Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleOsteoarthritis

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

Nasimah Maricar, Matthew J. Parkes, Michael J. Callaghan, David T. Felson and Terence W. O’Neill
The Journal of Rheumatology March 2020, 47 (3) 431-440; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.180233
Nasimah Maricar
From the Arthritis Research UK Centre for Epidemiology, Division of Musculoskeletal and Dermatological Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester University National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre; Department of Physiotherapy, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust; Department of Health Professions, Manchester Metropolitan University; Department of Rheumatology, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Nasimah Maricar
  • For correspondence: nasimah.maricar@manchester.ac.uk nasimah.maricar@srft.nhs.uk
Matthew J. Parkes
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew J. Parkes
Michael J. Callaghan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Michael J. Callaghan
David T. Felson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David T. Felson
Terence W. O’Neill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Terence W. O’Neill
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. To determine whether clinical correlates of knee osteoarthritis (OA) affect the outcome of intraarticular steroid injections (IASI) in symptomatic knee OA.

Methods. Men and women aged ≥ 40 years with painful knee OA who participated in an open-label trial of IASI completed questionnaires and clinical examination. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)–Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) criteria were used to assess response to therapy in the short term (within 2 weeks). Among those who initially responded, those whose pain had not returned to within 20% of the baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain score at 6 months were characterized as longer-term responders. Log-binomial regression was used to examine factors associated with outcome.

Results. One hundred ninety-nine participants were included, of whom 146 (73.4%) were short-term and 40 (20.1%) longer-term responders. Compared to short-term nonresponders, participants with these characteristics were more likely to be short-term responders: medial joint line tenderness [relative risk (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.10–1.82], medial and lateral joint line tenderness (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03–1.84), patellofemoral tenderness (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.55), anserine tenderness (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06–1.52), and a belief that treatment would be effective [RR/unit increase (range 0–10) = 1.05 (1.01–1.09)]. Aspiration of joint fluid (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66–0.95) and previous ligament/meniscus injury (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44–0.91) were associated with a reduced risk of being a short-term responder. Compared to initial nonresponders and those whose pain recurred within 6 months, participants with a higher number of pain sites [RR/unit increase (range 0–10) = 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.97], chronic widespread pain (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10–0.98), perceived chronicity of disease [RR/unit increase (range 0–10) = 0.86, 95% CI 0.78–0.94], and a higher depression score [RR/unit increase (range 0–21) = 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99] were less likely to be longer-term responders.

Conclusion. Among patients with symptomatic knee OA, tenderness around the knee was associated with better short-term outcome of IASI. However, clinical-related factors did not predict longer-term response, while those with chronic widespread pain and depressive symptoms were less likely to obtain longer-term benefits.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • PREDICTORS
  • KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
  • CLINICAL TESTS
  • INTRAARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION
  • PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

Intraarticular steroid injection (IASI) is an effective treatment for many individuals with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee with short-term pain relief lasting up to 4 weeks1,2,3,4,5 and longer-term response up to 24 weeks1,6. Previous systematic reviews and metaanalyses have shown there is variation in both the magnitude and duration of symptom relief following steroid injections1,3,7. Evidence from the previous systematic reviews suggests, however, that no factor consistently linked with response7,8. In more recent analyses, using an individual patient data metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials, patients with severe baseline pain were found to benefit more from a steroid injection than those with less-severe pain9. The presence of inflammatory signs did not appear to influence outcome9,10,11, while in a study of 174 women, increasing age, reduced knee range of movement (ROM), increased local knee tenderness and more severe radiographic disease were associated with a reduced response to IASI at 3 months12. In a more recent prospective study in individuals with knee OA, no clinical, radiographic, sonographic, and serological characteristics influenced response other than female sex, which was associated with response at 3 weeks (p = 0.045) and previous injection with nonresponse at 9 weeks (p = 0.021)11. In a different prospective cohort study in which repeated IASI were undertaken in predominantly knee OA of Kellgren-Lawrence arthritis grading scale (KL) 1–3, patients with persisting pain or ultrasound (US) effusion at 1 month after IASI showed a reduced probability of responding to additional injections and to treatment response at 1 year13.

There are few data concerning the effect of psychological factors on treatment response7. In our previous open-label study of IASI in knee OA14,15, not all participants responded to the therapy in the short term. Of those who responded, the majority had a recurrence of pain within 6 months. In previous work, we looked at the effect of disease severity on outcome following IASI and found that those with more severe disease [either magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or radiographs] were less likely to be longer-term responders14,15. The aim of the current study was to determine the effect of a range of clinical correlates of disease including symptoms, clinical signs of knee OA, psychological factors, and quality of life, on both short-term (within 2 weeks) and longer-term (6 months) outcomes following IASI. Our IASI predictor of outcome study was larger in scale and longer in followup than prior studies, and was also designed to look at a more comprehensive list of predictor factors to IASI treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

Men and women aged 40 years and over were recruited from primary and secondary care for participation in an open-label study looking at efficacy of IASI in symptomatic knee OA (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number: 07329370). Participants were included if they reported moderate knee pain for > 48 h in the previous 2 weeks or scored > 7 out of 32 on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire, questions P2–P9 (question P1 relates to frequency of knee pain, which is irrelevant given the inclusion criteria on pain frequency). Inclusion criteria were imaging confirmation of definite knee OA either radiologically (KL ≥ 2 on posteroanterior, lateral, or skyline view in any knee compartment in the past 2 yrs), or if no radiographs were obtained, evidence of OA on MRI or at arthroscopy. For MRI and arthroscopy, typical changes of OA with at least cartilage loss present were required. Exclusion criteria included gout, septic arthritis, inflammatory arthritis, hyaluronic acid or steroid injection within the previous 3 months, knee surgery within the previous 6 months, and concurrent life-threatening illnesses14,15. Participants were provided with study information sheets and subsequently gave written informed consent to participate. Ethics approval was received from the Leicestershire Multicentre Research Ethics Committee (reference 09/H0402/107).

Screening and baseline assessment

Participants were assessed for eligibility at a screening visit14. Those who fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria were invited to attend a baseline visit. Participants also completed questionnaires including the KOOS pain scale (relating to the index knee), in which higher score denotes lower severity of symptoms16, a global perception of change–Likert scale, a visual analog scale score for pain during an activity that a patient nominated as being most troublesome (VASNA), Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 (SF-12)17, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS)18, and Illness Perception Questionnaires-Brief (IPQ-B)19. The SF-12 is a validated survey designed to assess health status with both mental and physical health-related quality of life20,21. HADS is a 14-item scale, scored 0–3 with 7 items each, measuring anxiety and depression over the last week18. The IPQ-B provides a quantitative assessment of 5 components of cognitive and emotional representations of illness using Leventhal’s Self-Regulatory Model and includes 8 items scored 0–10, with a higher score representing stronger belief19. The occurrence of pain at other sites was assessed using a manikin for body pain (4 figures: front, back, left, and right side); participants were asked to complete this for aches and pains that lasted longer than 1 day that they experienced in the past month22. A further question asked about whether they had been aware of the pain for more than 3 months. Chronic widespread pain (CWP) was defined as pain experienced in contralateral quadrants of the body, above and below the waist and in the axial skeleton that had persisted for more than 3 months23,24. We also noted the number of the shaded regions on the manikin to reflect the number of pain sites23,24.

A subsample (n = 103) of participants had additional clinical tests performed by one of 2 assessors prior to having their steroid injections using standardized assessment procedures. These additional tests included assessment of bony enlargement (absent = 0, unsure = 1, present = 2), joint crepitus (absent = 0, unsure = 1, present palpable = 2, present audible = 3), quadriceps muscle wasting (absent = 0, possible = 1, present = 2), assessment of effusion using the bulge sign25, assessment of effusion using the ballottement test [absent = 0, present without click = 1, present with click (tap) = 2], patellofemoral joint tenderness (absent = 0, present = 1), pes anserine tenderness (absent = 0, present = 1), medial tibiofemoral joint tenderness (absent = 0, present = 1), lateral tibiofemoral joint tenderness (absent = 0, present = 1), and goniometric knee ROM, flexion and extension measured to the nearest degrees26. Maximal voluntary isometric strength of the quadriceps was measured by a strain gauge using a protocol developed for past studies27. Strength scores were measured as torque in Newton meters (Nm) and normalized for body size using the formula corrected strength = Nm/[weight in kg × (height in m divided by 2)]. The length of the distal lower limb was taken to allow calculation of torque. For the elements of the clinical examination, reliability evaluation intra- (κ = 0.60–0.98; ICC = 0.96–0.99) and interobserver (κ = 0.48–1.00; ICC = 0.87–0.97) showed moderate to excellent agreement28. While ϰ can be affected by the prevalence, in our study for most clinical signs the prevalence was not particularly low. We also asked participants, “Have you ever been told you have injured your ligaments or meniscus in your affected knee (yes, no, don’t know)?”

