Post on 12-Oct-2020
Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Tibial Cartilage Volume and Knee Pain among Patients with
Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis:a Randomized Controlled Trial
Xingzhong (Jason) JinResearch Fellow, NDARC, UNSW
Graeme Jones, Flavia Cicuttini, Anita Wluka, Zhaohua Zhu, Weiyu Han, Benny Antony, Xia Wang, Tania Winzenberg, Leigh Blizzard, Changhai Ding
Outline
• Overview of the VIDEO study• Lessons leaned from a ‘negative trial’
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 2
Declaration
No conflict of interests
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 3
Background
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA)• 10% men and 13% women aged over 60 years.• 11th leading cause of global disability.• 1.0-2.5% of GDP in developed countries.
(Source: the global burden of disease 2010 study)
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 4
Vitamin D and OAØ Epidemiologic evidence (longitudinal studies)
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 5
Laslett et al (2013) Moderate deficiency associated with increased knee pain
Vitamin D and OA
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 6
Is vitamin D supplementation a cost-effective way to treat knee OA??Have we finally found the holy grail??
Randomized controlled trials
INSERT FACULTY NAME IN FOOTER 7
Sample size: 146 participants with symptomatic knee OA
Intervention: Vitamin D3 2000IU per day for 2 years
Outcomes: WOMAC pain, cartilage volume by MRI
Randomized controlled trials
INSERT FACULTY NAME IN FOOTER 8
Randomized controlled trials
INSERT FACULTY NAME IN FOOTER 9
Sample size: 107 participants with knee OA with 25(OH)D ≤ 50nmol/L
Intervention: Vitamin D3 60,000IU/day for 10 days + 60,000IU/month for 1 year
Outcomes: WOMAC pain and function
Randomized controlled trials
INSERT FACULTY NAME IN FOOTER 10
Conclusions: There is a small but statistically significant clinical benefit to
vitamin D treatment in patients with knee OA.
Randomized controlled trials
ØWeakness in design§ Include both vitamin D sufficiency and deficiency.
§ Recruit patients of severe disease stage.
§ Relative small sample size to detect the true effects.
§ Relative short follow-up time.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 11
Systematic Review
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 12
VIDEO study
Ø A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Ø Objectives
1. To evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on knee pain and cartilage volume loss in symptomatic KOA patients with low vitamin D levels.
2. To determine whether vitamin D prevent the progression of other knee structural abnormalities.
Ø Interventions
①Vitamin D3 50,000 IU/month for 24 months
② Identical inert placebo
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 13
VIDEO study
Inclusion criteria
§ Age 50 ~ 79; symptomatic knee OA for 6 months (ACR criteria).
§ Serum 25(OH)D, 12.5 nmol/L ~ 60 nmol/L.
§ Visual analogue scale (VAS) for knee pain, 20 mm ~ 80 mm.
Exclusion criteria
§ Grade 3 radiographic OA (Altman’s atlas).
§ Contraindications to MRI.
§ Other conditions, e.g. inflammatory arthritis, lupus, cancer, etc.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 14
VIDEO study
Primary endpoints§ WOMAC knee pain over 24 months
§ Tibial cartilage volume change (% p.a.)
Secondary endpoints§ Tibiofemoral cartilage defects (modified Outerbridge, range 0-4)
§ Tibiofemoral bone marrow lesions (modified WORMS†, range 0-3)
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 15
Cartilage volume Cartilage defects Bone marrow lesions(BMLs)
* Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index
† Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score
VIDEO study
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 16
Study Timeline
Flowchart
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 17
Baseline characteristics
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 18
Vitamin D(n = 209)
Placebo(n = 204)
Hobart 129 (61%) 132 (64%)Melbourne 80 (38%) 72 (35%)Age (years) 63.5 (6.9) 62.9 (7.2)Female (%) 106 (50%) 102 (50%)Body mass index (kg/m2) 29.6 (5.4) 29.6 (4.6)Serum 25OHD (nmol/L) 43.7 (11.8) 43.8 (12.7)Radiographic OA (%) 163 (96%) 157 (96%)Total WOMAC score (0-2400) 687.3 (426.3) 664.7 (390.8)
Pain (0-500) 137.8 (88.9) 134.4 (83.2)Stiffness (0-200) 61.5 (41.6) 61.7 (40.1)Function (0-1700) 487.9 (318.1) 467.6 (292.8)
VAS pain (0-100) 51.4 (18.8) 49.6 (17.8)Tibial cartilage volume (cm3) 3.47 (1.04) 3.64 (1.04)
25OHD, 25-hydroxyvitamin D; OA, osteoarthritis; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster University Index; VAS, visual analogue scale.
Serum 25(OH)D levels
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 19
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 20
Primary endpoint:WOMAC knee pain
Primary endpoint:WOMAC knee pain
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 21
Change in knee pain over 24 months follow-up [mean].
Vitamin D
(n=209) Placebo (n=204)
Between-group difference p-value
WOMAC Pain (0-500) -49.9 -35.1 -14.8 0.102 Walking on flat surface (0-100) -8.5 -6.1 -2.4 0.244 Going up/down stairs (0-100) -12.2 -9.2 -3.0 0.252 Standing upright (0-100) -8.8 -5.3 -3.5 0.104 Sitting (0-100) -9.5 -5.6 -3.9 0.072 Pain at night (0-100) -10.9 -9.0 -1.9 0.430 The result in this table is generated from mixed models adjusted for age, sex, BMI, centre, and month. All analyses compare baseline versus 24 months.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 22
Two year change in cartilage volume between vitamin D and placebo [mean].
Vitamin D (n=209)
Placebo (n=204)
Between-group difference p-value
Tibial cartilage volume (% p.a.) -3.44 -4.23 0.78 0.132 Medial tibial cartilage volume -3.29 -4.39 1.10 0.119 Lateral tibial cartilage volume -3.44 -4.09 0.65 0.290 The result in this table in generated by comparing baseline versus 24 months from multiple imputed datasets. All analyses compare baseline versus 24 months.
• Total tibial cartilage volume: • Vitamin D group: -121.29 mm3 p.a.• Placebo group: -150.68 mm3 p.a.
Primary endpoint:Tibial cartilage volume
Conclusion
o Vitamin D at 50,000 IU/month over 2 years did not meet the primary endpoints in this RCT.
o There may be moderate effects on knee pain, physical function, BMLs and effusion-synovitis.
o The clinical importance of the effects should be determined on individual patient improvement.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 23
‘Negative’ trial
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 24
‘Negative’ trial
• An editorialist in the British Medical Journal observed in 1987:
“Negative results have never made riveting reading!”
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 25
• 50% of clinical trials have never published results.• Positive trials were 2 times more likely to be published as
those with ‘negative’ results.
‘Negative’ trial
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 26
The publication journey for the VIDEO study
• New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)Submitted on 25th July 2015, rejected on 7th August
• Lancet Submitted on 21st August, rejected on 27th August
• JAMASubmitted on 2nd September 2015, accepted on 11th February 2016
Is it really ‘Negative’?
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 27
• Taber’s Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary 20th Edition: “An investigation in which no benefit of a treatment, or no association between a risk factor and an outcome, is demonstrated; also called negative trial”
• The term “negative” is a misnomer and is commonly defined as those where the difference for the primary endpoint has a P value greater than or equal to 0.05 (P ≥ 0.05), that is, where the null hypothesis is not rejected.
• The correct term should be an ‘inconclusive trial’ or ‘nonsignificant trial’.
‘Negative’ trial – What next?
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 28
• There are ALWAYS something we could learn from a ‘negative’ trial.
‘Negative’ trial – What next?
1. Is there some indication of potential benefits?
2. Was the trial underpowered?
3. Was the primary outcome appropriate?
4. Was the population appropriate?
5. Was the treatment regiment appropriate?
6. Were there deficiencies in trial conduct?
7. Is a claim of non-inferioirty of value?
8. Do subgroup findings elicit positive signals?
9. Do secondary outcomes reveal positive findings?
10. Can alternative analyses help?
11. Does more positive external evidence exist?
12. Is there a strong biologic rationale that favors the treatment?
INSERT FACULTY NAME IN FOOTER 29
‘Negative’ trial – What next?
Is there some indication of potential benefits?
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 30
Change in knee pain over 24 months follow-up [mean].
Vitamin D
(n=209) Placebo (n=204)
Between-group difference p-value
WOMAC Pain (0-500) -49.9 -35.1 -14.8 0.102 Walking on flat surface (0-100) -8.5 -6.1 -2.4 0.244 Going up/down stairs (0-100) -12.2 -9.2 -3.0 0.252 Standing upright (0-100) -8.8 -5.3 -3.5 0.104 Sitting (0-100) -9.5 -5.6 -3.9 0.072 Pain at night (0-100) -10.9 -9.0 -1.9 0.430 The result in this table is generated from mixed models adjusted for age, sex, BMI, centre, and month. All analyses compare baseline versus 24 months.
Two year change in cartilage volume between vitamin D and placebo [mean].
Vitamin D (n=209)
Placebo (n=204)
Between-group difference p-value
Tibial cartilage volume (% p.a.) -3.44 -4.23 0.78 0.132 Medial tibial cartilage volume -3.29 -4.39 1.10 0.119 Lateral tibial cartilage volume -3.44 -4.09 0.65 0.290 The result in this table in generated by comparing baseline versus 24 months from multiple imputed datasets. All analyses compare baseline versus 24 months.
