Intra-articular Glucocorticoid Research Articles

Injection Placement for Palpation-Guided Intra-Articular Glucocorticoid Therapy for the Elbow

Objectives: There are two different palpationguided injection techniques described how to enter the elbow joint when injecting intraarticular glucocorticoids – the lateral and the posterior. Both methods are used in clinical practice and based on individual experience each practicing physician decides which technique to use. The aims of the present study were to compare the accuracy of palpationguided injection placement and the clinical effects regarding pain and function between these methods.

Post COVID-19 Reactive Arthritis: An Emerging Existence In The Spectrum Of Musculoskeletal Complications Of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Reactive arthritis is commonly preceded by a gastrointestinal or a sexually transmitted infection. However, its association with different viral infections has also been reported. Herein, we report a case of a 34 year old male who developed Reactive arthritis few days after the severe acute respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 infection (SARS-CoV-2). The patient was positive for COVID-19 infection from nasopharyngeal swab specimen. He was advised self-isolation/quarantine, considering his mild form of disease, along with medication. Ten days later he developed severe pain and tenderness in his right knee joint. His MRI of the affected joint revealed mild effusion (secondary to inflammation) in the patella-femoral compartment. Patient was diagnosed with Reactive arthritis and was prescribed Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs). Intra articular glucocorticoid was injected, to which he responded dramatically. His symptoms completely resolved in next ten days.

Efficacy and Safety of Intra-articular Sacroiliac Glucocorticoid Injections in Ankylosing Spondylitis.

To assess the efficacy and safety of intra-articular sacroiliac glucocorticoid injection in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Patients with AS undergoing fluoroscopy-guided intra-articular sacroiliac glucocorticoid injection were enrolled between 2012 and 2018. Efficacy was assessed by numeric pain rating scale, acute phase reactants, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index, and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). Patients who started biologics within 3 months despite the intervention were compared with those not starting biologics, hence: the nonbiologic group. A total of 96 patients were treated, with a total of 107 injections. After intervention, there were significant decreases in numeric pain rating scale (7.8 ± 1.8 vs. 3.3 ± 2.2, p < 0.001) and acute phase reactants level (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR] 23.0 mm/h [10.0-47.0 mm/h] vs. 13.0 mm/h [4.0-27.0 mm/h], p < 0.001; C-reactive protein [CRP] 1.0 mg/dL [0.2-2.7 mg/dL] vs. 0.2 mg/dL [0.2-0.9 mg/dL], p < 0.001). Disease activity scores also decreased for BASDAI (6.2 ± 1.8 vs. 4.5 ± 2.5, p = 0.001), Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (5.5 [4.1-7.0] vs. 1.8 [0.5-4.1], p = 0.001), ASDAS-CRP (2.9 ± 1.0 vs. 2.3 ± 1.3, p = 0.046), and ASDAS-ESR (3.7 ± 1.1 vs. 2.4 ± 1.3, p < 0.001). However, 12 patients (12.5%) started biologics within 3 months. These patients showed higher ESR (91.0 mm/h [IQR 21.0-113.0 mm/h] vs. 21.5 mm/h [IQR 9.5-43.0 mm/h], p = 0.010), CRP (8.0 mg/dL [IQR 1.11-17.1 mg/dL] vs. 0.8 mg/dL [IQR 0.2-1.8 mg/dL], p = 0.002), BASDAI (7.4 ± 1.2 vs. 5.9 ± 1.8, p = 0.027), and ASDAS-CRP (4.0 ± 0.5 vs. 2.8 ± 1.0, p = 0.004) than the nonbiologic group. There was no serious adverse event. Intra-articular sacroiliac glucocorticoid injection can be a safe and effective treatment option for active sacroiliitis in AS.

Post covid-19 reactive arthritis: An emerging existence in the spectrum of musculoskeletal complications of SARSCoV-2 infection

Reactive arthritis is commonly preceded by a gastrointestinal or a sexually transmitted infection. However, its association with different viral infections has also been reported. Herein, we report a case of a 34 year old male who developed Reactive arthritis few days after the severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 infection (SARS-CoV-2). The patient was positive for COVID-19 infection from nasopharyngeal swab specimen. He was advised self-isolation/quarantine, considering his mild form of disease, along with medication. Ten days later he developed severe pain and tenderness in his right knee joint. His MRI of the affected joint revealed mild effusion (secondary to inflammation) in the patella-femoral compartment. Patient was diagnosed with Reactive arthritis and was prescribed Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs). Intra articular glucocorticoid was injected, to which he responded dramatically. His symptoms completely resolved in next ten days.

Annals for Educators - 20 October 2020

Annals for Educators - 20 October 2020

OP0018 A MULTICENTER RANDOMIZED STUDY IN EARLY RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS TO COMPARE ACTIVE CONVENTIONAL THERAPY VERSUS THREE BIOLOGICAL TREATMENTS: 24 WEEK EFFICACY RESULTS OF THE NORD-STAR TRIAL

Background: The optimal first-line treatment of patients (pts) with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is yet to be established. Objectives: The primary aim was to assess and compare the proportion of pts who achieved remission with active conventional therapy (ACT) and with three different biologic therapies after 24 wks. Secondary aims were to assess and compare other efficacy measures. Methods: The investigator-initiated NORD-STAR trial (NCT01491815) was conducted in the Nordic countries and Netherlands. In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-assessor study pts with treatment-naive, early RA with DAS28>3.2, and positive RF or ACPA, or CRP >10mg/L were randomized 1:1:1:1. Methotrexate (25 mg/week after one month) was combined with: 1) (ACT): oral prednisolone (tapered quickly); or: sulphasalazine, hydroxychloroquine and mandatory intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoid (GC) injections in swollen joints Results: 812 pts were randomized. Age was 54.3±14.7 yrs (mean±SD), 31.2% were male, DAS28 5.0±1.1, 74.9% were RF and 81.9% ACPA positive. Fig 1 shows the adjusted CDAI remission rates over time with 95% CI. Table shows crude remission and response rates and absolute differences in adjusted remission and response rates (superiority analysis). Differences in remission and response rates with CZP and TCZ, but not with ABA, remained within the pre-defined non-inferiority margin versus ACT, Fig 2. Conclusion: High remission rates were found across all four treatment arms at 24 wks. Higher CDAI remission rate was observed for ABA versus ACT (+9%) and for CZP (+4%), but not for TCZ (-1%). With the predefined 15% margin, ACT was non-inferior to CZP and TCZ, but not to ABA. This underscores the efficacy of active conventional therapy based on MTX combined with glucocorticoids and may guide future treatment strategies for early RA. Acknowledgments: Manufacturers provided CZP and ABA. Disclosure of Interests: Merete L. Hetland Grant/research support from: BMS, MSD, AbbVie, Roche, Novartis, Biogen and Pfizer, Consultant of: Eli Lilly, Speakers bureau: Orion Pharma, Biogen, Pfizer, CellTrion, Merck and Samsung Bioepis, Espen A Haavardsholm Grant/research support from: AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Pfizer Inc, MSD Norway, Roche Norway, Consultant of: Pfizer, AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Gilead, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Lilly, Paid instructor for: UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, Celgene, Lilly, Roche, MSD, Anna Rudin Consultant of: Astra/Zeneca, Dan Nordstrom Consultant of: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Celgene, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., Michael Nurmohamed Grant/research support from: Not related to this research, Consultant of: Not related to this research, Speakers bureau: Not related to this research, Bjorn Gudbjornsson Speakers bureau: Novartis and Amgen, Jon Lampa Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Kim Horslev-Petersen: None declared, Till Uhlig Consultant of: Lilly, Pfizer, Speakers bureau: Grunenthal, Novartis, Gerdur Grondal: None declared, Mikkel Ǿstergaard Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck, and Novartis, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Hospira, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Orion, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, and UCB, Marte Heiberg: None declared, Jos Twisk: None declared, Simon Krabbe: None declared, Kristina Lend: None declared, Inge Olsen: None declared, Joakim Lindqvist: None declared, Anna-Karin H Ekwall Consultant of: AbbVie, Pfizer, Kathrine L. Gron Grant/research support from: BMS, Meliha C Kapetanovic: None declared, Francesca Faustini: None declared, Riitta Tuompo: None declared, Tove Lorenzen: None declared, Giovanni Cagnotto: None declared, Eva Baecklund: None declared, Oliver Hendricks Grant/research support from: Pfizer, MSD, Daisy Vedder: None declared, Tuulikki Sokka-Isler: None declared, Tomas Husmark: None declared, Maud-Kristine A Ljosa: None declared, Eli Brodin: None declared, Torkell Ellingsen: None declared, Annika Soderbergh: None declared, Milad Rizk Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Asa Reckner: None declared, Per Larsson: None declared, Line Uhrenholt Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Eli Lilly and Novartis (not related to the submitted work), Soren Andreas Just: None declared, David Stevens: None declared, Trine Bay Laurberg Consultant of: UCB Pharma (Advisory Board), Gunnstein Bakland Consultant of: Novartis, UCB, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: BMS, GSK, Lilly, UCB, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Biotest, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Servier, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB

TP2 INITIAL PRESCRIBING PATTERNS TRENDS IN NEWLY DIAGNOSED CHILDREN WITH NON-SYSTEMIC JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS IN US: ANALYSIS OF ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORDS FROM 2009 TO 2018

The study describes patterns of initial medication prescriptions among children newly diagnosed with non-systemic forms of juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and its association with the disease activity outcomes from 2009- 2018. Using a pediatric hospital’s electronic medical record (EMR) between 2009 to 2018, we identified all patients with newly diagnosed JIA. Five subtypes of JIA were considered: oligoarticular JIA, polyarticular JIA, juvenile psoriatic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, and undifferentiated arthritis. We examined patient baseline characteristics and initial prescribing patterns. The disease outcomes of initial prescribing patterns were described. A total of 821 patients were included in the analysis. Most patients were female (66.3%) and white race (88.9%). The median age was 11 years (IQR: 5–14). The proportion of patients who had an initial disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) prescription increased substantially from 2009 to 2018. The most common initial prescriptions were conventional synthetic (cs)DMARD and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). For patients who were prescribed DMARD as initial therapy, csDMARDs monotherapy (57.3%) was most frequently used, followed by biologic agents and csDMARDs combination therapy (28.3%), and biologic (b)DMARDs monotherapy (14.4%). Methotrexate was the most commonly prescribed csDMARD throughout the study period, comprising more than 90% of monotherapy or combination therapy. Etanercept (56.3%) was the most prescribed bDMARDs, followed by adalimumab (36.6%). Nearly half (43.3%) of polyarticular JIA patients received a bDMARD prescription as initial therapy. The proportion of intra-articular glucocorticoid users increased considerably from 1.1% in 2009 to 25.6% in 2018. csDMARDs and NSAIDs appear to be the mainstay of first-line treatment initiated among non-systemic JIA patients over the past decade. However, biologic DMARDs are increasing in use, especially for treating children with polyarticular JIA.

Juvenile idiopathic arthritis in infants with Harlequin Ichthyosis: two cases report and literature review

BackgroundHarlequin Ichthyosis is the most severe variant of congenital autosomal recessive ichthyosis, associated with severe morbidity and potentially lethal in early life. At birth, patients present thick and plaque-like scales all over the body, with consequent cutaneous and extra-cutaneous complications, such as poor thermoregulation, recurrent infections, pain, electrolytes imbalance and joint contractures. Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis usually manifests before the age of 16 years and persists for more than 6 weeks. The association between these two pathologies has been described in the literature as a very rare event, which creates diagnostic and therapeutic challenge.Case presentationWe describe two patients affected by Harlequin Ichthyosis who early developed Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis. Both patients were treated with retinoids, ibuprofen and long-acting intra-articular glucocorticoids; due to polyarticular involvement, one child was also treated with weekly oral methotrexate.ConclusionsThe association between Harlequin Ichthyosis and Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis is rare and the pathophysiological mechanism that binds them is still unknown. Nonetheless caregivers should be aware of the possible occurrence of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis at very early ages in children affected by Harlequin Ichthyosis.

