AB0864 DO CORTICOSTEROIDS AND HYALURONIC ACID INJECTIONS CAUSE INFECTIONS? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON ADVERSE EFFECTS AND INFECTION RATES OF INTRA-ARTICULAR CORTICOSTEROID AND HYALURONIC ACID INJECTIONS IN PATIENTS WITH KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS

Background:Knee osteoarthritis has been a leading cause of chronic pain and disability in our increasingly aging population. Conservative management options of physiotherapy and oral analgesics offer some relief, but delivery of intra-articular injections such as corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid has increasingly become the mainstay of pain management of knee osteoarthritis. In a clinical setting, intra-articular injections offer a means to delay a total knee replacement. Despite the abundance of literature on corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid, there is no known percentage of infection rates or adverse effects that clinicians may use to inform patients prior to obtaining consent for the injection.Objectives:To determine a rate of adverse events and infection rates in patients undergoing intra-articular injections of corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid.Methods:A systematic review of current literature including studies involving patients ranging from 45 patients (Carmona L, 2018) to Cochrane reviews of 1767 patients (Campbell Kirk, 2015). From these studies, the number of patients, adverse reactions (i.e. pain, erythema) and serious adverse reactions (infections) were calculated.Results:Within our study, there was a large variation of numbers of adverse effects of hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids amongst studies, with percentages as variable as 0-9.3%. Corticosteroids demonstrated 11-26% reduction of adverse events compared to hyaluronic acid. However, confidence intervals were found to not be statistically significant.Conclusion:Intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid, although deemed clinically effective, continue to demonstrate variable rates of adverse effects and infection amongst patients with progressive knee osteoarthritis.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Download Full-text

Safety of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid for Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Involving More than 8,000 Patients

Cartilage ◽

10.1177/1947603519888783 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 194760351988878

Author(s):

Larry E. Miller ◽

Samir Bhattacharyya ◽

William R. Parrish ◽

Michael Fredericson ◽

Brad Bisson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Hyaluronic Acid ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Knee Oa ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Symptomatic Knee

Objective The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods We identified randomized controlled trials reporting the safety of IAHA versus IA saline in adults with symptomatic knee OA. Main safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs), local AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs), study withdrawals, and AE-related study withdrawals. Results A total of 35 randomized controlled trials with 38 group comparisons comprising 8,078 unique patients (IAHA: 4,295, IA saline: 3,783) were included in the meta-analysis. Comparing IAHA with IA saline over a median of 6 months follow-up, there were no differences in the risk of AEs (42.4% vs. 39.7%, risk ratio [RR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.96-1.07, P = 0.61), SAEs (1.8% vs. 1.2%, RR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.91-2.26, P=0.12), study withdrawals (12.3% vs. 12.7%, RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87-1.12, P = 0.83), or AE-related study withdrawals (2.7% vs. 2.1%, RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97-1.93, P = 0.08). Local AEs, all of which were nonserious, were more common with IAHA vs. IA saline (14.5% vs. 11.7%, RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.07-1.36, P = 0.003) and typically resolved within days. Conclusion IAHA was shown to be safe for use in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Compared with IA saline, IAHA is associated with an increased risk of nonserious, transient local reactions. There was no evidence to suggest any additional safety risks of IAHA.

Download Full-text

Treating Knee Osteoarthritis With Platelet-Rich Plasma and Hyaluronic Acid Combination Therapy: A Systematic Review

The American Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/0363546521998010 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 036354652199801

Author(s):

Michael R. Baria ◽

W. Kelton Vasileff ◽

James Borchers ◽

Alex DiBartola ◽

David C. Flanigan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Hyaluronic Acid ◽

Combination Therapy ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Platelet Rich Plasma ◽

Case Series ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Preparation Technique ◽

