You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Clinical and epidemiological research
Extended report
Clinical burden of erosive hand osteoarthritis and its relationship to nodes
  1. J Bijsterbosch1,
  2. I Watt2,
  3. I Meulenbelt3,
  4. F R Rosendaal4,
  5. T W J Huizinga1,
  6. M Kloppenburg1
  1. 1Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
  3. 3Department of Molecular Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
  4. 4Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Jessica Bijsterbosch, Leiden University Medical Centre, Department of Rheumatology, C1-R, P O Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands; j.bijsterbosch{at}lumc.nl

Abstract

Objective To describe the clinical burden of erosive osteoarthritis (EOA) of the hand in terms of pain, functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQL) and its relationship to nodal osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods Patients with EOA (n=42) and non-EOA (n=194) of the hand were compared. Pain was assessed with the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN), the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) and pain intensity upon pressure. Functioning was evaluated with AUSCAN, MHQ, grip strength, pinch grip and hand mobility tests. HRQL was measured with the Short Form-36. Patient satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics were also evaluated. The presence of nodal OA as well as its extent (reflected by the number of nodes) was assessed. Mean differences between patient groups were estimated with linear mixed models. To determine whether differences were independent of the nodal character of the disease, adjustments were made for the number of nodes.

Results Patients with EOA experienced more pain, more functional limitation, less satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics and worse hand mobility than patients with non-EOA. HRQL was similar for the two groups. Patients with EOA had more nodes. A higher number of nodes was associated with worse outcome. After correction for the number of nodes, only hand mobility and patient satisfaction remained different between the groups.

Conclusion Patients with EOA have a higher clinical burden than those with non-erosive disease. This higher burden is only partly attributed to the erosive disease itself, but mainly to the nodal character of the disease.

https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2009.125435

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hand is a common musculoskeletal disorder characterised by degradation of cartilage and changes in subchondral bone.1 Because of its heterogeneous character, different subsets have been proposed based on different risk factors, associations and outcomes, although evidence is limited.2 3 Proposed subsets affecting the interphalangeal (IP) joints are erosive osteoarthritis (EOA) and nodal OA.

    The term EOA was first introduced by Peter et al4 in 1966, but its clinical and radiographic features had already been described.5 6 EOA is a radiographic subset based on the presence of subchondral erosions which lead to deformities and sometimes to bony ankylosis.7 Although it is assumed that EOA has a higher clinical burden and worse outcome than non-EOA, there are very few studies on this topic.8 9 In addition, the relationship between EOA and the presence of nodes is unclear.

    Whether EOA comprises a separate disease with specific risk factors and pathogenesis or a more severe subset of hand OA is unclear and therefore part of the research agenda of the EULAR OA Task Force.2 A first step is to further characterise EOA. In addition, insight into the relationship between EOA and nodal OA can contribute to our knowledge of these subsets.

    To obtain a clearer view of the clinical burden of EOA, we compared patients with EOA and non-EOA with respect to pain, functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQL). In addition, we determined whether this clinical burden is attributable to the erosive character of the disease or to the presence of nodal OA.

    Methods

    Study design and patient population

    The Genetics, ARthrosis and Progression (GARP) study population comprises 192 Caucasian sibling pairs with symptomatic OA at multiple sites in the hands or in two or more of the following joint sites: hand, knee, hip or spine. Details on recruitment and selection have been published elsewhere.10 Patients from this population with hand OA evaluated after 6 years were included in the present study.

    Diagnosis of hand OA

    Hand OA was defined by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for clinical hand OA11 or the presence of bony swelling in ≥2 of the 10 selected joints from the ACR criteria and a Kellgren–Lawrence score ≥2 in any IP or carpometacarpal (CMC-1) joint.

