Table of Contents  

Soni: Osteoarthritis – aetiology, assessment and management of a heterogeneous condition

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of arthritis in the world, and typically presents with joint pain, stiffness and loss of function. OA is associated with a huge burden on society, in terms of both loss of working days and the cost of treatment itself.1 The prevalence of OA is predicted to rise rapidly owing to a combination of an ageing population and the obesity epidemic. The burden of OA in terms of reduced life expectancy is also being recognized, and this further highlights the more malignant nature of the condition.2 Despite the size of the global impact of OA, there is a significant unmet need for effective treatments.

Traditionally, OA has been defined by evidence of structural damage seen radiographically. The heterogeneity of the condition, in terms of aetiology, disease progression, the generation of symptoms and response to treatment, is now being further explored. It is anticipated that a better understanding of the different clinically important subsets of patients will help to identify new targeted therapy as well as optimize the application of currently available treatments.

The aim of this narrative review is to discuss some of the current conundrums in the OA field and how they interplay with the current assessment and treatment of OA and its future development.

Definition of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis can be defined based on the presence of characteristic joint symptoms such as pain and stiffness, structural abnormalities, or a combination of both.

Structural changes have been traditionally assessed using radiographs, typical features including joint space narrowing, subchondral sclerosis, bone cysts and osteophyte formation. The most commonly used radiographic measure of OA is the Empire Rheumatism Council system, developed by Kellgren and Lawrence in 1957 [the Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grading scale].3 This method assumes the sequential development of osteophytes, joint space narrowing and subchondral sclerosis. A radiographic atlas is used to standardize the grading of individual joints from 0 to 4. Studies will typically use grade 2 and above, defined by the presence of at least one significant osteophyte, to define the presence of structural OA (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

Anteroposterior radiograph showing weight bearing of the knee and displaying KL grade 4 OA. KL grade 4 is characterized by the presence of large osteophytes, marked narrowing of joint space, severe sclerosis and definite deformity of bone ends.

7-2-14-fig1.jpg

The most commonly used diagnostic criteria in research for hand, hip and knee OA were developed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).47 These criteria require the presence of typical joint symptoms for most days of the preceding month, but radiographic changes are not essential.

The selection of the most appropriate criteria to define OA depends entirely on the context of a study. Work carried out in response to questions raised by the United States Food and Drug Administration on defining the disease state suggests that the effects of treatment on structural changes at the joint level, termed disease OA, should be considered separately from the effect on patient-reported symptoms, termed illness OA.8 This terminology is helpful in identifying which patients should be recruited to a particular study. For example, a study of the primary prevention of symptomatic OA should include patients with disease OA but not illness OA.

In order to maximize the translation of research findings to the clinical setting, there should be consistency between how patients, clinicians and researchers define OA. A community-based study showed that the correlation between patient and general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of OA was no better than chance and that neither related to the ACR criteria.9 The lack of a clear definition of a meaningful response to treatment may also have hindered progress in the search for effective therapies, and this is now beginning to be addressed.10 Further alignment and clarity of the definition of OA across the board may help to shape clinically relevant research, allow appropriate assessment of treatment effect size and accelerate the impact on direct patient care.

The size of the problem

It has been estimated that about one-tenth of the world’s population aged > 60 years have symptoms that can be attributed to OA.10 Specifically, symptomatic and radiographically confirmed OA of the knee had a global estimated incidence of 3.8% [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 3.6% to 4.1%] in 2010, with a peak in those around 50 years of age.11 With an ageing population and the obesity epidemic, the number of people suffering from OA of the knee is predicted to rise. Symptomatic knee OA has previously shown an increasing trend, over a 20-year period, with obesity having a contributory effect.12 This is in turn associated with a projected exponential rise in demand for costly surgery. The projected demand for primary total knee arthroplasty is projected to grow by 673% over a 25-year period, equating to 3.48 million procedures (95% prediction interval, 2.95 million to 4.14 million) by 2030 in the USA.13

The actual size of the problem is likely to be significantly underestimated as many people do not seek medical care because they perceive OA to be part of the normal ageing process and that little can be offered to them to help.14 A study showed that over half of people with severe, disabling knee pain had not visited their GP in the previous 12 months.14 As awareness among physicians and the general public increases, it is likely that consultation rates will also increase.

The burden of osteoarthritis

At an individual level, pain in large joints restricts mobility, particularly climbing stairs and walking,15 causes reduced participation16 and also has an impact on mood, functioning and well-being.17,18

The impact on health services is considerable given that the incidence of new GP consultations for knee pain in adults aged ≥ 50 years is approximately 10% per year.19 In the UK, there were 114,500 hospital admissions over a 1-year period, and > 44,000 hip replacements and > 35,000 knee replacements were performed at a cost of £405 million in 2000.1

The impact of OA on society at large is also substantial. In the UK alone, 36 million working days were lost owing to OA, at an estimated cost of £3.2 billion in lost production over 1 year (1999/2000). Over the same period, £43 million was spent on community services and £215 million was spent on social services for OA. The total cost of OA in the UK is estimated as the equivalent of 1% of gross national product per year.1

Osteoarthritis is a global problem. In 2010, OA accounted for 2.2% (95% UI 1.7% to 2.9%) of total years lived with disability worldwide.11 Specifically, OA of the hip and knee was ranked as the eleventh highest contributor to global disability, out of 291 conditions.11

Compared with the general population, patients with OA are at higher risk of death from all causes, but particularly from cardiovascular disease (standardized mortality ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.49–1.98).2 The burden of OA may, therefore, be higher than currently estimated. Total joint replacement in patients with moderate to severe hip or knee OA has been shown to be cardioprotective,20 which increases the rationalization for surgical intervention and makes it even more crucial to determine the optimum time for surgery.

