Efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan or hyaluronic acids for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial

Jüni, P; Reichenbach, S; Trelle, S; Tschannen, B; Wandel, S; Jordi, B; Züllig, M; Guetg, R; Jörg Häuselmann, H; Schwarz, H; Theiler, R; Ziswiler, HR; Dieppe, PA; Villiger, PM; Egger, M; Swiss, Viscosupplementation Trial Group (2007). Efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan or hyaluronic acids for osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis & rheumatism, 56(11), pp. 3610-9. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Blackwell 10.1002/art.23026

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of intraarticular hylan and 2 hyaluronic acids (HAs) in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. METHODS: This was a multicenter, patient-blind, randomized controlled trial in 660 patients with symptomatic knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 cycle of 3 intraarticular injections per knee of 1 of 3 preparations: a high molecular weight cross-linked hylan, a non-cross-linked medium molecular weight HA of avian origin, or a non-cross-linked low molecular weight HA of bacterial origin. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score at 6 months. Secondary outcome measures included local adverse events (effusions or flares) in injected knees. During months 7-12, patients were offered a second cycle of viscosupplementation. RESULTS: Pain relief was similar in all 3 groups. The difference in changes between baseline and 6 months between hylan and the combined HAs was 0.1 on the WOMAC pain score (95% confidence interval [95% CI] -0.2, 0.3). No relevant differences were observed in any of the secondary efficacy outcomes, and stratified analyses provided no evidence for differences in effects across different patient groups. There was a trend toward more local adverse events in the hylan group than in the HA groups during the first cycle (difference 2.2% [95% CI -2.4, 6.7]), and this trend became more pronounced during the second cycle (difference 6.4% [95% CI 0.6, 12.2]). CONCLUSION: We found no evidence for a difference in efficacy between hylan and HAs. In view of its higher costs and potential for more local adverse events, we see no rationale for the continued use of hylan in patients with knee OA.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of Dermatology, Urology, Rheumatology, Nephrology, Osteoporosis (DURN) > Clinic of Rheumatology, Clinical Immunology and Allergology

UniBE Contributor:

Jüni, Peter; Reichenbach, Stephan; Trelle, Sven; Tschannen, Beatrice; Wandel, Simon; Ziswiler, Hans Rudolf; Villiger, Peter and Egger, Matthias

ISSN:

0004-3591

ISBN:

17968921

Publisher:

Wiley-Blackwell

Language:

English

Submitter:

Factscience Import

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 14:52

Last Modified:

04 May 2014 23:15

Publisher DOI:

10.1002/art.23026

PubMed ID:

17968921

Web of Science ID:

000250891000013

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/22090 (FactScience: 30391)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback