User login
Wearable sensors deemed reliable for home gait assessment in knee OA
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
Remote gait assessment in people with knee osteoarthritis using wearable sensors appears reliable but yields results slightly different from those achieved in the laboratory, researchers from Boston University have found.
As reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress, there was “good to excellent reliability” in repeated measures collected by patients at home while being instructed via video teleconferencing.
Agreement was “moderate to excellent” when the findings were compared with those recorded in the lab, Michael J. Rose of Boston University reported at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
“People walked faster and stood up faster in the lab,” Mr. Rose said. “Later we found that the difference in gait speed was statistically significant between the lab and home environment.”
This has been suggested previously and implies that data collected at home may have “greater ecological validity,” he observed.
Accelerated adoption of telehealth
Assessing how well someone walks or can stand from a seated position are well known and important assessments in knee OA, but these have but have traditionally only been done in large and expensive gait labs, Mr. Rose said.
Wearable technologies, such as the ones used in the study he presented, could help move these assessments out into the community. This is particularly timely considering the increased adoption of telehealth practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.
To look at the reliability measurements obtained via wearable sensors versus lab assessments, Mr. Rose and associates set up a substudy within a larger ongoing, single-arm trial looking at the use of digital assessments to measure the efficacy of an exercise intervention in reducing knee pain and improving knee function.
For inclusion in the main trial (n = 60), and hence the substudy (n = 20), participants had to have physician-diagnosed knee OA, be 50 years of age or older, have a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or lower, be able to walk at for a least 20 minutes, and have a score of three or higher on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale for weight-bearing items.
Acceptance of in-lab versus home testing
The substudy participants (mean age, 70.5 years) all underwent in-person lab visits in which a wearable sensor was placed on each foot and one around the lower back and the participant asked to perform walking and chair stand tests. The latter involved standing from a seated position as quickly as possible without using the arms five times, while the former involved walking 28 meters in two laps of a 7-meter path defined by two cones. These tests were repeated twice.
Participants were then given the equipment to repeat these tests at home; this included the three sensors, a tablet computer, and chair and cones. The home assessments were conducted via video conferencing, with the researchers reminding how to place the sensors correctly. The walking and chair stand tests were then each performed four times: Twice in a row and then a 15-minute rest period before being performed twice in a row again.
The researchers collected participants’ feedback about the process on questionnaires and Likert scales that showed an overall positive experience for the remote home visit, with the median rating being “very likely” to participate in another home visit and that the time commitment required was “very manageable.”
Good correlation found
To determine the correlation and the test-retest reliability of the data obtained during the repeated home tasks, Mr. Rose and collaborators used Pearson’s correlation R2 and the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
ICCs for various gait and chair stand variables obtained with the sensors were between 0.85 and 0.96 for the test-retest reliability during the remote home visit, and R2 ranged between 0.81 and 0.95. Variables include stance, cadence (steps per minute), step duration and length, speed, and chair stand duration.
With regard to the agreement between the home versus lab results, ICCs ranged between 0.63 and 0.9.
“There were some logistical and technological challenges with the approach,” Mr. Rose conceded. “Despite written and verbal instructions, 2 of the 20 participants ended up having gait data that was unusable in the home visit.”
Another limitation is that the study population, while “representative,” contained a higher number of individuals than the general population who identified as being White (95%) and female (85%), and 90% had a college degree.
“Individuals typically representative of an OA population were generally accepting and willing to participate in remote visits showing the feasibility of our approach,” Mr. Rose said.
“We need to determine the responsiveness of gait and chair stand outcomes from wearable sensors at home to change over time.”
The study was sponsored by Boston University with funding from Pfizer and Eli Lilly. The researchers used the OPAL inertial sensor (APDM Wearable Technologies) in the study. Mr. Rose made no personal disclosures. Four of his collaborators were employees of Pfizer and one is an employee of Eli Lilly & Company, all with stock or stock options.
FROM OARSI 2022
OARSI sets sights on classifying early-stage knee OA
An expert task force convened by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) has started the process of consolidating classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA).
“Early-stage knee OA classification criteria, we believe are critically required,” Gillian Hawker, MD, MSc, said at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Dr. Hawker, who is the chair of the Task Force Steering Committee, noted that classification criteria are needed for several reasons, such as “to advance OA therapeutics and [the] earlier identification of people with knee OA who can benefit from existing treatments.”
Moreover, they are needed so that people with knee OA can “be poised and ready to receive available therapies once we develop them,” said Dr. Hawker, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a senior clinician-scientist in the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.
Reasoning for looking at early OA
“Osteoarthritis is a very serious disease with a growing population burden,” Dr. Hawker reminded delegates at the congress. Yet despite “amazing advances” in the understanding of the pathophysiology of disease and several potential druggable targets being identified, “we still have no safe and effective interventions to prevent or slow the progression of the disease.”
“Why have all the DMOADs [disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs] failed?” she questioned.
One hypothesis is that it’s down to the heterogeneity of OA. “We’ve been plugging people with different kinds or phenotypes of OA into the same clinical trials, and we need to better match OA phenotypes with appropriate treatment,” Dr. Hawker said.
Also, “structural changes on imaging, and the symptoms that characterize the disease of function, pain, stiffness, etc., are not super well correlated. It may be that any attempts at structure modification alone won’t adequately improve clinical symptoms.”
Perhaps most importantly, however, “we’re treating people way too late in the course of their disease,” Dr. Hawker said. “When we keep putting people with Kellgren and Lawrence [grade] 2 or 3 into clinical trials, it may be that we there’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do that’s really going to make a difference.”
Why just knee OA?
The reason for looking at early-stage OA specifically is that current knee OA classification criteria were developed nearly 40 years ago and were looking at a later stage of disease, mainly differentiating OA from other types of inflammatory arthritis, notably rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
The aim of the OARSI Early OA Task Force is thus to develop, refine, and validate classification criteria that will not only help identify people with early-stage OA who can then be entered into clinical trials of new therapies but also define a population that can be used in preclinical and prognostic work.
“The task force decided to start with early-stage knee OA due to the highest burden and the focus of most clinical trials,” steering committee member Martin Englund, MD, PhD, observed during the discussion.
“When we see how that goes, we may consider early hip OA,” said Dr. Englund, of Lund University and Skåne University Hospital in Sweden.
Dr. Hawker added that the task force felt that lumping hip and knee OA together would complicate matters because they thought that the classification criteria will likely look very different from each other.
“But the good news is we think that if we can identify early knee OA, we will likely also identify people with at least hand OA,” she said.
