Serum tryptophan metabolites are associated with erosive hand osteoarthritis and pain: results from the DIGICOD cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate host and gut-microbiota related Tryptophan metabolism in hand osteoarthritis (HOA). METHODS: The baseline serum concentration of 20 Tryptophan metabolites was measured in 416 HOA patients in a cross-sectional analysis of the DIGICOD cohort. Tryptophan metabolites levels, metabolite-ratios and metabolism pathway activation were compared between erosive (N = 141) and non-erosive HOA (N = 275) by multiple logistic regressions adjusted on age, BMI and sex. The association between Tryptophan metabolite levels and HOA symptoms was investigated by a Spearman's rank correlation analysis. RESULTS: Four serum Tryptophan metabolites, eight metabolite ratios and one metabolism pathway were associated with erosive HOA. Erosive HOA was negatively associated with Tryptophan (odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% confidence interval [0.24-0.70]), indole-3-aldehyde (OR = 0.67 [0.51-0.90]) and 3-OH-anthranilic acid (OR = 1.32 [1.13-1.54]) and positively with 5-OH-Tryptophan levels (OR = 1.41 [1.13-1.77]). The pro-inflammatory kynurenine-indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase pathway was upregulated in erosive HOA (OR = 1.60 [1.11-2.29]). Eleven metabolites were correlated with HOA symptoms and were mostly pain-related. Serotonin and N-acetyl serotonin levels were negatively correlated with number of tender joints. Indole-3-aldehyde level was negatively correlated and 3-OH-anthranilic acid, 3-OH-kynurenine and 5-OH-Tryptophan levels were positively correlated with number of patients-reported painful joints. Quinolinic acid and 3-OH-kynurenine levels correlated positively with AUSCAN pain. CONCLUSIONS: Tryptophan metabolites disturbance is associated with erosive HOA and pain and emphasize the role of low-grade inflammation and gut dysbiosis in HOA.

Alternative and complementary therapies in osteoarthritis and cartilage repair.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint condition and, with a burgeoning ageing population, is due to increase in prevalence. Beyond conventional medical and surgical interventions, there are an increasing number of 'alternative' therapies. These alternative therapies may have a limited evidence base and, for this reason, are often only afforded brief reference (or completely excluded) from current OA guidelines. Thus, the aim of this review was to synthesize the current evidence regarding autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), vitamin D and other alternative therapies. The majority of studies were in knee OA or chondral defects. Matrix-assisted ACI has demonstrated exceedingly limited, symptomatic improvements in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee and is not supported for the treatment of knee OA. There is some evidence to suggest symptomatic improvement with MSC injection in knee OA, with the suggestion of minimal structural improvement demonstrated on MRI and there are positive signals that PRP may also lead to symptomatic improvement, though variation in preparation makes inter-study comparison difficult. There is variability in findings with vitamin D supplementation in OA, and the only recommendation which can be made, at this time, is for replacement when vitamin D is deplete. Other alternative therapies reviewed have some evidence (though from small, poor-quality studies) to support improvement in symptoms and again there is often a wide variation in dosage and regimens. For all these therapeutic modalities, although controlled studies have been undertaken to evaluate effectiveness in OA, these have often been of small size, limited statistical power, uncertain blindness and using various methodologies. These deficiencies must leave the question as to whether they have been validated as effective therapies in OA (or chondral defects). The conclusions of this review are that all alternative interventions definitely require clinical trials with robust methodology, to assess their efficacy and safety in the treatment of OA beyond contextual and placebo effects.

It Is the Time to Think About a Treat-to-Target Strategy for Knee Osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a rheumatic disease that affects the well-being of the patient, compromises physical and mental function, and affects other quality of life aspects. In the literature, several evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) are available. These recommendations list the different therapeutic options rather than addressing a hierarchy between the treatments and defining the real target. Therefore, a question arises: are patients and physicians satisfied with the current management of KOA? Actually, the answer may be negative, thus suggesting a change in our therapeutic strategies. In this article, we address this challenge by suggesting that it is time to develop a "treat to target strategy" for KOA.

