The prevalence of primary or idiopathic osteoarthritis (OA) of knee and hip joints has substantially increased in general population during the last decades. Analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are currently extensively used as non-surgical treatment options. However, they act as symptomatic treatments, not offering a cure of OA and they are accused for an increased risk of adverse events. Glucosamine (GL) and chondroitin (CH) are nutritional supplements that have recently gained widespread use as treatment options for OA. They potentially or theoretically act as chondroprotectors or/and as “disease-modifying OA drugs” offering not only symptomatic relief but also alteration of the natural history of OA. However, although many studies have showed a significant treatment effect, accompanied with remarkable safety, there is still controversy regarding their relative effectiveness compared with placebo or other treatments. The scope of this review is to present and critically evaluate the current evidence-based information regarding the administration of GL and CH for the treatment of knee or hip OA. Our focus is to investigate the clinical efficacy and safety after the use of these supplements. An effect of GL and CH on both clinical and radiological findings has been shown. However, only a few high-quality level I trials exist in the literature, especially on the assessment of radiological progression of OA. The effect sizes are generally small and probably not clinically relevant. Even the validity of these results is limited by the high risk of bias introduced in the studies. Both GL and CH seem to be safe with no serious adverse events reported. There is currently no convincing information for the efficacy of GL and CH on OA.
Background: Several pharmacological interventions are used for the management of adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder, although the optimal treatment has yet to be defined. Purpose: To conduct a network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different pharmacological interventions for adhesive capsulitis, administered either alone or after distension of the shoulder capsule. Study Design: Network meta-analysis. Methods: The authors searched Scopus, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to April 22, 2018, for completed studies. They enrolled trials that assessed the results of different pharmacological treatments for the primary management of adhesive capsulitis. The primary outcome was pain relief as measured by self-administered questionnaires. The secondary outcome included the assessment of composite instruments that evaluated, at a minimum, pain and function. The authors clinically interpreted the results after back-transforming the standardized mean differences into mean differences in simple instruments and assessed the quality of the source studies using the Cochrane “risk of bias” tool. Results: The authors considered 30 trials with a total of 2010 participants in this systematic review. For pain relief, there was a significant difference in favor of intra-articular corticosteroids and distension of the shoulder capsule with steroids as compared with control in the short term (mean difference in visual analog scale (VAS): –1.4 [95% CI, −2.5 to −0.4] and −1.7 [95% CI, −3.2 to −0.1], respectively). Furthermore, rotator-interval injections were found to be superior to placebo (mean difference in VAS: –7.2; 95% CI, −10.1 to −4.4), although the intervention was considered in only 1 trial. Finally, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of multiple-site corticosteroid injections compared to placebo in both the short- (mean difference in Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI]: −86.7; 95% CI, −133.6 to −40) and intermediate-term assessment (mean difference in SPADI: −102.9; 95% CI, −163.9 to −41.8). Conclusion: Intra-articular corticosteroid intervention, administered either alone or after distension of the shoulder capsule, provided clinically meaningful improvements in the short term. Likewise, rotator-interval corticosteroid injections yielded promising results in terms of pain relief. However, these short-term benefits of steroids dissipated over time. Multiple-site corticosteroid injections showed clinical advantage over placebo for short- and intermediate-term composite outcome assessments.
Osteomyelitis is an infection of the bone characterized by progressive inflammatory destruction and apposition of new bone that can spread via the hematogenous route (hematogenous osteomyelitis (HO)), contiguous spread (contiguous osteomyelitis (CO)), and direct inoculation (osteomyelitis associated with peripheral vascular insufficiency (PVI)). Given the significant financial burden posed by osteomyelitis patient management, the development of new preventive and treatment methods is warranted. To achieve this objective, implementing animal models (AMs) of infection such as rats, mice, rabbits, avians, dogs, sheep, goats, and pigs might be of the essence. This review provides a literature analysis of the AMs developed and used to study osteomyelitis. Historical relevance and clinical applicability were taken into account to choose the best AMs, and some study methods are briefly described. Furthermore, the most significant strengths and limitations of each species as AM are discussed, as no single model incorporates all features of osteomyelitis. HO’s clinical manifestation results in extreme variability between patients due to multiple variables (e.g., age, sex, route of infection, anatomical location, and concomitant diseases) that could alter clinical studies. However, these variables can be controlled and tested through different animal models.
For clinical and radiological outcomes, the quantitative synthesis demonstrated that there were no significant differences between PMO and DMO groups in the medium term. These findings were supported by data from non-randomized studies. For the reported complications, we did not detect any significant differences between the intervention groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.