Objective: Prolonged morning stiffness (>60 min) is considered a symptom of inflammatory arthritis, but has a poor discriminative ability. Knowledge about morning stiffness in patients with hand... Show moreObjective: Prolonged morning stiffness (>60 min) is considered a symptom of inflammatory arthritis, but has a poor discriminative ability. Knowledge about morning stiffness in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA) is lacking. We therefore studied morning stiffness in patients with hand OA. Design: Patients with primary hand OA according to their treating rheumatologist in the Hand OSTeo-Arthritis in Secondary care (HOSTAS) cohort were studied. Severity of morning stiffness was examined with Australian/Canadian hand OA index (AUSCAN) and presence and duration of morning stiffness were examined with a standardized questionnaire. Association of patient and disease characteristics with prolonged morning stiffness (>60 min) were analyzed with logistic regression. Results: In total 519 of 538 patients had available data about duration of morning stiffness, of whom 89 (17%) had prolonged morning stiffness. Severity of stiffness was mild in 158 of 525 (30%), intermediate in 194 (37%), severe in 97 (18%) and extreme in 19 (4%) patients. Patients with prolonged morning stiffness reported more pain, worse physical function and had a reduced mental and physical quality of life. Patients with prolonged morning stiffness also had more severe radiographic disease, although the association did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Prolonged and severe morning stiffness are frequently present in patients with hand OA. Patients with these symptoms report more pain in general and have a lower quality of life than patients that do not report these symptoms. Prolonged morning stiffness does not preclude a diagnosis of hand OA. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Osteoarthritis Research Society International. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Show less
Objective: To investigate the test-retest precision and to report the longitudinal change in cartilage thickness, the percentage of knees with progression and the predictive value of the machine... Show moreObjective: To investigate the test-retest precision and to report the longitudinal change in cartilage thickness, the percentage of knees with progression and the predictive value of the machine-learning-estimated structural progression score (s-score) for cartilage thickness loss in the IMI-APPROACH cohort - an exploratory, 5-center, 2-year prospective follow-up cohort. Design: Quantitative cartilage morphology at baseline and at least one follow-up visit was available for 270 of the 297 IMI-APPROACH participants (78% females, age: 66.4 +/- 7.1 years, body mass index (BMI): 28.1 +/- 5.3 kg/m(2), 55% with radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA)) from 1.5T or 3T MRI. Test-retest precision (root mean square coefficient of variation) was assessed from 34 participants. To define progressor knees, smallest detectable change (SDC) thresholds were computed from 11 participants with longitudinal test-retest scans. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate the odds of progression in femorotibial cartilage thickness (threshold: similar to 211 mu m) for the quartile with the highest vs the quartile with the lowest s-scores. Results: The test-retest precision was 69 mu m for the entire femorotibial joint. Over 24 months, mean cartilage thickness loss in the entire femorotibial joint reached -174 mu m (95% CI: [-207, -141] mu m, 32.7% with progression). The s-score was not associated with 24-month progression rates by MRI (OR: 1.30, 95% CI: [0.52, 3.28]). Conclusion: IMI-APPROACH successfully enrolled participants with substantial cartilage thickness loss, although the machine-learning-estimated s-score was not observed to be predictive of cartilage thickness loss. IMI-APPROACH data will be used in subsequent analyses to evaluate the impact of clinical, imaging, biomechanical and biochemical biomarkers on cartilage thickness loss and to refine the machine-learning-based s-score. (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Osteoarthritis Research Society International. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Terpstra, S.E.S.; Stadt, L.A. van de; Kloppenburg, M. 2023
Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is treated by several medical professionals. In this review the rheumatologist's perspective will be conveyed. The rheumatologist tasks are to diagnose hand OA, exclude... Show moreHand osteoarthritis (OA) is treated by several medical professionals. In this review the rheumatologist's perspective will be conveyed. The rheumatologist tasks are to diagnose hand OA, exclude other causes of patient's complaints, and provide treatment. The rheumatologist therefore has a distinctive and important role in hand OA treatment. Although no disease modifying treatment exists, there are multiple options for managing hand OA in rheumatology practice, with the goal of achieving symptom relief and optimizing hand function. These treatments can be non-pharmacological or pharmacological. In this review we will provide a summary of evidence-based management options based on existing guidelines. Furthermore, we will describe common practice among rheumatologists for hand OA management. In order to do so, we performed a literature review of studies addressing treatment modality usage for hand OA. The review comprised 25 studies, which were heterogeneous in terms of treatment modality usage. In addition, a detailed description of care usage by patients in a Rheumatology outpatient clinic is given, based on data of our Hand OSTeoArthritis in Secondary care primary hand OA cohort. The large majority of these patients used any form of hand OA treatment (83%). Non-pharmacological treatment was less frequently used (47%) than pharmacological treatment (77%).(c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ) Show less
