OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy.METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed.CONCLUSION: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.
DOCUMENT
Introduction: Hip and knee osteoarthritis are associated with functional limitations, pain and restrictions in quality of life and the ability to work. Furthermore, with growing prevalence, osteoarthritis is increasingly causing (in)direct costs. Guidelines recommend exercise therapy and education as primary treatment strategies. Available options for treatment based on physical activity promotion and lifestyle change are often insufficiently provided and used. In addition, the quality of current exercise programmes often does not meet the changing care needs of older people with comorbidities and exercise adherence is a challenge beyond personal physiotherapy. The main objective of this study is to investigate the short- and long-term (cost-)effectiveness of the SmArt-E programme in people with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis in terms of pain and physical functioning compared to usual care. Methods: This study is designed as a multicentre randomized controlled trial with a target sample size of 330 patients. The intervention is based on the e-Exercise intervention from the Netherlands, consists of a training and education programme and is conducted as a blended care intervention over 12 months. We use an app to support independent training and the development of self-management skills. The primary and secondary hypotheses are that participants in the SmArt-E intervention will have less pain (numerical rating scale) and better physical functioning (Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) compared to participants in the usual care group after 12 and 3 months. Other secondary outcomes are based on domains of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI). The study will be accompanied by a process evaluation. Discussion: After a positive evaluation, SmArt-E can be offered in usual care, flexibly addressing different care situations. The desired sustainability and the support of the participants' behavioural change are initiated via the app through audio-visual contact with their physiotherapists. Furthermore, the app supports the repetition and consolidation of learned training and educational content. For people with osteoarthritis, the new form of care with proven effectiveness can lead to a reduction in underuse and misuse of care as well as contribute to a reduction in (in)direct costs.
LINK
BACKGROUND: Blended physiotherapy, in which physiotherapy sessions and an online application are integrated, might support patients in taking an active role in the management of their chronic condition and may reduce disease related costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a blended physiotherapy intervention (e-Exercise) compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with osteoarthritis of hip and/or knee, from the societal as well as the healthcare perspective.METHODS: This economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 12-month cluster randomized controlled trial, in which 108 patients received e-Exercise, consisting of physiotherapy sessions and a web-application, and 99 patients received usual physiotherapy. Clinical outcome measures were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) according to the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3 L), physical functioning (HOOS/KOOS) and physical activity (Actigraph Accelerometer). Costs were measured using self-reported questionnaires. Missing data were multiply imputed and bootstrapping was used to estimate statistical uncertainty.RESULTS: Intervention costs and medication costs were significantly lower in e-Exercise compared to usual physiotherapy. Total societal costs and total healthcare costs did not significantly differ between groups. No significant differences in effectiveness were found between groups. For physical functioning and physical activity, the maximum probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was moderate (< 0.82) from both perspectives. For QALYs, the probability of e-Exercise being cost-effective compared to usual physiotherapy was 0.68/0.84 at a willingness to pay of 10,000 Euro and 0.70/0.80 at a willingness to pay of 80,000 Euro per gained QALY, from respectively the societal and the healthcare perspective.CONCLUSIONS: E-Exercise itself was significantly cheaper compared to usual physiotherapy in patients with hip and/or knee osteoarthritis, but not cost-effective from the societal- as well as healthcare perspective. The decision between both interventions can be based on the preferences of the patient and the physiotherapist.TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR4224 (25 October 2013).
DOCUMENT
Background: Many international clinical guidelines recommend therapeutic exercise as a core treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis. We aimed to identify individual patient-level moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for reducing pain and improving physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. Methods: We did a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing therapeutic exercise with non-exercise controls in people with knee osteoathritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. We searched ten databases from March 1, 2012, to Feb 25, 2019, for randomised controlled trials comparing the effects of exercise with non-exercise or other exercise controls on pain and physical function outcomes among people with knee osteoarthritis, hip osteoarthritis, or both. IPD were requested from leads of all eligible randomised controlled trials. 12 potential moderators of interest were explored to ascertain whether they were associated with short-term (12 weeks), medium-term (6 months), and long-term (12 months) effects of exercise on self-reported pain and physical function, in comparison with non-exercise controls. Overall intervention effects were also summarised. This study is prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017054049). Findings: Of 91 eligible randomised controlled trials that compared exercise with non-exercise controls, IPD from 31 randomised controlled trials (n=4241 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. Randomised controlled trials included participants with knee osteoarthritis (18 [58%] of 31 trials), hip osteoarthritis (six [19%]), or both (seven [23%]) and tested heterogeneous exercise interventions versus heterogeneous non-exercise controls, with variable risk of bias. Summary meta-analysis results showed that, on average, compared with non-exercise controls, therapeutic exercise reduced pain on a standardised 0–100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst pain), with a difference of –6·36 points (95% CI –8·45 to –4·27, borrowing of strength [BoS] 10·3%, between-study variance [τ2] 21·6) in the short term, –3·77 points (–5·97 to –1·57, BoS 30·0%, τ2 14·4) in the medium term, and –3·43 points (–5·18 to –1·69, BoS 31·7%, τ2 4·5) in the long term. Therapeutic exercise also improved physical function on a standardised 0–100 scale (with 100 corresponding to worst physical function), with a difference of –4·46 points in the short term (95% CI –5·95 to –2·98, BoS 10·5%, τ2 10·1), –2·71 points in the medium term (–4·63 to –0·78, BoS 33·6%, τ2 11·9), and –3·39 points in the long term (–4·97 to –1·81, BoS 34·1%, τ2 6·4). Baseline pain and physical function moderated the effect of exercise on pain and physical function outcomes. Those with higher self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline (ie, poorer physical function) generally benefited more than those with lower self-reported pain and physical function scores at baseline, with the evidence most certain in the short term (12 weeks). Interpretation: There was evidence of a small, positive overall effect of therapeutic exercise on pain and physical function compared with non-exercise controls. However, this effect is of questionable clinical importance, particularly in the medium and long term. As individuals with higher pain severity and poorer physical function at baseline benefited more than those with lower pain severity and better physical function at baseline, targeting individuals with higher levels of osteoarthritis-related pain and disability for therapeutic exercise might be of merit. Funding: Chartered Society of Physiotherapy Charitable Trust and the National Institute for Health and Care Research.