Following the assessments, arthrocentesis was performed with removal of synovial fluid (SF; if present) and injection of 80 mg methylprednisolone acetate (without local anesthetic). The majority of injections were nonguided using a medial approach to the knee joint by one of 2 experienced clinicians (TWO/NM). Following further ethics approval, during the course of the study we used US to guide localization of the injections for the remaining subjects, with a lateral approach to the suprapatellar bursa (NM). Any participant in whom the SF white cell count (WCC) was found to be > 1500/mm3 was excluded owing to concerns they might have a primary inflammatory arthritis. We treated and studied 1 knee per participant.

Followup

We defined response to IASI using the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT)–Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) responder criteria based on the KOOS pain scale and global perception of change–Likert scale29. A responder was defined as having either (1) ≥ 20% change in KOOS pain and a “slightly” or “much better” score on the 5-point Likert scale for change in pain, or (2) ≥ 50% change in the KOOS pain; in both cases an absolute change of at least 3 units if the baseline KOOS was 15 or less. Participants were usually seen within 2 weeks after the injection and we characterized their response at that time as short-term response. Those who had not responded were not further followed. Those who responded were followed with regular telephone calls every 4 weeks during which the same KOOS pain questions and global Likert scale were administered. Those whose pain recurred to within 20% of the baseline KOOS pain were defined as having relapsed and were seen again for final followup. Those whose pain levels did not return to this level at 6 months of followup were classified as longer-term responders.

Analysis

Means and SD for normally distributed variables, and medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for variables with a skewed distribution, were used to summarize participant characteristics. Log-binomial regression was used to determine whether baseline factors were associated with both short-term response (i.e., those who responded within 2 weeks vs those who did not) and longer-term response to therapy (those who were responders at 6 mos vs those who did not respond initially, or who were initial responders and whose pain subsequently recurred within 6 mos). In all the analyses, the outcome was responder status (yes vs no). All categorical predictors were coded as dummy variables, thereby making no assumptions about the relationship between categories, regarding order (rank) or scale. This process was repeated for all categorical predictors, including those with ordinal categories (e.g., bulge sign). Because of low frequencies in subcategories, the crepitus and ballottement variables were collapsed into dichotomous variables, coded as absent = 0, present palpable and/or audible = 1; and absent = 0, present with/without click = 1; respectively. Any factors significantly associated with outcome were then included in a subsequent multivariable analysis [2 models: one for short-term (using Poisson regression with robust standard errors) and one for longer-term responders (using log-binomial regression)] to examine whether associations were retained in the presence of other predictors. Results were expressed as relative risks (RR) and 95% CI. No adjustment was undertaken for multiple comparisons30. Statistical analysis was undertaken using Stata version 14 (StataCorp).

RESULTS

Participants

Two hundred nine participants were recruited. Two were withdrawn following recruitment because they received a steroid injection from their general practitioner (Figure 1). Following intervention with IASI, a further 8 were withdrawn for a number of reasons, as listed in Figure 1. Out of the remaining 199 participants, 103 had additional assessments performed. The mean age of the 199 remaining in the study was 62.8 (SD 10.3) years, and 105 (52.8%) were female (Table 1A). Median KOOS pain at baseline was 44.4 points (IQR 36.1–55.6), and median VASNA was 7.0 cm (IQR 5.6–8.1; Table 1A). The median time between baseline and first followup visit was 8 days (IQR 7–14). Median KOOS pain and VASNA at baseline, first followup, and followup at 6 months stratified by responder status is presented in Table 1A. Other participant characteristics including the psychological factors, quality of life, and clinical-related factors are presented in Table 1A and Table 1B. The baseline characteristics of subjects who received their injections unguided were broadly similar to those who received their injections guided (Table 2). There was no difference in the demographic characteristics or pain symptoms in those subjects who had additional clinical assessments performed and those who did not (Supplementary Table 1, available from the authors on request). Our findings regarding a subsample (n = 120) of participants who had an MRI of their knee performed have been published14,15.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart of participants. PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses; GP: general practitioner; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; CE-MRI: contrast-enhanced MRI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1A.

