Background Curcuminoids (CURs) are the principal ingredients of Curcuma longa L. [Zingiberaceae] (CL)—an herbal plant used in east Asia to alleviate pain and inflammation. Thus far, the therapeutic effects of CURs for knee osteoarthritis (OA) uncovered by multiple reviews remained uncertain due to broadly involving trials with different agents-combined or CURs-free interventions. Therefore, we formed stringent selection criteria and assessment methods to summarize current evidence on the efficacy and safety of CURs alone in the treatment of knee OA. Methods A series of databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of CURs for knee OA. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using meta-analysis and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for both statistical and clinical significance. Results Fifteen studies with 1670 patients were included. CURs were significantly more effective than placebo in the improvements of VAS for pain ( WMD: − 1.77, 95% CI: − 2.44 to − 1.09), WOMAC total score ( WMD: − 7.06, 95% CI: − 12.27 to − 1.84), WOMAC pain score ( WMD: − 1.42, 95% CI: − 2.41 to − 0.43), WOMAC function score ( WMD: − 5.04, 95% CI: − 7.65 to − 2.43), and WOMAC stiffness score ( WMD: − 0.54, 95% CI: − 1.03 to − 0.05). Meanwhile, CURs were not inferior to NSAIDs in the improvements of pain- and function-related outcomes. Additionally, CURs did not significantly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) compared with placebo ( RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.53, P = 0.899, I2 = 23.7%) and NSAIDs (RR: 0.71 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57 0.41 to 0.90 1.03). Conclusions CURs alone can be expected to achieve considerable analgesic and functional promotion effects for patients with symptomatic knee OA in short term, without inducing an increase of adverse events. However, considering the low quality and substantial heterogeneity of present studies, a cautious and conservative recommendation for broader clinical use of CURs should still be made. Further high-quality studies are necessary to investigate the impact of different dosages, optimization techniques and administration approaches on long-term safety and efficacy of CURs, so as to strengthen clinical decision making for patients with symptomatic knee OA.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a long-term chronic arthrosis disease which is usually characterized by pain, swelling, joint stiffness, reduced range of motion, and other clinical manifestations and even results in disability in severe cases. The main pathological manifestation of OA is the degeneration of cartilage. However, due to the special physiological structure of the cartilage, once damaged, it is unable to repair itself, which is one of the challenges of treating OA clinically. Abundant studies have reported the application of cartilage tissue engineering in OA cartilage repair. Among them, cell combined with biological carrier implantation has unique advantages. However, cell senescence, death and dedifferentiation are some problems when cultured in vitro. Botanical drug remedies for OA have a long history in many countries in Asia. In fact, botanical drug extracts (BDEs) have great potential in anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antiaging, and other properties, and many studies have confirmed their effects. BDEs combined with cartilage tissue engineering has attracted increasing attention in recent years. In this review, we will explain in detail how cartilage tissue engineering materials and BDEs play a role in cartilage repair, as well as the current research status.

Background: Curcuminoids (CURs) are the principal ingredients of Curcuma longa L. [Zingiberaceae] (CL)—an herbal plant used in east Asia to alleviate pain and inflammation. Thus far, the therapeutic effects of CURs for knee osteoarthritis (OA) uncovered by multiple reviews remained uncertain due to broadly involving trials with different agents-combined or CURs-free interventions. Therefore, we formed stringent selection criteria and assessment methods to summarize current evidence on the effectiveness of CURs alone in the treatment of knee OA.Methods: A series of databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of CURs for knee OA. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using meta-analysis and the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for both statistical and clinical significance.Results: Fourteen studies with 1633 patients were included. Overall, CURs were significantly more effective than controls in the improvements of VAS for pain (WMD: −1.46, 95% CI: −2.13 to −0.8), WOMAC total score (WMD: −7.06, 95% CI: −12.27 to −1.84), WOMAC pain score (WMD: −1.42, 95% CI: −2.41 to −0.43), WOMAC function score (WMD: −5.04, 95% CI: −7.65 to −2.43), but not in WOMAC stiffness score (WMD: −0.34, 95% CI: −0.79 to 0.1). Moreover, the effect sizes of VAS for pain and WOMAC total score exceeded their MCID, while WOMAC subscale scores did not. Additionally, CURs did not significantly increase the incidence of adverse events (AEs) compared with placebo (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.67), and significantly lowered the incidence of AEs when compared with NSAIDs (RR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.9).Conclusions: CURs alone can be expected to achieve considerable analgesic and functional promotion effects for patients with symptomatic knee OA in short term, without inducing an increase of adverse events. However, considering the low quality and substantial heterogeneity of present studies, a cautious and conservative recommendation for broader clinical use of CURs should still be made. Further high-quality studies are necessary to investigate the impact of different dosages, optimization techniques and administration approaches on long-term safety and efficacy of CURs, so as to strengthen clinical decision making for patients with symptomatic knee OA.