Building on previous work
The OARSI Task Force initiative will build on the early OA work by Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, and Frank Luyten, MD, PhD, who were part of a consensus panel that proposed draft classification criteria a few years ago. Those criteria, derived from a consensus workshop that had included basic scientists, physician-scientists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists, identified three main areas of importance: Patient symptoms such as pain and function, the presence of crepitus or tender joints on clinical examination, and having a low Kellgren and Lawrence grade (0 or 1).
Dr. Lohmander remains heavily involved, heading up the advisory committee, with many other ad hoc committees likely to be set up during the project.
“We had over 70 people in the OARSI community volunteering to participate in some way, shape, or form,” Dr. Hawker said. All will be needed, she said, as there will be a lot of work to do. The starting point is people with undifferentiated knee symptoms, identifying the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of having early-stage OA. Once a population has been found, the outcomes for prevention need to be defined.
A systematic search of the available literature has started and full-text review of more than 200 papers is in progress. The challenge ahead is to define what the ‘anchor question’ will be. That is, what question should be asked in order to determine whether a patient fulfills the criteria?
Dr. Hawker noted that when the American College of Rheumatology developed the RA classification criteria, the anchor question had been around whether methotrexate should be prescribed.
“We don’t have a ‘methotrexate’ in osteoarthritis, and it’s pretty low risk to start weight management or physical activity or even prescribe a topical anti-inflammatory,” she said. “So, we’re still trying to work out exactly how we create our anchor.”
It’s likely that the anchor question will be based on expert opinion rather than hard data. Perhaps it will focus on the chances that a patient’s symptoms will become persistent with loss of function or that they will develop established OA. It could perhaps be around the initiation of a novel DMOAD, if one proved effective enough to be used.
“We have many, many, many, questions!” Dr. Hawker said. One of the important ones is deciding what exactly should be prevented. Symptoms? Structural damage?
“I think a combination of symptoms and loss of function are probably what we want to prevent. But again, we’re going to have to define that very clearly. This is going to take us quite a bit of time.”
It’s likely to be a two-stage process: “First we define what is early stage OA, and then we identify those who are at the highest risk of rapid progression so that we can target those individuals for clinical trials.”
Dr. Hawker and Dr. Englund had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
An expert task force convened by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) has started the process of consolidating classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA).
“Early-stage knee OA classification criteria, we believe are critically required,” Gillian Hawker, MD, MSc, said at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Dr. Hawker, who is the chair of the Task Force Steering Committee, noted that classification criteria are needed for several reasons, such as “to advance OA therapeutics and [the] earlier identification of people with knee OA who can benefit from existing treatments.”
Moreover, they are needed so that people with knee OA can “be poised and ready to receive available therapies once we develop them,” said Dr. Hawker, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a senior clinician-scientist in the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.
Reasoning for looking at early OA
“Osteoarthritis is a very serious disease with a growing population burden,” Dr. Hawker reminded delegates at the congress. Yet despite “amazing advances” in the understanding of the pathophysiology of disease and several potential druggable targets being identified, “we still have no safe and effective interventions to prevent or slow the progression of the disease.”
“Why have all the DMOADs [disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs] failed?” she questioned.
One hypothesis is that it’s down to the heterogeneity of OA. “We’ve been plugging people with different kinds or phenotypes of OA into the same clinical trials, and we need to better match OA phenotypes with appropriate treatment,” Dr. Hawker said.
Also, “structural changes on imaging, and the symptoms that characterize the disease of function, pain, stiffness, etc., are not super well correlated. It may be that any attempts at structure modification alone won’t adequately improve clinical symptoms.”
Perhaps most importantly, however, “we’re treating people way too late in the course of their disease,” Dr. Hawker said. “When we keep putting people with Kellgren and Lawrence [grade] 2 or 3 into clinical trials, it may be that we there’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do that’s really going to make a difference.”
Why just knee OA?
The reason for looking at early-stage OA specifically is that current knee OA classification criteria were developed nearly 40 years ago and were looking at a later stage of disease, mainly differentiating OA from other types of inflammatory arthritis, notably rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
The aim of the OARSI Early OA Task Force is thus to develop, refine, and validate classification criteria that will not only help identify people with early-stage OA who can then be entered into clinical trials of new therapies but also define a population that can be used in preclinical and prognostic work.
“The task force decided to start with early-stage knee OA due to the highest burden and the focus of most clinical trials,” steering committee member Martin Englund, MD, PhD, observed during the discussion.
“When we see how that goes, we may consider early hip OA,” said Dr. Englund, of Lund University and Skåne University Hospital in Sweden.
Dr. Hawker added that the task force felt that lumping hip and knee OA together would complicate matters because they thought that the classification criteria will likely look very different from each other.
“But the good news is we think that if we can identify early knee OA, we will likely also identify people with at least hand OA,” she said.
Building on previous work
The OARSI Task Force initiative will build on the early OA work by Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, and Frank Luyten, MD, PhD, who were part of a consensus panel that proposed draft classification criteria a few years ago. Those criteria, derived from a consensus workshop that had included basic scientists, physician-scientists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists, identified three main areas of importance: Patient symptoms such as pain and function, the presence of crepitus or tender joints on clinical examination, and having a low Kellgren and Lawrence grade (0 or 1).
Dr. Lohmander remains heavily involved, heading up the advisory committee, with many other ad hoc committees likely to be set up during the project.
“We had over 70 people in the OARSI community volunteering to participate in some way, shape, or form,” Dr. Hawker said. All will be needed, she said, as there will be a lot of work to do. The starting point is people with undifferentiated knee symptoms, identifying the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of having early-stage OA. Once a population has been found, the outcomes for prevention need to be defined.
A systematic search of the available literature has started and full-text review of more than 200 papers is in progress. The challenge ahead is to define what the ‘anchor question’ will be. That is, what question should be asked in order to determine whether a patient fulfills the criteria?
Dr. Hawker noted that when the American College of Rheumatology developed the RA classification criteria, the anchor question had been around whether methotrexate should be prescribed.
“We don’t have a ‘methotrexate’ in osteoarthritis, and it’s pretty low risk to start weight management or physical activity or even prescribe a topical anti-inflammatory,” she said. “So, we’re still trying to work out exactly how we create our anchor.”
It’s likely that the anchor question will be based on expert opinion rather than hard data. Perhaps it will focus on the chances that a patient’s symptoms will become persistent with loss of function or that they will develop established OA. It could perhaps be around the initiation of a novel DMOAD, if one proved effective enough to be used.
“We have many, many, many, questions!” Dr. Hawker said. One of the important ones is deciding what exactly should be prevented. Symptoms? Structural damage?
“I think a combination of symptoms and loss of function are probably what we want to prevent. But again, we’re going to have to define that very clearly. This is going to take us quite a bit of time.”
It’s likely to be a two-stage process: “First we define what is early stage OA, and then we identify those who are at the highest risk of rapid progression so that we can target those individuals for clinical trials.”
