Hyaluronic acid vs corticosteroids in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a mini-review of the literature.

Q3 Medicine
Salvatore Bisicchia, Cosimo Tudisco
{"title":"Hyaluronic acid <i>vs</i> corticosteroids in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a mini-review of the literature.","authors":"Salvatore Bisicchia,&nbsp;Cosimo Tudisco","doi":"10.11138/ccmbm/2017.14.1.182","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) are common non-operative measures used in clinical practice in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis, there is a great controversy on their efficacy and safety compared to corticosteroids (CSs).</p><p><strong>Efficacy: </strong>Conflicting results have been reported in clinical trials and meta-analysis due to methodological differences in study design, along with collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Even if some studies reported small or no differences of HA compared with CSs (or inferred that HA is not more effective than saline as a placebo), in general CSs have shown to be superior in the short term (especially on pain control), while better results have been reported with HA at subsequent evaluations, but with only a moderate effect after 26 weeks.</p><p><strong>Safety: </strong>Mild or moderate adverse events have generally been reported after HA injections, the most common being injection site pain. HA is generally considered safe compared to CSs or saline. Furthermore, HA has shown to be safe also after a previous course of injections.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Conflicting results have been reported on the efficacy and safety of HA. Guidelines are controversial and in most of the cases \"uncertain\" recommendations are provided due to inconclusive evidence in literature. However, HA does not seem to have significantly higher side effects when compared to saline or CSs injections, and provides better medium-term control of symptoms in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.</p>","PeriodicalId":47230,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism","volume":"14 2","pages":"182-185"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.11138/ccmbm/2017.14.1.182","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11138/ccmbm/2017.14.1.182","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/10/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Introduction: Although intra-articular injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) are common non-operative measures used in clinical practice in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis, there is a great controversy on their efficacy and safety compared to corticosteroids (CSs).

Efficacy: Conflicting results have been reported in clinical trials and meta-analysis due to methodological differences in study design, along with collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. Even if some studies reported small or no differences of HA compared with CSs (or inferred that HA is not more effective than saline as a placebo), in general CSs have shown to be superior in the short term (especially on pain control), while better results have been reported with HA at subsequent evaluations, but with only a moderate effect after 26 weeks.

Safety: Mild or moderate adverse events have generally been reported after HA injections, the most common being injection site pain. HA is generally considered safe compared to CSs or saline. Furthermore, HA has shown to be safe also after a previous course of injections.

Conclusions: Conflicting results have been reported on the efficacy and safety of HA. Guidelines are controversial and in most of the cases "uncertain" recommendations are provided due to inconclusive evidence in literature. However, HA does not seem to have significantly higher side effects when compared to saline or CSs injections, and provides better medium-term control of symptoms in patients with mild to moderate knee osteoarthritis.

透明质酸与皮质类固醇治疗症状性膝骨关节炎:文献综述。
虽然关节内注射透明质酸(HA)是临床上治疗症状性骨关节炎常用的非手术治疗手段,但与皮质类固醇(CSs)相比,其疗效和安全性存在很大争议。疗效:由于研究设计、数据收集、分析和解释的方法学差异,在临床试验和荟萃分析中报告了相互矛盾的结果。即使一些研究报告了HA与CSs相比的微小差异或没有差异(或推断HA并不比生理盐水作为安慰剂更有效),总的来说,CSs在短期内(特别是在疼痛控制方面)显示出优势,而HA在随后的评估中显示出更好的结果,但在26周后仅具有中等效果。安全性:注射血凝素后一般有轻度或中度不良事件的报道,最常见的是注射部位疼痛。与CSs或生理盐水相比,HA通常被认为是安全的。此外,在先前的注射过程中,HA也被证明是安全的。结论:关于透明质酸的疗效和安全性的报道结果相互矛盾。指南是有争议的,在大多数情况下,“不确定”的建议是由于文献证据不确定而提供的。然而,与生理盐水或CSs注射相比,HA似乎没有明显更高的副作用,并且对轻度至中度膝骨关节炎患者的症状提供更好的中期控制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism
Clinical Cases in Mineral and Bone Metabolism ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Journal encourages the submission of case reports and clinical vignettes that provide new and exciting insights into the pathophysiology and characteristics of disorders related to skeletal function and mineral metabolism and/or highlight pratical diagnostic and /or therapeutic considerations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信