Conventional and biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES

The role of inflammation in OA is controversial and it is unclear whether suppressing inflammation with conventional or biologic DMARDs is effective. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to compare DMARDs with placebo in participants with symptomatic OA.

METHODS

Databases (Medline, Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Web of Science and Cochrane Library), conference abstracts and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to end of November 2017 for placebo-controlled RCTs of DMARDs, including biologics, in symptomatic OA. Pain data at treatment peak time point were extracted and combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. Markers of inflammation and adverse events were extracted and reviewed. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using Cochrane's tool.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (1205 participants) were meta-analysed, including six for conventional DMARDs (757 participants) and five for biologics (448 participants). Overall, DMARDs were statistically superior to placebo [effect size (ES) = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.34], although the difference was not clinically significant (0.5 ES threshold). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in sub-analysis of high-quality trials (ES = 0.11, 95% CI : -0.06, 0.28), biologics (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.02, 0.34) or conventional DMARDs (ES = 0.24, 95% CI: -0.05, 0.54). No difference was found between erosive vs non-erosive hand OA, hand vs knee OA or anti-IL1 vs anti-TNF biologics.

CONCLUSION

DMARDs did not offer clinically significant pain relief above placebo in OA. This poor efficacy indicates that inflammation may not be a prime driver for OA pain.