Reliability of the Knee Examination in Osteoarthritis: Effect of Standardization

Objective. To assess the reliability of physical examination of the osteoarthritic (OA) knee by rheumatologists, and to evaluate the benefits of standardization. Methods. Forty-two physical signs and techniques were evaluated using a 6 X 6 Latin square design. Patients with mild to severe knee OA, based on physical and radiographic signs, were examined in random order prior to and following standardization of techniques. For those signs with dichotomous scales, agreement among the rheumatologists was calculated as the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK), while for the signs with continuous and ordinal scales, a reliability coefficient (R-c) was calculated using analysis of variance. A PABAK of >0.60 and an Re of >0.80 were considered to indicate adequate reliability. Results. Adequate poststandardization reliability was achieved for 30 of 42 physical signs/techniques (71%). The most highly reliable signs identified by physical examination of the OA knee included alignment by goniometer (R-c = 0.99), bony swelling (R-c = 0.97), general passive crepitus (R-c = 0.96), gait by inspection (PABAK = 0.78), effusion bulge sign (R-c = 0.97), quadriceps atrophy (R. = 0.97), medial tibiofemoral tenderness (R-c = 0.94), lateral tibiofemoral tenderness (R-c = 0.85), patellofemoral tenderness by grind test (R-c = 0.94), and flexion contracture (R-c = 0.95). The standardization process resulted in substantial improvements in reliability for evaluation of a number of physical signs, although for some signs, minimal or no effect of standardization was noted. After standardization, warmth (PABAK = 0.14), medial instability at 30degrees flexion (PABAK = 0.02), and lateral instability at 30degrees flexion (PABAK = 0.34) were the only 3 signs that were highly unreliable. Conclusion. With the exception of physical examinations for instability, a comprehensive knee examination can be performed with adequate reliability. Standardization further improves the reliability for some physical signs and techniques. The application of these findings to future OA studies will contribute to improved outcome assessments in OA.

Performance of the Norwegian version of AUSCAN - a disease-specific measure of hand osteoarthritis

Objective: To examine the performance of the Norwegian version of the AUSCAN Index as a disease-specific health status measure in patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: One hundred and ninety-nine patients with clinical hand OA (mean (SD) age 61.7 (5.7) years, 18 (9%) males) underwent a comprehensive examination including joint status, examination of grip strength and completion of several self-reported health status questionnaires. The Australian/Canadian OA hand index (AUSCAN) captures three different dimensions of hand OA: pain (5 items), stiffness (1 item), and difficulties with daily activities (9 items). Our pre-study hypothesis was to identify AUSCAN as a specific hand measure with strong correlations to hand measures and lower correlations to other general measures of health. Results: Patient completion of the AUSCAN Index was similar or better than other measures. The internal consistency of the AUSCAN was excellent. The pain and physical dimension of AUSCAN correlated substantially to, each other and moderately to the stiffness scale. The AUSCAN physical scale correlated moderately to substantially to other measures, the highest correlation being seen with the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale (AIMS) 2 hand and finger function scale (r= 0.73). The standardised differences between patients with and without radiographic abnormalities were numerically larger for the AUSCAN pain and physical scales than for other measures. Conclusion: The Norwegian version of the AUSCAN has an acceptable clinimetric performance and is a suitable tool for assessment of hand OA. (C) 2005 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

OMERACT-OARSI Initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited.

Background: The OARSI Standing Committee for Clinical Trials Response Criteria Initiative had developed two sets of responder criteria to present the results of changes after treatment in three symptomatic domains (pain, function, and patient's global assessment) as a single variable for clinical trials (1). For each domain, a response was defined by both a relative and an absolute change, with different cut-offs with regard to the drug, the route of administration and the OA localization. Objective: To propose a simplified set of responder criteria with a similar cut-off, whatever the drug, the route or the OA localization. Methods: Data driven approach: (1) Two databases were considered The 'elaboration' database with which the formal OARSI sets of responder criteria were elaborated and The 'revisit' database. (2) Six different scenarios were evaluated: The two formal OARSI sets of criteria Four proposed scenarios of simplified sets of criteria Data from clinical randomized blinded placebo controlled trials were used to evaluate the performances of the two formal scenarios with two different databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') and those of the four proposed simplified scenarios within the 'revisit' database. The placebo effect, active effect, treatment effect, and the required sample arm size to obtain the placebo effect and the active treatment effect observed were the performances evaluated for each of the six scenarios. Experts' opinion approach: Results were discussed among the participants of the OMERACT VI meeting, who voted to select the definite OMERACT-OARSI set of criteria (one of the six evaluated scenarios). Results: Data driven approach: Fourteen trials totaling 1886 CA patients and fifteen studies involving 8164 CA patients were evaluated in the 'elaboration' and the 'revisit' databases respectively. The variability of the performances observed in the 'revisit' database when using the different simplified scenarios was similar to that observed between the two databases ('elaboration' versus 'revisit') when using the formal scenarios. The treatment effect and the required sample arm size were similar for each set of criteria. Experts' opinion approach: According to the experts, these two previous performances were the most important of an optimal set of responder criteria. They chose the set of criteria considering both pain and function as evaluation domain and requiring an absolute change and a relative change from baseline to define a response, with similar cut-offs whatever the drug, the route of administration or the CA localization. Conclusion: This data driven and experts' opinion approach is the basis for proposing an optimal simplified set of responder criteria for CA clinical trials. Other studies, using other sets of CA patients, are required in order to further validate this proposed OMERACT - OARSI set of criteria. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The comprehensive osteoarthritis test: a simple index for measurement of treatment effects in clinical trials

