Knee braces for knee osteoarthritis: A scoping review and narrative synthesis of interventions in randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesise the content of knee bracing interventions in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: In this scoping review, three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane) were searched up to 10th June 2024. Nineteen previous systematic reviews of knee bracing for knee OA and four recent international clinical practice guidelines were also hand searched. Identified studies were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. Information on bracing interventions was extracted from included RCT reports, informed by Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs testing 47 different bracing interventions were included. Braces were broadly grouped as valgus/varus, patellofemoral, sleeve, neutral hinged, or control/placebo knee braces. Brace manufacturer and models varied, as did amount of recommended brace use. Only three interventions specifically targeted brace adherence. Information on brace providers, setting, number of treatment sessions, and intervention modification over time was poorly reported. Adherence to brace use was described for 32 (68%) interventions, most commonly via self-report. Several mechanisms of action for knee braces were proposed, broadly grouped as biomechanical, neuromuscular, and psychological. CONCLUSIONS: Many different knee brace interventions have been tested for knee OA, with several proposed mechanisms of action, a lack of focus on adherence, and a lack of full reporting. These issues may be contributing to the heterogeneous findings and inconsistent guideline recommendations about the clinical effectiveness of knee bracing for knee OA to date.

The SelfSTarT intervention for low back pain patients presenting to first contact physiotherapists: A mixed methods service evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Globally, back pain is the leading cause of years of disability. In the United Kingdom, over 20 million people live with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, with low back pain being one of the most common causes. National strategies promote self-management and the use of digital technologies to empower populations. AIMS: To evaluate the uptake and impact of providing the SelfSTart approach (STarT Back and SelfBACK App) when delivered by a First Contact Physiotherapist (FCP) to people presenting with low back pain in primary care. METHODS: Patients presenting with a new episode of low back pain underwent routine assessment and completion of a STarT Back questionnaire. Patients with low/medium scores were offered the SelfBACK App. A control population was provided by the MIDAS-GP study. Patient Experience, outcome measures, healthcare utilisation and retention were captured through the app and clinical systems (EMIS). Interviews with five FCPs explored the experiences of using the SelfSTart approach. RESULTS: SelfSTarT was taken up by almost half (48%) of those to whom it was offered. Compared to MIDAS-GP, users were more likely to be younger, male, in work, and with higher health literacy. SelfSTarT users reported significant improved experiences relating to receiving an agreed care plan and receiving sufficient information. There were no significant differences in treatments offered. FCPs were positive about the app and felt it had value but wanted feedback on patient progress. They recognised that a digital solution would not be suitable for all. CONCLUSION: This approach offers an opportunity to empower and support self-management, using robustly evaluated digital technology.

Opioid use prior to total knee replacement: comparative analysis of trends in England and Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and compare trends in the frequency of opioid prescribing/dispensing in English and Swedish patients with osteoarthritis prior to total knee replacement (TKR). METHODS: 49,043 patients from an English national database (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register undergoing TKR between 2015 and 2019 were included, alongside 1:1 age-, sex-, and practice (residential area) matched controls. Annual prevalence and prevalence rates ratio (PRR) of opioid prescribing/dispensing (any, by strength) in the 10 years prior to TKR (or matched index date for controls) were estimated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: In England and Sweden, the prevalence of patients with osteoarthritis receiving any opioid prior to TKR increased towards the date of surgery from 24% to 44% in England and from 16% to 33% in Sweden. Prescribing in controls was stable, resulting in an increasing PRR (1.6-2.7) between 10 and 1 years prior to index date in both countries. No relevant cohort or period effect was observed in either country. Prevalence of opioid prescribing was higher in English cases and controls; weaker opioids were more commonly prescribed in England, stronger opioids in Sweden. CONCLUSIONS: Temporal prevalence patterns of opioid prescribing between cases and controls are similar in England and Sweden. Opioids are still commonly used in TKR cases in both countries highlighting the lack of valid alternatives for OA pain management.

