osteoarthritis

Importance: Scalable delivery models of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I), an effective treatment, are needed for widespread implementation, particularly in rural and underserved populations lacking ready access to insomnia treatment.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of telephone CBT-I vs education-only control (EOC) in older adults with moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain.

Design, setting, and participants: This is a randomized clinical trial of 327 participants 60 years and older who were recruited statewide through Kaiser Permanente Washington from September 2016 to December 2018. Participants were double screened 3 weeks apart for moderate to severe insomnia and osteoarthritis (OA) pain symptoms. Blinded assessments were conducted at baseline, after 2 months posttreatment, and at 12-month follow-up.

Interventions: Six 20- to 30-minute telephone sessions provided over 8 weeks. Participants submitted daily diaries and received group-specific educational materials. The CBT-I instruction included sleep restriction, stimulus control, sleep hygiene, cognitive restructuring, and homework. The EOC group received information about sleep and OA.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was score on the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) at 2 months posttreatment and 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included pain (score on the Brief Pain Inventory-short form), depression (score on the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire), and fatigue (score on the Flinders Fatigue Scale).

Results: Of the 327 participants, the mean (SD) age was 70.2 (6.8) years, and 244 (74.6%) were women. In the 282 participants with follow-up ISI data, the total 2-month posttreatment ISI scores decreased 8.1 points in the CBT-I group and 4.8 points in the EOC group, an adjusted mean between-group difference of -3.5 points (95% CI, -4.4 to -2.6 points; P < .001). Results were sustained at 12-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -3.0 points; 95% CI, -4.1 to -2.0 points; P < .001). At 12-month follow-up, 67 of 119 (56.3%) participants receiving CBT-I remained in remission (ISI score, ≤7) compared with 33 of 128 (25.8%) participants receiving EOC. Fatigue was also significantly reduced in the CBT-I group compared with the EOC group at 2 months posttreatment (mean between-group difference, -2.0 points; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.9 points; P = <.001) and 12-month follow-up (mean between-group difference, -1.8 points; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.6 points; P = .003). Posttreatment significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up.

Conclusions and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, telephone CBT-I was effective in improving sleep, fatigue, and, to a lesser degree, pain among older adults with comorbid insomnia and OA pain in a large statewide health plan. Results support provision of telephone CBT-I as an accessible, individualized, effective, and scalable insomnia treatment.

Background: Limited previous studies in the United Kingdom or a single US state have demonstrated an association between intake of glucosamine/chondroitin and mortality. This study sought to investigate the association between regular consumption of glucosamine/chondroitin and overall and cardiovascular (CVD) mortality in a national sample of US adults.

Methods: Combined data from 16,686 participants in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999 to 2010, merged with the 2015 Public-use Linked Mortality File. Cox proportional hazards models were conducted for both CVD and all-cause mortality.

Results: In the study sample, there were 658 (3.94%) participants who had been taking glucosamine/chondroitin for a year or longer. During followup (median, 107 months), there were 3366 total deaths (20.17%); 674 (20.02%) were due to CVD. Respondents taking glucosamine/chondroitin were less likely to have CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.28-0.92). After controlling for age, use was associated with a 39% reduction in all-cause (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49-0.77) and 65% reduction (HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.20-0.61) in CVD mortality. Multivariable-adjusted HR showed that the association was maintained after adjustment for age, sex, race, education, smoking status, and physical activity (all-cause mortality, HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93; CVD mortality, HR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.75).

Conclusions: Regular intake of glucosamine/chondroitin is associated with lower all-cause and CVD mortality in a national US cohort and the findings are consistent with previous studies in other populations. Prospective studies to confirm the link may be warranted.

Background: Both physical therapy and intraarticular injections of glucocorticoids have been shown to confer clinical benefit with respect to osteoarthritis of the knee. Whether the short-term and long-term effectiveness for relieving pain and improving physical function differ between these two therapies is uncertain.

Methods: We conducted a randomized trial to compare physical therapy with glucocorticoid injection in the primary care setting in the U.S. Military Health System. Patients with osteoarthritis in one or both knees were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a glucocorticoid injection or to undergo physical therapy. The primary outcome was the total score on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at 1 year (scores range from 0 to 240, with higher scores indicating worse pain, function, and stiffness). The secondary outcomes were the time needed to complete the Alternate Step Test, the time needed to complete the Timed Up and Go test, and the score on the Global Rating of Change scale, all assessed at 1 year.

Results: We enrolled 156 patients with a mean age of 56 years; 78 patients were assigned to each group. Baseline characteristics, including severity of pain and level of disability, were similar in the two groups. The mean (±SD) baseline WOMAC scores were 108.8±47.1 in the glucocorticoid injection group and 107.1±42.4 in the physical therapy group. At 1 year, the mean scores were 55.8±53.8 and 37.0±30.7, respectively (mean between-group difference, 18.8 points; 95% confidence interval, 5.0 to 32.6), a finding favoring physical therapy. Changes in secondary outcomes were in the same direction as those of the primary outcome. One patient fainted while receiving a glucocorticoid injection.

Conclusions: Patients with osteoarthritis of the knee who underwent physical therapy had less pain and functional disability at 1 year than patients who received an intraarticular glucocorticoid injection. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01427153.).

BACKGROUND:

Chronic peripheral joint pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) is extremely prevalent and a major cause of physical dysfunction and psychosocial distress. Exercise is recommended to reduce joint pain and improve physical function, but the effect of exercise on psychosocial function (health beliefs, depression, anxiety and quality of life) in this population is unknown.

OBJECTIVES:

To improve our understanding of the complex inter-relationship between pain, psychosocial effects, physical function and exercise.

SEARCH METHODS:

Review authors searched 23 clinical, public health, psychology and social care databases and 25 other relevant resources including trials registers up to March 2016. We checked reference lists of included studies for relevant studies. We contacted key experts about unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

To be included in the quantitative synthesis, studies had to be randomised controlled trials of land- or water-based exercise programmes compared with a control group consisting of no treatment or non-exercise intervention (such as medication, patient education) that measured either pain or function and at least one psychosocial outcome (self-efficacy, depression, anxiety, quality of life). Participants had to be aged 45 years or older, with a clinical diagnosis of OA (as defined by the study) or self-reported chronic hip or knee (or both) pain (defined as more than six months' duration).To be included in the qualitative synthesis, studies had to have reported people's opinions and experiences of exercise-based programmes (e.g. their views, understanding, experiences and beliefs about the utility of exercise in the management of chronic pain/OA).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane for the quantitative analysis. For the qualitative analysis, we extracted verbatim quotes from study participants and synthesised studies of patients' views using framework synthesis. We then conducted an integrative review, synthesising the quantitative and qualitative data together.

MAIN RESULTS:

Twenty-one trials (2372 participants) met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis. There were large variations in the exercise programme's content, mode of delivery, frequency and duration, participant's symptoms, duration of symptoms, outcomes measured, methodological quality and reporting. Comparator groups were varied and included normal care; education; and attention controls such as home visits, sham gel and wait list controls. Risk of bias was high in one and unclear risk in five studies regarding the randomisation process, high for 11 studies regarding allocation concealment, high for all 21 studies regarding blinding, and high for three studies and unclear for five studies regarding attrition. Studies did not provide information on adverse effects.There was moderate quality evidence that exercise reduced pain by an absolute percent reduction of 6% (95% confidence interval (CI) -9% to -4%, (9 studies, 1058 participants), equivalent to reducing (improving) pain by 1.25 points from 6.5 to 5.3 on a 0 to 20 scale and moderate quality evidence that exercise improved physical function by an absolute percent of 5.6% (95% CI -7.6% to 2.0%; standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.27, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.17, equivalent to reducing (improving) WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) function on a 0 to 100 scale from 49.9 to 44.3) (13 studies, 1599 participants)). Self-efficacy was increased by an absolute percent of 1.66% (95% CI 1.08% to 2.20%), although evidence was low quality (SMD 0.46, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.58, equivalent to improving the ExBeliefs score on a 17 to 85 scale from 64.3 to 65.4), with small benefits for depression from moderate quality evidence indicating an absolute percent reduction of 2.4% (95% CI -0.47% to 0.5%) (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.02, equivalent to improving depression measured using HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) on a 0 to 21 scale from 3.5 to 3.0) but no clinically or statistically significant effect on anxiety (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.05, 2% absolute improvement, 95% CI -5% to 1% equivalent to improving HADS anxiety on a 0 to 21 scale from 5.8 to 5.4; moderate quality evidence). Five studies measured the effect of exercise on health-related quality of life using the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) with statistically significant benefits for social function, increasing it by an absolute percent of 7.9% (95% CI 4.1% to 11.6%), equivalent to increasing SF-36 social function on a 0 to 100 scale from 73.6 to 81.5, although the evidence was low quality. Evidence was downgraded due to heterogeneity of measures, limitations with blinding and lack of detail regarding interventions. For 20/21 studies, there was a high risk of bias with blinding as participants self-reported and were not blinded to their participation in an exercise intervention.Twelve studies (with 6 to 29 participants) met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. Their methodological rigour and quality was generally good. From the patients' perspectives, ways to improve the delivery of exercise interventions included: provide better information and advice about the safety and value of exercise; provide exercise tailored to individual's preferences, abilities and needs; challenge inappropriate health beliefs and provide better support.An integrative review, which compared the findings from quantitative trials with low risk of bias and the implications derived from the high-quality studies in the qualitative synthesis, confirmed the importance of these implications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

Chronic hip and knee pain affects all domains of people's lives. People's beliefs about chronic pain shape their attitudes and behaviours about how to manage their pain. People are confused about the cause of their pain, and bewildered by its variability and randomness. Without adequate information and advice from healthcare professionals, people do not know what they should and should not do, and, as a consequence, avoid activity for fear of causing harm. Participation in exercise programmes may slightly improve physical function, depression and pain. It may slightly improve self-efficacy and social function, although there is probably little or no difference in anxiety. Providing reassurance and clear advice about the value of exercise in controlling symptoms, and opportunities to participate in exercise programmes that people regard as enjoyable and relevant, may encourage greater exercise participation, which brings a range of health benefits to a large population of people.