Dr. Hawker and Dr. Englund had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
An expert task force convened by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) has started the process of consolidating classification criteria for early-stage knee osteoarthritis (OA).
“Early-stage knee OA classification criteria, we believe are critically required,” Gillian Hawker, MD, MSc, said at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Dr. Hawker, who is the chair of the Task Force Steering Committee, noted that classification criteria are needed for several reasons, such as “to advance OA therapeutics and [the] earlier identification of people with knee OA who can benefit from existing treatments.”
Moreover, they are needed so that people with knee OA can “be poised and ready to receive available therapies once we develop them,” said Dr. Hawker, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and a senior clinician-scientist in the Women’s College Research Institute at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.
Reasoning for looking at early OA
“Osteoarthritis is a very serious disease with a growing population burden,” Dr. Hawker reminded delegates at the congress. Yet despite “amazing advances” in the understanding of the pathophysiology of disease and several potential druggable targets being identified, “we still have no safe and effective interventions to prevent or slow the progression of the disease.”
“Why have all the DMOADs [disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs] failed?” she questioned.
One hypothesis is that it’s down to the heterogeneity of OA. “We’ve been plugging people with different kinds or phenotypes of OA into the same clinical trials, and we need to better match OA phenotypes with appropriate treatment,” Dr. Hawker said.
Also, “structural changes on imaging, and the symptoms that characterize the disease of function, pain, stiffness, etc., are not super well correlated. It may be that any attempts at structure modification alone won’t adequately improve clinical symptoms.”
Perhaps most importantly, however, “we’re treating people way too late in the course of their disease,” Dr. Hawker said. “When we keep putting people with Kellgren and Lawrence [grade] 2 or 3 into clinical trials, it may be that we there’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do that’s really going to make a difference.”
Why just knee OA?
The reason for looking at early-stage OA specifically is that current knee OA classification criteria were developed nearly 40 years ago and were looking at a later stage of disease, mainly differentiating OA from other types of inflammatory arthritis, notably rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
The aim of the OARSI Early OA Task Force is thus to develop, refine, and validate classification criteria that will not only help identify people with early-stage OA who can then be entered into clinical trials of new therapies but also define a population that can be used in preclinical and prognostic work.
“The task force decided to start with early-stage knee OA due to the highest burden and the focus of most clinical trials,” steering committee member Martin Englund, MD, PhD, observed during the discussion.
“When we see how that goes, we may consider early hip OA,” said Dr. Englund, of Lund University and Skåne University Hospital in Sweden.
Dr. Hawker added that the task force felt that lumping hip and knee OA together would complicate matters because they thought that the classification criteria will likely look very different from each other.
“But the good news is we think that if we can identify early knee OA, we will likely also identify people with at least hand OA,” she said.
Building on previous work
The OARSI Task Force initiative will build on the early OA work by Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, and Frank Luyten, MD, PhD, who were part of a consensus panel that proposed draft classification criteria a few years ago. Those criteria, derived from a consensus workshop that had included basic scientists, physician-scientists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and physiotherapists, identified three main areas of importance: Patient symptoms such as pain and function, the presence of crepitus or tender joints on clinical examination, and having a low Kellgren and Lawrence grade (0 or 1).
Dr. Lohmander remains heavily involved, heading up the advisory committee, with many other ad hoc committees likely to be set up during the project.
“We had over 70 people in the OARSI community volunteering to participate in some way, shape, or form,” Dr. Hawker said. All will be needed, she said, as there will be a lot of work to do. The starting point is people with undifferentiated knee symptoms, identifying the factors that increase or decrease the likelihood of having early-stage OA. Once a population has been found, the outcomes for prevention need to be defined.
A systematic search of the available literature has started and full-text review of more than 200 papers is in progress. The challenge ahead is to define what the ‘anchor question’ will be. That is, what question should be asked in order to determine whether a patient fulfills the criteria?
Dr. Hawker noted that when the American College of Rheumatology developed the RA classification criteria, the anchor question had been around whether methotrexate should be prescribed.
“We don’t have a ‘methotrexate’ in osteoarthritis, and it’s pretty low risk to start weight management or physical activity or even prescribe a topical anti-inflammatory,” she said. “So, we’re still trying to work out exactly how we create our anchor.”
It’s likely that the anchor question will be based on expert opinion rather than hard data. Perhaps it will focus on the chances that a patient’s symptoms will become persistent with loss of function or that they will develop established OA. It could perhaps be around the initiation of a novel DMOAD, if one proved effective enough to be used.
“We have many, many, many, questions!” Dr. Hawker said. One of the important ones is deciding what exactly should be prevented. Symptoms? Structural damage?
“I think a combination of symptoms and loss of function are probably what we want to prevent. But again, we’re going to have to define that very clearly. This is going to take us quite a bit of time.”
It’s likely to be a two-stage process: “First we define what is early stage OA, and then we identify those who are at the highest risk of rapid progression so that we can target those individuals for clinical trials.”
Dr. Hawker and Dr. Englund had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022
Inadequate pain relief in OA, high opioid use before TKA
Inadequate pain relief was recorded in 68.8% of a sample of people with hip or knee OA who participated in the population-based EpiReumaPt study, researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“This can be explained by a lack of effectiveness of current management strategies, low uptake of recommended interventions by health care professionals, and also by low adherence by patients to medication and lifestyle interventions,” said Daniela Sofia Albino Costa, MSc, a PhD student at NOVA University Lisbon.
In addition to looking at the prevalence of inadequate pain relief – defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) – the study she presented at the congress, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, looked at the predictors for inadequate pain control.
It was found that being female, obesity, and having multimorbidity doubled the risk of inadequate versus adequate pain control, with respective odds ratios of 2.32 (P < .001), 2.26 (P = .006), and 2.07 (P = .001). Overweight was also associated with an increased odds ratio for poor pain control (OR, 1.84; P = .0035).
“We found that patients with inadequate pain relief also have a low performance on activities of daily living and a low quality of life,” Ms. Costa said.
Nearly one-third (29%) of patients in the inadequate pain relief group (n = 765) took medication, versus 15% of patients in the adequate pain relief group (n = 270). This was mostly NSAIDs, but also included analgesics and antipyretics, and in a few cases (4.8% vs. 1.3%), simple opioids.
“We know that current care is not concordant with recommendations,” said Ms. Costa, noting that medication being used as first-line treatment and core nonpharmacologic interventions are being offered to less than half of patients who are eligible.
In addition, the rate for total joint replacement has increased globally, and pain is an important predictor for this.
“So, we need to evaluate pain control and current management offered to people with hip or knee arthritis to identify to identify areas for improvement,” Ms. Costa said.
