Hyaluronic Acid Injection Therapy for Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Concordant Efficacy and Conflicting Serious Adverse Events in Two Systematic Reviews

Published in: Systematic Reviews, v. 5, no. 1, Nov. 2016, p. 186-196

Posted on RAND.org on November 28, 2016

by Claire E. O'Hanlon, Sydne Newberry, Marika Booth, Sean Grant, Aneesa Motala, Margaret Maglione, John D. Fitzgerald, Paul G. Shekelle

Read More

Access further information on this document at Systematic Reviews

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Background

The prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA)/degenerative joint disease (DJD) is increasing in the USA. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections report conflicting evidence about the balance of benefits and harms. We review evidence on efficacy and AEs of intraarticular viscosupplementation with HA in older individuals with knee osteoarthritis and account for differences in these conclusions from another systematic review.

Methods

We searched PubMed and eight other databases and gray literature sources from 1990 to December 12, 2014. Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional outcomes or qualityof- life; RCTs and observational studies on delay/avoidance of arthroplasty; RCTs, case reports, and large cohort studies and case series assessing safety; and systematic reviews reporting on knee pain were considered for inclusion. A standardized, pre-defined protocol was applied by two independent reviewers to screen titles and abstracts, review full text, and extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality. We compared our results with those of a prior systematic review and found them to be discrepant; our analysis of why this discrepancy occurred is the focus of this manuscript.

Results

Eighteen RCTs reported functional outcomes: pooled analysis of ten placebo-controlled, blinded trials showed a standardized mean difference of −0.23 (95 % confidence interval (CI) −0.45 to −0.01) favoring HA at 6 months. Studies reported few serious adverse events (SAEs) and no significant differences in non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) (relative risk (RR) [95 % CI] 1.03 [0.93–1.15] or SAEs (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [0.78–2.47]). A recent prior systematic review reported similar functional outcomes, but significant SAE risk. Differences in SAE inclusion and synthesis accounted for the disparate conclusions.

Conclusions

Trials show a small but significant effect of HA on function on which recent systematic reviews agree, but lack of AE synthesis standardization leads to opposite conclusions about the balance of benefits and harms. A limitation of the re-analysis of the prior systematic review is that it required imputation of missing data.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.