Objective: To improve the interpretation of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in individual patients, we explored associations with age, sex, BMI, history of knee injury and... Show moreObjective: To improve the interpretation of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in individual patients, we explored associations with age, sex, BMI, history of knee injury and presence of clinical knee osteoarthritis, and developed percentile curves.Methods: We used cross-sectional data of middle-aged individuals from the population-based Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study. Clinical knee osteoarthritis was defined using the ACR classification criteria. KOOS scores were handled according to the manual (zero = extreme problems, 100 = no problems). Patient characteristics associated with KOOS were explored using ordered logistic regression, and sex and body mass index (BMI)-specific percentile curves were developed using quantile regression with fractional polynomials. The curves were applied as a benchmark for comparison of KOOS scores of participants with knee osteoarthritis and comorbidities.Results: The population consisted of 6,643 participants (56% women, mean (SD) age 56(6) years). Population-based KOOS subscale scores (median; interquartile range) near optimum: pain (100;94-100), symptoms (96;86-100), ADL function (100;96-100), sport/recreation function (100;80-100), quality of life (100;75-100). Worse KOOS scores were observed in women and in participants with higher BMI. Clinical knee osteoarthritis was defined in 15% of participants, and was, in comparison to other patient characteristics, associated with the highest odds of worse KOOS scores. Furthermore, presence of any comorbidity and cardiovascular disease specifically, was associated with worse KOOS scores, particularly in women.Conclusions: In the middle-aged Dutch population KOOS scores were generally good, but worse in women and with higher BMI. These percentile curves may be used as benchmarks in research and clinical practice. (c) 2020 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Eyles, J.P.; Hunter, D.J.; Bennell, K.L.; Dziedzic, K.S.; Hinman, R.S.; Esch, M. van der; ... ; Joint Effort Initiative 2019
Objective: The Joint Effort Initiative was endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018 as a collaboration between international researchers and clinicians with an... Show moreObjective: The Joint Effort Initiative was endorsed by Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) in 2018 as a collaboration between international researchers and clinicians with an interest in the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify and prioritise activities for future work of the Joint Effort Initiative.Design: A survey was emailed to delegates of the 2018 OARSI World Congress attending a pre-conference workshop or with a known interest in OAMPs (n = 115). Delegates were asked about the most important issues regarding OAMP implementation. The top 20 issues were synthesised into 17 action statements, and respondents were invited to participate in a priority ranking exercise to determine the order of importance of the statements.Results: Survey respondents (n = 51, 44%) were most commonly female (71%), with an allied health background (57%), affiliated with universities (73%) from Oceania (37%), and Europe/UK (45%). The five highest ranked action statements were:i) Establish guidelines for the implementation of different OAMP models to ensure consistency of delivery and adherence to international best practice.ii) Develop and assess training and education programs for health care professionals (HCPs) delivering OAMPs.iii) Develop and evaluate the implementation and outcomes of novel models of OAMPs.iv) Develop and assess core skill sets and resources for HCPs delivering OA care.v) Develop a framework for enhancing the quality of care provided by OAMPs.Conclusion: Prioritising statements will bring focus to the future work of the Joint Effort Initiative in the future and provide a basis for longer-term actions. (C) 2019 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Smith, T.O.; Mansfield, M.; Hawker, G.A.; Hunter, D.J.; March, L.M.; Boers, M.; ... ; Conaghan, P.G. 2019
Objective. To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis ... Show moreObjective. To update the 1997 OMERACT-OARSI (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology-Osteoarthritis Research Society International) core domain set for clinical trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis (OA).Methods. An initial review of the COMET database of core outcome sets (COS) was undertaken to identify all domains reported in previous COS including individuals with hip and/or knee OA. These were presented during 5 patient and health professionals/researcher meetings in 3 continents (Europe, Australasia, North America). A 3-round international Delphi survey was then undertaken among patients, healthcare professionals, researchers, and industry representatives to gain consensus on key domains to be included in a core domain set for hip and/or knee OA. Findings were presented and discussed in small groups at OMERACT 2018, where consensus was obtained in the