BACKGROUND:Colchicine has been suggested for osteoarthritis treatment, but evidence is contradictory. We aimed to investigate colchicine's efficacy and safety compared with placebo in people with hand osteoarthritis. METHODS:In this single-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial we recruited adults with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis and finger pain of at least 40 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale from an outpatient clinic in Denmark. The hand with the most severe finger pain at inclusion was the target hand. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 0·5 mg colchicine or placebo taken orally twice a day for 12 weeks, stratified by BMI (≥30 kg/m2), sex, and age (≥75 years). Participants, outcome assessors, and data analysts were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was change from baseline to week 12 in target hand finger pain, assessed on a 100 mm visual analogue scale with a pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 15 mm, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed at week 12 in the intention-to-treat population. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04601883, and with EudraCT, 2020-002803-20. FINDINGS:Between Jan 15, 2021, and March 3, 2022, 186 people were screened for eligibility, and 100 were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (n=50) or placebo (n=50). Participants had a mean age of 70·9 (SD 7·5) years, 69 (69%) of 100 were women and 31 (31%) were men. All participants completed the study. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in finger pain were -13·9 mm (SE 2·8) in the colchicine group and -13·5 mm (2·8) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference (colchicine vs placebo) of -0·4 mm (95% CI -7·6 to 6·7; p=0·90). In the colchicine group, there were 76 adverse events in 36 (72%) of 50 participants and one serious adverse advent (migraine attack leading to hospital admission). In the placebo group, there were 42 adverse events in 22 (44%) of 50 participants and two serious adverse events (cholecystitis and elevated alanine aminotransferase concentrations, in the same patient). INTERPRETATION:In people with painful hand osteoarthritis, treatment with 0·5 mg of colchicine twice day for 12 weeks did not effectively relieve pain, and treatment with colchicine was associated with more adverse events. FUNDING:The Oak Foundation, IMK Almene Fond, Minister Erna Hamilton's Scholarship for Science and Art, AP Moller and Wife Chastine McKinney Moller's Foundation for Medical Science Advancement, The Danish Medical Association, the Velux Foundation, Aase and Ejnar Danielsen's Foundation, and Director Emil C Hertz and Wife Inger Hertz's foundation.

Objective To explore the comparative effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 26 December 2021, for randomised trials of pharmacological interventions for people with hand OA. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias. We calculated the effect sizes for pain (standardised mean differences) using Bayesian random effects models for network meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. Based on a pre-specified protocol, we prospectively registered the study at PROSPERO, CRD42021215393. Results We included 72 trials with 7609 participants. 65 trials (n=5957) were eligible for the quantitative synthesis, investigating 29 pharmacological interventions. Oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and oral glucocorticoids’ NMA effect sizes were −0.18 (95% credible interval −0.36 to 0.02) and −0.54 (−0.83 to −0.24), respectively, compared with placebo, and the result was consistent when limiting evidence to the pairwise meta-analysis of trials without high risk of bias. Intra-articular hyaluronate, intra-articular glucocorticoids, hydroxychloroquine, and topical NSAIDs’ NMA effect sizes were 0.22 (−0.08 to 0.51), 0.25 (0.00 to 0.51), −0.01 (−0.19 to 0.18), and −0.14 (−0.33 to 0.08), respectively, compared with placebo. Oral NSAIDs were inferior to oral glucocorticoids with an NMA effect size of 0.36 (0.01 to 0.72). No intervention was superior to placebo when stratifying for thumb and finger OA. Conclusion Oral NSAIDs and glucocorticoids are apparently effective pharmacological interventions in hand OA. Intra-articular therapies and topical NSAIDs were not superior to placebo.