Risk factors for osteoarthritis

It is important to recognize risk factors for OA so that people at high risk can be identified and, when possible, these factors can be modulated with the aim of improving the patients’ outcome. Defining OA in this context is crucial because risk factors for structural disease may be different from those for symptomatic disease.21

Systemic factors are thought to affect susceptibility to OA in multiple joints, and these include increasing age, female sex, ethnicity/genetics and the presence of the metabolic syndrome.2224 Local mechanical factors are believed to result in abnormal loading and injury, which affect the risk in an individual joint. Such factors include obesity, repetitive loading and acute injury, joint deformity resulting in abnormal load distribution and muscle strength.24 The relationship with muscle strength is interesting, as increased grip strength is associated with an increased risk of OA in the hand, but poor quadriceps strength increases the risk of structural knee OA in women.24

The evidence so far suggests that the risk factors for the onset, or incidence, of disease differ from those for disease progression. A good example of this is bone density, whereby high bone density protects against further joint space narrowing in knees with features of structural OA but increases the risk of developing new-onset early osteophytes.24

The risk factors associated with the onset of pain per se introduce a distinct category of biopsychosocial mediators in OA, which include genetic predisposition, prior experience of painful conditions, expectation of pain, current mood, coping strategies, catastrophizing and sociocultural environment.25

It is likely that the risk of OA and its progression in any individual depends on the complex interaction between these systemic, local and pain susceptibility risk factors.

Discordance between radiographic osteoarthritis and pain

Traditionally, much emphasis has been placed on the study of radiographic features of OA. For example, longer-term studies of the progression of OA have tended to focus on radiographic rather than clinical features.24 Consistent with this is the fact that the presence of features of radiographic OA remains an important component of the decision-making process in the context of patient care, even in the context of primary care.26

The discrepancy between the presence of radiographic OA and symptoms, particularly in the earlier stages of the disease, is now recognized. A systematic review revealed that the proportion of those with knee pain found to have radiographic OA ranged from 15% to 76%, and, among those with radiographic knee OA, the proportion with pain ranged from 15% to 81%.27 Three main factors were proposed as possible explanations for this variation.27 First, the number and specific views of the radiographs used may be inadequate to detect the structural changes present. This aspect has been further investigated by using more sensitive techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which can detect abnormalities within other tissue structures including subchondral bone marrow lesions, meniscal damage and the presence of synovitis and effusion.28 The evidence obtained so far does not convincingly support the use of MRI in routine clinical practice and, at present, MRI is no better than radiography in terms of discriminating between those with and without pain.29 The second factor described relates to the fact that the way in which pain is defined and assessed has a huge potential impact on the link seen with radiographic disease (see ‘Assessing pain in osteoarthritis’). Third, it has been suggested that characteristics of the population, including age, sex and ethnicity, have an impact on the relationship between structural and symptomatic OA.

Neural processing and the plasticity of pain sensitivity have also been investigated as potential explanations for the observed discord between structural and symptomatic OA.30,31 To date, this work has suggested that central sensitization (see ‘Assessing pain in osteoarthritis’) may account for the high pain reports of those without moderate to severe forms of the structural disease.31

Assessing pain in osteoarthritis

There are a multitude of methods for assessing and recording musculoskeletal pain.3240 Despite the fact that most patients seek medical input because of pain, quantitative measures of pain are not necessarily routinely used in clinical practice and are usually limited to the visual analogue scale (VAS) or other similarly quick assessment methods.36

Pain is composed of many different qualities, which a simple VAS or other quantitative measure of overall pain severity will not capture. Qualitative work has been conducted to identify potentially important pain characteristics experienced by patients with OA, which can then be further investigated in a more quantitative manner.4144

Temporal patterns of pain

One of the themes emerging from previous qualitative work is that patients with hip and knee OA describe two temporally distinct patterns of pain. Patients can experience a constant aching or background pain alongside a more intermittent but more severe and disruptive form of pain.43 This discovery was then used to develop a tailor-made questionnaire: the Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain.45 This new measurement tool, which by definition focuses on pain qualities that are important to patients, may be used to provide a more meaningful assessment of response to therapies.4648

The fluctuation of pain also has an impact on other methods used to measure pain, as severity will vary according to when and how this information is captured. A number of studies have demonstrated that pain severity fluctuates over the course of days, weeks and years.4951 It is particularly important to be aware of this when designing studies to measure the effectiveness of a treatment intervention. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the consistency or temporal pattern of pain in itself may be associated with different factors and in itself help to predict outcome.5052 For example, a previous longitudinal study of patients with, or at high risk of suffering from, knee OA showed that consistent knee pain was associated with a higher risk of needing total knee replacement surgery, independent of knee pain severity.51

Neuropathic features of pain

Qualitative focus group work has also identified a subset of patients with knee OA who use neuropathic pain descriptors to describe their pain.44 This led to the use of the PainDETECT Questionnaire (PD-Q)53 in its original54 and modified form (mPD-Q)55 to demonstrate that approximately 20% of patients with OA of the knee describe characteristics suggestive of neuropathic pain (Figure 2). The presence of neuropathic pain on the mPD-Q and PD-Q has also been shown to be significantly associated with neuropathic features suggested by quantitative sensory testing (QST).56,57 Neuroimaging has also further validated these findings by showing that, in patients with hip OA, PD-Q score is significantly associated with periaqueductal grey activation on stimulation with pinprick in the area of referred pain.58 The PD-Q has also been applied in the assessment of postoperative pain, and it was found that 6% of patients with ongoing pain had features of neuropathic pain.59 The next step is to investigate whether or not the presence of this quality can predict response to treatment, or help to stratify treatment strategies.

FIGURE 2

Qualities of pain at the knee reported by patients awaiting knee replacement surgery (n = 45) and captured using the PainDETECT Questionnaire. Burning, burning sensation; Electric, sudden pain attacks like electric shocks; Hot/Cold, cold or heat which is painful; Light, light touching which is painful; Numb, numbness; Pressure, slight pressure triggers pain; Prickle, tingling or prickling sensation.

7-2-14-fig2.jpg

Pain localization and interindividual variability

The anatomical localization of pain has also been studied, and localized, and regional and diffuse pain patterns have been identified, each one associated with different risk factors.60,61 Further investigation is needed to assess whether or not this method of subgrouping patients will be useful in predicting the natural history of symptoms and response to therapies.

The impact of interindividual variability in pain responses has been previously reviewed, and the effect of factors such as sex, ethnicity and sleep disturbance should also be considered when assessing pain experienced by patients with OA.42,62

Mechanisms of pain in osteoarthritis

The precise mechanisms of pain in OA are not fully understood, and the sources of pain in OA have been the subject of frequent review in the literature.28,6369 It is now widely accepted that pain is likely to be multifactorial in nature and that it should be considered in the framework of a biopsychosocial model, including a contribution from peripheral structural abnormalities within the joint at one end of the spectrum through to centrally mediated sensitivity and mood at the other.

Intra-articular structures

From a structural joint perspective, the key components in knee OA at present are the articular cartilage, subchondral bone and the presence of synovitis or effusion.28 Although articular cartilage is aneural and, therefore, unable to directly generate pain, it is proposed that the destruction of cartilage releases factors that may result in synovitis or increased intraosseous pressure, thereby generating pain via a range of secondary mechanisms.28 Currently it is thought that the finding that best correlates with the incidence and severity of pain is the presence of bone marrow lesions in the subchondral bone. Bone marrow lesions arise as a result of bone remodelling and histologically show features of fibrosis and microfractures. Although the literature is conflicting, the overall consensus is that these lesions are related to pain.28 Synovitis and effusion are frequently present in OA and correlate with pain.28 This is supported by the fact that intra-articular corticosteroid injections are recommended for short-term pain relief in the recent Osteoarthritis Research Society International guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee OA.70

Neural modulation

The response of the nervous system to the stimuli resulting from structural damage within the joint, at both a peripheral and central level, is an important component in the perception of pain in OA.67,71 Nociceptors within the joint are responsible for the transduction of local stimuli. Tissue damage within the joint causes the release of factors that stimulate nociceptors, resulting in pain. These factors are also capable of downstream regulation of the sensitivity to subsequent stimuli. When this leads to an exaggerated response, it is termed peripheral sensitization. This can cause a normally pain-free stimulus, such as walking, to become painful and has been observed in patients with OA of the hand.72

In parallel with peripheral sensitization, similar changes are seen in the central nervous system, known as central sensitization. Evidence for the role of abnormal centrally mediated pain processing in OA arises from a combination of animal studies,73,74 symptom-based assessment,44,54,55 QST7583 and neuroimaging research.58,84,85 At the level of the neuron, central sensitization results in an increased receptive field, increased responsiveness to a previously recognized stimulus as well as altered responsiveness such that low-threshold stimuli begin to evoke a response.86 Clinically, these changes can manifest as secondary hyperalgesia (increased pain from a stimulus, distant to the primary site of injury, that normally causes pain) and allodynia (pain due to a stimulus that does not normally evoke pain),87 referred pain (pain felt remote to the tissue being stimulated, usually in a segmental distribution)88 and spreading sensitization.89 Many of these features have been documented in pain caused by OA.

Genetics

The contribution of genetic susceptibility in OA is potentially broad. Genetic predisposition may be used to identify risks for the development of OA as well as the outcome at multiple stages of the disease, varying from pain sensitivity to susceptibility to periprosthetic osteolysis following total hip replacement.90 There is evidence to support the genetic component of both structural changes in OA91 as well as the development of pain.92,93 The additional contribution of genetic profiling beyond basic structural information is not yet clear94 but gene therapy, using local intra-articular delivery in particular, is an exciting and expanding area to be included in future potential OA therapeutics.9597

Overall, there is likely to be an important interplay between the structural changes shown in OA and the way these changes are relayed by the nervous system, resulting in pain. It is important to recognize the dynamic nature of pain perception, moving away from the traditional model of a hard-wired system for relaying information about peripherally presented noxious stimuli.98

Management of osteoarthritis

A huge number of treatment options are available for the management of OA, with several practice guidelines in place.70,99,100 The current options can be considered to fall into the categories of non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical treatments.

Non-pharmacological treatments

A holistic approach to the assessment and subsequent management is the core concept of current treatment strategies in OA.1,99 Comprehensive assessment of patients and the impact of their condition on day-to-day life should be carried out, including physical status, activities of daily living, participation, mood, health education needs, health beliefs and the motivation for self-management.1,99 This information should then be used to derive an individualized treatment package, comprising a combination of treatment strategies rather than a single intervention.99

The three main themes of non-pharmacological therapy in OA are patient education and self-management, weight loss and exercise, and assistive devices, braces and taping. Most guidelines include moderate to strong recommendations for patient education and self-management, with regular contact to promote self-care being a common theme. In general, the recommendations advise low-impact land or water-based aerobic exercise, particularly for hip and knee OA, although the benefit in cases of hand OA is less clear. Many guidelines strongly recommend weight loss in those with hip or knee OA who are also overweight. Some groups have also suggested the addition of manual therapy, which includes massage and joint mobilization/manipulation and exercise, but manual therapy alone has not been recommended. Although walking aids and other assistive devices to improve activities of daily living are generally recommended, there is a lack of consensus on the use of braces and taping.100

Pharmacological treatments

First-line pharmacological therapy should comprise paracetamol (acetaminophen). However, recent evidence has suggested associated adverse effects including gastrointestinal adverse events and multiorgan failure, especially associated with prolonged use and, therefore, conservative dosing and treatment duration are recommended.70,100

Second-line therapy includes non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical or oral, and topical capsaicin. The use of NSAIDs has to be carefully balanced against the risk of cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and renal disease, and appropriate NSAID selection and use of proton pump inhibitors, combined with restricted does and treatment duration, are compulsory for patient safety.70,100

Further pharmacological options include opioids such as tramadol, but the evidence suggests a small to moderate effect size only, with many patients withdrawing from treatment because of adverse events.70,100 Glucosamine and chondroitin therapy has received much attention in the past, but current guidelines have deemed these agents as not appropriate for structural disease modification and of uncertain benefit in symptom relief.70

Intra-articular therapy is also an important component of the treatment armamentarium, with corticosteroids being recommended for hip and knee OA.70,100 The guidance on the use of intra-articular corticosteroids in cases of OA of the hand is conflicting.101,102 The use of hyaluronic acid is controversial, with conflicting evidence making it difficult for definitive recommendations to be made.70,100

Potential future pharmacological treatments

Despite the number of pharmacological agents available, the high frequency of medication change among patients suggests a lack of long-term efficacy and tolerability of current therapies.103 Targeted treatment strategies are currently being developed with preliminary evidence of success.

Treatments targeting inflammation are currently under investigation, with preliminary evidence suggesting a positive effect of methotrexate in knee OA104 and anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in OA of the hand.105

Bone may also be a useful target in OA. There is evidence that bisphosphonates can reduce pain severity in OA106 and that strontium can reduce structural progression with a clinically meaningful effect on symptoms in OA of the knee.107,108

A final future target is nerve growth factor, which is increased in the synovial fluid of patients with OA.109 Tanezumab, a humanized immunoglobulin G2 monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has been shown to reduce joint pain and improve function in patients with hip and knee OA.110,111 The investigation of this treatment in OA was temporarily placed on hold owing to concerns regarding accelerated joint destruction and need for arthroplasty, but further study of this target has now been sanctioned.112

Surgical treatments

Patients with moderate to severe hip or knee OA who are not gaining sufficient benefit from non-surgical measures should be considered for joint replacement surgery (Figure 3).100,113

FIGURE 3

Anteroposterior weight-bearing radiograph of knee after total knee replacement surgery.

7-2-14-fig3.jpg

Traditionally, the success of joint arthroplasty has been judged based on measures of technical success, such as revision rates and the frequency of loosening around the prosthesis.114 The development of the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores, designed to measure patient perceptions of response to treatment, has led the way towards further emphasis on patient-reported outcome measures.115,116 This change in focus has revealed that approximately 20% of patients experience ongoing long-term pain after knee arthroplasty.117 The risk factors for a poor outcome remain unclear, with numerous possible determinants.114 The most consistent factors in the literature to date are being a young woman and having experienced worse preoperative pain severity.118120 These features explain only a small proportion of the variation in outcome postoperatively114 and the predictive capability of other features, such as preoperative sensitivity to pain, is being explored with some preliminary success.121124

It is not easy to ascertain the optimal timing of surgical intervention or to identify who should be considered for surgery.114,125127 There is currently significant variation in the patterns of referral for, and provision of, surgery, and women are less likely to be recommended for surgery than men.114,128,129 The need for shared decision-making between patients and practitioners in order to narrow this discord has been highlighted, and strategies to facilitate this process are being developed.130

Phenotypes in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a heterogeneous disease with variation in clinical features, aetiopathology and response to treatments. It is recognized that tailored patient therapy, which is called for in many of the current practice guidelines,1,70,99 is needed in order to optimize therapeutic effects, but the methodology for identifying robust clinically meaningful phenotypes is not well defined.131

A phenotype describes an individual’s set of detectable characteristics as a result of the interplay between the genotype and environment.132 Two main approaches to defining a phenotype in OA have been suggested. The first method uses a hypothesis-free, data-driven method, such as cluster analysis or principal component analysis, to statistically derive significant subgroups within a population (Figure 4).133135 This method depends entirely on the nature of the data included in the analysis and the threshold set for accepting a separate phenotype. For example, in OA of the knee, this method has been used to derive five phenotypes based on differing levels of joint disease, muscle strength, obesity and depression.134 Equally, a different study used the same approach to define three phenotypes based on varying degrees of pain, fatigue, sleep disturbance and low mood.135 The second method starts with the observation that different clinical patterns of disease or underlying biological mechanisms exist and strives to prove this by demonstrating differences in baseline clinical characteristics or natural history of the disease.133 This approach has been used in OA of the hand to confirm the presence of the following subsets of hand OA: OA at the thumb base (22.4% of patients), nodal interphalangeal joint OA (15.5%), generalized hand OA (10.4%), non-nodal interphalangeal joint OA (4.9%) and erosive OA (1.0%).136

FIGURE 4

Example of results from a data-driven method to identify subgroups of patients with OA. Cluster analysis conducted using hierarchical agglomerative cluster analysis on 45 patients with knee OA who were awaiting knee replacement surgery. L22 dissimilarity measure is the Euclidean distance, which is the measure of dissimilarity between sets of observations used to decide which clusters should be combined. The data can be divided using the horizontal red line to reveal three subgroups that are statistically too dissimilar to group any further.

7-2-14-fig4.jpg

The ultimate challenge once a novel phenotype has been proposed is to validate it and prove its use in the clinical setting. Although clear consensus has not been reached, it has been proposed that validation should involve providing a relation to the response to treatment or prevention strategy.133 As one of the reasons for searching for new phenotypes is to aid the development of novel therapies, this strategy is at risk of being circular and restrictive and supplementary methods are required.

Summary

Osteoarthritis is a common and debilitating disease worldwide. Despite this, the underlying mechanisms of the disease are not fully understood and the discordance between structural severity and symptomatic disease cannot be completely explained. By addressing the need for a comprehensive and holistic approach to the assessment and management of patients with OA, using a shared decision-making model, it is anticipated that the utilization of appropriate treatment strategies will improve. Furthermore, investigation of the underlying causes of the disease with the acknowledgement of its heterogeneity is likely to result in the identification of clinically meaningful phenotypes of patients that will also guide therapy.

References

1. 

National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions. Osteoarthritis: National Clinical Guideline for Care and Management in Adults. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2008.

2. 

Nuesch E, Dieppe P, Reichenbach S, Williams S, Iff S, Juni P. All cause and disease specific mortality in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis: population based cohort study. BMJ 2011; 342:d1165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1165

3. 

Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16:494–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.16.4.494

4. 

Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, et al. Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum 1986; 29:1039–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.1780290816

5. 

Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hip. Arthritis Rheum 1991; 34:505–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.1780340502

6. 

Altman R, Alarcon G, Appelrouth D, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hand. Arthritis Rheum 1990; 33:1601–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.1780331101

7. 

Altman RD. Criteria for classification of clinical osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl 1991; 27:10–12.

8. 

Lane NE, Brandt K, Hawker G, et al. OARSI-FDA initiative: defining the disease state of osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Res Soc 2011; 19:478–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.09.013

9. 

Peat G, Greig J, Wood L, Wilkie R, Thomas E, Croft P. Diagnostic discordance: we cannot agree when to call knee pain ‘osteoarthritis’. Fam Pract 2005; 22:96–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmh702

10. 

Cooper C, Adachi JD, Bardin T, et al. How to define responders in osteoarthritis. Curr Med Res Opin 2013; 29:719–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/03007995.2013.792793

11. 

Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study [published online ahead of print February 2014]. Ann Rheum Dis 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204763

12. 

Nguyen US, Zhang Y, Zhu Y, Niu J, Zhang B, Felson DT. Increasing prevalence of knee pain and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: survey and cohort data. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:725–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-11-201112060-00004

13. 

Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg 2007; 89:780–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.F.00222

14. 

Sanders C, Donovan JL, Dieppe PA. Unmet need for joint replacement: a qualitative investigation of barriers to treatment among individuals with severe pain and disability of the hip and knee. Rheumatology 2004; 43:353–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh044

15. 

Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Dieppe PA, et al. Osteoarthritis: new insights. Part 1: the disease and its risk factors. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:635–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-133-8-200010170-00016

16. 

Wilkie R, Peat G, Thomas E, Croft P. Factors associated with participation restriction in community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and over. Qual Life Res 2007; 16:1147–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9221-5

17. 

Bookwala J, Harralson TL, Parmelee PA. Effects of pain on functioning and well-being in older adults with osteoarthritis of the knee. Psychol Aging 2003; 18:844–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.4.844

18. 

Jinks C, Jordan K, Croft P. Osteoarthritis as a public health problem: the impact of developing knee pain on physical function in adults living in the community: (KNEST 3). Rheumatology 2007; 46:877–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kem013

19. 

Jordan K, Jinks C, Croft P. A prospective study of the consulting behaviour of older people with knee pain. Br J Gen Prac 2006; 56:269–76.

20. 

Ravi B, Croxford R, Austin PC, et al. The relation between total joint arthroplasty and risk for serious cardiovascular events in patients with moderate-severe osteoarthritis: propensity score matched landmark analysis. BMJ 2013; 347:f6187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6187

21. 

Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Arden NK. Incidence and risk factors for clinically diagnosed knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis: influences of age, gender and osteoarthritis affecting other joints [published online ahead of print June 2013]. Ann Rheum Dis 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203355

22. 

Swift A. Osteoarthritis 1: Physiology, risk factors and causes of pain. Nurs Times 2012; 108:12–15.

23. 

Yucesoy B, Charles LE, Baker B, Burchfiel CM. Occupational and genetic risk factors for osteoarthritis: A review [published online ahead of print September 2013]. Work 2013.

24. 

Arden N, Nevitt MC. Osteoarthritis: epidemiology. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2006; 20:3–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.berh.2005.09.007

25. 

Neogi T. The epidemiology and impact of pain in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Res Soc 2013; 21:1145–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.03.018

26. 

Bedson J, Jordan K, Croft P. How do GPs use x rays to manage chronic knee pain in the elderly? A case study. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62:450–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.62.5.450

27. 

Bedson J, Croft PR. The discordance between clinical and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic search and summary of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9:116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-116

28. 

Hunter DJ, Guermazi A, Roemer F, Zhang Y, Neogi T. Structural correlates of pain in joints with osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Res Soc 2013; 21:1170–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.017

29. 

Guermazi A, Niu J, Hayashi D, et al. Prevalence of abnormalities in knees detected by MRI in adults without knee osteoarthritis: population based observational study (Framingham Osteoarthritis Study). BMJ 2012; 345:e5339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e5339

30. 

McDougall JJ, Andruski B, Schuelert N, Hallgrimsson B, Matyas JR. Unravelling the relationship between age, nociception and joint destruction in naturally occurring osteoarthritis of Dunkin Hartley guinea pigs. Pain 2009; 141:222–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2008.10.013

31. 

Finan PH, Buenaver LF, Bounds SC, et al. Quantitative sensory tests of central sensitization are associated with discordance between pain and radiographic severity in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 65:363–72.

32. 

Allen KD, Coffman CJ, Golightly YM, Stechuchak KM, Voils CI, Keefe FJ. Comparison of pain measures among patients with osteoarthritis. J Pain 2010; 11:522–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2009.09.007

33. 

Averbuch M, Katzper M. Assessment of visual analog versus categorical scale for measurement of osteoarthritis pain. J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 44:368–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0091270004263995

34. 

Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1989; 18(Suppl. 2):14–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(89)90010-3

35. 

Litcher-Kelly L, Martino SA, Broderick JE, Stone AA. A systematic review of measures used to assess chronic musculoskeletal pain in clinical and randomized controlled clinical trials. J Pain 2007; 8:906–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpain.2007.06.009

36. 

Neugebauer V, Han JS, Adwanikar H, Fu Y, Ji G. Techniques for assessing knee joint pain in arthritis. Mol Pain 2007; 3:8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8069-3-8

37. 

Sokka T. Assessment of pain in patients with rheumatic diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2003; 17:427–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1521-6942(03)00020-2

38. 

Tsai PF, Richards K. Using an osteoarthritis-specific pain measure in elders with cognitive impairment: a pilot study. J Nurs Manag 2006; 14:90–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00560.x

39. 

Tsai PF, Tak S. Disease-specific pain measures for osteoarthritis of the knee or hip. Geriatr Nurs 2003; 24:106–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mgn.2003.24

40. 