Do recommended interventions widen or narrow inequalities in musculoskeletal health? An equity-focussed systematic review of differential effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether seven interventions recommended by Public Health England for preventing and managing common musculoskeletal conditions reduce or widen health inequalities in adults with musculoskeletal conditions. METHODS: We used citation searches of Web of Science (date of 'parent publication' for each intervention to April 2021) to identify original research articles reporting subgroup or moderator analyses of intervention effects by social stratifiers defined using the PROGRESS-Plus frameworks. Randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series, systematic reviews presenting subgroup/stratified analyses or meta-regressions, individual participant data meta-analyses and modelling studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently assessed the credibility of effect moderation claims using Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Moderation Analyses. A narrative approach to synthesis was used (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019140018). RESULTS: Of 1480 potentially relevant studies, seven eligible analyses of single trials and five meta-analyses were included. Among these, we found eight claims of potential differential effectiveness according to social characteristics, but none that were judged to have high credibility. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of highly credible evidence of differential effectiveness in different social groups, and given ongoing national implementation, equity concerns may be best served by investing in monitoring and action aimed at ensuring fair access to these interventions.

How does hip osteoarthritis differ from knee osteoarthritis?

Hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) are leading causes of global disability. Most research to date has focused on the knee, with results often extrapolated to the hip, and this extends to treatment recommendations in clinical guidelines. Extrapolating results from research on knee OA may limit our understanding of disease characteristics specific to hip OA, thereby constraining development and implementation of effective treatments. This review highlights differences between hip and knee OA with respect to prevalence, prognosis, epigenetics, pathophysiology, anatomical and biomechanical factors, clinical presentation, pain and non-surgical treatment recommendations and management.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2021: epidemiology & therapy.

This "Year in review" presents a selection of research themes and individual studies from the clinical osteoarthritis (OA) field (epidemiology and therapy) and includes noteworthy descriptive, analytical-observational, and intervention studies. The electronic database search for the review was conducted in Medline, Embase and medRxiv (15th April 2020 to 1st April 2021). Following study screening, the following OA-related themes emerged: COVID-19; disease burden; occupational risk; prediction models; cartilage loss and pain; stem cell treatments; novel pharmacotherapy trials; therapy for less well researched OA phenotypes; benefits and challenges of Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta-analyses; patient choice-balancing benefits and harms; OA and comorbidity; and inequalities in OA. Headline study findings included: a longitudinal cohort study demonstrating no evidence for a harmful effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in terms of COVID-19 related deaths; a Global Burden of Disease study reporting a 102% increase in crude incidence rate of OA in 2017 compared to 1990; a longitudinal study reporting cartilage thickness loss was associated with only a very small degree of worsening in pain over 2 years; an exploratory analysis of a non-OA randomised controlled trial (RCT) finding reduced risk of total joint replacement with an Interleukin -1ß inhibitor (canakinumab); a significant relationship between cumulative disadvantage and clinical outcomes of pain and depression mediated by perceived discrimination in a secondary analysis from a RCT; worsening socioeconomic circumstances were associated with future arthritis diagnosis in an innovative natural experiment (with implications for unique research possibilities arising from the COVID-19 pandemic context).

Triggers for acute flare in adults with, or at risk of, knee osteoarthritis: a web-based case-crossover study in community-dwelling adults.

OBJECTIVE: To identify proximate causes ('triggers') of flares in adults with, or at risk of, knee osteoarthritis (OA), estimate their course and consequences, and determine higher risk individuals. METHODS: In this 13-week web-based case-crossover study adults aged ≥40 years, with or without a recorded diagnosis of knee OA, and no inflammatory arthropathy who self-reported a knee flare completed a questionnaire capturing information on exposure to 21 putative activity-related, psychosocial and environmental triggers (hazard period, ≤72 h prior). Comparisons were made with identical exposure measurements at four 4-weekly scheduled time points (non-flare control period) using conditional logistic regression. Flare was defined as a sudden onset of worsening signs and symptoms, sustained for ≥24 h. Flare characteristics, course and consequence were analysed descriptively. Associations between flare frequency and baseline characteristics were estimated using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of 744 recruited participants (mean age [SD] 62.1 [10.2] years; 61% female), 376 reported 568 flares (hazards) and provided 867 valid control period measurements. Thirteen exposures (eight activity-related, five psychosocial/environmental) were positively associated with flare onset within 24 h (strongest odds ratio estimate, knee buckling: 9.06: 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.86, 13.99; weakest, cold/damp weather: 1.45: 95%CI 1.12, 1.87). Median flare duration was 5 days (IQR 3, 8), less common if older (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.98: 95%CI 0.97, 0.99), more common if female (IRR 1.85: 95%CI 1.43, 2.39). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple activity-related, psychosocial and environmental exposures are implicated in triggering flares. This evidence can help inform prevention and acute symptom management for patients and clinicians.

