Use Of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Research Articles

Association between intra-articular hyaluronic acid injections in delaying total knee arthroplasty and safety evaluation in primary knee osteoarthritis: analysis based on Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) claim database in Republic of Korea

BackgroundThe prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), a progressive degenerative disease, is gradually increasing, and it is a progressive degenerative disease. In patients with mild-to-moderate KOA, intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) has been shown to be an effective non-operative treatment option that can provide significant pain relief and symptom improvement by increasing intra-articular viscoelasticity. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IA-HA injections in delaying total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and the safety of IA-HA according to IA-HA type and combination with intra-articular corticosteroid (IA-CS) using a large health insurance claim database.MethodsFor this retrospective cohort study, the study population included patients aged ≥ 50 years with a first diagnosis of KOA between 2009 and 2014, who underwent TKA by 2020, using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service claim database in Republic of Korea. IA-HA injections were categorized as single or multiple injection regimen agents. Cox proportional hazard models estimated hazard ratios (HR) for TKA risk, adjusted for covariates. Logistic regression assessed the occurrence of adverse events after IA-HA administration.ResultsIn all, 36,983 patients were included. Patients who received IA-HA injections had a significantly longer time to TKA compared to those who did not (mean delay of approximately 1 year). The IA-HA group had a significantly lower risk of TKA (HR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.60–0.62) than non-IA-HA group after adjusting for covariates, which included age, sex, medical history, number of hospital beds, and CS injection. Single injection IA-HA regimen agents showed the longest time to TKA and lowest risk (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.53–0.59). TKA risk decreased with the number of IA-HA cycles. Adverse events occurred in 6.7% of IA-HA cases without CS, with very low incidence of infection. Multiple injection regimen agents (multiple injection regimen 7.0% vs. single injection regimen 3.6%) and concurrent IA-CS use (concurrent IA-CS use 13.9% vs. IA-HA only 6.7%) were associated with higher infection risk.ConclusionIA-HA injections were associated with a significant delay in TKA among patients with KOA. Single-injection regimen agents had the lowest TKA risk. Infection risk increased with multiple injections and concurrent IA-CS use. These findings could suggest the use of IA-HA as an effective non-operative intervention option for managing KOA and delaying TKA. Careful selection of IA-HA type and consideration of concurrent IA-CS use could play a role in delaying the time to TKA and reducing complications.

Comparison of outcomes with intra-articular hyaluronic acid vs corticosteroids after TMJ arthrocentesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This review aimed to examine differences in outcomes with the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) vs corticosteroids (CS) after temporomandibular joint (TMJ) arthrocentesis. Studies were searched on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to 15th January 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HA with CS after TMJ arthrocentesis were included. The outcomes were pain and maximal mouth opening (MMO). Ten articles corresponding to nine RCTs were included. There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores at 1 week (MD: -0.30 95% CI: -1.25, 0.65 I2=0%), 1 month (MD: -0.55 95% CI: -1.23, 0.13 I2=0%), and 6 months (MD: -0.57 95% CI: -2.10, 0.96 I2=58%) between the two groups. However, pain scores were found to be significantly lower in the HA group at 3 months (MD: -1.07 95% CI: -1.84, -0.31 I2=0%). No statistically significant difference was noted in MMO at 1 week (MD: 0.78 95% CI: -1.79, 3.35 I2=0%), 1 month (MD: 0.32 95% CI: -1.83, 2.46 I2=0%), and 3 months (MD: -0.41 95% CI: -3.90, 3.07 I2=0%) between the two groups. Descriptive analysis for studies not included in the meta-analysis also presented similar results. Low-quality evidence suggests that both intra-articular HA and CS have similar efficacy in improving pain scores and MMO after TMJ arthrocentesis.

Could Hyaluronic Acid Be Considered as a Senomorphic Agent in Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review.