Wylde V, Wells V, Dixon S, Gooberman-Hill R. The colour of pain: can patients use colour to describe osteoarthritis pain? Musculoskel Care 2013; 12:34–46.

41. 

Gooberman-Hill R, Woolhead G, Mackichan F, Ayis S, Williams S, Dieppe P. Assessing chronic joint pain: lessons from a focus group study. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57:666–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.22681

42. 

Hawker GA. Experiencing painful osteoarthritis: what have we learned from listening? Curr Opin Rheumatol 2009; 21:507–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/BOR.0b013e32832e99d7

43. 

Hawker GA, Stewart L, French MR, et al. Understanding the pain experience in hip and knee osteoarthritis – an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16:415–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.017

44. 

Hochman JR, French MR, Bermingham SL, Hawker GA. The nerve of osteoarthritis pain. Arthritis Care Res 2010; 62:1019–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr.20142

45. 

Hawker GA, Davis AM, French MR, et al. Development and preliminary psychometric testing of a new OA pain measure – an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16:409–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.015

46. 

Davis AM, Lohmander LS, Wong R, Venkataramanan V, Hawker GA. Evaluating the responsiveness of the ICOAP following hip or knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18:1043–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.04.013

47. 

Goncalves RS, Meireles AC, Gil JN, Cavalheiro LM, Rosado JO, Cabri J. Responsiveness of intermittent and constant osteoarthritis pain (ICOAP) after physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20:1116–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.06.013

48. 

Risser RC, Hochberg MC, Gaynor PJ, D’Souza DN, Frakes EP. Responsiveness of the Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP) scale in a trial of duloxetine for treatment of osteoarthritis knee pain. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21:691–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.02.007

49. 

Allen KD, Coffman CJ, Golightly YM, Stechuchak KM, Keefe FJ. Daily pain variations among patients with hand, hip, and knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17:1275–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.03.021

50. 

Soni A, Kiran A, Hart DJ, et al. Prevalence of reported knee pain over twelve years in a community-based cohort. Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64:1145–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.33434

51. 

Wise BL, Felson DT, Clancy M, et al. Consistency of knee pain and risk of knee replacement: the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study. J Rheumatol 2011; 38:1390–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.100743

52. 

Neogi T, Nevitt MC, Yang M, Curtis JR, Torner J, Felson DT. Consistency of knee pain: correlates and association with function. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18:1250–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.08.001

53. 

Freynhagen R, Baron R, Gockel U, Tolle TR. painDETECT: a new screening questionnaire to identify neuropathic components in patients with back pain. Curr Med Res Opin 2006; 22:1911–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1185/030079906X132488

54. 

Ohtori S, Orita S, Yamashita M, et al. Existence of a neuropathic pain component in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Yonsei Med J 2012; 53:801–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2012.53.4.801

55. 

Hochman JR, Gagliese L, Davis AM, Hawker GA. Neuropathic pain symptoms in a community knee OA cohort. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19:647–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2011.03.007

56. 

Hochman JR, Davis AM, Elkayam J, Gagliese L, Hawker GA. Neuropathic pain symptoms on the modified painDETECT correlate with signs of central sensitization in knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21:1236–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.06.023

57. 

Soni A, Batra RN, Gwilym SE, et al. Neuropathic features of joint pain: a community-based study. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65:1942–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.37962

58. 

Gwilym SE, Keltner JR, Warnaby CE, et al. Psychophysical and functional imaging evidence supporting the presence of central sensitization in a cohort of osteoarthritis patients. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61:1226–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.24837

59. 

Wylde V, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. Persistent pain after joint replacement: prevalence, sensory qualities, and postoperative determinants. Pain 2011; 152:566–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.11.023

60. 

Thompson LR, Boudreau R, Hannon MJ, et al. The knee pain map: reliability of a method to identify knee pain location and pattern. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61:725–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.24543

61. 

Thompson LR, Boudreau R, Newman AB, et al. The association of osteoarthritis risk factors with localized, regional and diffuse knee pain. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18:1244–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2010.05.014

62. 

Fillingim RB. Individual differences in pain responses. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2005; 7:342–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11926-005-0018-7

63. 

Bradley LA. Recent approaches to understanding osteoarthritis pain. J Rheumatol Suppl 2004; 70:54–60.

64. 

Dieppe PA, Lohmander LS. Pathogenesis and management of pain in osteoarthritis. Lancet 2005; 365:965–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71086-2

65. 

Felson DT. The sources of pain in knee osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2005; 17:624–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.bor.0000172800.49120.97

66. 

Gwilym SE, Pollard TC, Carr AJ. Understanding pain in osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90:280–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.90B3.20167

67. 

Kidd B. Mechanisms of pain in osteoarthritis. Hss J 2012; 8:26–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11420-011-9263-7

68. 

Mease PJ, Hanna S, Frakes EP, Altman RD. Pain mechanisms in osteoarthritis: understanding the role of central pain and current approaches to its treatment. J Rheumatol 2011; 38:1546–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.100759

69. 

Phillips K, Clauw DJ. Central pain mechanisms in the rheumatic diseases: future directions. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65:291–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.37739

70. 

McAlindon TE, Bannuru RR, Sullivan MC, et al. OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22:363–88.

71. 

Sofat N, Ejindu V, Kiely P. What makes osteoarthritis painful? The evidence for local and central pain processing. Rheumatology 2011; 50:2157–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ker283

72. 

Wajed J, Ejindu V, Heron C, Hermansson M, Kiely P, Sofat N. Quantitative sensory testing in painful hand osteoarthritis demonstrates features of peripheral sensitisation. Int J Rheumatol 2012; 2012:703138.

73. 

Thakur M, Rahman W, Hobbs C, Dickenson AH, Bennett DL. Characterisation of a peripheral neuropathic component of the rat monoiodoacetate model of osteoarthritis. PLOS ONE 2012; 7:e33730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0033730

74. 

