Cost-effectiveness of 12 weeks of supervised treatment compared to written advice in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of the 2-year outcome from a randomized trial

Electroacupuncture versus exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a common disorder among middle and older individuals. Electroacupuncture and exercise are present as two popular physical therapies for the management of KOA, and both were demonstrated to produce considerable results. However, the clinical decision-making process between these therapeutic interventions remains challenging due to the limited evidence of distinctions in their respective effects. This study aims to evaluate the clinical effect and cost effectiveness of electroacupuncture versus exercise in patients with KOA.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a randomized controlled trial in which 196 symptomatic KOA patients will be randomly assigned 1:1 either to the electroacupuncture group (n = 98) and the exercise group (n = 98). Patients in the electroacupuncture group will receive acupuncture with electric stimulation 3 times a week for 8 weeks, whereas patients in the exercise group will receive neuromuscular training twice a week for 8 weeks. Education concerning KOA management will be provided in both therapies. Co-primary outcomes include changes in numerical rating scale (NRS) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale from baseline at week 8. Secondary outcomes include KOOS Pain subscale, KOOS knee-related Quality of Life (QOL) subscale, Short Form 6 Dimensions (SF-6D), five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), Credibility/ Expectancy Questionnaire, Patient's global assessment (PGA), 30-second Chair Stand Test (30s-CST), 40m (4*10m) Fast Paced Walk Test (40m FPWT), and Daily Physical Activity level (DPA).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study will provide evidence regarding differences between these 2 physical therapies in multiple aspects and will provide specific guidance for the development of treatments based on the needs of individual patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2300070376.

Longer-term quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of implementing a model of care for osteoarthritis: A cluster-randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of care, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness over 12 months after implementing a structured model of care for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) in primary healthcare as compared to usual care.

DESIGN

In this pragmatic cluster-randomized, controlled trial with a stepped-wedge cohort design, we recruited 40 general practitioners (GPs), 37 physiotherapists (PTs), and 393 patients with symptomatic hip or knee OA from six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The model included the delivery of a 3-hour patient education and 8-12 weeks individually tailored exercise programs, and interactive workshops for GPs and PTs. At 12 months, the patient-reported quality of care was assessed by the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire (16 items, pass rate 0-100%, 100%=best). Costs were obtained from patient-reported and national register data. Cost-effectiveness at the healthcare perspective was evaluated using incremental net monetary benefit (INMB).

RESULTS

Of 393 patients, 109 were recruited during the control periods (control group) and 284 were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). At 12 months the intervention group reported statistically significant higher quality of care compared to the control group (59% vs. 40%; mean difference: 17.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.1, 24.0)). Cost-effectiveness analyses showed that the model of care resulted in quality-adjusted life-years gained and cost-savings compared to usual care with mean INMB €2020 (95% CI 611, 3492) over 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that implementing the model of care for OA in primary healthcare, improved quality of care and showed cost-effectiveness over 12 months compared to usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Fundamentals of osteoarthritis. Rehabilitation: Exercise, diet, biomechanics, and physical therapist-delivered interventions

Insights related to the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA) have informed rehabilitative treatments that aim to mitigate the influence of several known impairments and risk factors for OA, with the goal to improve pain, function, and quality of life. The purpose of this invited narrative review is to provide fundamental knowledge to non-specialists about exercise and education, diet, biomechanical interventions, and other physical therapist-delivered treatments. In addition to summarizing the rationale for common rehabilitative therapies, we provide a synthesis of current core recommendations. Robust evidence based on randomized clinical trials supports exercise with education and diet as core treatments for OA. Structured, supervised exercise therapy is advised. The mode of exercise may vary but should be individualized. The dose should be based on an initial assessment, the desired physiological changes, and progressed when appropriate. Diet combined with exercise is strongly recommended and studies demonstrate a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of weight loss and symptom improvement. Recent evidence suggests the use of technology to remotely deliver exercise, diet and education interventions is cost-effective. Although several studies support the mechanisms for biomechanical interventions (e.g., bracing, shoe inserts) and physical therapist-delivered (passive) treatments (e.g., manual therapy, electrotherapeutic modalities) fewer rigorous randomized trials support their clinical use; these therapies are sometimes recommended as adjuncts to core treatments. The mechanisms of action for all rehabilitative interventions include contextual factors such as attention and placebo effects. These effects can challenge our interpretation of treatment efficacy from clinical trials, yet also provide opportunities to maximize patient outcomes in clinical practice. When evaluating rehabilitative interventions, the field may benefit from increased emphasis on research that considers contextual factors while evaluating mechanistic, longer-term, clinically-important and policy-relevant outcome measures.

Optimising the current model of care for knee osteoarthritis with the implementation of guideline recommended non-surgical treatments: a model-based health economic evaluation

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Structured exercise, education, weight management and painkiller prescription are guideline recommended non-surgical treatments for patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis. Despite its endorsement, uptake of guideline recommended non-surgical treatments remains low. It is unknown whether the implementation of these treatments into the current model of care for knee osteoarthritis would be cost-effective from a Swiss statutory healthcare perspective. We therefore aimed to (1) assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of an optimised model of care incorporating guideline recommended non-surgical treatments in adults with knee osteoarthritis and (2) the effect of total knee replacement (TKR) delay with guideline recommended non-surgical treatments on the cost-effectiveness of the overall model of care.

METHODS

A Markov model from the Swiss statutory healthcare perspective was used to compare an optimised model of care incorporating guideline recommended non-surgical treatments versus the current model of care without standardised guideline recommended non-surgical treatments. Costs were derived from two Swiss health insurers, a national database, and a reimbursement catalogue. Utility values and transition probabilities were extracted from clinical trials and national population data. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for three scenarios: "base case" (current model of care vs optimised model of care with no delay of total knee replacement), "two-year delay" (current model of care vs optimised model of care + two-year delay of total knee replacement) and "five-year delay" (current model of care vs optimised model of care + five-year delay of total knee replacement). Costs and utilities were discounted at 3% per year and a time horizon of 70 years was chosen. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The "base case" scenario led to 0.155 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per person at an additional cost per person of CHF 341 (ICER = CHF 2,203 / QALY gained). The "two-year delay" scenario led to 0.134 additional QALYs and CHF -14 cost per person. The "five-year delay" scenario led to 0.118 additional QALYs and CHF -501 cost per person. Delay of total knee replacement by two and five years led to an 18% and 36% reduction of revision surgeries, respectively, and had a cost-saving effect.

CONCLUSION

According to this Markov model, the optimisation of the current model of care by implementing guideline recommended non-surgical treatments would likely be cost-effective from a statutory healthcare perspective. If implementing guideline recommended non-surgical treatments delays total knee replacement by two or five years, the amount of revision surgeries may be reduced.

Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial of personalized exercise therapy and self-management support for people with multimorbidity: The MOBILIZE study

Background

Despite the great individual and societal burden associated with multimorbidity, little is known about how to effectively manage it.

Objective

The aim of this multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate the 12-month effects of a personalized exercise therapy and self-management support program in addition to usual care in people with multimorbidity.

Design

This is a protocol for a pragmatic, parallel-group (1:1 ratio), superiority RCT conducted at five intervention sites (two hospitals, a private practice physiotherapy clinic and two municipal rehabilitation centers) in Region Zealand, Denmark. A total of 228 persons with multimorbidity aged 18 years or older, will be randomly allocated to one of two groups. Both groups will receive usual care, defined as routine care for multimorbidity at the discretion of the treating doctor, while the intervention group will also participate in a 12-week exercise therapy and self-management support program tailored to people with multimorbidity at one of the intervention sites. The primary outcome will be the between-group difference in change in EQ-5D-5L from baseline to the follow-up at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include objectively-measured physical function and physical activity, inflammatory markers, disease and treatment burden, anxiety, depression, stress, sleep, pain and other self-reported parameters. In parallel with the RCT, an observational cohort will follow persons aged ≥18 years with multimorbidity not adhering to all eligibility criteria, as well as people fulfilling all eligibility criteria, but unwilling to participate in the RCT. This study was approved by the Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics for Region Zealand (SJ-857) and results will be communicated in scientific papers, at relevant conferences and to a broader audience.

Discussion

Exercise therapy and self-management support is safe and effective in people with single conditions. However, it is still unclear whether this holds true for individuals with multimorbidity. This pragmatic, multicenter RCT will provide high-quality evidence on the benefits and harms of exercise therapy and self-management support and, if the results support it, lead to the development of a plan for implementation in clinical practice.

No evidence for stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee osteoarthritis: Economic evaluation alongside cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A stratified approach to exercise therapy may yield superior clinical and economic outcomes, given the large heterogeneity of individuals with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness during a 12-month follow-up of a model of stratified exercise therapy compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA, from a societal and healthcare perspective.

METHODS

An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a cluster-randomized controlled trial in patients with knee OA (n = 335), comparing subgroup-specific exercise therapy for a 'high muscle strength subgroup', 'low muscle strength subgroup', and 'obesity subgroup' supplemented by a dietary intervention for the 'obesity subgroup' (experimental group), with usual ('non-stratified') exercise therapy (control group). Clinical outcomes included quality-adjusted life years - QALYs (EuroQol-5D-5 L), knee pain (Numerical Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in daily living). Costs were measured by self-reported questionnaires at 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Data were analyzed through linear regression. Bootstrapping techniques were applied to estimate statistical uncertainty.

RESULTS

During 12-month follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in clinical outcomes. The total societal costs of the experimental group were on average lower compared to the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: € 405 [-1728, 918]), albeit with a high level of uncertainty. We found a negligible difference in QALYs between groups (mean [95% confidence interval]: 0.006 [-0.011, 0.023]). The probability of stratified exercise therapy being cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy from the societal perspective was around 73%, regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold. However, this probability decreased substantially to 50% (willingness-to-pay threshold of €20.000/QALY) when using the healthcare perspective. Similar results were found for knee pain and physical functioning.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear evidence that stratified exercise therapy is likely to be cost-effective compared to usual exercise therapy in patients with knee OA. However, results should be interpreted with caution as the study power was lower than intended, due to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic.

Targeted exercises can improve biomechanical markers in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: A secondary analysis from a cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

It is not clear whether exercise therapy significantly improves knee biomechanics during gait in osteoarthritis (OA) patients. This study aimed to determine whether targeted exercises based on a knee kinesiography exam improve biomechanical markers (BMs) compared with conventional primary care (CPC) management.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial in which patients were assigned to one of three groups: (1) Control (CPC), (2) Exercise, and (3) Exercise&Education. Fourteen known BMs in knee OA patients were assessed. The primary outcome was the global evolution ratio (GER), which was calculated as the sum of improved BMs over the sum of deteriorated BMs 6 months after baseline assessment. GER scores were categorized with three different sets of cut-off values into clinical levels: (a) Deteriorated, (b) Stabilized, and (c) Improved. Ordinal logistic regressions were performed on the per-protocol population to determine whether there was a relationship between group assignment and GER levels.

RESULTS

Of the 221 eligible participants, 163 were included. Two different regression models showed that patients from Group 3 (Exercise&Education) were 2.5-times more likely to be in an upper GER level (i.e., Stabilized or Improved) than patients from the control group (both odds ratio (OR) > 2.46, Wald Χ²(1) ≥ 7.268, P ≤ 0.01). They also reported significantly more improvement in pain and function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, both P ≤ 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that targeted exercises can improve biomechanical markers in knee OA patients compared with CPC treatment. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine the biomechanical markers to address to maximize patients' clinical outcomes.

Neuromuscular joint function in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Neuromuscular alterations are common in people with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). A comprehensive understanding of these alterations is important to enable targeted rehabilitation strategies.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively understand the neuromuscular alterations around the knee joint in people with KOA.

METHODS

Moderate- and high-quality studies based on a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist, comparing neuromuscular function of peri‑articular muscles between people with KOA and controls were retrieved from five databases from inception to October 2020. Outcomes included normalized isokinetic strength, muscle size, voluntary activation, cortical and spinal-reflex excitability, and torque-related outcomes. Data were pooled according to structural KOA severity with sensitivity analysis based on sex. Evidence levels are presented in evidence gap maps.

RESULTS

A total of 7 high-quality and 22 moderate-quality studies were retained (1146 people with KOA and 1353 age- and sex-matched controls). Studies demonstrated quadriceps and hamstring strength deficits and increased hamstring-to-quadriceps strength ratios across KOA severities. Women presented lower quadriceps strength at early KOA (very limited evidence) and lower voluntary activation at end stage KOA (very limited evidence) as compared with controls, whereas men did not (moderate evidence). People with KOA also demonstrated lower quadriceps force control ability with no change in rapid force production (very limited evidence). Voluntary activation deficits for quadriceps were evident (moderate evidence), with no change in quadriceps cortical excitability (very limited evidence) or soleus spinal reflexes (very limited evidence). No muscle size change was demonstrated except for the vastus medialis (limited evidence). Evidence gaps were found for neural and torque-related measures and differences in hamstring, gastrocnemius, soleus, and popliteus.

CONCLUSIONS

Neuromuscular deficits are evident across different structural KOA severities and are seen in muscle strength, voluntary activation, muscle size, and force control ability. Women may exhibit these alterations to a greater extent than men.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019160845.

Five-year follow-up of patients with knee osteoarthritis not eligible for total knee replacement: results from a randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to investigate 5-year outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis, randomised to one of two non-surgical treatments.