Evaluation of collected outcome measures in axial spondyloarthritis in daily-care rheumatology settings: the experience of the RHEVER network.

OBJECTIVES: Nowadays, the recommended measures for optimal monitoring of axial Spondyloarthritis (ax-SpA) disease activity are either BASDAI and CRP, or ASDAS-CRP. However, there could be a gap between recommendations and daily practice. We aimed to determine the measures collected by rheumatologists in an ax-SpA follow-up visit, and to determine the impact of a meeting (where rheumatologists reached a consensus on the measures to be collected) on the collection of such measures. METHODS: A consensual meeting of a local network of 32 rheumatologists proposed, four months later, to report at least the BASDAI score in the medical file of every ax-SpA patient at every follow-up visit. An independent investigator reviewed the medical files of 10 consecutive patients per rheumatologist, seen twice during the year (e.g. before and after the meeting). The most frequently collected measures were assessed, and then, the frequency of collection before and after the meeting was compared. RESULTS: A total of 456 medical files from 228 patients were reviewed. Treatment (>60%), CRP (51.3%) and total BASDAI (28.5%) were the most reported measures in medical files. Before/After the meeting, the frequencies of collected measures in medical files were 28.5%/51.7%, 51.3%/52.2%, 16.7%/31.6% and 0.9%/6.1% for BASDAI, CRP, BASDAI + CRP and ASDAS, respectively reaching a statistically significance for BASDAI, ASDAS and BASDAI+CRP (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a low rate of systematic report of the recommended outcome measures in ax-SpA. However, it suggests that a consensual meeting involving practicing rheumatologists might be relevant to improve the implementation of such recommendations.

Recommendations for an update of the 2010 European regulatory guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products used in the treatment of osteoarthritis and reflections about related clinically relevant outcomes: expert consensus statement.

OBJECTIVE: The European Society on Clinical and Economic aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) organised a working group to evaluate the need for updating the current European guideline on clinical investigation of drugs used in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: Areas of potential attention were identified and the need for modifications, update or clarification was examined. Proposals were then developed based on literature reviews and through a consensus process. RESULTS: It was agreed that the current guideline overall still reflects the current knowledge in OA, although two possible modifications were identified. The first relates to the number and timing of measurements required as primary endpoints during clinical trials of symptom-relieving drugs, either drugs with rapid onset of action or slow acting drugs. The suggested modifications are intended to take into consideration the time related clinical need and expected time response to these drugs - i.e., a more early effect for the first category in addition to the maintenance of effect, a more continuous benefit over the long-term for the latter - in the timing of assessments. Secondly, values above which a benefit over placebo should be considered clinically relevant were considered. Based on literature reviews, the most consensual values were determined for primary endpoints of both symptom-relieving drugs (i.e., pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS)) and disease-modifying drugs (i.e., radiographic joint-space narrowing). CONCLUSIONS: This working document might be considered by the European regulatory authorities in a future update of the guideline for the registration of drugs in OA.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Hand imaging in clinical trials in osteoarthritis.

Tremendous advances have occurred in our understanding of the pathogenesis of hand osteoarthritis (OA) and these are beginning to be applied to trials targeted at modification of the disease course. The purpose of this expert opinion, consensus driven exercise is to provide detail on how one might use and apply hand imaging assessments in disease modifying clinical trials. It includes information on acquisition methods/techniques (including guidance on positioning for radiography, sequence/protocol recommendations/hardware for MRI); commonly encountered problems (including positioning, hardware and coil failures, sequences artifacts); quality assurance/control procedures; measurement methods; measurement performance (reliability, responsiveness, validity); recommendations for trials; and research recommendations.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Design and conduct of clinical trials for hand osteoarthritis.

Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a very frequent disease, but yet understudied. However, a lot of works have been published in the past 10 years, and much has been done to better understand its clinical course and structural progression. Despite this new knowledge, few therapeutic trials have been conducted in hand OA. The last OARSI recommendations for the conduct of clinical trials in hand OA dates back to 2006. The present recommendations aimed at updating previous recommendations, by incorporating new data. The purpose of this expert opinion, consensus driven exercise is to provide evidence-based guidance on the design, execution and analysis of clinical trials in hand OA, where published evidence is available, supplemented by expert opinion, where evidence is lacking, to perform clinical trials in hand OA, both for symptom and for structure-modification. They indicate core outcome measurement sets for studies in hand OA, and list the methods and instruments that should be used to measure symptoms or structure. For both symptom- and structure-modification, at least pain, physical function, patient global assessment, HR-QoL, joint activity and hand strength should be assessed. In addition, for structure-modification trials, structural progression should be measured by radiographic changes. We also provide a research agenda listing many unsolved issues that seem to most urgently need to be addressed from the perspective of performing "good" clinical trials in hand OA. These updated OARSI recommendations should allow for better standardizing the conduct of clinical trials in hand OA in the next future.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Hip imaging in clinical trials in osteoarthritis.

Imaging of hip in osteoarthritis (OA) has seen considerable progress in the past decade, with the introduction of new techniques that may be more sensitive to structural disease changes. The purpose of this expert opinion, consensus driven recommendation is to provide detail on how to apply hip imaging in disease modifying clinical trials. It includes information on acquisition methods/techniques (including guidance on positioning for radiography, sequence/protocol recommendations/hardware for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)); commonly encountered problems (including positioning, hardware and coil failures, artifacts associated with various MRI sequences); quality assurance/control procedures; measurement methods; measurement performance (reliability, responsiveness, and validity); recommendations for trials; and research recommendations.

Adalimumab in patients with hand osteoarthritis refractory to analgesics and NSAIDs: a randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIM: To test the efficiency of tumour necrosis factor blockers (adalimumab) in patients with painful refractory (non-responders to analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)) hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicentre study. Patients were randomised to: 1/1 adalimumab 40 mg for two subcutaneous injections at a 15-day interval or placebo and monitored for 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with an improvement of more than 50% in global pain (Visual Analogue Scale) between week 0 (W0) and week 6 (W6). Secondary outcomes included the number of painful joints, swollen joints, morning stiffness duration, patient and practitioner global assessments, functional indexes for hand OA, and consumption of analgesics. Analysis on the mean primary outcome measure was done on patients who received at least one injection. RESULTS: 99 patients were recruited and 85 patients were randomised. Among them, 37 patients in the placebo group and 41 in the adalimumab group received at least one injection and were evaluated at W6 (n=78) on the main efficacy outcome. Mean age was 62 years, 85% were women, and mean level of pain was 62 mm at W0. At W6, 35.1% in the adalimumab group versus 27.3% in the placebo group had a pain reduction ≥50% (RR 1.12 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.54; p=0.48). There were no statistical differences for all secondary end points. The rate of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Adalimumab was not superior to placebo to alleviate pain in patients with hand OA not responding to analgesics and NSAIDs. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00597623.

Health claims assessment in the field of joint and cartilage: a consensus viewpoint of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science.