DOCUMENT
Background: Knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) among older adults account for substantial disability and extensive healthcare use. Effective pain coping strategies help to deal with OA. This study aims to determine the long-term relationship between pain coping style and the course of healthcare use in patients with knee and/or hip OA over 10 years. Methods: Baseline and 10-year follow-up data of 861 Dutch participants with early knee and/or hip OA from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) cohort were used. The amount of healthcare use (HCU) and pain coping style were measured. Generalized Estimating Equations were used, adjusted for relevant confounders. Results: At baseline, 86.5% of the patients had an active pain coping style. Having an active pain coping style was significantly (p = 0.022) associated with an increase of 16.5% (95% CI, 2.0–32.7) in the number of used healthcare services over 10 years. Conclusion: Patients with early knee and/or hip OA with an active pain coping style use significantly more different healthcare services over 10 years, as opposed to those with a passive pain coping style. Further research should focus on altered treatment (e.g., focus on self-management) in patients with an active coping style, to reduce HCU.
DOCUMENT
ObjectiveThe Joint Effort Initiative (JEI) is an international collaboration of clinicians, researchers, and consumer organisations with a shared vision of improving the implementation of osteoarthritis management programs (OAMPs). This study aimed to identify JEI's future priorities and guide direction. DesignA two-part international survey to prioritise topics of importance to our membership and research stakeholders. Survey one presented a list of 40 topics under 5 themes. Consenting participants were asked to choose their top three topics in each theme. A short list of 25 topics was presented in survey two. Participants were asked to rank the importance (100-point NRS scale, 100 = highest priority). Response frequency (median, IQR) was used to rank the top priorities by theme. Results Ninety-five participants completed survey one (61% female, 48% clinicians) and 57 completed survey two. The top ranked topic/s were: i. Promotion and advocacy: support training for health professionals (median 85, IQR 24). ii. Education and training: incorporating behaviour change into OAMPs (80, 16), advanced OA skills (80, 30), and integration of OA education into clinical training (80, 36). iii. Improving OAMPs delivery: regular updates on changes to best-evidence OA care (84, 24). iv. Future research: improve uptake of exercise, physical activity, and weight-loss (89, 16). v. Enhancing relationships, alliances, and shared knowledge: promote research collaborations (81, 30), share challenges and opportunities for OAMP implementation (80, 23). ConclusionsThese topics will set the JEI's research and collaboration agenda for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: We recently developed a model of stratified exercise therapy, consisting of (i) a stratification algorithm allocating patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) into one of the three subgroups ('high muscle strength subgroup' representing a post-traumatic phenotype, 'low muscle strength subgroup' representing an age-induced phenotype, and 'obesity subgroup' representing a metabolic phenotype) and (ii) subgroup-specific exercise therapy. In the present study, we aimed to test the construct validity of this algorithm.METHODS: Data from five studies (four exercise therapy trial cohorts and one cross-sectional cohort) were used to test the construct validity of our algorithm by 63 a priori formulated hypotheses regarding three research questions: (i) are the proportions of patients in each subgroup similar across cohorts? (15 hypotheses); (ii) are the characteristics of each of the subgroups in line with their proposed underlying phenotypes? (30 hypotheses); (iii) are the effects of usual exercise therapy in the 3 subgroups in line with the proposed effect sizes? (18 hypotheses).RESULTS: Baseline data from a total of 1211 patients with knee OA were analyzed for the first and second research question, and follow-up data from 584 patients who were part of an exercise therapy arm within a trial for the third research question. In total, the vast majority (73%) of the hypotheses were confirmed. Regarding our first research question, we found similar proportions in each of the three subgroups across cohorts, especially for three cohorts. Regarding our second research question, subgroup characteristics were almost completely in line with the proposed underlying phenotypes. Regarding our third research question, usual exercise therapy resulted in similar, medium to large effect sizes for knee pain and physical function for all three subgroups.CONCLUSION: We found mixed results regarding the construct validity of our stratification algorithm. On the one hand, it is a valid instrument to consistently allocate patients into subgroups that aligned our hypotheses. On the other hand, in contrast to our hypotheses, subgroups did not differ substantially in effects of usual exercise therapy. An ongoing trial will assess whether this algorithm accompanied by subgroup-specific exercise therapy improves clinical and economic outcomes.