Randomized Studies ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis. The focus of previous studies has compared their efficacy against each other as monotherapy. However, a new trend of combining these 2 injections has emerged in an attempt to have a synergistic effect. Purpose: To systematically review the clinical literature examining the combined use of PRP + HA. Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed and Embase. The following search terms were used: knee osteoarthritis AND platelet rich plasma AND hyaluronic acid. The review was performed by 2 independent reviewers who applied the inclusion/exclusion criteria and independently extracted data, including methodologic scoring, PRP preparation technique, HA composition, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Results: A total of 431 articles were screened, 12 reviewed in full, and 8 included in the final analysis: 2 case series, 3 comparative, and 3 randomized studies. Average follow-up was 9 months. The modified Coleman Methodology Score was 38.13 ± 13.1 (mean ± SD). Combination therapy resulted in improved PROs in all studies. Of the comparative and randomized studies, 2 demonstrated that combination therapy was superior to HA alone. However, when PRP alone was used as the control arm (4 studies), combination therapy was not superior to PRP alone. Conclusion: Combination therapy with PRP + HA improves PROs and is superior to HA alone but is not superior to PRP alone.

Download Full-text

Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Hyaluronic Acid for treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Electronic physician ◽

10.19082/2115 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 8 (3) ◽

pp. 2115-2122 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Hassan Niroomand Sadabad ◽

Masoud Behzadifar ◽

Farzad Arasteh ◽

Meysam Behzadifar ◽

Hamid Reza Dehghan

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Hyaluronic Acid ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Platelet Rich Plasma ◽

Meta Analysis

Download Full-text

Nonspecific Adverse Events in Knee Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0111776 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 9 (11) ◽

pp. e111776 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Yun Hyung Koog ◽

Jin Su Lee ◽

Hyungsun Wi

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis

Download Full-text

Handwash versus hand-rub practices for preventing nosocomial infection in hospital intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Canadian Journal of Infection Control ◽

10.36584/cjic.2020.009 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 82-90

Author(s):

S Bello ◽

EA Bamgboye ◽

DT Ajayi ◽

EN Ossai ◽

EC Aniwada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Nosocomial Infection ◽

Intensive Care Units ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Infection Rates

Background: Compliance with handwashing in busy healthcare facilities, such as intensive care units (ICUs), is suboptimal and alcohol hand-rub preparations have been suggested to improve compliance. There is no evidence on the comparative effectiveness between handwash and hand-rub strategies. This systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of handwash versus hand-rub strategies for preventing nosocomial infection in ICUs. Methods Studies conducted in ICUs and indexed in PubMed comparing the clinical effectiveness and adverse events between handwash and hand-rub groups were included in a systematic review. The primary outcome was nosocomial infection rates. Secondary outcomes included microbial counts on healthcare providers’ hands, mortality rates, patient/hospital cost of treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), length of ICU/hospital stays, and adverse events. Studies were independently screened and data extracted by at least two authors. Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RR), incidence rate ratios (IRR), odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD), were conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Seven studies published between 1992-2009 and involving a total of 11,663 patients were included. Five studies (10,981 patients) contributed data to the ICU acquired nosocomial infection rates. The pooled IRR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61, 0.82; I2 = 94%). On sensitivity analysis, pooled IRR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.32, 0.48; 4 studies; 8,247 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. The pooled OR for mortality was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78, 1.61; 4 studies; 3,475 patients; I2 = 39%). The pooled MD for length of hospital stay was -0.74 (95% CI -2.83, 1.34; 3 studies; 741 patients; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for an undesirable skin effect was 0.37 (95% CI 0.23, 0.60; 3 studies;1504 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. Overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: Hand rub appeared more effective when compared to handwash in ICUs.

Download Full-text

Experience of living with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of qualitative studies

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030060 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (9) ◽

pp. e030060 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Jason A Wallis ◽