Baseline characteristics: subjects and treatment factors.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1B.

Baseline characteristics: clinical examination.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Baseline characteristics in those who had unguided and ultrasound-guided injections.

Predictors of short-term responder status

Of those participants who had an IASI, 146 (73.4%) were defined as short-term responders. Participants were more likely to be responders if they had medial tibiofemoral joint tenderness (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10–1.82), medial and lateral tibiofemoral joint tenderness (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.03–1.84), patellofemoral tenderness (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.55), or anserine tenderness (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.06–1.52); or if they had a positive belief about treatment with IASI (IPQ-B treatment score; RR per unit increase = 1.05, 95% CI 1.01–1.09). Aspiration of SF (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66–0.95) and previous ligament or meniscus injury (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44–0.91) were associated with a reduced likelihood of being a short-term responder (Table 3 and Table 4). None of the other patient-related factors including the use of guided injection, psychological factors, quality of life, or clinical signs of disease was linked with short-term responder status. In a multivariable analysis of the factors that were associated with short-term response, only 1 factor (previous ligament or meniscus injury) remained significant after adjustment (Supplementary Table 2, available from the authors on request).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Short-term and longer-term prediction of response to IASI: patient and treatment factors.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Short-term and longer-term prediction of response to IASI in subsample†.

Predictors of longer-term responder status (6 mos)

Forty participants among those who were short-term responders (20.1% of the original cohort of 199 participants) were characterized as longer-term responders, in which at 6 months, their pain had not returned to within 20% of its baseline value. The presence of CWP (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10–0.98) was associated with a reduced likelihood of being a longer-term responder (Table 3). Also associated with a reduced likelihood of being a longer-term responder were an increased number of pain sites (RR 0.83/site, 95% CI 0.72–0.97), perceived chronicity of disease (IPQ-B timeline score; RR per unit increase = 0.86, 95% CI 0.78–0.94), and depressive symptoms (RR per unit increase = 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.99). Categorization of these variables suggests a linear relationship for both depressive symptoms and timeline score (Supplementary Table 3, available from the authors on request). None of the clinical signs of OA, the use of guided injection or aspiration, or other factors linked with short-term response were associated with longer-term response status (Table 3 and Table 4). In a multivariable analysis of the factors associated with longer-term response, only the IPQ-B timeline score remained significant after adjustment (Supplementary Table 4).

DISCUSSION

In this open-label study of IASI, using OMERACT-OARSI criteria as our definition of response, we found several factors associated with short-term response status. Knee tenderness and a stronger belief about the effectiveness of treatment were linked with a response to IASI, while aspiration of synovial joint fluid and having prior ligament or meniscus injury were linked with a reduced risk of response. But none of these factors were linked with longer-term response status. In contrast, depressive symptoms and the presence of CWP were associated with a reduced risk of being a longer-term responder.

Compared to those who did not respond to IASI, those who were short-term responders were more likely to have medial tibiofemoral joint tenderness, medial and lateral joint line tenderness, patellofemoral joint tenderness, and anserine tenderness. Our findings are in keeping with a study in which clinical assessment of local tenderness was linked with an improved response at 3 weeks (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.03–1.67)31.

Previous studies do not support the impression that the presence of knee effusion is associated with response, with only 232,33 of 6 studies5,31,32,33,34,35 suggesting that response was better in those with effusion. In our study the presence of a clinical effusion (as determined by the bulge sign or ballottement) was not associated with treatment response, while aspiration of SF, if anything, was linked with a reduced response to IASI. However, we did not have information about clinical signs of effusion at followup. No other symptoms or clinical signs of OA were associated with response. We found in our previous analysis on structural predictors to IASI that MRI-effusion and MRI-synovitis were not linked with an improved response14,15. Interestingly, though, among a subsample of subjects in whom SF analysis was performed, compared to those with SF WCC in the lowest tertile (< 100 cells/mm3), those with WCC in the middle and upper tertiles had a greater reduction in knee pain following steroid injection36.

