Dataset Information

A mechanism-based proof of concept study on the effects of duloxetine in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The global burden of osteoarthritis (OA) is steadily increasing due to demographic and lifestyle changes. The nervous system can undergo peripheral and central neuroplastic changes (sensitization) in patients with OA impacting the options to manage the pain adequately. As a result of sensitization, patients with OA show lower pressure pain thresholds (PPTs), facilitated temporal summation of pain (TSP), and impaired conditioned pain modulation (CPM). As traditional analgesics (acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) are not recommended for long-term use in OA, more fundamental knowledge related to other possible management regimes are needed. Duloxetine is a serotonin-noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor, and analgesic effects are documented in patients with OA although the underlying fundamental mechanisms remain unclear. The descending pain inhibitory control system is believed to be dependent on serotonin and noradrenalin. We hypothesized that the analgesic effect of duloxetine could act through these pathways and consequently indirectly reduce pain and sensitization. The aim of this mechanistic study is to investigate if PPTs, TSP, CPM, and clinical pain parameters are modulated by duloxetine.

Methods

This proof of concept study is a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, crossover trial, which compares PPTs, TSP, and CPM before and after 18 weeks of duloxetine and placebo in forty patients with knee OA. The intervention periods include a titration period (2 weeks), treatment period (60 mg daily for 14 weeks), and a discontinuation period (2 weeks). Intervention periods are separated by 2 weeks.

Discussion

Duloxetine is recommended for the treatment of chronic pain, but the underlying mechanisms of the analgesic effects are currently unknown. This study will investigate if duloxetine can modify central pain mechanisms and thereby provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of the analgesic effect.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04224584 . Registered on January 6, 2020. EudraCT 2019-003437-42 . Registered on October 22, 2019. The North Denmark Region Committee on Health Research Ethics N-20190055. Registered on October 31, 2019.

SUBMITTER: Ammitzboll N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8710922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent practice guidelines emphasize the use of physical activity as the first-line treatment of knee osteoarthritis; however, up to 90% of people with osteoarthritis are inactive.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess the efficacy of a technology-enabled counseling intervention for improving physical activity in people with either a physician-confirmed diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis or having passed two validated criteria for early osteoarthritis.MethodsWe conducted a proof-of-concept randomized controlled trial. The immediate group received a brief education session by a physical therapist, a Fitbit Flex, and four biweekly phone calls for activity counseling. The delayed group received the same intervention 2 months later. Participants were assessed at baseline (T0) and at the end of 2 months (T1), 4 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). Outcomes included (1) mean time on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA ≥3 metabolic equivalents [METs], primary outcome), (2) mean time on MVPA ≥4 METs, (3) mean daily steps, (4) mean time on sedentary activities, (5) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and (6) Partners in Health scale. Mixed-effects repeated measures analysis of variance was used to assess five planned contrasts of changes in outcome measures over measurement periods. The five contrasts were (1) immediate T1-T0 vs delayed T1-T0, (2) delayed T2-T1 vs delayed T1-T0, (3) mean of contrast 1 and contrast 2, (4) immediate T1-T0 vs delayed T2-T1, and (5) mean of immediate T2-T1 and delayed T3-T2. The first three contrasts estimate the between-group effects. The latter two contrasts estimate the effect of the 2-month intervention delay on outcomes.ResultsWe recruited 61 participants (immediate: n=30; delayed: n=31). Both groups were similar in age (immediate: mean 61.3, SD 9.4 years; delayed: mean 62.1, SD 8.5 years) and body mass index (immediate: mean 29.2, SD 5.5 kg/m2; delayed: mean 29.2, SD 4.8 kg/m2). Contrast analyses revealed significant between-group effects in MVPA ≥3 METs (contrast 1 coefficient: 26.6, 95% CI 4.0-49.1, P=.02; contrast 3 coefficient: 26.0, 95% CI 3.1-49.0, P=.03), daily steps (contrast 1 coefficient: 1699.2, 95% CI 349.0-3049.4, P=.02; contrast 2 coefficient: 1601.8, 95% CI 38.7-3164.9, P=.045; contrast 3 coefficient: 1650.5, 95% CI 332.3-2968.7; P=.02), KOOS activity of daily living subscale (contrast 1 coefficient: 6.9, 95% CI 0.1-13.7, P=.047; contrast 3 coefficient: 7.2, 95% CI 0.8-13.6, P=.03), and KOOS quality of life subscale (contrast 1 coefficient: 7.4, 95% CI 0.0-14.7, P=.049; contrast 3 coefficient: 7.3, 95% CI 0.1-14.6, P=.048). We found no significant effect in any outcome measures due to the 2-month delay of the intervention.ConclusionsOur counseling program improved MVPA ≥3 METs, daily steps, activity of daily living, and quality of life in people with knee osteoarthritis. These findings are important because an active lifestyle is an important component of successful self-management.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02315664; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02315664 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6ynSgUyUC).

Project description:BackgroundDuloxetine is indicated in the management of pain in osteoarthritis. Evidence suggests that duloxetine modulates central pain mechanisms and cognitive factors, and these factors are assumed contributing to the analgesic effect. This proof-of-mechanism, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover, double-blinded trial evaluated the effect of duloxetine on quantitative sensory testing (QST), cognitive factors and clinical pain in patients with osteoarthritis and to predict the analgesic effect.MethodsTwenty-five patients completed this cross-over study with either 18-week duloxetine (maximum 60 mg/daily) followed by placebo or vice-versa. Pressure pain thresholds, temporal summation of pain and conditioned pain modulation were assessed using cuff algometry. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale evaluated cognitive factors. Clinical pain was assessed using Brief Pain Inventory and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Linear regression models were used to predict the analgesic effect of duloxetine.ResultsDepending on the clinical pain outcome, 40%-68% of patients were classified as responders to duloxetine. Linear regression models predicted the analgesic effect (predictive value of 45%-75% depending on clinical pain outcome parameter) using a combination of pretreatment QST parameters, cognitive factors and clinical pain. No significant changes were found for QST, cognitive factors or clinical pain on a group level when comparing duloxetine to placebo.ConclusionA combination of pretreatment QST, cognitive factors and clinical pain was able to predict the analgesic response of duloxetine. However, in this relatively small study, duloxetine did not selectively modulate QST, cognitive factors or clinical pain intensity when compared with placebo.SignificanceDuloxetine is proposed as a treatment for chronic pain. Pre-clinical trials suggest that duloxetine provides analgesia through modulation of descending pain inhibitory pathways or through improvements in cognitive factors. The current study demonstrates that pretreatment mechanistic pain profiling, cognitive factors and clinical pain can predict the analgesic effect of duloxetine and that only a subset of patients might benefit from duloxetine treatment.

Project description:BackgroundExperimental and clinical evidence support a link between body representations and pain. This proof-of-concept study in people with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA) aimed to determine if: (i) visuotactile illusions that manipulate perceived knee size are analgesic; (ii) cumulative analgesic effects occur with sustained or repeated illusions.MethodsParticipants with knee OA underwent eight conditions (order randomised): stretch and shrink visuotactile (congruent) illusions and corresponding visual, tactile and incongruent control conditions. Knee pain intensity (0-100 numerical rating scale; 0 = no pain at all and 100 = worst pain imaginable) was assessed pre- and post-condition. Condition (visuotactile illusion vs control) × Time (pre-/post-condition) repeated measure ANOVAs evaluated the effect on pain. In each participant, the most beneficial illusion was sustained for 3 min and was repeated 10 times (each during two sessions); paired t-tests compared pain at time 0 and 180s (sustained) and between illusion 1 and illusion 10 (repeated).ResultsVisuotactile illusions decreased pain by an average of 7.8 points (95% CI [2.0-13.5]) which corresponds to a 25% reduction in pain, but the tactile only and visual only control conditions did not (Condition × Time interaction: p = 0.028). Visuotactile illusions did not differ from incongruent control conditions where the same visual manipulation occurred, but did differ when only the same tactile input was applied. Sustained illusions prolonged analgesia, but did not increase it. Repeated illusions increased the analgesic effect with an average pain decrease of 20 points (95% CI [6.9-33.1])-corresponding to a 40% pain reduction.DiscussionVisuotactile illusions are analgesic in people with knee OA. Our results suggest that visual input plays a critical role in pain relief, but that analgesia requires multisensory input. That visual and tactile input is needed for analgesia, supports multisensory modulation processes as a possible explanatory mechanism. Further research exploring the neural underpinnings of these visuotactile illusions is needed. For potential clinical applications, future research using a greater dosage in larger samples is warranted.

Project description:Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is characterized by articular cartilage degeneration. It has been widely accepted that the mechanical joint environment plays a significant role in the onset and progression of this disease. In silico models have been used to study the interplay between mechanical loading and cartilage degeneration, hereby relying mainly on two key mechanoregulatory factors indicative of collagen degradation and proteoglycans depletion. These factors are the strain in collagen fibril direction (SFD) and maximum shear strain (MSS) respectively. Methods: In this study, a multi-scale in silico modeling approach was used based on a synergy between musculoskeletal and finite element modeling to evaluate the SFD and MSS. These strains were evaluated during gait based on subject-specific gait analysis data collected at baseline (before a 2-year follow-up) for a healthy and progressive early-stage KOA subject with similar demographics. Results: The results show that both SFD and MSS factors allowed distinguishing between a healthy subject and a KOA subject, showing progression at 2 years follow-up, at the instance of peak contact force as well as during the stance phase of the gait cycle. At the peak of the stance phase, the SFD were found to be more elevated in the KOA patient with the median being 0.82% higher in the lateral and 0.4% higher in the medial compartment of the tibial cartilage compared to the healthy subject. Similarly, for the MSS, the median strains were found to be 3.6% higher in the lateral and 0.7% higher in the medial tibial compartment of the KOA patient compared to the healthy subject. Based on these intersubject SFD and MSS differences, we were additionally able to identify that the tibial compartment of the KOA subject at risk of progression. Conclusion/discussion: We confirmed the mechanoregulatory factors as potential biomarkers to discriminate patients at risk of disease progression. Future studies should evaluate the sensitivity of the mechanoregulatory factors calculated based on this multi-scale modeling workflow in larger patient and control cohorts.