MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546776294 · doi:10.1186/s13075-016-1149-0

Chondroitin sulfate efficacy versus celecoxib on knee osteoarthritis structural changes using magnetic resonance imaging: a 2-year multicentre exploratory study

2016· article· en· W2546776294 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Pierre Pelletier, J.-P. Raynauld, André Beaulieu, Louis Bessette, Frédéric Morin, Artur J. de Brum‐Fernandes, Philippe Delorme, Marc Dorais, Patrice Paiement, F. Abram, Johanne Martel‐Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueArthritis Research & Therapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecMontreal Heart InstituteCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisMagnetic resonance imagingClinical endpointChondroitin sulfatePopulationCelecoxibInternal medicineRheumatologyNuclear medicineSurgeryClinical trialPathologyRadiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In osteoarthritis (OA) treatment, although chondroitin sulfate (CS) was found in a number of studies using radiography to have a structure-modifying effect, to date CS use is still under debate. A clinical study using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI) is therefore of the utmost importance. Here we report data from a 24-month, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled, comparative exploratory study of knee OA. The primary endpoint was to determine the effect of CS 1200 mg/day versus celecoxib 200 mg/day on cartilage volume loss (CVL) in the lateral compartment over time as measured by qMRI. Secondary endpoints included assessment of the OA structural changes and signs and symptoms of OA. METHODS: qMRI was performed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. CVL, bone marrow lesion size, and synovial thickness were evaluated using qMRI. The primary statistical analysis was carried out on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 138) using chi-squared, Fisher's exact, Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney, and Student's t tests and analysis of covariance. Analyses were also conducted on the according-to-protocol (ATP; n = 120) population. RESULTS: In the adjusted mITT analysis, compared with celecoxib treatment, patients treated with CS had a significant reduced CVL at 24 months in the medial compartment (celecoxib -8.1 % ± 4.2, CS -6.3 % ± 3.2; p = 0.018) and medial condyle (-7.7 % ± 4.7, -5.5 % ± 3.9; p = 0.008); no significant effect was seen in the lateral compartment. In the ATP population, CS reduced CVL in the medial compartment at 12 months (celecoxib -5.6 % ± 3.0, CS -4.5 % ± 2.6; p = 0.049) and 24 months (celecoxib -8.4 % ± 4.2, CS -6.6 % ± 3.3; p = 0.021), and in the medial condyle at 24 months (celocoxib -8.1 % ± 4.7, CS -5.7 % ± 4.0; p = 0.010). A trend towards a statistically reduced synovial thickness (celecoxib +17.96 ± 33.73 mm, CS -0.66 ± 22.72 mm; p = 0.076) in the medial suprapatellar bursa was observed in CS patients. Both groups experienced a marked reduction in the incidence of patients with joint swelling/effusion and in symptoms over time. Data showed similar good safety profiles including cardiovascular adverse events for both drugs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated, for the first time in a 2-year randomised controlled trial using qMRI, the superiority of CS over celecoxib at reducing CVL in knee OA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01354145 . Registered 13 May 2011.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthritis Research & TherapySame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207