Effectiveness of intramuscular gluteal glucocorticoid injection versus intra-articular glucocorticoid injection in knee osteoarthritis: design of a multicenter randomized, 24 weeks comparative parallel-group trial

BackgroundThe knee is symptomatically the most frequent affected joint in osteoarthritis and, in the Netherlands and other Western countries, is mainly managed by general practitioners (GPs). An intra-articular glucocorticoid injection is recommended in (inter) national guidelines for patients with knee osteoarthritis as an option for a flare of knee pain and/or for those who are not responding well to pain medication. An innovative approach that could replace the intra-articular injection is an intramuscular gluteal glucocorticoid injection. An intramuscular injection is easier to perform than an intra-articular injection with lesser risk of severe local adverse reactions. We hypothesize that intramuscular gluteal glucocorticoid injection is non-inferior in reducing knee pain compared to intra-articular glucocorticoid injection, with potentially a longer lasting effect than intra-articular injection.Methods/designThe study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups. A total of 140 patients aged 45 years and older with knee osteoarthritis who contacted their general practitioner and have persistent knee pain (score ≥ 3 on 0–10 numerical rating scale; 0 = no knee pain) will be included.Patients will be randomly allocated (1:1) to an injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide intra-articular in the knee joint or intramuscular in the ipsilateral ventrogluteal area.The effect of treatment will be evaluated by questionnaires at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. The primary outcome is patients’ reported severity of knee pain measured with the pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 weeks after injection. Statistical analysis will be based on both the per-protocol and the intention-to-treat principle.DiscussionThis study will evaluate non-inferiority of intramuscular glucocorticoid injection compared to intra-articular glucocorticoid injection for knee osteoarthritis symptoms.Trial registrationThis trial is registered in the Dutch Trial Registry (number NTR6968) at 2018-01-22 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6784). Issue date: 1 October 2019.Trial sponsorErasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam.PO-box 2040.3000 CA Rotterdam.The Netherlands.

Physical Therapy versus Glucocorticoid Injection for Osteoarthritis of the Knee

BackgroundBoth physical therapy and intraarticular injections of glucocorticoids have been shown to confer clinical benefit with respect to osteoarthritis of the knee. Whether the short-term and long-term effectiveness for relieving pain and improving physical function differ between these two therapies is uncertain.MethodsWe conducted a randomized trial to compare physical therapy with glucocorticoid injection in the primary care setting in the U.S. Military Health System. Patients with osteoarthritis in one or both knees were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a glucocorticoid injection or to undergo physical therapy. The primary outcome was the total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 1 year (scores range from 0 to 240, with higher scores indicating worse pain, function, and stiffness). The secondary outcomes were the time needed to complete the Alternate Step Test, the time needed to complete the Timed Up and Go test, and the score on the Global Rating of Change scale, all assessed at 1 year.ResultsWe enrolled 156 patients with a mean age of 56 years; 78 patients were assigned to each group. Baseline characteristics, including severity of pain and level of disability, were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SD) baseline WOMAC scores were 108.8±47.1 in the glucocorticoid injection group and 107.1±42.4 in the physical therapy group. At 1 year, the mean scores were 55.8±53.8 and 37.0±30.7, respectively (mean between-group difference, 18.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 5.0 to 32.6), a finding favoring physical therapy. Changes in secondary outcomes were in the same direction as those of the primary outcome. One patient fainted while receiving a glucocorticoid injection.ConclusionsPatients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent physical therapy had less pain and functional disability at 1 year than patients who received an intraarticular glucocorticoid injection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01427153.)

