The role of diet and exercise and of glucosamine sulfate in the prevention of knee osteoarthritis: Further results from the PRevention of knee Osteoarthritis in Overweight Females (PROOF) study

Background and objectives: The PRevention of knee Osteoarthritis in Overweight Females (PROOF) study (ISRCTN 42823086) described a trend for a decrease in the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) by a tailored diet and exercise program (DEP) or by oral glucosamine sulfate in women at risk for the disease, using a composite clinical and/or radiological outcome. The aim of this updated post-hoc analysis was to re-assess the results according to more precise techniques and take advantage of the 2×2 factorial design. Methods: A total of 407 overweight (BMI ≥ 27 kg/m2) women of 50-60 years of age with no diagnosis of knee OA were randomized to: (1) no DEP + placebo (Control, N = 102), (2) DEP + placebo (DEP, N = 101), (3) glucosamine sulfate + no DEP (GS, N = 102), and (4) DEP + glucosamine sulfate (DEP + GS, N =102) and followed for 2.5 years, with standardized postero-anterior, semiflexed (MTP) view knee radiographs at baseline and end of the study. DEP consisted of a tailored low fat and/or low caloric diet and easy to implement physical activities. Glucosamine was given as oral crystalline glucosamine sulfate 1500 mg once daily, double-blinded vs. placebo. Incident knee OA was defined as radiographic progression of ≥1 mm minimum joint space narrowing (mJSN) in the medial tibiofemoral compartment, as previously assessed by the visual (manual) technique and by a new semi-automated method. Logistic regression analysis was used to calculate the odds ratio for the effect of the interventions. Results: After 2.5 years, 11.8% of control subjects developed knee OA. This incidence was decreased with glucosamine sulfate, either alone or in combination with the DEP, but not by the DEP alone. Since there was no statistical interaction between treatments, the 2×2 factorial design allowed analysis of patients receiving glucosamine sulfate (= 204) vs. those not receiving it (= 203), similarly for those on the DEP (= 203) or not (= 204). Glucosamine sulfate significantly decreased the risk of developing knee OA: odds ratio (OR) = 0.41 (95% CI: 0.20-0.85, P = 0.02) by the manual JSN assessment method and OR = 0.42 (95% CI: 0.20-0.92, P = 0.03) by the semi-automated technique. Conversely, there was no decrease in risk with the DEP. Conclusions: Glucosamine sulfate decreased the risk of developing radiographic knee OA over 2.5 years in overweight, middle-aged women at risk, as determined by medial mJSN progression. Conversely a tailored diet and exercise program exerted no preventive effect, possibly because of the lower than expected effect on weight loss

OARSI/OMERACT Initiative to Define States of Severity and Indication for Joint Replacement in Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. An OMERACT 10 Special Interest Group

Objective. To define pain and physical function cutpoints that would, coupled with structural severity, define a surrogate measure of "need for joint replacement surgery," for use as an outcome measure for potential structure-modifying interventions for osteoarthritis (OA). Methods. New scores were developed for pain and physical function in knee and hip OA. A cross-sectional international study in 1909 patients was conducted to define data-driven cutpoints corresponding to the orthopedic surgeons' indication for joint replacement. A post hoc analysis of 8 randomized clinical trials (1379 patients) evaluated the prevalence and validity of cutpoints, among patients with symptomatic hip/knee OA. Results. In the international cross-sectional study, there was substantial overlap in symptom levels between patients with and patients without indication for joint replacement; indeed, it was not possible to determine cutpoints for pain and function defining this indication. The post hoc analysis of trial data showed that the prevalence of cases that combined radiological progression, high level of pain, and high degree of function impairment was low (2%-12%). The most discriminatory cutpoint to define an indication for joint replacement was found to be [pain (0-100) + physical function (0-100) > 80]. Conclusion. These results do not support a specific level of pain or function that defines an indication for joint replacement. However, a tentative cutpoint for pain and physical function levels is proposed for further evaluation. Potentially, this symptom level, coupled with radiographic progression, could be used to define "nonresponders" to disease-modifying drugs in OA clinical trials. (J Rheumatol 2011;38:1765-9; doi:10.3899/jrheum.110403