Osteoarthritis year in review 2020: epidemiology & therapy.

This personal choice of research themes and highlights from within the past year (1 May 2019 to 14 April 2020) spans descriptive, analytical-observational, and intervention studies. Descriptive estimates of the burden of osteoarthritis continue to underscore its position as a leading cause of disability worldwide, but whose burden is often felt greatest among disadvantaged and marginalised communities. Many of the major drivers of that burden are known but epidemiological studies continue the important work of elaborating on their timing, dose, specificity, and reversibility and placing them within an appropriate multi-level framework. A similar process of elaboration is seen also in studies (re-)estimating the relative benefits and risks of existing interventions, in some cases helping to identify low-value care, unwarranted variation, and initiating processes of deprescribing and decommissioning. Such research need not engender therapeutic nihilism. Our review closes by highlighting some emerging evidence on the efficacy and safety of novel therapeutic interventions and with a selective roll-call of methodological and meta-research in OA illustrating the continued commitment to improving research quality.

A consensus-based framework for conducting and reporting osteoarthritis phenotype research.

BACKGROUND: The concept of osteoarthritis (OA) heterogeneity is evolving and gaining renewed interest. According to this concept, distinct subtypes of OA need to be defined that will likely require recognition in research design and different approaches to clinical management. Although seemingly plausible, a wide range of views exist on how best to operationalize this concept. The current project aimed to provide consensus-based definitions and recommendations that together create a framework for conducting and reporting OA phenotype research. METHODS: A panel of 25 members with expertise in OA phenotype research was composed. First, panel members participated in an online Delphi exercise to provide a number of basic definitions and statements relating to OA phenotypes and OA phenotype research. Second, panel members provided input on a set of recommendations for reporting on OA phenotype studies. RESULTS: Four Delphi rounds were required to achieve sufficient agreement on 11 definitions and statements. OA phenotypes were defined as subtypes of OA that share distinct underlying pathobiological and pain mechanisms and their structural and functional consequences. Reporting recommendations pertaining to the study characteristics, study population, data collection, statistical analysis, and appraisal of OA phenotype studies were provided. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a number of consensus-based definitions and recommendations relating to OA phenotypes. The resulting framework is intended to facilitate research on OA phenotypes and increase combined efforts to develop effective OA phenotype classification. Success in this endeavor will hopefully translate into more effective, differentiated OA management that will benefit a multitude of OA patients.

Trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in patients with osteoarthritis: a United Kingdom national cohort study in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate trends in gabapentinoid prescribing in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Patients aged 40 years and over with a new OA diagnosis recorded between 1995 and 2015 were identified in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and followed to first prescription of gabapentin or pregabalin, or other censoring event. We estimated the crude and age-standardised annual incidence rates of gabapentinoid prescribing, stratified by patient age, sex, geographical region, and time since OA diagnosis, and the proportion of prescriptions attributable to OA, or to other conditions representing licensed and unlicensed indications for a gabapentinoid prescription. RESULTS: Of 383,680 newly diagnosed OA cases, 35,031 were prescribed at least one gabapentinoid. Irrespective of indication, the annual age-standardised incidence rate of first gabapentinoid prescriptions rose from 1.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.3, 2.0] per 1000 person-years in 2000, to 27.6 (26.7, 28.4) in 2015, a trend seen across all ages and not explained by length of follow-up. Rates were higher among women, younger patients, and in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the North of England. Approximately 9% of first prescriptions could be attributed to OA, a further 13% to comorbid licensed or unlicensed indications. CONCLUSION: Gabapentinoid prescribing in patients with OA increased dramatically between 1995 and 2015. In most cases, diagnostic codes for licensed or unlicensed indications were absent. Gabapentinoid prescribing may be attributable to OA in a significant proportion but evidence for their effectiveness in OA is lacking. Further research to investigate clinical decision making around prescribing these expensive and potentially harmful medicines is recommended.

Impact of a national enhanced recovery after surgery programme on patient outcomes of primary total knee replacement: an interrupted time series analysis from "The National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man".

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test whether a national Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Programme in total knee replacement (TKR) had an impact on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Natural-experiment (April 2008-December 2016). Interrupted time-series regression assessed impact on trends before-during-after ERAS implementation. SETTING: Primary operations from the UK National Joint Registry (NJR) were linked with Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data which contains inpatient episodes undertaken in National Health Service (NHS) trusts in England, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing primary planned TKR aged ≥18 years. INTERVENTION: ERAS implementation (April 2009-March 2011). OUTCOMES: Regression coefficients of monthly means of Length of stay (LOS), bed day costs, change in Oxford knee scores (OKS) 6-months after surgery, complications (at 6 months), and rates of revision surgeries (at 5 years). RESULTS: 486,579 primary TKRs were identified. Overall LOS and bed-day costs decreased from 5.8 days to 3.7 and from £7607 to £5276, from April 2008 to December 2016. Oxford knee score (OKS) change improved from 15.1 points in April 2008 to 17.1 points in December 2016. Complications decreased from 4.1 % in April 2008 to 1.7 % in March 2016. 5-year revision rates remained stable at 4.8 per 1000 implants years in April 2008 and December 2011. After ERAS, declining trends in LOS and bed costs slowed down; OKS improved, complications remained stable, and revisions slightly increased. CONCLUSIONS: Different secular trends in outcomes for patients having TKR have been observed over the last decade. Although patient outcomes are better than a decade ago ERAS did not improve them at national level.

'Acute flare-ups' in patients with, or at high risk of, knee osteoarthritis: a daily diary study with case-crossover analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the natural history of flare-ups in knee osteoarthritis and their relation to physical exposures. DESIGN: Adults aged ≥45 years with a recent primary care consultation for knee OA/arthralgia completed a daily pen-and-paper diary for up to three months, including questions on average knee pain intensity, pain descriptors, other symptoms, activity interference, and selected physical exposures (prolonged kneeling, squatting, climbing stairs, ladders, and moving/lifting heavy objects). Informed by a systematic review, flare-ups were defined a priori. We calculated the rate of flare-ups in the sample, described their nature and duration, and estimated their association with physical exposures in the prior 48 h. RESULTS: 67 participants completed at least one month of diaries, 37 (55%) were female, mean age 62 years (SD 10.6) with a mean body mass index of 24.6 kg/m2 (SD 5.1). 30 participants experienced a total of 54 flare-ups (incidence density 1.12 (95%CI 0.80, 1.57) flare-ups/person-days). The median duration of flare-ups was eight days (range: 2-30). During a flare-up participants were more likely to report sharp, throbbing, stabbing, burning pain, swelling, limping, stiffness, being woken by pain, taking more analgesia, and stopping usual activities. Exposure to one or more physical exposure increased the risk of a flare-up in the subsequent 48 h (odds ratio 2.19 (95%CI: 1.22, 4.05)). CONCLUSIONS: Our study with intensive longitudinal data collection suggests acute flare-ups may be experienced by a substantial number of patients. These episodes often last a week or longer, are disruptive, prompt changes in self-management, and may be triggered by high-loading physical activities.

Metabolic risk factors and the incidence and progression of radiographic hand osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether selected metabolic factors are associated with greater amounts of radiographic hand osteoarthritis (OA) incidence and progression. METHODS: The study identified 706 adults, aged 50-69 years, with hand pain and hand radiographs at baseline, from two population-based cohorts. Metabolic factors (body mass index, hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and diabetes) were ascertained at baseline by direct measurement and medical records. Analyses were undertaken following multiple imputation of missing data, and in complete cases (sensitivity analyses). Multivariable regression models estimated associations between metabolic factors and two measures of radiographic change at 7 years for all participants, individuals free of baseline radiographic OA, and in baseline hand OA subsets. Estimates were adjusted for baseline values and other covariates. RESULTS: The most consistent and strong associations observed were between the presence of diabetes and the amount of radiographic progression in individuals with nodal OA [adjusted mean differences in Kellgren-Lawrence summed score of 4.50 (-0.26, 9.25)], generalized OA [3.27 (-2.89, 9.42)], and erosive OA [3.05 (-13.56, 19.67)]. The remaining associations were generally weak or inconsistent, although numbers were limited for analyses of incident radiographic OA and erosive OA in particular. CONCLUSION: Overall metabolic risk factors were not independently or collectively associated with greater amounts of radiographic hand OA incidence or progression over 7 years, but diabetes was associated with radiographic progression in nodal, and possibly generalized and erosive OA. Diabetes has previously been associated with prevalent but not incident hand OA. Further investigation in hand OA subsets using objective measures accounting for disease duration and control is warranted.

Use of Diagnostic Performance of Clinical Examination Measures and Pain Presentation to Identify Patellofemoral Joint Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic performance of a comprehensive set of tests and measures to discriminate patellofemoral (PF) from tibiofemoral (TF) osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The Clinical Assessment of the Knee Study is a study of knee pain in the general population. The presence of PF crepitus and pain with PF compression were assessed. Anterior knee pain was determined using a knee pain map. Pain with climbing/descending stairs and walking on level ground were assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Radiographs were used to define the compartment(s) of the knee affected by OA (no OA, isolated/predominant PF joint OA, and isolated/predominant TF joint OA). In knees with mixed OA, knees with more severe PF joint OA were included in the isolated/predominant PF group (the same was done for TF joint OA). We determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, and positive likelihood ratio (LR+) for each test and measure individually, and the combination of these measures, in distinguishing knees with PF joint OA from knees with TF joint OA or no OA. RESULTS: There were 745 knees included in the study. No measure had high sensitivity and specificity. Pain with climbing/descending stairs had the greatest sensitivity (90%) but poor specificity (15%). The combination of definite crepitus with no pain on walking had the greatest specificity (96%), PPV (53%), and LR+ (1.8), but poor sensitivity (7%). CONCLUSION: Typical clinical examination findings and knee pain patterns commonly thought to represent underlying PF joint pathology do not discriminate knees with PF joint OA from knees without OA or TF joint OA.

Applying quantitative bias analysis to estimate the plausible effects of selection bias in a cluster randomised controlled trial: secondary analysis of the Primary care Osteoarthritis Screening Trial (POST).

BACKGROUND: Selection bias is a concern when designing cluster randomised controlled trials (c-RCT). Despite addressing potential issues at the design stage, bias cannot always be eradicated from a trial design. The application of bias analysis presents an important step forward in evaluating whether trial findings are credible. The aim of this paper is to give an example of the technique to quantify potential selection bias in c-RCTs. METHODS: This analysis uses data from the Primary care Osteoarthritis Screening Trial (POST). The primary aim of this trial was to test whether screening for anxiety and depression, and providing appropriate care for patients consulting their GP with osteoarthritis would improve clinical outcomes. Quantitative bias analysis is a seldom-used technique that can quantify types of bias present in studies. Due to lack of information on the selection probability, probabilistic bias analysis with a range of triangular distributions was also used, applied at all three follow-up time points; 3, 6, and 12 months post consultation. A simple bias analysis was also applied to the study. RESULTS: Worse pain outcomes were observed among intervention participants than control participants (crude odds ratio at 3, 6, and 12 months: 1.30 (95% CI 1.01, 1.67), 1.39 (1.07, 1.80), and 1.17 (95% CI 0.90, 1.53), respectively). Probabilistic bias analysis suggested that the observed effect became statistically non-significant if the selection probability ratio was between 1.2 and 1.4. Selection probability ratios of > 1.8 were needed to mask a statistically significant benefit of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The use of probabilistic bias analysis in this c-RCT suggested that worse outcomes observed in the intervention arm could plausibly be attributed to selection bias. A very large degree of selection of bias was needed to mask a beneficial effect of intervention making this interpretation less plausible.

Longitudinal association between foot and ankle symptoms and worsening of symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether foot and/or ankle symptoms are associated with an increased risk of worsening of knee pain and radiographic change in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The presence and laterality of foot/ankle symptoms were recorded at baseline in 1368 participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) with symptomatic radiographic knee OA. Knee pain severity (measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain subscale) and minimum medial tibiofemoral joint space (minJSW) width measured on X-ray were assessed yearly over the subsequent 4 years. Associations between foot/ankle symptoms and worsening of (1) knee pain, and (2) both knee pain and minJSW (i.e., symptomatic radiographic knee OA) were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Foot/ankle symptoms in either foot/ankle significantly increased the odds of knee pain worsening (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.91). Laterality analysis showed ipsilateral (adjusted OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.10), contralateral (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.06) and bilateral foot/ankle symptoms (adjusted OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.13) were all associated with knee pain worsening in the follow up period. There was no association between foot/ankle symptoms and worsening of symptomatic radiographic knee OA. CONCLUSION: The presence of foot/ankle symptoms in people with symptomatic radiographic knee OA was associated with increased risk of knee pain worsening, but not worsening of symptomatic radiographic knee OA, over the subsequent 4 years. Future studies should investigate whether treatment of foot/ankle symptoms reduces the risk of knee pain worsening in people with knee OA.

Brief pain re-assessment provided more accurate prognosis than baseline information for low-back or shoulder pain.

BACKGROUND: Research investigating prognosis in musculoskeletal pain conditions has only been moderately successful in predicting which patients are unlikely to recover. Clinical decision making could potentially be improved by combining information taken at baseline and re-consultation. METHODS: Data from four prospective clinical cohorts of adults presenting to UK and Dutch primary care with low-back or shoulder pain was analysed, assessing long-term disability at 6 or 12 months and including baseline and 4-6 week assessments of pain. Baseline versus short-term assessments of pain, and previously validated multivariable prediction models versus repeat assessment, were compared to assess predictive performance of long-term disability outcome. A hypothetical clinical scenario was explored which made efficient use of both baseline and repeated assessment to identify patients likely to have a poor prognosis and decide on further treatment. RESULTS: Short-term repeat assessment of pain was better than short-term change or baseline score at predicting long-term disability improvement across all cohorts. Short-term repeat assessment of pain was only slightly more predictive of long-term recovery (c-statistics 0.78, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.83 and 0.75, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.82) than a multivariable baseline prognostic model in the two cohorts presenting such a model (c-statistics 0.71, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.76 and 0.72, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78). Combining optimal prediction at baseline using a multivariable prognostic model with short-term repeat assessment of pain in those with uncertain prognosis in a hypothetical clinical scenario resulted in reduction in the number of patients with an uncertain probability of recovery, thereby reducing the instances where patients may be inappropriately referred or reassured. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating short-term repeat assessment of pain into prognostic models could potentially optimise the clinical usefulness of prognostic information.