SETTING

Two outpatient clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

At baseline, 100 patients with radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis not found eligible for knee replacement (KR) were included. Main exclusion criteria were average score above 75 of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales pain, symptoms, function of daily living and quality of life; KOOS₄ and average knee pain the previous week greater than 60 mm on a 100 mm visual analogue scale.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to supervised non-surgical treatment consisting of patient education, supervised exercise, weight loss, insoles, and pain medication (the MEDIC treatment) or written advice. The 12-week MEDIC treatment included patient education, neuromuscular exercise, insoles and a dietary weight loss programme and/or pain medication if needed and written advice consisted of two leaflets.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was 5-year mean change for KOOS₄. Secondary outcomes included KOOS subscales, self-reported health, usage of pain medication and self-reported physical activity.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine (78%) and 36 (72%) from the MEDIC and written advice groups responded at 5 years. There were no between-group differences in KOOS₄ (difference 5.3 (95% CI -1.5 to 12.1) or any secondary outcomes. However, the 95% CI included the minimal clinically important difference for the main outcome.Seventy-six percent of the MEDIC group and 66% of the written advice group experienced clinically important improvements in KOOS₄.Fifteen patients (30%) from the MEDIC group and 17 (34%) from the written advice group received KR in the index knee. Undergoing KR did not result in a statistically significant greater improvement in KOOS₄ (difference 6.1 (95% CI -1.1 to 13.4).

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant differences between supervised non-surgical treatment and written advice were demonstrated at 5 years. Most patients experienced clinically important improvements, irrespective of initial treatment strategy or KR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01535001; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Cost-effectiveness of an 8-week supervised education and exercise therapy programme for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a pre-post analysis of 16 255 patients participating in Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D)

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate 1-year cost-effectiveness of an 8-week supervised education and exercise programme delivered in primary care to patients with symptomatic knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

A registry-based pre-post study linking patient-level data from the Good Life with osteoArthritis in Denmark (GLA:D) registry to national registries in Denmark.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

16 255 patients with symptomatic knee or hip OA attending GLA:D.

INTERVENTION

GLA:D is a structured supervised patient education and exercise programme delivered by certified physiotherapists and implemented in Denmark.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Adjusted healthcare costs per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gained from baseline to 1 year (ratio of change in healthcare costs to change in EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Level questionnaire (EQ-5D)). All adjusted measures were estimated using a generalised estimating equation gamma regression model for repeated measures. Missing data on EQ-5D were imputed with Multiple Imputations (3 months: 23%; 1 year: 39 %).

RESULTS

Adjusted change in healthcare cost was 298€ (95% CI: 206 to 419) and 640€ (95% CI: 400 to 1009) and change in EQ-5D was 0.035 (95% CI: 0.033 to 0.037) and 0.028 (95% CI: 0.025 to 0.032) for knee and hip patients, respectively. Hence estimated adjusted healthcare costs per QALY gained was 8497€ (95% CI: 6242 to 11 324) for knee and 22 568€ (95% CI: 16 000 to 31 531) for hip patients. In patients with high compliance, the adjusted healthcare costs per QALY gained was 5438€ (95% CI: 2758 to 9231) for knee and 17 330€ (95% CI: 10 041 to 29 364) for hip patients. Healthcare costs per QALY were below conventional thresholds for willingness-to-pay at 22 804€ (20 000£) and 43 979€ (US$50 000), except the upper limit of the 95% CI for hip patients which was in between the two thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

A structured 8-week supervised education and exercise programme delivered in primary care was cost-effective at 1 year in patients with knee or hip OA supporting large-scale implementation in clinical practice.

Reported practices related to, and capability to provide, first-line knee osteoarthritis treatments: a survey of 1064 Australian physical therapists

BACKGROUND

Physical therapists play a key role in providing first-line knee osteoarthritis treatments, including patient education and exercise therapy.

OBJECTIVES

Describe Australian physical therapists' awareness of guidelines; reported practices; and beliefs about capability, opportunity, motivation, and evidence.

METHODS

An online cross-sectional survey was completed by physical therapists prior to attending the Good Living with osteoArthritis from Denmark (GLA:D®) Australia training courses (March 2017 to December 2019). The survey instrument was developed by an expert panel and was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

1064 physical therapists from all Australian states and territories participated. 11% (n = 121) could name an accepted guideline, 98% agreed it was their job to deliver patient education and exercise therapy, and 92% agreed this would optimise outcomes. Most reported providing strength exercise (99%), written exercise instructions (95%), treatment goal discussion (88%), and physical activity advice (83%) all or most of the time. Fewer provided aerobic exercise (66%), neuromuscular exercise (54%), and weight management discussion (56%) all or most of the time. Approximately one quarter (23-24%) believed they did not have the skills, knowledge, or confidence to provide education and exercise therapy recommended by guidelines, and just 48% agreed they had been trained to do so.

CONCLUSION

Australian physical therapists treating knee osteoarthritis typically provide strength-based home exercise with written instructions, alongside goal setting and physical activity advice. Just one in nine could name a guideline. Education and training activities are needed to support physical therapists to access, read and implement guidelines, especially for aerobic and neuromuscular exercise, and weight management.