    EOA was defined as the presence of erosive radiographic features according to the Verbruggen-Veys system in ≥2 IP joints.12 13 Erosive features were assessed on standardised hand x-rays by consensus opinion of two experienced readers (JB, IW). Intrareader reproducibility for the presence of EOA was excellent (κ=1.0). In addition, osteophytes were graded 0–3 using the Osteoarthritis Research Society International atlas.14

    Nodal OA was defined as Heberden's or Bouchard's nodes assessed by palpation affecting ≥2 rays of either hand.15 The number of nodes refers to the number of IP joints with nodes.

    Self-reported pain, functioning and HRQL

    Hand pain and functional limitations were assessed with the pain (5 items) and function (9 items) subscales of the Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index (AUSCAN) on a 5-point Likert scale (from 0 (none) to 4 (extreme)).16

    In addition, the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) was used.17 18 This hand-specific questionnaire includes six subscales: overall hand function, activities of daily living (ADL), pain, work performance and patient satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics. Subscale scores are calculated by summing the 5-point Likert scale responses and normalising them to 0–100.17 Higher scores indicate better hand function, except for the pain subscale on which higher scores correspond to more pain.

    The number of self-reported painful joints was assessed on a standard diagram including 30 hand joints (distal IP joint, proximal IP joint, IP-1, metacarpophalangeal, CMC-1).

    HRQL was assessed with the Physical Component Summary scale (PCS) and Mental Component Summary Scale (MCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) derived using norm-based data from the Dutch population.19 20 Higher scores indicate better HRQL.

    Physician-obtained measures

    Pain upon joint palpation was graded 0–3 in the 30 hand joints mentioned above (0=no pain, 1=complaining of pain, 2=complaining of pain and wincing, 3=complaining of pain and withdrawal of the joint). This pain intensity score ranges from 0 to 90.

    Performance

    Grip strength and pinch grip were measured with a hydraulic hand dynamometer and hydraulic pinch gauge (Saehan Corporation, Masan, South Korea), respectively.

    Hand mobility was assessed with the Hand Mobility in Scleroderma (HAMIS) test and fingertip to palm distance during maximal finger flexion.21 22 Using the HAMIS, the nine movements included in the range of motion of the hand are graded 0 (normal) to 3 (unable to do) for each hand and summed. The total score is the mean of two hands. Fingertip to palm distance in millimetres was measured from the finger pulp to the distal palmar crease for each finger and summed.

    Statistical analysis

    Data were analysed using SPSS Version 16.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA). Demographic and disease characteristics were compared between patients with EOA and non-EOA using the t test and χ2 test. Mean differences between these groups in measures of pain, functioning and HRQL, as well as the number of nodes, were estimated with a linear mixed model correcting for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and with a random intercept to adjust for family effects within sibling pairs. Estimates are reported with 95% CI.

    To determine whether differences between the groups can be attributed to the erosive or nodal component of the disease, the number of nodes was taken into account. By doing so, its influence on differences in outcome can be assessed as well as the effect of erosiveness, independent of the nodal aspect. First, the association between outcome measures and the number of nodes was determined using linear mixed models, adjusting for age, sex, BMI and family effects. Estimates indicate the change that is accompanied by the presence of one additional node. Second, mean differences with 95% CI for measures of pain, functioning and HRQL between EOA and non-EOA groups were estimated using linear mixed models adjusting for the number of nodes in addition to age, sex, BMI and family effects. These estimates reflect the influence of erosiveness on clinical measures independent of the nodal disease character.

    We evaluated the radiographic appearance of nodes by assessing the presence and severity of osteophytes in IP joints with nodes. In addition, the abovementioned analysis was performed with correction for osteophytes instead of nodes.

    Results

    Study population

    Of the 236 patients with hand OA included in the study, 42 (18%) were classified as having EOA. Nodal OA was present in 215 patients (91%). All patients with EOA were also classified as having nodal OA compared with 89% of the patients with non-EOA (p=0.031). The mean number of nodes in patients with EOA and non-EOA was 15.0 (range 6–18) and 10.6 (range 2–18), respectively (p<0.001).

