Search

Background: Variations in defining poor response to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) impede comparisons of response after TKA over time and across hospitals. This study aimed to compare the prevalence, overlap, and discriminative accuracy of 15 definitions of poor response after TKA using 2 databases., Methods: Data of patients one year after primary TKA from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (n = 12,275) and the Osteoarthritis Initiative database (n = 204) were used to examine the prevalence, overlap (estimated by Cohen's kappa), and discriminative accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and Youden index) of 15 different definitions of poor response after TKA. In the absence of a gold standard for measuring poor response to TKA, the numeric rating scale satisfaction (≤ 6 'poor responder') and the global assessment of knee impact (dichotomized: ≥ 4 'poor responder') were used as anchors for assessing discriminative accuracy for the Dutch Arthroplasty Register and Osteoarthritis Initiative dataset, respectively. These anchors were chosen based on a prior qualitative study that identified (dis)satisfaction as a central theme of poor responses to TKA by patients and knee specialists., Results: The median (25th to 75th percentile) prevalence of poor responders in the examined definitions was 18.5% (14.0 to 25.5%), and the median Cohen's kappa for the overlap between pairs of definitions was 0.41 (0.32 to 0.59). Median (25th to 75th percentile) sensitivity was 0.45 (0.39 to 0.54), specificity was 0.86 (0.82 to 0.94), positive predictive value was 0.45 (0.34 to 0.62), negative predictive value was 0.89 (0.87 to 0.89), and the Youden index was 0.36 (0.20 to 0.43)., Conclusions: This study found a lack of overlap between different definitions of poor response to TKA. None of the examined definitions adequately classified poor responders to TKA. In contrast, the absence of a poor response could be classified with confidence., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can have a number of adverse consequences for patients that might contribute to a poor outcome. This study aimed to prioritize these consequences, from the perspective of patients and knee specialists., Methods: There were 95 TKA patients and 63 knee specialists who prioritized a set of 29 adverse consequences, based on a previous qualitative study, using a Maximum Difference Scaling method. A hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to calculate relative importance scores. Differences and agreements between patients versus knee specialists and satisfied versus dissatisfied patients were analyzed using Mann-Whitney-U tests and Kendall's coefficients of concordance., Results: There were 4 out of 5 items in the top-5 of both patients and knee specialists that were similar, however, the ranking was different. The highest-ranked consequence for patients was: "Inability to do normal activities such as walking, cycling, swimming and heavy household chores", while knee specialists ranked: "No improvement in pain during the day" as the highest. "No improvement in walking" was in the patients' top-5, but was not ranked in the top-5 of knee specialists. For satisfied and dissatisfied patients, the top-5 of consequences was similar., Conclusion: Comparable perspectives were found for patients versus knee specialists and satisfied versus dissatisfied patients on the importance of adverse consequences after TKA. However, when looking in more detail, differences in ranking of specific subitems suggest that patients place slightly more importance on the inability to perform valued activities, while knee specialists prioritize lack of pain relief to a higher degree., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: knee complaints are one of the most common reasons to consult the general practitioners in the Netherlands and contribute to the increasing burden on general practitioners. A proportion of patients that are referred to orthopedic outpatient clinics are potentially referred unnecessarily. We believe osteoarthritis is not always considered by general practitioners as the cause of atraumatic knee complaints. This may impede early recognition and timely care of osteoarthritis complaints and lead to unnecessary referrals., Methods: the aim of this study was to compare the frequency of (differential) diagnosis of osteoarthritis mentioned in referral letters of general practitioners with the frequency of osteoarthritis mentioned as orthopedic diagnosis at the outpatient clinic. Therefore we conducted a retrospective cohort study based on data collected from referral letters and the corresponding outpatient clinic reports of patients with atraumatic knee complaints of 45 years or older referred to a regional hospital in Nijmegen, The Netherlands in the period from 1-6-2019 until 1-01-2020., Results: a total of 292 referral letters were included. In the younger aged patients (45-54 years) osteoarthritis was mentioned less frequent and meniscal lesions were mentioned more frequent in referral letters when compared to diagnoses made at the outpatient clinic. Differences in differential diagnosis of osteoarthritis as well as meniscal lesions between orthopedic surgeon and general practitioners were found (both p < 0.001, McNemar). Matching diagnoses were present in 58.2% when all referral letters were analyzed (n = 292) and 75.2% when only referrals containing a differential diagnosis were analyzed (n = 226). Matching diagnoses were present in 31.6% in the younger age categories (45-54 years). A linear trend showing fewer matching diagnoses in younger patient categories was observed (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Osteoarthritis was less frequently mentioned in general practitioner referral letters among the differential diagnosis then it was diagnosed at the outpatient clinic, especially in younger patients (45-54 years). Also matching diagnoses in younger patients were evidently lower than in older patients, partly explained by underdiagnosing of osteoarthritis in younger patients in this cohort. Better recognition of osteoarthritis in younger patients and changing the diagnostic approach of general practitioners might improve efficacy in knee care. Future research should focus on the effectiveness of musculoskeletal triage, the need for multidisciplinary educational programs for patients and promotion of conservative treatment modalities among general practitioners., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Osteoarthritis is a major contributor to pain and disability worldwide. Given that inflammation plays an important role in the development of osteoarthritis, anti-inflammatory drugs may slow disease progression., Objective: To examine whether colchicine, 0.5 mg daily, reduces incident total knee replacements (TKRs) and total hip replacements (THRs)., Design: Exploratory analysis of the LoDoCo2 (Low-Dose Colchicine 2) randomized, controlled, double-blind trial. (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12614000093684)., Setting: 43 centers in Australia and the Netherlands., Patients: 5522 patients with chronic coronary artery disease., Intervention: Colchicine, 0.5 mg, or placebo once daily., Measurements: The primary outcome was time to first TKR or THR since randomization. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis., Results: A total of 2762 patients received colchicine and 2760 received placebo during a median follow-up of 28.6 months. During the trial, TKR or THR was performed in 68 patients (2.5%) in the colchicine group and 97 (3.5%) in the placebo group (incidence rate, 0.90 vs. 1.30 per 100 person-years; incidence rate difference, -0.40 [95% CI, -0.74 to -0.06] per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.69 [CI, 0.51 to 0.95]). In sensitivity analyses, similar results were obtained when patients with gout at baseline were excluded and when joint replacements that occurred in the first 3 and 6 months of follow-up were omitted., Limitation: LoDoCo2 was not designed to investigate the effect of colchicine in osteoarthritis of the knee or hip and did not collect information specifically on osteoarthritis., Conclusion: In this exploratory analysis of the LoDoCo2 trial, use of colchicine, 0.5 mg daily, was associated with a lower incidence of TKR and THR. Further investigation of colchicine therapy to slow disease progression in osteoarthritis is warranted., Primary Funding Source: None., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-0289.