Arthroscopic Debridement Versus Platelet Rich Plasma Injection in Treatment of Moderate knee Osteoarthritis.

Background: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is considered the most common disease affecting knee joint. Various strategies are utilized to decrease the symptoms of knee OA, like analgesics, physiotherapy, intra-articular glucocorticoids and hyaluronic acid [HA] injection as well as arthroscopic debridement (AD). New ‌studies have concentrated on new lines of treatment that stimulate damage improving and healing process of the cartilage, including mainly platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection as a growth factors complex.Aim: Because of the high incidence of OA and its complications, this article aimed to study the effect of AD and PRP injection on patients with knee OA.Methods: This controlled randomized clinical trial involved 20 patients with moderate knee OA. In the PRP group (n = 10), three intra-articular injections at 10-days interval were applied and compared to AD group (n = 10). All patients were prospectively evaluated before and after 6 months of the treatment by KOOS score.Results: After at least 6-months follow-up, KOOS score was significantly improved in PRP group compared to the AD group (P < 0.05). All parameters were improved in the PRP group.Conclusion: The study suggested that injection of PRP is more effective toward reducing pain and symptoms, with improvement of the daily living function, quality of life and function in sport and recreation. PRP is a method of choice in patients with mild to moderate knee OA, whom not responding to classical treatment options.

Infiltrations intra-articulaires périphériques de corticoïdes

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are often used in the daily practice of rheumatologists. The different corticosteroids will be to use according to their characteristics and type of arthropathy. Contraindications will be strictly respected and their local and systemic adverse effects, although rare, must be known. The patient should have been informed of the risks and benefits of this treatment before infiltration and have given his agreement. The requirement to provide adequate information to patients and documenting that informed consent was obtained should never be neglected. Corticosteroid doses and type does vary with the structure injected and kind of arthropathy. Among the indications, the best are chronic inflammatory rheumatism, in case of persistent inflammation at a single site, in addition to a background treatment. The effect of intra-articular injections in osteoarthritis seems to be less consistent compared to that in inflammatory rheumatism but can be useful in case of acute inflammatory flare of osteoarthritis with pain and joint effusion. Excluding the knee, ideally after synovial fluid aspiration before injection, which can be easily infiltrated after joint palpation, others intra-articular injections, especially the deepest, will have to be realized today under ultrasound or radioscopy guidance. Guided injections by sonography are now very useful to be sure that injection is really intra-articular and to avoid risk structures. Insoluble long-acting crystalline form of corticosteroid such as triamcinolone hexacetonide must be privileged in case of chronic inflammatory rheumatism. The rheumatologist should keep in mind that it is recommended that intra-articular glucocorticoid injections in an individual joint should not be given more frequently than 3 or 4 times a year, to prevent glucocorticoid-induced joint damage and avoid local or systemic adverse effects.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee.

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA. We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind-body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations. Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self-efficacy and self-management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol. This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee.

To develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA. We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind-body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations. Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self-efficacy and self-management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol. This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Can quantitative MRI be used in the clinical setting to quantify the impact of intra-articular glucocorticoid injection on synovial disease activity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis?

BackgroundJuvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the most common chronic rheumatic disease of childhood, is characterised by synovitis. Clinical assessments of synovitis are imperfect, relying on composite and indirect measures of disease activity including clinician-reported measures, patient-reported measures and blood markers. Contrast-enhanced MRI is a more sensitive synovitis assessment technique but clinical utility is currently limited by availability and inter-observer variation. Improved quantitative MRI techniques may enable future development of more stringent MRI-defined remission criteria.The objective of this study was to determine the utility and feasibility of quantitative MRI measurement of synovial volume and vascularity in JIA before and twelve weeks after intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (IAGI) of the knee and to assess the acceptability of MRI to participating families.MethodsChildren and young people with JIA and a new episode of knee synovitis requiring IAGI were recruited from the Great North Children’s Hospital in Newcastle upon Tyne. Quantitative contrast-enhanced MRI was performed prior to and twelve weeks after IAGI, in addition to standard clinical assessment tools, including the three-variable clinical juvenile arthritis disease activity score (cJADAS) and active joint count.ResultsEleven young people (5 male, median age 13 years, range 7–16) with JIA knee flare were recruited and 10 completed follow-up assessment. Following IAGI, the median (interquartile range) cJADAS improved from 8.5 (2.7) to 1.6 (3.9), whilst the median synovial volume improved from 38.5cm3 (82.1cm3) to 0.0cm3 (0.2cm3). Six patients presented with frank synovitis outside normal limits on routine MRI reporting. A further three had baseline MRI reports within normal limits but the quantitative measurements identified measurable synovial uptake. Post-IAGI quantitative measurements highlighted significant improvements in 9 patients.ConclusionsIAGI led to a marked reduction in synovial volume, with quantitative MRI identifying more patients with an improved synovial volume than routine qualitative clinical reporting. Improvements in cJADAS scores were more variable with the patient/parent global assessment component contributing most to the scores. Further work is indicated, exploring the utility of quantitative MRI in the assessment of less accessible joints and comparing the impact of different treatment modalities.

1242. Evaluation of Risk Factors for Development of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) Surgical Site Infections (SSI)

BackgroundTHA is one of the most commonly performed surgeries for pathologic diseases of the hip. Multiple risk factors have been identified for SSI including: female gender, previous joint surgery, hematoma, joint dislocation, intraarticular glucocorticoid injection, rheumatoid arthritis, uncontrolled diabetes, anemia, malnutrition, and an immunosuppressed state. The objective of our study is to evaluate obesity (body mass index (BMI) >30) as an independent risk factor for THA SSI and identify other risk factors for SSIMethodsA retrospective case–control (1:3) matched observation study was conducted from January 1, 2014–June 30, 2016. Patients with a THA SSI were identified using NHSN definitions and 3 controls were matched for sex and month of surgery for each SSI case. Patient information was extracted through chart review including BMI, revision surgery, chronic kidney disease (CKD), diabetes mellitus (DM), anemia, malnutrition, smoking, surgery duration, steroid use, pre-operative chlorhexidine (CHG) bathing and nasal povidone–iodine (PI) compliance. Multivariate analysis using a conditional logistic regression model was performed.ResultsAmong 906 THA, 29 patients developed an SSI with 87 matched patients over the 2.5 years. The mean age in the SSI group was 61.0 years, and 37.9% were male. Mean age in the control group was 63.1, and 40.1% were male. In both groups, the most common indications for surgery were osteoarthritis followed by osteonecrosis and malignancy. Results of multivariate analysis identified five independent risk factors for SSI (see Table 1).ConclusionObesity (BMI >30) was identified as an independent risk factor for THA SSI as well as CKD, steroid use and revision arthroplasty. While these risk factors are not easily modifiable, noncompliance with pre-operative CHG bathing and PI administration were also identified as significant SSI risk factor. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluating patients for SSI risk factors including obesity and improving compliance with all pre-operative SSI reduction measures. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.

Low frequency of septic arthritis after arthrocentesis and intra-articular glucocorticoid injection

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of septic arthritis (SA) in patients who received an intra-articular (IA) glucocorticoid (GC) injection and to describe the characteristics of these patients.Methods: All patients undergoing IA procedures at the orthopaedic and rheumatological departments on the Danish island of Funen from January 2006 to December 2013 were identified in the central database and included by register extraction. Patients who developed a clinically inflamed joint and positive synovial fluid culture within 14 days after IA GC injection were considered as having SA. Retrospectively, data on age, gender, affected joint location, bacterial agent, pre-existing inflammatory disorder, and death within 30 days were extracted from the patient files. According to local recommendations, a non-touch sterile technique was used for IA procedures. Patients were informed about the risk of SA and advised to seek medical attention on suspicion of infection or lack of improvement.Results: In total, 22 370 IA procedures were performed. Among these, 14 118 GC injections and 8252 arthrocenteses were undertaken. Only 11 patients were diagnosed with SA (0.08%, 95% confidence interval 0.03–0.12). Risk factors for SA were male gender, age, and pre-existing joint disease.Conclusion: We found a low frequency of SA subsequent to IA GC injections. Older patients with pre-existing joint disease are at higher risk of developing SA.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Non-Systemic Polyarthritis, Sacroiliitis, and Enthesitis.

