EULAR recommendations for the non-pharmacological core management of hip and knee osteoarthritis

Unloading shoes for osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for the SHARK randomised controlled trial

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common and disabling condition. Abnormalities in knee loading play an important role in disease pathogenesis, yet there are few non-surgical treatments for knee OA capable of reducing knee load. This two-arm randomised controlled trial is investigating the efficacy of specially-designed unloading shoes for the treatment of symptoms in people with knee OA.

Methods/Design

164 people with symptomatic medial tibiofemoral joint OA will be recruited from the community and randomly allocated to receive either unloading shoes or control shoes. Unloading shoes have a specially-designed triple-density midsole where the medial side is softer than normal and the lateral side harder as well as a lateral wedge between the sole and sock-liner. Control shoes are standard athletic shoes and do not contain these features. Participants will be blinded to shoe allocation and will be instructed to wear the shoes as much as possible every day for 6 months, for a minimum of 4 hours per day. The primary outcomes are knee pain (numerical rating scale) and self-reported physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) measured at baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes include additional measures of knee pain, knee stiffness, participant global ratings of change in symptoms, quality-of-life and physical activity.

Conclusions

The findings from this study will help determine whether specially-designed unloading shoes are efficacious in the management of knee OA.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry reference: ACTRN12613000851763.

Designing a strategy to implement optimal conservative treatments in patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice: a study protocol of the BART-OP study

Background

National and international evidence-based guidelines for hip and knee osteoarthritis recommend to start with (a combination of) conservative treatments, followed by surgical intervention if a patient does not respond sufficiently to conservative treatment options. Despite these recommendations, there are strong indications that conservative treatments are not optimally used in orthopedic practice. Our study aims to quantify the use of conservative treatments in Dutch orthopedic practice and to explore the barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments that should be taken into account in a strategy to improve the embedding of conservative treatments in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice.

Methods

This study consists of three phases. First, current use of conservative treatments in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis will be explored using an internet-based survey among at least 100 patients to identify the underused conservative treatments. Second, barriers and facilitators for the use of conservative treatments in orthopedic practice will be identified using semi-structured interviews among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 5 patients. The interviews will be followed by an internet-based survey among approximately 450 orthopedic surgeons and at least 100 patients in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results of the previous phases using intervention mapping.

Discussion

The developed strategy is likely to result in an optimal and standardized use of conservative treatment options in hip and knee osteoarthritis in orthopedic practice, because it is focused on identified barriers and facilitators. In addition, the results of this study can be used as an example for optimizing the use of conservative care in other patient groups. In a subsequent study, the developed implementation strategy will be assessed on its effectiveness, feasibility and costs.

Recommendations for exercise adherence measures in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review and consensus meeting (protocol)

BACKGROUND

Exercise programmes are frequently advocated for the management of musculoskeletal disorders; however, adherence is an important pre-requisite for their success. The assessment of exercise adherence requires the use of relevant and appropriate measures, but guidance for appropriate assessment does not exist. This research will identify and evaluate the quality and acceptability of all measures used to assess exercise adherence within a musculoskeletal setting, seeking to reach consensus for the most relevant and appropriate measures for application in research and/or clinical practice settings.

METHODS/DESIGN

There are two key stages to the proposed research. First, a systematic review of the quality and acceptability of measures used to assess exercise adherence in musculoskeletal disorders; second, a consensus meeting. The systematic review will be conducted in two phases and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to ensure a robust methodology. Phase one will identify all measures that have been used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase two will seek to identify published and unpublished evidence of the measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Study quality will be assessed against the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. A shortlist of best quality measures will be produced for consideration during stage two: a meeting of relevant stakeholders in the United Kingdom during which consensus on the most relevant and appropriate measures of exercise adherence for application in research and/or clinical practice settings will be sought.

DISCUSSION

This study will benefit clinicians who seek to evaluate patients' levels of exercise adherence and those intending to undertake research, service evaluation, or audit relating to exercise adherence in the musculoskeletal field. The findings will impact upon new research studies which aim to understand the factors that predict adherence with exercise and which test different adherence-enhancing interventions. PROSPERO reference: CRD42013006212.