final plenary.Results. Four previous COS were identified. Using these, and the patient and health professionals/researcher meetings, 50 potential domains formed the Delphi survey. There were 426 individuals from 25 different countries who contributed to the Delphi exercise. OMERACT 2018 delegates (n = 129) voted on candidate domains. Six domains gained agreement as mandatory to be measured and reported in all hip and/or knee OA clinical trials: pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient's global assessment of the target joint, in addition to the mandated core domain of adverse events including mortality. Joint structure was agreed as mandatory in specific circumstances, i.e., depending on the intervention.Conclusion. The updated core domain set for hip and/or knee OA has been agreed upon. Work will commence to determine which outcome measurement instrument should be recommended to cover each core domain. Show less
Objective. To define pain and physical function cutpoints that would, coupled with structural severity, define a surrogate measure of "need for joint replacement surgery," for use as an outcome... Show moreObjective. To define pain and physical function cutpoints that would, coupled with structural severity, define a surrogate measure of "need for joint replacement surgery," for use as an outcome measure for potential structure-modifying interventions for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. New scores were developed for pain and physical function in knee and hip OA. A cross-sectional international study in 1909 patients was conducted to define data-driven cutpoints corresponding to the orthopedic surgeons' indication for joint replacement. A post hoc analysis of 8 randomized clinical trials (1379 patients) evaluated the prevalence and validity of cutpoints, among patients with symptomatic hip/knee OA. Results. In the international cross-sectional study, there was substantial overlap in symptom levels between patients with and patients without indication for joint replacement; indeed, it was not possible to determine cutpoints for pain and function defining this indication. The post hoc analysis of trial data showed that the prevalence of cases that combined radiological progression, high level of pain, and high degree of function impairment was low (2%-12%). The most discriminatory cutpoint to define an indication for joint replacement was found to be [pain (0-100) + physical function (0-100) > 80]. Conclusion. These results do not support a specific level of pain or function that defines an indication for joint replacement. However, a tentative cutpoint for pain and physical function levels is proposed for further evaluation. Potentially, this symptom level, coupled with radiographic progression, could be used to define "nonresponders" to disease-modifying drugs in OA clinical trials. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1765-9; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110403) Show less
Gossec, L.; Paternotte, S.; Maillefert, J.F.; Combescure, C.; Conaghan, P.G.; Davis, A.M.; ... ; OARSI-OMERACT Task Force Total Art 2011
Objective: To assess the pain and functional disability levels corresponding to an indication for total joint replacement (TJR) in hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Design: International... Show moreObjective: To assess the pain and functional disability levels corresponding to an indication for total joint replacement (TJR) in hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Design: International cross-sectional study in 10 countries. Patients: Consecutive outpatients with definite hip or knee OA attending an orthopaedic outpatient clinic. Gold standard measure for recommendation for TJR: Surgeon's decision that TJR is justified. Outcome measures: Pain (ICOAP: intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain, 0-100) and functional impairment (HOOS-PS/KOOS-PS: Hip/Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short-form, 0-100). Analyses: Comparison of patients with vs without surgeons' indication for TJR. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analyses and logistic regression were applied to determine cut points of pain and disability defining recommendation for TJR. Results: In all, 1909 patients were included (1130 knee/779 hip OA). Mean age was 66.4 [standard deviation (SD) 10.9] years, 58.1% were women; 628/1130 (55.6%) knee OA and 574/779 (73.7%) hip OA patients were recommended for TJR. Although patients recommended for TJR (yes vs no) had worse symptom levels [pain, 55.5 (95% confidence interval 54.2, 56.8) vs. 44.9 (43.2, 46.6), and functional impairment, 59.8 (58.7, 60.9) vs. 50.9 (49.3, 52.4), respectively, both P < 0.0001]. there was substantial overlap in symptom levels between groups, even when adjusting for radiographic joint status. Thus, it was not possible to determine cut points for pain and function defining 'requirement for TJR'. Conclusion: Although symptom levels were higher in patients recommended for TJR, pain and functional disability alone did not discriminate between those who were and were not considered to need TJR by the orthopaedic surgeon. (C) 2010 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