INTRODUCTION: In 2006, the European Parliament and Council issued a regulation (No. 1924/2006) for the nutrition and health claims made on foods, including food supplements. According to the regulation, the use of nutrition and health claims shall only be permitted if the substance in respect of which the claim is made has been shown to have a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect. In the field of joint and cartilage health, there is no clear scientific-based definition of the nature of such a beneficial nutritional or physiological effect. The objective of this paper is to scientifically define the possible content of health claims related to joint and cartilage health and to provide scientific guidelines for the design of clinical studies which need to be adopted to substantiate such health claims. METHODS: Literature review up to September 2011 followed by a consensus expert discussion organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES). RESULTS: In line with the general principles of the PASSCLAIM and the Codex recommendations, the GREES identified four acceptable health claims related to joint and cartilage health based on the effects on discomfort, joint and cartilage structural integrity or risk factors for joint and cartilage diseases. The GREES considers that randomized controlled trials on a relevant outcome is the best design to assess health claims. Moreover, animal studies could also be of interest to substantiate some health claims, to assess the clinical relevance of endpoints used in human studies or to extrapolate data obtained in patients to the target (apparently) healthy population. CONCLUSION: According to the methodology and biomarkers used in the study and whether or not additional animal studies are provided to support the claim, various health claims can be acceptable in the field of joint and cartilage health.

Comparative efficacy and safety of two different molecular weight (MW) hyaluronans F60027 and Hylan G-F20 in symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee (KOA). Results of a non inferiority, prospective, randomized, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of a 'medium' molecular weight (MW) hyaluronan product (F60027, Structovial) with a 'high' MW (Hylan G-F20, Synvisc). METHODS: Prospective, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, active controlled, parallel-group study with a non-inferiority design. Patients with symptomatic KOA, global pain ≥ 40 mm (VAS, 0-100), Lequesne index (LFI, 0-24) score >7 and radiological Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2/3 were centrally randomised to receive F60027 or Hylan G-F20, administered via three weekly injections, with regular follow-up evaluations up to week 24 (W24). The primary outcome was LFI score change over 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes comprised pain VAS, quality of life, patient's and physician's global assessments, rescue medication consumption and OMERACT-OARSI responders rate. RESULTS: 276 patients were analysed in the full analysis dataset (FAS), 236 in the Per Protocol dataset (PP). In the main efficacy analysis (PP), the difference of the LFI score change over 24 weeks between F60027 (-4.67 (0.27)) and Hylan G-F20 (-4.54 (0.28)) was 0.132 [95%CI: -0.598, 0.861] which met the predefined non-inferiority margin. Analyses of secondary efficacy criteria showed clinically relevant improvements of all outcomes at W24 for each treatment on both PP/FAS populations. Changes of LFI score between baseline and W24 were -5.73 in the F60027 and -5.57 in the Hylan G-F20 group (PP dataset). Few local reactions were reported: 3.6% of patients in each group. CONCLUSIONS: F60027 and Hylan G-F20 were equally effective in reducing functional impairment and relieving pain in KOA patients, and well-tolerated.

Reliability, sensitivity to change and feasibility of three radiographic scoring methods for hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability, sensitivity to change and feasibility of three radiographic scoring methods for hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Baseline, 2-year and 6-year hand radiographs of 90 patients with hand OA were read in triplicate in chronological order by three readers from different European centres using the OARSI atlas (OARSI), Kellgren--Lawrence grading scale (KL) and Verbruggen--Veys anatomical phase score (VV). Reliability was determined using intraclass correlation coefficients and smallest detectable change (SDC). Sensitivity to change was assessed by the proportion of progression above the SDC. Feasibility was reflected by the mean performance time. RESULTS: Intra- and inter-reader reliability was similar across methods. Inter-reader SDCs (% maximum score) for KL, OARSI and VV were 2.9 (3.2), 4.1 (2.9) and 2.7 (1.8) over 2 years and 3.8 (4.1), 4.6 (3.3) and 4.0 (2.5) over 6 years, respectively. KL detected a slightly higher proportion of progression. There were differences between readers, despite methods to enhance consistency. The mean performance time (SD, minutes) for KL, OARSI and VV was 4.3 (2.5), 9.3 (6.0) and 2.8 (1.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: Methods had comparable reliability and sensitivity to change. Global methods were fastest to perform. For multicentre trials use of a central reading centre and multiple readers may minimise inter-reader variation.

Assessing health-related quality of life in hand osteoarthritis: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis (HOA) is a common disease that affects up to 40% of adults and may severely impair their health-related quality of life (HRQL). OBJECTIVES: To assess how HRQL has been evaluated in HOA, focusing on a comparison of HRQL impairment in HOA and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), differences between erosive and non-erosive HOA and differences between OA of the thumb base (TB) and interphalangeal (IP) OA. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature. RESULTS: The authors screened 167 articles and retained 33. The outcome subsets usually reported were pain, function and stiffness. Overall HRQL was rarely assessed and the tools used differed greatly. Aesthetic damage was never studied in published articles, although this is a major complaint in daily practice. Three articles compared symptomatic HOA and RA; whereas pain and subjective health did not differ significantly, there is conflicting evidence of the difference between disability and stiffness between these groups. Two papers compared erosive and non-erosive HOA and found divergent elements concerning functional impairment; patients with erosive HOA reported more aesthetic damage. Three papers compared TB and IP OA with divergent results in terms of pain and function. CONCLUSION: Overall HRQL is a broad concept involving domains beyond pain, function and stiffness. Few data are presently available on HOA, but it seems to have almost as great an impact as RA on HRQL. Further studies on HRQL in patients with HOA are required. Aesthetic damage should also be assessed with specifically designed tools.

Cross-cultural adaptation of the Dutch version of the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) and a study on its construct validity.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a cross-culturally translated and adapted Dutch version of the Functional Index for Hand Osteoarthritis (FIHOA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hands and to evaluate its construct validity by comparing with the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN). METHODS: The FIHOA was translated into Dutch and cross-culturally adapted. The questionnaire was administered to 72 patients with hand OA (female/male ratio: 64/8, handedness: right: 62/left: 7/both: 3). A visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scale (100mm) and the AUSCAN questionnaire were also recorded. An item-item analysis was performed. Test-retest reliability (time interval: 5 days) was assessed in 21 patients with intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland and Altman graphical method. Construct validity was assessed by Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the FIHOA and AUSCAN. RESULTS: Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha=0.89). All items, except for one ('Are you able to clench the fist?'), and the mean total FIHOA scores were statistically different between the subgroups based on the VAS (mean total score=7.46 and 14.19, in a-/mild symptomatic and symptomatic group, respectively (P<0.001)). The Spearman's correlation between all subscales of the AUSCAN (pain, stiffness, functionality) and the FIHOA was good, especially with the subscale functionality (r=0.81, P<0.01). Test-retest reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.96 for the total score and the Bland and Altman plot showing a homogeneous distribution of the differences. CONCLUSION: The psychometric properties of the Dutch version of the FIHOA are excellent. There is a good correlation between the FIHOA and all subscales of the AUSCAN, especially the subscale functionality.

EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT.

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group, representing 15 European countries, generated 10 key propositions regarding diagnosis using a Delphi consensus approach. For each recommendation, research evidence was searched for systematically. Whenever possible, the sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio (LR) were calculated; relative risk and odds ratios were estimated for risk factors for hand OA. Quality of evidence was categorised using the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) hierarchy, and strength of recommendation was assessed by the EULAR visual analogue scale. RESULTS: Diagnostic topics included clinical manifestations, radiographic features, subgroups, differential diagnosis, laboratory tests, risk factors and comorbidities. The sensitivity, specificity and LR varied between tests depending upon the cut-off level, gold standard and controls. Overall, no single test could be used to define hand OA on its own (LR <10) but a composite of the tests greatly increased the chance of the diagnosis. The probability of a subject having hand OA was 20% when Heberden nodes alone were present, but this increased to 88% when in addition the subject was over 40 years old, had a family history of nodes and had joint space narrowing in any finger joint. CONCLUSION: Ten key recommendations for diagnosis of hand OA were developed using research evidence and expert consensus. Diagnosis of hand OA should be based on assessment of a composite of features.

