Evaluating Osteoarthritis Management Programs: outcome domain recommendations from the OARSI Joint Effort Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To develop sets of core and optional recommended domains for describing and evaluating Osteoarthritis Management Programs (OAMPs), with a focus on hip and knee Osteoarthritis (OA). DESIGN: We conducted a 3-round modified Delphi survey involving an international group of researchers, health professionals, health administrators and people with OA. In Round 1, participants ranked the importance of 75 outcome and descriptive domains in five categories: patient impacts, implementation outcomes, and characteristics of the OAMP and its participants and clinicians. Domains ranked as "important" or "essential" by ≥80% of participants were retained, and participants could suggest additional domains. In Round 2, participants rated their level of agreement that each domain was essential for evaluating OAMPs: 0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree. A domain was retained if ≥80% rated it ≥6. In Round 3, participants rated remaining domains using same scale as in Round 2; a domain was recommended as "core" if ≥80% of participants rated it ≥9 and as "optional" if ≥80% rated it ≥7. RESULTS: A total of 178 individuals from 26 countries participated; 85 completed all survey rounds. Only one domain, "ability to participate in daily activities", met criteria for a core domain; 25 domains met criteria for an optional recommendation: 8 Patient Impacts, 5 Implementation Outcomes, 5 Participant Characteristics, 3 OAMP Characteristics and 4 Clinician Characteristics. CONCLUSION: The ability of patients with OA to participate in daily activities should be evaluated in all OAMPs. Teams evaluating OAMPs should consider including domains from the optional recommended set, with representation from all five categories and based on stakeholder priorities in their local context.

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).

Comparison of reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the IPAQ-SF and PASE in adults with osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the measurement properties of two commonly used self-report physical activity (PA) measures: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Physical Activity Scale for the elderly (PASE) in adults with osteoarthritis. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the MOSAICS cluster randomised controlled trial baseline and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, total scores and subdomains of the IPAQ-SF and PASE were compared. Intra-class correlations (ICC) were used to assess test-retest reliability, measurement error was assessed using standard error of measurement (SEM), smallest detectable change (SDC) and 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Responsiveness was assessed using effect size (ES), standard responsive measurement (SRM) and response ratio (RR). RESULTS: There was moderate correlation (r = 0.56) between the total IPAQ-SF scores (score ranges 0-16,398) and the total PASE scores (score ranges 0-400). Subdomain correlations were also moderate (ranges 0.39-0.57). The PASE showed greater reliability compared to the IPAQ-SF (ICC = 0.68; 0.61-0.74 95% CI and ICC = 0.64; 0.55-0.72, respectively). Measurement errors in both measures were large: PASE SEM = 46.7, SDC = 129.6 and 95% LoA ranges = -117 to 136, the IPAQ-SF SEM = 3532.2 METS-1 min-1 week , SDC = 9790.8 and 95% LoA ranges = -5222 to 5597. Responsiveness was poor: ES -0.14 and -0.16, SRM -0.21 and -0.21, and RR 0.12 and 0.09 for the IPAQ-SF and PASE, respectively. DISCUSSION: The IPAQ-SF and PASE appear limited in reliability, measurement error and responsiveness. Researchers and clinicians should be aware of these limitations, particularly when comparing different levels of PA and monitoring PA levels changes over time in those with osteoarthritis.

Moderators of the effects of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and hip osteoarthritis: A systematic review of sub-group analyses from randomised controlled trials.

