OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Design and conduct of implementation trials of interventions for osteoarthritis

Tissue engineering and future directions in regenerative medicine for knee cartilage repair: a comprehensive review

This review evaluates the current landscape and future directions of regenerative medicine for knee cartilage repair, with a particular focus on tissue engineering strategies. In this context, scaffold-based approaches have emerged as promising solutions for cartilage regeneration. Synthetic scaffolds, while offering superior mechanical properties, often lack the biological cues necessary for effective tissue integration. Natural scaffolds, though biocompatible and biodegradable, frequently suffer from inadequate mechanical strength. Hybrid scaffolds, combining elements of both synthetic and natural materials, present a balanced approach, enhancing both mechanical support and biological functionality. Advances in decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds have shown potential in promoting cell infiltration and integration with native tissues. Additionally, bioprinting technologies have enabled the creation of complex, bioactive scaffolds that closely mimic the zonal organization of native cartilage, providing an optimal environment for cell growth and differentiation. The review also explores the potential of gene therapy and gene editing techniques, including CRISPR-Cas9, to enhance cartilage repair by targeting specific genetic pathways involved in tissue regeneration. The integration of these advanced therapies with tissue engineering approaches holds promise for developing personalized and durable treatments for knee cartilage injuries and osteoarthritis. In conclusion, this review underscores the importance of continued multidisciplinary collaboration to advance these innovative therapies from bench to bedside and improve outcomes for patients with knee cartilage damage.

Heat and Acupuncture to Manage Osteoarthritis of the Knee (HARMOKnee): Protocol for an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is one of most prevalent and fastest-growing causes of pain, impaired mobility, and poor quality of life in the rapidly aging population worldwide. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), particularly acupuncture, and a lack of KOA practice guidelines that are tailored to unique population demographics and tropical climates.

OBJECTIVE

Our HARMOKnee (Heat and Acupuncture to Manage Osteoarthritis of the Knee) trial aims to address these gaps by evaluating the short- and medium-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of acupuncture with heat therapy in addition to standard care, compared to standard care alone. Through a robust process and economic evaluation, we aim to inform evidence-based practice for patients with KOA to facilitate the large-scale implementation of a comprehensive and holistic model of care that harmonizes elements of Western medicine and TCM. We hypothesize that acupuncture with heat therapy as an adjunct to standard care is clinically more effective than standard care alone.

METHODS

A multicenter, pragmatic, parallel-arm, single-blinded, effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized controlled trial will be conducted. We intend to recruit 100 patients with KOA randomized to either the control arm (standard care only) or intervention arm (acupuncture with heat therapy, in addition to standard care). The inclusion criteria are being a community ambulator and having primary KOA, excluding patients with secondary arthritis or previous knee replacements. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at 6 weeks. Secondary outcome measures include psychological, physical, quality of life, satisfaction, and global outcome measures at 6, 12, and 26 weeks. A mixed method approach through an embedded process evaluation will facilitate large-scale implementation. An economic evaluation will be performed to assess financial sustainability.

RESULTS

Patient enrollment has been ongoing since August 2022. The recruitment process is anticipated to conclude by July 2024, and the findings will be analyzed and publicized as they are obtained. As of November 6, 2023, our patient enrollment stands at 65 individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our HARMOKnee study will contribute substantial evidence to the current body of literature regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment for KOA. Additionally, we aim to facilitate the creation of standardized national guidelines for evidence-based practice that are specifically tailored to our unique population demographics. Furthermore, we seek to promote the adoption and integration of acupuncture and heat therapy into existing treatment models.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05507619; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05507619.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/54352.

The OARSI Joint Effort Initiative: Priorities for osteoarthritis management program implementation and research 2024-2028

Objective

The 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.

Design

A 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).

Conclusions

These topics will set the JEI's research and collaboration agenda for the next 5 years and stimulate ideas for others working in the field.