To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis. The Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions were developed and refined by members of the guideline development teams. A systematic review was conducted to compile evidence for the benefits and harms associated with treatments for these conditions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. A group consensus process was conducted among the Voting Panel to generate the final recommendations and grade their strength. A Parent and Patient Panel used a similar consensus approach to provide patient/caregiver preferences for key questions. Thirty-nine recommendations were developed (8 strong and 31 conditional). The quality of supporting evidence was very low or low for 90% of the recommendations. Recommendations are provided for the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and intraarticular and oral glucocorticoids. Recommendations for the use of physical and occupational therapy are also provided. Specific recommendations for polyarthritis address general medication use, initial and subsequent treatment, and adjunctive therapies. Good disease control, with therapeutic escalation to achieve low disease activity, was recommended. The sacroiliitis and enthesitis recommendations primarily address initial therapy and adjunctive therapies. This guideline provides direction for clinicians, caregivers, and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation Guideline for the Treatment of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis: Therapeutic Approaches for Non-Systemic Polyarthritis, Sacroiliitis, and Enthesitis.

To develop treatment recommendations for children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis manifesting as non-systemic polyarthritis, sacroiliitis, or enthesitis. The Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) questions were developed and refined by members of the guideline development teams. A systematic review was conducted to compile evidence for the benefits and harms associated with treatments for these conditions. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of evidence. A group consensus process was conducted among the Voting Panel to generate the final recommendations and grade their strength. A Parent and Patient Panel used a similar consensus approach to provide patient/caregiver preferences for key questions. Thirty-nine recommendations were developed (8 strong and 31 conditional). The quality of supporting evidence was very low or low for 90% of the recommendations. Recommendations are provided for the use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, and intraarticular and oral glucocorticoids. Recommendations for the use of physical and occupational therapy are also provided. Specific recommendations for polyarthritis address general medication use, initial and subsequent treatment, and adjunctive therapies. Good disease control, with therapeutic escalation to achieve low disease activity, was recommended. The sacroiliitis and enthesitis recommendations primarily address initial therapy and adjunctive therapies. This guideline provides direction for clinicians, caregivers, and patients making treatment decisions. Clinicians, caregivers, and patients should use a shared decision-making process that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Systemic Absorption and Side Effects of Locally Injected Glucocorticoids

Local glucocorticoid injections are often used to treat joint, soft tissue, or spinal pain, but the systemic side effects associated with these injections are poorly understood and not well recognized. There are significant known risks to systemic administration of glucocorticoids. However, there are no guidelines that address issues of systemic absorption, overall systemic risks, or other side effects of locally injected glucocorticoids. For this review, a literature search was performed, and the available evidence on systemic absorption and clinical side effects of intra-articular and epidural glucocorticoids was synthesized. The goal was to improve clinical understanding of risks associated with these injections. Existing data suggest there is significant individual variability in the amount of systemic absorption and clinical effects of locally injected glucocorticoids. However, it is clear that both intra-articular and epidural injections can have systemic effects for weeks and that complications may be associated with their use, including Cushing syndrome, loss of bone density, infection, and hyperglycemia. The concurrent use of oral steroids, the number of injections, and the type and dose of glucocorticoids used all are important considerations in estimating risks. The total dose calculation of cumulative glucocorticoid exposure should include all local injections. Caution should be exercised when local glucocorticoid injections are used in higher risk patients, such as postmenopausal women, people with diabetes, and those considering surgery in the near term. Better provider awareness of possible systemic risks should improve decision making and informed consent with patients when considering intra-articular and epidural steroid injections for painful conditions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.