety outcomes. Curcuminoids showed no statistically significant differences in efficacy outcomes compared to NSAIDs; patients receiving curcuminoids were significantly less likely to experience gastrointestinal adverse events. No RCTs compared boswellia against approved NSAIDs. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study suggest that curcuminoid and boswellia formulations could be a valuable addition to the knee OA treatment regimens by relieving symptoms while reducing safety risks. The current body of evidence is not adequate in size or quality to make any meaningful clinical practice recommendations. Further research through large, high quality RCTs probably investigating the synergistic effect of these products with other OA treatments is warranted.