Reductions of cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors after a 14-week periodized training model in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial

Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a major public health issue causing chronic pain, impaired physical function, and reduced quality of life. As there is no cure, self-management of symptoms via exercise is recommended by all current international clinical guidelines. This review updates one published in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the effects of land-based exercise for people with knee osteoarthritis (OA) by comparing: 1) exercise versus attention control or placebo; 2) exercise versus no treatment, usual care, or limited education; 3) exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), together with reference lists, from the date of the last search (1st May 2013) until 4 January 2024, unrestricted by language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated exercise for knee OA versus a comparator listed above. Our outcomes of interest were pain severity, physical function, quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, adverse events, and study withdrawals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for systematic reviews of interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 139 trials (12,468 participants): 30 (3065 participants) compared exercise to attention control or placebo; 60 (4834 participants) compared exercise with usual care, no intervention or limited education; and 49 (4569 participants) evaluated exercise added to another intervention (e.g. weight loss diet, physical therapy, detailed education) versus that intervention alone. Interventions varied substantially in duration, ranging from 2 to 104 weeks. Most of the trials were at unclear or high risk of bias, in particular, performance bias (94% of trials), detection bias (94%), selective reporting bias (68%), selection bias (57%), and attrition bias (48%). Exercise versus attention control/placebo Compared with attention control/placebo, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in a slight improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 8.70 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.70 to 11.70; 28 studies, 2873 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 11.27 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 7.64 to 15.09; 24 studies, 2536 participants), but little to no improvement in quality of life (mean 6.06 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI -0.13 to 12.26; 6 studies, 454 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92; 2 studies 364 participants), and likely does not increase study withdrawals (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.26; 29 studies, 2907 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may not increase adverse events (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.58; 11 studies, 1684 participants). Exercise versus no treatment/usual care/limited education Compared with no treatment/usual care/limited education, low-certainty evidence indicates exercise may result in an improvement in pain immediately post-intervention (mean 13.14 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 10.36 to 15.91; 56 studies, 4184 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence indicates exercise likely results in an improvement in physical function (mean 12.53 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 9.74 to 15.31; 54 studies, 4352 participants) and a slight improvement in quality of life (mean 5.37 points better (on a scale of to 100), 95% CI 3.19 to 7.54; 28 studies, 2328 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may result in no difference in participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.49; 3 studies, 405 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely results in no difference in study withdrawals (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.20; 53 studies, 4408 participants). There was low-certainty evidence that exercise may increase adverse events (RR 3.17, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.57; 18 studies, 1557 participants). Exercise added to another co-intervention versus the co-intervention alone Moderate-certainty evidence indicates that exercise when added to a co-intervention likely results in improvements in pain immediately post-intervention compared to the co-intervention alone (mean 10.43 points better (on a scale of 0 to 100), 95% CI 8.06 to 12.79; 47 studies, 4441 participants). It also likely results in a slight improvement in physical function (mean 9.66 points better, 95% CI 7.48 to 11.97 (on a 0 to 100 scale); 44 studies, 4381 participants) and quality of life (mean 4.22 points better (on a 0 to 100 scale), 95% CI 1.36 to 7.07; 12 studies, 1660 participants) immediately post-intervention. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise likely increases participant-reported treatment success (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24; 6 studies, 1139 participants), slightly reduces study withdrawals (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.97; 41 studies, 3502 participants), and slightly increases adverse events (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.76; 19 studies, 2187 participants). Subgroup analysis and meta-regression We did not find any differences in effects between different types of exercise, and we found no relationship between changes in pain or physical function and the total number of exercise sessions prescribed or the ratio (between exercise group and comparator) of real-time consultations with a healthcare provider. Clinical significance of the findings To determine whether the results found would make a clinically meaningful difference to someone with knee OA, we compared our results to established 'minimal important difference' (MID) scores for pain (12 points on a 0 to 100 scale), physical function (13 points), and quality of life (15 points). We found that the confidence intervals of mean differences either did not reach these thresholds or included both a clinically important and clinically unimportant improvement.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence that exercise probably results in an improvement in pain, physical function, and quality of life in the short-term. However, based on the thresholds for minimal important differences that we used, these benefits were of uncertain clinical importance. Participants in most trials were not blinded and were therefore aware of their treatment, and this may have contributed to reported improvements.

Aerobic and Resistance Training Attenuate Differently Knee Joint Damage Caused by a High-Fat-High-Sucrose Diet in a Rat Model

OBJECTIVE

Obesity and associated low-level local systemic inflammation have been linked to an increased rate of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA). Aerobic exercise has been shown to protect the knee from obesity-induced joint damage. The aims of this study were to determine (1) if resistance training provides beneficial metabolic effects similar to those previously observed with aerobic training in rats consuming a high-fat/high-sucrose (HFS) diet and (2) if these metabolic effects mitigate knee OA in a diet-induced obesity model in rats.

DESIGN

Twelve-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized into 4 groups: (1) a group fed an HFS diet subjected to aerobic exercise (HFS+Aer), (2) a group fed an HFS diet subjected to resistance exercise (HFS+Res), (3) a group fed an HFS diet with no exercise (HFS+Sed), and (4) a chow-fed sedentary control group (Chow+Sed). HFS+Sed animals were heavier and had greater body fat, higher levels of triglycerides and total cholesterol, and more joint damage than Chow+Sed animals.

RESULTS

The HFS+Res group had higher body mass and body fat than Chow+Sed animals and higher OA scores than animals from the HFS+Aer group. Severe bone lesions were observed in the HFS+Sed and Chow+Sed animals at age 24 weeks, but not in the HFS+Res and HFS+Aer group animals.

CONCLOSION

In summary, aerobic training provided better protection against knee joint OA than resistance training in this rat model of HFS-diet-induced obesity. Exposing rats to exercise, either aerobic or resistance training, had a protective effect against the severe bone lesions observed in the nonexercised rats.

The Effects of Resistance Training on Pain, Strength, and Function in Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Pain is the most common symptom of osteoarthritis (OA), and it leads to functional decline, such as decreased mobility and limitations in activities of daily living, which leads to difficulties in social participation, increased social isolation, and economic burden. Muscle weakness can be a cause of OA symptoms. The purpose was to analyze the effects of resistance training on improving pain, strength, and function in OA and to analyze the effects by intervention duration and joint. Methods: The study search was conducted on 14 September 2024, and the period of study inclusion covered studies available in the databases from their inception to the search date. The databases used were PubMed, CHINAL, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were studies that targeted OA and compared a resistance training intervention with a no resistance training intervention group and measured pain, strength, and function. Subgroup analysis was used to analyze the effects by intervention duration (4 weeks or less, 5 to 8 weeks, 9 weeks or more) and joint (knee, hip). Results: A total of 27 studies included 1712 subjects, and significant improvements were observed in pain (SMD: -0.48, CI: -0.58~-0.37, I2: 45%), strength (SMD: 0.4, CI: 0.32~0.47, I2: 0%), and function (SMD: -0.56, CI: -0.65~-0.47, I2: 30%). In the effects by intervention duration, both pain and strength showed significant improvements, but no effect on function was observed for less than 4 weeks. For effects by joint, both the knee and hip showed significant improvements. Conclusions: Resistance training was effective in improving pain, strength, and function in patients with knee and hip OA.

Pain catastrophizing in rheumatic diseases: prevalence, origin, and implications

Pain is a crucial factor in rheumatic disorders, and reducing it is a primary goal of successful treatment. Adaptive pain-coping strategies can enhance this improvement, but maladaptive approaches such as pain catastrophizing may worsen overall patient well-being. This narrative review aims to provide a concise overview of the existing knowledge on pain catastrophizing in the most prevalent specific rheumatic disorders. The objective of this study was to improve understanding of this phenomenon and its implications, as well as to pinpoint potential directions for future research. We conducted searches in the MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS, and DOAJ bibliography databases to identify articles related to pain catastrophizing in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, axial spondylarthritis, systemic sclerosis, systemic lupus erythematosus, Sjögren's syndrome, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and osteoarthritis (non-surgical treatment). Data extraction was performed on November 1, 2023. The investigators screened the identified articles to determine their relevance and whether they met the inclusion criteria. Following a bibliography search, which was further expanded by screening of citations and references, we included 156 records in the current review. The full-text analysis centred on pain catastrophizing, encompassing its prevalence, pathogenesis, and impact. The review established the role of catastrophizing in amplifying pain and diminishing various aspects of general well-being. Also, potential treatment approaches were discussed and summarised across the examined disorders. Pain catastrophizing is as a significant factor in rheumatic disorders. Its impact warrants further exploration through prospective controlled trials to enhance global patient outcomes.

Face-to-face and telerehabilitation delivery of circuit training have similar benefits and acceptability in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised trial

QUESTION

Is periodised circuit training delivered via a telerehabilitation model of care as effective as the same training applied face-to-face for improving pain intensity, physical function, muscle strength, pain catastrophising, body composition, intermuscular adipose tissue and muscle architecture in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA)?

DESIGN

Randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred adults aged ≥ 40 years with knee OA and pain for ≥ 3 months, with current pain ≥ 40 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS).

