Septic and aseptic complications of corticosteroid injections: an assessment of 278 cases reviewed by expert commissions and mediation boards from 2005 to 2009.

BACKGROUND: Local corticosteroid injections can have serious septic and aseptic complications. METHODS: From 2005 to 2009, medical expert committees and mediation boards reviewed 1528 cases of alleged treatment errors relating to injections. RESULTS: 278 cases were identified in which complications arose after local glucocorticosteroid injections. The injections were intra-articular, paravertebral, intramuscular, and at other sites. In 39.6% of cases, treatment errors or patient information errors of the following types were found: aseptic technique was not maintained, injections were performed in the absence of an indication, time intervals between injections were too short, excessive doses were administered, infections were not diagnosed, erroneous injections were performed, patients were not informed of the risks, and there were errors of organization and documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Injections of glucocorticosteroids must be performed in strict adherence to the manufacturer's instructions with respect to the composition of the solution to be injected, the quantity per injection, and the intervals between injections. Repeated injections with too little time between them raise the risk of infection. Physicians should pay more attention to this fact, particularly when deciding on the indication for paravertebral injections. Aseptic technique should be strictly maintained. The indication for the injection should be clearly documented. When glucocorticosteroids are injected into small joints and tendon spaces, the introduction of crystals into the subcutaneous tissue and adipose tissue should be avoided. The intramuscular administration of depot glucocorticosteroids should be avoided. Patients should be informed of the risk of infection and/or tissue atrophy, as well as of alternative forms of treatment.

Allergen-specific immunotherapy with recombinant grass pollen allergens.

BACKGROUND: Allergen-specific immunotherapy uses aqueous extracts of natural source materials as a basis for preparations to down regulate the allergic response. Recombinant DNA technology has enabled the cloning of many allergens, thus facilitating investigations aimed at improving efficacy and safety of immunotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a mixture of 5 recombinant grass pollen allergens in reducing symptoms and need for symptomatic medication in patients allergic to grass pollen. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous injection immunotherapy was performed in subjects with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, with or without asthma. Primary endpoint was a symptom medication score compiled from separate symptom and medication scores. Secondary endpoints included a rhinitis quality of life questionnaire, conjunctival provocation, and specific antibody responses. RESULTS: The symptom medication score showed significant improvements in subjects receiving recombinant allergens as opposed to placebo, with reductions in both symptoms and medication usage. The rhinitis quality of life questionnaire revealed clinically relevant significant improvements in overall assessment and in 5 of 7 separate domains, and conjunctival provocation showed a clear trend in favor of active treatment. All treated subjects developed strong allergen-specific IgG(1) and IgG(4) antibody responses. Some patients were not sensitized to Ph l p 5 but nevertheless developed strong IgG antibody responses to that allergen. CONCLUSION: A recombinant allergen vaccine can be a effective and safe treatment to ameliorate symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The clinical benefit is associated with modification of the specific immune response with promotion of IgG(4) and reduction of IgE antibodies consistent with the induction of IL-10-producing regulatory T cells.