Roemer, F.W.; Jansen, M.; Marijnissen, A.C.A.; Guermazi, A.; Heiss, R.; Maschek, S.; ... ; Wirth, W. 2022
Background: The IMI-APPROACH cohort is an exploratory, 5-centre, 2-year prospective follow-up study of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Aim was to describe baseline multi-tissue semiquantitative MRI... Show moreBackground: The IMI-APPROACH cohort is an exploratory, 5-centre, 2-year prospective follow-up study of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Aim was to describe baseline multi-tissue semiquantitative MRI evaluation of index knees and to describe change for different MRI features based on number of subregion-approaches and change in maximum grades over a 24-month period.Methods: MRIs were acquired using 1.5 T or 3 T MRI systems and assessed using the semi-quantitative MRI OA Knee Scoring (MOAKS) system. MRIs were read at baseline and 24-months for cartilage damage, bone marrow lesions (BML), osteophytes, meniscal damage and extrusion, and Hoffa- and effusion-synovitis. In descriptive fashion, the frequencies of MRI features at baseline and change in these imaging biomarkers over time are presented for the entire sample in a subregional and maximum score approach for most features. Differences between knees without and with structural radiographic (R) OA are analyzed in addition.Results: Two hundred eighty-nine participants had readable baseline MRI examinations. Mean age was 66.6 +/- 7.1 years and participants had a mean BMI of 28.1 +/- 5.3 kg/m(2). The majority (55.3%) of included knees had radiographic OA. Any change in total cartilage MOAKS score was observed in 53.1% considering full-grade changes only, and in 73.9% including full-grade and within-grade changes. Any medial cartilage progression was seen in 23.9% and any lateral progression on 22.1%. While for the medial and lateral compartments numbers of subregions with improvement and worsening of BMLs were very similar, for the PFJ more improvement was observed compared to worsening (15.5% vs. 9.0%). Including within grade changes, the number of knees showing BML worsening increased from 42.2% to 55.6%. While for some features 24-months change was rare, frequency of change was much more common in knees with vs. without ROA (e.g. worsening of total MOAKS score cartilage in 68.4% of ROA knees vs. 36.7% of no-ROA knees, and 60.7% vs. 21.8% for an increase in maximum BML score per knee).Conclusions: A wide range of MRI-detected structural pathologies was present in the IMI-APPROACH cohort. Baseline prevalence and change of features was substantially more common in the ROA subgroup compared to the knees without ROA. Show less
Terpstra, S.E.S.; Velde, J.H.P.M. van der; Mutsert, R. de; Schiphof, D.; Reijnierse, M.; Rosendaal, F.R.; ... ; Loef, M. 2021
Objective: To investigate if knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with lower physical activity in the general middle-aged Dutch population, and if physical activity is associated with patient... Show moreObjective: To investigate if knee osteoarthritis (OA) is associated with lower physical activity in the general middle-aged Dutch population, and if physical activity is associated with patient-reported outcomes in knee OA. Design: Clinical knee OA was defined in the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity population using the ACR criteria, and structural knee OA on MRI. We assessed knee pain and function with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) with the Short Form-36, and physical activity (in Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET) hours) with the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-enhancing physical activity. We analysed the associations of knee OA with physical activity, and of physical activity with knee pain, function, and HRQoL in knee OA with linear regression adjusted for potential confounders. Results: Clinical knee OA was present in 14% of 6,212 participants, (mean age 56 years, mean BMI 27 kg/m(2), 55% women, 24% having any comorbidity) and structural knee OA in 12%. Clinical knee OA was associated with 9.60 (95% CI 3.70; 15.50) MET hours per week more physical activity, vs no clinical knee OA. Structural knee OA was associated with 3.97 (-7.82; 15.76) MET hours per week more physical activity, vs no structural knee OA. In clinical knee OA, physical activity was not associated with knee pain, function or HRQoL. Conclusions: Knee OA was not associated with lower physical activity, and in knee OA physical activity was not associated with patient-reported outcomes. Future research should indicate the optimal treatment advice regarding physical activity for individual knee OA patients. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Osteoarthritis Research Society International. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
