Adverse effects of extra-articular corticosteroid injections: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
To estimate the occurrence and type of adverse effects after application of an extra-articular (soft tissue) corticosteroid injection.Methods
A systematic review of the literature was made based on a PubMed and Embase search covering the period 1956 to January 2010. Case reports were included, as were prospective and retrospective studies that reported adverse events of corticosteroid injection. All clinical trials which used extra-articular corticosteroid injections were examined. We divided the reported adverse events into major (defined as those needing intervention or not disappearing) and minor ones (transient, not requiring intervention).Results
The search yielded 87 relevant studies:44 case reports, 37 prospective studies and 6 retrospective studies. The major adverse events included osteomyelitis and protothecosis; one fatal necrotizing fasciitis; cellulitis and ecchymosis; tendon ruptures; atrophy of the plantar fat was described after injecting a neuroma; and local skin effects appeared as atrophy, hypopigmentation or as skin defect. The minor adverse events effects ranged from skin rash to flushing and disturbed menstrual pattern. Increased pain or steroid flare after injection was reported in 19 studies. After extra-articular injection, the incidence of major adverse events ranged from 0-5.8% and that of minor adverse events from 0-81%. It was not feasible to pool the risk for adverse effects due to heterogeneity of study populations and difference in interventions and variance in reporting.Conclusion
In this literature review it was difficult to accurately quantify the incidence of adverse effects after extra-articular corticosteroid injection. The reported adverse events were relatively mild, although one fatal reaction was reported.
SUBMITTER: Brinks A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2945953 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIntra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.MethodsAll published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.ResultsIncluded were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).ConclusionsIA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.Prospero trial registration numberCRD42020181928 .
| S-EPMC8208610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveSeasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) is an exaggerated immunological reaction to allergens (pollen) in the air. In a small subgroup of patients, SAR can be difficult to control with first-line therapy. Intramuscular corticosteroid injections (IMCIs) are an additional treatment in this subgroup of SAR patients. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of IMCIs in SAR.MethodsTitles and abstracts were independently screened, followed by full-text screening based on predefined criteria. Included articles were critically appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. The primary outcome is reported as the final conclusion about efficacy that was stated in the included studies. The secondary outcome is the safety of IMCIs with regard to long lasting side-effects.ResultsThe search yielded 2139 records, of which 10 were relevant and valid for our clinical question. Critical appraisal showed high risk of bias, which was due to unclear description of methods. Four out of four placebo-controlled, randomized controlled trials reported a significant and relevant difference in efficacy in favor of IMCIs compared with placebo. The occurrence of side-effects was not different between IMCIs and placebo or oral corticosteroids (OCs).ConclusionThe outcome of this systematic review on trials concerning intramuscular steroid injections, despite being based on individual studies claiming favorable outcome with their use, is "inconclusive." This is because of the epidemiological high risk of bias in these studies that were mostly executed more than 30 years ago. The "inconclusive" rating allows for a description as an "optional therapy" for severe cases in guideline formation.
| S-EPMC8513445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdhesive capsulitis is a common, painful, and disabling condition that has been managed with corticosteroid injections for over 50 years. There is debate over the use of single or multiple injections, but no systematic review has investigated the effects of administering multiple injections.AimTo assess the efficacy of treating adhesive capsulitis of the shoulder with multiple corticosteroid injections.Design of studySystematic review.MethodAn English language search for randomised controlled trials was conducted from: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, SIGLE, National Technical Information Service, British National Bibliography, Index of Scientific and Technical Proceedings databases, and the Cochrane Library. Randomised controlled trials were identified from reference lists of review and eligible articles. The studies were assessed using a recognised rating system of methodological trial quality. The conclusions and results of the identified studies, based on their main outcome measures, were then summarised.ResultsNine randomised controlled trials were identified and four studies were rated as high quality. Three high quality studies showed a beneficial effect for the use of multiple corticosteroid injections with outcome measures of pain reduction, improved function, and increased range of shoulder movement.ConclusionThe evidence suggested that multiple injections were beneficial until 16 weeks from the date of the first injection. Up to three injections were beneficial, with limited evidence that four to six injections were beneficial. No evidence was found to support giving more than six injections.
| S-EPMC2099674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the current evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroid injection and non-electrotherapeutic physiotherapy compared with control for treating lateral epicondylitis.DesignSystematic review.ParticipantsWe searched five databases in September 2012 for randomised controlled studies with a minimum quality rating. Of the 640 studies retrieved, 11 were included, representing 1161 patients of both sexes and all ages.InterventionsCorticosteroid injection and non-electrotherapeutic physiotherapy.Outcome measuresRelative risk (RR) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for overall improvement, pain and grip strength at 4-12, 26 and 52 weeks of follow-up.ResultsCorticosteroid injection gave a short-term reduction in pain versus no intervention or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (SMD -1.43, 95% CI -1.64 to -1.23). At intermediate follow-up, we found an increase in pain (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.51), reduction in grip strength (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.24) and negative effect on the overall improvement effect (RR 0.66 (0.53 to 0.81)). For corticosteroid injection versus lidocaine injection, the evidence was conflicting. At long-term follow-up, there was no difference on overall improvement and grip strength, with conflicting evidence for pain. Manipulation and exercise versus no intervention showed beneficial effect at short-term follow-up (overall improvement RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.82), but no significant difference at intermediate or long-term follow-up. We found moderate evidence for short-term and long-term effects of eccentric exercise and stretching versus no intervention. For exercise versus no intervention and eccentric or concentric exercise and stretching versus stretching alone, we found moderate evidence of no short-term effect.ConclusionsCorticosteroid injections have a short-term beneficial effect on lateral epicondylitis, but a negative effect in the intermediate term. Evidence on the long-term effect is conflicting. Manipulation and exercise and exercise and stretching have a short-term effect, with the latter also having a long-term effect.
| S-EPMC3816235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCorticosteroid injections can be performed blind (landmark-guided) or with image guidance, and this may account for variable clinical outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of image-guided versus blind corticosteroid injections in improving pain and function among adults with shoulder pain.MethodsMEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and EMBASE were searched to May 2010. Additional studies were identified by searching bibliographies of shortlisted articles. Search items included blind, landmark, anatomical, clinical exam, image-guided, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, steroid injection, frozen shoulder, random allocation, randomized controlled trial (RCT) and clinical trial.Randomized controlled studies comparing image-guided versus blind (landmark-guided) corticosteroid shoulder injections that examined pain, function and/or adverse events were included. Independent extraction was done by two authors using a form with pre-specified data fields, including risk of bias appraisal. Conflicts were resolved by discussion. The decision to pool data was based on assessment of clinical design homogeneity. When warranted, studies were pooled under a random-effects model.ResultsTwo RCTs for pain, function and adverse events (n = 101) met eligibility criteria. No serious threats to validity were found. Both trials compared ultrasound-guided versus landmark-guided injections and were judged similar in clinical design. Low to moderate heterogeneity was observed: shoulder pain I2 = 60%, function I2 = 22%. A meta-analysis demonstrated greater improvement with ultrasound-guided injections at 6 weeks after injection in both pain (mean difference = 2.23 [95% CI: 1.27, 3.18]), as assessed with a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale, and shoulder function (standardised mean difference = 1.09 [95% CI: 0.61, 1.57]) as assessed with shoulder function scores. Although more adverse events (all mild) were reported with landmark-guided injections, the difference was not statistically significant (risk ratio = 0.20 [95% CI: 0.04, 1.13]).This review was only based on two moderate-sized trials. Blinding of patients was not performed in both trials, causing some risk of bias in outcome assessment since primary endpoints were wholly or partially patient-reported.ConclusionThere is a paucity of RCTs on image-guided versus landmark-guided corticosteroid shoulder injections examining pain, function and adverse events. In this review, patients who underwent image-guided (ultrasound) injections had statistically significant greater improvement in shoulder pain and function at 6 weeks after injection. Image-guided (ultrasound) corticosteroid injections potentially offer a significantly greater clinical improvement over blind (landmark-guided) injections in adults with shoulder pain. However, this apparent benefit requires confirmation from further studies (adequately-powered and well-executed RCTs).
| S-EPMC3135580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis systematic literature review aimed to make a detailed overview on the clinical and functional outcomes and to get insight into the possible superiority of a treatment method for extra-articular distal radius fractures.MethodsEmbase, Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for studies describing treatment results. Five treatment modalities were compared: plaster cast immobilization, K-wire fixation, volar plating, external fixation, and intramedullary fixation.ResultsOut of 7,054 screened studies, 109 were included in the analysis. Overall complication rate ranged from 9% after plaster cast treatment to 18.5% after K-wire fixation. For radiographic outcomes, only volar tilt in the plaster cast group was lower than in the other groups. Apart from better grip strength after volar plating, no clear functional differences were found across treatment groups.ConclusionCurrent literature does not provide uniform evidence to prove superiority of a particular treatment method when looking at complications, re-interventions, and long-term functional outcomes.
| S-EPMC9712287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo review the literature on postoperative corticosteroid injections (CSIs) following primary rotator cuff repair (RCR) to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects.MethodsA systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify all studies published within the last 15 years, which reported on outcomes of postoperative CSIs following RCR. Studies including patients who received only preoperative CSIs and revision RCRs were excluded. Included studies were evaluated for study methodology, patient demographics, outcome measures, physical examination parameters, results of imaging studies, and adverse effects or clinical complications.ResultsSeven studies comprising 5,528 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. Among included patients, 54.8% were female and mean age range from 52.3 ± 13.0 to 62.7 ± 6.6 years. Only 1 included investigation was a Level I study. Overall, 4 of 5 studies reported significant improvements in pain and outcome scores (Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score) compared with controls. Across all studies, the majority of these effects were statistically significant at 3 months postoperatively but not beyond this time point. Five of the 6 included investigations reported no increased rate of retears after postoperative CSIs. One study did find an increase in retear in patients receiving postoperative CSIs but was unable to determine whether these retears were present before the patient received the CSI. Another investigation reported an increased rate of infection only if the CSI was administered in the first postoperative month.ConclusionsPostoperative CSIs may improve pain and function for up to 3 months following primary RCR but not at later follow-up time points. CSIs should be administered only after the first postoperative month to minimize the potential risk for adverse events.Level of evidenceSystematic review of level I-IV studies.
| S-EPMC9042756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSome controversy exists regarding the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA).ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to re-assess the safety profile of IAHA in patients with OA, through a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with IAHA in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, respiratory, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, musculoskeletal, renal and urinary disorders, infections and infestations, and hypersensitivity reaction.ResultsDatabase searches initially identified 1481 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 22 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies having adequate data were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. From the studies excluded according to the pre-specified selection criteria, 21 with other pharmacological OA treatments permitted during the trials were a posteriori included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which eight studies with adequate data were finally included in a parallel meta-analysis. Since this meta-analysis was designed to assess safety, the exclusion criterion on concomitant anti-OA medication was crucial. However, due to the high number of studies that allowed mainly concomitant oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we decided to include them in a post hoc parallel analysis in order to compare the results from the two analyses. No statistically significant difference in odds was found between IAHA and placebo for all types of SOC-related disorders, except for infections and infestations, for which significantly lower odds were found with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.93; I2 = 0%) and in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89). There were significant increased odds of reporting serious AEs with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.21-2.63; I2 = 0%) and in studies with concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.10-2.89), but not in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 0.92-3.47).ConclusionsUsing the available data on studies without any concomitant anti-OA medication permitted during clinical trials, IAHA seems not to be associated with any safety issue in the management of OA. However, this evidence was associated with only a "low" to "moderate" certainty. A possible association with increased risk of serious AEs, particularly when used with concomitant OA medications, requires further investigation.
| S-EPMC6509101 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAchilles tendon (AT) pathologies, particularly Achilles enthesitis, are common in inflammatory arthritis (IA). Although there are various non-pharmacological interventions and injection therapies available, it is unknown if these interventions are effective for people with IA, as this population is often excluded from studies investigating the management of AT pathologies. This study aimed to identify and critically appraise the evidence for non-pharmacological interventions and corticosteroid injections in the management of AT pathology in those with IA.MethodsAll studies which met the inclusion criteria (AT interventions in adults with a working clinical diagnosis of IA, English language) were identified from the following databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. The search strategies used the search terms 'spondyloarthropathies', 'inflammatory arthritis', 'achilles tendon', 'physical therapy', 'conservative management', 'injections', and related synonyms. Studies included were quantitative longitudinal design, such as randomised controlled trials, pseudo randomised and non-randomised experimental studies, observational studies, cohort studies, and case control studies. All outcome measures were investigated, quality assessment to determine internal and external validity of included studies was undertaken, and qualitative data synthesis was conducted.ResultsOf the 10,911 articles identified in the search strategy, only two studies that investigated the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for the management of the AT in IA met the inclusion criteria, and no studies were identified for non-pharmacological interventions. Both injection studies had low quality rating for internal and external validity, and thus overall validity. The included studies only investigated two outcome domains: pain and ultrasound (US) (B Mode and Doppler) identified abnormalities and vascularity in the AT. There is weak evidence suggesting a short-term improvement (6-12 weeks) in pain and for the reduction in some abnormal US (B-Mode and Doppler) detectable features (entheseal thickness, bursitis, and entheseal vascularity) at the AT and surrounding structures post-corticosteroid injection.ConclusionWeak evidence is available regarding the efficacy of corticosteroid injections in reducing pain and inconclusive evidence for the improvement of abnormal US detectable features. No studies were identified for non-pharmacological interventions. It is evident from the lack of relevant literature that there is an urgent need for more studies assessing non-pharmacological interventions for the AT in people with IA.
| S-EPMC8272330 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabis-based medicines raises safety concerns for patients, clinicians, policy-makers, insurers, researchers and regulators. Although the efficacy of cannabinoids is being increasingly demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, most safety information comes from studies of recreational use.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of safety studies of medical cannabinoids published over the past 40 years to create an evidence base for cannabis-related adverse events and to facilitate future cannabis research initiatives. We critically evaluated the quality of published studies with a view to identifying ways to improve future studies.ResultsA total of 321 articles were eligible for evaluation. After excluding those that focused on recreational cannabis use, we included 31 studies (23 randomized controlled trials and 8 observational studies) of medical cannabis use in our analysis. In the 23 randomized controlled trials, the median duration of cannabinoid exposure was 2 weeks (range 8 hours to 12 months). A total of 4779 adverse events were reported among participants assigned to the intervention. Most (4615 [96.6%]) were not serious. Of the 164 serious adverse events, the most common was relapse of multiple sclerosis (21 events [12.8%]), vomiting (16 events [9.8%]) and urinary tract infection (15 events [9.1%]). The rate of nonserious adverse events was higher among participants assigned to medical cannabinoids than among controls (rate ratio [RR] 1.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.21); the rates of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between these 2 groups (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.78-1.39). Dizziness was the most commonly reported nonserious adverse event (714 events [15.5%]) among people exposed to cannabinoids.InterpretationShort-term use of existing medical cannabinoids appeared to increase the risk of nonserious adverse events. The risks associated with long-term use were poorly characterized in published clinical trials and observational studies. High-quality trials of long-term exposure are required to further characterize safety issues related to the use of medical cannabinoids.
| S-EPMC2413308 | biostudies-literature