A systematic critical appraisal for non-pharmacological management of osteoarthritis using the appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation II instrument

Clinical practice CPGs (CPGs) have been developed to summarize evidence related to the management of osteoarthritis (OA). CPGs facilitate uptake of evidence-based knowledge by consumers, health professionals, health administrators and policy makers. The objectives of the present review were: 1) to assess the quality of the CPGs on non-pharmacological management of OA; using a standardized and validated instrument - the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool - by three pairs of trained appraisers; and 2) to summarize the recommendations based on only high-quality existing CPGs. Scientific literature databases from 2001 to 2013 were systematically searched for the state of evidence, with 17 CPGs for OA being identified. Most CPGs effectively addressed only a minority of AGREE II domains. Scope and purpose was effectively addressed in 10 CPGs on the management of OA, stakeholder involvement in 12 CPGs, rigour of development in 10 CPGs, clarity/presentation in 17 CPGs, editorial independence in 2 CPGs, and applicability in none of the OA CPGs. The overall quality of the included CPGs, according to the 7-point AGREE II scoring system, is 4.8±0.41 for OA. Therapeutic exercises, patient education, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, acupuncture, orthoses and insoles, heat and cryotherapy, patellar tapping, and weight control are commonly recommended for the non-pharmacological management of OA by the high-quality CPGs. The general clinical management recommendations tended to be similar among high-quality CPGs, although interventions addressed varied. Non-pharmacological management interventions were superficially addressed in more than half of the selected CPGs. For CPGs to be standardized uniform creators should use the AGREE II criteria when developing CPGs. Innovative and effective methods of CPG implementation to users are needed to ultimately enhance the quality of life of arthritic individuals.

A systematic review of recommendations and guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis: The chronic osteoarthritis management initiative of the U.S. bone and joint initiative

PURPOSE

Although a number of osteoarthritis (OA) management guidelines exist, uptake has been suboptimal. Our aim was to review and critically evaluate existing OA management guidelines to better understand potential issues and barriers.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature in MEDLINE published from January 1, 2000 to April 1, 2013 was performed and supplemented by bibliographic reviews, following PRISMA guidelines and a written protocol. Following initial title and abstract screening, 2 authors independently reviewed full-text articles; a third settled disagreements. Two independent reviewers extracted data into a standardized form. Two authors independently assessed guideline quality using the AGREE II instrument; three generated summary recommendations based on the extracted guideline data.

RESULTS

Overall, 16 articles were included in the final review. There was broad agreement on recommendations by the various organizations. For non-pharmacologic modalities, education/self-management, exercise, weight loss if overweight, walking aids as indicated, and thermal modalities were widely recommended. For appropriate patients, joint replacement was recommended; arthroscopy with debridement was not recommended for symptomatic knee OA. Pharmacologic modalities most recommended included acetaminophen/paracetamol (first line) and NSAIDs (topical or oral, second line). Intra-articular corticosteroids were generally recommended for hip and knee OA. Controversy remains about the use of acupuncture, knee braces, heel wedges, intra-articular hyaluronans, and glucosamine/chondroitin.

CONCLUSIONS

The relative agreement on many OA management recommendations across organizations indicates a problem with dissemination and implementation rather than a lack of quality guidelines. Future efforts should focus on optimizing implementation in primary care settings, where the majority of OA care occurs.

Patient reported barriers and facilitators to using a self-management booklet for hip and knee osteoarthritis in primary care: results of a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

To enhance guideline-based non-surgical management of hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA), a multidisciplinary, stepped-care strategy has been implemented in primary care in a region of the Netherlands. To facilitate this implementation, the self-management booklet "Care for Osteoarthritis" was developed and introduced. The aim of the booklet was to educate patients about OA, to enhance the patient's active role in the treatment course, and to improve the communication with health care providers. To successfully introduce the booklet on a large scale we assessed barriers and facilitators for patients to using this booklet.

METHODS

Seventeen primary care patients with hip or knee OA who received the self-management booklet participated in this qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity of the patients' view about the booklet. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Three core themes with patient perceived barriers and facilitators to use the booklet emerged from the interviews: 1) the role of health care providers, 2) the patient's perceptions about OA and its manageability, and 3) the patient's perceptions about the usefulness of the booklet and patient's information needs. Regarding the first theme, a barrier was the lack of encouragement from health care providers to use the booklet in the treatment course of OA. Moreover, patients had doubts concerning the health care providers' endorsement of non-surgical treatment for OA. Barriers from the second theme were: thinking that OA is not treatable or that being pro-active during the treatment course is not important. In contrast, being convinced about the importance of an active participation in the treatment course was a facilitator. Third, patients' perceptions about the usefulness of the booklet and patients' information needs were both identified as barriers as well as facilitators for booklet use.

CONCLUSIONS

This study contributes to the understanding of patient perceived barriers and facilitators to use a self-management booklet in the treatment course of OA. The results offer practical starting points to tailor the implementation activities of the booklet nationwide and to introduce comparable educational tools in OA primary care or in other chronic diseases.

Conflicts of interest in biomedical publications: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors

This article overviews evidence on common instances of conflict of interest (COI) in research publications from general and specialized fields of biomedicine. Financial COIs are viewed as the most powerful source of bias, which may even distort citation outcomes of sponsored publications. The urge to boost journal citation indicators by stakeholders of science communication is viewed as a new secondary interest, which may compromize the interaction between authors, peer reviewers and editors. Comprehensive policies on disclosure of financial and non-financial COIs in scholarly journals are presented as proxies of their indexing in evidence-based databases, and examples of successful medical journals are discussed in detail. Reports on clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines may be unduly influenced by author-pharmaceutical industry relations, but these publications do not always contain explicit disclosures to allow the readers to judge the reliability of the published conclusions and practice-changing recommendations. The article emphasizes the importance of adhering to the guidance on COI from learned associations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). It also considers joint efforts of authors, peer reviewers and editors as a foundation for appropriately defining and disclosing potential COIs.

Systematic review of guidelines for the physical management of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

To undertake a systematic critical appraisal of guidelines to provide a summary of recommendations for the physical management of osteoarthritis (OA).

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus with Full Text, Scopus, ScienceDirect, PEDro, and Google Scholar databases were searched (2000-2013) to identify all guidelines, protocols, and recommendations for the management or treatment of OA. In addition, Internet searches of all relevant arthritis organizations were undertaken. All searches were performed between July 2012 and end of April 2013. Guidelines that included only pharmacological, injection therapy, or surgical interventions were excluded. Guidelines published only in English were retrieved.

STUDY SELECTION

OA guidelines developed from evidence-based research, consensus, and/or expert opinion were retrieved. There were no restrictions on severity or site of OA, sex, or age. Nineteen guidelines were identified for evaluation.

DATA EXTRACTION

The quality of all guidelines was critically appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation II instrument. Each guideline was independently reviewed. All relevant recommendations for the physical management of OA were synthesized, graded, and ranked according to available evidence.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seventeen guidelines with recommendations on the physical management of OA met the inclusion criteria and underwent a full critical appraisal. There were variations in the interventions, levels of evidence, and strength of recommendations across the guidelines. Forty different interventions were identified. Recommendations were graded from "strongly recommended" to "unsupported." Exercise and education were found to be strongly recommended by most guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Exercise and education were key recommendations supporting the importance of rehabilitation in the physical management of OA. This critical appraisal can assist health care providers who are involved in the management of people with OA.

Efficacy of strength and aerobic exercise on patient-reported outcomes and structural changes in patients with knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Despite an extensive literature on treatment interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis, studies comparing the efficacy of different exercise interventions and living the life as usual on quality of life, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness are lacking. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of two different exercise programs compared to a control group in individuals with established radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis on self-reported knee-related quality of life, knee pain, physical function, and cartilage quality.

METHODS/DESIGN

A three-armed randomized controlled trial involving two exercise interventions and a control group of individuals doing as they usually do is described. The patients will have mild to moderate radiographic osteoarthritis according to the Kellgren and Lawrence classification (grade 2-3), and fulfill the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria, be aged between 45 and 65 years, and have no other serious physical or mental illnesses. The patients will be randomly allocated to a strength exercise group; a cycling group, or a control group. The primary outcome is the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score knee-related quality of life subscale. Secondary outcomes include all five Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, morphological evaluation of cartilage including focal thickness, subchondral bone marrow edema, proteoglycan content and collagen degradation (measured using magnetic resonance imaging clinical sequences, T2 mapping and T1ρ), specific serum biomarkers, isokinetic muscle strength, maximal oxygen uptake, quality of life (EuroQol 5D), and self-efficacy (Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale). A sample size calculation on the primary outcome showed that 207 individuals, 69 in each group, is needed to detect a clinically relevant difference of 10 points with 80% power and a significance level of 5%. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 14 weeks, 1 year and 2 years post-randomization. The interventions will be a 14 weeks exercise program.

DISCUSSION

Although exercise therapy has been found to be effective in knee osteoarthritis, the knowledge of the underlying mechanisms for why exercise works is lacking. This study will contribute with knowledge on the efficacy of strength exercise versus cycling on patient-reported outcomes, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01682980.

Safety and Tolerability of Intra-Articular Hyaluronic Acid Injection (Sinovial®) in Experimental and Clinical Practice

Osteoarthritis (OA) requires long-term treatment, therefore, tolerability is a key factor in treatment choice. Hyaluronic acid (HA), a glycosaminoglycan with viscoelastic properties, a major component of synovial fluid and the extracellular matrix of the joint cartilage, plays key roles in synovial fluid viscosity and maintaining normal cartilage. Viscosupplementation is an intra-articular (IA) injection of exogenous HA in an effort to delay joint mobility loss. Commercially available viscosupplementation includes HA of different average molecular weight (MW), concentration and origins, with varying tolerability. This review describes the tolerability and safety profile of Sinovial® in knee and hip OA. A literature search of PubMed using the search queries [Sinovial® OR hyaluronic acid OR hyaluronan] and [intra-articular OR osteoarthritis] was performed using terms as medical subject headings and free text searches. Studies were selected manually for inclusion in this review. Sinovial® is a low-medium MW HA of non-avian origin, produced by biofermentation to ensure the product is pure and free of allergenic animal proteins. We analyzed data regarding the tolerability of Sinovial® in OA patients. This formulation has a favorable tolerability profile; no systemic reactions have been reported and most adverse events (AEs) are mild, transient and easily managed local injection site reactions. Reactions — pain and burning at the injection site - are typical of IA injections. AEs with Sinovial® used in the hip are similar to knee OA.

Lower body positive pressure: an emerging technology in the battle against knee osteoarthritis?

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent medical condition in individuals over the age of 65 years, and is a progressive joint degenerative condition with no known cure. Research suggests that there is a strong relationship between knee pain and loss of physical function. The resulting lifestyle modifications negatively impact not only disease onset and progression but also overall health, work productivity, and quality of life of the affected individual.

Purpose

The goal of this investigation was to examine the feasibility of using an emerging technology called lower body positive pressure (LBPP) to simulate weight loss and reduce acute knee pain during treadmill walking exercise in overweight individuals with radiographically confirmed symptomatic knee OA.

Design

Prospective case series.

Methods

Twenty-two overweight individuals with knee OA completed two 20-minute treadmill walking sessions (one full weight bearing and one LBPP supported) at a speed of 3.1 mph, 0% incline. Acute knee pain was assessed using a visual analog scale, and the percentage of LBPP support required to minimize knee pain was evaluated every 5 minutes. Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores were used to quantify knee pain and functional status between walking sessions. The order of testing was randomized, with sessions occurring a minimum of 1 week apart.

Results

A mean LBPP of 12.4% of body weight provided participants with significant pain relief during walking, and prevented exacerbation of acute knee pain over the duration of the 20-minute exercise session. Patients felt safe and confident walking with LBPP support on the treadmill, and demonstrated no change in Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores over the duration of the investigation.

Conclusion

Results suggest that LBPP technology can be used safely and effectively to simulate weight loss and reduce acute knee pain during weight-bearing exercise in an overweight knee OA patient population. These results could have important implications for the development of future treatment strategies used in the management of at-risk patients with progressive knee OA.