Professional practice assessment in ambulatory private rheumatology: a pilot evaluation of the medical file content for rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Professional Practice Assessment (PPA) has become an obligation for all physicians in France, however its modalities remain unclear. The objective of this work was to evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of a PPA for private practice rheumatologists performed in the context of a network. METHODS: A list of items considered mandatory to collect during an outpatient visit for rheumatoid arthritis, was prepared by the network. Non hospital-based rheumatologists, members of the network then evaluated some of their patient files selected by chronological order over a one-month period of time using this list. These files were then assessed by another private rheumatologist, member of the group, randomly allocated, using the same list of items. RESULTS: Eighty percent of the private-practice doctors accepted to participate. The mean time to evaluate 15 patient files was 2 hours. Agreement between auto-evaluation and external evaluation for each file was good (agreement statistic, 0.75-1.0). Items mandatory to collect were collected in a high proportion of cases (84.6%). CONCLUSION: PPA can be performed in the context of a network, auto-evaluation is a valid method and when the list of items is decided on by the network, the data are collected satisfactorily.

The development of a preliminary ultrasonographic scoring system for features of hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: Painful osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand is common and a validated ultrasound (US) scoring system would be valuable for epidemiological and therapeutic outcome studies. US is increasingly used to assess peripheral joints, though most of the US focus in rheumatic diseases has been on rheumatoid arthritis. We aimed to develop a preliminary US hand OA scoring system, initially focusing on relevant pathological features with potentially high reliability. METHODS: A group of experts in the fields of OA, US and novel tool development agreed on domains and suggested scaling of the items to be used in US hand OA scoring systems. A multi-observer reliability exercise was then performed to evaluate the draft items. RESULTS: Synovitis (grey scale and Power Doppler) and osteophytes (representing activity and damage domains) were included and evaluated as the initial components of the scoring system. All three features were evaluated for their presence/absence and if present were scored using a 1-3 scale. The reliability exercise demonstrated intra-reader kappa values of 0.444-1.0, 0.211-1.0 and 0.087-1.0 for grey scale synovitis, power Doppler and osteophytes respectively. Inter-reader reliability kappa values were 0.398, 0.327 and 0.530 grey-scale synovitis, power Doppler and osteophytes respectively. Without extensive standardisation, both intra- and inter-reader reliability were moderately good. CONCLUSIONS: The draft scoring system demonstrated substantive to almost perfect percentage exact agreement on the presence/absence of the selected OA features and moderate to substantive percentage exact agreement on semi-quantitative grading. This preliminary process provides a good basis from which to further develop an US outcome tool for hand OA that has the potential to be utilised in multicentre clinical trials.

EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis: report of a Task Force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT).

OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 16 rheumatologists, one physiatrist, one orthopaedic surgeon, two allied health professionals, and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 15 different European countries. Each participant contributed up to 10 propositions describing key clinical points for management of hand OA. Final recommendations were agreed using a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, AMED, Cochrane Library, HTA, and NICE reports was used to identify the best available research evidence to support each proposition. Where possible, the effect size and number needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risk or odds ratio was estimated for safety, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio was used for cost effectiveness. The strength of recommendation was provided according to research evidence, clinical expertise, and perceived patient preference. RESULTS: Eleven key propositions involving 17 treatment modalities were generated through three Delphi rounds. Treatment topics included general considerations (for example, clinical features, risk factors, comorbidities), non-pharmacological (for example, education plus exercise, local heat, and splint), pharmacological (for example, paracetamol, NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, COX-2 inhibitors, systemic slow acting disease modifying drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids), and surgery. Of 17 treatment modalities, only six were supported by research evidence (education plus exercise, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, topical NSAIDs, topical capsaicin, and chondroitin sulphate). Others were supported either by evidence extrapolated from studies of OA affecting other joint sites or by expert opinion. Strength of recommendation varied according to level of evidence, benefits and harms/costs of the treatment, and clinical expertise. CONCLUSION: Eleven key recommendations for treatment of hand OA were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.