Search

Background:Intra-articular therapy (IAT) is routinely used in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). In order to improve the effectiveness and safety of IAT, it is essential to understand patients’ perceptions and needs.Objectives:To assess the perspective of persons who have experienced IAT, including perceptions on benefits and safety.Methods:A steering committee (including a patient research partner) prepared a 44-item questionnaire based on the information needs of a Taskforce on IAT in adult patients with RMDs. The questionnaire was translated into 11 languages and disseminated via EULAR PARE associations and social media. Persons who had experienced at least two IAT procedures were eligible for the survey. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise results as well as inductive codification of open-ended questions.Results:The survey was answered by 200 individuals diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis (66%), osteoarthritis (21%), spondyloarthritis (10%), psoriatic arthritis (9%), and others (16%). The mean number of IATs received was 7 (SD 8), mainly in the knee (66%), shoulder (42%), and wrist (28%), and primarily with corticosteroids (83%) or hyaluronic acid (16%). Twenty-seven percent had not been informed about benefits or potential complications of IAT, and 73% had not been asked whether they wanted local anaesthetic. Consent was deemed necessary by 82 (41%). Most (65%) had never received an ultrasound (US)-guided injection, and of those who had experienced blinded and guided injections, 42 (63%) preferred US-guided because of increased perceived accuracy and confidence in the procedure. Only 50% reported a clear benefit of IAT, mainly in terms of reduced pain and increased joint mobility, but also perceived reduced inflammation, with effect from immediate to 36 hours or even 3 weeks post-injection, and that lasted from as little as less than one week to years. Regarding safety, 40 (20%) had experienced some complications from IAT, including but not limited to increased pain, impaired mobility, rashes, or swelling.Finally, the respondents suggested improvements in the procedure, including: (1) wider availability; (2) less painful procedures; (3) greater efficacy, faster and longer-lasting; (4) fewer side effects; (5) a clear diagnosis beforehand; (6) better shared decision-making, including better information; (7) follow-up, (8) better accuracy; and (9) more expertise.Conclusion:The survey has identified gaps in the IAT procedures, such as a need for clearer information. Patients perceive IAT as relatively safe, though painful, and with varying effect. Suggestions for improving the procedure, including more expertise, should be relayed to professionals and relevant organisations.Acknowledgments:Eular Taskforce grant CL109Disclosure of Interests:IRENE Pitsillidou: None declared, Jenny de la Torre-Aboki: None declared, Jacqueline Uson Jaeger: None declared, Esperanza Naredo: None declared, Lene Terslev: None declared, Mikael Boesen Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Esaote, Glenmark, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paid instructor for: IAG, Image Analysis Group, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, esaote, Glenmark, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB (scientific advisor)., Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Esaote, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Hemant Pandit Grant/research support from: Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) for work on Diclofenac Gel, Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb for teaching their employees about hip and knee replacement, Ingrid Möller: None declared, Maria Antonietta D’Agostino Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Willm Uwe Kampen: None declared, Terence O’Neill: None declared, Michael Doherty Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca funded the Nottingham Sons of Gout study, Consultant of: Advisory borads on gout for Grunenthal and Mallinckrodt, Francis Berenbaum Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica (through institution), MSD (through institution), Pfizer (through institution), Consultant of: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Bone Therapeutics, Regulaxis, Peptinov, 4P Pharma, Paid instructor for: Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Sandoz, Valentina Vardanyan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Sebastian C Rodriguez-García Speakers bureau: Novartis Farmaceutica, S.A., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Sanofi Aventis, UCB Pharma, Raul Castellanos-Moreira: None declared, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Novartis Farmaceutica, SA, Pfizer, S.L.U., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Roche Farma, S.A, Sanofi Aventis, AbbVie Spain, S.L.U., and Laboratorios Gebro Pharma, SA (All trhough institution)

Background:In recent years, diverse compounds for intra-articular administration were brought into the market with a subsequent significant and heterogeneous literature production. Understanding the efficacy of intra-articular therapies (IAT) on pain implies bearing in mind the related placebo (PBO) effect. To date, most studies analyzing it were focused on the compound being administered rather than the route of administration.Objectives:We aimed at evaluating the size of the PBO effect after intra-articular injections.Methods:We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) including randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) of frequently used IAT. SRs with a saline solution PBO arm and high-confidence results according to the AMSTAR-2 tool were selected for analysis.Data on the change in pain in the PBO arms from baseline to 3-6 and 12-16 weeks after the IA procedure was extracted. The standardized mean differences (SMD) from baseline were calculated as the ratio between the size of the intervention effect in each study and the variability observed in that study. A meta-analysis was then performed using an inverse-variance random-effects model in Review Manager 5.3. The overall effect sizes obtained refer to versions of the SMD, which corresponds to the Hedges’ (adjusted) g. e.g. a “g” of 1 indicates the two groups being compared differ by 1 standard deviation and so on.Results:Two SR were included comprising 50 RCTs, 44 not meeting inclusion criteria were excluded so pain, measured by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Lequesne index, was retrieved from 6 RCT.At 3-6 weeks, an SMD [95%CI] = 0.74 [0.47-1.00] was found. One study showing too large an effect was excluded after conducting sensitivity analysis resulting in a significant reduction of heterogeneity with an SMD = 0.62 [0.45-0.79] (Fig.1). At 12-16 weeks, we found a SMD = 0.33 [0.13-0.52] (Fig.2)Figure 1.Forest plot for intra-articular PBO effect at 3-6 weeks after injection.Figure 2.Forest plot for intra-articular PBO effect at 12-16 weeks after injection.Using the interpretation suggested by Cohen1, our results would confirm a moderate to large effect of IA saline (PBO) at 3-6 weeks with a subsequent reduction to a small but persistent effect at 12-16 weeks.Conclusion:Our results showed a moderate to large short-term effect of intra-articular PBO that persisted on the mid-term although reduced. Based on these findings we suggest this effect should be considered when assessing the efficacy of IAT in RCTs and also in clinical practice where it could be maximized as well.References:[1]Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis in the Behavioural Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988.Disclosure of Interests: :Sebastian C Rodriguez-García Speakers bureau: Novartis Farmaceutica, S.A., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Sanofi Aventis, UCB Pharma, Raul Castellanos-Moreira Speakers bureau: Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, UCB, Jacqueline Uson Jaeger: None declared, Esperanza Naredo: None declared, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Novartis Farmaceutica, SA, Pfizer, S.L.U., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Roche Farma, S.A, Sanofi Aventis, AbbVie Spain, S.L.U., and Laboratorios Gebro Pharma, SA (All trhough institution)

Background:Intra-articular therapies (IAT) are widely used in clinical practice to treat patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). Many factors influence their efficacy and safety. There is a wide variation in the way IATs are delivered by health professionals. In an attempt to standardise these procedures, evidence-based recommendations are the right way forward.Objectives:To establish evidence-based recommendations to guide health professionals using IAT in adult patients with peripheral arthropathies.Methods:At a first face-to-face meeting, the results of an overview of systematic reviews were presented to the multidisciplinary task force of members from 8 countries. The aim, scope and outline of the taskforce were also established at this meeting. Thirty-two clinical questions ranked for priority (relevance for practice plus feasibility) drove the systematic reviews performed by two fellows. In addition, two surveys addressed to physicians, health professionals and patients throughout Europe were agreed to acquire more background information. At the second face-to-face meeting, the evidence for each research question was discussed, and each recommendation shaped and voted in a first Delphi round. Level of agreement was numerically scored 0 to 10 (0 completely disagree, 10 completely agree). All panellists voted anonymously using a sli.do app. Agreement needed to be greater than 80% to be included in a second Delphi round, which also allowed reformulation of statements. Finally, a third Delphi round was sent to the taskforce. The level of evidence was assigned to each recommendation according to the EULAR SOP for establishing recommendations.Results:Recommendations focus on practical aspects for daily practice to guide health professionals before, during and after IAT in adult patients with peripheral arthropathies. Five overarching principles were established, together with 11 recommendations that address the following issues: (1) patient information; (2) procedure and setting; (3) accuracy issues; (3) routine and special antiseptic care; (4) safety issues and precautions to be addressed in special populations; (5) efficacy and safety of repeated joint injections; (6) the usage of local anaesthetics; and (7) aftercare. The document includes the supporting evidence and results from the surveys, level of evidence and agreement.Conclusion:We have developed the first evidence and expert opinion based recommendations to guide health professionals using IAT.Acknowledgments:Eular Taskforce grant CL109Disclosure of Interests:Jacqueline Uson Jaeger: None declared, Esperanza Naredo: None declared, Sebastian C Rodriguez-García Speakers bureau: Novartis Farmaceutica, S.A., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Sanofi Aventis, UCB Pharma, Raul Castellanos-Moreira: None declared, Terence O’Neill: None declared, Hemant Pandit Grant/research support from: Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) for work on Diclofenac Gel, Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb for teaching their employees about hip and knee replacement, Michael Doherty Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca funded the Nottingham Sons of Gout study, Consultant of: Advisory borads on gout for Grunenthal and Mallinckrodt, Mikael Boesen Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Esaote, Glenmark, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paid instructor for: IAG, Image Analysis Group, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, esaote, Glenmark, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB (scientific advisor)., Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Esaote, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Ingrid Möller: None declared, Valentina Vardanyan: None declared, Jenny de la Torre-Aboki: None declared, Lene Terslev: None declared, Francis Berenbaum Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica (through institution), MSD (through institution), Pfizer (through institution), Consultant of: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Bone Therapeutics, Regulaxis, Peptinov, 4P Pharma, Paid instructor for: Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Sandoz, Maria Antonietta D’Agostino Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Willm Uwe Kampen: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, IRENE Pitsillidou: None declared, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Novartis Farmaceutica, SA, Pfizer, S.L.U., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Roche Farma, S.A, Sanofi Aventis, AbbVie Spain, S.L.U., and Laboratorios Gebro Pharma, SA (All trhough institution)

Background:Intra-articular therapy (IAT) is subject to wide variability and there are gaps in the evidence on its efficacy and safety.Objectives:To assess the efficacy and safety of frequently used IATs to inform a EULAR Taskforce.Methods:We performed an overview of systematic reviews (SR) of randomised clinical trials (RCT) assessing efficacy and safety of IAT in adults with RMDs. MEDLINE was searched until January 2019. SRs were assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool. Critically low-confidence SRs were excluded.Results:Of 159 articles identified, 42 were reviewed in detail and 15 met the inclusion criteria (146 RCTs). The populations included were mainly knee osteoarthritis (OA) in 10 SRs, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in 3, hip and temporo-mandibular (TM) OA and shoulder adhesive capsulitis in 1 SR each.In knee OA, Hyaluronic Acid (HA) showed a modest benefit over placebo for pain and function but with unclear clinical significance in some studies. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) showed a small effect over HA only for function. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) performed better than PRP and HA for some outcomes, however, in studies with high risk of bias. Intra-articular Glucocorticoids (GC) were better than placebo (PBO) for pain and function.More adverse events (AE) were seen in the PRP group compared with HA and for HA compared with PBO including serious AE each in 1 SR on knee OA.Results for other included diseases are shown in table 1.Table 1.Summary of SR. P: population; C: comparation; H: High, M: Moderate; L: Low confidence; MA: meta-analysis; SOC: standard of care; PRO: patient reported outcomes; ROM: range of motion; MPA: methylprednisolone acetate; TA/TH: triamcinolone acetonide/ hexacetonide; MW: molecular weight; YR: Yttrium synoviorthesis *Same SR assessed knee arthritis in OA and RA separatelySRPCAMSTAR2EfficacySafetyNewberryknee OAHA vs PBO; HA; LavageHMA.HA better than PBOin function in older patients (small effect).No diff in AEJuniGC vs Sham; PBO; SOCHMA.GC betterin pain and function until 6w. No diff at 12-24w.No diff in AEPasMSC vs PBO; PRP; HAMNo MA.MSC betterin pain, PRO, MRI, etcHigh risk of bias.No diff in AETrojianHA vs PBO; GCMNMA.HA better vs GC or PBOin WOMAC pain, stiffness, function and OARSI criteria.No diff in AEGallagherHA vs PBOMNo MA.No diffin joint space width.High risk of bias.Not reportedSamsonHA vs Glucosamine; Chondroitin; LavageMMA.HA betterin pain (small effect), unclear clinical benefitMA. More AE with HA.SAE in 3/1002 knees with HA(severe swelling, hypersensitivity reaction)DiPRP vs HALNo MA.PRP betteronly in WOMAC function.More AE with PRP(pswelling)Silvinato*MPA vs TA; THLMA.MPA better vs TA in pain until w6No diff. in pain or function at 12w.No diff in AETrigkilidasHA vs PBO; GCLNo MA.HA (small effect) better in mild-moderate OANo diff in AELoHA vs PBOLNo MA.HA (small effect) better in pain. (publication bias).High heterogeneityNo diff in AEDe SouzaTM OAHA vs GCMHA better in pain at w24Not reportedFigueiredoHip OAHA vs GC; PBO; PRP; AnaestheticsLMA.No diffin HA vs comparators in pain and OARSI criteriaNo diff in AELeeShoulder capsulitisHA vs SOCMNo MA.No diffin HA vs SOC.No diff in AEHeuftRA (knee)YR vs PBO; GCMNo MA.YR better vs PBO, TH better vs YR in ROM and knee circumference.SR inconclusiveNot reportedSilvinato*MPA vs TA; THLMA.No diffin pain or function.No diff in AESaitoHA vs PBOLMA.HA better in global effectiveness, pain and inflammation.No diff in AEConclusion:Most of the SRs assessed had results of low confidence. HA and GC showed a small, short term benefit in knee arthritis in OA and RA compared to PBO. High risk of bias prevents conclusions on the efficacy of PRP and MSC in knee OA. More AE were reported in PRP and HA treated groups.Disclosure of Interests: :Sebastian C Rodriguez-García Speakers bureau: Novartis Farmaceutica, S.A., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Sanofi Aventis, UCB Pharma, Raul Castellanos-Moreira Speakers bureau: Lilly, MSD, Sanofi, UCB, Jacqueline Uson Jaeger: None declared, Esperanza Naredo: None declared, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Novartis Farmaceutica, SA, Pfizer, S.L.U., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Roche Farma, S.A, Sanofi Aventis, AbbVie Spain, S.L.U., and Laboratorios Gebro Pharma, SA (All trhough institution)

Background:Intra-articular therapies (IAT) are routinely used in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs); however large variability exists regarding current practice of delivery amongst health professionals.Objectives:To inquire about common practice aspects to inform the EULAR Taskforce for the IAT of arthropathies.Methods:A steering committee prepared a 160-item questionnaire based on the information needs of the Taskforce. The survey was disseminated via EULAR professional associations and social media and it was open to any health professional treating persons with RMDs, regardless of using IAT personally.Results:The survey was answered by 186 health professionals from 26 countries, the large majority of whom (77%) were rheumatologists, followed by nurses (12%), general practitioners (2%) and orthopaedic surgeons (2%). The two collectives that perform IAT routinely are rheumatologists (97%) and orthopaedic surgeons (89%), with other professionals Conclusion:Although often performed in clinical practice for RMDs, there is apparent variability in several elements related to delivery of this treatment. This information, together with patient input, will help design current recommendations where research evidence is not available.Acknowledgments:Eular Taskforce grant CL109Disclosure of Interests:Jenny de la Torre-Aboki: None declared, IRENE Pitsillidou: None declared, Jacqueline Uson Jaeger: None declared, Esperanza Naredo: None declared, Lene Terslev: None declared, Mikael Boesen Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Esaote, Glenmark, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Paid instructor for: IAG, Image Analysis Group, AbbVie, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, esaote, Glenmark, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB (scientific advisor)., Speakers bureau: Eli Lilly, Esaote, Novartis, Pfizer, UCB, Hemant Pandit Grant/research support from: Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK) for work on Diclofenac Gel, Speakers bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb for teaching their employees about hip and knee replacement, Ingrid Möller: None declared, Maria Antonietta D’Agostino Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, BMS, Novartis, and Roche, Willm Uwe Kampen: None declared, Terence O’Neill: None declared, Michael Doherty Grant/research support from: AstraZeneca funded the Nottingham Sons of Gout study, Consultant of: Advisory borads on gout for Grunenthal and Mallinckrodt, Francis Berenbaum Grant/research support from: TRB Chemedica (through institution), MSD (through institution), Pfizer (through institution), Consultant of: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Bone Therapeutics, Regulaxis, Peptinov, 4P Pharma, Paid instructor for: Sandoz, Speakers bureau: Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, Abbvie, Roche, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Flexion Therapeutics, Expanscience, GSK, Biogen, Nordic, Sandoz, Regeneron, Gilead, Sandoz, Valentina Vardanyan: None declared, Elena Nikiphorou: None declared, Sebastian C Rodriguez-García Speakers bureau: Novartis Farmaceutica, S.A., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Sanofi Aventis, UCB Pharma, Raul Castellanos-Moreira: None declared, Loreto Carmona Grant/research support from: Novartis Farmaceutica, SA, Pfizer, S.L.U., Merck Sharp & Dohme España, S.A., Roche Farma, S.A, Sanofi Aventis, AbbVie Spain, S.L.U., and Laboratorios Gebro Pharma, SA (All trhough institution)

Background Clinical remission is the treatment target for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, different definitions have been proposed. Still, damage and/or subclinical inflammation (eg, positive Doppler signal) may persist despite apparent clinical remission Objectives To examine the validity of different definitions of remission and Doppler ultrasound using X-Ray progression as the gold standard Methods Data were obtained from an observational, prospective, multicenter study in RA patients with moderate disease activity (3.2≤DAS28(CRP)≤5.1) who started anti-TNF therapy, conducted under conditions of daily practice. At recruitment and at months 6 and 12, patients were scheduled for a clinical examination, laboratory data collection and reduced 12-joints Power Doppler (PD) ultrasound examination of the wrist, 2nd and 3rd MCP, elbow, knee, and ankle bilateral joints. Synovitis grey scale and PD counts were obtained, and each joint was semi-quantitatively assessed (0 – 3) to obtain grey scale synovitis and PD scores. DAS28 (ESR/CRP), SDAI, CDAI, and ACR/EULAR remission criteria were collected. At baseline and month 12, radiographs of hands and feet were obtained and assessed by an independent observer in pairwise, chronological order and scored according to Sharp-van der Heijde method. X-Ray progression was defined as an increase >1 point and non-progression as ≤0. Patients with doubtful X-ray progression (progression =1), were excluded from independent tests of X-ray progression and US findings Results The sample consisted of 129 patients, 107 women (82.9%), with median (IQR) age of 56.0 (44.0-66.0) years, median time from diagnosis of 5.0 (3.0-11.5) years, and positive rheumatoid factor in 82 patients (63.6%). At 12 months, Sharp-van der Heijde9s score median increase was 3.0 (0.0-6.5) points, with 36 patients not progressing and 79 with progression (14 patients with doubtful X-ray progression). Remission rates at 6 and 12 months according to different clinical criteria were: CDAI, 10.5% and 15.9%, SDAI, 12.3% and 15.7%; ACR/EULAR, 12.6% and 14.2%, DAS28ESR, 21.1% and 33.9%; DAS28CRP, 45.9% and 56.7%, respectively. Disease activity at any study time by any composite index (DAS28ESR, DAS28CRP, SDAI, CDAI and ACR/EULAR) was not significantly associated with X-Ray progression. PD score ≥1 at baseline and persistence of PD score ≥1 at 6 months were associated with X-Ray progression: OR=5.067 (IC95%: 1.162 – 21.576; p=0.017), and OR=7.474 (IC95%: 2.644 – 21.123; p Conclusions A short 12 joints PD US score shows better predictive validity for structural damage progression in RA than composite indices of disease activity. PD signal, but not clinical disease activity, can predict X-ray progression at 6 and 12 months. Probably in the near future Ultrasound may need to be considered as a component of RA remission criteria. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Jesus Garrido for providing medical writing and editing services in the development of this abstract and poster. The financial support for these services was provided by AbbVie. Disclosure of Interest E. de Miguel Grant/research support from: AbbVie, E. de Vicente Grant/research support from: AbbVie, F. Diaz Alcazar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, J. de la Iglesia Grant/research support from: AbbVie, M. L. Garcia Vivar Grant/research support from: AbbVie, J. Uson Jaeger Grant/research support from: AbbVie, J. Ivorra Grant/research support from: AbbVie, J. Rivas Employee of: AbbVie