    The mean age was 64.8 years and 83% were women (table 1). All patients with EOA fulfilled the ACR criteria for clinical hand OA. The demographic characteristics did not differ between patient groups (data not shown).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of 236 patients with hand osteoarthritis (OA)

    Pain

    Patients with EOA reported more pain and a higher number of painful joints than patients with non-EOA (table 2). There was a trend towards a higher pain intensity score in patients with EOA.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Mean±SD values and mean differences (95% CI) in measures of pain, functioning and HRQL for patients with EOA (n=42) and patients with non-EOA (n=194)

    Functioning

    Self-reported hand function measured with the AUSCAN and the MHQ subscales overall function, ADL and work performance was worse in patients with EOA (table 2). Grip strength and pinch grip did not differ between the groups. Hand mobility measured with the HAMIS and fingertip to palm distance was worse in patients with EOA.

    Health-related quality of life

    Although no difference in PCS between the patient groups was found, a score below 50 indicates that physical health was lower than in the general population. The MCS was also similar for the groups but not different from the general population.

    Patient satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics was lower in those with EOA (table 2).

    Association between outcome measures and number of nodes

    A higher number of nodes was related to more pain and self-reported functional limitations (table 3). Grip strength and pinch grip were not related to the number of nodes, whereas worse hand mobility was related to the number of nodes; for each additional node, the fingertip to palm distance increased 3.7 mm and the HAMIS increased 0.24 points. No relationship between the SF-36 and the number of nodes was found. Lower patient satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics was associated with the presence of more nodes.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Association between outcome measures and number of nodes for total population expressed as β coefficient (95% CI)

    Pain, functioning and HRQL adjusted for number of nodes

    Mean differences in pain, functioning and HRQL were estimated with additional adjustment for the number of nodes (table 2). The estimated mean difference for all outcome measures was lower after this adjustment. Only hand mobility and patient satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics remained significantly different between patients with EOA and non-EOA. Adjustment for osteophytes instead of nodes did not change the results.

    Structural abnormalities in IP joints with nodes

    In the total population, 13% (340/2682) of the IP joints with nodes had osteophytes grade 2–3 reflecting severe structural changes (table 4). For patients with EOA and non-EOA, these proportions were 40% (255/628) and 4% (85/2054), respectively.

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Osteophyte grades for IP joints with and without nodes for the total population as well as EOA and non-EOA patient groups

    Discussion

    This study is one of the first to investigate the clinical burden of EOA by comparing pain, functioning and HRQL between patients with EOA and non-EOA. It was found that patients with EOA experience more pain, report more functional limitations, have worse hand mobility and are less satisfied with hand function and aesthetics than those with non-EOA. HRQL was comparable for the patient groups. Patients with EOA had more nodes, which were also found to be a determinant of clinical outcome. Taking into account the number of nodes, only hand mobility and patient satisfaction remained different between the groups. These findings show that the clinical burden of EOA is higher than its non-erosive counterpart. However, it seems that this higher burden cannot exclusively be attributed to the erosive character but also to the nodal character of the disease.

    Our results are in line with a study showing that patients with EOA reported more pain during ADL tasks than patients with non-EOA, but that grip strength did not differ between the groups.9 Maheu et al8 showed that patients with EOA reported more functional limitations, more aesthetic damage, similar HRQL and similar pain levels compared with those with non-EOA. This last finding is in contrast with our results, which may be due to a difference in outcome measures.

    Hand mobility was assessed with the HAMIS and fingertip to palm distance. The HAMIS was developed for patients with scleroderma. However, it can be regarded as a generic test since it evaluates all movements included in the range of motion of the hand, which was supported by a study showing that the HAMIS was valid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis.21 23 HAMIS and fingertip to palm distance showed the same results, indicating construct validity for both measures.

    For both groups it was found that physical health was lower than in the general population, which is in line with a study by Slatkowsky-Christensen et al.24

    Patient satisfaction with hand function and aesthetics in OA of the hand comprises a domain not studied before. Although aesthetic damage is considered of potential importance in the evaluation of hand OA,3 a recognised outcome measure is lacking. We have shown that the MHQ could serve this purpose.

    There are a number of potential limitations to address. First, the GARP study was not designed to investigate differences between EOA and non-EOA. As a consequence, the number of patients with EOA is relatively small, although it is the largest group of patients with EOA studied to date. This may reflect clinical practice in which, in our experience, EOA is not very prevalent. Data on the prevalence of EOA in a hospital population are unavailable. Cavasin et al25 showed that 8.5% of the general population of the Venetian area in Italy with signs or symptoms of hand OA had EOA. Second, patients in the present study had familial OA at multiple sites. Whether this specific phenotype affects our findings is unclear, and therefore similar studies in other OA phenotypes are warranted.

    We found that a higher number of nodes was associated with more pain, more functional limitation and less patient satisfaction. This is in line with a study which found that Heberden's nodes were positively related to hand pain.26 Only part of the nodes had high-grade osteophytes, and this proportion was higher in patients with EOA than in those with non-EOA. This suggests that nodes do not only reflect severe structural abnormalities. The pathogenesis and role of nodes in OA of the IP joints is not fully understood. Nodes develop from mesenchymal stem cells from the periosteum or synovium by chondrogenesis and endochondral ossification induced by growth factors from the transforming growth factor β family.27 Erosions are the product of increased osteoclast activity induced by inflammatory cytokines.28 Hence, processes involved in node and erosion formation seem to be different.

    After taking the number of nodes into account, pain and self-reported functional limitations between the patient groups were no longer different. This implies that the higher levels of these outcomes in patients with EOA cannot exclusively be attributed to erosiveness. Differences in hand mobility and patient satisfaction, however, remained significant after correction for the number of nodes, meaning that they can be attributed to erosiveness. A possible explanation is that hand mobility is a mechanical feature with structural underlying pathology, as seen in EOA.7