Bridging Treatment Implementation Gaps in Patients With Heart Failure: JACC Focus Seminar 2/3

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of death and disability in older adults. Despite decades of high-quality evidence to support their use, guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMTs) that reduce death and disease burden in HF have been suboptimally implemented. Approaches to closing care gaps have focused largely on strategies proven to be ineffective, whilst effective interventions shown to improve GDMT uptake have not been instituted. This review synthesizes implementation interventions that increase the uptake of GDMT, discusses barriers and facilitators of implementation, summarizes conceptual frameworks in implementation science that could improve knowledge uptake, and offers suggestions for trial design that could better facilitate end-of-trial implementation. We propose an evidence-to-care conceptual model that could foster the simultaneous generation of evidence and long-term implementation. By adopting principles of implementation science, policymakers, researchers, and clinicians can help reduce the burden of HF on patients and health care systems worldwide.

Healthcare professionals' views on implementing the STAR care pathway for people with chronic pain after total knee replacement: A qualitative study

For many people with advanced osteoarthritis, total knee replacement is an effective treatment to relieve pain and improve function. However, 10-34% of people experience chronic postsurgical pain in the months and years after total knee replacement. The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) randomised controlled trial (ISCRTN92545361) evaluated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new multifaceted and personalised care pathway, compared with usual care, for people with pain at three months after total knee replacement. Our objective was to identify factors promoting or inhibiting its implementation, and to inform future training and wider implementation of the pathway. We conducted a prospective process evaluation using qualitative interviews with eight Extended Scope Practitioners and six Principal Investigators from seven trial sites who were involved in delivering the STAR care pathway during the trial. We used Normalization Process Theory as a theoretical framework for qualitative data collection and content analysis. We identified that factors promoting the implementation of the pathway were quick familiarisation with the pathway, valuing patient-centredness, formalising referral processes, and increasing confidence to address neuropathic pain. Challenges to implementation were availability of time and resources, sensitivity in referral process, and ensuring collective understanding of the pathway. These findings have enabled us to make recommendations about the future implementation of the STAR care pathway and will inform the development of a training package, and updated manual for successful delivery in usual care. Furthermore, this model of care has potential value in diverse elective surgeries and pain conditions.

Duloxetine in OsteoArthritis (DOA) study: effects of duloxetine on pain and function in end-stage hip and knee OA – a pragmatic enriched randomized controlled trial

Background

Some osteoarthritis (OA) patients experience inadequate pain relief from analgesics like acetaminophen and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. This could be the result of experienced non-nociceptive centralized pain. Placebo-controlled randomized trials (RCT) have proven the effectiveness of duloxetine for OA and several chronic pain conditions where central sensitization (CS) is one of the key underlying pain mechanisms.

Objectives

Assess the efficacy of an 8-week duloxetine treatment compared to usual care in end-stage knee and hip OA patients with a level of centralized pain.

Design

Pragmatic, enriched, open-label RCT.

Methods

Patients were randomized to duloxetine or to care-as-usual. Primary outcome was pain in the index joint, measured with the pain domain of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) or the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). The intention-to-treat principle was used, with mixed-model repeated measures to analyze the effect.

Results

One hundred eleven patients were randomized. Nearly 44% felt much to very much better after duloxetine usage compared to 0% in the care-as-usual group (p < 0.001). The duloxetine group scored 11.3 points (95%CI: 5.8, 16.8) better on the pain domain of the KOOS/HOOS (p < 0.001). Knee patients improved significantly more than hip patients (18.7 [95%CI: 11.3, 26.1] versus 6.0 [95%CI: − 2.6, 14.5] points better).

Conclusions

Adding duloxetine treatment seems to be beneficial for end-stage knee OA patients with neuropathic-like symptoms (at risk of CS). End stage Hip OA patients seem to be nonresponsive to duloxetine.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Registry with number NTR 4744 (15/08/2014) and in the EudraCT database with number 2013–004313-41.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05034-0.

No added value of duloxetine for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: a cluster randomised trial

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost‐effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives.

Methods

We conducted an open‐label, cluster‐randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0–20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data.

Results

In total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference –0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference –0.26 [95% CI –1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference –0.32 [95% CI –2.32, 1.67]).

Conclusion

We found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results.

Implementing models of care for musculoskeletal conditions in health systems to support value-based care

Models of Care (MoCs), and their local Models of Service Delivery, for people with musculoskeletal conditions are becoming an acceptable way of supporting effective implementation of value-based care. MoCs can support the quadruple aim of value-based care through providing people with musculoskeletal disease improved access to health services, better health outcomes and satisfactory experience of their healthcare; ensure the health professionals involved are experiencing satisfaction in delivering such care and health system resources are better utilised. Implementation of MoCs is relevant at the levels of clinical practice (micro), service delivery organisations (meso) and health system (macro) levels. The development, implementation and evaluation of MoCs has evolved over the last decade to more purposively engage people with lived experience of their condition, to operationalise the Chronic Care Model and to employ innovative solutions. This paper explores how MoCs have evolved and are supporting the delivery of value-based care in health systems.

Collaborative model of care between Orthopaedics and allied healthcare professionals trial (CONNACT) - a feasibility study in patients with knee osteoarthritis using a mixed method approach

Background

Osteoarthritis is a leading cause of global disability resulting in significant morbidity and cost to the healthcare system. Current guidelines recommend lifestyle changes such exercises and weight loss as first line treatment prior to surgical consideration. Our current model of care is inefficient with suboptimal allied health intervention for effective behaviour changes. A 12-week community based, individualized, multidisciplinary new model of care for knee osteoarthritis was developed in light of current deficiencies.

Methods

The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of a full randomized controlled trial evaluating this new model of care using pre-defined progression criteria. The secondary aim was to optimize the intervention and study design through a process evaluation. A pilot exploratory, parallel arm, single blinded randomized trial design using a mixed method approach was utilized. Progression criteria for a full trial including key domains of patient recruitment and retention, outcome measure acceptability and improvement, adverse events were developed. The primary outcome measure was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at baseline and 12-weeks. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, functional and psychological assessments. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the patients at 12-weeks.

Results

20 patients (3 males, 17 females) were randomized (10 intervention, 10 control). Intervention arm patients reported better improvements in their knee function, quality of life, psychological outcome, dietary improvement and weight loss compared to the control arm at 12-weeks. Semi-structured interviews revealed several themes pertaining to feasibility and intervention optimization. 5 out of the 6 progression criteria’s domains were met (recruitment criteria not met).

Conclusion

This pilot has demonstrated the feasibility of a full randomized control trial investigating the potential effectiveness of the new proposed model of care for knee osteoarthritis using pre-defined progression criteria and process evaluation. Results from the qualitative study were used to modify and improve the intervention content, delivery model and study design for a large effectiveness-implementation hybrid randomized control trial that is currently underway.

Trial registration

Retrospectively registered on 18 January 2019 at http://clinicaltrial.gov ID: NCT03809975.

Core Outcome Measurement Instruments for Clinical Trials of Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: We have updated knowledge of the psychometric qualities of patient-reported outcome measures and, for the first time, systematically reviewed and compared the psychometric qualities of physical tests for patients with knee osteoarthritis who are undergoing total knee arthroplasty. This work was conducted to facilitate the choice of the most appropriate instruments to use in studies and clinical practice. (2) Methods: A search of medical databases up to December 2019 identified the studies and thus the instruments used. The quality of the measurement properties was assessed by the Bot et al. criteria. (3) Results: We identified 20 studies involving 25 instruments. Half of the instruments were questionnaires (n = 13). Among the condition-specific instruments, the Oxford knee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index had the highest overall scores. Concerning generic tools, the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36) or SF-12 obtained the highest overall score. For patient-specific tools, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ranked the highest. Some physical tests seemed robust in psychometric properties: 6-min Walk Test, five times Sit-To-Stand test, Timed Up and Go test strength testing of knee flexor/extensor by isometric or isokinetic dynamometer and Pressure Pain Threshold. (4) Conclusion: To make stronger recommendations, key areas such as reproducibility, responsiveness to clinical change, and minimal important change still need more rigorous evaluations. Some promising physical tests (e.g., actimetry) lack validation and require rigorous studies to be used as a core set of outcomes in future studies.

