PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to quantify and compare the clinical relevance of the different intra-articular corticosteroids (CS) effects in vivo for osteoarthritis (OA) treatment.
METHODS: The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science in October 2023. The PRISMA guidelines were used. Inclusion criteria: animal or human randomized controlled trials (RCTs), English language and no time limitation, on the comparison of different intra-articular CS for OA treatment. The articles' quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB2 and GRADE guidelines for human RCTs, and SYRCLE's tool for animal RCTs.
RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs were selected (16 human and 2 animal studies), including 1577 patients (1837 joints) and 31 animals (51 joints). The CS used were triamcinolone (14 human and 2 animal studies), methylprednisolone (7 human and 1 animal study), betamethasone (3 human studies) and dexamethasone (1 human study). All studies addressed knee OA except for three human and one animal study. A meta-analysis was performed on the comparison of methylprednisolone and triamcinolone in humans with knee OA analysing VAS pain at very short- (≤2 weeks), short- (>2 and ≤4 weeks), mid- (>4 and ≤8 weeks), long- (>8 and ≤ 12 weeks), and very long-term (>12 and ≤24 weeks). Triamcinolone showed better post-injection values compared to methylprednisolone at very short-term (p = 0.028). No difference in terms of VAS improvement was observed at any follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: The available preclinical and clinical literature provides limited evidence on the comparison of different CS, hindering the possibility of determining the best CS approach in terms of molecule and dose for the intra-articular injection of OA joints.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intra--articular (IA) glucocorticoid for knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in specific subgroups of patients according to the baseline severity of pain and inflammatory signs using individual patient data (IPD) from existing trials. Furthermore, this study aims to assess if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with clinically important effectiveness of IA glucocorticoid. This is an update of an IA glucocorticoid IPD meta-analysis by the OA Trial Bank.
METHOD: Randomized trials evaluating one or more IA glucocorticoid preparations in hip and knee OA, published to May 2018 were selected. IPD of patient and disease characteristics and outcome measures were acquired. The primary outcome was pain severity at short-term follow-up (up to 4 weeks). Potential interaction effect of severe pain (≥70 points, 0-100 scale) and signs of inflammation at baseline were studied using a two-stage approach with general liner model followed by random effects model. Analysis of trend was conducted, assessing if a baseline pain cut-off was associated with the threshold for clinically important treatment effect of IA glucocorticoid compared to placebo.
RESULTS: Four out of 16 eligible randomized clinical trials (n = 641) were combined with the existing OA Trial Bank studies (n = 620), yielding 1261 participants from eleven studies. Participants with severe baseline pain compared to those with less severe pain had greater pain reduction at mid-term (around 12 weeks) (mean reduction: -6.90 (95%CI -10.91; -2.90)), but not at short- and long-term. No interaction effects were found between inflammatory signs and IA glucocorticoid injections compared to placebo at all follow-up time-points. Analysis of trend demonstrated treatment response to IA glucocorticoid from baseline pain levels >50 (0-100 scale) and above.
CONCLUSION: This updated IPD meta-analysis demonstrated that participants with severe pain compared to those with less severe pain at baseline experienced significantly more pain relief with IA glucocorticoid compared with placebo at mid-term.
ABSTRACT: PURPOSE: To review and indirectly compare the outcomes of genicular artery embolization (GAE), radiofrequency (RF) ablation, and intra-articular (IA) injection for the treatment of knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature review of the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement in June 2020. The visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded at baseline and at all available time points for each therapy. Standard mean differences were calculated at each time point and compared between treatments to assess the magnitude of the treatment effect. RESULTS: All 3 treatments demonstrated significant differences in VAS scores after therapy. RF ablation produced the greatest significant mean reduction in relative VAS score from baseline at 1 year of follow-up (mean, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.59; P = .03). GAE reported the most significant reductions in VAS scores across all measured time points. Overall, the comparison did not demonstrate a significant difference in VAS scores among patients receiving IA injections, RF ablation, and GAE. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence does not suggest a significant difference in outcomes among IA injection, RF ablation, and GAE for knee pain secondary to OA.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of multiple intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections for the treatment of OA.