    This study showed that the clinical burden in patients with EOA is higher than in those with non-EOA. This higher burden seems to be due to the nodal character and only partly to the erosive character of the disease. Further research on disease characteristics, risk factors and the pathogenesis of EOA is needed to determine whether it comprises a separate disease and, more importantly, to enable the development of new treatment strategies.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors acknowledge the support of the following cooperating hospitals (Bronovo Hospital, The Hague Dr ML Westedt; Jan van Breemen Instituut, Amsterdam: Dr D van Schaardenburg; Leyenburg Hospital; The Hague: Dr HK Ronday and Dr LN Coene; Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis; Delft: Dr AJ Peeters; Rijnland Hospital; Leiderdorp: Dr EJ van Langelaan) and referring rheumatologists, orthopaedic surgeons and general practitioners.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Kloppenburg M,
      2. Stamm T,
      3. Watt I,
      4. et al
      . Research in hand osteoarthritis: time for reappraisal and demand for new strategies. An opinion paper. Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66:1157–61.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    2. ↵
      1. Zhang W,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Leeb BF,
      4. et al
      . EULAR evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis of hand osteoarthritis: report of a task force of ESCISIT. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:8–17.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    3. ↵
      1. Maheu E,
      2. Altman RD,
      3. Bloch DA,
      4. et al
      . Design and conduct of clinical trials in patients with osteoarthritis of the hand: recommendations from a task force of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Osteoarthr Cartil 2006;14:303–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Peter JB,
      2. Pearson CM,
      3. Marmor L
      . Erosive osteoarthritis of the hands. Arthritis Rheum 1966;9:365–88.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Crain DC
      . Interphalangeal osteoarthritis. JAMA 1961;175:1049–53.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Kellgren JH,
      2. Moore R
      . Generalized osteoarthritis and Heberden's nodes. Br Med J 1952;1:181–7.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    7. ↵
      1. Punzi L,
      2. Ramonda R,
      3. Sfriso P
      . Erosive osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2004;18:739–58.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Maheu E,
      2. Michon M,
      3. Carrat F,
      4. et al
      . Erosive versus non-erosive hand OA: prospective cross-sectional comparison of clinical data. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67(Suppl II):94.
      OpenUrl
    9. ↵
      1. Pattrick M,
      2. Aldridge S,
      3. Hamilton E,
      4. et al
      . A controlled study of hand function in nodal and erosive osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1989;48:978–82.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Riyazi N,
      2. Meulenbelt I,
      3. Kroon HM,
      4. et al
      . Evidence for familial aggregation of hand, hip, and spine but not knee osteoarthritis in siblings with multiple joint involvement: the GARP study. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:438–43.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Altman R,
      2. Alarcón G,
      3. Appelrouth D,
      4. et al
      . The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the hand. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:1601–10.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Verbruggen G,
      2. Veys EM
      . Numerical scoring systems for the progression of osteoarthritis of the finger joints. Rev Rhum Engl Ed 1995;62(Suppl 1):27S–32S.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Verbruggen G,
      2. Veys EM
      . Numerical scoring systems for the anatomic evolution of osteoarthritis of the finger joints. Arthritis Rheum 1996;39:308–20.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Altman RD,
      2. Gold GE
      . Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis, revised. Osteoarthr Cartil 2007;15(Suppl A):A1–56.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Wright GD,
      2. Regan M,
      3. Deighton CM,
      4. et al
      . Evidence for genetic anticipation in nodal osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 1998;57:524–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      1. Bellamy N,
      2. Campbell J,
      3. Haraoui B,
      4. et al
      . Dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in hand osteoarthritis: development of the Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) Osteoarthritis Hand Index. Osteoarthr Cartil 2002;10:855–62.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Chung KC,
      2. Pillsbury MS,
      3. Walters MR,
      4. et al
      . Reliability and validity testing of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am 1998;23:575–87.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Chung KC,
      2. Hamill JB,
      3. Walters MR,
      4. et al
      . The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ): assessment of responsiveness to clinical change. Ann Plast Surg 1999;42:619–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Ware JE Jr.,
      2. Sherbourne CD
      . The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Ware JE,
      2. Kosinski M,
      3. Keller SD
      . SF-36 physical and mental health summary scales: a user's manual. Boston: The Health Institute, 1994.
    21. ↵
      1. Sandqvist G,
      2. Eklund M
      . Hand Mobility in Scleroderma (HAMIS) test: the reliability of a novel hand function test. Arthritis Care Res 2000;13:369–74.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Sandqvist G,
      2. Eklund M
      . Validity of HAMIS: a test of hand mobility in scleroderma. Arthritis Care Res 2000;13:382–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Poole JL,
      2. Cordova KJ
      . Can hand assessments designed for persons with scleroderma be valid for persons with rheumatoid arthritis? J Rheumatol 2005;32:2278–80.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    24. ↵
      1. Slatkowsky-Christensen B,
      2. Mowinckel P,
      3. Loge JH,
      4. et al
      . Health-related quality of life in women with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis: a comparison with rheumatoid arthritis patients, healthy controls, and normative data. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:1404–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Cavasin F,
      2. Punzi L,
      3. Ramonda R,
      4. et al
      . [Prevalence of erosive osteoarthritis of the hand in a population from Venetian area]. Reumatismo 2004;56:46–50.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    26. ↵
      1. Jones G,
      2. Cooley HM,
      3. Bellamy N
      . A cross-sectional study of the association between Heberden's nodes, radiographic osteoarthritis of the hands, grip strength, disability and pain. Osteoarthr Cartil 2001;9:606–11.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. van der Kraan PM,
      2. van den Berg WB
      . Osteophytes: relevance and biology. Osteoarthr Cartil 2007;15:237–44.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Ritchlin CT
      . Mechanisms of erosion in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:1229–37.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    View Abstract

    Footnotes

    • Funding This work was supported by the Dutch Arthritis Association and Pfizer Groton, Connecticut, USA.

    • Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Leiden University Medical Centre.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.