Protocol for the process and feasibility evaluations of a new model of primary care service delivery for managing pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) using a mixed methods approach

INTRODUCTION

This protocol outlines the rationale, design and methods for the process and feasibility evaluations of the primary care management on knee pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis (PARTNER) study. PARTNER is a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a new model of service delivery (the PARTNER model) against 'usual care'. PARTNER is designed to encourage greater uptake of key evidence-based non-surgical treatments for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary care. The intervention supports general practitioners (GPs) to gain an understanding of the best management options available through online professional development. Their patients receive telephone advice and support for OA management by a centralised, multidisciplinary 'Care Support Team'. We will conduct concurrent process and feasibility evaluations to understand the implementation of this new complex health intervention, identify issues for consideration when interpreting the effectiveness outcomes and develop recommendations for future implementation, cost effectiveness and scalability.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The UK Medical Research Council Framework for undertaking a process evaluation of complex interventions and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) frameworks inform the design of these evaluations. We use a mixed-methods approach including analysis of survey data, administrative records, consultation records and semistructured interviews with GPs and their enrolled patients. The analysis will examine fidelity and dose of the intervention, observations of trial setup and implementation and the quality of the care provided. We will also examine details of 'usual care'. The semistructured interviews will be analysed using thematic and content analysis to draw out themes around implementation and acceptability of the model.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The primary and substudy protocols have been approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of The University of Sydney (2016/959 and 2019/503). Our findings will be disseminated to national and international partners and stakeholders, who will also assist with wider dissemination of our results across all levels of healthcare. Specific findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences, and via training for healthcare professionals delivering OA management programmes. This evaluation is crucial to explaining the PARTNER study results, and will be used to determine the feasibility of rolling-out the intervention in an Australian healthcare context.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12617001595303; Pre-results.

Effects of the Whole-Body Vibration and Auriculotherapy on the Functionality of Knee Osteoarthritis Individuals

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a degenerative disease of the knee joint. This study aims to evaluate the effects of whole-body vibration (WBV), auriculotherapy (AT), and the association of these techniques with the functionality of KOA individuals. Individuals (n = 120) were allocated an AT group (GAT), a WBV group (GWBV), an association group (GWBV + AT), and their respective controls (CGAT, CGWBMV, CGWBMV + AT). The WBV intervention was performed with 5–14 Hz in 3 min of working time with 1 min rest. The control group performed the protocol with the vibrating platform (VP) turned off. The AT intervention was performed with adhesive tapes, with seeds placed in the both ears on the Shenmen point, knee joint, and kidney. The control groups had seedless tape placed on both ears. The participants were instructed to press the adhesive tapes with the fingers three times per day (for 6 days) and to remove the adhesive tapes on the seventh day, before returning to the laboratory. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), the short physical performance battery (SPPB), and the anterior trunk flexibility (ATF) tests were applied. Acute and cumulative effects were determined. In first session (acute effect of the first session), significant improvements were observed in the groups GWBV (p = 0.03) and GWBV + AT (p = 0.04), and in the cumulative effect a significant improvement was observed in the groups GWBV (p = 0.02) and GWBV + AT (p = 0.01). Concerning the overall score of the SPPB, significant improvements were observed in the individuals of the GWBV (p = 0.01) and GWBV + AT (p = 0.03) groups (cumulative effect). No changes were found in the score for the IKDC. The WBV alone or associated with AT, besides being a safe and feasible strategy, likely produces physiological responses that improve the functionality of KOA individuals, considering the findings of the ATF and the score of the SPPB.