Background: Self-management is of paramount importance in the non-surgical treatment of knee/hip osteoarthritis (OA). Modern technologies offer the possibility of 24/7 self-management support. We developed an e-self-management application (dr. Bart app) for people with knee/hip OA. The aim of this study was to document the use and usability of the dr. Bart app and its relation with health care utilisation and clinical outcomes in people with knee/hip OA., Methods: For this study we used backend data for the first 26 weeks of use by the intervention group (N = 214) of an RCT examining the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app. A central element of the dr. Bart app is that it proposes a selection of 72 preformulated goals for health behaviours based on the 'tiny habits method' (e.g. after lunch I rise 12 times from my chair to train my leg muscles). The usability of the app was measured using the System Usability Scale questionnaire (SUS), on a scale of 0-100. To assess the association between the intensity of use of the app and health care utilisation (i.e., consultations in primary or secondary health care) and clinical outcomes (i.e., self-management behaviour, physical activity, health-related quality of life, illness perceptions, symptoms, pain, activities of daily living) we calculated Spearman rank correlation coefficients., Results: Of the 214 participants, 171 (80%) logged in at least once with 151 (71%) choosing at least one goal and 114 (53%) completing at least one goal during the 26 weeks. Of those who chose at least one goal, 56 participants (37%) continued to log in for up to 26 weeks, 12 (8%) continued to select new goals from the offered goals and 37 (25%) continued to complete goals. Preformulated goals in the themes of physical activity (e.g., performing an exercise from the exercises library in the app) and nutrition (e.g., 'eat two pieces of fruit today') were found to be most popular with users. The mean usability scores (standard deviation) at the three and six month follow-ups were 65.9 (16.9) and 64.5 (17.5), respectively. The vast majority of associations between the intensity of use of the dr. Bart app and target outcomes were weak at ρ < (-) 0.25., Conclusions: More than one-third of people with knee/hip OA who started using the app, continued to use it up to 26 weeks, though usability could be improved. Patients appear to have preferences for goals related to physical activity and nutrition, rather than for goals related to vitality and education. We found weak/no associations between the intensity of use of the dr. Bart app and health care utilisation and clinical outcomes., Trial Registration: (21 September 2017): Dutch Trial Register (Trial Number NTR6693/NL6505 ).

Background: A significant proportion of patients experiences poor response (i.e. no or little improvement) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) because of osteoarthritis. It is difficult to quantify the proportion of patients who experiences poor response to TKA, as different definitions of, and perspectives (clinician's and patient's) on poor response are being used. The aim of this study was therefore to review the literature and summarize definitions of poor response to TKA., Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify and review studies that included dichotomous definitions of poor outcome after primary TKA. The type, amount and combination of domains (e.g. functioning), outcome measures, type of thresholds (absolute/relative, change/cut-off), values and moments of follow-up used in definitions were summarized., Results: A total of 47 different dichotomous definitions of poor response to TKA were extracted from 2163 initially identified studies. Thirty-six definitions incorporated one domain, seven definitions comprised two domains and four definitions comprised three domains. Eight different domains were used in identified definitions: pain, function, physical functioning, quality of life (QoL), patient satisfaction, anxiety, depression and patient global assessment. The absolute cut-off value was the most common type of threshold, with large variety in value and timing of follow-up., Conclusions: Our inventory review shows that definitions of poor response to TKA are heterogeneous. Our findings stresses the need for an unambiguous definition of poor response to draw conclusions about the prevalence of poor-responders to TKA across hospitals and countries, and to identify patients at risk.

Background: To evaluate the effect of a stand-alone mobile and web-based educational intervention (eHealth tool) compared to usual preparation of a first orthopedic consultation of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) on patients' satisfaction., Methods: A two-armed randomized controlled trial involving 286 patients with (suspicion of) hip or knee OA, randomly allocated to either receiving an educational eHealth tool to prepare their upcoming consultation (n = 144) or usual care (n = 142). Satisfaction with the consultation on three subscales (range 1-4) of the Consumer Quality Index (CQI - primary outcome) and knowledge (assessed using 22 statements on OA, range 0-22), treatment beliefs (assessed by the Treatment beliefs in OsteoArthritis questionnaire, range 1-5), assessment of patient's involvement in consultation by the surgeon (assessed on a 5-point Likert scale) and patient satisfaction with the outcome of the consultation (numeric rating scale), were assessed., Results: No differences between groups were observed on the 3 subscales of the CQI (group difference (95% CI): communication 0.009 (- 0.10, 0.12), conduct - 0.02 (- 0.12, 0.07) and information provision 0.02 (- 0.18, 0.21)). Between group differences (95% CI) were in favor of the intervention group for knowledge (1.4 (0.6, 2.2)), negative beliefs regarding physical activities (- 0.19 (- 0.37, - 0.002) and pain medication (- 0.30 (- 0.49, - 0.01)). We found no differences on other secondary outcomes., Conclusions: An educational eHealth tool to prepare a first orthopedic consultation for hip or knee OA does not result in higher patient satisfaction with the consultation, but it does influence cognitions about osteoarthritis., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register (trial number NTR6262). Registered 30 January 2017.

To compare the amount of physical activity (PA) among patients with different subsets of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and the general population. Secondary analyses of data of subjects ≥ 50 years from four studies: a study on the effectiveness of an educational program for OA patients in primary care (n = 110), a RCT on the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary self-management program for patients with generalized OA in secondary care (n = 131), a survey among patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for end-stage OA (n = 510), and a survey among the general population in the Netherlands (n = 3374). The Short QUestionnaire to ASssess Health-enhancing physical activity (SQUASH) was used to assess PA in all 4 studies. Differences in PA were analysed by multivariable linear regression analyses, adjusted for age, body mass index and sex. In all groups, at least one-third of total time spent on PA was of at least moderate-intensity. Unadjusted mean duration (hours/week) of at least moderate-intensity PA was 15.3, 12.3, 18.1 and 17.8 for patients in primary, secondary care, post TJA, and the general population, respectively. Adjusted analyses showed that patients post TJA spent 5.6 h [95% CI: 1.5; 9.7] more time on PA of at least moderate-intensity than patients in secondary care. The reported amount of PA of at least moderate-intensity was high in different subsets of OA and the general population. Regarding the amount of PA in patients with different subsets of OA, there was a substantial difference between patients in secondary care and post TJA patients.

Background: This paper describes (the development of) an eHealth tool (dr. Bart app) to enhance self-management and to optimize non-surgical health care utilization in patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) and presents a study aiming 1) to study the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app on health care use 2) to explore differences in use, usability and the clinical outcomes of the dr. Bart app between the Netherlands and Germany., Methods: The dr. Bart app is a fully automated eHealth application and is based on the Fogg model for behavioural change, augmented with reminders, rewards and self-monitoring to reinforce app engagement and health behaviour. The dr. Bart app propose goals to a healthier lifestyle based on machine learning techniques fed by data collected in a personal profile and choosing behaviour of the app user. Patients ≥50 years with self-reported knee and/or hip OA will be eligible to participate. Participants will be recruited in the community through advertisements in local newspapers and campaigns on social media. This protocol presents a study with three arms, aiming to include 161 patients in each arm. In the Netherlands, patients are randomly allocated to usual care or dr. Bart app and in Germany all patients receive the dr. Bart app. The primary outcome of the first research question is the number of self-reported consultations in secondary health care. The primary outcome of the second research question (comparison between the Netherlands and Germany) is self-management behaviour assessed by the patient activation measure (PAM-13) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are costs, health-related quality of life, physical functioning and activity, pain, use and usability of the dr. Bart app. Data will be collected through three online questionnaires (at baseline and after 3 and 6 months after inclusion)., Discussion: This study will gain insight into the effectiveness of the dr. Bart app in the (conservative) treatment of patients with knee and/or hip OA and differences in the use and usability of the dr. Bart app between the Netherlands and Germany., Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register (Trial Number NTR6693 / NL6505 ). Registration date: 4 September 2017.

Objective: To collect and prioritize the frequently asked questions (FAQs) that patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) and health care professionals consider to be the most important; to identify informational needs that go beyond guideline recommendations., Methods: FAQs were collected among health care professionals and from the arthritis helpline of the Dutch Arthritis Foundation. After deleting overlapping FAQs, the remaining FAQs were prioritized by patients and health care professionals using a maximum difference scaling method. A hierarchical Bayesian method was used to calculate relative importance scores. Differences between health care professionals and patients were analyzed using independent t-tests., Results: A total of 28 health care professionals and the arthritis helpline provided 192 FAQs. After deleting overlapping FAQs, 60 FAQs were prioritized by 94 patients (57 [60.6%] women, mean age 67.3 years) and 122 health care professionals (67 [54.9%] women, mean age 45.7 years). The FAQ "What can I do myself to decrease symptoms and to prevent the OA from getting worse?" was prioritized as the most important by both patients and professionals. FAQs that were highly prioritized by patients but significantly different from professionals were more directed toward treatment options offered by health care professionals, whereas highly prioritized FAQs of professionals were more often focused on treatment options involving self-management., Conclusion: The health care professionals' perspective on informational needs differs from that of OA patients. These differences are important to address in order to achieve more active involvement of patients in their own treatment process., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: Our aim was to estimate the proportion of knee and hip OA patients showing worsening at 2 years, and to examine the additional predictive value of failure of optimised non-surgical treatment during 3 months for worsening at 2 years., Methods: Data of patients participating in the longitudinal CONTROL-PRO study (patients fulfilling clinical ACR criteria for knee or hip OA) were used. Measurements of pain, functioning and patient global assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months and 2 years. Worsening at 2 years was defined as fulfilling the recently validated clinical worsening criteria for knee and hip OA, or total joint replacement (TJR). Logistic regression was performed with worsening at 2 years as the dependent variable., Results: The 297 included patients were predominantly women (66%) with a mean age of 55 years. At 2 years, 61% showed worsening (knee 59%; hip 71%) and 24% had undergone a TJR (knee 19%; hip 51%). Clinical worsening at 3 months appeared to be a clear independent predictor for worsening at 2 years (OR 2.8 95% CI 1.5-5.2) with a moderate discriminative ability (AUC 0.68 95% CI 0.57-0.70). Similar results were obtained when only TJR at 2 years was used as the outcome measure (OR 4.1 95% CI 2.0-8.4) with good AUC (0.82 95% CI 0.76-0.87)., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that re-assessment of symptoms after optimised non-surgical treatment could be meaningful in clinical decision making for TJR. Furthermore, this information could be used to identify subgroups of patients potentially eligible for novel and advanced treatment options.

Objectives: Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) for benign disorders such as knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widely used in some parts of the world, despite absence of controlled studies. We evaluated the effect of LDRT on symptoms and inflammation in patients with knee OA., Methods: In this randomised, double-blinded, sham-controlled clinical trial (RCT), we recruited patients with knee OA (clinical ACR criteria) in the Netherlands, aged ≥50 years, pain score ≥5/10 and non-responding to analgesics and exercise therapy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to receive LDRT (1 Gray per fraction) or sham intervention six times in 2 weeks, stratified by pain (<8 versus ≥8/10). Primary outcome was the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders, 3 months postintervention. Secondary outcomes included pain, function and inflammatory signs assessed by ultrasound, MRI and serum inflammatory markers., Results: We randomly assigned 55 patients: 27 (49%) to LDRT and 28 (51%) to sham. At 3 months postintervention, 12/27 patients (44%; 95%  CI 26% to 63%) in the LDRT vs 12/28 patients (43%; 95%  CI 25% to 61%) in the sham group responded; difference 2% (95% CI 25% to 28%), OR adjusted for the stratifying variable was 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 3.2). Also, for clinical and any of the inflammatory signs, no differences were observed., Conclusions: We found no substantial beneficial effect on symptoms and inflammatory signs of LDRT in patients knee OA, compared with sham treatment. Therefore, based on this RCT and the absence of other high-quality evidence, we advise against the use of LDRT as treatment for knee OA., Trial Registration Number: NTR4574., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Providing relevant information on disease and self-management helps patients to seek timely contact with care providers and become actively involved in their own care process. Therefore, health professionals from primary care, multiple hospitals and health organisations jointly decided to develop an educational program on osteoarthritis (OA). The objective of the present study was to determine preliminary effects of this OA educational program on healthcare utilization and clinical outcomes., Methods: We developed an educational group-based program consisting of 2 meetings of 1.5 h, provided by a physiotherapist, a general practitioner (GP) and orthopaedic surgeon or specialized nurse. The program included education on OA, (expectations regarding) treatment options and self-management. Patients were recruited through searching the GPs' electronic patients records and advertisements in local newspapers. At baseline and at 3 months follow-up participating OA patients completed questionnaires. Paired-sample t-tests, McNemar's test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test were used to estimate the preliminary effects of the program., Results: A total of 146 participants in 3 districts attended the sessions, of whom 143 agreed to participate in this study; mean age 69.1 years (SD10.2).107 (75%) participants completed both baseline and follow up assessments. The proportion of participants who had visited their GP in the 3 months after the program was lower than 3 months previous to the program (40% versus 25%, p-value 0.01). Also, we observed a decrease in proportion of patients who visited the physio- and exercise therapist, (36.1% versus 25.0%, p-value 0.02). Both illness perceptions and knowledge on OA and treatment options changed positively (Δ-1.8, 95%CI:0.4-3.4, and Δ2.4, 95%CI:-3.0 - -1.6 respectively). No changes in BMI, pain, functioning and self-efficacy were found. However, a trend towards an increase in physical activity was observed., Conclusions: Our results show that a multidisciplinary educational program may result in a decrease in healthcare utilization and has a positive effect on illness perceptions and knowledge on OA due to clear and consistent information on OA and it treatment options., Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register ( NTR5472 ). Registered 22 September 2015.

Purpose: Patients' beliefs about treatment modalities for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) will underlie their treatment choices. Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior, it is hypothesized that patients' beliefs, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control guide their treatment choices. Also, symptom severity and one's inherent tendency to approach or avoid situations are assumed to play a role. The objective of this study was to test whether these variables were associated with intended treatment choices in knee and hip OA., Methods: Patients with knee and hip OA were randomly selected from hospital patient records. They completed the Treatment beliefs in OsteoArthritis questionnaire to assess positive and negative treatment beliefs regarding five treatment modalities: physical activities, pain medication, physiotherapy, injections, and arthroplasty. Other measures were intention, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control (ASES), symptom severity (WOMAC), and the person's general tendency to approach or avoid situations (RR/BIS scales). Three models were tested using path analyses to examine the hypothesized associations., Results: Participants were 289 patients. Positive treatment beliefs and subjective norm were consistently associated with intended treatment choice across all treatment modalities. Negative treatment beliefs were associated with intended treatment choices for pain medication and arthroplasty. Other associations were not significant., Conclusions: This is the first study testing the Theory of Planned Behavior in the context of treatment choices in OA. Findings suggest that foremost positive beliefs about treatment modalities and the norms of one's social environment guide a specific treatment choice. Unexpectedly, symptom severity was not related to intended treatment choices.

