Search

Objective\ud 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.\ud \ud Method\ud 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.\ud \ud Results\ud 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.\ud \ud Conclusion\ud 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.

SummaryObjectiveThe authors aimed to characterize distinct trajectories of knee pain in adults who had, or were at high risk of, knee osteoarthritis using data from two population-based cohorts.MethodLatent class growth analysis was applied to measures of knee pain severity on activity obtained at 18-month intervals for up to 6 years between 2002 and 2009 from symptomatic participants aged over 50 years in the Knee Clinical Assessment Study (CAS-K) in the United Kingdom. The optimum latent class growth model from CAS-K was then tested for reproducibility in a matched sample of participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) in the United States.ResultsA 5-class linear model produced interpretable trajectories in CAS-K with reasonable goodness of fit and which were labelled “Mild, non-progressive” (N = 201, 35%), “Progressive” (N = 162, 28%), “Moderate” (N = 124, 22%) “Improving” (N = 68, 12%), and “Severe, non-improving” (N = 15, 3%). We were able to reproduce “Mild, non-progressive”, “Moderate”, and “Severe, non-improving” classes in the matched sample of participants from the OAI, however, absence of a “Progressive” class and instability of the “Improving” classes in the OAI was observed.ConclusionsOur findings strengthen the grounds for moving beyond a simple stereotype of osteoarthritis as “slowly progressive”. Mild, non-progressive or improving symptom trajectories, although difficult to reproduce, can nevertheless represent a genuinely favourable prognosis for a sizeable minority.