Search

Question: In people with knee osteoarthritis, how much more effective is stratified exercise therapy that distinguishes three subgroups (high muscle strength subgroup, low muscle strength subgroup, obesity subgroup) in reducing knee pain and improving physical function than usual exercise therapy?, Design: Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in a primary care setting., Participants: A total of 335 people with knee osteoarthritis: 153 in an experimental arm and 182 in a control arm., Intervention: Physiotherapy practices were randomised into an experimental arm providing stratified exercise therapy (supplemented by a dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup) or a control arm providing usual, non-stratified exercise therapy., Outcome Measures: Primary outcomes were knee pain severity (numerical rating scale for pain, 0 to 10) and physical function (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale activities of daily living, 0 to 100). Measurements were performed at baseline, 3 months (primary endpoint) and 6 and 12 months (follow-up). Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis was performed., Results: Negligible differences were found between the experimental and control groups in knee pain (mean adjusted difference 0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.7) and physical function (-0.8, 95% CI -4.3 to 2.6) at 3 months. Similar effects between groups were also found for each subgroup separately, as well as at other time points and for nearly all secondary outcome measures., Conclusion: This pragmatic trial demonstrated no added value regarding clinical outcomes of the model of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual exercise therapy. This could be attributed to the experimental arm therapists facing difficulty in effectively applying the model (especially in the obesity subgroup) and to elements of stratified exercise therapy possibly being applied in the control arm., Registration: Netherlands National Trial Register NL7463., (Copyright © 2022 Australian Physiotherapy Association. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and purpose - Guidelines for managing hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) advise extensive non-surgical treatment prior to surgery. We evaluated what percentage of hip and knee OA patients received non-surgical treatment prior to arthroplasty, and assessed patient satisfaction regarding alleviation of symptoms and performance of activities. Patients and methods - A multi-center cross-sectional study was performed in 2018 among 186 patients who were listed for hip or knee arthroplasty or had undergone surgery within the previous 6 months in the Netherlands. Questions concerned non-surgical treatments received according to the Stepped Care Strategy and were compared with utilization in 2013. Additionally, satisfaction with treatment effects for pain, swelling, stiffness, and activities of daily life, work, and sports/leisure was questioned. Results - The questionnaire was completed by 175 patients, age 66 years (range 38-84), 57% female, BMI 29 (IQR 25-33). Step 1 treatments, such as acetaminophen and lifestyle advice, were received by 79% and 60% of patients. Step 2 treatments, like exercise-based therapy and diet therapy, were received by 66% and 19%. Step 3-intra-articular injection-was received by 47%. Non-surgical treatment utilization was lower than in 2013. Nearly all treatments showed more satisfied patients regarding pain relief and fewer regarding activities of work/sports/leisure. Hip and knee OA patients were mostly satisfied with NSAIDs for all outcomes, while exercise-based therapy was rated second best. Interpretation - Despite international guideline recommendations, non-surgical treatment for hip and knee OA remains underutilized in the Netherlands. Of the patients referred for arthroplasty, more were satisfied with the effect of non-surgical treatment on pain than on work/sports/leisure participation.

Background: To address the well-documented gap between hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment recommendations and current clinical practice, a structured model for integrated OA care was developed and evaluated in a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial. The current study used secondary outcomes to evaluate clinically important response to treatment through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials clinical responder criteria (OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria) after 3 and 6 months between patients receiving the structured OA care model vs. usual care. Secondly, the study aimed to investigate if the proportion of responders in the intervention group was influenced by adherence to the exercise program inherent in the model., Methods: The study was conducted in primary healthcare in six Norwegian municipalities. General practitioners and physiotherapists received training in OA treatment recommendations and use of the structured model. The intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education program and performed individually tailored exercises for 8-12 weeks. The control group received usual care. Patient-reported pain, function and global assessment of disease activity during the last week were evaluated using 11-point numeric rating scales (NRS 0-10). These scores were used to calculate the proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders. Two-level mixed logistic regression models were fitted to investigate differences in responders between the intervention and control group., Results: Two hundred eighty-four intervention and 109 control group participants with hip and knee OA recruited from primary care in six Norwegian municipalities. In total 47% of the intervention and 35% of the control group participants were responders at 3 or 6 months combined; showing an uncertain between-group difference (OR adjusted 1.38 (95% CI 0.41, 4.67). In the intervention group, 184 participants completed the exercise programme (exercised ≥2 times/week for ≥8 weeks) and 55% of these were classified as responders. In contrast, 28% of the 86 non-completers were classified as responders., Conclusions: The difference in proportion of OMERACT-OARSI responders at 3 and 6 months between the intervention and control group was uncertain. In the intervention group, a larger proportion of responders were seen among the exercise completers compared to the non-completers., Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02333656. Registered 7. January 2015.

Objectives: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy., Methods: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed., Conclusion: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs., (© 2019 The Authors. Physiotherapy Research International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: Vigorous cardiorespiratory training (CRT) in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) is effective, safe. and feasible; however, it has not yet been adopted in axial SpA exercise programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for vigorous CRT among patients, physiotherapists, and rheumatologists., Methods: Stakeholder-specific surveys were used to examine perceptions of barriers and facilitators to vigorous CRT, with categories organized according to the recommendations proposed by Grol and Wensing. Respondents chose the 3 most important barrier and facilitator categories and rated individual items on a 4-point scale. Frequencies and proportions were calculated, and ratings between active and inactive patients were compared., Results: Among all patients (n = 575 [response rate 34%]), the top 3 barrier categories were "low motivation" (n = 317 [59%]), "unsuccessful timing in daily routine" (n = 292 [55%]), and "hindering disease symptoms" (n = 272 [51%]). The top 3 facilitator categories were "high motivation" (n = 248 [47%]), "good organizational conditions" (n = 217 [41%]), and "facilitating disease symptoms" (n = 209 [40%]). More inactive patients than active patients chose "low motivation" as a barrier (P = 0.01). Among physiotherapists (n = 40 [response rate 48%]), the top 3 barrier categories were "heterogeneous groups" (n = 26 [70%]), "difficult organizational conditions" (n = 19 [51%]), and "low perceived motivation" (n = 19 [51%]). Among physiotherapists, the top 3 facilitator categories were "knowledge" (n = 20 [54%]), "homogeneous group composition," and "high perceived motivation" (both n = 17 [46%]). For rheumatologists (n = 73 [response rate 17%], with 54 [74%] answering barrier items and 68 [93%] answering facilitator items), the strongest barriers included "not enough information" (n = 25 [47%]) and "anticipated or perceived disinterest of patient" (n = 27 [50%]). The strongest facilitators reported by rheumatologists included "exercise important topic even in limited consultation time" (n = 65 [96%]) and "clear evidence for effectiveness of flexibility exercises" (n = 62 [91%])., Conclusion: The identified facilitators and barriers will guide the development of stakeholder-specific implementation strategies., (© 2018, American College of Rheumatology.)

Background: Previous research indicates that people with osteoarthritis (OA) are not receiving the recommended and optimal treatment. Based on international treatment recommendations for hip and knee OA and previous research, the SAMBA model for integrated OA care in Norwegian primary health care has been developed. The model includes physiotherapist (PT) led patient OA education sessions and an exercise programme lasting 8-12 weeks. This study aims to assess the effectiveness, feasibility, and costs of a tailored strategy to implement the SAMBA model., Methods/design: A cluster randomized controlled trial with stepped wedge design including an effect, process, and cost evaluation will be conducted in six municipalities (clusters) in Norway. The municipalities will be randomized for time of crossover from current usual care to the implementation of the SAMBA model by a tailored strategy. The tailored strategy includes interactive workshops for general practitioners (GPs) and PTs in primary care covering the SAMBA model for integrated OA care, educational material, educational outreach visits, feedback, and reminder material. Outcomes will be measured at the patient, GP, and PT levels using self-report, semi-structured interviews, and register based data. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire) at 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include referrals to PT, imaging, and referrals to the orthopaedic surgeon as well as participants' treatment satisfaction, symptoms, physical activity level, body weight, and self-reported and measured lower limb function. The actual exposure to the tailor made implementation strategy and user experiences will be measured in a process evaluation. In the economic evaluation, the difference in costs of usual OA care and the SAMBA model for integrated OA care will be compared with the difference in health outcomes and reported by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)., Discussion: The results from the present study will add to the current knowledge on tailored strategies, which aims to improve the uptake of evidence-based OA care recommendations and improve the quality of OA care in primary health care. The new knowledge can be used in national and international initiatives designed to improve the quality of OA care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656.

Background: To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), a structured model for integrated OA care was developed based on international recommendations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this model in primary care.Methods and Findings: We conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial with stepped-wedge cohort design in 6 Norwegian municipalities (clusters) between January 2015 and October 2017. The randomised order was concealed to the clusters until the time of crossover from the control to the intervention phase. The intervention was implementation of the SAMBA model, facilitated by interactive workshops for general practitioners and physiotherapists with an update on OA treatment recommendations. Patients in the intervention group attended a physiotherapist-led OA education and individually tailored exercise programme for 8-12 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported quality of care (OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire; 0-100, 100 = optimal quality) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported referrals to physiotherapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and orthopaedic surgeon consultation; patients' satisfaction with care; physical activity level; and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2). In all, 40 of 80 general practitioners (mean age [SD] 50 [12] years, 42% females) and 37 of 64 physiotherapists (mean age [SD] 42 [8] years, 65% females) participated. They identified 531 patients, of which 393 patients (mean age [SD] 64 [10] years, 71% females) with symptomatic hip or knee OA were included. Among these, 109 patients were recruited during the control periods (control group), and 284 patients were recruited during interventions periods (intervention group). The patients in the intervention group reported significantly higher quality of care (score of 60 versus 41, mean difference 18.9; 95% CI 12.7, 25.1; p < 0.001) and higher satisfaction with OA care (odds ratio [OR] 12.1; 95% CI 6.44, 22.72; p < 0.001) compared to patients in the control group. The increase in quality of care was close to, but below, the pre-specified minimal important change. In the intervention group, a higher proportion was referred to physiotherapy (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.08, 5.73; p = 0.03), a higher proportion fulfilled physical activity recommendations (OR 9.3; 95% CI 2.87, 30.37; p < 0.001), and a lower proportion was referred to an orthopaedic surgeon (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.08, 0.80; p = 0.02), as compared to the control group. There were no significant group differences regarding referral to MRI (OR 0.6; 95% CI 0.13, 2.38; p = 0.42) and proportion of patients who were overweight or obese (OR 1.3; 95% CI 0.70, 2.51; p = 0.34). Study limitations include the imbalance in patient group size, which may have been due to an increased attention to OA patients among the health professionals during the intervention phase, and a potential recruitment bias as the patient participants were identified by their health professionals.Conclusions: In this study, a structured model in primary care resulted in higher quality of OA care as compared to usual care. Future studies should explore ways to implement the structured model for integrated OA care on a larger scale.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02333656. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]