PURPOSE: As osteoarthritis (OA) of the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint leads to a high degree of disease burden with compromises in rudimentary and fine movements of the hand, intra-articular injections may be a desirable treatment option. However, because there are no evidence-based guidelines, the choice of intra-articular injection type is left to the discretion of the individual surgeon in collaboration with the patient. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using level I studies to compare outcomes following corticosteroid and alternative methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA. Our hypothesis was that intra-articular corticosteroid injections were no more effective than other methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Eligible for inclusion were randomized control trials reporting on intra-articular corticosteroid injection for the management of TMC OA. Clinical outcomes were recorded.
RESULTS: The 10 included studies comprised 673 patients. The mean age was 57.8 ± 8.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 6.4 ± 2.7 months. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale scores, grip strength and tip pinch strength between corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid at short- and medium-term follow-up. Further, there was no difference in visual analog scale pain scores at rest at medium-term follow-up between corticosteroids and platelet-rich plasma.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite short-term improvement with intra-articular corticosteroid injections, there was no significant difference in pain and functional outcomes following intra-articular corticosteroid injections compared to hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma administration. Given the affordability, ease of administration, and efficacy associated with corticosteroids, they are a favorable option when considering the choice of intra-articular injection for the management of TMC OA.
TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.
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.
A systematic review based on the PRISMA guidelines was conducted to investigate and compare treatment with hyaluronic acid (HA), corticosteroids, and blood products in patients with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA). The MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for articles published until September 25, 2019. Articles met the inclusion criteria if they reported patients with TMJOA, a comparison group, and a follow-up period of at least 6 months. The mean and standard deviation for TMJ pain and maximum mouth opening (MMO) were reported. Nine studies involving 443 patients were included. Injectables and Ringer's lactate solution or normal saline were reported to significantly improve TMJ pain and MMO. Regarding TMJ pain, two studies showed a significant superiority of plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF)/platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections with or without arthrocentesis over HA, but HA showed a significant improvement compared to corticosteroids. For MMO, no injectable was found to be superior to Ringer's lactate or a normal saline control, but arthrocentesis + PRP resulted in MMO improvement compared to arthrocentesis + HA. Overall, all injectables in conjunction with arthrocentesis were efficient in alleviating pain and improving MMO in TMJOA patients; however, a meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity across studies.
Purpose. The aim of this current review was to confirm the efficacy of intra-articular steroid therapy (IAST) for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and discuss the duration and influential factors of IAST. Methods. Online databases (Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science) were searched from inception to May 2019. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and noncontrolled trials assessing the efficacy of hip IAST on pain were included. Common demographics data were extracted using a standardized form. Quality was assessed on the basis of Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence. Results. 12 trials met the inclusion criteria. According to data from individual trials, IAST had significant efficacy on hip OA in both immediate and delay pain reduction, which persisted up to 12 weeks after IAST. The influences of the baseline severity of hip OA or synovitis and injection dose or volume on the clinical outcome of IAST were still controversial. The IAST appeared to be well tolerant by most of the participants. Conclusion. IAST was proved to be an efficacious therapy in both immediate and delay pain reduction for hip OA patients within 12 weeks. The longer follow-up data of efficacy and safety and potentially influential factors are still unclear and needed further confirmation.
As osteoarthritis (OA) of the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint leads to a high degree of disease burden with compromises in rudimentary and fine movements of the hand, intra-articular injections may be a desirable treatment option. However, because there are no evidence-based guidelines, the choice of intra-articular injection type is left to the discretion of the individual surgeon in collaboration with the patient. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using level I studies to compare outcomes following corticosteroid and alternative methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA. Our hypothesis was that intra-articular corticosteroid injections were no more effective than other methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA.
METHODS:
A systematic literature search was performed. Eligible for inclusion were randomized control trials reporting on intra-articular corticosteroid injection for the management of TMC OA. Clinical outcomes were recorded.
RESULTS:
The 10 included studies comprised 673 patients. The mean age was 57.8 ± 8.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 6.4 ± 2.7 months. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale scores, grip strength and tip pinch strength between corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid at short- and medium-term follow-up. Further, there was no difference in visual analog scale pain scores at rest at medium-term follow-up between corticosteroids and platelet-rich plasma.
CONCLUSIONS:
Despite short-term improvement with intra-articular corticosteroid injections, there was no significant difference in pain and functional outcomes following intra-articular corticosteroid injections compared to hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma administration. Given the affordability, ease of administration, and efficacy associated with corticosteroids, they are a favorable option when considering the choice of intra-articular injection for the management of TMC OA.
