Dataset Information

The EPIPHA-KNEE trial: Explaining Pain to target unhelpful pain beliefs to Increase PHysical Activity in KNEE osteoarthritis - a protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial with clinical- and cost-effectiveness analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite well-established benefits of physical activity for knee osteoarthritis (OA), nine of ten people with knee OA are inactive. People with knee OA who are inactive often believe that physical activity is dangerous, fearing that it will further damage their joint(s). Such unhelpful beliefs can negatively influence physical activity levels. We aim to evaluate the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of integrating physiotherapist-delivered pain science education (PSE), an evidence-based conceptual change intervention targeting unhelpful pain beliefs by increasing pain knowledge, with an individualised walking, strengthening, and general education program.

Methods

Two-arm, parallel-design, multicentre randomised controlled trial involving 198 people aged ≥50 years with painful knee OA who do not meet physical activity guideline recommendations or walk regularly for exercise. Both groups receive an individualised physiotherapist-led walking, strengthening, and OA/activity education program via 4x weekly in-person treatment sessions, followed by 4 weeks of at-home activities (weekly check-in via telehealth), with follow-up sessions at 3 months (telehealth) and 5 and 9 months (in-person). The EPIPHA-KNEE group also receives contemporary PSE about OA/pain and activity, embedded into all aspects of the intervention. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes are physical activity level (step count; wrist-based accelerometry) and self-reported knee symptoms (WOMAC Total score) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, pain intensity, global rating of change, self-efficacy, pain catastrophising, depression, anxiety, stress, fear of movement, knee awareness, OA/activity conceptualisation, and self-regulated learning ability. Additional measures include adherence, adverse events, blinding success, COVID-19 impact on activity, intention to exercise, treatment expectancy/perceived credibility, implicit movement/environmental bias, implicit motor imagery, two-point discrimination, and pain sensitivity to activity. Cost-utility analysis of the EPIPHA-KNEE intervention will be undertaken, in addition to evaluation of cost-effectiveness in the context of primary trial outcomes.

Discussion

We will determine whether the integration of PSE into an individualised OA education, walking, and strengthening program is more effective than receiving the individualised program alone. Findings will inform the development and implementation of future delivery of PSE as part of best practice for people with knee OA.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12620001041943 (13/10/2020).

SUBMITTER: Stanton TR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8401372 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBrace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists.Methods and analysisA multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions.Ethics and disseminationNorth West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders.Trial registration numberISRCTN28555470.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:There is a lack of curative medical treatment for patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Acupuncture represents an important alternative therapy. According to the theory of traditional Chinese medicine and preliminary clinical evidence, the patients' acupoints and tender points may become sensitised when the body suffers from a disease state; stimulation of such sensitive points could lead to a disease improvement. It is thus hypothesised that acupuncture at highly sensitised points on patients with KOA would achieve better treatment outcomes than acupuncture at low/non-sensitised points. Previously, we conducted a pilot trial to prove the feasibility of further investigation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A three-arm, parallel, multicentre randomised controlled trial of 666 patients will be conducted at four hospitals of China. Eligible patients with KOA who consent to participate will be randomly assigned to a high-sensitisation group (patients receive acupuncture treatment at high-sensitive points), a low/non-sensitisation group (patients receive acupuncture treatment at low/non-sensitive points) or a waiting-list group (patients receive standard acupuncture treatment after the study is concluded) via a central randomisation system using 1:1:1 ratio. The primary outcome is the change of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score from baseline to 16 weeks. Outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded and participants will be asked not to reveal their allocation to assessors. The outcome analyses will be performed both on the intention-to-treat and per-protocol population. The primary analyses will test if acupuncture at highly sensitised points would achieve statistically better treatment outcomes than acupuncture at low/non-sensitised points and no acupuncture (ie, waiting list), respectively. A small number of prespecified subgroup analyses will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval has been granted by the Bioethics Subcommittee of West China Hospital, Sichuan University: 2017 (Number 228). Results will be expected to be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03299439.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Osteoarthritis (OA) pathophysiology is driven in part by joint inflammation. Resveratrol has in vitro anti-inflammatory properties. We aim to assess the efficacy of oral resveratrol for knee pain at 3 months in people with knee OA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Overall, 164 individuals with knee OA fulfilling 1986 American College of Rheumatology criteria will be recruited in three tertiary care centres in France and randomised to receive oral resveratrol, 40?mg (two caplets) two times per day for 1?week, then 20?mg (one caplet) two times per day or a matching placebo for a total of 6 months. Randomisation will be centralised and stratified by centre. The allocation ratio of assignments will be 1:1. The primary outcome will be the mean change from baseline in knee pain on a self-administered 11-point pain Numeric Rating Scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will be the mean change in knee pain at 6 months, the function subscore of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score, patient global assessment, proportion of responders according to the Osteoarthritis Research Society International-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology criteria at 3 and 6 months, and self-reported number of intra-articular injections of corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid and consumption of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs since the last contact. Other interventions will be allowed and self-reported. Adherence will be monitored by capsule counts and a booklet and adverse events recorded at 3 and 6 months. Statisticians, treating physicians and participants will be blinded to the allocated treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL) trial has been authorised by the AgenceNationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé and ethics were approved by the Comité deProtection des Personnes Île-de-France III. The findings of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at conferences. The design of ARTHROL will warrant the translation of its findings into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02905799. Pre-results. First received: 14 September 2016. Last updated: 16 September 2016. Status: not yet recruiting.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.MethodsDouble-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ?301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.ResultsThe adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.ConclusionsCS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.Trial registration numberNCT01425853.