Indexed in

License and use

Citations

Cited 8 times in

Cited 6 times in

Altmetrics

Grant support

This specific survey was not funded, but the recommendations they support were supported by EULAR grant CL 109. SCR-G was funded by the Spanish Rheumatology Foundation (Grants for physician-researchers 2018-2021).

Analysis of institutional authors

Share

Intra-articular therapies: patient preferences and professional practices in European countries

Publicated to:Rheumatology International. 42 (5): 869-878 - 2022-05-01 42(5), DOI: 10.1007/s00296-021-05045-5

Authors: de la Torre-Aboki, J; Uson, J; Pitsillidou, I; Vardanyan, V; Nikiphorou, E; Rodriguez-Garcia, SC; Castellanos-Moreira, R; Pandit, H; O'Neill, TW; Doherty, M; Boesen, M; Moller, I; Terslev, L; D'Agostino, MA; Kampen, WU; Berenbaum, F; Naredo, E; Carmona, L

Affiliations

Abstract

To assess patient perspective and professional practice of intraarticular therapies (IATs) across Europe, an expert international multidisciplinary panel designed two open web-based surveys: one targeting people who had experienced at least two IATs (44 items); and one targeting health care providers (HCPs) (160 items). Surveys were disseminated via patient and professional associations and social media. A descriptive analysis was performed. The surveys were answered by 200 patients and 186 HCPs from 26 countries, showing that IAT is routinely performed by rheumatologists (97%) and orthopaedic surgeons (89%), with specific training being compulsory in a few countries. The most frequent indications for IAT are arthritis (76%), osteoarthritis (74%), crystal arthritis (71%) and bursitis (70%); the most frequently injected joints are knee (78%) and shoulder (70%); and the most used compounds are glucocorticoids. The majority of HCPs report informing patients about side-effects (73%), benefits (72%), and the nature of the procedure (72%), which coincides with 27% of patients reporting that they had not been informed about benefits or potential complications of IATs; 73% of patients had not been asked whether they wanted an anaesthetic. Few HCPs (10%) obtain written consent (56% get oral consent, being mandatory for 32%), a procedure deemed necessary by 41% of the patients. 50% of patients reported a clear benefit of IAT and 20% experienced complications including pain, impaired mobility, rashes, or swelling. In summary, the practice of IAT is variable across Europe, and although patients perceive it as relatively safe and usually effective procedure, some gaps were identified.

Keywords