INT-008 Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in primary hand osteoarthritis: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pharmacological treatment options for hand osteoarthritis (OA) are limited. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been used successfully in the treatment of mild rheumatoid arthritis for many years and is believed to be beneficial in hand OA also. Purpose In this trial we studied the symptom modifying effect of HCQ in primary hand OA. Methods We conducted a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled, multicentre trial in patients with primary hand OA. Patients received either hydroxychloroquine 400 mg once a day or placebo during a treatment period of 24 weeks. The primary outcome was decrease in hand pain in the previous 24 hours on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included change in total score of the Australian Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index (AUSCAN) and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2 SF (AIMS2-SF). Results 196 patients were included (placebo n=98, HCQ n=98). Mean (SD) age was 57 (7.4) years; 86% were women. Baseline median (IQR) pain VAS was 50.0 (24.5–62.5) mm in the placebo group and 45.0 (26.0–60.3) mm in the HCQ group. At 24 weeks, change in pain VAS was not significantly different between the two groups. There were also no statistically significant differences in pain VAS at weeks 6 and 12. Changes in AUSCAN total score and AIMS2-SF total score in both groups were similar. Conclusions This study shows that 24 weeks of treatment with HCQ in symptomatic hand OA did not reduce pain compared with placebo. Also, no difference was observed in the change in AUSCAN or AIMS2-SF scores between the two treatment groups. These results suggest that HCQ should not be prescribed in patients with primary hand OA with mild to moderate pain symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".