Objective: The aims of this study are (1) to establish the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) cutoff values of different patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) assessing physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), and (2) to assess the influence of sex, age, duration of symptoms, and presence of depressive feelings on being in PASS., Methods: Patients fulfilling the clinical American College of Rheumatology knee OA criteria received standardized nonsurgical treatment and completed different questionnaires at baseline and 3 months assessing physical function: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lequesne Algofunctional Index, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, numerical rating scale, and the physical function subscale of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. PASS values were defined as the 75th percentile of the score of questionnaires for those patients who consider their state acceptable., Results: Of the 161 included patients, 62% were women with a mean age of 59 years (SD 9) and body mass index of 30 kg/m 2 (SD 5). Standardized PASS values (95% CI) for different questionnaires for physical function varied between 48 (44-54) and 54 (50-56). Female patients and patients feeling depressed were found to have a lower probability to be in PASS for physical function, with OR (95% CI) varying from 0.45 (0.23-0.91) to 0.50 (0.26-0.97) and from 0.27 (0.14-0.55) to 0.38 (0.19-0.77), respectively., Conclusion: PASS cutoff values for physical function are robust across different PROM in patients with knee OA. Our results indicate that PASS values are not consistent across dimensions and rheumatic diseases, and that the use of a generic PASS value for patients with OA or even patients with other rheumatic diseases might not be justifiable.

Background: Non-pharmacological, non-surgical treatment modalities are underused in the management of knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). One possible explanation for this could be healthcare providers' opinions about these treatment modalities. The objective of this qualitative study was to identify healthcare providers' views on non-pharmacological, non-surgical care for OA., Methods: Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 healthcare providers (rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists and general practitioners) were held. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using a three-step thematic approach. Two independent researchers continuously reflected upon, compared, discussed, and adjusted the codings., Results: Eight themes were identified reflecting three main barriers to the provision of non-pharmacological, non-surgical care: perceived lack of expertise of the healthcare provider (including a lack of knowledge and skills that are required to support patients), perceived lack of evidence-based treatment (regarding weight management, and the intensity and dosage of physical exercise), and suboptimal organization of care (including hampered dialogue between disciplines and lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of disciplines)., Conclusions: Healthcare providers report multiple barriers impeding non-pharmacological, non-surgical care for patients with knee and hip OA. To overcome these barriers, education focused on initiating and supporting lifestyle changes, promotion of interventions according to evidence-based recommendations, and improved organization of care are proposed.

Background: Use of conservative treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA) is suboptimal, which appears to be partly due to patients' beliefs about treatments. The aim of this study was to develop a research instrument assessing patients' beliefs about various treatment modalities of hip and knee OA: the 'Treatment beliefs in OA (TOA) questionnaire'., Methods: The item pool that was retrieved from interviews with patients and healthcare providers comprised beliefs regarding five treatment modalities: physical activity, pain medication, physiotherapy, injections and arthroplasty. After an extensive selection procedure, a draft questionnaire with 200 items was constructed. Descriptive analyses and exploratory factor analyses with oblique rotation were conducted for each treatment modality separately to decide upon the final questionnaire. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were determined., Results: The final questionnaire comprised 60 items. It was completed by 351 patients with knee or hip OA. Each of the five treatment modalities yielded a two factor solution with 37% to 51% explained variance and high face validity. Factor I included 'positive treatment beliefs' and factor II 'negative treatment beliefs'. Internal consistency (Cronbach α's from 0.72 to 0.87) and test-retest reliability (i.e. intraclass correlation coefficient from 0.66-0.88; standard error of measurement from 0.06-0.11) were satisfactory to good., Conclusions: The TOA questionnaire is the first questionnaire assessing positive and negative treatment beliefs regarding five treatment modalities for knee and hip OA. The instrument will help to understand whether and to what extent treatment beliefs influence treatment choices.