Objective: To investigate the prognostic value of illness perception (IP) on knee pain, quality of life (QoL) and functional level in elderly individuals reporting knee pain. Design:A prospective cohort study of 1552 elderly with knee pain comparing two previously established clusters based on the Brief Illness Perception questionnaire. Cluster 1 ("Concerned optimists" [hypothesized unfavorable profile]; n = 642) perceived their knee pain as a greater threat to them than Cluster 2 ("Unconcerned confident" [hypothesized favorable profile]; n = 910). Primary outcome was the change from baseline to year 2 in the KOOS Pain subscale. Secondary outcomes were changes from baseline in quality of life (EuroQol-5 Domain and EQ VAS) and in the KOOS subscales Symptom, Activities of Daily Living, Knee-related QoL and Sports and recreation. Analyses were done on the original Intention-To-Survey (ITS) population, using repeated measures mixed linear models. Results: Among the ITS population, 841 (54%) responded to the 2-year survey. There was a statistically significant but clinically irrelevant cluster difference in the 2-year change from baseline in KOOS pain (mean difference: 6.0 KOOS points [95% CI: 7.3 to -4.7]) explained by a minor improvement in Cluster 1: (6.2 points) and no changes in Cluster 2: (0.2 points). Comparable results were found across the secondary outcomes. Clinically irrelevant cluster changes in IP were seen. Conclusion: In a cohort of people with knee pain, IP phenotype (i.e., Clusters) were of no prognostic value for the 2-year changes in pain, function, and QoL. Targeting IP may not be relevant in this patient population. Trial registration number and date of registration: The Frederiksberg Cohort study was pre-registered at clinicalt rials.gov (NCT03472300) on March 21, 2018.

Increased energy intake can lead to obesity, which increases the risk for the development of diabetes and cancer. Free fatty acids regulate numerous cellular processes, like insulin secretion, inflammation, proliferation, and cell migration. Dysregulation of these cellular functions by increased lipid intake plays a significant role in the development of diseases like diabetes and cancer. Free fatty acid receptors 1 and 4 (FFAR1 and FFAR4) are two free fatty acid receptors under increasing investigation for their roles in diabetes and more recently also cancer. Both receptors bind medium- to long-chain, saturated and omega-3 unsaturated fatty acids. Increasing evidence shows that enhanced FFAR1 and FFAR4 signaling reduces diabetes symptoms but enhances tumor growth and migration of various cancer types like melanoma and prostate cancer. This review gives an overview of the role of FFAR1 and FFAR4 in diabetes and cancer and discusses their potential to function as targets for treatment.

Purpose: It is well recognized that the illness of OA is not only associated with the disease process itself but also with, among other, psychosocial factors. Knee pain is an early sign of knee OA and the individual’s perceptions of their knee pain could affect the further development of the symptoms. Accordingly, the aim of this study was to assess whether a negative illness perception at baseline is associated with worsening of the illness (pain and quality of life (QOL)) over a 2-year observation period among seniors with knee pain.

We provide a detailed account of the origin and establishment of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) and celebrate its history from inception to the current day. We discuss the mission, vision and strategic objectives of OARSI and how these have developed and evolved over the last 3 decades. We celebrate the achievements of the society as we approach its 30th birthday, honor the entire presidential line and respectfully pay tribute to the past presidents who are no longer with us. We reflect on the strong foundations of our society, OARSI's efforts to disseminate understanding of the health, disability and economic burdens of osteoarthritis (OA) to policymakers, and the exciting initiatives to make the society inclusive and international. We thank our corporate and industrial sponsors, who have supported us over many years, without whom our annual congresses would not have been possible. We celebrate our longstanding strategic partnership with our publisher, Elsevier, and the successful launch of our new journal Osteoarthritis and Cartilage Open, the most significant new development in our dissemination toolbox. For the first time in the history of the organization, our annual congress was cancelled in April 2020 and the 2021 meeting will be virtual. Despite the numerous challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the need to adapt quickly to a rapidly changing landscape, we must remain optimistic about the future. We will take advantage of new exciting opportunities to advance our mission and vision to enhance the quality of life of persons with OA.