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the most common causes of disability in elderly patients and tends to be a major burden on social and health care spending. Despite its severe socioeconomic impact, KOA remains, to date, an incurable disease. Due to its proper characteristics, KOA represents a favorable disease model for experimenting with senotherapeutics, a group of treatments that counteract the development of age-related disorders and chronic diseases. In recent years, the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the treatment of diseases related to the wear and tear of the articular cartilage has been gaining popularity. Given its ability in joint lubrification, shock absorption, and cell signaling, our aim is to investigate, through the existing scientific literature, its potential role as a senomorphic agent, emphasizing its crucial function in KOA patients. Indeed, senomorphics are a particular group of senotherapeutics capable of modulating the functions and morphology of senescent cells to those of young cells or delaying the progression of young cells to senescent cells in tissues. A search in the scientific literature (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) was carried out from 2019 to 2023, thus the last 5 years. One hundred thirty-eight articles were found concerning the role of hyaluronic acid injections in KOA patients. In these studies, its therapeutic efficacy, its anti-inflammatory properties, and its low risk of side effects emerged. IAHA injections are a valuable treatment option for KOA while they can provide pain relief, improve joint function, and slow the progression of joint degeneration. The inhibitory effect of HA on MMP13 and its action as a senomorphic agent suggests that it may have additional benefits beyond its lubricating and shock-absorbing properties. In order to clarify its mechanisms of action and to optimize its clinical use, further studies are definitely needed.

Comment on: The Effect of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections and Payer Coverage on Total Knee Arthroplasty Procedures: Evidence From Large US Claims Database.

Comment on: The Effect of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections and Payer Coverage on Total Knee Arthroplasty Procedures: Evidence From Large US Claims Database.

A Systematic Review of Current Clinical Practice Guidelines on Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid, Corticosteroid, and Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Knee Osteoarthritis: An International Perspective.

Background:There are many clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). They differ by region, considering local health care systems, along with cultural and economic factors. Currently, there are conflicting CPG recommendations across the various publications, which makes it difficult for clinicians to fully understand the optimal treatment decisions for knee OA management.Purpose:To summarize the current published CPG recommendations for the role of injections in the nonoperative management of knee OA, specifically with the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-CS), and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).Study Design:Systematic review.Methods:A comprehensive search identified all nonoperative knee OA CPGs within the ECRI (formerly Emergency Care Research Institute) Guidelines Trust database, the Guidelines International Network database, Google Scholar, and the Trip (formerly Turning Research Into Practice) database. Guideline recommendations were categorized into strong, conditional, or uncertain recommendations for or against the use of IA-HA, IA-CS, or PRP. Guideline recommendations were summarized and depicted graphically to identify trends in recommendations over time.Results:The search strategy identified 27 CPGs that provided recommendations. There were 20 recommendations in favor of IA-HA use, 21 recommendations in favor of IA-CS use, and 9 recommendations that were uncertain or unable to make a formal recommendation for or against PRP use based on current evidence. Most recommendations considered IA-HA and IA-CS use for symptom relief when other nonoperative options are ineffective. IA-CS were noted to provide fast and short-acting symptom relief for acute episodes of disease exacerbation, while IA-HA may demonstrate a relatively delayed but prolonged effect in comparison. The CPGs concluded that PRP recommendations currently lack evidence to definitively recommend for or against use.Conclusion:Available CPGs provide recommendations on injectables for knee OA treatment. General guidance from a global perspective concluded that IA-CS and IA-HA are favored for different needed responses and can be utilized within the knee OA treatment paradigm, while PRP currently has insufficient evidence to make a conclusive recommendation for or against its use.

Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid in Patients with Osteoarthritis of The Knee

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is the most common chronic degenerative joint disease characterized by pain,stiffness, swelling and progressive functional limitation in elderly. Non-surgical management modalitieslike physical therapy, lifestyle modification and oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, are oftenineffective or do not alleviate symptoms adequately. Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) and hyaluronic acid(HA) injections have been used for long to alleviate the symptoms of knee OA. viscosupplementation hasbeen used as a therapeutic modality for the management of knee OA. The principle of viscosupplementationis based on the physiological properties of the hyaluronic acid (HA) in the synovial joint which helps tissuelubricate, cushion and reduce pain in the joint.Study diagnosed forty patient of knee Osteoarthritis for both gender with age (45-70 years) and observedchange and effectiveness to pre-and post of HA injection, All patients diagnosed by Orthopedists andRheumatologists whose used X-rays were graded as stage I, II and III according to Kellgren and Lawrencescale.All the measurements were used at the time of enrollment in the study before any injection and then measuredagain at the end of three months by using Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC) .All the patients before therapy were having minimum score of 72.4 & 9.045 for Mean and Standard Deviationrespectively while after the therapy there score reduced to 36.2 & 4.783.The results show improvement significant during four month under study and the effect peaks at around8–12 weeks following administration, This supports the potential use of intra-articular HA as an effectivelong therapeutic option for patients with OA of the knee.

