Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35900204›Full record

ReviewEFORT open reviews2022

Does anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody treatment have the potential to replace nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioids in treating hip or knee osteoarthritis? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Di Zhao, Ling-Feng Zeng, Gui-Hong Liang, Jian-Ke Pan, Ming-Hui Luo, Yan-Hong Han, Jun Liu, Wei-Yi Yang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFORT open reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Di ZhaoThe Second Clinical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ling-Feng ZengThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Gui-Hong LiangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jian-Ke PanThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Ming-Hui LuoThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Yan-Hong HanThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
Jun LiuBone and Joint Research Team of Degeneration and Injury, Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2440-4064
Wei-Yi YangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Considering the adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids for treating osteoarthritis (OA), development of drugs that are more effective and better tolerated than existing treatments is urgently needed. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-nerve growth factor (NGF) monoclonal antibodies vs active comparator therapy, such as NSAIDs and oxycodone, in treating hip or knee OA. Methods: Databases were comprehensively searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before January 2022. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed. Results: Six RCTs that included 4325 patients were identified. Almost all the RCTs indicated that moderate doses of anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment significantly improved efficacy outcomes based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score, the WOMAC physical function score and the Patient's Global Assessment compared with those of the active comparator. At least half of the RCTs indicated that the incidence of severe adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) and total joint replacement were not significantly different between anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment and active comparator therapy, but the outcomes of some studies may have been limited by a short duration of follow-up. Most RCTs suggested that anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment had a lower incidence of gastrointestinal and cardiovascular AEs. However, the majority of RCTs reported a higher incidence of abnormal peripheral sensation with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment. Furthermore, the higher incidence of rapidly progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA) with anti-NGF monoclonal antibody treatment should also not be overlooked, and the identification of patient characteristics that increase the risk of RPOA is critical in further studies. Conclusion: Based on the current research evidence, anti-NGF monoclonal antibodies are not yet a replacement for analgesic drugs such as NSAIDs but might be a new treatment option for hip or knee OA patients who are intolerant or unresponsive to nonopioid or opioid treatment. Notably, however, considering the inconsistency and inconclusive evidence on the safety outcomes of recent studies, more research is needed, and long-term follow-up is required.

Indexed as

anti-NGF monoclonal antibodyOAosteoarthritisrandomized controlled trialssystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35900204
PMCPMC9297056

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.