3.9 Article

Inadequate pain relief among patients with primary knee osteoarthritis

Journal

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE REUMATOLOGIA
Volume 57, Issue 3, Pages 229-237

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbr.2016.09.003

Keywords

Knee osteoarthritis; Inadequate pain relief; Quality of life; Disability; Patient reported outcomes

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Despite the widespread treatments for osteoarthritis (OA), data on treatment patterns, adequacy of pain relief, and quality of life are limited. The prospective multinational Survey of Osteoarthritis Real World Therapies (SORT) was designed to investigate these aspects. Objectives: To analyze the characteristics and the patient reported outcomes of the Portuguese dataset of SORT at the start of observation. Methods: Patients >= 50 years with primary knee OA who were receiving oral or topical analgesics were eligible. Patients were enrolled from seven healthcare centers in Portugal between January and December 2011. Pain and function were evaluated using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and WOMAC. Quality of life was assessed using the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Inadequate pain relief (IPR) was defined as a score >4/10 on item 5 of the BPI. Results: Overall, 197 patients were analyzed. The median age was 67.0 years and 78.2% were female. Mean duration of knee OA was 6.2 years. IPR was reported by 51.3% of patients. Female gender (adjusted odds ratio - OR 2.15 [95% CI 1.1, 4.5]), diabetes (OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.3, 7.7]) and depression (OR 2.24 [95% CI 1.2, 4.3]) were associated with higher risk of IPR. Patients with IPR reported worst outcomes in all dimensions of WOMAC (p < 0.001) and in all eight domains and summary components of SF-12 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate that improvements are needed in the management of pain in knee OA in order to achieve better outcomes in terms of pain relief, function and quality of life. (C) 2016 Elsevier Editora Ltda.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available