Dataset Information

Effect of Biomechanical Footwear on Knee Pain in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: The BIOTOK Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Individually calibrated biomechanical footwear therapy may improve pain and physical function in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits of this therapy are unclear. Objective:To assess the effect of a biomechanical footwear therapy vs control footwear over 24 weeks of follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized clinical trial conducted at a Swiss university hospital. Participants (N?=?220) with symptomatic, radiologically confirmed knee osteoarthritis were recruited between April 20, 2015, and January 10, 2017. The last participant visit occurred on August 15, 2017. Interventions:Participants were randomized to biomechanical footwear involving shoes with individually adjustable external convex pods attached to the outsole (n?=?111) or to control footwear (n?=?109) that had visible outsole pods that were not adjustable and did not create a convex walking surface. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was knee pain at 24 weeks of follow-up assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscore standardized to range from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms). The secondary outcomes included WOMAC physical function and stiffness subscores and the WOMAC global score, all ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 10 (extreme symptoms) at 24 weeks of follow-up, and serious adverse events. Results:Among the 220 randomized participants (mean age, 65.2 years [SD, 9.3 years]; 104 women [47.3%]), 219 received the allocated treatment and 213 (96.8%) completed follow-up. At 24 weeks of follow-up, the mean standardized WOMAC pain subscore improved from 4.3 to 1.3 in the biomechanical footwear group and from 4.0 to 2.6 in the control footwear group (between-group difference in scores at 24 weeks of follow-up, -1.3 [95% CI, -1.8 to -0.9]; P?

SUBMITTER: Reichenbach S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7218497 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Biomechanical Footwear on Knee Pain in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: The BIOTOK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Reichenbach Stephan S Felson David T DT Hincapié Cesar A CA Heldner Sarah S Bütikofer Lukas L Lenz Armando A da Costa Bruno R BR Bonel Harald M HM Jones Richard K RK Hawker Gillian A GA Jüni Peter P

JAMA 20200501 18

<h4>Importance</h4>Individually calibrated biomechanical footwear therapy may improve pain and physical function in people with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the benefits of this therapy are unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effect of a biomechanical footwear therapy vs control footwear over 24 weeks of follow-up.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>Randomized clinical trial conducted at a Swiss university hospital. Participants (N = 220) with symptomatic, radiologically confir ...[more]

PMID: 32396180

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThigh muscle weakness is associated with knee discomfort and osteoarthritis disease progression. Little is known about the efficacy of high-intensity strength training in patients with knee osteoarthritis or whether it may worsen knee symptoms.ObjectiveTo determine whether high-intensity strength training reduces knee pain and knee joint compressive forces more than low-intensity strength training and more than attention control in patients with knee osteoarthritis.Design, setting, and participantsAssessor-blinded randomized clinical trial conducted at a university research center in North Carolina that included 377 community-dwelling adults (≥50 years) with body mass index (BMI) ranging from 20 to 45 and with knee pain and radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Enrollment occurred between July 2012 and February 2016, and follow-up was completed September 2017.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to high-intensity strength training (n = 127), low-intensity strength training (n = 126), or attention control (n = 124).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes at the 18-month follow-up were Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) knee pain (0 best-20 worst; minimally clinically important difference [MCID, 2]) and knee joint compressive force, defined as the maximal tibiofemoral contact force exerted along the long axis of the tibia during walking (MCID, unknown).ResultsAmong 377 randomized participants (mean age, 65 years; 151 women [40%]), 320 (85%) completed the trial. Mean adjusted (sex, baseline BMI, baseline outcome values) WOMAC pain scores at the 18-month follow-up were not statistically significantly different between the high-intensity group and the control group (5.1 vs 4.9; adjusted difference, 0.2; 95% CI, -0.6 to 1.1; P = .61) or between the high-intensity and low-intensity groups (5.1 vs 4.4; adjusted difference, 0.7; 95% CI, -0.1 to 1.6; P = .08). Mean knee joint compressive forces were not statistically significantly different between the high-intensity group and the control group (2453 N vs 2512 N; adjusted difference, -58; 95% CI, -282 to 165 N; P = .61), or between the high-intensity and low-intensity groups (2453 N vs 2475 N; adjusted difference, -21; 95% CI, -235 to 193 N; P = .85). There were 87 nonserious adverse events (high-intensity, 53; low-intensity, 30; control, 4) and 13 serious adverse events unrelated to the study (high-intensity, 5; low-intensity, 3; control, 5).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with knee osteoarthritis, high-intensity strength training compared with low-intensity strength training or an attention control did not significantly reduce knee pain or knee joint compressive forces at 18 months. The findings do not support the use of high-intensity strength training over low-intensity strength training or an attention control in adults with knee osteoarthritis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01489462.