Nicholas F Taylor ◽

Samantha Bunzli ◽

Nora Shields

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Lived Experience ◽

Structural Damage ◽

Social Impact ◽

Qualitative Studies ◽

Emotional Impact ◽

Management Options ◽

Key Factor ◽

Reporting Data

ObjectivesSystematically review the qualitative literature on living with knee osteoarthritis from patient and carer perspectives.DesignSystematic review of qualitative studies. Five electronic databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus) were searched from inception until October 2018. Data were synthesised using thematic and content analysis.ParticipantsStudies exploring the experiences of people living with knee osteoarthritis, and their carers were included. Studies exploring experiences of patients having participated in specific interventions, including surgery, or their attitudes about the decision to proceed to knee replacement were excluded.ResultsTwenty-six articles reporting data from 21 studies about the patient (n=665) and carer (n=28) experience of living with knee osteoarthritis were included. Seven themes emerged: (i) Perceived causes of knee osteoarthritis are multifactorial and lead to structural damage to the knee and deterioration over time (n=13 studies), (ii) Pain and how to manage it predominates the lived experience (n=19 studies), (iii) Knee osteoarthritis impacts activity and participation (n=16 studies), (iv) Knee osteoarthritis has a social impact (n=10 studies), (v) Knee osteoarthritis has an emotional impact (n=13 studies), (vi) Interactions with health professionals can be positive or negative (n=11 studies), (vii) Knee osteoarthritis leads to life adjustments (n=14 studies). A single study reporting the perspectives of carers reported similar themes. Psychosocial impact of knee osteoarthritis emerged as a key factor in the lived experience of people with knee osteoarthritis.ConclusionsThis review highlights the value of considering patient attitudes and experiences including psychosocial factors when planning and implementing management options for people with knee osteoarthritis.Trial registrationnumberCRD42018108962

Download Full-text

Cryotherapy for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review

Journal of Oncology Pharmacy Practice ◽

10.1177/1078155220959431 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 107815522095943

Author(s):

Andrea G Bailey ◽

Jamie N Brown ◽

Julia M Hammond

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Peripheral Neuropathy ◽

Adverse Effects ◽

Antineoplastic Agent ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Peripheral Nervous System Diseases ◽

Pharmacological Agents ◽

Search Terms ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Chemotherapy Agents

Objective Chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is an adverse effect of certain chemotherapy agents that can result in dose reductions, permanent nerve damage, and chronic pain. Although pharmacological agents have been studied in this setting, there is no standard of care for the prevention of CIPN. Thus, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of cryotherapy for the prevention of CIPN. Data sources PubMed (1946 to February 2020) and Embase (1947 to February 2020) were utilized to conduct a literature search using the following search terms: antineoplastic agent(s), taxoid(s), or chemotherapy and neuralgia, peripheral nervous system diseases, peripheral neuropathy, or paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy and cryotherapy, cryotherapy device, hypothermia, low temperature procedures, or ice. Data summary A total of 11 studies were included in the final assessment. Results of this systematic review indicate that the efficacy of cryotherapy in preventing CIPN is conflicting. This may be due to studies utilizing differing cryotherapy administration methods, study design, and including only a small number of patients. All included studies utilized cryotherapy with taxane-based chemotherapy treatments and cooling gloves and socks was the most common method of administration. Overall, cryotherapy was well-tolerated and no serious adverse effects were noted. Conclusions Due to the absence of serious adverse effects, cryotherapy is a reasonable option to consider to prevent CIPN in patients receiving taxane-based chemotherapy. However, additional research is needed, including larger, better designed studies, to fully delineate the role of cryotherapy for CIPN.

Download Full-text

US-Approved Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections are Safe and Effective in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Saline-Controlled Trials

Clinical Medicine Insights Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.4137/cmamd.s12743 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 6 ◽

pp. CMAMD.S12743 ◽

Cited By ~ 91

Author(s):

Larry E. Miller ◽

Jon E. Block

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Hyaluronic Acid ◽

Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Knee Pain ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Safety Outcome ◽

Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis ◽

Symptomatic Knee

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized saline-controlled trials to determine the safety and efficacy of US-approved intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) injections for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. A total of 29 studies representing 4,866 unique subjects (IAHA: 2,673, saline: 2,193) were included. IAHA injection resulted in very large treatment effects between 4 and 26 weeks for knee pain and function compared to pre-injection values, with standardized mean difference (SMD) values ranging from 1.07–1.37 (all P < 0.001). Compared to saline controls, SMDs with IAHA ranged from 0.38–0.43 for knee pain and 0.32–0.34 for knee function (all P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between IAHA and saline controls for any safety outcome, including serious adverse events (SAEs) ( P = 0.12), treatment-related SAEs ( P = 1.0), study withdrawal ( P = 1.0), and AE-related study withdrawal ( P = 0.46). We conclude that intra-articular injection of US-approved HA products is safe and efficacious in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

Download Full-text