Search

Objective. Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common degenerative joint disease, causing joint pain, stiffness, and even disability. Guidelines recommend intra-articular injections as an alternative treatment to relieve OA symptoms for patients who demonstrate poor tolerability or compliance to oral administration of drugs. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are a potential treatment for of OA. We conducted this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids (GCs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and MSCs. Design. Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Data Sources. Relevant studies, published from January 2000 to January 2020, in the PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, and CKNI databases. Methods. Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses were conducted. Pain relief, functional improvement, improvement in joint stiffness, and risk of adverse effects (AEs) were assessed. Results. Twenty-five articles with 4642 patients were included. Overall, MSC therapy was the most effective treatment for pain relief (standardized mean difference compared with placebo = 3.61 , 95% CI [1.87 to 5.35]). Both MSC and PRP therapies improved every symptom of OA effectively and have an advantage over HA and GCs which are recommended by guidelines. MSCs, PRP, HA, and GCs are tolerated well for patients in long-term treatment of OA compared with placebo. Conclusions. The results show that MSCs relieve pain, stiffness, and dysfunction due to OA better than PRP, HA, and GCs and are not statistically correlated with greater safety concerns. More high-quality trials are needed to reconfirm the findings of this study, however, standardization of preparation of MSCs and PRP should be investigated in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Most guidelines recommend the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), duloxetine, and tramadol for the nonoperative treatment of osteoarthritis (OA), but the use of them is limited by the tolerability and safety concerns. Lutikizumab is a novel anti–IL-1α/β dual variable domain immunoglobulin that can simultaneously bind and inhibit IL-1α and IL-1β to relieve the pain and dysfunction symptoms. We conducted this network meta-analysis to comprehensively compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lutikizumab with other drugs recommended by guidelines. Methods. We conducted a Bayesian network and conventional meta-analyses to compare the efficacy and safety of lutikizumab with other traditional drugs. All eligible randomized clinical trials, in PubMed, CNKI, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases, from January 2000 to January 2020, were included. The Cochrane risk of the bias assessment tool was used for quality assessment. Pain relief, function improvement, and risk of adverse effects (AEs) were compared in this study. Results. 24 articles with 11858 patients were included. Duloxetine (DUL) had the largest effect for pain relief (4.76, 95% CI [2.35 to 7.17]), and selective cox-2 inhibitors (SCI) were the most efficacious treatment for physical function improvement (SMD 3.94, 95% CI [2.48 to 5.40]). Lutikizumab showed no benefit compared with placebo for both pain relief (SMD 1.11, 95% CI [-2.29 to 4.52]) and function improvement (SMD 0.992, 95% CI [-0.433 to 4.25]). Lutikizumab and all other drugs are of favorable tolerance for patients in the treatment of OA compared with placebo. Conclusions. Lutikizumab, the new anti–Interleukin-1α/β dual variable domain immunoglobulin, showed no improvement in pain or function when compared with placebo. Selective cox-2 inhibitors and duloxetine remain the most effective and safest treatment for OA. More high-quality trials are still needed to reconfirm the findings of this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. As a pathological process, osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is characterized by the avascularity of the femoral head, cellular necrosis, microfracture, and the collapse of the articular surface. Currently, critical treatment for early-stage ONFH is limited to core decompression. However, the efficacy of core decompression remains controversial. To improve the core decompression efficacy, regenerative techniques such as the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) were proposed for early-stage ONFH. As a type of autologous plasma containing concentrations of platelets greater than the baseline, PRP plays an important role in tissue repair, regeneration, and the differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). In this review, we present a comprehensive overview of the operation modes, mechanism, and efficacy of PRP for early-stage ONFH treatment. Methods. We searched for relevant studies in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases. By searching these electronic databases, the identification of either clinical or experimental studies evaluating PRP, MSC, core decompression, and ONFH was our goal. Results. Seventeen studies of PRP and avascular necrosis of the femoral head were evaluated in our review. Ten studies related to the possible mechanism of PRP for treating ONFH were reviewed. Seven studies of the operation modes of PRP in treating ONFH were identified. We reviewed the efficacy of PRP in treating ONFH systematically and made an attempt to compare the PRP operation modes in 7 studies and other operation modes in past studies for early-stage ONFH treatment. Conclusion. PRP treats ONFH mainly through three mechanisms: inducing angiogenesis and osteogenesis to accelerate bone healing, inhibiting inflammatory reactions in necrotic lesions, and preventing apoptosis induced by glucocorticoids. In addition, as an adjunctive therapy for core decompression, the use of PRP is recommended to improve the treatment of early-stage ONFH patients, especially when combined with stem cells and bone grafts, by inducing osteogenic activity and stimulating the differentiation of stem cells in necrotic lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a common immune-related systemic chronic inflammatory osteoarthropathy. Previous studies have proven that biologic agents, including IL-17A inhibitors (IL17Ai), TNF-α inhibitor FC fusion protein (TNFiFCP), or fully human monoclonal antibody (TNFiNMA) and JAK inhibitor (JAKi), are effective for AS treatment. Our study is aimed at comparing the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and safety of different biological agents, including novel IL-6 inhibitor (IL6i), IL-23 inhibitor (IL23i), and IL-17 A/F dual variable domain inhibitor (IL17AFi) in AS. Method. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CNKI, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched. A frequentist framework network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed. Ranking effects were calculated by surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA) and cluster-rank analysis. Results. IL17AFi reported both the highest ASAS40 (SUCRA = 91.4 %) and ASAS20 (SUCRA = 92.5 %) response, while IL6i and IL23i reported the lowest responses (SUCRA = 6.6 % and 19.9%, respectively). With the exceptions of IL6i (RR 0.60, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.67) for ASAS40 and 1.36 (0.71 to 2.58) for ASAS20) and IL23i (0.98 (0.68 to 1.40) for ASAS40 and 0.91 (0.70 to 1.19) for ASAS20), all biological drugs demonstrated statistically superior ASAS responses than placebo. TNFiFMA performed best in the suppression of disease activity (SUCRA = 77.4 %, SMD 2.35, and 95% CI (1.11 to 3.59)) and functional improvement (SUCRA = 68.8 %, SMD 1.67, and 95% CI (0.59 to 2.74)). There were no significant differences in tolerability or safety between biologic drugs and placebo. Conclusions. The novel IL-17 A/F dual variable domain inhibitor, bimekizumab, may be an ideal future treatment choice for AS, while IL-23 and IL-6 inhibitors demonstrate little potential in the treatment of AS. For patients with rapid disease progression and severe functional limitation, TNF-α inhibitors, especially infliximab, are safe and effective and could be a first-line treatment choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]