High rates of prescription opioid use before TKA
In a separate study also presented at the congress, Daniel Rhon, DPT, DSc, director of musculoskeletal research in primary care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, gave a worrying glimpse of high rates of opioid use in the 4 years before total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Using data from the U.S. Military Health System, the records of all individuals who had a knee replacement procedure between January 2017 and December 2018 were studied, to identify and characterize the use of prescription opioids.
Of the 46,362 individuals, 52.9% had prior opioid use, despite the fact that “opioids are not recommended for the management of knee OA,” said Dr. Rhon.
He also reported that as many as 40% of those who had at least one prescription for opioids had received a high-potency drug, such as fentanyl or oxycodone. The mean age of participants overall was 65 years, with a higher mean for those receiving opioids than those who did not (68 vs. 61.5 years). Data on sex and ethnicity were not available in time for presentation at the congress.
“Most of these individuals are getting these opioid prescriptions probably within 6 months, which maybe aligns with escalation of pain and maybe the decision to have that knee replacement,” Dr. Rhon said. Individuals that used opioids filled their most recent prescription a median of 146 days before TKA to surgery, with a mean of 317 days.
“You can’t always link the reason for the opioid prescription, that’s not really clear in the database,” he admitted; however, an analysis was performed to check if other surgeries had been performed that may have warranted the opioid treatment. The results revealed that very few of the opioid users (4%-7%) had undergone another type of surgical procedure.
“So, we feel a little bit better, that these findings weren’t for other surgical procedures,” said Dr. Rhon. He added that future qualitative research was needed to understand why health care professionals were prescribing opioids, and why patients felt like they needed them.
“That’s bad,” Haxby Abbott, PhD, DPT, a research professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, commented on Twitter.
Dr. Abbott, who was not involved in the study, added: “We’ve done a similar study of the whole NZ population [currently under review] – similar to Australia and not nearly as bad as you found. That needs urgent attention.”
Sharp rise in opioid use 2 years before TKA
Lower rates of opioid use before TKA were seen in two European cohorts, at 43% in England and 33% in Sweden, as reported by Clara Hellberg, PhD, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University. However, rates had increased over a 10-year study period from a respective 23% and 16%, with a sharp increase in use in the 2 years before knee replacement.
The analysis was based on 49,043 patients from the English national database Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register who had undergone total knee replacement between 2015 and 2019 and were matched by age, sex and general practice to individuals not undergoing knee replacement.
The prevalence ratio for using opioids over a 10-year period increased from 1.6 to 2.7 in England, and from 1.6 to 2.6 in Sweden.
“While the overall prevalence of opioid use was higher in England, the majority of both cases and controls were using weak opioids,” Dr. Hellberg said.
“Codeine was classified as a weak opioid, whereas morphine was classified as a strong opioid,” she added.
In contrast, the proportion of people using strong opioids in Sweden was greater than in England, she said.
The high opioid use found in the study highlights “the need for better opioid stewardship, and the availability of acceptable, effective alternatives,” Dr. Hellberg and associates concluded in their abstract.
The study presented by Ms. Costa was funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology and by an independent research grant from Pfizer. Dr. Rhon acknowledged grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Hellberg had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Inadequate pain relief was recorded in 68.8% of a sample of people with hip or knee OA who participated in the population-based EpiReumaPt study, researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“This can be explained by a lack of effectiveness of current management strategies, low uptake of recommended interventions by health care professionals, and also by low adherence by patients to medication and lifestyle interventions,” said Daniela Sofia Albino Costa, MSc, a PhD student at NOVA University Lisbon.
In addition to looking at the prevalence of inadequate pain relief – defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) – the study she presented at the congress, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, looked at the predictors for inadequate pain control.
It was found that being female, obesity, and having multimorbidity doubled the risk of inadequate versus adequate pain control, with respective odds ratios of 2.32 (P < .001), 2.26 (P = .006), and 2.07 (P = .001). Overweight was also associated with an increased odds ratio for poor pain control (OR, 1.84; P = .0035).
“We found that patients with inadequate pain relief also have a low performance on activities of daily living and a low quality of life,” Ms. Costa said.
Nearly one-third (29%) of patients in the inadequate pain relief group (n = 765) took medication, versus 15% of patients in the adequate pain relief group (n = 270). This was mostly NSAIDs, but also included analgesics and antipyretics, and in a few cases (4.8% vs. 1.3%), simple opioids.
“We know that current care is not concordant with recommendations,” said Ms. Costa, noting that medication being used as first-line treatment and core nonpharmacologic interventions are being offered to less than half of patients who are eligible.
In addition, the rate for total joint replacement has increased globally, and pain is an important predictor for this.
“So, we need to evaluate pain control and current management offered to people with hip or knee arthritis to identify to identify areas for improvement,” Ms. Costa said.
High rates of prescription opioid use before TKA
In a separate study also presented at the congress, Daniel Rhon, DPT, DSc, director of musculoskeletal research in primary care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, gave a worrying glimpse of high rates of opioid use in the 4 years before total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Using data from the U.S. Military Health System, the records of all individuals who had a knee replacement procedure between January 2017 and December 2018 were studied, to identify and characterize the use of prescription opioids.
Of the 46,362 individuals, 52.9% had prior opioid use, despite the fact that “opioids are not recommended for the management of knee OA,” said Dr. Rhon.
He also reported that as many as 40% of those who had at least one prescription for opioids had received a high-potency drug, such as fentanyl or oxycodone. The mean age of participants overall was 65 years, with a higher mean for those receiving opioids than those who did not (68 vs. 61.5 years). Data on sex and ethnicity were not available in time for presentation at the congress.
“Most of these individuals are getting these opioid prescriptions probably within 6 months, which maybe aligns with escalation of pain and maybe the decision to have that knee replacement,” Dr. Rhon said. Individuals that used opioids filled their most recent prescription a median of 146 days before TKA to surgery, with a mean of 317 days.
“You can’t always link the reason for the opioid prescription, that’s not really clear in the database,” he admitted; however, an analysis was performed to check if other surgeries had been performed that may have warranted the opioid treatment. The results revealed that very few of the opioid users (4%-7%) had undergone another type of surgical procedure.
“So, we feel a little bit better, that these findings weren’t for other surgical procedures,” said Dr. Rhon. He added that future qualitative research was needed to understand why health care professionals were prescribing opioids, and why patients felt like they needed them.
“That’s bad,” Haxby Abbott, PhD, DPT, a research professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, commented on Twitter.
Dr. Abbott, who was not involved in the study, added: “We’ve done a similar study of the whole NZ population [currently under review] – similar to Australia and not nearly as bad as you found. That needs urgent attention.”
Sharp rise in opioid use 2 years before TKA
Lower rates of opioid use before TKA were seen in two European cohorts, at 43% in England and 33% in Sweden, as reported by Clara Hellberg, PhD, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University. However, rates had increased over a 10-year study period from a respective 23% and 16%, with a sharp increase in use in the 2 years before knee replacement.
The analysis was based on 49,043 patients from the English national database Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register who had undergone total knee replacement between 2015 and 2019 and were matched by age, sex and general practice to individuals not undergoing knee replacement.
The prevalence ratio for using opioids over a 10-year period increased from 1.6 to 2.7 in England, and from 1.6 to 2.6 in Sweden.
“While the overall prevalence of opioid use was higher in England, the majority of both cases and controls were using weak opioids,” Dr. Hellberg said.
“Codeine was classified as a weak opioid, whereas morphine was classified as a strong opioid,” she added.
In contrast, the proportion of people using strong opioids in Sweden was greater than in England, she said.
The high opioid use found in the study highlights “the need for better opioid stewardship, and the availability of acceptable, effective alternatives,” Dr. Hellberg and associates concluded in their abstract.
The study presented by Ms. Costa was funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology and by an independent research grant from Pfizer. Dr. Rhon acknowledged grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Hellberg had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
Inadequate pain relief was recorded in 68.8% of a sample of people with hip or knee OA who participated in the population-based EpiReumaPt study, researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“This can be explained by a lack of effectiveness of current management strategies, low uptake of recommended interventions by health care professionals, and also by low adherence by patients to medication and lifestyle interventions,” said Daniela Sofia Albino Costa, MSc, a PhD student at NOVA University Lisbon.
In addition to looking at the prevalence of inadequate pain relief – defined as a score of 5 or higher on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) – the study she presented at the congress, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International, looked at the predictors for inadequate pain control.
It was found that being female, obesity, and having multimorbidity doubled the risk of inadequate versus adequate pain control, with respective odds ratios of 2.32 (P < .001), 2.26 (P = .006), and 2.07 (P = .001). Overweight was also associated with an increased odds ratio for poor pain control (OR, 1.84; P = .0035).
“We found that patients with inadequate pain relief also have a low performance on activities of daily living and a low quality of life,” Ms. Costa said.
Nearly one-third (29%) of patients in the inadequate pain relief group (n = 765) took medication, versus 15% of patients in the adequate pain relief group (n = 270). This was mostly NSAIDs, but also included analgesics and antipyretics, and in a few cases (4.8% vs. 1.3%), simple opioids.
“We know that current care is not concordant with recommendations,” said Ms. Costa, noting that medication being used as first-line treatment and core nonpharmacologic interventions are being offered to less than half of patients who are eligible.
In addition, the rate for total joint replacement has increased globally, and pain is an important predictor for this.
“So, we need to evaluate pain control and current management offered to people with hip or knee arthritis to identify to identify areas for improvement,” Ms. Costa said.
High rates of prescription opioid use before TKA
In a separate study also presented at the congress, Daniel Rhon, DPT, DSc, director of musculoskeletal research in primary care at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, gave a worrying glimpse of high rates of opioid use in the 4 years before total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
Using data from the U.S. Military Health System, the records of all individuals who had a knee replacement procedure between January 2017 and December 2018 were studied, to identify and characterize the use of prescription opioids.
Of the 46,362 individuals, 52.9% had prior opioid use, despite the fact that “opioids are not recommended for the management of knee OA,” said Dr. Rhon.
He also reported that as many as 40% of those who had at least one prescription for opioids had received a high-potency drug, such as fentanyl or oxycodone. The mean age of participants overall was 65 years, with a higher mean for those receiving opioids than those who did not (68 vs. 61.5 years). Data on sex and ethnicity were not available in time for presentation at the congress.
“Most of these individuals are getting these opioid prescriptions probably within 6 months, which maybe aligns with escalation of pain and maybe the decision to have that knee replacement,” Dr. Rhon said. Individuals that used opioids filled their most recent prescription a median of 146 days before TKA to surgery, with a mean of 317 days.
“You can’t always link the reason for the opioid prescription, that’s not really clear in the database,” he admitted; however, an analysis was performed to check if other surgeries had been performed that may have warranted the opioid treatment. The results revealed that very few of the opioid users (4%-7%) had undergone another type of surgical procedure.
“So, we feel a little bit better, that these findings weren’t for other surgical procedures,” said Dr. Rhon. He added that future qualitative research was needed to understand why health care professionals were prescribing opioids, and why patients felt like they needed them.
“That’s bad,” Haxby Abbott, PhD, DPT, a research professor at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, commented on Twitter.
Dr. Abbott, who was not involved in the study, added: “We’ve done a similar study of the whole NZ population [currently under review] – similar to Australia and not nearly as bad as you found. That needs urgent attention.”
Sharp rise in opioid use 2 years before TKA
Lower rates of opioid use before TKA were seen in two European cohorts, at 43% in England and 33% in Sweden, as reported by Clara Hellberg, PhD, MD, of Lund (Sweden) University. However, rates had increased over a 10-year study period from a respective 23% and 16%, with a sharp increase in use in the 2 years before knee replacement.
The analysis was based on 49,043 patients from the English national database Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and 5,955 patients from the Swedish Skåne Healthcare register who had undergone total knee replacement between 2015 and 2019 and were matched by age, sex and general practice to individuals not undergoing knee replacement.
The prevalence ratio for using opioids over a 10-year period increased from 1.6 to 2.7 in England, and from 1.6 to 2.6 in Sweden.
“While the overall prevalence of opioid use was higher in England, the majority of both cases and controls were using weak opioids,” Dr. Hellberg said.
“Codeine was classified as a weak opioid, whereas morphine was classified as a strong opioid,” she added.
In contrast, the proportion of people using strong opioids in Sweden was greater than in England, she said.
The high opioid use found in the study highlights “the need for better opioid stewardship, and the availability of acceptable, effective alternatives,” Dr. Hellberg and associates concluded in their abstract.
The study presented by Ms. Costa was funded by the Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology and by an independent research grant from Pfizer. Dr. Rhon acknowledged grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Hellberg had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022
Weight gain may exacerbate structural damage in knee OA
researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), researchers from the University of California found that a greater than 5% increase in body weight over 4 years was associated with a 29% increased risk for medial joint space narrowing (JSN), compared with controls (P = .038). There was also a 34% increased risk for developing frequent knee pain (P = .009)
Conversely, weight loss appeared to offer some protection from structural damage in knee OA, Gabby B. Joseph, PhD, a specialist in radiology and biomedical imaging, said at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Indeed, individuals who had achieved a weight loss of more than 5% at 4-year follow up were less likely to have a worsened Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade than those whose body weight remained the same (odds ratio, 0.69, P = .009).
Weight loss was also associated with a higher change of experiencing resolution in knee pain over 12 months, with an OR of 1.40 (P = .019).
Importance of weight change in OA
“We know that weight loss has beneficial effects on knee OA symptoms, such as pain relief and improvement in physical function,” commented Xingzhong Jin, PhD, an NHMRC Early Career Fellow at the Centre for Big Data Research in Health at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
“But what is unclear is whether weight loss could slow down structural degradation in the joint in the long run,” he said in an interview. “These findings mean that weight control is clearly very important for knee OA, in terms of improving symptoms as well as preventing structural progression.”
He added: “The evidence on hip OA is less clear. As most of the knowledge in this space was generated from people with knee OA, this work is an important contribution to knowledge around the care of people with hip OA.”
Why look at weight change effects in OA?
“Obesity is a modifiable risk factor for osteoarthritis,” Dr. Joseph said at the start of her virtual presentation. Indeed, patients with obesity are more than twice as likely to develop knee OA than their normal weight counterparts.
Although there have been various studies looking at weight loss and weight gain in OA, most have focused on weight loss rather than gain, and OA in the knee rather than the hip, she explained.
The aim of the present study, therefore, was to take a closer look at the possible effect of both weight gain and weight loss in people with hip or knee OA in terms of radiographic outcomes (KL grade change, medial JSN), symptomatic outcomes (knee pain and resolution at 12 months), and the need for joint replacement.
“The clinical implications are to develop targeted long-term strategies for site-specific informed recommendations to prevent joint degeneration,” Dr. Joseph said.
Using data on nearly 3,000 individuals from the OAI, Dr Joseph and collaborators classified people with OA into one of three groups: those with at least a 5% gain in weight, (n = 714), those with no (–3% to 3%) change in weight (n = 1,553), and those with at least a 5% loss in weight over a 4-year period.
The results, which were published in Arthritis Care & Research, also revealed no differences in the rate of total hip or knee arthroplasties between the groups, and no differences between the weight gain and weight loss groups and controls in term of hip radiographic or symptomatic changes.
“Why are there differing effects of weight change in the knee versus the hip? This could be multifactorial, but there could be a few things going on,” said Dr. Joseph. “First, the joint structure is clearly different between the knee and the hip. The knee is a hinge joint. The hip is a ball and socket joint malalignment could affect these in different ways.”
Additionally, “the knee also has thicker cartilage, the hip has thinner cartilage again, and the loading patterns may be different in these joints.”
There were also differences in the rate of progression between the knee and the hip, “this was especially noticeable for the radiographic progression,” Dr. Joseph said, with rates being higher in the knee.
Noting that the study is limited by its retrospective design, Dr. Joseph concluded: “We don’t know why these people lost or gained weight. So, this would be something that would be more apparent in a prospective study.
“Also, there were no MRI outcomes, as MRI imaging was not available in the hip in the OAI, but clearly morphology T1 and T2 would be useful to assess as outcomes here as well.”
The OAI is a public-private partnership funded by the National Institutes of Health and initial support from Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Jin reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.
researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), researchers from the University of California found that a greater than 5% increase in body weight over 4 years was associated with a 29% increased risk for medial joint space narrowing (JSN), compared with controls (P = .038). There was also a 34% increased risk for developing frequent knee pain (P = .009)
Conversely, weight loss appeared to offer some protection from structural damage in knee OA, Gabby B. Joseph, PhD, a specialist in radiology and biomedical imaging, said at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Indeed, individuals who had achieved a weight loss of more than 5% at 4-year follow up were less likely to have a worsened Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade than those whose body weight remained the same (odds ratio, 0.69, P = .009).
Weight loss was also associated with a higher change of experiencing resolution in knee pain over 12 months, with an OR of 1.40 (P = .019).
Importance of weight change in OA
“We know that weight loss has beneficial effects on knee OA symptoms, such as pain relief and improvement in physical function,” commented Xingzhong Jin, PhD, an NHMRC Early Career Fellow at the Centre for Big Data Research in Health at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
“But what is unclear is whether weight loss could slow down structural degradation in the joint in the long run,” he said in an interview. “These findings mean that weight control is clearly very important for knee OA, in terms of improving symptoms as well as preventing structural progression.”
He added: “The evidence on hip OA is less clear. As most of the knowledge in this space was generated from people with knee OA, this work is an important contribution to knowledge around the care of people with hip OA.”
Why look at weight change effects in OA?
“Obesity is a modifiable risk factor for osteoarthritis,” Dr. Joseph said at the start of her virtual presentation. Indeed, patients with obesity are more than twice as likely to develop knee OA than their normal weight counterparts.
Although there have been various studies looking at weight loss and weight gain in OA, most have focused on weight loss rather than gain, and OA in the knee rather than the hip, she explained.
The aim of the present study, therefore, was to take a closer look at the possible effect of both weight gain and weight loss in people with hip or knee OA in terms of radiographic outcomes (KL grade change, medial JSN), symptomatic outcomes (knee pain and resolution at 12 months), and the need for joint replacement.
“The clinical implications are to develop targeted long-term strategies for site-specific informed recommendations to prevent joint degeneration,” Dr. Joseph said.
Using data on nearly 3,000 individuals from the OAI, Dr Joseph and collaborators classified people with OA into one of three groups: those with at least a 5% gain in weight, (n = 714), those with no (–3% to 3%) change in weight (n = 1,553), and those with at least a 5% loss in weight over a 4-year period.
The results, which were published in Arthritis Care & Research, also revealed no differences in the rate of total hip or knee arthroplasties between the groups, and no differences between the weight gain and weight loss groups and controls in term of hip radiographic or symptomatic changes.
“Why are there differing effects of weight change in the knee versus the hip? This could be multifactorial, but there could be a few things going on,” said Dr. Joseph. “First, the joint structure is clearly different between the knee and the hip. The knee is a hinge joint. The hip is a ball and socket joint malalignment could affect these in different ways.”
Additionally, “the knee also has thicker cartilage, the hip has thinner cartilage again, and the loading patterns may be different in these joints.”
There were also differences in the rate of progression between the knee and the hip, “this was especially noticeable for the radiographic progression,” Dr. Joseph said, with rates being higher in the knee.
Noting that the study is limited by its retrospective design, Dr. Joseph concluded: “We don’t know why these people lost or gained weight. So, this would be something that would be more apparent in a prospective study.
“Also, there were no MRI outcomes, as MRI imaging was not available in the hip in the OAI, but clearly morphology T1 and T2 would be useful to assess as outcomes here as well.”
The OAI is a public-private partnership funded by the National Institutes of Health and initial support from Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Jin reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.
researchers reported at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Using data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), researchers from the University of California found that a greater than 5% increase in body weight over 4 years was associated with a 29% increased risk for medial joint space narrowing (JSN), compared with controls (P = .038). There was also a 34% increased risk for developing frequent knee pain (P = .009)
Conversely, weight loss appeared to offer some protection from structural damage in knee OA, Gabby B. Joseph, PhD, a specialist in radiology and biomedical imaging, said at the congress, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Indeed, individuals who had achieved a weight loss of more than 5% at 4-year follow up were less likely to have a worsened Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade than those whose body weight remained the same (odds ratio, 0.69, P = .009).
Weight loss was also associated with a higher change of experiencing resolution in knee pain over 12 months, with an OR of 1.40 (P = .019).
Importance of weight change in OA
“We know that weight loss has beneficial effects on knee OA symptoms, such as pain relief and improvement in physical function,” commented Xingzhong Jin, PhD, an NHMRC Early Career Fellow at the Centre for Big Data Research in Health at the University of New South Wales, Sydney.
“But what is unclear is whether weight loss could slow down structural degradation in the joint in the long run,” he said in an interview. “These findings mean that weight control is clearly very important for knee OA, in terms of improving symptoms as well as preventing structural progression.”
He added: “The evidence on hip OA is less clear. As most of the knowledge in this space was generated from people with knee OA, this work is an important contribution to knowledge around the care of people with hip OA.”
Why look at weight change effects in OA?
“Obesity is a modifiable risk factor for osteoarthritis,” Dr. Joseph said at the start of her virtual presentation. Indeed, patients with obesity are more than twice as likely to develop knee OA than their normal weight counterparts.
Although there have been various studies looking at weight loss and weight gain in OA, most have focused on weight loss rather than gain, and OA in the knee rather than the hip, she explained.
The aim of the present study, therefore, was to take a closer look at the possible effect of both weight gain and weight loss in people with hip or knee OA in terms of radiographic outcomes (KL grade change, medial JSN), symptomatic outcomes (knee pain and resolution at 12 months), and the need for joint replacement.
“The clinical implications are to develop targeted long-term strategies for site-specific informed recommendations to prevent joint degeneration,” Dr. Joseph said.
Using data on nearly 3,000 individuals from the OAI, Dr Joseph and collaborators classified people with OA into one of three groups: those with at least a 5% gain in weight, (n = 714), those with no (–3% to 3%) change in weight (n = 1,553), and those with at least a 5% loss in weight over a 4-year period.
The results, which were published in Arthritis Care & Research, also revealed no differences in the rate of total hip or knee arthroplasties between the groups, and no differences between the weight gain and weight loss groups and controls in term of hip radiographic or symptomatic changes.
“Why are there differing effects of weight change in the knee versus the hip? This could be multifactorial, but there could be a few things going on,” said Dr. Joseph. “First, the joint structure is clearly different between the knee and the hip. The knee is a hinge joint. The hip is a ball and socket joint malalignment could affect these in different ways.”
Additionally, “the knee also has thicker cartilage, the hip has thinner cartilage again, and the loading patterns may be different in these joints.”
There were also differences in the rate of progression between the knee and the hip, “this was especially noticeable for the radiographic progression,” Dr. Joseph said, with rates being higher in the knee.
Noting that the study is limited by its retrospective design, Dr. Joseph concluded: “We don’t know why these people lost or gained weight. So, this would be something that would be more apparent in a prospective study.
“Also, there were no MRI outcomes, as MRI imaging was not available in the hip in the OAI, but clearly morphology T1 and T2 would be useful to assess as outcomes here as well.”
The OAI is a public-private partnership funded by the National Institutes of Health and initial support from Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer. Dr. Joseph and Dr. Jin reported having no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022
High comorbidity rate seen before osteoarthritis diagnosis
presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
Comorbidity and OA
One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.
“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.
“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.
While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.
“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.
Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
Results and perspective
Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.
Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.
Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.
“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.
“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”
One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.
“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.
“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.
The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
Comorbidity and OA
One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.
“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.
“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.
While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.
“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.
Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
Results and perspective
Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.
Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.
Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.
“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.
“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”
One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.
“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.
“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.
The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
“Some of the associations that we have found are previously known, such as of course, obesity, which is a known risk factor, but also other musculoskeletal conditions, depression, and reflux disease,” said Anne Kamps, an MD and PhD student at Erasmus University Medical Centre in Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
“But there are also some remarkable associations that we have found that are less well known, such as liver cirrhosis, thromboembolic disease, sinusitis, allergy, and migraine,” said Dr. Kamps during her presentation at the conference, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The results are “very interesting starting points for future research, because of course, this was an explorative study,” she added. Indeed, is still not known whether the comorbidities found share the same risk factors as OA, or if they have a causal effect and add to development of osteoarthritis.
Comorbidity and OA
One of the issues in managing osteoarthritis so far is that it’s often addressed as one disease, commented Andrea Dell’isola, PT, PhD, a postdoctoral researcher from Lund University who was not involved in the study.
“All of the treatments that have been developed and the treatment process are tailored to take care of one single disease,” he explained. However, “when we look at the characteristics of people with osteoarthritis, we see that roughly 70% of them have other conditions on top of their joint disease.” This high comorbidity rate is significantly higher than in “healthy” people of the same age and sex, he added.
“So, this means that either there is something linked to osteoarthritis that makes people frailer and more likely to develop other diseases, or there may be links between these other diseases, that we often call comorbidities, and osteoarthritis,” Dr. Dell’isola observed.
While the work Dr. Kamps presented looked at the rate of comorbidities that existed before the diagnosis of OA, some of Dr. Dell’isola’s recent research has considered the rate of developing comorbid disease in the years following an OA diagnosis. Associations were found between having hip or knee OA and an increased risk for coexisting depression, cardiovascular diseases, back pain, osteoporosis, and, in the case of knee OA only, diabetes. “It’s interesting to see that certain diseases seem to have a bidirectional association. This means that they can both precede and follow osteoarthritis,” said Dr. Dell’isola. These are just associations, not causation, he stressed, but they might help identify people visiting a doctor for other reasons who may be at risk for developing OA.
“One of the biggest challenges is that once a person develops osteoarthritis, there is not any treatment that can really change their disease,” he added.
Perhaps, “if we can target certain conditions that increase the risk of developing osteoarthritis, and maybe convince people to exercise earlier, or undergo some lifestyle changes early on, we can maybe prevent or delay the onset of the disease,” he suggested.
Results and perspective
Dr. Kamps and associates performed a nested case-control study using data from a large Dutch general practice database. All new cases of OA – which included hip, knee, and other peripheral OA – that were logged between the start of 2006 and the end of 2019 were considered and matched to one to four control subjects of a similar age, sex, and type of general practice. In all, there were just under 80,000 people with newly diagnosed OA who were matched to just over 318,000 controls; the mean age in both groups was 64 years.
Of 58 comorbidities that were assessed, 42 showed a positive association with OA and had odds ratios of 1 or more. The highest associations were found for fibromyalgia (OR, 1.9), obesity (1.8), polymyalgia rheumatica (1.5), spinal disc herniation (1.4), and gout (1.4). A further 13 comorbidities had an OR of about 1, and 3 (all neuropsychiatric conditions – dementia, schizophrenia, and multiple sclerosis) had an OR of below 1.
Dr. Kamps conceded that this type of research has its limitations, the two most important being the coding behavior of the GP and the consulting behavior of patients.
“It’s known that the prevalence of osteoarthritis is underestimated if you only use the diagnostic codes, because some GPs will write the diagnosis in free text or use symptom ICPC codes,” she said.
“We have matched on general practice, so the cases and controls were from the same general practice and therefore we hope that this potential underestimation is balanced and did not affect our odds ratios.”
One of the important outcomes for this research is that it will hopefully be used to inform future clinical practice guidelines, said Dr. Dell’isola.
“Guidelines in osteoarthritis report that is important to screen for comorbidities, but they give no indication on how to deal with the presence of multimorbidity,” he added. Looking at which comorbidities may be associated with OA diagnosis could potentially help to give a bit more of a prescriptive guide on what to look out for.
“Maybe people with a certain disease profile should be screened a bit more often by their doctor. For example, if someone has their blood pressure and diabetes under control, maybe there should be also a bit more attention to their joint health and encouragement to do exercise, not only for being active per se, but maybe also to reinforce their lower limbs,” he explained.
The study was funded by the Foundation for Research in Rheumatology (FOREUM). Dr. Kamps and Dr. Dell’isola, had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022
Early meniscal surgery on par with active rehab in under 40s
according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.
“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.
Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
Assembling the DREAM team
The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.
In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female
Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.
Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
No gain in pain
The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.
“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”
Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).
Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).
While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.
There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
Views on results
The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.
During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.
She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”
Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”
Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.
“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.
The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.
The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.
according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.
“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.
Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
Assembling the DREAM team
The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.
In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female
Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.
Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
No gain in pain
The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.
“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”
Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).
Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).
While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.
There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
Views on results
The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.
During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.
She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”
Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”
Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.
“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.
The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.
The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.
according to the results of the randomized controlled DREAM trial presented at the OARSI 2022 World Congress.
Indeed, similar clinically relevant improvements in knee pain, function, and quality of life at 12 months were seen among participants in both study arms.
“Our results highlight that decisions on surgery or nonsurgical treatment must depend on preferences and values and needs of the individuals consulting their surgeon,” Søren T. Skou, PT, MSc, PhD, reported during one of the opening sessions at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The lack of superiority was contrary to the expectations of the researchers who hypothesized that early surgical intervention in adults aged between 18 and 40 years would be more beneficial than an active rehabilitation program with later surgery if needed.
Although the results do tie in with the results of other trials and systematic reviews in older adults the reason for looking at young adults specifically, aside from the obvious differences and the origin of meniscal tears, was that no study had previously looked at this population, Dr. Skou explained.
Assembling the DREAM team
The DREAM (Danish RCT on Exercise versus Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery for Young Adults) trial “was a collaborative effort among many clinicians in Denmark – physical therapists, exercise physiologists, and surgeons,” Dr. Skou observed.
In total, 121 adults with MRI-verified meniscal tears who were eligible for surgery were recruited and randomized to either the early meniscal surgery group (n = 60) or to the exercise and education group (n = 61). The mean age was just below 30 years and 28% were female
Meniscal surgery, which was either an arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair, was performed at seven specialist centers. The exercise and education program was delivered by trained physical therapists working at 19 participating centers. The latter consisted of 24 sessions of group-based exercise therapy and education held over a period of 12 weeks.
Participants randomized to the exercise and education arm had the option of later meniscal surgery, with one in four eventually undergoing this procedure.
No gain in pain
The primary outcome measure was the difference in the mean of four of the subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) from baseline to 12-month assessment. The KOOS4 looks at knee pain, symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and quality of life.
“We considered a 10-point difference between groups as clinically relevant,” said Dr. Skou, but “adjusting for the baseline differences, we found no [statistical] differences or clinically relevant differences between groups.”
Improvement was seen in both groups. In an intention-to-treat analysis the KOOS4 scores improved by 19.2 points and 16.4 points respectively in the surgery and exercise and education groups, with a mean adjusted difference of 5.4 (95% confidence interval, –0.7 to 11.4). There was also no difference in a per protocol analysis, which considered only those participants who received the treatment strategy they were allocated (mean adjusted difference, 5.7; 95% CI, –0.9 to 12.4).
Secondary outcomes were also similarly improved in both groups with clinically relevant increases in all four KOOS subscale scores and in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET).
While there were some statistical differences between the groups, such as better KOOS pain, symptoms, and WOMET scores in the surgery group, these were felt unlikely to be clinically relevant. Likewise, there was a statistically greater improvement in muscle strength in the exercise and education group than surgery group.
There was no statistical difference in the number of serious adverse events, including worsening of symptoms with or without acute onset during activity and lateral meniscal cysts, with four reported in the surgical group and seven in the exercise and education group.
Views on results
The results of the trial, published in NEJM Evidence, garnered attention on Twitter with several physiotherapists noting the data were positive for the nonsurgical management of meniscal tears in younger adults.
During discussion at the meeting, Nadine Foster, PhD, NIHR Professor of Musculoskeletal Health in Primary Care at Keele (England) University, asked if a larger cohort might not swing the results in favor of surgery.
She said: “Congratulations on this trial. The challenge: Your 95% CIs suggest a larger trial would have concluded superiority of surgery?”
Dr. Skou responded: “Most likely the true difference is outside the clinically relevant difference, but obviously, we cannot exclude that there is actually a clinically relevant difference between groups.”
Martin Englund, MD, Phd, of Lund (Sweden) University Hospital in Sweden, pointed out that 16 patients in the exercise and education group had “crossed over” and undergone surgery. “Were there any differences for those patients?” he asked.
“We looked at whether there was a difference between those – obviously only having 16 participants, we’re not able to do any statistical comparisons – but looking just visually at the data, they seem to improve to the same extent as those undergoing nonsurgical only,” Dr. Skou said.
The 2-year MRI data are currently being examined and will “obviously also be very interesting,” he added.
The DREAM trial was funded by the Danish Council for Independent Research, IMK Almene Fond, Lundbeck Foundation, Spar Nord Foundation, Danish Rheumatism Association, Association of Danish Physiotherapists Research Fund, Research Council at Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, and Region Zealand. Dr. Skou had no financial or other conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM OARSI 2022