Xavier Chevalier, Brendan Sheehan, Craig Whittington, Mir-Masoud Pourrahmat, Lionel Duarte, Wilson Ngai, Gustavo Constantino de Campos
{"title":"Hylan g - f20与关节内皮质类固醇治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的疗效和安全性:系统评价和网络荟萃分析","authors":"Xavier Chevalier, Brendan Sheehan, Craig Whittington, Mir-Masoud Pourrahmat, Lionel Duarte, Wilson Ngai, Gustavo Constantino de Campos","doi":"10.1177/1179544120967370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Direct injection of corticosteroids into the joint is a standard treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the treatment is somewhat controversial with regard to the benefit of both single and repeated injections; evidence that they are beneficial comes from small studies that show only modest improvements. The aim of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term clinical efficacy and safety of hylan G-F 20 versus intra-articular corticosteroids (IACS) for the treatment of pain in knee OA using Bayesian network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on a pre-specified protocol, MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 2018 to identify randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the included studies. Hylan G-F 20 and IACS were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Efficacy was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, and at the final follow-up for safety outcomes. A pain hierarchy was used to select 1 pain outcome per study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two trials were included for analysis. The network meta-analysis of pain showed that hylan G-F 20 may be equivalent to IACS in the short-term, but by 6 months the benefit relative to IACS was statistically significant, standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): -0.13 (-0.26, -0.01). There were no statistical differences in adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hylan G-F 20 may perform better in relieving pain at 6 months post-injection compared to IACS. Both agents were relatively well tolerated, with no clear differences in safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":10443,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders","volume":"13 ","pages":"1179544120967370"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179544120967370","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Hylan G-F 20 Versus Intra-Articular Corticosteroids in People with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xavier Chevalier, Brendan Sheehan, Craig Whittington, Mir-Masoud Pourrahmat, Lionel Duarte, Wilson Ngai, Gustavo Constantino de Campos\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1179544120967370\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Direct injection of corticosteroids into the joint is a standard treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the treatment is somewhat controversial with regard to the benefit of both single and repeated injections; evidence that they are beneficial comes from small studies that show only modest improvements. The aim of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term clinical efficacy and safety of hylan G-F 20 versus intra-articular corticosteroids (IACS) for the treatment of pain in knee OA using Bayesian network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Based on a pre-specified protocol, MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 2018 to identify randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the included studies. Hylan G-F 20 and IACS were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Efficacy was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, and at the final follow-up for safety outcomes. A pain hierarchy was used to select 1 pain outcome per study.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two trials were included for analysis. The network meta-analysis of pain showed that hylan G-F 20 may be equivalent to IACS in the short-term, but by 6 months the benefit relative to IACS was statistically significant, standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): -0.13 (-0.26, -0.01). There were no statistical differences in adverse events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hylan G-F 20 may perform better in relieving pain at 6 months post-injection compared to IACS. Both agents were relatively well tolerated, with no clear differences in safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10443,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"1179544120967370\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179544120967370\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179544120967370\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine Insights. Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179544120967370","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
摘要
背景:关节内直接注射皮质类固醇是膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)的标准治疗方法。然而,关于单次注射和重复注射的益处,治疗方法有些争议;它们有益的证据来自小型研究,这些研究只显示出适度的改善。本研究的目的是使用贝叶斯网络meta分析来评估hylan g- f20与关节内皮质类固醇(IACS)治疗膝关节OA疼痛的短期和长期临床疗效和安全性。方法:基于预先指定的方案,检索MEDLINE, Embase和CENTRAL,从创建到2018年6月,以确定随机对照试验。Cochrane协作组织的评估随机试验偏倚风险的工具被用于评估纳入的研究。Hylan g - f20与IACS采用贝叶斯网络meta分析进行比较。在1个月、3个月和6个月时评估疗效,并在最后随访时评估安全性结果。每个研究使用疼痛等级来选择1个疼痛结果。结果:纳入42项试验进行分析。疼痛的网络meta分析显示,hylan G-F 20在短期内可能相当于IACS,但到6个月时,相对于IACS的益处具有统计学意义,标准化平均差异(95%可信区间):-0.13(-0.26,-0.01)。两组不良事件发生率无统计学差异。结论:与IACS相比,海兰G-F 20在注射后6个月的镇痛效果更好。两种药物的耐受性都相对较好,安全性没有明显差异。
Efficacy and Safety of Hylan G-F 20 Versus Intra-Articular Corticosteroids in People with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Background: Direct injection of corticosteroids into the joint is a standard treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the treatment is somewhat controversial with regard to the benefit of both single and repeated injections; evidence that they are beneficial comes from small studies that show only modest improvements. The aim of this study was to estimate the short- and long-term clinical efficacy and safety of hylan G-F 20 versus intra-articular corticosteroids (IACS) for the treatment of pain in knee OA using Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Methods: Based on a pre-specified protocol, MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to June 2018 to identify randomized controlled trials. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials was used to assess the included studies. Hylan G-F 20 and IACS were compared using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Efficacy was evaluated at 1, 3, and 6 months, and at the final follow-up for safety outcomes. A pain hierarchy was used to select 1 pain outcome per study.
Results: Forty-two trials were included for analysis. The network meta-analysis of pain showed that hylan G-F 20 may be equivalent to IACS in the short-term, but by 6 months the benefit relative to IACS was statistically significant, standardized mean difference (95% credible interval): -0.13 (-0.26, -0.01). There were no statistical differences in adverse events.
Conclusions: Hylan G-F 20 may perform better in relieving pain at 6 months post-injection compared to IACS. Both agents were relatively well tolerated, with no clear differences in safety.