Intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of patients’ and clinicians’ experiences

Background: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of joint pain and disability. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACs) are often used in primary care once other recommended treatments have failed. Evidence shows that IACs provide short-term relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, yet little is known about patients’ and primary care clinicians’ experiences and beliefs about their use. We explored patients’ and primary care clinicians’ views about IACs, including the benefits, disadvantages, perceived risks of treatment, when they are used, and factors that affect decision-making. Methods: We conducted individual interviews with patients and primary care clinicians and used inductive thematic analysis to investigate their views and experiences of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis (IACs). Findings: We interviewed 38 patients and 19 primary care clinicians. We identified 6 patient themes: variation in access; awareness of IACs; views of risk and trust; effectiveness of IACs; variation in onset and effect duration; and an alternative to undesirable treatments. In the interviews with clinicians, we identified an overarching theme of caution and competence, which included eight subthemes: confidence and (dis)comfort with practical procedures; risk of adverse outcomes; training; uncertainty about evidence and guidelines; technical uncertainties; IACs use on the osteoarthritis pathway; perceived benefits and impacts of IACs; and the possibility of placebo. Conclusion: Patients and clinicians valued IACs’ potential to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. Variability in patients’ access to treatment appears related to clinicians’ confidence in delivering injections and their concerns about the evidence base. Variation in dose frequency and timing reflect clinicians’ uncertainty about current guidance. Despite variation in effectiveness patients preferred IACs to other forms of pain medication and to delay or avoid surgery. IACs were mostly used as an adjunct treatment before surgery was offered. These findings can inform further research into the effectiveness of IACs and improvements in information and guidance

Case Reports1. A Late Presentation of Loeys-Dietz Syndrome: Beware of TGFβ Receptor Mutations in Benign Joint Hypermobility

Background: Thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAA) and dissections are not uncommon causes of sudden death in young adults. Loeys-Dietz syndrome (LDS) is a rare, recently described, autosomal dominant, connective tissue disease characterized by aggressive arterial aneurysms, resulting from mutations in the transforming growth factor beta (TGFβ) receptor genes TGFBR1 and TGFBR2. Mean age at death is 26.1 years, most often due to aortic dissection. We report an unusually late presentation of LDS, diagnosed following elective surgery in a female with a long history of joint hypermobility. Methods: A 51-year-old Caucasian lady complained of chest pain and headache following a dural leak from spinal anaesthesia for an elective ankle arthroscopy. CT scan and echocardiography demonstrated a dilated aortic root and significant aortic regurgitation. MRA demonstrated aortic tortuosity, an infrarenal aortic aneurysm and aneurysms in the left renal and right internal mammary arteries. She underwent aortic root repair and aortic valve replacement. She had a background of long-standing joint pains secondary to hypermobility, easy bruising, unusual fracture susceptibility and mild bronchiectasis. She had one healthy child age 32, after which she suffered a uterine prolapse. Examination revealed mild Marfanoid features. Uvula, skin and ophthalmological examination was normal. Results: Fibrillin-1 testing for Marfan syndrome (MFS) was negative. Detection of a c.1270G > C (p.Gly424Arg) TGFBR2 mutation confirmed the diagnosis of LDS. Losartan was started for vascular protection. Conclusions: LDS is a severe inherited vasculopathy that usually presents in childhood. It is characterized by aortic root dilatation and ascending aneurysms. There is a higher risk of aortic dissection compared with MFS. Clinical features overlap with MFS and Ehlers Danlos syndrome Type IV, but differentiating dysmorphogenic features include ocular hypertelorism, bifid uvula and cleft palate. Echocardiography and MRA or CT scanning from head to pelvis is recommended to establish the extent of vascular involvement. Management involves early surgical intervention, including early valve-sparing aortic root replacement, genetic counselling and close monitoring in pregnancy. Despite being caused by loss of function mutations in either TGFβ receptor, paradoxical activation of TGFβ signalling is seen, suggesting that TGFβ antagonism may confer disease modifying effects similar to those observed in MFS. TGFβ antagonism can be achieved with angiotensin antagonists, such as Losartan, which is able to delay aortic aneurysm development in preclinical models and in patients with MFS. Our case emphasizes the importance of timely recognition of vasculopathy syndromes in patients with hypermobility and the need for early surgical intervention. It also highlights their heterogeneity and the potential for late presentation. Disclosures: The authors have declared no conflicts of interes

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis:A qualitative study of patients’ and clinicians’ experiences

Background: Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of joint pain and disability. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACs) are often used in primary care once other recommended treatments have failed. Evidence shows that IACs provide short-term relief of osteoarthritis symptoms, yet little is known about patients’ and primary care clinicians’ experiences and beliefs about their use. We explored patients' and primary care clinicians’ views about IACs, including the benefits, disadvantages, perceived risks of treatment, when they are used, and factors that affect decision-making.Methods: We conducted individual interviews with patients and primary care clinicians. We conducted an inductive thematic analysis to investigate their views and experiences of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis (IACs). Findings: We interviewed 38 patients and 19 primary care clinicians. We identified 6 patient themes: variation in access; awareness of IACs; views of risk and trust; effectiveness of IACs; variation in onset and effect duration; and an alternative to undesirable treatments. In the interviews with clinicians, we identified an overarching theme of caution and competence, which included eight subthemes: confidence and (dis)comfort with practical procedures; risk of adverse outcomes; training; uncertainty about evidence and guidelines; technical uncertainties; IACs use on the osteoarthritis pathway; perceived benefits and impacts of IACs; and the possibility of placebo.Conclusion: Patients and clinicians valued IACs’ potential to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life. Variability in patients’ access to treatment appears related to clinicians’ confidence in delivering injections and their concerns about the evidence base. Variation in dose frequency and timing reflect clinicians’ uncertainty about current guidance. Despite variation in effectiveness patients preferred IACs to other forms of pain medication and to delay or avoid surgery. IACs were mostly used as an adjunct treatment before surgery was offered. These findings can inform further research into the effectiveness of IACs and improvements in information and guidance