Suppr超能文献

局部粘弹性补充注射在治疗膝关节骨关节炎方面在临床上是否优于其他疗法:重叠荟萃分析的系统评价

Is Local Viscosupplementation Injection Clinically Superior to Other Therapies in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses.

作者信息

Campbell Kirk A, Erickson Brandon J, Saltzman Bryan M, Mascarenhas Randy, Bach Bernard R, Cole Brian J, Verma Nikhil N

机构信息

Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A..

Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2015 Oct;31(10):2036-45.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.03.030. Epub 2015 May 19.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) with intra-articular viscosupplementation (intra-articular hyaluronic acid [IA-HA]) versus oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-corticosteroids), intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP), or intra-articular placebo (IA-placebo) to determine which meta-analyses provide the best current evidence and identify potential causes of discordance.

METHODS

Literature searches were performed for meta-analyses examining use of IA-HA versus NSAIDs, IA-corticosteroids, IA-PRP, or IA-placebo. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence.

RESULTS

Fourteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and ranged in quality from Level I to IV evidence. In studies reporting patient numbers, there were a total of 20,049 patients: 13,698 receiving IA-HA, 355 receiving NSAIDs, 294 receiving IA-corticosteroids, and 5,702 receiving IA-placebo. Ten studies examined the effects of IA-HA versus IA-placebo; of these, 5 found that IA-HA improved pain and 4 found that IA-HA improved function. No clinically relevant differences in the efficacy of IA-HA versus NSAIDs regarding pain and function were found. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-PRP, IA-HA improved knee function at 2 and 6 months after injection but the effects were less robust than those of IA-PRP. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-corticosteroids, the positive effects of IA-HA were greater at 5 to 13 weeks and persisted for up to 26 weeks. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 2 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected and both showed that IA-HA provided clinically relevant improvements in pain and function compared with IA-placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IA-HA with other nonoperative treatment modalities for knee OA shows that the current highest level of evidence suggests that IA-HA is a viable option for knee OA. Its use results in improvements in knee pain and function that can persist for up to 26 weeks. IA-HA has a good safety profile, and its use should be considered in patients with early knee OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

摘要

目的

对重叠的荟萃分析进行系统评价,比较关节内注射透明质酸(IA-HA)与口服非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)、关节内注射皮质类固醇(IA-皮质类固醇)、关节内注射富血小板血浆(IA-PRP)或关节内注射安慰剂(IA-安慰剂)治疗膝骨关节炎(OA)的效果,以确定哪些荟萃分析提供了当前最佳证据,并找出不一致的潜在原因。

方法

检索关于IA-HA与NSAIDs、IA-皮质类固醇、IA-PRP或IA-安慰剂对比使用的荟萃分析文献。提取临床数据,并评估荟萃分析的质量。应用Jadad算法确定哪些荟萃分析提供了最高级别的证据。

结果

14项荟萃分析符合纳入标准,质量等级从I级到IV级证据不等。在报告患者数量的研究中,共有20,049例患者:13,698例接受IA-HA治疗,355例接受NSAIDs治疗,294例接受IA-皮质类固醇治疗,5,702例接受IA-安慰剂治疗。10项研究比较了IA-HA与IA-安慰剂的效果;其中5项发现IA-HA可改善疼痛,4项发现IA-HA可改善功能。未发现IA-HA与NSAIDs在疼痛和功能疗效上存在临床相关差异。在IA-HA与IA-PRP的比较中,IA-HA在注射后2个月和6个月可改善膝关节功能,但效果不如IA-PRP显著。在IA-HA与IA-皮质类固醇的比较中,IA-HA在5至13周时的积极效果更明显,且可持续长达26周。应用Jadad算法后,选择了2项一致的高质量荟萃分析,二者均显示与IA-安慰剂相比,IA-HA在疼痛和功能方面有临床相关改善。

结论

这项对比较IA-HA与膝OA其他非手术治疗方式的重叠荟萃分析的系统评价表明,当前最高级别的证据表明IA-HA是膝OA的一种可行选择。其使用可改善膝关节疼痛和功能,且效果可持续长达26周。IA-HA具有良好的安全性,对于早期膝OA患者应考虑使用。

证据级别

IV级,对I级至IV级研究的系统评价。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验