Objective: Case reports of severe acute localized reactions (SALR) following intraarticular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been described. We compared surrogate SALR measures between patients using hylan G-F 20 and specific non-hylan G-F 20 HA products. Design: Knee OA patients were identified from the Optum Clinformatics dataset (January 2006 to June 2016), stratified into hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 HA users, matched by single or multiple injection products. Occurrences of surrogate SALR measures including inflammation/infection, intraarticular corticosteroid (CS) injections, arthrocentesis/aspiration, arthrotomy/incision and drainage, and arthroscopy were evaluated within 3 days post-HA. Results: Based on 694,404 HA injections, inflammation/infection rate was rare within 3 days of HA (up to 0.03%), with no statistical differences between hylan G-F 20 and non-hylan G-F 20 groups (matched by single or multiple injection products). The risk of knee arthrotomy/incision and drainage, arthroscopy, or arthrocentesis for hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection patients was lower than Hyalgan/Supartz and Orthovisc patients, but greater than Euflexxa patients. Overall, we found that Hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection had lower SALR rates compared to Hyalgan/Supartz and Orthovisc. However, Hylan G-F 20 (2 mL) 3 weekly injection had slightly higher rates of SALR when compared to Euflexxa. Among the single injection products, Hylan G-F 20 (6 mL) single injection had lower rates of SALR than Monovisc and Gel-One. Conclusions: This study shows no clear correlation between avian-derived or cross-linked products and SALR and provides evidence against avian-derived products or crosslinking as a source for these reactions.

Background Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal condition causing pain, physical disability, and reduced quality of life. Exercise and patient education are non-pharmacological interventions for knee OA unanimously recommended as first-line treatments based on extensive research evidence. However, none of the numerous randomised controlled trials of exercise and education for knee OA has used adequate sham/placebo comparison groups because the ‘active’ ingredients are unknown. Designing and executing an adequate and ‘blindable placebo’ version of an exercise and education intervention is impossible. Therefore, using an open-label study design, this trial compares the efficacy of a widely used ‘state-of-art’ exercise and education intervention (Good Life with osteoarthritis in Denmark; GLAD) with presumably inert intra-articular saline injections on improvement in knee pain in patients with knee OA. Methods In this open-label randomised trial, we will include 200 patients with radiographically verified OA of the knee and randomly allocate them to one of two interventions: (i) 8 weeks of exercise and education (GLAD) or (ii) Intra-articular injections of 5 ml isotonic saline every second week for a total of 4 injections. Outcomes are taken at baseline, after 8 weeks of treatment (week 9; primary endpoint) and after an additional 4 weeks of follow-up (week 12). The primary outcome is change from baseline in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score questionnaire (KOOS) pain subscale score. Secondary outcomes include the Physical function in Activities of Daily Living, Symptoms, and Knee-related Quality of Life subscales of the KOOS, the patients’ global assessment of disease impact, physical performance tests, and presence of knee joint swelling. Discussion This current trial compares a presumably active treatment (GLAD) with a presumably inert treatment (IA saline injections). Both study interventions have well-established and anticipated similar effects on knee OA symptoms, but the underlying mechanisms are unknown. The interpretation of the results of this trial will likely be difficult and controversial but will contribute to a better understanding of the bias introduced in the effect estimation of classically unblindable exercise and education interventions for knee OA. Trial registration www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03843931 . Prospectively registered on 18 February 2019.

Objective The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods We identified randomized controlled trials reporting the safety of IAHA versus IA saline in adults with symptomatic knee OA. Main safety outcomes were adverse events (AEs), local AEs, serious adverse events (SAEs), study withdrawals, and AE-related study withdrawals. Results A total of 35 randomized controlled trials with 38 group comparisons comprising 8,078 unique patients (IAHA: 4,295, IA saline: 3,783) were included in the meta-analysis. Comparing IAHA with IA saline over a median of 6 months follow-up, there were no differences in the risk of AEs (42.4% vs. 39.7%, risk ratio [RR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.96-1.07, P = 0.61), SAEs (1.8% vs. 1.2%, RR = 1.44, 95% CI = 0.91-2.26, P=0.12), study withdrawals (12.3% vs. 12.7%, RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.87-1.12, P = 0.83), or AE-related study withdrawals (2.7% vs. 2.1%, RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97-1.93, P = 0.08). Local AEs, all of which were nonserious, were more common with IAHA vs. IA saline (14.5% vs. 11.7%, RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.07-1.36, P = 0.003) and typically resolved within days. Conclusion IAHA was shown to be safe for use in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Compared with IA saline, IAHA is associated with an increased risk of nonserious, transient local reactions. There was no evidence to suggest any additional safety risks of IAHA.

Knee pain is an early sign of later incident radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the prevalence of knee pain in the general population is unknown. Additionally, it is unknown how people with knee pain choose to self-manage the condition and if the perception of the illness affects these choices. In this study, 9086 citizens between 60–69 years old in the municipality of Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark, were surveyed, of which 4292 responded. The prevalence of knee pain was estimated, and associations between illness perceptions (brief illness perception questionnaire [B-IPQ]), self-management strategies, and knee symptoms were assessed. The prevalence of knee pain was 21.4% of which 40.5% reported to use no self-management strategies (non-users). These non-users perceived their knee pain as less threatening and reported less severe symptoms than users of self-management strategies. Further, we found that a more positive illness perception was associated with less severe knee symptoms. In conclusion, among Danes aged 60–69 years, the knee pain prevalence is 21.4%, of which 40.5% use no treatment and perceive the condition as non-threatening. These non-users with knee pain represent a subpopulation being at increased risk of developing knee OA later in life, and there is a potential preventive gain in identifying these persons.

Objective To compare the efficacy of an exercise and education programme with open-label placebo given as intra-articular injections of inert saline on pain and function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults aged ≥50 years with symptomatic and radiographically confirmed knee OA in Denmark. Participants were randomised 1:1 to undergo an 8-week exercise and education programme or four intra-articular saline injections over 8 weeks. Primary outcome was change from baseline to week 9 in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) questionnaire pain subscale (range 0 (worst)–100 (best)). Prespecified equivalence margins of ±8 KOOS pain points were chosen for the demonstration of comparable efficacy. Key secondary outcomes were the KOOS function and quality of life subscales, and patients’ global assessment of disease impact. Results 206 adults were randomly assigned: 102 to exercise and education and 104 to intra-articular saline injections. For the primary outcome, the least squares mean changes in KOOS pain were 10.0 for exercise and education and 7.3 for saline injections (difference 2.7 points, 95% CI −0.6 to 6.0; test for equivalence p=0.0008). All group differences in the key secondary outcomes respected the predefined equivalence margins. Adverse events and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups. Conclusion In individuals with knee OA, an 8-week exercise and education programme provided efficacy for symptomatic and functional improvements equivalent to that of four open-label intra-articular saline injections over 8 weeks. Trial registration number NCT03843931.

Objective To develop an evidence-based guideline for the comprehensive management of osteoarthritis (OA) as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the Arthritis Foundation, updating the 2012 ACR recommendations for the management of hand, hip, and knee OA. Methods We identified clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions and critical outcomes in OA. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available educational, behavioral, psychosocial, physical, mind-body, and pharmacologic therapies for OA. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A Voting Panel, including rheumatologists, an internist, physical and occupational therapists, and patients, achieved consensus on the recommendations. Results Based on the available evidence, either strong or conditional recommendations were made for or against the approaches evaluated. Strong recommendations were made for exercise, weight loss in patients with knee and/or hip OA who are overweight or obese, self-efficacy and self-management programs, tai chi, cane use, hand orthoses for first carpometacarpal (CMC) joint OA, tibiofemoral bracing for tibiofemoral knee OA, topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for knee OA, oral NSAIDs, and intraarticular glucocorticoid injections for knee OA. Conditional recommendations were made for balance exercises, yoga, cognitive behavioral therapy, kinesiotaping for first CMC OA, orthoses for hand joints other than the first CMC joint, patellofemoral bracing for patellofemoral knee OA, acupuncture, thermal modalities, radiofrequency ablation for knee OA, topical NSAIDs, intraarticular steroid injections and chondroitin sulfate for hand OA, topical capsaicin for knee OA, acetaminophen, duloxetine, and tramadol. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for the management of OA. Clinicians and patients should engage in shared decision-making that accounts for patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Background: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injections and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are common treatments for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the comparative effects of these treatments are unclear. Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular HA injections compared with oral NSAIDs for the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized trials of knee OA treatment with HA injections compared with oral NSAIDs. The main outcomes were knee pain, knee function, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, study withdrawals, and study withdrawals because of AEs. Pooled effect sizes were reported at the final follow-up with standardized mean difference (SMD) for efficacy outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for safety outcomes. Results: In 6 randomized trials of 831 patients (414 HA, 417 NSAIDs), with follow-up ranging from 5 to 26 weeks, HA injections were associated with small, statistically significant improvements in knee pain (SMD, 0.15; P = .04) and knee function (SMD, 0.23; P = .01) compared with oral NSAIDs. The risk of AEs was lower with HA compared with NSAIDs (19.8% vs 29.0%; RR, 0.74; P = .01). The risk of a serious AE (RR, 1.37; P = .71), study withdrawal (RR, 1.05; P = .68), or study withdrawal because of an AE (RR, 0.65; P = .22) was comparable between groups. Gastrointestinal concerns were the most frequent AE reported, occurring more often with NSAIDs (23.4% vs 14.1%; P = .001). AEs reported more frequently with HA injections were injection site pain (11.7% vs 4.7%; P < .001), headache (8.4% vs 4.4%; P = .03), and arthralgia (8.1% vs 2.9%; P = .001). Significant heterogeneity or publication bias was not observed for any outcome. Conclusion: Comparing short-term outcomes of HA injections with oral NSAIDs for treatment of knee OA, HA injections provided statistically significant but not clinically important improvements in knee pain and function, along with a lower overall risk of AEs.

