Bellamy N, Campbell J, Robinson V, Gee T, Bourne R, Wells G
Medicine, Centre of National Research on Disability and Rehabilitation Medicine (CONROD), C Floor, Clinical Sciences Bldg., Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston Road, Brisbane, Queensland 4029, Australia.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18(2):CD005321. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005321.
Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability.
To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), NRD-101, Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum).
MEDLINE, EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to April 2004 were handsearched.
RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997).
Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers (NB, JC) for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer (JC) and verified by a second reviewer (VR). Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR).
Sixty-three trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and one year. Thirty-seven trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo, nine trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, and five trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 11 to 54% for pain and 9 to 15% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that based on non-randomised groups, the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.1 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.1 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.
骨关节炎(OA)是全球最常见的慢性关节疾病,与严重疼痛和残疾相关。
评估关节腔注射透明质酸类药物治疗膝骨关节炎的效果。所涉产品包括透明质酸和交联透明质酸衍生物(阿达特、关节灵H、阿特兹(阿尔扎尔、施沛特)、生物透明质酸(关节酶)、杜罗蓝恩、弗马通、骨优宁、海乐妙、交联透明质酸钠凝胶20(施沛特凝胶)、NRD - 101、奥多明、奥斯替尼、瑞普莱辛、SLM - 10、舒普辛、新适确得和齐尔复合剂)。
检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、PREMEDLINE、截至2003年7月的《现刊目次》以及Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)。还手工检索了专业期刊以及截至2004年4月已识别的随机对照试验(RCT)的参考文献列表和相关综述文章。
诊断为膝骨关节炎患者接受关节腔注射透明质酸类药物治疗的RCT符合要求。单盲和双盲研究、基于安慰剂的研究以及比较研究均符合要求。必须报告至少一项骨关节炎研究学会国际工作组(OMERACT)III核心指标集的结果测量指标(贝拉米,1997年)。
两名评价者(NB、JC)使用经过验证的工具独立评估每项试验的方法学质量。所有数据由一名评价者(JC)提取,并由另一名评价者(VR)核实。连续型结局指标采用加权均数差值(WMD)及95%置信区间(CI)进行分析。二分法结局采用相对危险度(RR)进行分析。
共识别出63项试验,质量评分中位数为3(范围1至5)。随访期从最后一次注射日至1年不等。37项试验纳入了透明质酸/交联透明质酸与安慰剂的比较,9项试验纳入了关节内(IA)皮质类固醇的比较,5项试验纳入了非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)的比较。关节腔注射透明质酸类药物与“安慰剂”对照效果的汇总分析总体上支持这类干预措施的有效性。在这些相同的分析中,观察到不同产品在不同变量和不同时间点的疗效存在差异。值得注意的是,注射后5至13周期间,疼痛从基线改善的百分比为11%至54%,功能为9%至15%。总体而言,与NSAIDs相比疗效相当,与IA皮质类固醇相比有更长期的益处。在这些分析中纳入的透明质酸/交联透明质酸试验中,总体报告的不良事件较少。
基于上述分析,关节腔注射透明质酸类药物是膝骨关节炎的有效治疗方法,具有以下有益效果:对疼痛、功能和患者整体评估;在不同的注射后时期,尤其是注射后5至13周期间。值得注意的是,基于非随机分组,RevMan 4.1输出的WMD和标准化均数差值(SMD)所表示临床效果的大小,因不同产品、比较、时间点、变量和试验设计而异。然而,不同关节腔注射透明质酸类药物产品之间几乎没有随机的直接比较,因此读者在得出不同产品相对价值的结论时应谨慎。某些产品在某些时间点对某些变量与安慰剂相比的临床效果处于中等到大效应量范围。鉴于产品类别之间效果的异质性以及RevMan 4.1分析与原始出版物之间观察到的一些差异,读者应参考相关表格以查看具体细节。总体而言,所进行的分析对透明质酸类产品是肯定的,特别是对于某些产品在某些变量和时间点,如注射后5至13周负重时的疼痛。一般来说,样本量限制妨碍了对透明质酸类产品安全性作出任何明确评论;然而,在所采用的试验设计的限制范围内,未检测到重大安全问题。在一些分析中,关节腔注射透明质酸类药物的疗效与全身形式的积极干预相当,局部反应更多但全身不良事件更少。在其他分析中,透明质酸产品的效果比IA皮质类固醇更持久。总体而言,上述分析支持使用透明质酸类产品治疗膝骨关节炎。