Objective: 1) To identify potential moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise explored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA); 2) summarise the extent, strength and quality of evidence reported for moderators. Design: Systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019148074). Inclusion criteria: a) RCTs with sub-group analyses investigating potential moderator variables; b) participants with knee and/or hip OA; c) therapeutic exercise interventions compared to either no exercise control or alternative exercise intervention(s), and; d) measuring pain or physical function outcomes. Included RCTs' risk of bias and sub-group analysis quality were assessed. Data were extracted on sub-group analyses (methods and potential moderators), outcomes (pain and function) and sub-group findings (associated statistics of potential moderator∗intervention effects). Findings were analysed using narrative synthesis. Results: 14 RCTs were included; 13 knee OA RCTs (n = 2743 participants) explored 23 potential moderators and 1 hip OA RCT (n = 203) explored 6 potential moderators. Sub-group analysis quality was mixed. Knee varus malalignment was the only moderator of therapeutic exercise compared to non-exercise control in 1 RCT (WOMAC-pain adjusted difference 12.7 in the neutral alignment sub-group and 1.8 in the malaligned sub-group, interaction term: p = 0.02). Varus thrust, knee laxity/instability, obesity and cardiac problems all moderated the effect of therapeutic exercise on pain or function compared to different comparison exercise. Conclusions: Therapeutic exercise may be effective for reducing pain in people with knee OA and neutral alignment but not for those with varus malalignment. The exercise moderator literature is limited. More robust evidence is required to inform sub-group exercise selection.

A mixed methods exploration of physiotherapist's approaches to analgesic use among patients with hip osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how physiotherapists currently address analgesic use among patients with hip osteoarthritis, and their beliefs about the acceptability of prescribing for these patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional questionnaire was mailed to 3126 UK-based physiotherapists. Approaches to analgesic use among patients with hip osteoarthritis were explored using a case vignette. Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with 21 questionnaire responders and analysed thematically. SETTING: UK. PARTICIPANTS: Physiotherapists who had treated a patient with hip osteoarthritis in the previous 6 months. RESULTS: Questionnaire response: 53% (n=1646). One thousand one hundred forty eight physiotherapists reported treating a patient with hip osteoarthritis in the last 6 months (applicable responses), of whom nine (1%) were non-medical prescribers. Nearly all physiotherapists (98%) reported that they would address analgesic use for the patient with hip osteoarthritis, most commonly by signposting them to their GP (83%). Fifty six percent would discuss optimal use of current medication, and 33%, would discuss use of over-the-counter medications. Interviews revealed that variations in physiotherapists' approaches to analgesic use were influenced by personal confidence, patient safety concerns, and their perceived professional remit. Whilst many recognised the benefits of analgesia prescribing for both patients and GP workload, additional responsibility for patient safety was a perceived barrier. CONCLUSIONS: How physiotherapists currently address analgesic use with patients with hip osteoarthritis is variable. Although the potential benefits of independent prescribing were recognised, not all physiotherapist want the additional responsibility. Further guidance supporting optimisation of analgesic use among patients with hip OA may help better align care with best practice guidelines and reduce GP referrals.

Is long-term physical activity safe for older adults with knee pain?: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether long-term physical activity is safe for older adults with knee pain. DESIGN: A comprehensive systematic review and narrative synthesis of existing literature was conducted using multiple electronic databases from inception until May 2013. Two reviewers independently screened, checked data extraction and carried out quality assessment. Inclusion criteria for study designs were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies or case control studies, which included adults of mean age over 45 years old with knee pain or osteoarthritis (OA), undertaking physical activity over at least 3 months and which measured a safety related outcome (adverse events, pain, physical functioning, structural OA imaging progression or progression to total knee replacement (TKR)). RESULTS: Of the 8614 unique references identified, 49 studies were included in the review, comprising 48 RCTs and one case control study. RCTs varied in quality and included an array of low impact therapeutic exercise interventions of varying cardiovascular intensity. There was no evidence of serious adverse events, increases in pain, decreases in physical function, progression of structural OA on imaging or increased TKR at group level. The case control study concluded that increasing levels of regular physical activity was associated with lower risk of progression to TKR. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term therapeutic exercise lasting 3 to 30 months is safe for most older adults with knee pain. This evidence supports current clinical guideline recommendations. However, most studies investigated selected, consenting older adults carrying out low impact therapeutic exercise which may affect result generalizability. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014006913.