Search

Objective: Our objective was to compare the use of both anteroposterior (AP) extended-knee X-ray and semi-flexed X-ray (current gold standard) versus the use of semi-flexed X-ray alone to detect femoro-tibial osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: Individuals 40 to 75 years of age with symptomatic hip and/or knee OA (Kellgren/Lawrence [KL] score≥2) were recruited using a multiregional prevalence survey in France. Both AP and schuss X-rays were performed and read; two years later, the same examiner, blinded to the results of the first reading, performed a second reading of the schuss X-ray. We compared the KL stages of each knee and analyzed osteophyte detection and localization, joint space narrowing (JSN), and the relationship to obesity., Results: The analysis included 350 participants with OA of various stages. Comparing the two readings showed that a higher proportion of patients had KL≥2 when the two X-ray views were combined (right knee: P<0.0001; left knee: P<0.001). There were no differences when using the schuss X-ray alone versus in combination with an AP X-ray in terms of detecting JSN, osteophytes. A comparison of schuss X-ray alone versus AP X-ray alone demonstrated the superiority of the schuss view for evaluating JSN (P=0.0001 and P=0.0001) and no difference in osteophyte detection., Conclusion: Our study shows that the schuss view alone was sufficient for detecting knee osteophytes and JSN. Using one X-ray rather than two will reduce medical costs and irradiation burden. Using two views seems preferable for epidemiological studies., (Copyright © 2015 Société française de rhumatologie. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study aimed to describe the prevalence of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) and its course over time, as well as identify prognostic factors of OA course and determinants of costs and access to care in France in a patient cohort., Methods: Subjects aged 40 to 75 years, with uni- or bilateral symptomatic hip and/or knee OA (ACR criteria), Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) stage 2 or greater, were recruited from a French national prevalence survey for the multicenter KHOALA cohort study. Data collected at baseline included sociodemographic and clinical data; WOMAC, IKS and Harris scores for pain and function; MAQ score for physical activity; functional comorbidity index; GHQ28 score for psychological status; and SF-36 (generic) and OAKHQOL (specific) scores for quality of life. Blood and urine samples were collected., Results: Eight hundred and seventy-eight subjects were included, 222 with OA of the hip (mean age 61.2±8.8 years), 607 knee (mean age 62.0±8.5 years) and 49 both hip and knee (mean age 64.9±7.9 years). Mean body mass index was 26.9±4.5 for hip OA and 30.3±6.3 for knee OA. Hip and knee OA patients had 1.99 and 2.06 comorbidities, on average, respectively. Disease severity on X-rays for KL stages 2, 3 and 4 for hip OA was 69.8, 26.1 and 4.1%, respectively, and for knee OA, 44.5, 30.3, and 25.2%. As compared with population norms, age- and sex-standardized SF-36 scores were greatly decreased for both knee and hip OA in all dimensions, particularly physical and emotional dimensions., Perspectives: Patients will be followed up annually, alternately by mail and clinical visit. This cohort of representative patients with knee and hip OA will be an opportunity for future collaborative research., (Copyright © 2012 Société française de rhumatologie. Published by Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Osteoarthritis (OA) epidemiologic data are scarce in Europe. To estimate the prevalence of symptomatic knee and hip OA in a multiregional sample in France., Design: A two-phase population-based survey was conducted in six regions in 2007-2009. On initial phone contact using random-digit dialing, subjects 40-75 years old were screened with a validated questionnaire. Subjects screened positive were invited for ascertainment: physical examination and hip and/or knee radiography (Kellgren-Lawrence grade≥2). Multiple imputation for data missing not-at-random was used to account for refusals., Results: Of 63,232 homes contacted, 27,632 were eligible, 9621 subjects screened positive, 3707 participated fully in the ascertainment phase, and 1010 had symptomatic OA: 317 hip, 756 knee. Hip OA prevalence according to age class ranged from 0.9% to 3.9% for men and 0.7-5.1% for women. Knee OA ranged from 2.1% to 10.1% for men and 1.6-14.9% for women. Both differed by geographical region. The hip and knee standardized prevalence was 1.9% and 4.7% for men and 2.5% and 6.6% for women, respectively., Conclusions: This confirmed the feasibility of using a screening questionnaire for eliciting population-based estimates of OA. In France, it increases with age and is greater among women above the age of 50. The geographical disparity of hip and knee OA parallels the distribution of obesity. Study registration ID number 906297 at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/., (Copyright © 2011 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the performance of a telephone-administered questionnaire suitable for use in 2-phase surveys in the detection of symptomatic hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) cases., Methods: A questionnaire was designed based on typical symptoms and self-reported OA diagnosis. Three groups of subjects were consecutively enrolled from rheumatology units at French university hospitals. The disease status, based on American College of Rheumatology criteria, was first confirmed by a rheumatologist. Subjects then completed the screening questionnaire administered by interviewers unaware of the diagnosis and the clinical examination results. Three screening strategies were evaluated., Results: In all, 119 subjects with hip OA, 137 with knee OA, and 111 subjects with other rheumatic diseases with lower extremity symptoms were recruited. The highest sensitivity for both hip and knee OA was obtained with the strategy based on reporting the presence or absence of symptoms (>96%). The specificity of this strategy was low (42% for both joints). When taking into account the self-reported OA diagnosis, the sensitivity slightly decreased (>91%), and the specificity increased greatly, from 76% to 78%. The highest specificity was obtained with the third strategy, requiring a rheumatologist opinion (from 82% to 85%) at the expense of lower sensitivity (>90%)., Conclusion: The questionnaire tested in this study is a simple, valid, and reliable instrument to screen symptomatic hip and knee OA. As such, it fails to reach complete accuracy and clinical examination and radiographs remain necessary for complete ascertainment procedure.

Objective: To study the feasibility and validity of a two-step telephone screening procedure for symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) in the general population., Method: The screening questionnaire was based on signs and symptoms, previous diagnosis of OA and validated OA criteria. A random sample of telephone numbers was obtained and, at each number, one person aged 40-75 years was included. A physical examination and knee or hip radiographs were offered when the screen was positive. A sample of subjects with negative screens was also examined. The diagnosis of hip/knee OA was based on the American College of Rheumatology criteria for signs and symptoms and Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic stage 2 or greater. Prevalence rates were estimated with correction for the performance of the screening procedure., Results: Of 1380 subjects, 479 had positive screens, among whom 109 were evaluated; symptomatic radiographic OA was found in 50 subjects, at the knee (n = 35) or hip (n = 20). Corrected prevalence estimates of symptomatic OA were 7.6% (6.4%-8.8%) for the knee and 5% (3.9%-6.1%) for the hip. The screening procedure had 87% (95% CI 79% to 95%) sensitivity and 92% (95% CI 91% to 93%) specificity for detecting knee OA and respectively 93% (95% CI 86% to 100%) and 93% (95% CI 92% to 94%) for hip OA., Conclusion: This study establishes the feasibility of telephone screening for symptomatic knee/hip OA, which could be used for a nationwide prevalence study. Pain and previous OA diagnosis were the best items for detecting symptomatic OA.

Objectives: To update the EULAR recommendations for management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) by an evidence based medicine and expert opinion approach., Methods: The literature search and guidelines were restricted to treatments for knee OA pertaining to clinical and/or radiological OA of any compartment of the knee. Papers for combined treatment of knee and other types of OA were excluded. Medline and Embase were searched using a combination of subject headings and key words. Searches for those treatments previously investigated were conducted for January 1999 to February 2002 and for those treatments not previously investigated for 1966 to February 2002. The level of evidence found for each treatment was documented. Quality scores were determined for each paper, an effect size comparing the treatment with placebo was calculated, where possible, and a toxicity profile was determined for each treatment modality., Results: 497 new publications were identified by the search. Of these, 103 were intervention trials and included in the overall analysis, and 33 treatment modalities were identified. Previously identified publications which were not exclusively knee OA in the initial analysis were rejected. In total, 545 publications were included. Based on the results of the literature search and expert opinion, 10 recommendations for the treatment of knee OA were devised using a five stage Delphi technique. Based on expert opinion, a further set of 10 items was identified by a five stage Delphi technique as important for future research., Conclusion: The updated recommendations support some of the previous propositions published in 2000 but also include modified statements and new propositions. Although a large number of treatment options for knee OA exist, the evidence based format of the EULAR Recommendations continues to identify key clinical questions that currently are unanswered.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate (CS) 1 g/day per os compared to placebo, in a double blind, randomized, parallel group study, with 3 months treatment followed by a 3 month posttreatment period, in patients with femorotibial osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: The main criterion was the functional handicap assessed by Lequesne's algofunctional index (AFI). Secondary efficacy criteria were: self-assessed pain with activity and at rest, self-assessed impact of OA on daily living, patient and physician assessed overall change in patient state since the previous visit, and daily NSAID and analgesic consumption, all evaluated monthly. The main analysis was performed on the intent-to-treat (ITT) population at treatment endpoint compared to baseline (Day 0)., Results: The ITT efficacy data set comprised 130 patients (63 in CS group and 67 in placebo group). At treatment endpoint, the AFI showed greater but nonsignificant improvement in the CS than in the placebo group. Improvement became significant (p = 0.02) in the completer population (n = 114). In the ITT population, all variables tended towards greater improvement in the CS than the placebo group. In the completer population, pain at rest also significantly decreased in the CS group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.03), and, one month after treatment, CS had a significantly higher persistent effect than placebo on the AFI (p = 0.01), pain with activity (p = 0.001), physician assessed patient state (p = 0.05), and most other efficacy criteria. Adverse event rates did not differ significantly., Conclusion: We observed a trend towards efficacy of CS 1 g/day compared to placebo with good tolerability after 3 month treatment, and persistent efficacy one month posttreatment. Further investigations are required to confirm this trend.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint disease encountered throughout Europe. A task force for the EULAR Standing Committee for Clinical Trials met in 1998 to determine the methodological and logistical approach required for the development of evidence based guidelines for treatment of knee OA. The guidelines were restricted to cover all currently available treatments for knee OA diagnosed either clinically and/or radiographically affecting any compartment of the knee., Methods: The first stage was the selection of treatment modalities to be considered. The second stage comprised a search of the electronic databases Medline and Embase using a combination of subject headings and keywords. All European language publications in the form of systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, controlled trials, and observational studies were included. During stage three all the relevant studies were quality scored. The summary statistics for validated outcome measures, when available, were recorded and, where practical, the numbers needed to treat and the effect size for each treatment were calculated. In the fourth stage key clinical propositions were determined by expert consensus employing a Delphi approach. The final stage ranked these propositions according to the available evidence. A second set of propositions relating to a future research agenda was determined by expert consensus using a Delphi approach., Results: Over 2400 English language publications and 400 non-English language publications were identified. Seven hundred and forty four studies presented outcome data of the effects of specific treatments on knee OA. Quantitative analysis of treatment effect was possible in only 61 studies. Recommendations for the management of knee OA based on currently available data and expert opinion are presented. Proposals for a future research agenda are highlighted., Conclusions: These are the first clinical guidelines on knee OA to combine an evidence based approach and a consensus approach across a wide range of treatment modalities. It is apparent that certain clinical propositions are supported by substantial research based evidence, while others are not. There is thus an urgent need for future well designed trials to consider key clinical questions.