Molecular Weight of Hyaluronic Acid Has Major Influence on Its Efficacy and Safety for Viscosupplementation in Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Cartilage ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 194760352110219
Yen-Zung Wu ◽  
Hsuan-Ti Huang ◽  
Cheng-Jung Ho ◽  
Chia-Lung Shih ◽  
Chung-Hwan Chen ◽  

Background This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injection with different molecular weights (MWs) for treating hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods A systematic literature search for relevant studies was conducted in 3 electronic databases, including PubMed, BMJ Journals, and Cochrane Library, from inception to April 2020. Extracted outcomes included visual analogue scale (VAS) (1, 3, and 6 months), Lequesne index (3 and 6 months), and adverse effects. HAs were classified into low-molecular-weight (LMW), moderate-molecular-weight (MMW), high-molecular-weight (HMW), and ultra-high-molecular-weight (UHMW) groups. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. Results A total of 15 studies with 614 patients were included. Our meta-analysis showed that the HMW HA group had the best improvement in VAS and Lequesne index compared with other HA groups for all the follow-up visits. Moreover, the HMW group demonstrated significantly better improvement than the other groups in VAS at 6-month follow-up and in Lequesne index at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Analysis for adverse effects revealed low rates of systemic adverse effects (≤0.6%) in all groups and similar rate of local adverse effects (around 10%) among the groups except for UHMW HA group (37.5%). Conclusion Among different MWs of HA for treating hip OA, HMW HA injection demonstrated the best efficacy for up to 6 months after treatment without increased risk of adverse effects. Further studies with more comprehensive data and a higher level of evidence are required to prove our results.

2020 ◽  
Jinlong Zhao ◽  
Hetao Huang ◽  
Guihong Liang ◽  
Ling-feng Zeng ◽  
Weiyi Yang ◽  

Abstract Background Studies have shown that the combined application of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) can repair degenerated cartilage and delay the progression of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of PRP combined with HA in the treatment of KOA compared with intra-articular injection of PRP or HA alone. Methods The PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched from inception to December 2019. Two orthopaedic surgeons conducted the literature retrieval and extracted the data. Outcome indicators include the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), the Lequesne Index, the visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, and adverse events (AEs). Results Seven studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 2 cohort studies) with a total of 941 patients were included. In the VAS comparison after 6 months of follow-up, PRP combined with HA was more likely to reduce knee pain than PRP alone (standardized mean difference (SMD): -0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.55 to -0.06; P=0.01 <0.05). PRP combined with HA for KOA achieved better improvement in WOMAC Function Score (SMD: -0.32; 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.10) and WOMAC Total Score (SMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17) at the 12-month follow-up than the application of PRP alone. In a comparison of Lequesne Index scores at a 6-month follow-up, PRP combined with HA improved knee pain scores more than PRP alone (SMD: -0.42; 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.17). In terms of AEs, PRP combined with HA was not significantly different from PRP or HA alone (P>0.05). Conclusions Compared with intra-articular injection of PRP alone, PRP combined with HA can improve WOMAC Function Scores, WOMAC Total Score, 6-month follow-up VAS ratings, and Lequesne Index scores. However, in terms of the incidence of AEs, PRP combined with HA was not significantly different from PRP or HA alone.

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022142
Jun Wang ◽  
Yin Wang ◽  
Hui Zhang ◽  
Ming Lu ◽  
Weilu Gao ◽  

IntroductionOsteoarthritis is a common degenerative joint disease that eventually leads to disability and poor quality of life. The main symptoms are joint pain and mobility disorders. If the patient has severe pain or other analgesics are contraindicated, opioids may be a viable treatment option. To evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of opioids in the treatment of knee or hip osteoarthritis, we will integrate direct and indirect evidence using a Bayesian network meta-analysis to establish hierarchies of these drugs.Methods and analysisWe will search the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases as well as published and unpublished research in international registries and regulatory agency websites for osteoarthritis reports published prior to 5 January 2018. There will be no restrictions on the language. Randomised clinical trials that compare oral or transdermal opioids with other various opioids, placebo or no treatment for patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis will be included. The primary outcomes of efficacy will be pain and function. We will use pain and function scales to evaluate the main outcomes. The secondary outcomes of safety will be defined as the proportion of patients who have stopped treatment due to side effects. Pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses will be performed for all related outcome measures. We will conduct subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence contributing to each network assessment.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not require formal ethical approval because individual patient data will not be included. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications or conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018085503.

