OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop concise, up-to-date, patient-focused, evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA), intended to inform patients, physicians, and allied healthcare professionals worldwide. METHOD: Thirteen experts from relevant medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopedics, physical therapy, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and evidence-based medicine), three continents and ten countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, Japan, and Canada) and a patient representative comprised the Osteoarthritis Guidelines Development Group (OAGDG). Based on previous OA guidelines and a systematic review of the OA literature, 29 treatment modalities were considered for recommendation. Evidence published subsequent to the 2010 OARSI guidelines was based on a systematic review conducted by the OA Research Society International (OARSI) evidence team at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA. Medline, EMBASE, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were initially searched in first quarter 2012 and last searched in March 2013. Included evidence was assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria, and published criticism of included evidence was also considered. To provide recommendations for individuals with a range of health profiles and OA burden, treatment recommendations were stratified into four clinical sub-phenotypes. Consensus recommendations were produced using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Delphi voting process. Treatments were recommended as Appropriate, Uncertain, or Not Appropriate, for each of four clinical sub-phenotypes and accompanied by 1-10 risk and benefit scores. RESULTS: Appropriate treatment modalities for all individuals with knee OA included biomechanical interventions, intra-articular corticosteroids, exercise (land-based and water-based), self-management and education, strength training, and weight management. Treatments appropriate for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acetaminophen (paracetamol), balneotherapy, capsaicin, cane (walking stick), duloxetine, oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; COX-2 selective and non-selective), and topical NSAIDs. Treatments of uncertain appropriateness for specific clinical sub-phenotypes included acupuncture, avocado soybean unsaponfiables, chondroitin, crutches, diacerein, glucosamine, intra-articular hyaluronic acid, opioids (oral and transdermal), rosehip, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and ultrasound. Treatments voted not appropriate included risedronate and electrotherapy (neuromuscular electrical stimulation). CONCLUSION: These evidence-based consensus recommendations provide guidance to patients and practitioners on treatments applicable to all individuals with knee OA, as well as therapies that can be considered according to individualized patient needs and preferences.

Patient education with or without manual therapy compared to a control group in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. A proof-of-principle three-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a patient education (PE) program with or without the added effect of manual therapy (MT) compared to a minimal control intervention (MCI). METHODS: In a single-center university hospital setting, a total of 118 patients with clinical and radiographic unilateral hip osteoarthritis (OA) from primary care were randomized into one of three groups: PE, PE plus MT or MCI. The PE was taught by a physiotherapist involving five sessions. The MT was delivered by a chiropractor involving 12 sessions and the MCI included a home stretching program. Primary outcome was self-reported pain severity on an 11-box numeric rating scale (NRS) immediately following a 6-week intervention period. Patients were followed for 1 year. RESULTS: Primary analysis included 111 patients (94%). In the combined group (PE + MT), a clinically relevant reduction in pain severity compared to the MCI of 1.90 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-2.9) was achieved. Effect size (Cohen's d) for the PE + MT minus the MCI was 0.92 (95% CI 0.41-1.42). Number needed to treat for PE + MT was 3 (95% CI 2-7). No difference was found between the PE and MCI groups, with mean difference 0.0 (95% CI -1.0 to 1.0). At 12 months, not including patients receiving hip surgery the statistically significant difference favoring PE + MT was maintained. CONCLUSIONS: For primary care patients with OA of the hip, a combined intervention of MT and PE was more effective than a MCI. PE alone was not superior to the MCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.govNCT01039337.