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: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:ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost-effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives.MethodsWe conducted an open-label, cluster-randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0-20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data.ResultsIn total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference -0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) -1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference -0.26 [95% CI -1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference -0.32 [95% CI -2.32, 1.67]).ConclusionWe found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results.

Project description:Background and aimGrowing attention is being given to utilising physical function measures to better understand and manage knee osteoarthritis (OA). The Fremantle Knee Awareness Questionnaire (FreKAQ), a self-reported measure of body-perception specific to the knee, has never been validated in Italian patients. The aims of this study were to culturally adapt and validate the Italian version of the FreKAQ (FreKAQ-I), to allow for its use with Italian-speaking patients with painful knee OA.MethodsThe FreKAQ-I was developed by means of forward-backward translation, a final review by an expert committee and a test of the pre-final version to evaluate its comprehensibility. The psychometric testing included: internal structural validity by Rasch analysis; construct validity by assessing hypotheses of FreKAQ correlations with the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), a pain intensity numerical rating scale (PI-NRS), the pain catastrophising scale (PCS), and the Hospital anxiety and depression score (HADS) (Pearson's correlations); known-group validity by evaluating the ability of FreKAQ scores to discriminate between two groups of participants with different clinical profiles (Mann-Whitney U test); reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC2.1); and measurement error by calculating the minimum detectable change (MDC).ResultsIt took one month to develop a consensus-based version of the FreKAQ-I. The questionnaire was administered to 102 subjects with painful knee OA and was well accepted. Internal structural validity confirmed the substantial unidimensionality of the FreKAQ-I: variance explained was 53.3%, the unexplained variance in the first contrast showed an eigenvalue of 1.8, and no local dependence was detected. Construct validity was good as all of the hypotheses were met; correlations: KOOS (rho = 0.38-0.51), PI-NRS (rho = 0.35-0.37), PCS (rho = 0.47) and HADS (Anxiety rho = 0.36; Depression rho = 0.43). Regarding known-groups validity, FreKAQ scores were significantly different between groups of participants demonstrating high and low levels of pain intensity, pain catastrophising, anxiety, depression and the four KOOS subscales (p ≤ 0.004). Internal consistency was acceptable (α = 0.74) and test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.92, CI 0.87-0.94). The MDC95 was 5.22 scale points.ConclusionThe FreKAQ-I is unidimensional, reliable and valid in Italian patients with painful knee OA. Its use is recommended for clinical and research purposes.