Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of osteoarthritis: protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Singh, Ambrish; Kotlo, Anirudh; Dissanayaka, Thusharika; Wang, Zhiqiang; Antony, Benny

doi:10.1101/2020.07.20.20157669

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We followed our protocol published with a priori defined search strategy, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcomes, and analyses [ 27 ]. Three bibliographic databases—MEDLINE and EMBASE using the Ovid interface and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials—were searched from inception till June 2020, with English and Chinese language restriction.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine in osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Singh

Kotlo

Wang

et al. 2022

Korean J Intern Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Conventional disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs have been trialed in osteoarthritis (OA). Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has shown its effectiveness in rheumatoid arthritis, has been trialed for the treatment of OA; however, its efficacy and safety remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate efficacy and safety of HCQ for the treatment of OA. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception through June 2020. Two reviewers independently screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HCQ with placebo or other active-comparators for the treatment of knee, hand, or hip OA, extracted data, and performed Cochrane risk of bias assessments. Results: Six RCTs, four in hand OA, two in knee OA, consisting of 842 patients (436 in HCQ arm, 406 in control arm) were included. RCTs were conducted between 2012 and 2020, one each at UK, Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Iran, and Egypt; follow-up period ranged 24 to 52 weeks. High-quality evidence showed no clinically important pain reduction with HCQ compared to placebo/active-control in hand OA (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.20 to 0.48). Effect on pain reduction in knee and hand OA was small and non-significant (SMD, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.25). High-quality evidence showed no improvement in dysfunction with HCQ compared to placebo in hand OA patients (SMD, 0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.40). Effect on dysfunction improvement in knee and hand OA was modest and statistically non-significant (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.18). No improvement in quality of life was observed in hand OA. Conclusions: HCQ has no benefit in reducing pain and improving physical function in hand or knee OA patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Serious adverse effect (SAE) reported with HCQ. Other outcomes of interest included radiographic structural damage and biomarker change [ 27 ]. In the event of more than one pain measure reported in a study, we used the pain outcomes in the following order: VAS, pain subscale of WOMAC, NRS, AUSCAN, and any other reported pain measures.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%