Intra-articular hyaluronic acid in knee osteoarthritis: clinical data for a product family (ARTHRUM), with comparative meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION: Viscosupplementation is widely practiced, to reduce pain in osteoarthritis (OA), using intra articular (IA) injections of hyaluronic acid (HA). In Europe, these products are class III medical devices, for which the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) requires clinical assessment, based on specific studies and/or a bibliographical review of equivalent devices. The purpose of this article is to present a comparative review between a family of devices (ARTHRUM, from LCA Pharmaceuticals, Chartres, France) and an extensive group of presumed equivalent IA HA devices or their controls, whose results have been published in Scientific journals. METHODS: To meet the criteria used in most ARTHRUM studies, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities’ index sub-scores were selected for pain (WOMAC A), stiffness (WOMAC B) and function (WOMAC C). The main criterion was the variation of the WOMAC A score from T0 (date of inclusion) to T6 (6 months). The other WOMAC criteria were assessed at T1, T3, T6 and complemented by OMERACT-OARSI rates of responders to the treatment. Fifty articles were selected, containing treatment details on more than 12,000 patients. These were divided into three groups: ARTHRUM, EQUIVALENTS and CONTROLS. To get quantitative comparisons, meta-analyses were performed for each criterion individually. The 95% confidence interval of each difference from baseline, was used to assess the clinical relevance, with reference to a minimum validated in OA literature. Comparisons between groups and tolerance assessment completed the investigation. RESULTS: For the WOMAC A, B and C scores, the full 95% CI was always above the minimal perceptible clinical improvement (MPCI), in the ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups, but not for all criteria in the CONTROLS group. In the comparisons, both ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups were significantly better than the CONTROLS group for each criterion. The effect size (ES) on pain, for the ARTHRUM and EQUIVALENTS groups, varied from 0.28 to 0.56 and from 0.23 to 0.27, respectively. Overall, ARTHRUM was estimated always non-inferior to EQUIVALENTS, and sometimes statistically and clinically superior. CONCLUSIONS: The comparison of ARTHRUM clinical studies, with studies selected through bibliographic research, leads to the conclusion that the clinical efficacy of the ARTHRUM medical devices, to reduce pain and improve the function in knee OA, during a six-month period, is at least as great as those of equivalent products. With good tolerance results (lowest rate of adverse events, and none of them serious), the risk benefit ratio favours using viscosupplementation with ARTHRUM.