METHODS: We conducted electronic searches of several databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Standard mean difference was calculated for efficacy, whereas hazard ratio (HR) was used for adverse effects. Results were combined using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistics.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included for efficacy assessment. The use of multiple IACS appeared to be better than comparator (standard mean difference for pain -0.47, 95% CI -0.62, 0.31). However, there was considerable heterogeneity (I2 92.6%) and subgroup analysis by comparator showed no separation of regular IACS from placebo, though timing of pain assessments was questionable. Fourteen RCTs and two observational studies were assessed for the safety of multiple IACS. Minor local adverse events were similar in both groups. One RCT found that regular IACS every 3 months for 2 years caused greater cartilage loss compared with saline injection (-0.21 vs 0.10 mm). One cohort study found that multiple IACS injections associated with worsening of joint space narrowing (HR 3.02, 95% CI 2.25, 4.05) and increased risk of joint replacement (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.81, 3.57).
CONCLUSION: Multiple IACS injections are no better than placebo for OA pain according to current evidence. The preliminary finding of a detrimental effect on structural OA progression warrants further investigation. Efficacy and safety of multiple IACS reflecting recommended best practice has yet to be assessed.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify the evidence on the magnitude and duration of treatment effect of intra-articular corticosteroid (IAC) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) compared to placebo, to evaluate a treatment effect by steroid type, and to describe the reported adverse effects.
DESIGN: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched. The risk of systematic bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's domain-based evaluation framework.
RESULTS: The final sample included eight RCTs with follow-ups from 1 to 26 weeks. The risk of systematic bias was considered low in five and high in three studies. The pooled SMD was -0.58 (95% CI -0.88 to -0.27) and NNT 5.1 (95% CI 10.0 to 3.7). The heterogeneity was considerable. The pooled effect size approached the level of statistical insignificance at four months. The pooled risk ratio of adverse effects was insignificant 0.95 (95% CI 0.34 to 2.55).
CONCLUSION: The IAC had a mild to moderate effect on pain severity up to three months after the injection - much longer than it had previously been reported. The effect may vary substantially in different patient groups and appropriate patient selection is important. The risk of adverse effects was low.
INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a significant health problem with lifetime risk of development estimated to be 45%. Effective nonsurgical treatments are needed for the management of symptoms.
METHODS: We designed a network meta-analysis to determine clinically relevant effectiveness of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, IA platelet-rich plasma, and IA hyaluronic acid compared with each other as well as with oral and IA placebos. We used PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to perform a systematic search of KOA treatments with no date limits and last search on October 7, 2015. Article inclusion criteria considered the following: target population, randomized controlled study design, English language, human subjects, treatments and outcomes of interest, ≥30 patients per group, and consistent follow-up. Using the best available evidence, two abstractors independently extracted pain and function data at or near the most common follow-up time.
RESULTS: For pain, all active treatments showed significance over oral placebo, with IA corticosteroids having the largest magnitude of effect and significant difference only over IA placebo. For function, no IA treatments showed significance compared with either placebo, and naproxen was the only treatment showing clinical significance compared with oral placebo. Cumulative probabilities showed naproxen to be the most effective individual treatment, and when combined with IA corticosteroids, it is the most probable to improve pain and function.
DISCUSSION: Naproxen ranked most effective among conservative treatments of KOA and should be considered when treating pain and function because of its relative safety and low cost. The best available evidence was analyzed, but there were instances of inconsistency in the design and duration among articles, potentially affecting uniform data inclusion.
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-articular methylprednisolone for reducing pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.
METHODS: We conduct electronic searches of Medline (1966-2017.11), PubMed (1966-2017.11), Embase (1980-2017.11), ScienceDirect (1985-2017.11), and the Cochrane Library (1900-2017.11) for randomized clinical trials comparing the use of methylprednisolone to treat knee osteoarthritis. The primary outcomes are Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores and WOMAC function scores. Each outcome was combined and calculated using the statistical software STATA 12.0. Fixed/random effect model was adopted based on the heterogeneity tested by I statistic.
RESULTS: A total of 739 patients were analyzed across 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The present meta-analysis revealed that there were significant differences between groups regarding the WOMAC pain scores at 4 weeks (WMD = -1.384, 95% CI: -1.975 to -0.793, P = .000), 12 weeks (WMD = -1.587, 95% CI: -2.489 to -0.685, P = .001), and 24 weeks (WMD = -1.563, 95% CI: -2.245 to -0.881, P = .000). Significant differences were identified in terms of physical function at 4 weeks (WMD = -7.925, 95% CI: -13.359 to -2.491, P = .004), 12 weeks (WMD = -7.314, 95% CI: -13.308 to -1.320, P = .117), and 24 weeks (WMD = -6.484, 95% CI: -11.256 to -1.711, P = .008).
CONCLUSION: Intra-articular methylprednisolone injection was associated with an improved pain relief and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Additionally, no severe adverse effects were observed. Due to the limited quality of the evidence currently available, higher quality RCTs were required.
