Colchicine is not effective for reducing osteoarthritic hand pain compared to placebo: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial (COLAH).

BACKGROUND: Colchicine may offer relief in osteoarthritis. This has never been investigated for hand osteoarthritis. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of 1 mg daily colchicine vs placebo on hand pain and function over 12 weeks in older adults with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS: Community-dwelling adults with diagnosed osteoarthritis of the hand aged 40-80 years were randomised to receive colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily) or matching placebo. Primary outcome measure was VAS hand pain score (0-100 mm). Secondary outcome measures included tender and swollen joint count, grip strength, C-reactive protein, and Michigan Hand Questionnaire total, function and pain scores. In an exploratory assessment, we compared synovial grade and power Doppler. All outcome measures were obtained at baseline and week 12. Stata v16 was used to perform constrained longitudinal data analysis models. RESULTS: 64 adults (54 females, 10 males) aged 48-79 years of age were enrolled. 59 participants completed the study (N = 28 colchicine, N = 31 placebo) (withdrawal rate 8%). Adverse reactions to the study medication occurred in nine patients. VAS score was not significantly different at baseline (61 ± 17 mm in the colchicine, 64 ± 17 mm in the placebo group). Between-group difference for VAS score at week 12 was 7.6 mm (95% CI -3.5-18.7, p-value 0.18). There were no significant differences between groups for any secondary outcomes at baseline or week 12. CONCLUSIONS: 1 mg colchicine daily for 12 weeks was not effective for reducing pain, tender and swollen joint count or increasing grip strength in symptomatic hand osteoarthritis. Our results do not support the use of colchicine in hand osteoarthritis.

Supplementation with omega-3 fish oil has no effect on bone mineral density in adults with knee osteoarthritis: a 2-year randomized controlled trial.

UNLABELLED: This study aimed to determine the effect of fish oil on bone mineral density (BMD). There were no differences in the 2-year BMD measures between high and low dose groups after adjusting for baseline BMD. This randomized controlled trial did not demonstrate any efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on bone loss in adults. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to investigate whether supplementation with high dose omega-3 fish oil could have an impact on BMD. METHODS: In a multicentre, double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) (ACTRN 12607000415404), 202 Australian participants aged ≥40 with knee osteoarthritis (mean age, 61.0 ± 10.0 years; 49 % female) were randomized to receive either high dose (4.5 g eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid daily) or low dose (0.45 g/day) omega-3 fish oil for 2 years. BMD was assessed at baseline and 2 years by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry. RESULTS: In subjects with baseline and 2-year assessments, mean standardized BMD at baseline for low or high dose group was 1198 ± 198 and 1157 ± 169 mg/cm(2), respectively, for the lumbar spine and was 1035 ± 165 and 1017 ± 174 mg/cm(2), respectively, for the femoral neck. There were no differences in the 2-year BMD measures between high and low dose groups after adjusting for baseline BMD in the complete case regression analyses (lumbar spine 3.7, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -7.9 to 15.3 mg/cm(2) and femoral neck -5.5, 95 % CI -14.9 to 3.9 mg/cm(2)). The findings did not change with additional adjustments of age, gender, study centre and uses of bone-related drugs during the study period as well as using the intention-to-treat analysis or limiting to older participants (≥55 years at the baseline) (all P ≥ 0.25). Mild adverse events such as headache and gastrointestinal intolerance were common but did not occur more frequently in either group. There were no serious adverse events related to the intervention. CONCLUSION: A 2-year supplementation with high-dose omega-3 fish oil did not alter bone loss among men and women with knee osteoarthritis.