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

Table 2 Changes in MRI parameters

mITT-LOCF population	24 months
	Chondroitin sulfate	Celecoxib	p value^a
	(n = 69)	(n = 69)	p value^a
Cartilage volume loss (%)
Lateral compartment	–4.1 ± 3.1	–4.4 ± 3.0	0.814
Condyle	–3.0 ± 3.1	–4.1 ± 3.7	0.144
Plateau	–5.8 ± 4.7	–4.8 ± 3.5	0.182
Medial compartment	–6.3 ± 3.2	–8.1 ± 4.2	0.018
Condyle	–5.5 ± 3.9	–7.7 ± 4.7	0.008
Plateau	–7.6 ± 4.0	–8.6 ± 4.8	0.276
Synovial membrane thickness^b (mm)	0.13 ± 0.25	0.14 ± 0.24	0.948
Synovial fluid volume (ml)	–2.6 ± 14.5	–2.0 ± 11.8	0.776
BML score^b	1.1 ± 1.7	0.8 ± 1.7	0.322
ATP population	12 months			24 months
	Chondroitin sulfate	Celecoxib	p value^a	Chondroitin sulfate	Celecoxib	p value^a
	(n = 57)^c	(n = 63)	p value^a	(n = 57)^c	(n = 63)	p value^a
Cartilage volume loss (%)
Lateral compartment	–3.4 ± 2.7	–3.3 ± 2.5	0.932	–4.6 ± 3.0	–4.4 ± 2.8	0.753
Condyle	–2.5 ± 3.2	–3.0 ± 3.0	0.234	–3.4 ± 3.0	–4.2 ± 3.6	0.316
Plateau	–4.6 ± 3.5	–3.8 ± 3.1	0.194	–6.3 ± 4.6	–4.8 ± 3.5	0.081
Medial compartment	–4.5 ± 2.6	–5.6 ± 3.0	0.049	–6.6 ± 3.3	–8.4 ± 4.2	0.021
Condyle	–3.8 ± 3.2	–5.0 ± 3.8	0.100	–5.7 ± 4.0	–8.1 ± 4.7	0.010
Plateau	–5.5 ± 3.0	–6.6 ± 3.8	0.155	–8.0 ± 4.2	–9.0 ± 4.8	0.334
Synovial membrane thickness^b (mm)	0.03 ± 0.18	0.06 ± 0.18	0.579	0.15 ± 0.26	0.15 ± 0.24	0.731
Synovial fluid volume (ml)	–5.5 ± 12.6	–1.8 ± 9.2	0.326	–3.9 ± 15.4	–2.1 ± 12.2	0.945
BML score^b	0.7 ± 1.4	0.3 ± 1.2	0.051	1.1 ± 1.7	0.8 ± 1.7	0.322

Data are mean ± standard deviation
^aAnalysis of covariance; model includes BMI as covariate; bold indicates statistical significance
^bGlobal knee
^cAmong the 58 patients in the chondroitin sulfate group who completed the study, one patient did not complete the MRI at 24 months
ATP according-to-protocol, BMI body mass index, BML bone marrow lesion, LOCF last observation carried forward, mITT modified intention-to-treat, MRI magnetic resonance imaging