Objective. To assess the measurement properties of a simple index of symptom severity in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hips and knees. Methods. Both the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the proposed new Comprehensive Osteoarthritis Test (COAT) instrument were completed weekly by 125 subjects in the context of a randomized, 12-week, 3 parallel-arm clinical trial. The reliabilities of the various scales were assessed on a weekly basis by use of Cronbach's alpha coefficients. The validity of the COAT total scale was assessed by correlation with the WOMAC total scale on a weekly basis with correlation coefficients, and in terms of the correlations between subject-level intercepts and slopes over time. The relative responsiveness of the WOMAC and COAT total scales was assessed using a multilevel (longitudinal) multivariate (WOMAC, COAT) linear model. Results. The WOMAC and COAT total scales were highly reliable (mean over weeks: WOMAC alpha = 0.98; COAT alpha = 0.97). The correlations between the WOMAC and COAT scales were very high (mean over weeks = 0.92; subject-level intercepts = 0.91, slopes = 0.88). The COAT total scale was significantly more responsive than the WOMAC total scale in the active treatment (34.8% improvement vs 26.8%; p = 0.002). Conclusion. The COAT total scale is simple to administer, reliable, valid, and responsive to treatment effects.

A double blind, randomized, multicenter, parallel group study of the effectiveness and tolerance of intraarticular hyaluronan in osteoarthritis of the knee

Objective. To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of a course of 5 injections of hyaluronan (HA) given at intervals of one week in patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Methods: A double blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter (17 centers), saline vehicle-controlled study was conducted over 18 weeks. Patients received either 25 mg (2.5 ml) HA in a phosphate buffered solution or 2.5 ml vehicle containing only the buffer by intraarticular injection. Five injections were given at one week intervals and the patients were followed for a further 13 weeks. The Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) OA instrument was used as the primary efficacy variable and repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to compare the 2 treatments over Weeks 6, 10, 14, and 18. Results. Of 240 patients randomized for inclusion in the study, 223 were evaluable for the modified intention to treat analysis. The active treatment and control groups were comparable for demographic details, OA history, and previous treatments. Scores for the pain and stiffness subscales of the WOMAC were modestly but significantly lower in the HA-treated group overall (Weeks 6 to 18; p < 0.05) and the statistically significant difference from the control was not apparent until after the series of injections was complete. The physical function subscale did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.064). Tolerability of the procedure was good and there were no serious adverse events that were considered to have a possible causal relationship with the study treatment. Conclusion. Intraarticular HA treatment was significantly more effective than saline vehicle in mild to moderate OA of the knee for the 13 week postinjection period of the study.

Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee (Review)