Orita S, Ishikawa T, Miyagi M, et al. Pain-related sensory innervation in monoiodoacetate-induced osteoarthritis in rat knees that gradually develops neuronal injury in addition to inflammatory pain. BMC Musculoskel Disord 2011; 12:134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-12-134

75. 

Hendiani JA, Westlund KN, Lawand N, Goel N, Lisse J, McNearney T. Mechanical sensation and pain thresholds in patients with chronic arthropathies. J Pain 2003; 4:203–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1526-5900(03)00557-1

76. 

Nikolajsen L, Kristensen AD, Thillemann TM, et al. Pain and somatosensory findings in patients 3 years after total hip arthroplasty. Eur J Pain 2008; 13:576–81.

77. 

Ordeberg G. Characterization of joint pain in human OA. Novartis Found Symp 2004; 260:105–15; discussion 15–21, 277–9.

78. 

Wylde V, Palmer S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. Somatosensory abnormalities in knee OA. Rheumatology 2011; 51:535–43.

79. 

Arendt-Nielsen L, Nie H, Laursen MB, et al. Sensitization in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis. Pain 2010; 149:573–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.04.003

80. 

Bajaj P, Graven-Nielsen T, Arendt-Nielsen L. Osteoarthritis and its association with muscle hyperalgesia: an experimental controlled study. Pain 2001; 93:107–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(01)00300-1

81. 

Kosek E, Ordeberg G. Lack of pressure pain modulation by heterotopic noxious conditioning stimulation in patients with painful osteoarthritis before, but not following, surgical pain relief. Pain 2000; 88:69–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(00)00310-9

82. 

Kosek E, Ordeberg G. Abnormalities of somatosensory perception in patients with painful osteoarthritis normalize following successful treatment. Eur J Pain 2000; 4:229–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/eujp.2000.0175

83. 

Suokas AK, Walsh DA, McWilliams DF, et al. Quantitative sensory testing in painful osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20:1075–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2012.06.009

84. 

Baliki MN, Geha PY, Jabakhanji R, Harden N, Schnitzer TJ, Apkarian AV. A preliminary fMRI study of analgesic treatment in chronic back pain and knee osteoarthritis. Mol Pain 2008; 4:47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1744-8069-4-47

85. 

Parks EL, Geha PY, Baliki MN, Katz J, Schnitzer TJ, Apkarian AV. Brain activity for chronic knee osteoarthritis: dissociating evoked pain from spontaneous pain. Eur J Pain 2011; 15:843.e1–14.

86. 

Cook AJ, Woolf CJ, Wall PD, McMahon SB. Dynamic receptive field plasticity in rat spinal cord dorsal horn following C-primary afferent input. Nature 1987; 325:151–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/325151a0

87. 

Torebjork HE, Lundberg LE, LaMotte RH. Central changes in processing of mechanoreceptive input in capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia in humans. J Physiol 1992; 448:765–80.

88. 

Treede RD, Meyer RA, Raja SN, Campbell JN. Peripheral and central mechanisms of cutaneous hyperalgesia. Prog Neurobiol 1992; 38:397–421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0301-0082(92)90027-C

89. 

Sang CN, Gracely RH, Max MB, Bennett GJ. Capsaicin-evoked mechanical allodynia and hyperalgesia cross nerve territories. Evidence for a central mechanism. Anesthesiology 1996; 85:491–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00000542-199609000-00007

90. 

Valdes AM, Spector TD. Genetic epidemiology of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol 2011; 7:23–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2010.191

91. 

Valdes AM, Doherty S, Muir KR, et al. Genetic contribution to radiographic severity in osteoarthritis of the knee. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71:1537–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-201382

92. 

Valdes AM, De Wilde G, Doherty SA, et al. The Ile585Val TRPV1 variant is involved in risk of painful knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70:1556–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2010.148122

93. 

Neogi T, Soni A, Doherty SA, et al. Contribution of the COMT Val158Met variant to symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73:315–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203836

94. 

Kerkhof HJ, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Arden NK, et al. Prediction model for knee osteoarthritis incidence, including clinical, genetic and biochemical risk factors[published online ahead of print August 2013]. Ann Rheum Dis 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203620

95. 

Campbell SE, Bennett D, Nasir L, Gault EA, Argyle DJ. Disease- and cell-type-specific transcriptional targeting of vectors for osteoarthritis gene therapy: further development of a clinical canine model. Rheumatology 2005; 44:735–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh590

96. 

Evans CH, Gouze JN, Gouze E, Robbins PD, Ghivizzani SC. Osteoarthritis gene therapy. Gene Ther 2004; 11:379–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3302196

97. 

Zhang DW, Yang QS, Zhu JY, Cao XR, Li LW, Zhu QS. Amelioration of osteoarthritis by intra-articular hyaluronan synthase 2 gene therapy. Med Hypotheses 2007; 69:1111–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.01.084

98. 

Woolf CJ. Central sensitization: implications for the diagnosis and treatment of pain. Pain 2011; 152(Suppl. 3):S2–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2010.09.030

99. 

Fernandes L, Hagen KB, Bijlsma JW, et al. EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72:1125–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202745

100. 

Nelson AE, Allen KD, Golightly YM, Goode AP, Jordan JM. A systematic review of recommendations and guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis: The Chronic Osteoarthritis Management Initiative of the U.S. Bone and Joint Initiative. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2013; 43:701–12.

101. 

Manara M, Bortoluzzi A, Favero M, et al. Italian Society for Rheumatology recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis. Reumatismo 2013; 65:167–85.

102. 

Zhang W, Doherty M, Leeb BF, et al. EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis: report of a Task Force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2007; 66:377–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2006.062091

103. 

Kingsbury SR, Hensor EM, Walsh CA, Hochberg MC, Conaghan PG. How do people with knee osteoarthritis use osteoarthritis pain medications and does this change over time? Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis Res Ther 2013; 15:R106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar4286

104. 