Efficacy of conservative treatments for hand osteoarthritis : An umbrella review of interventional studies.

Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is common, but the efficacy/safety of treatment interventions aimed to improve health outcomes in this population are not well understood. Therefore, the aim of this study was to map and grade the effect of interventions for health outcomes in hand OA. Umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo/no intervention as control group. For outcomes with ap-value <0.05, the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) assessment. From 189 abstracts, 9meta-analyses (24outcomes) were included, with 8 reporting significant summary results. The use of splints was associated with reduced pain at medium term in thumb carpometacarpal OA (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.70; 95% confidence intervals [95% CI]: -1.05 to -0.35; low certainty), reduced pain in long follow-up RCTs in symptomatic hand OA (SMD = -0.80; 95% CI: -1.16; -0.45; moderate certainty), and better function (SMD = 0.42; 95% CI: 0.08; 0.70; low certainty). The use of resistance training (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI: -0.47; -0.07) or physical exercise (SMD = -0.23; 95% CI: -0.42; -0.04) in improving hand pain and in improving finger joint stiffness (SMD = -0.36; 95%CI: -0.58; -0.15) was supported by amoderate certainty of evidence. The use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid in improving function (MD = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.61; 1.64; moderate certainty of evidence) was the only statistically significant pharmacological intervention. Only some non-pharmacological interventions are effective in improving health outcomes in hand OA and this evidence is supported by amoderate/low certainty, indicating the necessity of further interventional research.

Consequences on Private Insurance Coverage: The AAOS Clinical Practice Guidelines and Hyaluronic Acid Injections.

Consequences on Private Insurance Coverage: The AAOS Clinical Practice Guidelines and Hyaluronic Acid Injections.

Viscosupplementation for Management of Knee Osteoarthritis from an Indian Perspective: An Expert Consensus Report.

IntroductionKnee osteoarthritis (OA) is a progressive degenerative condition and is a significant contributor toward physical disability in the aging population. The current treatment modalities for this condition focus on joint preservation with alleviation of symptoms. Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) injections have emerged as the promising mainstay of nonsurgical treatment of OA, especially in patients with mild-to-moderate OA and in certain subgroups of severe OA with comorbidities or with poor response to first-line therapy. The absence of standard guidelines or recommendations for the use of IAHA in India has led to vast variations in the usage of IAHA among practitioners. Hence, this consensus-based document aims to address the issue and establish simplified and easily implemented recommendations on the use of IAHA.MethodsA group of 78 expert orthopedic surgeons discussed in detail the evidence on appropriate criteria for diagnosis, patient selection, and follow-up evaluation for knee OA at two national meetings. In subsequently held regional meetings, key discussion points and clinical experience-based answers were translated into a questionnaire to develop the final expert consensus-based statements for the use of IAHA in patients with knee OA.ResultsVarious consensus statements were obtained on the basis of scientific evidence obtained from PubMed, Cochrane-indexed database, and guidelines related to viscosupplementation and knee OA as well as the experts’ clinical experience. This document was drafted, reviewed, validated, and modified by the expert panel until a final agreement was reached.ConclusionIn this pioneering attempt, the document lays down structured, expert consensus-based statements to guide and align practitioners on the appropriate use of IAHA in the Indian setting.FundingDr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd.Electronic Supplementary MaterialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40122-019-0131-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Osteoarthritis- a systematic review of long-term safety implications for osteoarthritis of the knee

BackgroundThere is no cure for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and typically patients live approximately 30-years with the disease. Most common medical treatments result in short-term palliation of symptoms with little consideration of long-term risk. This systematic review aims to appraise the current evidence for the long-term (≥12 months) safety of common treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA).MethodsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline and PubMed were systematically searched from 1990 to July 2017, inclusive. Inclusion criteria were 1) peer-reviewed publications investigating treatments for KOA referred to in the Australian Clinical Care Standard and/or Therapeutic Guidelines: Rheumatology 2) specifically addressing safety of the treatments 3) with ≥12 months of follow-up and 4) Downs and Black quality score ≥ 13.ResultsThirty-four studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Lifestyle modifications (moderate exercise and weight loss), paracetamol, glucosamine, Intraarticular Hyaluronic Acid (IAHA) and platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) injections have a low risk of harm and beneficial ≥12 month outcomes. Although Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) provide pain relief, they are associated with increased risk of medical complications. Cortisone injections are associated with radiological cartilage degeneration at > 12 months. Arthroscopy for degenerative meniscal tears in KOA leads to a 3-fold increase in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). TKA improves primary outcomes of KOA but has a low rate of significant medical complications.ConclusionsGiven the safety and effectiveness of lifestyle interventions such as weight loss and exercise, these should be advocated in all patients due to the low risk of harm. The use of NSAIDs should be minimized to avoid gastrointestinal complications. Treatment with opioids has a lack of evidence for use and a high risk of long-term harm. The use of IAHA and PRP may provide additional symptomatic benefit without the risk of harm. TKA is associated with significant medical complications but is justified by the efficacy of joint replacement in late-stage disease.Trial registrationPROSPERO International prospective register for systematic reviews; registration number CRD42017072809.

Use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid saves costs in knee OA

Use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid saves costs in knee OA

Supartz (Sodium Hyaluronate) for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review of Efficacy and Safety.

As concerns about the safety of systemic oral pharmacologic treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) mount, clinicians have increased the use of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) in managing mild-to-moderate knee OA. Supartz (sodium hyaluronate; Seikagaku Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) is the first IA-HA product to be approved in the world and has the longest history of global use. In this review, we summarize evidence supporting Supartz efficacy and safety, including data from pivotal clinical trials that resulted in approval of Supartz in the United States and Japan, the safety of single and repeated courses of Supartz, and Supartz efficacy using objective outcomes and in special populations. There is strong evidence that single 5-week courses of Supartz provide clinically meaningful reductions in pain and improved function for up to 6 months without risk of serious side effects or complications. Repeated courses of Supartz are as safe as single courses and have an extremely low risk of infection. Findings from promising initial studies, which suggest that Supartz may improve muscle strength, gait pattern, and balance, should be confirmed in randomized controlled trials.

Hyaluronic acid has chondroprotective and joint-preserving effects on LPS-induced synovitis in horses.

The intra-articular use of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of synovitis and osteoarthritis is still controversial. As a consequence, corticosteroids remain the most frequently employed therapeutic agents, despite their potential systemic and local deleterious effects. This study examined the anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and chondroprotective activities of low and high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (LMW-HA and HMW-HA) on lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced synovitis in horses compared to triamcinolone acetonide (TA). LPS was injected in the metacarpophalangeal joints, which were treated intra-articularly with either TA (as control) or LMW-HA or HMW-HA. Joint clinical evaluation and synovial fluid (SF) analysis were performed at 0, 8, 24, and 48 h. The white blood cell counts (WBC), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-10, tumor necrosis factor-α, chondroitin sulfate (CS) and HA concentrations, oxidative burst, and HA molecular weights were measured. TA reduced the lameness, swelling, and PGE2 release but increased the SF CS concentrations enormously at 24h and 48h, and decreased the SF HA modal molecular weight. These results indicate the breakdown of articular cartilage aggrecan and SF HA. In contrast, LMW-HA and HMW-HA were less effective in reducing the inflammation symptoms, but preserved the joints because only a modest increase in CS occurred at 24 h, decreasing at 48 h, and the SF HA was maintained. The HA-treatment also had anti-inflammatory actions, and LMW-HA was the most effective in reducing the release of cytokine. In summary, the HA treatment inhibited efficiently the digestion of cartilage proteoglycans and SF HA breakdown.

Mud-Bath Therapy in Addition to Usual Care in Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis: An Economic Evaluation Alongside a Randomized Controlled Trial.

To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of mud-bath therapy (MBT) in addition to usual treatment compared to usual treatment alone in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis (OA). An economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial was conducted. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 2-week cycle of MBT in addition to their usual treatment or to continue routine care alone. The EuroQol 5-domain questionnaire was administered at baseline, 2 weeks, and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Direct health care resource consumption data up until 12 months were derived from a daily diary given to patients and returned at prescheduled followup visits. A total of 103 patients were included (n = 53 for MBT patients; n = 50 for controls). Overall, patients in the MBT group accrued mean ± SD 0.835 ± 0.10 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared to 0.753 ± 0.11 in the control group (P < 0.001). Average direct costs per patient (€303 versus €975; P < 0.001) were higher in the control group, primarily because of hospitalization for total knee replacement and use of intraarticular hyaluronic acid. Bootstrapping replications of costs and QALY sample distributions consistently indicated that the MBT therapy combined with standard therapy represents a dominant strategy as compared with standard therapy alone. The probability of MBT being cost-effective at standard cost-effectiveness thresholds (e.g., €20,000/QALY) is 100%. The results of this cost-effectiveness analysis support the use of MBT as midterm complementary therapy in the management of knee OA.

Appropriate Use Criteria for Hyaluronic Acid in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis in the United States.

Objective:A workgroup of clinical experts has developed an Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The increasingly broad and varied use of HA injections, lack of published clinical guidance, and limited coverage for their use has created the imperative to establish appropriateness criteria.Methods:The experts of this workgroup represent rheumatology, orthopedic surgery, physiatry, sports medicine, and nursing clinicians with substantive knowledge of intra-articular HA therapy. This workgroup utilized the results of a systematic review of evidence, expert clinical opinion, and current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines to develop appropriateness criteria for the use of intra-articular HA for knee OA in 17 real-world clinical scenarios.Results:The workgroup scored the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as appropriate (7-9), uncertain (4-6), or inappropriate (1-3). Six scenarios were scored as appropriate, 10 scenarios were scored as uncertain, and 1 scenario was scored as inappropriate.Conclusion:This article can assist clinicians in shared decision-making by providing best practices in considering HA injections for knee OA treatment. Moreover, this AUC article can aid payers and policy makers in determining reimbursement and preauthorization policies and more appropriately managing health care resources. It is clear that further research is still necessary—particularly in patient populations differentiated by OA severity—that may benefit the greatest from the use of HA injections for the treatment of knee OA.

Clinicians' Perspectives on the Use of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid as a Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis: A North American, Multidisciplinary Survey.

INTRODUCTIONThis study aims to describe the perceptions of orthopedic surgeons on the efficacy of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IA-HA), the influence of IA-HA product characteristics on its efficacy, and to identify patterns and factors related to the use of IA-HA. Additionally, this study examines factors that influence IA-HA brand selection, focusing on Euflexxa® (1% sodium hyaluronate).METHODSWe developed survey questions by reviewing the current literature and consulting with experts on the use of IA-HA in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The survey included questions on demographics, previous experience with knee OA treatment, opinions on different treatment methods, and where information regarding treatments is obtained. Additionally, questions specific to opinions regarding IA-HA and the reasoning behind these opinions were asked.RESULTSA total of 117 orthopedic surgeons and physicians completed the survey. IA-HA is most frequently prescribed to patients with early-stage (82%) or mid-stage (82.8%) OA, while fewer orthopedic surgeons and physicians use IA-HA for patients with late-stage OA (57.4%). Respondents were generally uncertain of the effects that intrinsic characteristics, such as molecular weight, cross-linking, and production process, had on patient outcomes. Respondents typically use their own clinical experience and results as a deciding factor in utilizing IA-HA treatment, as well as in choosing an IA-HA brand.CONCLUSIONUncertainty regarding the efficacy of IA-HA treatments is likely due to inconsistency within clinical guidelines and the current literature. Additional research investigating the efficacy of IA-HA treatment and how product characteristics affect outcome and safety is required to provide clarity to the controversy surrounding IA-HA treatment for knee OA.

Differences among Branded Hyaluronic Acids in Italy, Part 1: Data from In Vitro and Animal Studies and Instructions for Use.

BACKGROUNDThe use of hyaluronic acid (HA) for intra-articular (IA) injection is widespread around the world for patients affected by osteoarthritis.AIMThe aim of this study is to identify scientific evidence from in vitro and in vivo studies supporting the use of IA HAs marketed in Italy. We also evaluated the accuracy of indications and contraindications reported in the leaflets of such HAs compared with the available scientific evidence.MATERIALS AND METHODSAn extensive literature search was performed to identify all in vitro and in vivo model studies reporting on the effects of various HAs marketed in Italy for IA use. Data reported in the leaflets of different HA-based products for IA use were extracted and analyzed alongside evidence from in vitro and in vivo model studies.RESULTSNine in vitro studies and 11 studies on animal models were examined. Comparing results with what is reported in the leaflets of HAs marketed in Italy, it was observed that many branded formulations are introduced in the market without any reporting of basic scientific evidence. Only 12.82% and 17.95% of branded products had been shown to be effective with scientific evidence from in vitro and in vivo studies, respectively. The rationale of use of these products is based on their nature, as if a class effect existed such that all HAs would yield similar effects.CONCLUSIONSData on HAs deriving from in vitro and in vivo studies are scarce and relate to only a small percentage of products marketed in Italy. Many indications and contraindications are arbitrarily reported in Italian HA leaflets without the support of scientific evidence. Larger and brand-specific studies are necessary and should be reported in the leaflets to guide clinicians in making an appropriate choice regarding HA-based IA therapy.

Novelties in the treatment of osteoarthritis

Goal of osteoarthritis (OA) treatment is to relieve the pain and to reduce the loss of patient's physical functionality. Therapy consists of: nonpharmacological measures, pharmacotherapy and surgery. Although nonpharmacological approach represents a basis of OA treatment, pharmacotherapy is an important adjunct. Medications that are used in this disease can be administered orally, topically or intra-articularly. In OA treatment the following medications are used: analgesics, glucosamine- and chondroitin-based preparations, glucocorticoids and hyaluronic acid (intra-articular administration) and other medications. Nonopioid analgesics represent a corner stone in OA pharmacotherapy. Treatment initiation with paracetamol (acetaminophen) and/or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) is recommended. Afterwards, in a case of complete or partial treatment failure, oral traditional NSAID (tNSAID) or selective COX-2 inhibitor should be used, or opioids as a substitute or an adjunct. Glucosamine- and chondroitin-based preparations are not recommended for OA treatment. Intra-articular use of glucocorticoid (triamcinolon) can lead to short lasting removal of pain and inflammation, while intra-articular use of hyaluronic acid is not recommended. Surgical treatment is important for heavy joint damage and in the case of failure of other treatment modalities.

Differences Regarding Branded HA in Italy, Part 2: Data from Clinical Studies on Knee, Hip, Shoulder, Ankle, Temporomandibular Joint, Vertebral Facets, and Carpometacarpal Joint.

OBJECTIVESThe aim of the current study is to collect scientific data on all branded hyaluronic acid (HA) products in Italy that are in use for intra-articular (IA) injection in osteoarthritis (OA) compared with that reported in the leaflet.METHODSAn extensive literature research was performed for all articles reporting data on the IA use of HA in OA. Selected studies were taken into consideration only if they are related to products based on HAs that are currently marketed in Italy with the specific joint indication for IA use in patients affected by OA.RESULTSSixty-two HA products are marketed in Italy: 30 products are indicated for the knee but only 8 were proved with some efficacy; 9 products were effective for the hip but only 6 had hip indication; 7 products proved to be effective for the shoulder but only 3 had the indication; 5 products proved effective for the ankle but only one had the indication; 6 products were effective for the temporomandibular joint but only 2 had the indication; only 2 proved effective for vertebral facet joints but only 1 had the indication; and 5 products proved effective for the carpometacarpal joint but only 2 had the indication.CONCLUSIONSThere are only a few products with some evidences, while the majority of products remain without proof. Clinicians and regulators should request postmarketing studies from pharmaceuticals to corroborate with that reported in the leaflet and to gather more data, allowing the clinicians to choose the adequate product for the patient.

Efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid in the management of osteoarthritis: Evidence from real-life setting trials and surveys.

The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) treatment algorithm recommends intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) for management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) as second-line treatment in patients who remain symptomatic despite use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This recommendation is based upon accumulating evidence that IA HA provides a significant benefit in knee OA. There is good evidence that IA HA injections reduce pain and increase function in knee OA, and the benefits are long-lasting as compared with IA corticosteroids. Evidence from real-life studies of repeat courses of IA HA demonstrates an improvement in pain or function lasting up to 40 months (12 months after the last injection cycle), a reduction in use of concomitant analgesia by up to 50%, and suggests that there may be a delay in the need for total knee replacement (TKR) of around 2 years. The clinical benefit of IA HA on knee OA may be 2-fold: (i) mechanical viscosupplementation of the joint (allowing lubrication and shock absorption) and (ii) the re-establishment of joint homeostasis through induction of endogenous HA production, which continues long after the exogenous injection has left the joint. The magnitude of the clinical effect may be different for different HA products, but this has not been proven so far and requires further investigation. IA HA injections are generally considered to be safe, although a slightly higher number of cases of local reactions and post-injection non-septic arthritis has been reported with high molecular weight cross-linked HAs. The use of IA HA in knee OA patients with mild-moderate disease, and for more severe patients wishing to delay TKR surgery, is recommended by the ESCEO task force. Further investigation into the OA patient types most likely to benefit from IA HA is warranted. Viscosupplementation with IA HA is a safe and effective component of the multi-modal management of knee OA.