The presence of erosive joints is a strong predictor of radiological progression in hand osteoarthritis: results of a 2-year prospective follow-up of the Liège Hand Osteoarthritis Cohort (LIHOC).
Disease progression
Erosive
Hand
Osteoarthritis
Journal
Arthritis research & therapy
ISSN: 1478-6362
Titre abrégé: Arthritis Res Ther
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101154438
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 01 2021
06 01 2021
Historique:
received:
03
05
2020
accepted:
09
12
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study measured the magnitude and determinants of clinical and radiological progression in patients with hand osteoarthritis (HOA) over a 2-year prospective follow-up to gain a greater understanding of the disease time course. Two hundred three consecutive outpatients diagnosed with HOA were followed for 2 years (183 women, median age 69 years). Pain and function were evaluated using the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), and clinical examination recorded the number of painful/swollen joints and nodes. X-rays were scored using Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) and Verbruggen-Veys scales. Clinical progression was defined as deterioration in AUSCAN ≥ the minimal clinically important difference. Radiographic progression was defined as (a) one new erosive/remodeled joint, (b) progression of ≥ one anatomical stage in one joint, or (c) change in KL total score above the smallest detectable difference. Logistic regression was performed to determine whether patient characteristics influenced clinical and radiological progression. After 2 years, all radiographic scores deteriorated significantly in the study population (p < 0.05), and the number of proximal and distal interphalangeal nodes was significantly higher (p < 0.01). The AUSCAN, number of painful joints at rest or at pressure, number of swollen joints, and pain measure on a visual analog scale remained unchanged. At the individual level, the number of patients with clinically meaningful progression ranged from 25 to 42% (clinical progression) and from 22 to 76% (radiological progression). The only significant predictor of worsening of total AUSCAN was AUSCAN pain subscale < 74.5 (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 [1.01, 1.03]; p < 0.01). The presence of ≥ four swollen joints (OR 2.78 [1.21, 6.39]; p = 0.02) and erosive osteoarthritis (OR 13.23 [5.07, 34.56]; p < 0.01) at baseline predicted a new erosive joint. A meaningful change in KL was more frequent with painful joints at baseline (OR 3.43 [1.68, 7.01]; p < 0.01). Evidence of radiological progression over 2 years was observed in patients with HOA in the LIHOC population even without clinical worsening of disease. For individual patients, baseline pain level is predictive for clinical progression and the presence of erosive or swollen joints are significant predictors of radiological progression.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
This study measured the magnitude and determinants of clinical and radiological progression in patients with hand osteoarthritis (HOA) over a 2-year prospective follow-up to gain a greater understanding of the disease time course.
METHODS
Two hundred three consecutive outpatients diagnosed with HOA were followed for 2 years (183 women, median age 69 years). Pain and function were evaluated using the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), and clinical examination recorded the number of painful/swollen joints and nodes. X-rays were scored using Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) and Verbruggen-Veys scales. Clinical progression was defined as deterioration in AUSCAN ≥ the minimal clinically important difference. Radiographic progression was defined as (a) one new erosive/remodeled joint, (b) progression of ≥ one anatomical stage in one joint, or (c) change in KL total score above the smallest detectable difference. Logistic regression was performed to determine whether patient characteristics influenced clinical and radiological progression.