Abou-Raya A, Abou-Raya S, Khadrawe T. Methotrexate in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: randomised placebo-controlled trial [published online ahead of print March 2014]. Ann Rheum Dis 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204856

105. 

Verbruggen G, Wittoek R, Vander Cruyssen B, Elewaut D. Tumour necrosis factor blockade for the treatment of erosive osteoarthritis of the interphalangeal finger joints: a double blind, randomised trial on structure modification. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71:891–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ard.2011.149849

106. 

Laslett LL, Kingsbury SR, Hensor EM, Bowes MA, Conaghan PG. Effect of bisphosphonate use in patients with symptomatic and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73:824–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202989

107. 

Reginster JY, Badurski J, Bellamy N, et al. Efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: results of a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72:179–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202231

108. 

Bruyere O, Reginster JY, Bellamy N, Chapurlat R, Richette P, Cooper C. Clinically meaningful effect of strontium ranelate on symptoms in knee osteoarthritis: a responder analysis [published online ahead of print March 2014]. Rheumatology 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keu018

109. 

Lane NE, Schnitzer TJ, Birbara CA, et al. Tanezumab for the treatment of pain from osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1521–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0901510

110. 

Lane NE, Schnitzer TJ, Birbara CA, et al. Tanezumab for the treatment of pain from osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2010; 363:1521–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0901510

111. 

Spierings EL, Fidelholtz J, Wolfram G, Smith MD, Brown MT, West CR. A phase III placebo- and oxycodone-controlled study of tanezumab in adults with osteoarthritis pain of the hip or knee. Pain 2013; 154:1603–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.04.035

112. 

Brown MT, Murphy FT, Radin DM, Davignon I, Smith MD, West CR. Tanezumab reduces osteoarthritic hip pain: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial. Arthritis Rheum 2013; 65:1795–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.37950

113. 

Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16:137–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.013

114. 

Dieppe P, Lim K, Lohmander S. Who should have knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis? Int J Rheum Dis 2011; 14:175–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-185X.2011.01611.x

115. 

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80:63–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859

116. 

Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89:1010–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424

117. 

Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open 2012; 2:e000435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000435

118. 

Singh JA, Lewallen DG. Predictors of pain medication use for arthroplasty pain after revision total knee arthroplasty [published online ahead of print January 2014]. Rheumatology 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/ket443

119. 

Singh JA, Lewallen DG. Predictors of use of pain medications for persistent knee pain after primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: a cohort study using an institutional joint registry. Arthritis Res Ther 2012; 14:R248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar4091

120. 

Singh JA, Gabriel S, Lewallen D. The impact of gender, age, and preoperative pain severity on pain after TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466:2717–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0399-9

121. 

Wylde V, Palmer S, Learmonth ID, Dieppe P. The association between pre-operative pain sensitisation and chronic pain after knee replacement: an exploratory study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21:1253–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.008

122. 

Werner MU, Mjobo HN, Nielsen PR, Rudin A. Prediction of postoperative pain: a systematic review of predictive experimental pain studies. Anesthesiology 2010; 112:1494–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181dcd5a0

123. 

Rakel BA, Blodgett NP, Bridget Zimmerman M, et al. Predictors of postoperative movement and resting pain following total knee replacement. Pain 2012; 153:2192–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2012.06.021

124. 

Lunn TH, Gaarn-Larsen L, Kehlet H. Prediction of postoperative pain by preoperative pain response to heat stimulation in total knee arthroplasty. Pain 2013; 154:1878–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2013.06.008

125. 

Wylde V, Dieppe P, Hewlett S, Learmonth ID. Total knee replacement: is it really an effective procedure for all? Knee 2007; 14:417–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2007.06.001

126. 

Woolhead GM, Donovan JL, Chard JA, Dieppe PA. Who should have priority for a knee joint replacement? Rheumatology 2002; 41:390–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/41.4.390

127. 

Kennedy LG, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Dieppe PA. When should we do knee replacements? Knee 2003; 10:161–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(02)00138-2

128. 

Wright JG, Hawker GA, Hudak PL, et al. Variability in physician opinions about the indications for knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26:569–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2010.04.028

129. 

Fraenkel L, Suter L, Weis L, Hawker GA. Variability in recommendations for total knee arthroplasty among rheumatologists and orthopedic surgeons. J Rheumatol 2014; 41:47–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.130762

130. 

Marrin K, Wood F, Firth J, et al. Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14:160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-160

131. 

Driban JB, Sitler MR, Barbe MF, Balasubramanian E. Is osteoarthritis a heterogeneous disease that can be stratified into subsets? Clin Rheumatol 2010; 29:123–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10067-009-1301-1

132. 

OED Online. URL: www.oed.com/view/Entry/142359?rskey=f42Dzy&result=1 (accessed 7 July 2014).

133. 

Felson DT. Identifying different osteoarthritis phenotypes through epidemiology. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010; 18:601–4.

134. 

Knoop J, van der Leeden M, Thorstensson CA, et al. Identification of phenotypes with different clinical outcomes in knee osteoarthritis: data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63:1535–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acr.20571

135. 

Murphy SL, Lyden AK, Phillips K, Clauw DJ, Williams DA. Subgroups of older adults with osteoarthritis based upon differing comorbid symptom presentations and potential underlying pain mechanisms. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13:R135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/ar3449

136. 

Marshall M, Peat G, Nicholls E, van der Windt D, Myers H, Dziedzic K. Subsets of symptomatic hand osteoarthritis in community-dwelling older adults in the United Kingdom: prevalence, inter-relationships, risk factor profiles and clinical characteristics at baseline and 3-years. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013; 21:1674–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.08.004





Add comment 





Home  Editorial Board  Search  Current Issue  Archive Issues  Announcements  Aims & Scope  About the Journal  How to Submit  Contact Us
Find out how to become a part of the HMJ  |   CLICK HERE >>
© Copyright 2012 - 2013 HMJ - HAMDAN Medical Journal. All Rights Reserved         Website Developed By Cedar Solutions INDIA