Objectives: To improve patients' use of conservative treatment options of hip and knee OA, in-depth understanding of reasons underlying patients' treatment choices is required. The current study adopted a concept mapping method to thematically structure and prioritize reasons for treatment choice in knee and hip OA from a patients' perspective., Methods: Multiple reasons for treatment choices were previously identified using in-depth interviews. In consensus meetings, experts derived 51 representative reasons from the interviews. Thirty-six patients individually sorted the 51 reasons in two card-sorting tasks: one based on content similarity, and one based on importance of reasons. The individual sortings of the first card-sorting task provided input for a hierarchical cluster analysis (squared Euclidian distances, Ward's method). The importance of the reasons and clusters were examined using descriptive statistics., Results: The hierarchical structure of reasons for treatment choices showed a core distinction between two categories of clusters: barriers [subdivided into context (e.g. the healthcare system) and disadvantages] and outcome (subdivided into treatment and personal life). At the lowest level, 15 clusters were identified of which the clusters Physical functioning, Risks and Prosthesis were considered most important when making a treatment decision for hip or knee OA., Conclusion: Patients' treatment choices in knee and hip OA are guided by contextual barriers, disadvantages of the treatment, outcomes of the treatment and consequences for personal life. The structured overview of reasons can be used to support shared decision-making., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: We introduced a stepped-care strategy (SCS) for hip and knee osteoarthritis, focusing on delivery of high-quality stepped care. In this study, we aimed to identify factors associated with various steps of the SCS., Methods: We used data from a 2-year observational prospective cohort study, including 313 patients visiting their general practitioner (GP) with a new episode of hip/knee osteoarthritis. We used logistic multilevel analyses to identify factors at the level of the patient, the GP, and the general practice, related to treatment limited to primary care, referral to nonsurgical secondary care, or surgical procedures., Results: Patients whose treatment had been limited to primary care tended to function physically better (odds ratio [OR] 1.03). Furthermore, they less often received exercise therapy (OR 0.46), intraarticular injections (OR 0.08), and radiologic assessments (OR 0.06). Continuation of nonsurgical care after referral was more likely in employed patients (OR 2.90) and patients who had no exercise therapy (OR 0.19) or nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (OR 0.35). Surgically treated patients more often received exercise therapy (OR 7.42). Referral and surgical treatment depended only to a limited extent on the GP or the general practice., Conclusion: After implementation of the SCS in primary care, the performance of exercise therapy, rather than disease severity or psychologic factors, seems to play a key role in the decision whether or not to refer for surgical or nonsurgical treatment in secondary care. To optimize patient-tailored treatment, future research should be adressed to determine the optimal moment of switching from primary to secondary care in patients with hip/knee osteoarthritis., (© 2016, American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: International evidence-based guidelines for the management of patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with (a combination of) non-surgical treatments, and using surgical intervention only if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that non-surgical treatments are not optimally used in orthopaedic practice. To improve the adoption of non-surgical treatments, more insight is needed into barriers and facilitators of these treatments. Therefore, this study assessed which barriers and facilitators are associated with the use and prescription of different non-surgical treatments before hip and knee OA in orthopaedic practice among patients and orthopaedic surgeons in the Netherlands., Materials and Methods: We performed two internet-based surveys among 172 orthopaedic surgeons and 174 OA patients. Univariate association and multivariable regression techniques are used to identify barriers and facilitators associated with the use of non-surgical treatments., Results: Most barriers and facilitators among patients were associated with the use of physical therapy, lifestyle advice and dietary therapy. Among orthopaedic surgeons, most were associated with prescription of acetaminophen, dietary therapy and physical therapy. Examples of barriers and facilitators among patients included "People in my environment had positive experiences with a surgery" (facilitator for education about OA), and "Advice of people in my environment to keep on moving" (facilitator for lifestyle and dietary advice). For orthopaedic surgeons, examples were "Lack of knowledge about guideline" (barrier for lifestyle advice), "Agreements/ deliberations with primary care" and "Easy communication with a dietician" (facilitators for dietary therapy). Also the belief in the efficacy of these treatments was associated with increased prescription., Conclusions: Strategies to improve non-surgical treatment use in orthopaedic practice should be targeted at changing the beliefs of orthopedic surgeons, communication with other OA care providers and involving patient's environment in OA treatment.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between a set of US features and radiographic and clinical progression of knee OA after 2 years of follow-up., Methods: A total of 125 patients fulfilling ACR clinical criteria for knee OA underwent US examination of the most symptomatic knee. The US protocol included assessment of synovial hypertrophy, joint effusion, infrapatellar bursitis, Baker's cyst, medial meniscus protrusion and cartilage thickness. Clinical progression was defined using the inverse Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder criteria or progression to total knee replacement. Radiological progression was defined as a ≥2 point increase in Altman score or progression to total knee replacement. Regression analyses were performed with baseline ultrasonographic features as independent variables and progression (two separate models for clinical progression and radiographic progression) as the dependent variable., Results: A total of 31 (25%) patients fulfilled the criteria of clinical progression and 60 (48%) patients fulfilled the criteria of radiological progression. The presence of Baker's cyst showed a statistically significant association with clinical [odds ratio (OR) 3.07 (95% CI 1.21, 7.78)] as well as radiological [OR 2.84 (95% CI 1.17, 6.90)] progression. Synovial hypertrophy showed a weaker but consistent association with clinical as well as radiological progression [OR 2.11 (95% CI 0.80, 5.57)]., Conclusion: We demonstrated a longitudinal association between Baker's cyst (and to a lesser extent synovial hypertrophy) at baseline and radiological and clinical progression after 2 years., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: National and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) recommend to start with non-surgical treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to non-surgical treatments, but there are indications that these are not optimally used. The aim of this study was to assess the extent to which all recommended non-surgical treatments were used by patients with hip or knee OA who receive(d) a total hip or knee replacement, as reported by patients and orthopaedic surgeons., Setting: We performed two cross-sectional internet-based surveys among patients and orthopaedic surgeons throughout the Netherlands., Participants: 195 OA patients either have undergone total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty no longer than 12 months ago or being on the waiting list for surgery with a confirmed date within 3 months and 482 orthopaedic surgeons were invited to participate., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The use of recommended non-surgical treatments including education about OA/treatment options, lifestyle advice, dietary therapy, physical therapy, acetaminophen, NSAIDs and glucocorticoid injections., Results: 174 OA patients (93%) and 172 orthopaedic surgeons (36%) completed the surveys. Most recommended non-surgical treatments were given to the majority of patients (eg, 80% education about OA, 73% physical therapy, 72% acetaminophen, 80% NSAIDs). However, only 6% of patients and 10% of orthopaedic surgeons reported using a combination of all recommended treatments. Dietary therapy was used least frequently. Only 11% of overweight and 30% of obese participants reported having received dietary therapy and 28% of orthopaedic surgeons reported to prescribe dietary therapy to overweight patients., Conclusions: While most recommended non-surgical treatments were used frequently as single therapy, the combination is used in only a small percentage of OA patients. Especially, use of dietary therapy may be improved to help patients manage their symptoms, and potentially delay the need for joint arthroplasty., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

The involvement of multiple joints is common in osteoarthritis (OA), often referred to as generalized osteoarthritis (GOA). However, since research and practice mainly focus on a specific OA localization, the health status of patients with GOA is largely unknown. Therefore, we aimed to describe the clinical burden of GOA in terms of self-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and activity limitations. In this cross-sectional study, individuals clinically diagnosed with GOA and referred to multidisciplinary treatment, completed questionnaires on socio-demographics, joint involvement, HRQoL (SF-36) and activity limitations (HAQ-DI). SF-36 physical (PCS) and mental component summary scores (MCS) were calculated using norm-based data. The patient's specific most important activity limitations were linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. A total of 147 patients participated [85 % female; mean (SD) age 60 (8) years]. The majority (93 %) had symptomatic OA in both the upper and lower extremities. Predominant joints with symptomatic OA were the hands (85 %) and knees (82 %). Mean (SD) SF-36 PCS and MCS scores were 37 (7) and 48 (10), respectively, showing a broad impact of GOA on the physical component of health. The mean (SD) HAQ-DI score was 1.27 (0.50) indicating moderate to severe functional limitations. Activities concerning mobility and domestic life were considered most important activity limitations, especially walking. The results show a high clinical burden of GOA in terms of HRQoL and activity limitations. This study points to the need of developing non-pharmacological interventions for patients with GOA that should target on improving the physical component of health and mobility limitations.

Objective: To improve the management of hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), a stepped care strategy (SCS) has been developed that presents the optimal sequence for care in three steps. This study evaluates the extent to which clinical practice is consistent with the strategy after implementation and identifies determinants of SCS-consistent care., Design: A 2-year observational prospective cohort study., Setting: General practices in the region of Nijmegen in the Netherlands., Participants: Three hundred and thirteen patients with hip or knee OA and their general practitioner (GP)., Interventions: Multifaceted interventions were developed to implement the strategy., Main Outcome Measures: Consistency between clinical practice and the strategy was examined regarding three aspects of care: (i) timing of radiological assessment, (ii) sequence of non-surgical treatment options and (iii) making follow-up appointments., Results: Out of the 212 patients who reported to have had an X-ray, 92 (44%) received it in line with the SCS. The sequence of treatment was inconsistent with the SCS in 58% of the patients, which was mainly caused by the underuse of lifestyle advice and dietary therapy. In 57% of the consultations, the patient reported to have been advised to make a follow-up appointment. No determinants that influenced all three aspects of care were identified., Conclusions: Consistency with the SCS was found in about half of the patients for each of the three aspects of care. Health care can be further optimized by encouraging GP s to use X-rays more appropriately and to make more use of lifestyle advice, dietary therapy and follow-up appointments., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved.)