Background Joint replacements continue to occur during a rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patient’s lifetime despite significant advances in available treatment options. The purpose of this study was to examine and quantify synovitis in surgically operated joints by ultrasound (US) in RA patients starting a new therapeutic agent. Methods RA subjects were enrolled in either tocilizumab or tofacitinib open-label, investigator-initiated trials and were assessed by ultrasound. In a subset of RA patients with joint replacements and/or operations of joint areas (OJA; e.g. joint arthroscopies, fusions, and synovectomies), joint-level scores of synovitis were compared between replaced joints, OJAs, and native joints. Joint-level synovitis was measured by grayscale (GSUS (0–3)) and power Doppler (PDUS (0–3)) at baseline and follow-up (3–6 months). McNemar’s test or Wilcoxon signed rank test utilized the mixed effects ordinal logistic regression models. Results Twenty RA patients had a total of 25 replaced joints and 24 OJA. All replaced joints had GSUS> 1 and 92% had PDUS> 1 at baseline, while OJA and native joints had lower evidence of GSUS> 1 (37.5, 38% respectively) and PDUS> 1 (45.8, 62% respectively). GSUS and PDUS semiquantitative scores improved significantly with treatment in replaced joints ( p = 0.01, p = 0.007), and native joints ( p < 0.001 both), but not OJA. Conclusions In RA, joint replacement does not eliminate or prevent ultrasound measured synovitis, where all replaced joints have some evidence of US synovitis. US can also act as a potential marker of response to therapy in replaced joints. Scoring US synovitis in replaced joints should be considered in ultrasound RA clinical trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01717859 (registered 10/31/2012); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02321930 (registered 12/22/2014).

IntroductionThe Global Burden of Disease 2010 study ranked osteoarthritis (OA) as a leading cause of years lived with disability. With an ageing population, increasing body weight and sedentary lifestyle, a substantial increase especially in knee OA (KOA) is expected. Management strategies for KOA include non-pharmacological, pharmacological and surgical interventions. Meanwhile, over-the-counter pain medications have been discredited as they are associated with several risks with long-term usage. By consequence, the use of exercise and all sorts of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for joint pain has increased. The available self-management strategies are plenty, but there is no overview of their use at a population level and whether they are used along with doctors’ prescriptions or replace these. The aim of this study is to estimate the population incidence of developing knee symptoms and analyse the association between (and impact of) the use of self-reported preventive measures and knee symptoms.Methods and analysisThis prospective cohort study pragmatically recruits individuals from the municipality of Frederiksberg, Denmark. All citizens aged 60–69 years old will be contacted annually for 10 years and asked to participate in a web-based survey. The major outcomes are self-reported knee symptoms and their association with use of various management strategies, including use of non-pharmacological treatments and CAM. Secondary outcomes include the influence of treatments on use of healthcare system and surgical procedures. Descriptive and analytic statistics (eg, logistic regression) will be used to provide summaries about the sample and observations made and the associations between self-management and development of knee symptoms.Ethics and disseminationThis study can be implemented without permission from the Health Research Ethics Committee. Permission has been obtained from the Danish Data Protection Agency. Study findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberNCT03472300.

Purpose Although knee arthroplasty (KA) is the largest source of hospitalization costs for knee osteoarthritis (OA), some studies have suggested reducing the use of “low-value” interventions, such as intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA), to lower health care costs. However, those studies fail to consider that HA has demonstrated benefits in extending time to more costly KA or avoiding KA altogether. We evaluated 1) the overall knee OA costs (direct) within a 2-year period; 2) the relative contribution of HA and KA costs; 3) the direct cost savings from HA patients not undergoing KA. Patients and methods Knee OA patients were identified from the Optum Clinformatics data set, which includes physician, facility, and pharmacy claims data from privately insured patients of all ages. Patients were stratified in the no HA, non-hylan G-F 20, and hylan G-F 20 cohorts. The cumulative costs (payer perspective) were evaluated for all knee OA-related claims (adjusted to Consumer Price Index Jan 2017$) for patients who had at least 2 years follow-up. Costs were stratified into various clinical categories. Results The study cohort included 2,030,497 knee OA patients, of which 65,144 patients (3.2%) underwent KA. The cost of treating knee OA within the 2-year follow-up period was estimated to be $4.99 billion (B). The majority of the costs (69%) were attributed to KA patients (3.2% of patients). In all, 15.9% of the HA patients underwent KA within 2 years, but HA only contributed 1.7% to the total costs for these patients. The remaining 84.1% of HA patients did not undergo KA, which saved an estimated total of $1.54B (average $20,740 per patient) or 83.9%, after accounting for their non-KA therapies. Conclusion Our study estimated substantial cost savings through a large percentage of HA patients not undergoing KA. Although a fraction of patients moved on from their conservative therapy to undergo KA within the 2-year period, HA attributed to <2% of their total treatment costs.

Objective The evaluation of disease activity in obese rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients presents challenges particularly in the clinical assessment of swollen joints. This study examines the effect of obesity on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set measures used in assessing RA disease activity with specific focus on the swollen joint count (SJC). Methods We examined a cross-sectional cohort of 323 early seropositive RA patients (symptom duration ⩽15 months). Patients were biologic-naive with equal to or more than 6/44 SJC and equal to or more than 9/44 tender joint count. The ACR core set measures, components of Disease Activity Score (DAS) 44/erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), DAS28/ESR4 item, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), and body mass index (BMI) were collected. Disease activity measures were compared between BMI categories. Multivariable linear regression models assessed the relationship between high BMI (≥30 kg/m2) and lower-extremity (LE) SJC and SJC44 while accounting for other ACR measures. Results Disease Activity Score 44/ESR4 item, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, physician global, and SJC44 differed across BMI categories (p < 0.05). Of the SJC44, metacarpophalangeal joints and LE joints (knees, ankles, metatarsophalangeal joints) were associated with increased swelling in all BMI groups (P < 0.05). Obesity was significantly associated with LE SJC after adjusting for ACR core set measures. Conclusions There is a direct association between increased BMI and increased swelling of LE joints in RA patients. Increases in DAS44–measured disease activity are higher in obese RA patients because of increased LE swollen joints. Disease Activity Score 28 and Clinical Disease Activity Index, which emphasize upper-extremity joint assessment, are not significantly influenced by obesity.

Objective There is debate about the effectiveness of intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections. We asked the following questions: (1) What is the epidemiology of IA HA use in knee arthroplasty (KA) patients? (2) Is Synvisc associated with a delay to KA? (3) Is there a difference in the delay to KA with the number of HA courses? Design The Optum Clinformatics data set (2006–June 2016) was used to identify patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Patients who did not receive IA HA were identified, along with those who received Synvisc or non-Synvisc HA. The median duration from knee OA to KA was compared using quantile regression modeling with propensity score weighting. The trend in time to KA with each HA course was evaluated. Results Of 4,027,848 knee OA patients, 141,305 patients underwent KA. Overall median time from knee OA diagnosis to KA was 1.2 years (average: 1.9 ± 1.9 years; interquartile range of 0.4-2.8 years). HA patients had significantly longer adjusted median time to KA by at least 7 months (P < 0.001). After adjusting for the time to HA and number of injections, Synvisc patients had 1.7 months longer time to KA than non-Synvisc HA patients (P < 0.001). There was a trend toward longer time to KA with more HA courses. Conclusions Most KA patients did not use HA (73.7%) and when received, it was associated with a longer median time to KA by at least 7 months, though the cause and effect could not be examined. The delay to KA increased with more HA courses.