INTERVENTION

The experimental group received 14 weeks of circuit training delivered via telerehabilitation using video recordings, followed by periodic phone calls in order to motivate and instruct participants. The control group received the same circuit training program in a face-to-face format.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were pain VAS and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function subscale, measured at 14 weeks. Secondary outcomes included objective physical function, strength, pain catastrophising and morphological measures (muscle architecture and thigh and body composition). Outcomes were measured at 14 and 26 weeks.

RESULTS

Periodised circuit training delivered via telerehabilitation had equivalent effects to face-to-face delivery for pain intensity, physical function, muscle strength, pain catastrophising, thigh composition, intermuscular adipose tissue and muscle architecture. Whole body composition did not change appreciably in either group. Adherence to the training was excellent and participants in each group reported good perceptions of their randomised intervention.

CONCLUSION

A periodised circuit training protocol can be delivered to people with knee OA in their own homes, using available technology while maintaining high levels of acceptability. More importantly, telerehabilitation appears to cause non-inferior physical and functional outcomes to face-to-face rehabilitation programs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

RBR-662hn2.

Dose-Response Relationships of Resistance Training in Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

To determine the effects of resistance training (RT) on symptoms, function, and lower limb muscle strength in patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and to determine the optimal dose-response relationships.

DATA SOURCES

We searched the PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to January 23, 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of RT in KOA patients (mean age ≥50 years) were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We applied Hedges' g of the random-effects model to calculate the between-subject standardized mean difference (SMDbs). A random-effects metaregression was calculated to explain the influence of key training variables on the effectiveness of RT. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method to appraise the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 46 studies with 4289 participants were included. The analysis revealed moderate effects of RT on symptoms and function (SMDbs =-0.52; 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.40), and lower limb muscle strength (SMDbs = 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.64) in the intervention group compared with the control group. The results of the metaregression revealed that only the variable "training period" (P< .001) had significant effects on symptoms, function, and lower limb muscle strength, and the 4 to 8 weeks of training subgroup showed greater effects than other subgroups (SMDbs =-0.70, -0.91 to -0.48; SMDbs = 0.76, 0.56 to 0.96).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with inactive treatments, RT is strongly recommended to improve symptoms, function, and muscle strength in individuals with KOA. Dose-response relationship analysis showed that 4 to 8 weeks of RT had more benefits.

Effects of Circuit Training on Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The most prevalent joint disease is osteoarthritis (OA), which affects an estimated 240 million individuals worldwide. Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of the top 10 causes of disability worldwide. The aim of this study is to systematically evaluate the effect of circuit training (CT) on patients with KOA. We searched through PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and Google Scholar up to 12 February 2022. We used random-effects statistical analysis for continuous variables and reported the results as a standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CI). Seven trials involving 346 patients were included. A significant improvement in the intervention group was observed for the parameter, pain level (SMD -0.96, 95% CI -1.77 to -0.14; p = 0.02; seven trials, 346 participants; high quality evidence), while no significant improvement was found in physical function (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.44-0.50; p = 0.89; five trials, 294 participants; high-quality evidence), quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -1.18-0.68; p = 0.60; three trials, 205 participants; high-quality evidence), the activity of daily living (SMD 0.81, 95% CI -0.85-2.48; p = 0.34; three trials, 223 participants; high-quality evidence), and knee stiffness (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.96-0.66; p = 0.33; two trials, 71 participants; high-quality evidence). The findings in this meta-analysis suggest that CT could effectively complement the conventional treatment of KOA, particularly in alleviating pain. However, comprehensive data on the guidelines for the CT approach would be needed to adequately examine the effects of CT on quality of life and biochemical markers in patients with KOA.

Effect of Rehabilitation Physical Training on PE Teaching Sports Injury under Ultrasonic Examination

In order to solve the problem of the effect of rehabilitation physical training on physical education teaching injury, a method based on ultrasonic examination of rehabilitation physical training on physical education teaching injury effect observation method is proposed. In this method, the ISOMED isokinetic muscle strength test, the body shape test, the balance ability test, the lower limb explosive power test, and other methods are used to evaluate the knee joint of patients systematically, and the specific rehabilitation physical training plan is formulated to achieve the treatment purpose. The experimental results show that after the targeted training, a series of indicators on the affected side increase significantly: the power increases by 45.6%, the force increases by 8.3%, and the speed increases by 38.7%. It is concluded that the muscle strength, shape, balance ability, and lower limb explosive power of patients are significantly improved, which lays a solid foundation for athletes to recover smoothly and achieve good competition results.

Effects of a periodized circuit training protocol delivered by telerehabilitation compared to face-to-face method for knee osteoarthritis: a protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Regular exercise is an effective method for reducing pain and disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), as well as improving body composition. Thus, a combination of both resistance and aerobic training (circuit training) has shown to be promising for this population. However, access to physical therapy is limited by physical distance, social isolation, and/or treatment costs. Remote rehabilitation seems to be an effective way to minimize these barriers, but the benefits are dependent on the participants' adherence to the interventions provided at a distance. The objectives of this protocol are to compare the effects of a periodized circuit training applied via telerehabilitation with the same protocol applied in the face-to-face model for individuals with knee OA.

METHODS

This study presents a single-blinded protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. One hundred participants diagnosed with knee OA (grades II and III Kellgren and Lawrence system), aged 40 years or more, and BMI < 30 kg/m2 will be randomly divided into two groups: telerehabilitation (TR) and face-to-face (FtF) circuit training. The FtF group will perform a 14-week periodized circuit training protocol supervised by a physical therapist, 3 times a week. The TR group will perform the same exercise protocol at home, at least 3 times a week. In addition, the TR group will be able to follow the execution and orientations of the exercises by DVD, a website, and online file sharing tools, and they will receive periodic phone calls in order to motivate, clarify, and inform some aspects of knee OA. The primary outcomes are changes in self-reported pain intensity (visual analog scale (VAS)) and physical function (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)), with a primary end-point of 14 weeks and a secondary end-point of 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes include changes in other clinical outcomes, in morphological characteristics, adherence, acceptability, and treatment perspective.

DISCUSSION

A circuit training through telerehabilitation may contribute to developing early intervention in the causative and potentiating factors of the knee OA, verifying the effects of a low-cost, non-pharmacological and non-invasive treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) ID: RBR-662hn2. Registered on 31 March 2019. Link: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br ; Universal Trial Number (UTN) of World Health Organization: U1111-1230-9517.

Effect of resistance training with and without caloric restriction on visceral fat: A systemic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of resistance training (RT) with and without caloric restriction (CR) on visceral fat (VF). PubMed and Scopus were searched to identify original articles published through December 2020. Standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were determined, and separate analyses were conducted for RT versus control, and RT plus CR versus CR only. Thirty-four studies including 38 intervention arms and involving 2285 were included in the meta-analysis. RT effectively reduced VF [-24 (95% CI -0.34 to -0.13), p < 0.001; I²  = 4.17%, p = 0.40; 24 intervention arms] when compared with control. Based on subgroup analyses, reduction in VF was significant for individual with (p = 0.04) and without (p < 0.001) obesity as well as across medium-term (p = 0.001) and long-term (p = 0.002) interventions. Reduction in VF was significant for both middle-age (p = 0.03) and elderly (p = 0.001) adults but was not significant for pediatric (p = 0.08) participants. However, RT plus CR did not indicate superiority effect on VF [0.23 95% CI -0.04 to 0.51, p = 0.09; I²  = 58.76%, p = 0.003; 14 intervention arms] when compared with CR only. Our results confirm that RT may be effective for reducing VF, but adding RT with CR was not associated with a greater effect for reducing VF.

Resistance training to reduce resting blood pressure and increase muscle strength in users and non-users of anti-hypertensive medication: A meta-analysis

Objective: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis to analyze the effect of resistance training variables prescription on resting systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and muscle strength changes. Methods: The search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, and SPORTDiscus databases until August 2020 for randomized controlled trials with non-exercising control group. Results: In total, 36 studies qualified for inclusion in this meta-analysis. Eleven studies included users of antihypertensive medication, while the remaining 25 studies were conducted with non-users of antihypertensive medication. Resistance training only reduced SBP (-0.56 [-0.77 to -0.35]; P < .001) and DBP (-0.46 [-0.68 to -0.24]; P < .001) in anti-hypertensive medication users, with changes ranging from -6.1 to -2.8 mmHg for SBP and -4.6 to -1.6 mmHg for DBP. Muscle strength increased significantly in both users (0.76 [0.49 to 1.02]; P < .001) and non-users of antihypertensive medication (0.94 [0.71 to 1.16]; P < .001). Resistance training should be performed by users and non-users of antihypertensive medication for 8 to 16 weeks (2 to 3 days a week) and 8 to 12 non-failure repetitions. However, users should train with less load (60-80 vs 70-85% 1RM) and exercise sets (1-3 vs 2-4) than non-users of antihypertensive medication. Conclusion: Resistance training increases muscle strength and reduces resting SBP and DBP in individuals under BP pharmacological therapy, while in individuals who do not use antihypertensive drugs, resistance training only increases strength.