Post-hoc analyses:VAS & WOMAC scores
Change in study endpoints over 2 years between vitamin D and placebo [mean (95% CI)].
Vitamin D (n = 209) Placebo (n = 204)Between-group
difference P-valueVAS Pain (0-100) -14.8 -9.4 -5.4 0.048*
WOMAC total (0-2400) -239.2 (-290.5, -188.0) -147.8 (-200.8, -94.9) -91.4 (-165.1, 17.7) 0.015*
Function (0-1700) -170.2 (-207.4, -133.0) -97.3 (-135.7, -58.8) -72.9 (-126.4, 19.4) 0.008*
Stiffness (0-200) -19.7 (-25.4, -13.9) -15.4 (-21.3, -9.5) -4.2 (-12.5, 4.0) 0.313WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster University Index; VAS, visual analogue scale; p.a., per annum.WOMAC scores and VAS pain results are generated from mixed models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, centre and month. Cartilage volume, cartilage defect and bone marrow lesion results are generated from multiple imputed datasets.All analyses compare baseline versus 24 months. Asterisk signs indicate statistical significance.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 31
Was the primary outcome appropriate?
Post-hoc analyses:OMERACT-OARSI response
OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Arthritis Clinical Trials-Osteoarthritis Research Society International)
§ Improvement ≥ 50% and an absolute change ≥ 20 points, in either WOMAC pain or function score.
§ Improvement ≥ 20% and an absolute change ≥ 10 points in both WOMAC pain and function score.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 32
35%
25%
Vitamin D
Placebo
P = 0.029
Secondary endpoints:Cartilage defects & BMLs
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 33
Vitamin D (n=209)
Placebo (n=204)
Between-group difference p-value
Tibiofemoral cartilage defects 0.29 0.47 -0.19 0.159 Medial tibiofemoral defects 0.21 0.33 -0.12 0.215 Lateral tibiofemoral defects 0.08 0.15 -0.08 0.400 Tibiofemoral bone marrow lesion -0.59 -0.21 -0.38 0.087 Medial tibiofemoral lesion -0.57 -0.42 -0.15 0.355 Lateral tibiofemoral lesion -0.05 0.17 -0.22 0.087
Do secondary outcomes reveal positive findings?
The conclusion of a trial should be made considering not only primary outcomes, but also secondary outcomes and adverse events.
The effects sizes on cartilage defects and BMLs slightly favour vitamin D supplementation, although they are not statistically significant.
Secondary endpoints:Effusion-synovitis
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 34
Vitamin D Mean (95% CI)
Placebo Mean (95% CI)
Between-group Difference
Mean (95% CI)P value
Total volume of whole joint
Absolute change (ml) 0.26 (-0.82, 1.34) 2.20 (1.01, 3.38) -1.94 (-3.54, -0.33) 0.02
Suprapatellar pouch
Absolute change (ml) 0.04 (-1.46, 1.53) 2.53 (0.84, 4.22) -2.49 (-4.74, -0.25) 0.03
Adverse events
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 35
Vitamin D(N=209)
Placebo(N=204)
No. of patients (%)
No. of patients (%)
Adverse EventsDeath 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)Malignancy 4 (1.9) 2 (1.0)Coronary artery disease 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)Severe infection 0 (0.0) 3 (1.8)Major depression 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)Nephrolithiasis 1 (0.5) 1 (0.5)Hypercalceamia 3 (1.4) 2 (1.0)Hyperparathyroidism 1 (0.5) 0 (0.0)Hospitalization* 3 (1.4) 0 (0.0)*Two were admitted to hospital after a fall and one was due to severe diarrhoea.
Conclusion
o Vitamin D at 50,000 IU/month over 2 years did not meet the primary endpoints in this RCT.
o There may be moderate effects on knee pain, physical function, BMLs and effusion-synovitis.
o The clinical importance of the effects should be determined on individual patient improvement.
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 36
Acknowledgements
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 37
Chief investigators
• Prof. Changhai Ding• Prof. Graeme Jones• Prof. Flavia Cicuttini
• Prof. Anita Wluka• Prof. Tania Winzenberg• Prof. Leigh Blizzard
Research team
• Robert Warren• Zhaohua Zhu• Weiyu Han • Benny Antony• Xia Wang
This study is supported by the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC ID 605501)
Special thanks
• Jodi Barling• Kay Nguo• Yuelong Cao• Alice Noone• Judy Hankin
VIDEO study participants
MENZIES INSTITUTE FOR MEDICAL RESEARCH 38