Corticosteroid Injections for Osteoarthritis

Bioprinting-Enabled Biomaterials: A Cutting-Edge Strategy for Future Osteoarthritis Therapy

Bioprinting is an advanced technology that allows for the precise placement of cells and biomaterials in a controlled manner, making significant contributions in regenerative medicine. Notably, bioprinting-enabled biomaterials have found extensive application as drug delivery systems (DDS) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). Despite the widespread utilization of these biomaterials, there has been limited comprehensive research summarizing the recent advances in this area. Therefore, this review aims to explore the noteworthy developments and challenges associated with utilizing bioprinting-enabled biomaterials as effective DDS for the treatment of OA. To begin, we provide an overview of the complex pathophysiology of OA, highlighting the shortcomings of current treatment modalities. Following this, we conduct a detailed examination of various bioprinting technologies and discuss the wide range of biomaterials employed in DDS applications for OA therapy. Finally, by placing emphasis on their transformative potential, we discuss the incorporation of crucial cellular components such as chondrocytes and mesenchymal stem cells into bioprinted constructs, which play a pivotal role in promoting tissue regeneration and repair.

HYLAN G-F 20 VERSUS TRIAMCINOLONE IN THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY SHOULDER OSTEOARTHRITIS. RANDOMIZED TRIAL

Introduction

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of using an intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 (HA group) on primary shoulder osteoarthritis compared with an intra-articular triamcinolone injection (T group).

Materials and Methods

The patients were randomized into 2 groups: in the HA group a single dose of intra-articular hylan G-F 20 was administered and in the T control group a dose of triamcinolone 20 mg was administered. The participants were evaluated at 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months after the procedure. The patients were evaluated for pain, range of motion, Constant score, modified UCLA score, and SPADI.

Results

Seventy patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomized to the HA (38) and T (32) groups. Improvements in range of motion were significant (p > 0.05). We observed decreases in the general visual analog scale (VAS) for pain in both groups, especially in the cases of mild and moderate arthritis that received hyaluronic acid (mean values from 8.1 initially to 4.9 after 6 months) (p = 0).

Conclusions

Both injections led to a decrease in pain and an increase in patient satisfaction. The results tend to be better and longer lasting in patients receiving hyaluronic acid. Level of evidence II b; Cohort study.

The efficacy of intra-articular steroids in hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

International guidelines recommend intra-articular steroid injections (IASIs) in the management of hip osteoarthritis (OA), though these recommendations are extrapolated primarily from studies of knee OA. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of IASI on pain in hip OA.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to May 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of hip IASI on pain were included. Pre-specified data was extracted using a standardised form. Quality was assessed using the Jadad score.

RESULTS

Five trials met the inclusion criteria. All had a small number of participants (≤101). All studies reported some reduction in pain at 3-4 weeks post-injection compared to control. Based on data from individual trials the treatment effect size was large at 1 week post-injection but declined thereafter. A significant (moderate effect size) reduction in pain was reported in two trials up to 8 weeks following IASI. Pooled results of two trials (n = 90) showed an increased likelihood of meeting the Outcome measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT)-Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) response criteria at 8 weeks post-IASI, odds ratio 7.8 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-22.8). The number needed to treat to achieve one OMERACT-OARSI responder at 8 weeks post-injection was 2.4 (95% CI: 1.7-4.2). Hip IASI appear to be generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip IASI may be efficacious in short-term pain reduction in those with hip OA though the quality of the evidence was relatively poor. Further large, methodologically rigorous trials are required to verify whether intra-articular corticosteroids are beneficial and for how long.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based upon the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made.

Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis is a leading cause of chronic pain, disability, and decreased quality of life. Despite the long-standing use of intra-articular corticosteroids, there is an ongoing debate about their benefits and safety. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of intra-articular corticosteroids compared with sham or no intervention in people with knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain, physical function, quality of life, and safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and EMBASE (from inception to 3 February 2015), checked trial registers, conference proceedings, reference lists, and contacted authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham injection or no treatment in people with knee osteoarthritis. We applied no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain, function, quality of life, joint space narrowing, and risk ratios (RRs) for safety outcomes. We combined trials using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 27 trials (13 new studies) with 1767 participants in this update. We graded the quality of the evidence as 'low' for all outcomes because treatment effect estimates were inconsistent with great variation across trials, pooled estimates were imprecise and did not rule out relevant or irrelevant clinical effects, and because most trials had a high or unclear risk of bias. Intra-articular corticosteroids appeared to be more beneficial in pain reduction than control interventions (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.22), which corresponds to a difference in pain scores of 1.0 cm on a 10-cm visual analogue scale between corticosteroids and sham injection and translates into a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). An I(2) statistic of 68% indicated considerable between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested some asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -1.21, 95%CI -3.58 to 1.17). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.21), small at 13 weeks (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00), and no evidence of an effect at 26 weeks (SMD -0.07, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.11). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 63% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.001), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.43). There was evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.05) or at least 100 participants per group (P=0.013), in trials that used concomittant viscosupplementation (P=0.08), and in trials that used concomitant joint lavage (P≤0.001).Corticosteroids appeared to be more effective in function improvement than control interventions (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.56 to -0.09), which corresponds to a difference in functions scores of -0.7 units on standardised Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) disability scale ranging from 0 to 10 and translates into a NNTB of 10 (95% CI 7 to 33). An I(2) statistic of 69% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity. A visual inspection of the funnel plot suggested asymmetry (asymmetry coefficient -4.07, 95% CI -8.08 to -0.05). When stratifying results according to length of follow-up, benefits were small to moderate at 1 to 2 weeks after end of treatment (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.14), small to moderate at 4 to 6 weeks (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.09), and no evidence of an effect at 13 weeks (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.10) or at 26 weeks (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.28). An I(2) statistic of ≥ 62% indicated a moderate to large degree of between-trial heterogeneity up to 13 weeks after end of treatment (P for heterogeneity≤0.004), and an I(2) of 0% indicated low heterogeneity at 26 weeks (P=0.52). We found evidence of lower treatment effects in trials that randomised on average at least 50 participants per group (P=0.023), in unpublished trials (P=0.023), in trials that used non-intervention controls (P=0.031), and in trials that used concomitant viscosupplementation (P=0.06).Participants on corticosteroids were 11% less likely to experience adverse events, but confidence intervals included the null effect (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 67% less likely to withdraw because of adverse events, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.07, I(2)=0%). Participants on corticosteroids were 27% less likely to experience any serious adverse event, but confidence intervals were wide and included the null effect (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.67, I(2)=0%).We found no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on quality of life compared to control (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.28, I(2)=0%). There was also no evidence of an effect of corticosteroids on joint space narrowing compared to control interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.46).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Whether there are clinically important benefits of intra-articular corticosteroids after one to six weeks remains unclear in view of the overall quality of the evidence, considerable heterogeneity between trials, and evidence of small-study effects. A single trial included in this review described adequate measures to minimise biases and did not find any benefit of intra-articular corticosteroids.In this update of the systematic review and meta-analysis, we found most of the identified trials that compared intra-articular corticosteroids with sham or non-intervention control small and hampered by low methodological quality. An analysis of multiple time points suggested that effects decrease over time, and our analysis provided no evidence that an effect remains six months after a corticosteroid injection.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilization is by nonradiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases, and hydrodissections. This American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement critically reviews the literature and evaluates the accuracy, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections in major, intermediate, and small joints, and soft tissues, all of which are commonly performed in sports medicine. New ultrasound-guided procedures and future trends are also briefly discussed. Based on the evidence, the official AMSSM position relevant to each subject is made.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM) position statement: interventional musculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine

BACKGROUND

The use of diagnostic and interventional ultrasound has significantly increased over the past decade. A majority of the increased utilisation is by non-radiologists. In sports medicine, ultrasound is often used to guide interventions such as aspirations, diagnostic or therapeutic injections, tenotomies, releases and hydrodissections.

OBJECTIVE

Critically review the literature related to the accuracy, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of ultrasound-guided injections (USGIs) in major, intermediate and small joints; and soft tissues.

DESIGN

Systematic review of the literature.

RESULTS

USGIs are more accurate than landmark-guided injections (LMGIs; strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT) Evidence Rating=A). USGIs are more efficacious than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). USGIs are more cost-effective than LMGIs (SORT Evidence Rating=B). Ultrasound guidance is required to perform many new procedures (SORT Evidence Rating=C).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this position statement indicate there is strong evidence that USGIs are more accurate than LMGI, moderate evidence that they are more efficacious and preliminary evidence that they are more cost-effective. Furthermore, ultrasound-guided (USG) is required to perform many new, advanced procedures and will likely enable the development of innovative USG surgical techniques in the future.

Injectable medications for osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is one of the most frequent and chronic conditions that affect the U.S. population. Use of intra-articular injections is one of the established treatment options available in the nonoperative care for the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis. Common injectable medications include corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, and other less traditional compounds (for example, botulinum toxin). Corticosteroids work by anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive actions. Corticosteroids have been shown to decrease pain and symptoms associated with osteoarthritis for up to 3 weeks. Hyaluronic acid has an unclear mechanism of action, but it is thought to promote the restoration of hyaluronic acid within an osteoarthritic joint. The efficacy of hyaluronic acid is modest and is most beneficial between 5 and 13 weeks after treatment. Other injectable compounds have been studied and include botulinum toxin type A, which has been theorized to work as an antinociceptive agent. One must be aware of the potential adverse effects associated with these medications. For all of these injectable treatments, the placebo effect must not be overlooked, because it has be demonstrated in multiple studies that these medications provide similar relief of pain when compared with placebo. Image guidance with ultrasound or fluoroscopy may be considered when performing intra-articular injections to improve accurate placement of medication.

Efficacy and safety of hylan G-F 20 for symptomatic glenohumeral osteoarthritis: a prospective, pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of 2 intra-articular, fluoroscopically guided hylan G-F 20 injections for painful glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

DESIGN

This study was a prospective open-label pilot investigation with both U.S. Food and Drug Administration and institutional review board approval.

SETTING

Private, outpatient practice within a tertiary care, university medical school.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-six subjects with moderate to severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis, with pain (visual analog scale [VAS] 40 mm or greater) despite following a 3-month standard, nonsurgical treatment program.

INTERVENTIONS

Two injections of 2 mL hylan G-F 20, under fluoroscopic guidance confirmed by arthrography, 2 weeks apart. No new treatments were allowed during the course of the study. Analgesics were discontinued 24 hours before visits.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Data collected were radiographs; rotator cuff integrity as determined with magnetic resonance imaging; VAS for pain at rest, at night, and with activity; and shoulder-related quality of life (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORC]). Subjects were re-evaluated after each injection and at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Changes from baseline for VAS and WORC were recorded in Excel and analyzed using SPSS. Intent-to-treat analysis was performed. The type and severity of adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Mean VAS at baseline was 63 mm (SD 14.5). Clinically (>or=20% improvement) and statistically significant improvements (P < .001) in VAS pain were seen at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Mean improvement in WORC at 6 months was 16.5 (P < .01), with most gains in "lifestyle" and "emotion" questions. Age, gender, body mass index, and rotator cuff pathology did not correlate with response. Three subjects described heightened pain for a few days after injections. Three subjects reported greater pain at 6 months and were unsatisfied. Four experienced no effect of treatment. There were no inflammatory reactions.

CONCLUSION

Two hylan G-F 20 injections improved pain and function, and should be considered as part of a multimodal shoulder osteoarthritis treatment program.