Project description:Importance:Synovitis is common and is associated with progression of structural characteristics of knee osteoarthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroids could reduce cartilage damage associated with synovitis but might have adverse effects on cartilage and periarticular bone. Objective:To determine the effects of intra-articular injection of 40 mg of triamcinolone acetonide every 3 months on progression of cartilage loss and knee pain. Design, Setting, and Participants:Two-year, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of intra-articular triamcinolone vs saline for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis with ultrasonic features of synovitis in 140 patients. Mixed-effects regression models with a random intercept were used to analyze the longitudinal repeated outcome measures. Patients fulfilling the American College of Rheumatology criteria for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3, were enrolled at Tufts Medical Center beginning February 11, 2013; all patients completed the study by January 1, 2015. Interventions:Intra-articular triamcinolone (n?=?70) or saline (n?=?70) every 12 weeks for 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures:Annual knee magnetic resonance imaging for quantitative evaluation of cartilage volume (minimal clinically important difference not yet defined), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index collected every 3 months (Likert pain subscale range, 0 [no pain] to 20 [extreme pain]; minimal clinically important improvement, 3.94). Results:Among 140 randomized patients (mean age, 58 [SD, 8] years, 75 women [54%]), 119 (85%) completed the study. Intra-articular triamcinolone resulted in significantly greater cartilage volume loss than did saline for a mean change in index compartment cartilage thickness of -0.21 mm vs -0.10 mm (between-group difference, -0.11 mm; 95% CI, -0.20 to -0.03 mm); and no significant difference in pain (-1.2 vs -1.9; between-group difference, -0.6; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.3). The saline group had 3 treatment-related adverse events compared with 5 in the triamcinolone group and had a small increase in hemoglobin A1c levels (between-group difference, -0.2%; 95% CI, -0.5% to -0.007%). Conclusions and Relevance:Among patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, 2 years of intra-articular triamcinolone, compared with intra-articular saline, resulted in significantly greater cartilage volume loss and no significant difference in knee pain. These findings do not support this treatment for patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01230424.

Project description:ImportanceIntra-articular (IA) glucocorticoid injection is widely used in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA), but the safety of this technique is in question among physicians. Intramuscular (IM) glucocorticoid injection could be an alternative approach.ObjectiveTo investigate whether an IM glucocorticoid injection is noninferior to an IA glucocorticoid injection in reducing knee pain for patients with knee OA in primary care.Design, setting, and participantsThe KIS trial, a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical noninferiority trial including patients with symptomatic knee OA, was conducted in 80 primary care general practices in the southwest of the Netherlands. The study was conducted from March 1, 2018, to July 28, 2020.InterventionsPatients were randomly allocated to receive an injection of triamcinolone acetonide, 40 mg, either IM in the ipsilateral ventrogluteal region or IA in the knee joint. All patients were followed up for 24 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe pain score at 4 weeks measured with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (range, 0-100; 0 indicates extreme pain), with a noninferiority margin of -7 (IM minus IA). A per-protocol analysis was prespecified as the primary analysis.ResultsA total of 145 patients (94 women [65%]; mean [SD] age, 67 [10] years) were included; of these, 138 patients (IM, 72; IA, 66) were included in the per-protocol analysis. Clinically relevant improvements in knee pain were reached up to 12 weeks after the injection in both groups. At 4 weeks, the estimated mean difference in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score between the 2 groups was -3.4 (95% CI, -10.1 to 3.3). Noninferiority could not be declared because the lower limit exceeded the noninferiority margin. Intramuscular injection was noninferior to IA injection at 8 (mean difference, 0.7; 95% CI, -6.5 to 7.8) and 24 (mean difference, 1.6; 95% CI, -5.7 to 9.0) weeks. No significant difference was found among all the secondary outcomes. These results were similar for the sensitivity analysis in an intention-to-treat population. The most frequently reported adverse events were hot flush (IM, 7 [10%] vs IA, 14 [21%]) and headache (IM, 10 [14%] vs IA, 12 [18%]), and all events were classified as nonserious.Conclusions and relevanceBased on the findings of this trial, among patients with knee OA in primary care, IM glucocorticoid injection could present an inferior effect in reducing pain at 4 weeks compared with IA injection. Noninferiority of an IM injection was observed at 8 and 24 weeks after injection. This trial provides data for shared decision-making, taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of both types of injections.Trial registrationDutch Trial Registry: NTR6968.

Project description:BackgroundTranscutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is commonly used for the management of pain; however, its effects on several pain and function measures are unclear.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to determine the effects of high-frequency TENS (HF-TENS) and low-frequency TENS (LF-TENS) on several outcome measures (pain at rest, movement-evoked pain, and pain sensitivity) in people with knee osteoarthritis.DesignThe study was a double-blind, randomized clinical trial.SettingThe setting was a tertiary care center.ParticipantsSeventy-five participants with knee osteoarthritis (29 men and 46 women; 31-94 years of age) were assessed.InterventionParticipants were randomly assigned to receive HF-TENS (100 Hz) (n=25), LF-TENS (4 Hz) (n=25), or placebo TENS (n=25) (pulse duration=100 microseconds; intensity=10% below motor threshold).MeasurementsThe following measures were assessed before and after a single TENS treatment: cutaneous mechanical pain threshold, pressure pain threshold (PPT), heat pain threshold, heat temporal summation, Timed "Up & Go" Test (TUG), and pain intensity at rest and during the TUG. A linear mixed-model analysis of variance was used to compare differences before and after TENS and among groups (HF-TENS, LF-TENS, and placebo TENS).ResultsCompared with placebo TENS, HF-TENS and LF-TENS increased PPT at the knee; HF-TENS also increased PPT over the tibialis anterior muscle. There was no effect on the cutaneous mechanical pain threshold, heat pain threshold, or heat temporal summation. Pain at rest and during the TUG was significantly reduced by HF-TENS, LF-TENS, and placebo TENS.LimitationsThis study tested only a single TENS treatment.ConclusionsBoth HF-TENS and LF-TENS increased PPT in people with knee osteoarthritis; placebo TENS had no significant effect on PPT. Cutaneous pain measures were unaffected by TENS. Subjective pain ratings at rest and during movement were similarly reduced by active TENS and placebo TENS, suggesting a strong placebo component of the effect of TENS.