RESULTS
After 2 years, all radiographic scores deteriorated significantly in the study population (p < 0.05), and the number of proximal and distal interphalangeal nodes was significantly higher (p < 0.01). The AUSCAN, number of painful joints at rest or at pressure, number of swollen joints, and pain measure on a visual analog scale remained unchanged. At the individual level, the number of patients with clinically meaningful progression ranged from 25 to 42% (clinical progression) and from 22 to 76% (radiological progression). The only significant predictor of worsening of total AUSCAN was AUSCAN pain subscale < 74.5 (odds ratio [OR] 1.02 [1.01, 1.03]; p < 0.01). The presence of ≥ four swollen joints (OR 2.78 [1.21, 6.39]; p = 0.02) and erosive osteoarthritis (OR 13.23 [5.07, 34.56]; p < 0.01) at baseline predicted a new erosive joint. A meaningful change in KL was more frequent with painful joints at baseline (OR 3.43 [1.68, 7.01]; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of radiological progression over 2 years was observed in patients with HOA in the LIHOC population even without clinical worsening of disease. For individual patients, baseline pain level is predictive for clinical progression and the presence of erosive or swollen joints are significant predictors of radiological progression.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33407767
doi: 10.1186/s13075-020-02390-x
pii: 10.1186/s13075-020-02390-x
pmc: PMC7788934
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12Références
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Sep;21(9):1191-8
pubmed: 23973130
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Jul;70(7):1039-1045
pubmed: 28973832
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011 Nov 22;8(1):22-31
pubmed: 22105244
Lancet. 2019 Apr 27;393(10182):1745-1759
pubmed: 31034380
RMD Open. 2017 Feb 15;3(1):e000344
pubmed: 28243467
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2014 Jul;10(7):437-41
pubmed: 24662640
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Jan;68(1):8-17
pubmed: 18250111
Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(9):646-56
pubmed: 14710506
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jan;70(1):68-73
pubmed: 20736393
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2017 Jan;29(1):79-85
pubmed: 27755180
Ann Rheum Dis. 2010 Oct;69(10):1784-8
pubmed: 20410068
J Rheumatol. 1997 Apr;24(4):799-802
pubmed: 9101522
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Sep;70(9):1581-6
pubmed: 21622766
Ann Rheum Dis. 2007 Apr;66(4):464-9
pubmed: 17107982
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002 Nov;10(11):863-9
pubmed: 12435331
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019 Oct;31(10):1351-1373
pubmed: 31376119
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 Dec;23(12):2129-2133
pubmed: 26093212
Scand J Rheumatol. 2019 Jan;48(1):52-63
pubmed: 29952684
Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2018 Nov;14(11):641-656
pubmed: 30305701
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015 Jul;67(7):972-80
pubmed: 25581339
Scand J Rheumatol. 2002;31(1):13-6
pubmed: 11922194
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2005 Nov;44(11):1452-5
pubmed: 16091397
Arthritis Rheum. 2005 May;52(5):1424-30
pubmed: 15880347
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011 Nov;19(11):1270-85
pubmed: 21907813
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2017 Oct;31(5):649-660
pubmed: 30509411
Ann Rheum Dis. 1957 Dec;16(4):494-502
pubmed: 13498604
Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017 Jun;69(6):1204-1212
pubmed: 28470947
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2020 Apr;32(4):547-560
pubmed: 32170710
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Aug;49(1):9-19
pubmed: 30712918
J Rheumatol. 2017 Nov;44(11):1659-1666
pubmed: 28916548
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Nov;64(11):1633-8
pubmed: 15829571
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009 Jul;17(7):856-63
pubmed: 19230857
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jul;70(7):1238-42
pubmed: 21474485
Aging Clin Exp Res. 2019 Aug;31(8):1049-1056
pubmed: 30903599
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002 Nov;10(11):855-62
pubmed: 12435330
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009 Mar;17(3):281-3
pubmed: 18977156
Arthritis Rheum. 1990 Nov;33(11):1601-10
pubmed: 2242058
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017 Feb;46(4):395-403
pubmed: 27692966
Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Mar;6(1):125-133
pubmed: 30725363
Arthritis Rheum. 1996 Feb;39(2):308-20
pubmed: 8849385
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016 Apr;24(4):647-54
pubmed: 26620088
Clin Rheumatol. 1992 Dec;11(4):486-91
pubmed: 1486737
Ann Rheum Dis. 2009 Aug;68(8):1260-4
pubmed: 18728047
Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Nov 30;17:346
pubmed: 26620999
Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2018 Aug;48(1):1-8
pubmed: 29287769