Evaluating the design and reporting of pragmatic trials in osteoarthritis research

Objectives

Among the challenges in health research is translating interventions from controlled experimental settings to clinical and community settings where chronic disease is managed daily. Pragmatic trials offer a method for testing interventions in real-world settings but are seldom used in OA research. The aim of this study was to evaluate the literature on pragmatic trials in OA research up to August 2016 in order to identify strengths and weaknesses in the design and reporting of these trials.

Methods

We used established guidelines to assess the degree to which 61 OA studies complied with pragmatic trial design and reporting. We assessed design according to the pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary and reporting according to the pragmatic trials extension of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines.

Results

None of the pragmatic trials met all 11 criteria evaluated and most of the trials met between 5 and 8 of the criteria. Criteria most often unmet pertained to practitioner expertise (by requiring specialists) and criteria most often met pertained to primary outcome analysis (by using intention-to-treat analysis).

Conclusion

Our results suggest a lack of highly pragmatic trials in OA research. We identify this as a point of opportunity to improve research translation, since optimizing the design and reporting of pragmatic trials can facilitate implementation of evidence-based interventions for OA care.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of duloxetine added to usual care for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a pragmatic open-label cluster randomised trial (the DUO trial)

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent painful condition of the musculoskeletal system. The effectiveness of current analgesic options has proven to be limited and improved analgesic treatment is needed. Several randomised placebo-controlled trials have now demonstrated the efficacy of duloxetine, an antidepressant with a centrally acting effect, in the treatment of OA pain. The aim of the current study is to investigate if duloxetine is effective and cost-effective as a third-choice analgesic added to usual care for treating chronic pain compared with usual care alone in general practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A pragmatic open, cluster randomised trial is conducted. Patients with pain due to hip or knee OA on most days of the past 3 months with insufficient benefit of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or contraindications or intolerable side effects are included. General practices are randomised to either (1) duloxetine and usual care or (2) usual care only. Primary outcome is pain at 3 months measured on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcomes at 3 months and 1 year are pain (WOMAC, at 1 year), function (WOMAC), adverse reactions, quality of life and modification of the response to treatment by the presence of centrally sensitised pain (modified PainDETECT). At 1 year, medical and productivity costs will be assessed. Analyses will be performed following the intention-to-treat principle taking the cluster design into account.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the local Medical Ethics Committee (2015-293). Results will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and will be communicated at conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial Registry(ntr4798); Pre-results.

Duloxetine in OsteoArthritis (DOA) study: study protocol of a pragmatic open-label randomised controlled trial assessing the effect of preoperative pain treatment on postoperative outcome after total hip or knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Residual pain is a major factor in patient dissatisfaction following total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). The proportion of patients with unfavourable long-term residual pain is high, ranging from 7% to 34%. There are studies indicating that a preoperative degree of central sensitisation (CS) is associated with poorer postoperative outcomes and residual pain. It is thus hypothesised that preoperative treatment of CS could enhance postoperative outcomes. Duloxetine has been shown to be effective for several chronic pain syndromes, including knee osteoarthritis (OA), in which CS is most likely one of the underlying pain mechanisms. This study aims to evaluate the postoperative effects of preoperative screening and targeted duloxetine treatment of CS on residual pain compared with care-as-usual.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, pragmatic, prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial includes patients with idiopathic hip/knee OA who are on a waiting list for primary THA/TKA. Patients at risk for CS will be randomly allocated to the preoperative duloxetine treatment programme group or the care-as-usual control group. The primary end point is the degree of postoperative pain 6 months after THA/TKA. Secondary end points at multiple time points up to 12 months postoperatively are: pain, neuropathic pain-like symptoms, (pain) sensitisation, pain catastrophising, joint-associated problems, physical activity, health-related quality of life, depressive and anxiety symptoms, and perceived improvement. Data will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the local Medical Ethics Committee (METc 2014/087) and will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (64th, 2013) and the Good Clinical Practice standard (GCP), and in compliance with the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

2013-004313-41; Pre-results.