MULTIFILE
ObjectivesOsteoarthritis (OA) of the foot-ankle complex is understudied. Understanding determinants of pain and activity limitations is necessary to improve management of foot OA. The aim of the present study was to investigate demographic, foot-specific and comorbidity-related factors associated with pain and activity limitations in patients with foot OA.MethodsThis exploratory cross-sectional study included 75 patients with OA of the foot and/or ankle joints. Demographic and clinical data were collected with questionnaires and by clinical examination. The outcome variables of pain and activity limitations were measured using the Foot Function Index (FFI). Potential determinants were categorized into demographic factors (e.g., age, sex), foot-specific factors (e.g., plantar pressure and gait parameters), and comorbidity-related factors (e.g., type and amount of comorbid diseases). Multivariable regression analyses with backward selection (p-out≥0.05) were performed in two steps, leading to a final model.ResultsOf all potential determinants, nine factors were selected in the first step. Five of these factors were retained in the second step (final model): female sex, pain located in the hindfoot, higher body mass index (BMI), neurological comorbidity, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score were positively associated with the FFI score. The explained variance (R2) for the final model was 0.580 (adjusted R2 = 0.549).ConclusionFemale sex, pain located in the hindfoot, higher BMI, neurological comorbidity and greater psychological distress were independently associated with a higher level of foot-related pain and activity limitations. By addressing these factors in the management of foot OA, pain and activity limitations may be reduced.
DOCUMENT
ObjectiveTo investigate whether duration of knee symptoms influenced the magnitude of the effect of exercise therapy compared to non-exercise control interventions on pain and physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA).MethodWe undertook an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis utilising IPD stored within the OA Trial Bank from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing exercise to non-exercise control interventions among people with knee OA. IPD from RCTs were analysed to determine the treatment effect by considering both study-level and individual-level covariates in the multilevel regression model. To estimate the interaction effect (i.e., treatment x duration of symptoms (dichotomised)), on self-reported pain or physical function (standardised to 0–100 scale), a one-stage multilevel regression model was applied.ResultsWe included IPD from 1767 participants with knee OA from 10 RCTs. Significant interaction effects between the study arm and symptom duration (≤1 year vs >1 year, and ≤2 years vs>2 years) were found for short- (∼3 months) (Mean Difference (MD) −3.57, 95%CI −6.76 to −0.38 and −4.12, 95% CI-6.58 to −1.66, respectively) and long-term (∼12 months) pain outcomes (MD −8.33, 95%CI −12.51 to −4.15 and −8.00, 95%CI −11.21 to −4.80, respectively), and long-term function outcomes (MD −5.46, 95%CI −9.22 to −1.70 and −4.56 95%CI −7.33 to-1.80, respectively).ConclusionsThis IPD meta-analysis demonstrated that people with a relatively short symptom duration benefit more from therapeutic exercise than those with a longer symptom duration. Therefore, there seems to be a window of opportunity to target therapeutic exercise in knee OA.
DOCUMENT
Low-grade inflammation and metabolic syndrome are seen in many chronic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). Lifestyle interventions which combine different non-pharmacological therapies have shown synergizing effects in improving outcomes in patients with other chronic diseases or increased risk thereof, especially cardiovascular disease. For RA and metabolic syndrome-associated OA (MSOA), whole food plant-based diets (WFPDs) have shown promising results. A WFPD, however, had not yet been combined with other lifestyle interventions for RA and OA patients. In this protocol paper, we therefore present Plants for Joints, a multidisciplinary lifestyle program, based on a WFPD, exercise, and stress management. The objective is to study the effect of this program on disease activity in patients with RA (randomized controlled trial [RCT] 1), on a risk score for developing RA in patients with anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) positive arthralgia (RCT 2) and on pain, stiffness, and function in patients with MSOA (RCT 3), all in comparison with usual care.We designed three 16-week observer-blind RCTs with a waiting-list control group for patients with RA with low to moderate disease activity (2.6 ≤ Disease Activity Score [DAS28] ≤ 5.1, RCT 1, n = 80), for patients at risk for RA, defined by ACPA-positive arthralgia (RCT 2, n = 16) and for patients with metabolic syndrome and OA in the knee and/or hip (RCT 3, n = 80). After personal counseling on diet and exercise, participants join 10 group meetings with 6-12 other patients to receive theoretical and practical training on a WFPD, exercise, and stress management, while medication remains unchanged. The waiting-list control group receives usual care, while entering the program after the RCT. Primary outcomes are: difference in mean change between intervention and control groups within 16 weeks for the DAS28 in RA patients (RCT 1), the RA-risk score for ACPA positive arthralgia patients (RCT 2), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score for MSOA patients (RCT 3). Continued adherence to the lifestyle program is measured in a two-year observational extension study.
DOCUMENT