The relationship between foot and ankle symptoms and risk of developing knee osteoarthritis: data from the osteoarthritis initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether foot and/or ankle symptoms increase the risk of developing (1) knee symptoms and (2) symptomatic radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: 1020 Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) participants who were at-risk of knee OA, but were without knee symptoms or radiographic knee OA, were investigated. Participants indicated the presence and laterality of foot/ankle symptoms at baseline. The main outcome was development of knee symptoms (pain, aching or stiffness in and around the knee on most days of the month for at least 1 month in the past year). A secondary outcome was development of symptomatic radiographic knee OA (symptoms plus Kellgren and Lawrence [KL] grade ≥2), over the subsequent 4 years. Associations between foot/ankle symptoms and study outcomes were assessed by logistic regression models. RESULTS: Foot/ankle symptoms in either or both feet significantly increased the odds of developing knee symptoms (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 2.19), and developing symptomatic radiographic knee OA (adjusted OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.37). Based on laterality, contralateral foot/ankle symptoms were associated with developing both knee symptoms (adjusted OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.68) and symptomatic radiographic knee OA (adjusted OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.06 to 8.98), whilst bilateral foot/ankle symptoms were associated with developing symptomatic radiographic knee OA (adjusted OR 4.02, 95% CI 1.76 to 9.17). CONCLUSION: In individuals at-risk of knee OA, the presence of contralateral foot/ankle symptoms in particular increases risk of developing both knee symptoms and symptomatic radiographic knee OA.

Changes in patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joint cartilage damage and bone marrow lesions over 7 years: the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate changes in cartilage damage and bone marrow lesions (BMLs) on MRI in the patellofemoral and tibiofemoral joints (TFJs) over 7 years. METHODS: The Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) Study is a cohort study of persons aged 50-79 years at baseline with or at high risk for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Knees were eligible for the current study if they had knee MRI (1.0T) assessed for cartilage damage and BMLs at the baseline and 84-month visits. Knees were categorized as having MRI-detected structural damage (cartilage and BMLs) isolated to the patellofemoral joint (PFJ), isolated to the TFJ, mixed or no damage at baseline and 84-months. We determined the changes in PFJ and TFJ structural damage over 7 years and used logistic regression to assess the relation of baseline compartment distribution to incident isolated PFJ, isolated TFJ and mixed damage. RESULTS: Among 339 knees that had full-thickness cartilage loss isolated to the PFJ or TFJ at baseline, only 68 (20.1%) developed full-thickness cartilage loss in the other compartment while 271 (79.9%) continued to only have the initial compartment affected. Compared to knees without full-thickness cartilage damage (n = 582), those with isolated TFJ and PFJ full-thickness cartilage damage had 2.7 (1.5, 4.9) and 5.8 (3.6, 9.6) times the odds of incident mixed full-thickness cartilage damage, respectively. Similar results were seen when using other definitions of MRI-defined structural damage. CONCLUSIONS: Most knees with structural damage at baseline do not develop it in the other compartment. Knees that develop mixed structural damage are more likely to start with it isolated to the PFJ.

Influences on the decision to use an osteoarthritis diagnosis in primary care: a cohort study with linked survey and electronic health record data.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians may record patients presenting with osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms with joint pain rather than an OA diagnosis. This may have implications for OA research studies and patient care. The objective was to assess whether older adults recorded with joint pain are similar to those with a recorded OA diagnosis. METHOD: A study of adults aged ≥50 years in eight United Kingdom general practices, with electronic health records linked to survey data. Patients with a recorded regional OA diagnosis were compared to those with a recorded joint pain symptom on socio-demographics, risk factors, body region, pain severity, prescribed analgesia, and potential differential diagnoses. A sub-group was compared on radiographic knee OA. RESULTS: Thirteen thousand eight hundred and thirty-one survey responders consented to record review. One thousand four hundred and twenty-seven (10%) received an OA (n = 616) or joint pain (n = 811) code with wide practice variation. Receiving an OA diagnosis was associated with age (75+ compared to 50-64 OR 3.25; 95% Credible intervals (CrI) 2.36, 4.53), obesity (1.72; 1.22, 2.33), and pain interference (1.45; 1.09, 1.92). Analgesia management was similar. Radiographic OA was common in both groups. A quarter of those with a joint pain record received an OA diagnosis in the following 6 years. CONCLUSION: Recording OA diagnoses are less common than recording a joint pain symptom and associated with risk factors and severity. OA studies in primary care need to consider joint pain symptoms to understand the burden and quality of care across the spectrum of OA. Patients recorded with joint pain may represent early cases of OA with need for early intervention.