Objective: To enhance guideline-based nonsurgical management of osteoarthritis (OA), a multidisciplinary stepped-care strategy has been implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to describe health care use after implementation of this strategy and to identify factors related to such use at multiple levels., Methods: For this 2-year observational prospective cohort, patients with symptomatic hip or knee OA were included by their general practitioner. Activities aligned with patients and health care providers were executed to implement the strategy. Health care use was described as the cumulative percentage of "users" for each modality recommended in the strategy. Determinants were identified at the level of the patient, general practitioner, and practice using backward stepwise logistic multilevel regression models., Results: Three hundred thirteen patients were included by 70 general practitioners of 38 practices. Their mean ± SD age was 64 ± 10 years and 120 (38%) were men. The most frequently used modalities were education, acetaminophen, lifestyle advice, and exercise therapy, which were used by 242 (82%), 250 (83%), 214 (73%), and 187 (63%) patients, respectively. Fourteen percent of the overweight patients reported being treated by a dietician. Being female, having an active coping style, using the booklet "Care for Osteoarthritis," and having limitations in functioning were recurrently identified as determinants of health care use., Conclusion: After implementation of the stepped-care strategy, most recommended nonsurgical modalities seem to be well used. Health care could be further improved by providing dietary therapy in overweight patients and making more efforts to encourage patients with a passive coping style to use nonsurgical modalities., (Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: National and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis recommend to start with (a combination of) conservative treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to conservative treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that conservative treatments are not optimally used in orthopedic practice. Our study aims to quantify the use of conservative treatments in Dutch orthopedic practice and to explore the barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments that should be taken into account in a strategy to improve the embedding of conservative treatments in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice., Methods: This study consists of three phases. First, current use of conservative treatments in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis will be explored using an internet-based survey among at least 100 patients to identify the underused conservative treatments. Second, barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments in orthopedic practice will be identified using semi-structured interviews among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 5 patients. The interviews will be followed by an internet-based survey among approximately 450 orthopedic surgeons and at least 100 patients in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results of the previous phases using intervention mapping., Discussion: The developed strategy is likely to result in an optimal and standardized use of conservative treatment options in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice, because it is focused on identified barriers and facilitators. In addition, the results of this study can be used as an example for optimizing the use of conservative care in other patient groups. In a subsequent study, the developed implementation strategy will be assessed on its effectiveness, feasibility and costs.

Background: Previous studies in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) have advocated the relevance of assessing the number of painful joint sites, other than the primary affected joint, in both research and clinical practice. However, it is unclear whether joint-pain comorbidities can simply be summed up., Methods: A total of 401 patients with hip or knee OA completed questionnaires on demographic variables and joint-pain comorbidities. Rasch analysis was performed to evaluate whether a sum score of joint-pain comorbidities can be calculated., Results: Self-reported joint-pain comorbidities showed a good fit to the Rasch model and were not biased by gender, age, disease duration, BMI, or patient group. As a group, joint-pain comorbidities covered a reasonable range of severity levels, although the sum score had rather low reliability levels suggesting it cannot discriminate well among patients., Conclusions: Joint-pain comorbidities, in other than the primary affected joints, can be summed into a joint pain comorbidity score. Nevertheless, its use is discouraged for individual decision making purposes since its lacks discriminative power in patients with minimal or extreme joint pain.

Background: To improve the management of hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), a multidisciplinary guideline-based stepped-care strategy (SCS) with recommendations regarding the appropriate non-surgical treatment modalities and optimal sequence for care has been developed. Implementation of this SCS in the general practice may be hampered by the negative attitude of general practitioners (GPs) towards the strategy. In order to develop a tailored implementation plan, we assessed the GPs' views regarding specific recommendations in the SCS and their working procedures with regard to OA., Methods: A survey was conducted among a random sample of Dutch GPs. Questions included the GP's demographical characteristics and the practice setting as well as how the management of OA was organized and whether the GPs supported the SCS recommendations. In particular, we assessed GP's views regarding the effectiveness of 14 recommended and non-recommended treatment modalities. Furthermore, we calculated their agreement with 7 statements based on the SCS recommendations regarding the sequence for care. With a linear regression model, we identified factors that seemed to influence the GPs' agreement with the SCS recommendations., Results: Four hundred fifty-six GPs (37%) aged 30-65 years, of whom 278 males (61%), responded. Seven of the 11 recommended modalities (i.e. oral Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, physical therapy, glucocorticoid intra-articular injections, education, lifestyle advice, acetaminophen, and tramadol) were considered effective by the majority of the GPs (varying between 95-60%). The mean agreement score, based on a 5-point scale, with the recommendations regarding the sequence for care was 2.8 (SD = 0.5). Ten percent of the variance in GPs' agreement could be explained by the GPs' attitudes regarding the effectiveness of the recommended and non-recommended non-surgical treatment modalities and the type of practice., Conclusion: In general, GPs support the recommendations in the SCS. Therefore, we expect that their attitudes will not impede a successful implementation in general practice. Our results provide several starting points on which to focus implementation activities for specific SCS recommendations; those related to the prescription of pain medication and the use of X-rays. We could not identify factors that contribute substantially to GPs' attitudes regarding the SCS recommendations regarding the sequence for care.

Objectives: Joint pain comorbidity (JPC) is common in individuals with knee OA. This study investigates the longitudinal association between JPC and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and physical activity levels in individuals with knee OA., Methods: Data from the progression cohort of the Osteoarthritis Initiative (n = 1233; age 61 years and 58% females) were analysed. JPC was considered present if individuals reported pain in three or more joint groups, including the knee joints. HRQoL was assessed using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life subscale, and self-reported physical activity was determined using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE). Generalized estimating equation (GEE) analyses were performed, adjusted for age, sex, duration of complaints, medical comorbidity, and physical and mental functioning., Results: Over the 4-year period, 32% of participants never reported JPC, whereas 12% always reported JPC. GEE modelling demonstrated that having JPC was negatively associated with HRQoL [regression coefficient β (95% CI) -3.57 (-4.69, -2.44)] and not associated with physical activity [-1.32 (-6.61, 3.98)]., Conclusion: Considering the impact of JPC on the HRQoL of individuals with knee OA, the assessment of JPC in individuals with knee OA might be a daily routine.

Objectives: Evidence for the validity of US in detecting structural joint pathology in OA is increasing. However, despite the rapidly emerging field of US in OA, few studies have reported on the inter-observer reliability of US to date. The objective of this study was to assess inter-observer reliability of ultrasonography (US) in the evaluation of specifically defined features in osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee., Methods: US was performed independently by two rheumatologists in 60 outpatients fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria for knee OA. The acquisition protocol comprised medial meniscus protrusion, synovial hypertrophy, effusion, infrapatellar bursitis and cartilage thickness. Cartilage thickness and meniscal protrusion (if >3 mm) were measured on a continuous scale, all other variables were scored dichotomously., Results: Inter-observer agreement (κ-value) was moderate for protrusion of the medial meniscus (0.54), good for infrapatellar bursitis (0.66) and effusion (0.74), excellent for Bakers' cyst (0.85) and poor for the detection of synovial hypertrophy (-0.08). Inter-observer reliability was good for the measurement of medial meniscus protrusion (correlation coefficient 0.80, 95% limits of agreement -1.93 to 1.94 mm) and cartilage thickness (correlation coefficient 0.62 and 0.68, 95% limits of agreement -0.87 to 0.84 mm and -0.77 to 0.96 mm at the medial and lateral condyle respectively)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated good reproducibility of US in the assessment of the majority of the investigated mechanical, inflammatory and degenerative features of knee OA, and contributes to exploring the use of US in knee OA as a useful tool in research as well as in clinical practice.

Background: The WOMAC is the most widely used self-report measure to evaluate physical functioning in hip or knee osteoarthritis, however its ability to discriminate pain and physical functioning (i.e. discriminate validity) has repeatedly been questioned. Little to no data is available on the discriminant validity of alternative questionnaires that measure the same construct, for instance the Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS and KOOS, respectively) and the Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS). Therefore, we translated the LEFS to Dutch and studied its psychometric properties (i.e. validity, reliability and responsiveness). In addition, we assessed the discriminate validity of the LEFS, HOOS and KOOS., Methods: After translation with a forward/backward protocol, 401 individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis completed the LEFS, HOOS/KOOS, SF-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Checklist Individual Strength questionnaires. To assess reliability and responsiveness, a sample of 106 and 108 patients completed a comparable set of questionnaires within 3 weeks and 3 months, respectively. Feasibility, validity, reliability and responsiveness were evaluated. Discriminant validity of the LEFS, HOOS and KOOS was examined by contrasting the scales' correlations with the physical functioning subscale of the SF-36 with the scales' correlations with the bodily pain subscale of the SF-36., Results: The Dutch version of the LEFS was feasible, had good internal consistency (0.96), good reliability (ICC = 0.86), good construct and discriminant validity, and showed no floor or ceiling effects. The minimal detectable change (MDC90) was ten points. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses revealed good (AUC = 0.76) and fair (AUC = 0.63) responsiveness for the LEFS in improved and worsened patients, respectively. Discriminant validity for pain was apparent for the LEFS (p < 0.01), but not for the HOOS and KOOS (p = 0.21 and p = 0.20, respectively)., Conclusions: Considering the LEFS' good psychometric qualities and ability to discriminate between pain and functioning, we recommend the LEFS as the outcome measure of choice to assess self-reported physical functioning in individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

Objectives: To describe the results of a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS)-guided pharmacological pain management strategy in symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in daily clinical practice., Methods: In this observational cohort study, standardised conservative treatment was offered to patients with symptomatic knee and/or hip OA referred to secondary care. Pain management was guided by a NRS for pain, aiming for NRS ≤4. The first step in pharmacological treatment was paracetamol (acetaminophen) in case of no recent use in adequate dose. In case of treatment failure, patients switched to a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and eventually to a second NSAID, each after a 4-week trial period. Predictors for response to treatment were identified. Moreover, reasons for protocol violations were collected., Results: Three-hundred and forty-seven patients were included. The proportion of patients that reached a response after paracetamol, first and second NSAID was 25% (59/234), 16% (31/190) and 11% (10/87), respectively. Non-adherence to protocol occurred in 46% of cases when switch of analgesic was advised, mainly due to unwillingness of patients to change the analgesic. Identified predictors for response to analgesics included higher age, lower patient global assessment, less stiffness and more radiographic severity., Conclusions: Adequate use of paracetamol and switching to a NSAID after failing paracetamol resulted in moderate treatment response percentages, whereas the result of a second NSAID was disappointing in patients with advanced knee and hip OA. Predictors for response included patient and disease related factors. A substantial part of patients with NRS >4 were unwilling to change their analgesics.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of joint-pain comorbidities in individuals with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to assess the differences in the characteristics of people with and without joint-pain comorbidities., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, individuals referred to secondary care for treatment of hip/knee OA completed questionnaires to determine sociodemographic characteristics, disease-related outcomes, and joint-pain comorbidities. Joint-pain comorbidity was defined as pain perceived in a joint, other than the index joint, for more than half of the days in the preceding month. To compare differences in patient- and disease-related characteristics between participants with and without joint-pain comorbidities, we performed analyses of covariance and logistic regression., Results: A total of 401 individuals, 117 with hip OA and 284 with knee OA, returned the questionnaire (82% response rate); the mean ± SD age was 58 ± 13 years and 58% of the responders were women. Fifty-eight percent of the participants reported symptoms in ≥1 other joint. Participants with joint-pain comorbidities were more likely to be women, less educated, and have more medical comorbidities. Individuals with joint-pain comorbidities reported unfavorable outcomes on pain, functioning, fatigue, distress, and health-related quality of life compared with patients without joint-pain comorbidities (P < 0.001 for all). Moreover, use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (P = 0.038), opioids (P = 0.010), and supplements (P = 0.019) was higher in the group with joint-pain comorbidities., Conclusion: Our results indicate that individuals with joint-pain comorbidities represent a clinically relevant and large subgroup of people with OA of the knee or hip. We recommend addressing joint-pain comorbidities in both research and clinical practice., (Copyright © 2012 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Inadequacies in health care practices have been reported despite existing guidelines to manage hip or knee osteoarthritis. To facilitate guideline implementation and improve utilization of non-surgical treatment options a care strategy should be developed. This study describes the development of an evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centered, stepped care strategy. A national, multidisciplinary, steering group developed the strategy in three phases: (1) consensus among steering group members (first draft); (2) written consultation of 23 representatives of patient organizations and professional associations involved in osteoarthritis care (second draft); (3) consensus of the final draft after discussion in two rounds during a conference with representatives from the different disciplines. The final stepped care strategy presents, in three tiers, the optimal order for non-surgical treatment modalities. It recommends that more advanced options should only be considered if options listed in previous steps failed to produce satisfactory results. Hence, the first step treatment options can be offered to all patients but may also be provided through self care (education, life style advice, and acetaminophen). The second step (exercise therapy, dietary therapy, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) and third step treatment options (multidisciplinary care, intra-articular injections, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) can be considered for people with persisting complaints. Trough a consensus procedure, we succeeded to develop a multidisciplinary, patient-centered, stepped care strategy based on national guidelines. This strategy provides a framework for health care providers and patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis to discuss the optimal timing of the various treatment options.

Background: The objective of the study was to determine whether psychological and social factors predict the course of limitations in activities in elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee, in addition to established somatic and cognitive risk factors., Methods: A longitudinal cohort study with a follow-up period of three years was conducted. Patients (N = 237) with hip or knee osteoarthritis were recruited from rehabilitation centers and hospitals. Body functions, comorbidity, cognitive functioning, limitations in activities and psychological and social factors (mental health, vitality, pain coping and perceived social support) were assessed. Statistical analyses included univariate and multivariate regression analyses. Psychological and social factors were added to a previously developed model with body functions, comorbidity and cognitive functioning., Results: In knee OA, low vitality has a negative impact on the course of self-reported and performance-based limitations in activities, after controlling for somatic and cognitive factors. In hip OA, psychological and social factors had no additional contribution to the model., Conclusion: Low vitality predicts deterioration of limitations in activities in elderly patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, in addition to established somatic and cognitive risk factors. However, the contribution of vitality is relatively small. Results of this study are relevant for the group of patients with knee or hip OA, attending hospitals and rehabilitation centers.

Objectives: It is suggested that serious levels of fatigue are present in nearly half of patients with OA. However, it is unclear which dimensions of fatigue are involved, if fatigue is related to pain and physical function, and if fatigue is influenced by therapy. The aims of this study were to measure levels of different dimensions of fatigue before and after evidenced-based conservative treatment and to investigate the association between fatigue and pain and physical function in patients with knee or hip OA., Methods: In this observational cohort study, levels of different dimensions of fatigue were measured in knee and/or hip OA patients before and after 12 weeks of conservative treatment. Cross-sectional and longitudinal relations between (change in) fatigue dimensions and (change in) pain or physical function were studied using association models, controlling for predefined possible confounders., Results: A total of 231 patients was included, with 47% experiencing severe fatigue. A small decrease in levels of fatigue was seen after standardized treatment. The level of fatigue severity was cross-sectionally and longitudinally associated with physical function, whereas the level of physical fatigue was cross-sectionally and longitudinally associated with pain and physical function. No confounders were identified., Conclusions: Important levels of fatigue are common in knee and hip OA patients. After evidence-based tailored conservative treatment targeted to improve pain and physical function, a small decrease in fatigue levels was found. Reduction in levels of different fatigue dimensions were related to the change in physical function and pain.

Objectives: Evidence suggests that doxycycline might have disease-modifying properties in osteoarthritis. However, the clinically relevant question as to whether doxycycline also modifies symptoms in knee osteoarthritis is unanswered. The objective of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of doxycycline on pain and daily functioning in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis., Methods: A 24-week, randomised, triple-blind, placebo controlled trial on the symptomatic effectiveness of doxycycline twice a day 100 mg in knee osteoarthritis patients according to the clinical and radiological American College of Rheumatology classification criteria. The primary endpoint was the difference in the proportion of participants in both study groups achieving a clinical response defined by the OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria. Secondary endpoints included pain, stiffness, daily functioning, patient global assessment, quality of life, osteoarthritis-related medication and side effects., Results: 232 patients were randomly assigned. At study end, 31% of participants met the primary endpoint in both groups. Except for more adverse events in the doxycycline group, no differences were also found on the secondary endpoints., Conclusions: Doxycycline is not effective in reducing symptoms in knee osteoarthritis patients over a 24-week study period, but is associated with an increased risk of adverse events. Although a possible structure-modifying effect of doxycycline was previously suggested, this is not accompanied by symptom relief in the short and medium term. Dutch Trial Register no NTR1111.

In the Netherlands the current, conservative management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee is heterogeneous and suboptimal. Existing guidelines only provide indications for certain interventions, but they do not provide recommendations about the sequence of these treatments. A step-by-step treatment strategy has now been developed in addition to the guidelines. Its aim is to optimize and clarify the conservative policy for osteoarthritis. In addition, communication between patients and professionals and between professionals themselves must be encouraged. According to the treatment strategy, relatively advanced interventions are considered only after simpler interventions have had insufficient results. A care booklet has also been developed that contains information for patients about osteoarthritis, treatment options, healthcare professionals and the treatment strategy.

Objective: To evaluate whether exercise treatment based on behavioural graded activity comprising booster sessions is a cost-effective treatment for patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee compared with usual care., Methods: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was carried out alongside a randomised trial involving 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee. Outcome measures were pain, physical functioning, self-perceived change and quality of life, assessed at baseline, 13, 39 and 65 weeks. Costs were measured using cost diaries for the entire follow-up period of 65 weeks. Cost and effect differences were estimated using multilevel analysis. Uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios was estimated by bootstrapping and graphically represented on cost-effectiveness planes., Results: 97 patients received behavioural graded activity, and 103 patients received usual care. At 65 weeks, no differences were found between the two groups in improvement with respect to baseline on any of the outcome measures. The mean (95% confidence interval) difference in total costs between the groups was -euro773 (-euro2360 to euro772)--that is, behavioural graded activity resulted in less cost but this difference was non-significant. As effect differences were small, a large incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of euro 51,385 per quality adjusted life year was found for graded activity versus usual care., Conclusions: This study provides no evidence that behavioural graded activity is either more effective or less costly than usual care. Yielding similar results to usual care, behavioural graded activity seems an acceptable method for treating patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and/or knee.

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a behavioral graded activity program (BGA) compared with usual care (UC; exercise therapy and advice) according to the Dutch guidelines for physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip and/or knee. The BGA intervention is intended to increase activity in the long term and consists of an exercise program with booster sessions, using operant treatment principles., Methods: We conducted a cluster randomized trial involving 200 patients with hip and/or knee OA. Primary outcome measures were pain (visual analog scale [VAS] and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]), physical function (WOMAC), and patient global assessment, assessed at weeks 0, 13, 39, and 65. Secondary outcome measures comprised tiredness (VAS), patient-oriented physical function (McMaster Toronto Arthritis Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire [MACTAR]), 5-meter walking time, muscle strength, and range of motion. Data were analyzed according to intent-to-treat principle., Results: Both treatments showed short-term and long-term beneficial within-group effects. The mean differences between the 2 groups for pain and functional status were not statistically significant. Significant differences in favor of BGA were found for the MACTAR functional scale and 5-meter walking test at week 65., Conclusion: Because both interventions resulted in beneficial long-term effects, the superiority of BGA over UC has not been demonstrated. Therefore, BGA seems to be an acceptable method to treat patients with hip and/or knee OA, with equivalent results compared with UC.

Objective: To systematically review studies describing the course of functioning in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee and identifying potential prognostic factors., Methods: A systematic search was performed. Studies involving patients with hip or knee OA, >6 months of followup, and outcome measures on functional status or pain were included. Methodologic quality was assessed using a standardized set of 11 criteria; a qualitative data analysis was performed., Results: Approximately 6,500 titles and abstracts were screened and 48 publications were considered for inclusion. Eighteen studies, 4 of which met the high methodologic quality criteria, were included. For hip OA, there was limited evidence that functional status and pain do not change during the first 3 years of followup. After 3 years, however, a worsening of functional status and pain was seen. For knee OA, there was conflicting evidence for the first 3 years and limited evidence for worsening of pain and functional status after 3 years. Furthermore, limited evidence was established for negative associations between future functional status and laxity, proprioceptive inaccuracy, age, body mass index, and knee pain intensity. In contrast, greater muscle strength, better mental health, better self-efficacy, social support, and more aerobic exercise were protective factors in the first 3 years., Conclusion: Pain and functional status in hip or knee OA seem to deteriorate slowly, with limited evidence for worsening after 3 years of followup. In specific subgroups, prognosis in the first 3 years of followup was either worse or better, as both risk factors and protective factors were identified. Prognostic factors included biomechanical factors, psychological factors, clinical factors, and treatment modalities. To strengthen the evidence, further high-quality longitudinal research on hip or knee OA functioning is needed.

Objective: To examine the effect of 2 different recruitment methods on the characteristics of participants with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee and on the efficacy of an exercise program., Methods: In a clinical trial on the effectiveness of exercise therapy in OA of the hip or knee, 2 groups of patients were recruited: one group through referrals by physiotherapists (PT group, n = 110) and one group invited by newspaper articles (NP group, n = 90). At baseline, demographic, clinical, and psychosocial data were collected and compared between the 2 groups using chi-square and Student's t-tests. After 13 weeks of exercise therapy and followup assessments at weeks 39 and 65, the main outcome measures (pain, physical function, and global perceived effect) were assessed and compared by multiple regression analysis., Results: The NP group reported less pain and tiredness at baseline, although more joints were affected with osteoarthritis. The PT group scored higher on the scale 'powerful-others' of locus of control. After adjusting for baseline differences, the effect of treatment after 13, 39, and 65 weeks was comparable for both groups for all outcome measures., Conclusion: Recruitment method affects clinical characteristics and physical functioning of patients recruited for the study. A mix of recruitment strategies does not seem to affect treatment outcome, on the condition that adjustments are made for baseline differences.