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. S503-S504
C. Hummer ◽  
F. Angst ◽  
E. Schemitsch ◽  
C. Whittington ◽  
C. Manitt ◽  

2019 ◽  
Vol 07 (11) ◽  
pp. E1474-E1482 ◽  
Thomas R. McCarty ◽  
Rajat Garg ◽  
Christopher C. Thompson ◽  
Tarun Rustagi

Abstract Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel endoscopic procedure designed to facilitate sustained luminal patency in patients with gastric outlet obstruction. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-GE for treatment of gastric outlet obstruction. Methods Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed through April 2019. Patients with benign and malignant gastric outlet obstruction were included. Measured outcomes included: immediate technical and clinical success as well as rate of serious adverse events (AEs). Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing. Results A total of five studies (n = 199 patients; 45.73 % male) were included in this study. Four retrospective studies and one prospective study were analyzed. Mean age of patients that underwent the EUS-GE procedure was 64.52 ± 1.37 years with a pooled mean follow-up period of 4.32 ± 1.65 months. In 21 % of patients (n = 43), gastric outlet obstruction was due to benign causes. Immediate technical success was 92.90 % (95 % CI; 88.26 – 95.79; I2 = 0.00 %) and reported in all studies. The clinical success rate of EUS-GE was 90.11 % (95 % CI; 84.64 – 93.44; I2 = 0.00 %). Serious AEs occurred in 5.61 % (95 % CI; 2.87 – 10.67; I2 = 1.67 %) of cases and were related to peritonitis, perforation, bleeding, and abdominal pain. Re-intervention rate was 11.43 % (95 % CI; 7.29 – 17.46; I2 = 17.38 %). Conclusions EUS-GE appears to provide an effective and safe minimally invasive alternative for treatment of benign and malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Pan Luo ◽  
Zhencheng Xiong ◽  
Wei Sun ◽  
Lijun Shi ◽  
Fuqiang Gao ◽  

Objective. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was better than hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in overweight or obese patients. Design. Two reviewers independently used the keywords combined with free words to search English-based electronic databases according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, such as PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane library. The pooled data were analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Results. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1096 patients were included. During the first two months of follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two groups. At the 3rd, 6th, and 12th months of follow-up, the pooled analysis showed that PRP was better than HA for the treatment of knee OA in overweight or obese patients. There were significant differences between the two groups at Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (3 months: MD = −1.35, [95% CI: −2.19 to −0.50], P=0.002, I2 = 0%; 6 months: MD = −7.62, [95% CI: −13.51 to −1.72], P=0.01, I2 = 88%; 12 months: MD = −12.11, [95% CI: −20.21 to −4.01], P=0.003, I2 = 94%). Conclusions. For overweight or obese patients with knee OA, intra-articular injection of PRP in a short time was not necessarily superior to HA, but long-term use was better than HA in pain and functional relief.

BMC Neurology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Motao Liu ◽  
Amy J. Wang ◽  
Yu Chen ◽  
Gexin Zhao ◽  
Zhifeng Jiang ◽  

Abstract Background Recent studies regarding the effects of erythropoietin (EPO) for treating traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been inconsistent. This study conducts a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the safety and efficacy of EPO for TBI patients at various follow-up time points. Methods A literature search was performed using PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library for RCTs studying EPO in TBI patients published through March 2019. Non-English manuscripts and non-human studies were excluded. The assessed outcomes include mortality, neurological recovery and associated adverse effects. Dichotomous variables are presented as risk ratios (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results A total of seven RCTs involving 1197 TBI patients (611 treated with EPO, 586 treated with placebo) were included in this study. Compared to the placebo arm, treatment with EPO did not improve acute hospital mortality or short-term mortality. However, there was a significant improvement in mid-term (6 months) follow-up survival rates. EPO administration was not associated with neurological function improvement. Regarding adverse effects, EPO treatment did not increase the incidence of thromboembolic events or other associated adverse events. Conclusions This meta-analysis indicates a slight mortality benefit for TBI patients treated with EPO at mid-term follow-up. EPO does not improve in-hospital mortality, nor does it increase adverse events including thrombotic, cardiovascular and other associated complications. Our analysis did not demonstrate a significant beneficial effect of EPO intervention on the recovery of neurological function. Future RCTs are required to further characterize the use of EPO in TBI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document