ObjectiveFirst, to make an inventory of activity limitations commonly reported by knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergoing multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Second, to evaluate treatment outcome using the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) and compare it to the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale (WOMAC-pf).DesignAn observational study with assessments before and immediately after multidisciplinary rehabilitation. Five hundred and thirteen patients used the PSFS, a patient-reported tool to identify activity limitations and score the patient's ability to perform the activity on an 11-point Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), to report three activities in which they were limited. Frequencies and percentages of their highest-prioritized activity were calculated and categorized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Paired-samples T-tests were used to analyze the change in ability to perform the activities. Effect sizes of PSFS and WOMAC-pf were compared.ResultsMost patients indicated limitations in walking, walking up/down stairs, prolonged standing, and standing up from a chair. Following these common activities, 26 different activities were identified. The majority of these highest-prioritized activities fell under the first-level ICF category of Mobility. The ability to perform all activities significantly improved after treatment. Effect sizes ranged between 0.60 and 0.97 and were greater than the effect size of the WOMAC-pf (0.41).ConclusionKnee OA patients who undergo multidisciplinary rehabilitation exhibit improvements in performing daily activities. The PSFS is a valuable tool to evaluate patient-specific activity limitations and seems to capture improvements in activity limitations beyond the WOMAC-pf.
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.
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.