Background Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent chronic joint disorder worldwide and is associated with significant pain and disability. Objectives To assess the effects of viscosupplementation in the treatment of OA of the knee. The products were hyaluronan and hylan derivatives (Adant, Arthrum H, Artz (Artzal, Supartz), BioHy (Arthrease, Euflexxa, Nuflexxa), Durolane, Fermathron, Go-On, Hyalgan, Hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc Hylan G-F 20), Hyruan, NRD-101 (Suvenyl), Orthovisc, Ostenil, Replasyn, SLM-10, Suplasyn, Synject and Zeel compositum). Search strategy MEDLINE (up to January (week 1) 2006 for update), EMBASE, PREMEDLINE, Current Contents up to July 2003, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched. Specialised journals and reference lists of identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and pertinent review articles up to December 2005 were handsearched. Selection criteria RCTs of viscosupplementation for the treatment of people with a diagnosis of OA of the knee were eligible. Single and double-blinded studies, placebo-based and comparative studies were eligible. At least one of the four OMERACT III core set outcome measures had to be reported (Bellamy 1997). Data collection and analysis Each trial was assessed independently by two reviewers for its methodological quality using a validated tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second reviewer. Continuous outcome measures were analysed as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). However, where different scales were used to measure the same outcome, standardized mean differences (SMD) were used. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed by relative risk (RR). Main results Seventy-six trials with a median quality score of 3 (range 1 to 5) were identified. Follow-up periods varied between day of last injection and eighteen months. Forty trials included comparisons of hyaluronan/hylan and placebo (saline or arthrocentesis), ten trials included comparisons of intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids, six trials included comparisons of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), three trials included comparisons of physical therapy, two trials included comparisons of exercise, two trials included comparisons of arthroscopy, two trials included comparisons of conventional treatment, and fifteen trials included comparisons of other hyaluronans/hylan. The pooled analyses of the effects of viscosupplements against 'placebo' controls generally supported the efficacy of this class of intervention. In these same analyses, differential efficacy effects were observed for different products on different variables and at different timepoints. Of note is the 5 to 13 week post injection period which showed a percent improvement from baseline of 28 to 54% for pain and 9 to 32% for function. In general, comparable efficacy was noted against NSAIDs and longer-term benefits were noted in comparisons against IA corticosteroids. In general, few adverse events were reported in the hyaluronan/hylan trials included in these analyses. Authors' conclusions Based on the aforementioned analyses, viscosupplementation is an effective treatment for OA of the knee with beneficial effects: on pain, function and patient global assessment; and at different post injection periods but especially at the 5 to 13 week post injection period. It is of note that the magnitude of the clinical effect, as expressed by the WMD and standardised mean difference (SMD) from the RevMan 4.2 output, is different for different products, comparisons, timepoints, variables and trial designs. However, there are few randomised head-to-head comparisons of different viscosupplements and readers should be cautious, therefore, in drawing conclusions regarding the relative value of different products. The clinical effect for some products, against placebo, on some variables at some timepoints is in the moderate to large effect-size range. Readers should refer to relevant tables to review specific detail given the heterogeneity in effects across the product class and some discrepancies observed between the RevMan 4.2 analyses and the original publications. Overall, the analyses performed are positive for the HA class and particularly positive for some products with respect to certain variables and timepoints, such as pain on weight bearing at 5 to 13 weeks postinjection. In general, sample-size restrictions preclude any definitive comment on the safety of the HA class of products; however, within the constraints of the trial designs employed no major safety issues were detected. In some analyses viscosupplements were comparable in efficacy to systemic forms of active intervention, with more local reactions but fewer systemic adverse events. In other analyses HA products had more prolonged effects than IA corticosteroids. Overall, the aforementioned analyses support the use of the HA class of products in the treatment of knee OA.

The effectiveness of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis: an application of two sets of response criteria developed by the OARSI and one set developed by OMERACT-OARSI

Objective: Secondary analyses of a previously conducted 1-year randomized controlled trial were performed to assess the application of responder criteria in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) using different sets of responder criteria developed by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) (Propositions A and B) for intra-articular drugs and Outcome Measures in Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT)-OARSI (Proposition D). Methods: Two hundred fifty-five patients with knee OA were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 (AC + H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20 (AC). A patient was defined as a responder at month 12 based on change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and function (0-100 normalized scale) and patient global assessment of OA in the study knee (at least one-category improvement in very poor, poor, fair, good and very good). All propositions incorporate both minimum relative and absolute changes. Results: Results demonstrated that statistically significant differences in responders between treatment groups, in favor of hylan G-F 20, were detected for Proposition A (AC + H = 53.5%, AC = 25.2%), Proposition B (AC + H = 56.7%, AC = 32.3%) and Proposition D (AC + H = 66.9%, AC = 42.5%). The highest effectiveness in both treatment groups was observed with Proposition D, whereas Proposition A resulted in the lowest effectiveness in both treatment groups. The treatment group differences always exceeded the required 20% minimum clinically important difference between groups established a priori, and were 28.3%, 24.4% and 24.4% for Propositions A, B and D, respectively. Conclusion: This analysis provides evidence for the capacity of OARSI and OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria to detect clinically important statistically detectable differences between treatment groups. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index

Objectives: To validate the WOMAC 3.1 in a touch screen computer format, which applies each question as a cartoon in writing and in speech (QUALITOUCH method), and to assess patient acceptance of the computer touch screen version. Methods: The paper and computer formats of WOMAC 3.1 were applied in random order to 53 subjects with hip or knee osteoarthritis. The mean age of the subjects was 64 years ( range 45 to 83), 60% were male, 53% were 65 years or older, and 53% used computers at home or at work. Agreement between formats was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Preferences were assessed with a supplementary questionnaire. Results: ICCs between formats were 0.92 (95% confidence interval, 0.87 to 0.96) for pain; 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97) for stiffness, and 0.96 ( 0.94 to 0.98) for function. ICCs were similar in men and women, in subjects with or without previous computer experience, and in subjects below or above age 65. The computer format was found easier to use by 26% of the subjects, the paper format by 8%, and 66% were undecided. Overall, 53% of subjects preferred the computer format, while 9% preferred the paper format, and 38% were undecided. Conclusion: The computer format of the WOMAC 3.1 is a reliable assessment tool. Agreement between computer and paper formats was independent of computer experience, age, or sex. Thus the computer format may help improve patient follow up by meeting patients' preferences and providing immediate results.

Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement

Background: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers. Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients ( 603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA). Results: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute ( and relative) changes were, respectively, ( a) -19.9 mm (-40.8%) and -15.3 mm (-32.0%) for pain; ( b) -18.3 mm ( - 39.0%) and -15.2 mm ( -32.6%) for patient's global assessment; ( c) -9.1 ( -26.0%) and -7.9 ( -21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.

Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state

Background: The patient acceptable symptom state ( PASS) is the value beyond which patients can consider themselves well. This concept can help in interpreting results of clinical trials. Objective: To determine the PASS estimate for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) by assessing pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment. Methods: A 4 week prospective multicentre cohort study of 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment of disease, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. The patients assessed their satisfaction with their current state at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. Results: For patients with knee and hip OA, the estimates of PASS were, respectively, 32.3 and 35.0 mm for pain, 32.0 and 34.6 mm for patient global assessment of disease activity, and 31.0 and 34.4 points for WOMAC function score. The PASS varied moderately across the tertiles of baseline scores but not across age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: The use of PASS in clinical trials would provide more meaningful results expressed as a proportion of patients in an acceptable symptom state.

Evaluation of WOMAC 20, 50, 70 response criteria in patients treated with hylan G-F 20 for knee osteoarthritis

Objective: A secondary analysis of a previously conducted one year randomised controlled trial to evaluate the capacity of responder criteria based on the WOMAC index to detect between treatment group differences. Methods: 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomised to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20'' (AC+H) or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20'' (AC). In the original analysis, two definitions of patient response from baseline to month 12 were used: ( 1) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score ( WOMAC 20P); ( 2) at least a 20% reduction in WOMAC pain score and at least a 20% reduction in either WOMAC function or stiffness score ( WOMAC 20PFS). For this analysis, a responder was identified using 50% and 70% minimum clinically important response levels to investigate how increasing response affects the ability to detect treatment group differences. Results: The hylan G- F 20 group had numerically more responders using all patient responder criteria. Increasing the response level from 20% to 50% detected similar differences between treatment groups (25% to 29%). Increasing the response level to 70% reduced the differences between treatment groups (11% to 12%) to a point where the differences were not significant after Bonferroni adjustment. Conclusions: These results provide evidence for incorporating response levels ( WOMAC 50) in clinical trials. While differences at the highest threshold ( WOMAC 70) were not statistically detectable, an appropriately powered study may be capable of detecting differences even at this very high level of improvement.

Effectiveness and safety of repeat courses of hylan G-F 20 in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of repeat treatment with hylan G-F 20 based on data from a randomized, controlled trial [Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, Goldsmith CH, Tugwell P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002;10:506-17]. The hypotheses tested were whether the single-course and repeat-course subgroups would be superior to appropriate care and not different from each other. Method: A total of 255 patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to appropriate care with hylan G-F 20 or appropriate care without hylan G-F 20. The hylan G-F 20 group was partitioned into two subgroups: (1) patients who received a single course of hylan G-F 20; and (2) patients who received two or more courses of hylan G-F 20. Results: For the primary effectiveness measure, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score as a percent of baseline, the single-course subgroup improved by 41%, the repeat-course subgroup by 35%, and the appropriate care group by 14%. Both subgroups improved significantly more than the appropriate care group (P < 0.05), and were not statistically significantly different from each other (70% power to detect a 20% difference). Secondary effectiveness measures showed similar results. In the repeat-course subgroup, no statistically significant differences were found in the number of local adverse events, the number of patients with local adverse events, or arthrocentesis rates between the first and repeat courses of treatment. Conclusions: Although the study was neither designed nor powered to examine repeat treatment, this a posteriori analysis provides support for a favorable effectiveness and safety profile of hylan G-F 20 in repeat course patients. (C) 2004 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The WOMAC knee and hip osteoarthritis indices: Development, validation, globafization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN hand osteoarthritis indices

Clinical measurement in both clinical research and clinical practice requires tools and techniques that are valid, reliable and responsive. Patient-centred self-reported measures provide opportunity to evaluate consequences of osteoarthritis, that are important and relevant to patients with the condition. The WOMAC and AUSCAN Indices are health status measurement questionnaires that are valid, reliable and responsive, easy to complete, simple to score and available in multiple language forms and scaling formats. They provide opportunities to capture patient relevant information, relating to the impact of interventions, in clinical research and clinical practice environments. WOMAC data have also contributed to the development of proposed definitions for responder criteria and state-attainment criteria in osteoarthritis.