Dataset Information

Self-management advice, exercise and foot orthoses for plantar heel pain: the TREADON pilot and feasibility randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Plantar heel pain (PHP) is common and impacts negatively on physical function and quality of life. Initial treatment usually comprises analgesia and self-management advice (SMA), with referral to a physiotherapist or podiatrist recommended only when symptoms persist. Systematic reviews highlight limitations of existing evidence for the effectiveness of exercises and orthoses. The objective of the TREADON pilot and feasibility trial was to inform the design of a future main trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of self-management advice (SMA), individualised exercises and foot orthoses for PHP.

Methods

This was a four-arm randomised feasibility and pilot trial with 12-week follow-up. Adults aged ≥ 18 years with PHP were identified from primary care by general practice consultation, retrospective general practice medical record review or a population survey. Participants were randomised to either (i) SMA, (ii) SMA plus individualised exercises (SMA-exercises), (iii) SMA plus prefabricated foot orthoses (SMA-orthoses) or (iv) SMA plus combined individualised exercises and prefabricated foot orthoses (SMA-combined). Feasibility outcomes were recruitment; retention; intervention adherence, credibility and satisfaction; performance of three potential primary outcome measures (pain numeric rating scale (NRS), Foot Function Index-pain subscale (FFI-pain), Manchester Foot Pain and Disability Index-pain subscale (MFPDI-pain)); and parameters for informing the main trial sample size calculation.

Results

Eighty-two participants were recruited. All three identification methods met the target number of participants. Retention at 12 weeks was 67%. All interventions were successfully delivered as per protocol. Adherence (range over 12 weeks 64-100%) and credibility (93%) were highest in the SMA-combined arm. Satisfaction with treatment was higher for the three clinician-supported interventions (SMA 29%, SMA-exercises 72%, SMA-orthoses 71%, SMA-combined 73%). Responsiveness (baseline to 12 weeks) was higher for FFI-pain (standardised response mean 0.96) and pain NRS (1.04) than MFPDI-pain (0.57). Conservative sample size parameter estimates for standard deviation were pain NRS 2.5, FFI-pain 25 and MFPDI-pain 4, and baseline-outcome correlations were 0.5-0.6, 0.4 and < 0.3, respectively.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a future main randomised clinical trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of SMA, exercises and/or foot orthoses for PHP.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN 12160508 . Prospectively registered 5^th July 2016.

SUBMITTER: Chesterton LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8015033 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Foot orthoses and corticosteroid injection are common interventions used for plantar heel pain, however few studies have investigated the variables that predict response to these interventions. Methods Baseline variables (age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), sex, education, foot pain, foot function, fear-avoidance beliefs and feelings, foot posture, weightbearing ankle dorsiflexion, plantar fascia thickness, and treatment preference) from a randomised trial in which participants received either foot orthoses or corticosteroid injection were used to predict change in the Foot Health Status Questionnaire foot pain and foot function subscales, and first-step pain measured using a visual analogue scale. Multivariable linear regression models were generated for different dependent variables (i.e. foot pain, foot function and first-step pain), for each intervention (i.e. foot orthoses and corticosteroid injection), and at different timepoints (i.e. weeks 4 and 12). Results For foot orthoses at week 4, greater ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended predicted reduction in foot pain (adjusted R2?=?0.16, p?=?0.034), and lower fear-avoidance beliefs and feelings predicted improvement in foot function (adjusted R2?=?0.43, p?=?0.001). At week 12, lower BMI predicted reduction in foot pain (adjusted R2?=?0.33, p?<?0.001), improvement in foot function (adjusted R2?=?0.37, p?<?0.001) and reduction in first-step pain (adjusted R2 0.19, p?=?0.011). For corticosteroid injection at week 4, there were no significant predictors for change in foot pain or foot function. At week 12, less weightbearing hours predicted reduction in foot pain (adjusted R2?=?0.25, p?=?0.004) and lower baseline foot pain predicted improvement in foot function (adjusted R2?=?0.38, p?<?0.001). Conclusions People with plantar heel pain who use foot orthoses experience reduced foot pain if they have greater ankle dorsiflexion and lower BMI, while they experience improved foot function if they have lower fear-avoidance beliefs and lower BMI. People who receive a corticosteroid injection experience reduced foot pain if they weightbear for fewer hours, while they experience improved foot function if they have less baseline foot pain.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Plantar heel pain (PHP) is present in a wide range of individuals and creates significant burden to quality of life and participation in physical activity. The high recurrence rates and persistence of PHP suggests current management options may not address all potentially modifiable factors associated with the condition. Reports of intrinsic foot muscle (IFM) atrophy in individuals with PHP, together with biomechanical evidence of their important contribution to optimal foot function, suggests that an intervention focused on IFM training may be beneficial in managing PHP. We will test the feasibility of a prospective, assessor-blinded, parallel-group, randomised clinical trial that compares foot exercise plus education to brief advice in individuals with PHP. METHODS:Twenty participants with PHP will be randomly allocated to one of two groups for a 12-week intervention period: (i) foot exercise plus education, or (ii) brief advice. The foot exercise plus education group will attend eight sessions with a physiotherapist and receive detailed education on self-management strategies as well as a progressive exercise program for the IFMs. The brief advice group will attend one session with a physiotherapist and receive brief information about self-management strategies and reassurance. Outcome measures will be obtained at baseline and the primary end-point of 12?weeks. Primary outcomes will be the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomised clinical trial (RCT), and the credibility and acceptability of the foot exercise plus education intervention. Secondary outcomes will explore treatment effects, which will consist of pain, physical function, physical activity level, pain self-efficacy, perceived treatment effect, magnetic resonance and ultrasound image measurement of IFM morphology, ultrasound imaging measurement of plantar fascia thickness, IFM motor performance, foot posture, foot mobility, ankle dorsiflexion range of motion, toe flexor and plantar flexor strength/endurance. DISCUSSION:To reduce the burden of PHP on individuals and society, there is a need to establish effective treatments that are feasible and accepted by patients and health professionals. This trial will be the first to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale RCT, as well as the credibility, acceptability, and treatment effects, of education and foot exercise for PHP. The findings of this study will inform the development of a full-scale RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial protocol was prospectively registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12619000987167) on 11th July 2019.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Plantar fasciopathy has a lifetime prevalence of 10%. Patients experience sharp pain under the heel, often for several months or years. Multiple treatments are available, but no single treatment appears superior to the others. A corticosteroid injection offers short-term pain relief but is no better than placebo in the longer term (>?8?weeks). Heavy-slow resistance training has shown potentially positive effects on long-term outcomes (>?3?months), and combining exercises with an injection may prove to be superior to exercises alone. However, the effect of heavy-slow resistance training compared with a simpler approach of patient advice (e.g., load management) and insoles is currently unknown. This trial compares the efficacy of patient advice with patient advice plus heavy-slow resistance training and with patient advice plus heavy-slow resistance training plus a corticosteroid injection in improving the Foot Health Status Questionnaire pain score after 12?weeks in patients with plantar fasciopathy. METHODS:In this randomised superiority trial, we will recruit 180 patients with ultrasound-confirmed plantar fasciopathy and randomly allocate them to one of three groups: (1) patient advice and an insole (n?=?60); (2) patient advice, an insole, and self-dosed heavy-slow resistance training consisting of heel raises (n?=?60); or (3) patient advice, an insole, heavy-slow resistance training, and an ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection (n?=?60). All participants will be followed for 1 year, with the 12-week follow-up considered the primary endpoint. The primary outcome is the Foot Health Status questionnaire pain domain score. Secondary outcomes include the remaining three domains of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, a 7-point Global Rating of Change, the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, physical activity level, health-related quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-5L, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State, which is the point at which participants feel no further need for treatment. Additionally, a health economic evaluation of the treatments will be carried out. DISCUSSION:This trial will test if adding heavy-slow resistance training to fundamental patient advice and an insole improves outcomes and if a corticosteroid injection adds even further to that effect in patients with plantar fasciopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03804008. Prospectively registered on January 15, 2019.