Compared to short-term nonresponders, a higher proportion of short-term responders received their injection using US-guided control (41.8% vs 34%). This difference, although not statistically significant, may be clinically relevant, and further large-scale studies are needed to confirm whether US guidance is linked with an improved outcome. Sibbitt Jr., et al37 reported that guided knee injections (compared with blinded injections) were associated with pain relief that lasted 1 month longer, although guided injections did not lead to better improvement of pain response in the longer term (6 mos). We did not have objective assessment of localization of the needle to within the joint and so were unable to determine whether accurate localization within the joint was linked with response. The results of a previous study, using air-arthrosonogram as an indicator of accuracy of localization, however, suggest that accurate localization of IASI to the knee did not result in superior outcome regarding pain compared to inaccurate injection11.

There are few studies that have looked at the influence of adverse psychological factors on treatment response. Our null findings for anxiety and depression are in keeping with the study by Jones and Doherty31 suggesting no effect on response in the short term. It is perhaps not surprising that those who had a stronger belief that treatment was going to be effective had a beneficial effect. Because we did not have detailed information about previous steroid injections to study whether it was prior experience of a successful outcome that may have driven their beliefs regarding treatment response, we cannot exclude this possibility. However, we note the findings of a study in which participants who had had a previous experience of injection were less likely to report response to treatment than those undergoing their first injection at 9 weeks but not 3 weeks11.

In contrast to our findings on “disease”-related factors predicting short-term response, we found no evidence that these were linked with longer-term response. We had anticipated that those with more marked clinical features of disease such as crepitus, bony enlargement, and muscle wasting may also have been less likely to be responders; however, this did not appear to be the case.

A number of factors including CWP, having multiple sites of bodily pain, perceived chronicity of disease, and depressive symptoms were linked with a reduced likelihood of being a longer-term responder. The observation is in keeping with studies suggesting chronic pain, negative attitude, and depression can be predictors of poorer treatment outcome in other clinical settings38,39,40,41. It is possible that altered pain sensitivity or awareness of pain as a consequence of the psychological symptoms may have influenced the likelihood of poorer longer-term response.

There were several limitations to the study. Although this was a comparatively large study, the high frequency of the (short-term) response and relatively low frequency of some predictors mean that this study was relatively underpowered to detect some predictors of outcome. Further larger studies are needed to determine the effect of the putative predictor variables on outcome. Characterization of the clinical predictors was based on clinical examination, which is subject to measurement errors. The effect of errors of classification of individual clinical signs due to poor reliability would tend to reduce the chance of finding real biological associations; however, formal testing of reliability in the study was good, suggesting that this is unlikely to have been important in explaining our findings28. Other putative predictor variables were obtained largely by self-report and therefore subject to errors of recall; these factors, however, were obtained prior to intervention and it seems unlikely that any such errors would have resulted in bias. They may have led to reduced precision in estimates of effect. There was no placebo group in the trial because the short-term efficacy of IASI in knee OA is already established1,2,3,5. While it is likely that some of the response may be due to a contextual/placebo effect, the trial reflects clinical practice in which injections are administered in an “open” setting, with the patient aware of the intervention and so the observed “predictor” variables are likely to reflect those that would be observed in the clinical setting. Another limitation was the possible effect of “multiplicity,” because in this study we looked at a range of putative determinants without correcting for testing, and therefore a risk existed that some of the predictors found could be circumstantial, and replication of the findings may be needed for them. We considered variables that in our judgment could plausibly affect the outcome. Further, it is possible that some real biological associations may have been missed (type 2 errors). As outlined earlier, we could not exclude the possibility that previous IASI and/or their response may have influenced some of the results. The study was performed in a predominantly white population and the results should be generalized beyond this setting with caution.

Our data suggest there may be a limited role for clinical phenotyping in relation to targeting IASI therapy in patients with joint disease, although owing to the exploratory features of our study, other studies are required to confirm our findings. While knee tenderness was linked with an improved response in the short term, the effect was relatively small and unlikely to be of clinical utility; short-term response for those with patellofemoral or medial tibiofemoral joint line tenderness was 86% and 87.5% compared with 70% and 67% for those without, respectively. The data also suggest that targeting therapy based on symptoms, including for example the presence or absence of a knee effusion, should not influence the decision about whether to undertake the steroid injection. As outlined, psychological factors, including depressive symptoms and presence of widespread pain, and greater number of pain sites, although not affecting short-term outcome, reduced the likelihood of longer-term response; this reinforces the importance of targeting these other symptoms in any overall management strategy to reduce knee pain due to OA. Based on our data, such factors should not influence the decision to treat patients with more widespread pain if the target is short-term improvement.

Among patients with symptomatic knee OA, those with knee tenderness are more likely to respond to IASI therapy. Clinical signs of knee OA did not, however, predict longer-term response. The presence of CWP, having multiple pain sites, and depressive symptoms attenuate longer-term treatment response.

Acknowledgment

We appreciate the expert assistance of Helen Williams, Laura Heathers, Laura Forsythe, Rosie Perry, and the rest of the ROAM team. The authors are thankful for the generous contributions of time and energy of study participants. The authors also acknowledge the equipment and facilities provided by the Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust.

Footnotes

  • This study was funded by Arthritis Research UK grant 20380, and special strategic award grant 18676. The funding agency had no role in any of the following: design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, or interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This report includes independent research supported by (or funded by) the NIHR Biomedical Research Unit Funding Scheme. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. The Research in Osteoarthritis Manchester group is supported by the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre. Prof. D.T. Felson is supported by NIH AR4778. N. Maricar is supported by an NIHR Allied Health Profession Clinical Doctoral Fellowship.

  • Accepted for publication March 7, 2019.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Arroll B,
    2. Goodyear-Smith F
    . Corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis of the knee: meta-analysis. BMJ 2004;328:869.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Bellamy N,
    2. Campbell J,
    3. Welch V,
    4. Gee T,
    5. Bourne R,
    6. Wells G
    . Intraarticular corticosteroid for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006:CD005328.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Bjordal JM,
    2. Klovning A,
    3. Ljunggren AE,
    4. Slordal L
    . Short-term efficacy of pharmacotherapeutic interventions in osteoarthritic knee pain: a meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials. Eur J Pain 2007;11:125–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Juni P,
    2. Hari R,
    3. Rutjes AW,
    4. Fischer R,
    5. Silletta MG,
    6. Reichenbach S,
    7. et al.
    Intra-articular corticosteroid for knee osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;CD005328.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Chao J,
    2. Wu C,
    3. Sun B,
    4. Hose MK,
    5. Quan A,
    6. Hughes TH,
    7. et al.
    Inflammatory characteristics on ultrasound predict poorer longterm response to intraarticular corticosteroid injections in knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2010;37:650–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Smith MD,
    2. Wetherall M,
    3. Darby T,
    4. Esterman A,
    5. Slavotinek J,
    6. Roberts-Thomson P,
    7. et al.
    A randomized placebo-controlled trial of arthroscopic lavage versus lavage plus intra-articular corticosteroids in the management of symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology 2003;42:1477–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Maricar N,
    2. Callaghan MJ,
    3. Felson DT,
    4. O’Neill TW
    . Predictors of response to intra-articular steroid injections in knee osteoarthritis—a systematic review. Rheumatology 2013;52:1022–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hirsch G,
    2. Kitas G,
    3. Klocke R
    . Intra-articular corticosteroid injection in osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: Factors predicting pain relief—a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013;42:451–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. van Middelkoop M,
    2. Arden NK,
    3. Atchia I,
    4. Birrell F,
    5. Chao J,
    6. Rezende MU,
    7. et al.
    The OA Trial Bank: meta-analysis of individual patient data from knee and hip osteoarthritis trials show that patients with severe pain exhibit greater benefit from intra-articular glucocorticoids. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016;24:1143–52.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bevers K,
    2. Zweers MC,
    3. Vriezekolk JE,
    4. Bijlsma JW,
    5. den Broeder AA
    . Are ultrasonographic signs of inflammation predictors for response to intra-articular glucocorticoids in knee osteoarthritis? Clin Exp Rheumatol 2014;32:930–4.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Hirsch G,
    2. O’Neill TW,
    3. Kitas G,
    4. Sinha A,
    5. Klocke R
    . Accuracy of injection and short-term pain relief following intra-articular corticosteroid injection in knee osteoarthritis - an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017;18:44.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. Fatimah N,
    2. Salim B,
    3. Raja EU,
    4. Nasim A
    . Predictors of response to intra-articular steroid injections in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee joint. Clin Rheumatol 2016;35:2541–7.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Calvet J,
    2. Orellana C,
    3. Galisteo C,
    4. Garcia-Manrique M,
    5. Navarro N,
    6. Caixas A,
    7. et al.
    Clinical and ultrasonographic features associated to response to intraarticular corticosteroid injection. A one year follow up prospective cohort study in knee osteoarthritis patient with joint effusion. PLoS One 2018;13:e0191342.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. O’Neill TW,
    2. Parkes MJ,
    3. Maricar N,
    4. Marjanovic EJ,
    5. Hodgson R,
    6. Gait AD,
    7. et al.
    Synovial tissue volume: a treatment target in knee osteoarthritis (OA). Ann Rheum Dis 2016;75:84–90.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Maricar N,
    2. Parkes MJ,
    3. Callaghan MJ,
    4. Hutchinson CE,
    5. Gait AD,
    6. Hodgson R,
    7. et al.
    Structural predictors of response to intra-articular steroid injection in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 2017;19:88.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Roos EM,
    2. Roos HP,
    3. Lohmander LS,
    4. Ekdahl C,
    5. Beynnon BD
    . Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998;28:88–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hurst NP,
    2. McRorie ER
    . The short-term health outcome of out-patient rheumatology consultations in relation to rationing: a pilot study. Br J Rheumatol 1998;37:509–13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Zigmond AS,
    2. Snaith RP
    . The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Broadbent E,
    2. Petrie KJ,
    3. Main J,
    4. Weinman J
    . The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res 2006;60:631–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Carmona L,
    2. Ballina J,
    3. Gabriel R,
    4. Laffon A;
    5. EPISER Study Group
    . The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the general population of Spain: results from a national survey. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:1040–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Hagen KB,
    2. Smedstad LM,
    3. Uhlig T,
    4. Kvien TK
    . The responsiveness of health status measures in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of disease-specific and generic instruments. J Rheumatol 1999;26:1474–80.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Harkness EF,
    2. Macfarlane GJ,
    3. Silman AJ,
    4. McBeth J
    . Is musculoskeletal pain more common now than 40 years ago?: two population-based cross-sectional studies. Rheumatology 2005;44:890–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Nicholl BI,
    2. Macfarlane GJ,
    3. Davies KA,
    4. Morriss R,
    5. Dickens C,
    6. McBeth J
    . Premorbid psychosocial factors are associated with poor health-related quality of life in subjects with new onset of chronic widespread pain - results from the EPIFUND study. Pain 2009;141:119–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Woolf AD,
    2. Pfleger B
    . Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ 2003;81:646–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Sturgill LP,
    2. Snyder-Mackler L,
    3. Manal TJ,
    4. Axe MJ
    . Interrater reliability of a clinical scale to assess knee joint effusion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2009;39:845–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Clarkson HM
    . Musculoskeletal assessment: joint range of motion and manual muscle strength. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1999.
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lord SR,
    2. Allen GM,
    3. Williams P,
    4. Gandevia SC
    . Risk of falling: predictors based on reduced strength in persons previously affected by polio. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:757–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Maricar N,
    2. Callaghan MJ,
    3. Parkes MJ,
    4. Felson DT,
    5. O’Neill TW
    . Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of clinical assessments in knee osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2016;43:2171–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Pham T,
    2. van der Heijde D,
    3. Altman RD,
    4. Anderson JJ,
    5. Bellamy N,
    6. Hochberg M,
    7. et al.
    OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004;12:389–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Rothman KJ
    . No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990;1:43–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Jones A,
    2. Doherty M
    . Intra-articular corticosteroids are effective in osteoarthritis but there are no clinical predictors of response. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:829–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Arden NK,
    2. Reading IC,
    3. Jordan KM,
    4. Thomas L,
    5. Platten H,
    6. Hassan A,
    7. et al.
    A randomised controlled trial of tidal irrigation vs corticosteroid injection in knee osteoarthritis: the KIVIS Study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008;16:733–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Gaffney K,
    2. Ledingham J,
    3. Perry JD
    . Intra-articular triamcinolone hexacetonide in knee osteoarthritis: factors influencing the clinical response. Ann Rheum Dis 1995;54:379–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. 34.↵
    1. Pendleton A,
    2. Millar A,
    3. O’Kane D,
    4. Wright GD,
    5. Taggart AJ
    . Can sonography be used to predict the response to intra-articular corticosteroid injection in primary osteoarthritis of the knee? Scand J Rheumatol 2008;37:395–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Pyne D,
    2. Ioannou Y,
    3. Mootoo R,
    4. Bhanji A
    . Intra-articular steroids in knee osteoarthritis: a comparative study of triamcinolone hexacetonide and methylprednisolone acetate. Clin Rheumatol 2004;23:116–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. McCabe PS,
    2. Parkes MJ,
    3. Maricar N,
    4. Hutchinson CE,
    5. Freemont A,
    6. O’Neill TW,
    7. et al.
    Brief report: synovial fluid white blood cell count in knee osteoarthritis: association with structural findings and treatment response. Arthritis Rheumatol 2017;69:103–7.
    OpenUrl
  37. 37.↵
    1. Sibbitt WL Jr,
    2. Band PA,
    3. Kettwich LG,
    4. Chavez-Chiang NR,
    5. Delea SL,
    6. Bankhurst AD
    . A randomized controlled trial evaluating the cost-effectiveness of sonographic guidance for intra-articular injection of the osteoarthritic knee. J Clin Rheumatol 2011;17:409–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. de Rooij A,
    2. van der Leeden M,
    3. Roorda LD,
    4. Steultjens MP,
    5. Dekker J
    . Predictors of outcome of multidisciplinary treatment in chronic widespread pain: an observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013;14:133.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Karjalainen K,
    2. Malmivaara A,
    3. Mutanen P,
    4. Pohjolainen T,
    5. Roine R,
    6. Hurri H
    . Outcome determinants of subacute low back pain. Spine 2003;28:2634–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. McCracken LM,
    2. Turk DC
    . Behavioral and cognitive-behavioral treatment for chronic pain: outcome, predictors of outcome, and treatment process. Spine 2002;27:2564–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Reimer M,
    2. Hullemann P,
    3. Hukauf M,
    4. Keller T,
    5. Binder A,
    6. Gierthmuhlen J,
    7. et al.
    Prediction of response to tapentadol in chronic low back pain. Eur J Pain 2016;21:322–33.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 47, Issue 3
1 Mar 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Do Clinical Correlates of Knee Osteoarthritis Predict Outcome of Intraarticular Steroid Injections?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Do Clinical Correlates of Knee Osteoarthritis Predict Outcome of Intraarticular Steroid Injections?
Nasimah Maricar, Matthew J. Parkes, Michael J. Callaghan, David T. Felson, Terence W. O’Neill
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2020, 47 (3) 431-440; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180233

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Do Clinical Correlates of Knee Osteoarthritis Predict Outcome of Intraarticular Steroid Injections?
Nasimah Maricar, Matthew J. Parkes, Michael J. Callaghan, David T. Felson, Terence W. O’Neill
The Journal of Rheumatology Mar 2020, 47 (3) 431-440; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180233
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Acknowledgment
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Keywords

PREDICTORS
KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS
CLINICAL TESTS
INTRAARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION
PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Geographic Differences in Rates of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in Young and Older Adults: A Comparison of 3 US States
  • Risk of 30-day Readmission After Knee or Hip Replacement in Rheumatoid Arthritis and Osteoarthritis by Non-Medicare and Medicare Payer Status
  • Relationship of Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis to Changes in Performance-based Physical Function Over 7 Years: The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study
Show more Osteoarthritis

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • PREDICTORS
  • knee osteoarthritis
  • CLINICAL TESTS
  • INTRAARTICULAR STEROID INJECTION
  • PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire