Recommendations for the delivery of therapeutic exercise for people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. An international consensus study from the OARSI Rehabilitation Discussion Group

Follow-up of individualised physical activity on prescription and individualised advice in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Compare the long-term effects of two different individualised physical activity interventions in hip or knee osteoarthritis patients.

DESIGN

Randomised, assessor-blinded, controlled trial.

SETTING

Primary care.

SUBJECTS

Patients with clinically verified hip or knee osteoarthritis, <150 min/week with moderate or vigorous physical activity, aged 40-74.

INTERVENTION

The advice group (n = 69) received a 1-h information and goalsetting session for individualised physical activity. The prescription group (n = 72) received information, goalsetting, individualised written prescription, self-monitoring, and four follow-ups.

MAIN MEASURES

Physical activity, physical function, pain and quality of life at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

There were only minor differences in outcomes between the two groups. For self-reported physical activity, the advice group had improved from a mean of 102 (95% CI 74-130) minutes/week at baseline to 214 (95% CI 183-245) minutes/week at 24 months, while the prescription group had improved from 130 (95% CI 103-157) to 176 (95% CI 145-207) minutes/week (p = 0.01 between groups). Number of steps/day decreased by -514 (95% CI -567-462) steps from baseline to 24 months in the advice group, and the decrease in the prescription group was -852 (95% CI -900-804) steps (p = 0.415 between groups). Pain (HOOS/KOOS) in the advice group had improved by 7.9 points (95% CI 7.5-8.2) and in the prescription group by 14.7 points (95% CI 14.3-15.1) from baseline to 24 months (p = 0.024 between groups).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that individualised physical activity on prescription differs from individualised advice in improving long-term effects in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis.

One leg testing in hip and knee osteoarthritis: A comparison with a two-leg oriented functional outcome measure and self-reported functional measures

OBJECTIVE

To compare the responsiveness of two unilateral lower-limb performance-based tests, the one-leg rise test and the maximal step-up test, with the bilateral 30-second chair-stand test and the self-reported measure of physical function (HOOS/KOOS). Specific aims were to evaluate responsiveness, floor/ceiling effect and association between the instruments.

METHOD

Data was included from 111 participants, mean age 61.3 years (8.3), with clinically verified hip or knee osteoarthritis, who reported less than 150 minutes/week of moderate or vigorous intensity physical activity. Responsiveness, how well the instruments captured improvements, was measured as Cohen's standardised mean difference for effect size, and was assessed from baseline to 12 months following a physical activity intervention. Other assessments were floor and ceiling effects, and correlations between tests.

RESULTS

The maximal step-up test had an effect size of 0.57 (95% CI 0.37, 0.77), the 30-second chair-stand 0.48 (95% CI 0.29, 0.68) and the one-leg rise test 0.12 (95% CI 0.60, 0.31). The one-leg rise test had a floor effect as 72% of the participants scored zero at baseline and 63% at 12 months. The correlation between performance-based tests and questionnaires was considered to be minor (r = 0.188 to 0.226) (p = 0.018 to 0.048).

CONCLUSION

The unilateral maximal step-up test seems more responsive to change in physical function compared to the bilateral 30-second chair-stand test, although the tests did not differ statistically in effect size. The maximal step-up test provides specific information about each leg for the individual and allows for comparison between the legs.

Home-based vs center-based exercise on patient-reported and performance-based outcomes for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Background

Home-based exercise (HBE) represents an alternative to increase the accessibility of rehabilitation programs and relieve the burden on the health care system for people with knee osteoarthritis.

Objectives

To summarize for the first time the effectiveness of HBE as compared to center-based exercise (CBE), both with and without HBE, on patient-reported and performance-based outcomes in people with KOA.

Methods

Searches were conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus until March 10, 2023, without date or language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials investigating HBE versus CBE or HBE combined with CBE for people with KOA were eligible. The primary outcomes were patient-reported: pain, physical disability, and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were performance-based: walking ability, lower limb muscle strength, and balance function. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and quality of evidence according to the GRADE.

Results

Eleven trials involving 956 participants were included. There was no difference in short-term pain (SMD, 0.22 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.47], p = 0.09; I2 = 0%), physical disability (SMD, 0.17 [95% CI, -0.19 to 0.54], p = 0.35; I2 = 0%), walking ability (SMD, -0.21 [95% CI, -0.64 to 0.22], p = 0.33; I2 = 35%) and lower limb muscle strength (SMD, -0.24 [95% CI, -0.88 to 0.41], p = 0.47; I2 = 69%) between HBE and CBE. HBE combined with CBE has better benefits compared with HBE alone in short-term pain (SMD, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.17], p < 0.001; I2 = 11%) and physical disability (SMD, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.00 to 0.50], p = 0.05; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

Based on limited evidence, HBE is as effective as CBE on short-term pain, physical disability, walking ability, and lower limb muscle strength in people with knee osteoarthritis. Furthermore, combining HBE with CBE may enhance the overall efficacy of the intervention.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO, CRD42023416548.

Dropout From Exercise Interventions in Adults With Knee or Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence and moderators of dropout rates among adults with knee or hip osteoarthritis participating in exercise randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Two authors searched Embase, CINAHL, PsycARTICLES, and PubMed up to 01/09/2023.

STUDY SELECTION

We included RCTs of exercise interventions in people with knee or hip osteoarthritis that reported dropout rates.

DATA EXTRACTION

Dropout rates from exercise and control conditions and exerciser/participant, provider, and design/implementation related moderators.

DATA SYNTHESIS

In total, 209 RCTs involving 277 exercise arms in 13,102 participants were included (mean age at study level=64 years; median prevalence of men participants=26.8%). The trim-and-fill-adjusted prevalence of dropout across all RCTs was 17.5% (95% CI=16.7%-18.2%), which is comparable with dropout observed in control conditions (trim-and-fill-adjusted odds ratio=0.89; 95% CI=0.71-1.12, P=.37). Higher prevalence of antidepressant use at study-level predicted higher dropout (R2=0.75, P=.002, N RCTs=6, n exercisers=412). Supervision by an exercise professional was associated with lower dropout rates, with a trim-and-fill-adjusted rate of 13.2% (95% CI=11.7%-14.9%) compared with 20.8% without supervision (95% CI=18.3%-23.5%) (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Dropout rates for exercise in RCTs are comparable with control conditions, suggesting that exercise is a generally well-accepted intervention. However, interventions should be supervised by an exercise professional, such as a physiotherapist or exercise physiologist, to further minimize the risk of dropout. Health professionals should consider participants' use of antidepressants as a risk factor for dropout from exercise.

Effectiveness of an 11-week exercise intervention for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: results of a quasi-experimental pragmatic trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness of exercise and education in addition to standard care (SC) compared to SC alone in patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) during 24 months follow-up.

DESIGN

We conducted a quasi-experimental pragmatic clinical trial in care centers of a health insurance company. Overall, 1,030 subjects with hip and/or knee OA were included. The intervention group was recruited from clients participating in a hip/knee training (HKT, n = 515) in addition to SC. The control group (CO, n = 515) receiving SC only was recruited from the insurance database. HKT comprised 8 group sessions (1/week) of exercise and education, complemented by a 11-week structured home-exercise program (2/week). Primary endpoints were change of joint-related pain and function (WOMAC Index, score 0-10) after 3 months. Secondary endpoints related to follow-ups at 6, 12 and 24 months. All patient reported outcome measures were analyzed using linear mixed models (LMMs) investigating a time x treatment effect. A multivariable cox proportional hazards regression model was used to identify differences of joint replacement during follow-up between groups.

RESULTS

LMMs revealed statistically significant differences in favor of HKT for the primary outcomes WOMAC pain = 0.47 (CI 0.27-0.66; Effect Size (ES) = 0.22, p < 0.001) and WOMAC function = 0.27 (CI 0.11-0.44; ES = 0.13, p < 0.001). HKT was superior to CO for 6, 12, and 24 months as well (ES < 0.2, p ≤ 0.006). HKT was inferior regarding the first incidence of hip or knee AJR during follow-up in comparison to CO (adjusted hazard ratio, HR = 1.57; CI 1.08-2.30; p = 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial demonstrated short-, mid- and long-term superiority of exercise versus control. However, differences were smaller than those reported in previous efficacy trials, raising questions regarding clinical importance. Responder analysis will follow to identify possible predictors for patient responsiveness on an individual level. Further studies should investigate the frequency and reasons for joint replacement following exercise therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS00009251). Registered 10 September 2015.

A mixed methods approach to investigating physical activity in people with obesity participating in a chronic care programme awaiting total knee or hip arthroplasty

AIMS

To describe patient-reported physical activity and step count trajectory and explore perceived barriers and enablers to physical activity amongst people with obesity participating in a chronic care programme whilst awaiting arthroplasty.

DESIGN

Convergent parallel mixed-method study.

METHOD

A patient cohort derived from a longitudinal sample of adults with end-stage osteoarthritis and obesity from a chronic care programme whilst awaiting primary total knee or hip arthroplasty (n = 97) was studied. Physical activity was measured at baseline (entry to the wait list) and before surgery (9-12 months waiting time) using the Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS) and activity monitors (activPAL™). A subset of participants completed in-depth semi-structured interviews 6 months after being waitlisted to explore perceived barriers and enablers to physical activity. Themes were inductively derived and then interpreted through the COM-B model.

RESULTS

Baseline LEAS and activPAL™ data were available from 97 and 63 participants, respectively. The proportion of community ambulant individuals reduced from 43% (95% CI 33%-53%) at baseline to 17% (95% CI 9%-28%) pre-surgery. Paired activPAL™ data (n = 31) for step count, upright time, and stepping time remained unchanged. Twenty-five participants were interviewed. Five themes underpinning physical activity were mapped to the COM-B model components of capability (physical capability), opportunity (accessibility and social norms), and motivation (self-efficacy and beliefs and physical activity).

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in a chronic care programme did not improve physical activity levels for people with obesity awaiting arthroplasty. Programs cognisant of the COM-B model components may be required to address the natural trajectory of declining physical activity levels while awaiting arthroplasty.

Group physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of chronic pain and disability and one of the most common conditions treated in outpatient physical therapy (PT). Because of the high and growing prevalence of knee OA, there is a need for efficient approaches for delivering exercise-based PT to patients with knee OA. A prior randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed that a 6-session Group Physical Therapy Program for Knee OA (Group PT) yields equivalent or greater improvements in pain and functional outcomes compared with traditional individual PT, while requiring fewer clinician hours per patient to deliver. This manuscript describes the protocol for a hybrid type III effectiveness-implementation trial comparing two implementation packages to support delivery of Group PT.

METHODS

In this 12-month embedded trial, a minimum of 16 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) will be randomized to receive one of two implementation support packages for their Group PT programs: a standard, low-touch support based on Replicating Effective Programs (REP) versus enhanced REP (enREP), which adds tailored, high-touch support if sites do not meet Group PT adoption and sustainment benchmarks at 6 and 9 months following launch. Implementation outcomes, including penetration (primary), adoption, and fidelity, will be assessed at 6 and 12 months (primary assessment time point). Additional analyses will include patient-level effectiveness outcomes (pain, function, satisfaction) and staffing and labor costs. A robust qualitative evaluation of site implementation context and experience, as well as site-led adaptations to the Group PT program, will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this study is the first to evaluate the impact of tailored, high-touch implementation support on implementation outcomes when compared to standardized, low-touch support for delivering a PT-based intervention. The Group PT program has strong potential to become a standard offering for PT, improving function and pain-related outcomes for patients with knee OA. Results will provide information regarding the effectiveness and value of this implementation approach and a deeper understanding of how healthcare systems can support wide-scale adoption of Group PT.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was registered on March 7, 2022 at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier NCT05282927 ).

Fundamentals of osteoarthritis. Rehabilitation: Exercise, diet, biomechanics, and physical therapist-delivered interventions

Insights related to the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA) have informed rehabilitative treatments that aim to mitigate the influence of several known impairments and risk factors for OA, with the goal to improve pain, function, and quality of life. The purpose of this invited narrative review is to provide fundamental knowledge to non-specialists about exercise and education, diet, biomechanical interventions, and other physical therapist-delivered treatments. In addition to summarizing the rationale for common rehabilitative therapies, we provide a synthesis of current core recommendations. Robust evidence based on randomized clinical trials supports exercise with education and diet as core treatments for OA. Structured, supervised exercise therapy is advised. The mode of exercise may vary but should be individualized. The dose should be based on an initial assessment, the desired physiological changes, and progressed when appropriate. Diet combined with exercise is strongly recommended and studies demonstrate a dose-response relationship between the magnitude of weight loss and symptom improvement. Recent evidence suggests the use of technology to remotely deliver exercise, diet and education interventions is cost-effective. Although several studies support the mechanisms for biomechanical interventions (e.g., bracing, shoe inserts) and physical therapist-delivered (passive) treatments (e.g., manual therapy, electrotherapeutic modalities) fewer rigorous randomized trials support their clinical use; these therapies are sometimes recommended as adjuncts to core treatments. The mechanisms of action for all rehabilitative interventions include contextual factors such as attention and placebo effects. These effects can challenge our interpretation of treatment efficacy from clinical trials, yet also provide opportunities to maximize patient outcomes in clinical practice. When evaluating rehabilitative interventions, the field may benefit from increased emphasis on research that considers contextual factors while evaluating mechanistic, longer-term, clinically-important and policy-relevant outcome measures.

Exercise Therapy for Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis: Is There An Ideal Prescription?

Purpose of review

Exercise therapy is the first line treatment for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) but is consistently underutilized. In this review, we aim to provide health care professionals with an overview of the latest evidence in the areas of exercise therapy for OA, which can serve as a guide for incorporating the ideal exercise therapy prescription in the overall management plan for their patients with OA.

Recent findings

Evidence continues to be produced supporting the use of exercise therapy for all patients with knee or hip OA. Ample evidence exists suggesting exercise therapy is a safe form of treatment, for both joint structures and the patient overall. Several systematic reviews show that exercise therapy is likely to improve patient outcomes, regardless of disease severity or comorbidities. However, no single type of exercise therapy is superior to others.

Summary

Health care practitioners and patients should be encouraged to incorporate exercise therapy into treatment plans and can be assured of the safety profile and likelihood of improvement in important patient outcomes. Since no single exercise therapy program shows vastly superior benefit, patient preference and contextual factors should be central to the shared decision-making process when selecting and individualising appropriate exercise therapy prescriptions.

What should a toolkit to aid the delivery of therapeutic exercise for hip and knee osteoarthritis look like? Qualitative analysis of an international survey of 318 researchers, clinicians, and consumers by the OARSI Rehabilitation Discussion Group

BACKGROUND

We aimed to identify important components of, and practical resources relevant for inclusion in, a toolkit to aid exercise delivery for people with hip/knee osteoarthritis.

METHOD

An online international multi-disciplinary survey was conducted across 43 countries (139 clinicians, 44 people with hip/knee osteoarthritis and 135 osteoarthritis researchers). Participants were presented with the seeding statement 'Practical resources to aid the implementation of exercise for people with hip/knee osteoarthritis should…' and asked to provide up to 10 open text responses. Responses underwent refinement and qualitative content analysis to create domains and categories.

RESULTS

Refinement of 551 open text responses yielded 72 unique statements relevant for analysis. Statements were organised into nine broad domains, suggesting that resources to aid exercise delivery should: (1) be easily accessible; (2) be of high quality; (3) be developed by, and for, stakeholders; (4) include different ways of delivering information; (5) include different types of resources to support exercise and non-exercise components of self-management; (6) include resources on recommended exercises and how to perform/progress them; (7) include tools to support motivation and track progress; (8) include resources to enable tailoring of the programme to the individual and; (9) facilitate access to professional and peer support.

CONCLUSION

Our findings identified important components of, and practical resources to include within, a toolkit to aid delivery of exercise for people with hip/knee osteoarthritis. These findings have implications for exercise providers and lay the foundation for the development of a toolkit to help ensure exercise provision aligns with current international recommendations.