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To compare the effectiveness of dry needling (DN) versus percutaneous needle electrolysis (PNE) for improving the level of pain, function and quality of life (QoL) of patients suffering from plantar heel pain (PHP) provoked by myofascial trigger points. DESIGN:A prospective, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. SETTING:A single treatment facility in the State of Kuwait. PARTICIPANTS:118 participants were screened for eligibility. Of these, 102 participants were enrolled (30 men (49.5±8.9 years) and 72 women (48.1±8.8 years)) and 68 of them completed the trial. INTERVENTIONS:Two parallel groups, one study arm received DN and a stretching protocol whereas the other arm received percutaneous needling electrolysis with a stretching protocol. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome measure was the Foot Pain domain of the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, with 13 questions related to foot health-related domains. Secondary outcome measures included the 0-10 numerical rating scale pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, performed before and after each treatment session. In addition, QoL was measured using the EuroQoL-5 dimensions. All measurements were taken at baseline, at 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks. RESULTS:Foot Pain domain improved at all time points for DN group (p<0.001; 29.7 (17.8 to 41.5)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.001; 32.7 (18.3 to 47.0)), without significant differences between groups. Pain VAS scores decreased at all time points for both DN (p<0.001; -2.6 (-4.0 to -1.2)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.001; -3.0 (-4.5 to -1.6)). QoL improved at 4 weeks for both DN (p<0.01; 0.15 (0.5 to 0.25)) and percutaneous needling electrolysis group (p<0.01; 0.09 (0.01 to 0.17)) and at 8 and 52 weeks for the PNE group (p<0.01; 0.10 (0.02 to 0.18)), with significant differences between groups for the QoL at 52 weeks (p<0.05; 0.10 (0.01 to 0.18)). There were two small haematomas in the PNE group and one in the DN group. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS:Both PNE and DN were effective for PHP management, reducing mean and maximum pain since the first treatment session, with long lasting effects (52 weeks) and significant differences between groups in the case of QoL at 52 weeks in favour of the PNE group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03236779.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of foot orthoses has been evaluated in many clinical trials with sham foot orthoses used as the control intervention in at least 10 clinical trials. However, the mechanical effects and credibility of sham orthoses has been rarely quantified. This study aimed to: (i) compare the effects on plantar pressures of three sham foot orthoses to a customised foot orthosis, and (ii) establish the perceived credibility and the expected benefit of each orthotic condition.MethodsThirty adults aged between 18 and 51 participated in this study. At 0 and 4 weeks, plantar pressure data were collected for the heel, midfoot and forefoot using the pedar(®)-X in-shoe system for the following five randomly assigned conditions: (i) shoe alone, (ii) customised foot orthosis, (iii) contoured polyethylene sham foot orthosis, (iv) contoured EVA sham foot orthosis, and (v) flat EVA sham foot orthosis. At the initial data collection session, each participant completed a Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (CEQ) to determine the credibility and expected benefit of each orthotic condition.ResultsCompared to the shoe alone at week 0, the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis was the only condition to not significantly effect peak pressure at any region of the foot. In contrast, the contoured EVA sham orthosis, the flat EVA sham orthosis and the customised orthosis significantly reduced peak pressure at the heel. At the medial midfoot, all sham orthoses provided the same effect as the shoe alone, which corresponded to effects that were significantly different to the customised orthosis. There were no differences in peak pressure between conditions at the other mask regions, the lateral midfoot and forefoot. When the conditions were compared at week 4, the differences between the conditions were generally similar to the findings observed at week 0. With respect to credibility and expected benefit, all orthotic conditions were considered the same with the exception of the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis, which was perceived as being less credible and less likely to provide benefits.ConclusionThe findings of this study indicate that all of the sham orthoses tested provided the same effect on plantar pressures at the midfoot and forefoot as a shoe alone. However, the contoured EVA sham orthosis and the flat EVA sham orthosis significantly reduced peak pressure under the heel, which was similar to the customised orthosis. In contrast, the contoured polyethylene sham orthosis had no significant effect on plantar pressure and was comparable to the shoe alone at all regions of the foot. Hence, lower plantar pressures were found under the heel with some sham orthoses, but not with others. Importantly, participants perceived the polyethylene sham orthosis - the sham that had no effect on plantar pressure - to be the least credible orthosis and the least likely to provide benefits. This may be critical for the design of future clinical trials as it may introduce confounding effects that produce inaccurate results. These findings provide some evidence for the mechanical effects, treatment credibility and expected benefit of sham foot orthoses, which should be considered when they are used as a control intervention in a clinical trial.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of foot orthoses in the management of patellofemoral pain syndrome with flat inserts or physiotherapy, and to investigate the effectiveness of foot orthoses plus physiotherapy.DesignProspective, single blind, randomised clinical trial.SettingSingle centre trial within a community setting in Brisbane, Australia.Participants179 participants (100 women) aged 18 to 40 years, with a clinical diagnosis of patellofemoral pain syndrome of greater than six weeks' duration, who had no previous treatment with foot orthoses or physiotherapy in the preceding 12 months.InterventionsSix weeks of physiotherapist intervention with off the shelf foot orthoses, flat inserts, multimodal physiotherapy (patellofemoral joint mobilisation, patellar taping, quadriceps muscle retraining, and education), or foot orthoses plus physiotherapy.Main outcome measuresGlobal improvement, severity of usual and worst pain over the preceding week, anterior knee pain scale, and functional index questionnaire measured at 6, 12, and 52 weeks.ResultsFoot orthoses produced improvement beyond that of flat inserts in the short term, notably at six weeks (relative risk reduction 0.66, 99% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.17; NNT 4 (99% confidence interval 2 to 51). No significant differences were found between foot orthoses and physiotherapy, or between physiotherapy and physiotherapy plus orthoses. All groups showed clinically meaningful improvements in primary outcomes over 52 weeks.ConclusionWhile foot orthoses are superior to flat inserts according to participants' overall perception, they are similar to physiotherapy and do not improve outcomes when added to physiotherapy in the short term management of patellofemoral pain. Given the long term improvement observed in all treatment groups, general practitioners may seek to hasten recovery by prescribing prefabricated orthoses.Trial registrationAustralian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012605000463673 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00118521.