Do Clinical Correlates of Knee Osteoarthritis Predict Outcome of Intraarticular Steroid Injections?

Is Radiofrequency Ablation Superior to Intra-Articular Injections for the Treatment of Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis?-A Systematic Review

The radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is considered a valid, minimally invasive treatment modality for the management of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of RFA with that of commonly used intra-articular injections for the persistent knee pain due to OA. Medline/Pubmed and Scopus databases were systematically searched up to April 2023 to identify studies comparing the effect of RFA and intra-articular injections (IAIs) on knee OA. Nine studies including 899 patients fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. The RFA procedure was related with improved knee pain relief compared to IAIs at 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Similarly, functional improvement was greater in RFA treatment than that observed after hyaluronic acid (HA), steroid or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections (Visual Analogue Scale p < 0.001, Numeric Rating Scale p = 0.019, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index p = 0.012). The overall procedural complication rate of RFA was 10.2% and was higher than steroid (p = 0.023) and PRP (p = 0.017) injections. However, no severe adverse events were reported. For patients with symptomatic knee OA, RFA seems to be more effective than IAIs in alleviating pain and improving joint function, despite the relatively higher incidence of non-serious adverse events. However, due to the limited number of studies and patients, this result should be interpreted with caution and not be generalized to the entire knee OA population.

Baseline Knee Pain Predicts Long-Term Response of Intra-Articular Steroid Injection in Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: Data from OAI

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to investigate the factors that could predict response to intra-articular corticosteroid injection (IACI) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHODS

Data of participants were retrieved from the Osteoarthritis Initiative database. Participants with at least one IACI treatment on single or bilateral knees within the first 5 years of follow-up were retrospectively included. Demographic data, clinical and radiographic variables were collected at both baseline and the first follow-up after IACI treatment. Positive response to IACI treatment was defined as >20% reduction of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score from V0 to V1. All the variables with P < 0.2 after the comparison between the response and non-response groups were included in a multivariable logistic regression model to identify independent response predictive patient-specific valuables. Receiver operating characteristic curves were performed to establish the cutoff values of independent predictors.

RESULTS

The current study included a total of 385 participants (473 knees), with 155 and 318 knees classified into the response group and non-response group, respectively. Those with satisfied responses to IACI treatment had significantly higher WOMAC pain score (P < 0.001), disability score (P = 0.002), and stiffness score (P = 0.015) at the baseline. Baseline WOMAC pain score showed significant association with positive response to IACI treatment in multivariate logistic analysis and the best cutoff value was 5 points. The rate of analgesics utilization was lower (P = 0.014) in the response group than the non-response group after the IACI treatment.

CONCLUSION

KOA patients with a baseline WOMAC pain score ≥5 are more likely to benefit from IACI treatment.

Changes in biomechanics, strength, physical function, and daily steps after extended-release corticosteroid injections in knee osteoarthritis: a responder analysis

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE

To determine changes in gait biomechanics, quadricep strength, physical function, and daily steps after an extended-release corticosteroid knee injection at 4 and 8 weeks post-injection in individuals with knee osteoarthritis as well as between responders and non-responders based on changes in self-reported knee function.

METHOD

The single-arm, clinical trial included three study visits (baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-injection), where participants received an extended-release corticosteroid injection following the baseline visit. Time-normalized vertical ground reaction force (vGRF), knee flexion angle (KFA), knee abduction moment (KAM), and knee extension moment (KEM) waveforms throughout stance were collected during gait biomechanical assessments. Participants also completed quadricep strength, physical function (chair-stand, stair-climb, 20-m fast-paced walk) testing, and free-living daily step assessment for 7 days following each visit.

RESULTS

All participants demonstrated increased KFA excursion (i.e., greater knee extension angle at heel strike and KFA at toe-off), increased KEM during early stance, improved physical function (all p < 0.001), and increased quadricep strength at 4 and 8 weeks. KAM increased throughout most of stance at 4 and 8 weeks post-injection (p < 0.001) but appears to be driven by gait changes in non-responders. Non-responders demonstrated lesser vGRF during late stance and lesser KEM and KFA throughout stance compared to responders at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended-release corticosteroid injections demonstrated short-term improvements in gait biomechanics, quadricep strength, and physical function for up to 4 weeks. However, non-responders demonstrated gait biomechanics associated with osteoarthritis progression prior to the corticosteroid injection, suggesting that non-responders demonstrate more deleterious gait biomechanics prior to corticosteroid injection. Key Points • Individuals with knee osteoarthritis who were treated with extended-release corticosteroid injections demonstrated improvements in gait biomechanics and physical function for 8 weeks. • Individuals with knee osteoarthritis, who walked with aberrant walking biomechanics before treatment, failed to respond to extended-release corticosteroid treatment. • Future research should determine the mechanisms contributing to the short-term changes in gait biomechanics and physical function such as reduced inflammation.

Connection between Mesenchymal Stem Cells Therapy and Osteoclasts in Osteoarthritis

The use of mesenchymal stem cells constitutes a promising therapeutic approach, as it has shown beneficial effects in different pathologies. Numerous in vitro, pre-clinical, and, to a lesser extent, clinical trials have been published for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis is a type of arthritis that affects diarthritic joints in which the most common and studied effect is cartilage degradation. Nowadays, it is known that osteoarthritis is a disease with a very powerful inflammatory component that affects the subchondral bone and the rest of the tissues that make up the joint. This inflammatory component may induce the differentiation of osteoclasts, the bone-resorbing cells. Subchondral bone degradation has been suggested as a key process in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis. However, very few published studies directly focus on the activity of mesenchymal stem cells on osteoclasts, contrary to what happens with other cell types of the joint, such as chondrocytes, synoviocytes, and osteoblasts. In this review, we try to gather the published bibliography in relation to the effects of mesenchymal stem cells on osteoclastogenesis. Although we find promising results, we point out the need for further studies that can support mesenchymal stem cells as a therapeutic tool for osteoclasts and their consequences on the osteoarthritic joint.

Efficacy of platelet-rich plasma and plasma for symptomatic treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has a still conflicting efficacy for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and might be a minimally invasive and safe treatment alternative. The potential benefit of only plasma (non-enriched) has never been investigated. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and plasma to improve pain and function in participants with KOA over 24 weeks.

Methods

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 3 groups (n = 62): PRP (n = 20), plasma (n = 21) and saline (n = 21). Two ultrasound-guided knee injections were performed with a 2-week interval. The primary outcome was visual analog scale 0-10 cm (VAS) for overall pain at week 24, with intermediate assessments at weeks 6 and 12. Main secondary outcomes were: KOOS, OMERACT-OARSI criteria and TUGT.

Results

At baseline, 92% of participants were female, with a mean age of 65 years, mean BMI of 28.0 Kg/m²and mean VAS pain of 6.2 cm. Change in pain from baseline at week 24 were -2.9 (SD 2.5), -2.4 (SD 2.5) and -3.5 cm (SD 3.3) for PRP, plasma and saline, respectively (p intergroup = 0.499). There were no differences between the three groups at weeks 6 and 12. Similarly, there were no differences between groups regarding secondary outcomes. The PRP group showed higher frequency of adverse events (65% versus 24% and 33% for plasma and saline, respectively, p = 0.02), mostly mild transitory increase in pain.

Conclusions

PRP and plasma were not superior to placebo for pain and function improvement in KOA over 24 weeks. The PRP group had a higher frequency of mild transitory increase in pain.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03138317, 03/05/2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04706-7.

Critical appraisal of intra-articular glucocorticoid injections for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee

OBJECTIVE

Intra-articular (IA) injections of glucocorticoids (GCs) have been shown to decrease pain, increase mobility, and improve quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Concerns about cartilage loss with IA GCs have prompted reconsideration of their use in knee OA. This review has three objectives: 1) critically review the clinical, molecular, and structural effects of IA GCs in knee OA; 2) provide a design for a clinical trial aimed at improving our understanding of the long-term consequences of IA GCs; and 3) provide practical guidance on the use of IA GCs in patients with knee OA based on current information.

DESIGN

A narrative review of current literature on the use of IA GCs for OA of the knee.

RESULTS

Important questions remain to be fully answered with respect to IA GCs, including long-term effects on all aspects of the structural and molecular environment of the knee, and identification of factors that can reliably predict a positive or negative response to IA GCs.

CONCLUSIONS

While awaiting results from an appropriately designed study, several provisional statements regarding IA GCs can be put forward: 1) IA GCs appear to be a relatively safe option that is effective in specific patients with symptomatic knee OA; 2) there is no definitive evidence that IA GCs accelerate joint deterioration to an important extent or hastens the requirement for knee replacement; and 3) there are few contraindications to IA GCs and injection-associated complications are rare when IA GCs are delivered with proper technique.

Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections for the Treatment of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis-related Pain: Considerations and Controversies with a Focus on Imaging-Radiology Scientific Expert Panel

Current management of osteoarthritis (OA) is primarily focused on symptom control. Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injections are often used for pain management of hip and knee OA in patients who have not responded to oral or topical analgesics. Recent case series suggested that negative structural outcomes including accelerated OA progression, subchondral insufficiency fracture, complications of pre-existing osteonecrosis, and rapid joint destruction (including bone loss) may be observed in patients who received IACS injections. This expert panel report reviews the current understanding of pain in OA, summarizes current international guidelines regarding indications for IACS injection, and considers preinterventional safety measures, including imaging. Potential profiles of those who would likely benefit from IACS injection and a suggestion for an updated patient consent form are presented. As of today, there is no established recommendation or consensus regarding imaging, clinical, or laboratory markers before an IACS injection to screen for OA-related imaging abnormalities. Repeating radiographs before each subsequent IACS injection remains controversial. The true cause and natural history of these complications are unclear and require further study. To determine the cause and natural history, large prospective studies evaluating the risk of accelerated OA or joint destruction after IACS injections are needed. However, given the relatively rare incidence of these adverse outcomes, any clinical trial would be challenging in design and a large number of patients would need to be included.