Safety of Anti-osteoarthritis Medications: A Systematic Literature Review of Post-marketing Surveillance Studies.

Background: Several meta-analyses of phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were published in 2019, reassessing the safety of most anti-osteoarthritis (OA) medications, mainly on the basis of data from full safety reports. The current systematic review (SR) intends to provide complementary insights into the safety of anti-OA medications, using evidence from post-marketing safety surveillance studies.

Methods: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO database (registration no. CRD42021227872). We followed the Cochrane methodology for SRs of interventions and comprehensively searched the Medline, CENTRAL, Scopus and TOXLINE databases from inception to November 2023, to include all post-marketing safety surveillance studies on any anti-OA medications. The outcomes of this SR were any adverse events (AEs) reported in the included studies.

Results: The literature search yielded 16,990 studies, of which 59 articles were ultimately included in the review. Most studies investigated non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs, 27 studies, 28 reports) and intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA, 16 studies). Symptomatic slow-acting drugs for osteoarthritis (SYSADOAs) were assessed in seven studies (one of which also assessed NSAIDs), and corticosteroid injections in four studies, while opioids and "herbal mixtures and other compounds" each were investigated respectively in three and two studies. Most of the studies were cohort studies (n = 44), others were case reports or case series (n = 12), RCTs (n = 2 reports of the same trial), or a case-control study (n = 1). The most commonly reported AEs with NSAIDs from cohort (sample sizes varied between 129 and 22,938 patients), RCT (21,645 patients with OA), and case-control (174 cases and 926 control patients with OA) studies were gastrointestinal (GI) and/or cardiovascular (CV) AEs, with specific AEs varying with individual NSAIDs. Where comparisons between NSAIDs were made, the overall literature shows a better or similar safety profile for celecoxib (at a daily dose of 200 mg, where dosage was reported) compared with other NSAIDs in regards to GI, CV and renal events. Other anti-OA medications with most common AEs reported from cohort studies were: IAHA (injection site pain); diacerein (GI AEs and reddish urine); avocado-soybean unsaponifiables (GI AEs); non-pharmaceutical-grade glucosamine and chondroitin (allergic reactions, GI disorders); opioids (hip fracture associated with long-term tramadol use among older adults; GI and nervous system disorders with hydrocodone); corticosteroid injections (increased risk of OA progression); herbal mixtures and other compounds (GI AEs). There were case reports or case series of specific AEs with various anti-OA medications that require further investigations in well-designed cohort studies before any definitive conclusions can be reached.

Conclusions: This SR confirms previous evidence on the safety of anti-OA medications from meta-analyses of phase 3 RCTs. Beyond the evidence here reported, the limitations of this research highlight the urgent need of a reporting guideline for post-marketing safety surveillance studies. Importantly, real-life safety surveillance of anti-OA medications should be strengthened with large cohort studies with control groups, and results should be disaggregated by disease populations for drugs common to several conditions.