Project description:Impairment-based exercise programs have yielded only small to moderate benefits in reducing pain and improving function in people with knee osteoarthritis (OA). It has previously been proposed that adding agility and perturbation training to exercise programs for people with knee OA may improve treatment effects for pain and function.The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of adding agility and perturbation techniques to standard exercise therapy compared with the standard exercise program alone for people with knee OA.This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.The study was conducted in the outpatient physical therapy clinic of a large, university-based health center.One hundred eighty-three people with knee OA (122 women, 61 men) participated.Participants were randomly assigned to either a group that received agility and perturbation training with standard exercise therapy or a group that received only the standard exercise program.The outcome measures were self-reported knee pain and function, self-reported knee instability, a performance-based measure of function, and global rating of change.Although both groups exhibited improvement in self-reported function and in the global rating of change at the 2-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up periods, there were no differences between groups on these outcomes. There was no reduction in knee pain or improvement in performance-based function in either group.It is possible that more-intense application of the interventions or application of the interventions to participants with knee OA who were at greater risk for falling may have yielded additive effects of the agility and perturbation training approach.Both intervention groups exhibited improvement in self-reported function and the global rating of change. Our results, however, did not support an additive effect of agility and perturbation training with standard exercise therapy in our sample of individuals with knee OA. Further study is needed to determine whether there are subgroups of individuals who might achieve an added benefit with this approach.

Project description:Importance: Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain.Objective: To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects.Design, setting, and participants: Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized.Interventions: Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response.Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19).Results: Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]).Conclusions and relevance: Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain.Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583985.

Project description:ImportancePatients with osteoarthritis (OA) may remain symptomatic with traditional OA treatments.ObjectiveTo assess 2 subcutaneous tanezumab dosing regimens for OA.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial from January 2016 to May 14, 2018 (last patient visit). Patients enrolled were 18 years or older with hip or knee OA, inadequate response to OA analgesics, and no radiographic evidence of prespecified joint safety conditions.InterventionsPatients received by subcutaneous administration either tanezumab, 2.5 mg, at day 1 and week 8 (n = 231); tanezumab, 2.5 mg at day 1 and 5 mg at week 8 (ie, tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; n = 233); or placebo at day 1 and week 8 (n = 232).Main outcomes and measuresCo-primary end points were change from baseline to week 16 in Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain (0-10, no to extreme pain), WOMAC Physical Function (0-10, no to extreme difficulty), and patient global assessment of osteoarthritis (PGA-OA) (1-5, very good to very poor) scores.ResultsAmong 698 patients randomized, 696 received 1 or more treatment doses (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [9.6] years; 65.1% women), and 582 (83.6%) completed the trial. From baseline to 16 weeks, mean WOMAC Pain scores decreased from 7.1 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg, group; 7.3 to 3.6 in the tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg, group; and 7.3 to 4.4 in the placebo group (least squares mean differences [95% CI] vs placebo were -0.60 [-1.07 to -0.13; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.73 [-1.20 to -0.26; P = .002] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean WOMAC Physical Function scores decreased from 7.2 to 3.7 in the 2.5-mg group, 7.4 to 3.6 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 7.4 to 4.5 with placebo (differences vs placebo, -0.66 [-1.14 to -0.19; P = .007] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.89 [-1.37 to -0.42; P < .001] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Mean PGA-OA scores decreased from 3.4 to 2.4 in the 2.5-mg group, 3.5 to 2.4 in the 2.5/5-mg group, and 3.5 to 2.7 with placebo (differences vs placebo, -0.22 [-0.39 to -0.05; P = .01] for tanezumab, 2.5 mg, and -0.25 [-0.41 to -0.08; P = .004] for tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg). Rapidly progressive OA occurred only in tanezumab-treated patients (2.5 mg: n = 5, 2.2%; 2.5/5 mg: n = 1, 0.4%). The incidence of total joint replacements was 8 (3.5%), 16 (6.9%), and 4 (1.7%) in the tanezumab, 2.5 mg; tanezumab, 2.5/5 mg; and placebo groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with moderate to severe OA of the knee or hip and inadequate response to standard analgesics, tanezumab, compared with placebo, resulted in statistically significant improvements in scores assessing pain and physical function, and in PGA-OA, although the improvements were modest and tanezumab-treated patients had more joint safety events and total joint replacements. Further research is needed to determine the clinical importance of these efficacy and adverse event findings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697773.

Dataset Information

Effect of Biomechanical Footwear on Knee Pain in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: The BIOTOK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Effect of Biomechanical Footwear on Knee Pain in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: The BIOTOK Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets