Predicted and actual 2-year structural and pain progression in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis cohort

ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03883568[Abstract] Objectives: The IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis study used machine learning (ML) to predict structural and/or pain progression, expressed by a structural (S) and pain (P) predicted-progression score, to select patients from existing cohorts. This study evaluates the actual 2-year progression within the IMI-APPROACH, in relation to the predicted-progression scores. Methods: Actual structural progression was measured using minimum joint space width (minJSW). Actual pain (progression) was evaluated using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain questionnaire. Progression was presented as actual change (Δ) after 2 years, and as progression over 2 years based on a per patient fitted regression line using 0, 0.5, 1 and 2-year values. Differences in predicted-progression scores between actual progressors and non-progressors were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) reported. Using Youden's index, optimal cut-offs were chosen to enable evaluation of both predicted-progression scores to identify actual progressors. Results: Actual structural progressors were initially assigned higher S predicted-progression scores compared with structural non-progressors. Likewise, actual pain progressors were assigned higher P predicted-progression scores compared with pain non-progressors. The AUC-ROC for the S predicted-progression score to identify actual structural progressors was poor (0.612 and 0.599 for Δ and regression minJSW, respectively). The AUC-ROC for the P predicted-progression score to identify actual pain progressors were good (0.817 and 0.830 for Δ and regression KOOS pain, respectively). Conclusion: The S and P predicted-progression scores as provided by the ML models developed and used for the selection of IMI-APPROACH patients were to some degree able to distinguish between actual progressors and non-progressors

Neuropathic Pain in the IMI-APPROACH Knee Osteoarthritis Cohort: Prevalence and Phenotyping

The study is registered under clinicaltrials.gov nr: NCT03883568.[Abstract] Objectives: Osteoarthritis (OA) patients with a neuropathic pain (NP) component may represent a specific phenotype. This study compares joint damage, pain and functional disability between knee OA patients with a likely NP component, and those without a likely NP component. Methods: Baseline data from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway knee OA cohort study were used. Patients with a painDETECT score ≥19 (with likely NP component, n=24) were matched on a 1:2 ratio to patients with a painDETECT score ≤12 (without likely NP component), and similar knee and general pain (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain and Short Form 36 pain). Pain, physical function and radiographic joint damage of multiple joints were determined and compared between OA patients with and without a likely NP component. Results: OA patients with painDETECT scores ≥19 had statistically significant less radiographic joint damage (p≤0.04 for Knee Images Digital Analysis parameters and Kellgren and Lawrence grade), but an impaired physical function (p<0.003 for all tests) compared with patients with a painDETECT score ≤12. In addition, more severe pain was found in joints other than the index knee (p≤0.001 for hips and hands), while joint damage throughout the body was not different. Conclusions: OA patients with a likely NP component, as determined with the painDETECT questionnaire, may represent a specific OA phenotype, where local and overall joint damage is not the main cause of pain and disability. Patients with this NP component will likely not benefit from general pain medication and/or disease-modifying OA drug (DMOAD) therapy. Reserved inclusion of these patients in DMOAD trials is advised in the quest for successful OA treatments

Knee joint distraction in regular care for treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A comparison with clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVES:Knee joint distraction (KJD) has been evaluated as a joint-preserving treatment to postpone total knee arthroplasty in knee osteoarthritis patients in three clinical trials. Since 2014 the treatment is used in regular care in some hospitals, which might lead to a deviation from the original indication and decreased treatment outcome. In this study, baseline characteristics, complications and clinical benefit are compared between patients treated in regular care and in clinical trials. METHODS:In our hospital, 84 patients were treated in regular care for 6 weeks with KJD. Surgical details, complications, and range of motion were assessed from patient hospital charts. Patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated in regular care before and one year after treatment. Trial patients (n = 62) were treated and followed as described in literature. RESULTS:Patient characteristics were not significantly different between groups, except for distraction duration (regular care 45.3±4.3; clinical trials 48.1±8.1 days; p = 0.019). Pin tract infections were the most occurring complication (70% regular care; 66% clinical trials), but there was no significant difference in treatment complications between groups (p>0.1). The range of motion was recovered within a year after treatment for both groups. WOMAC questionnaires showed statistically and clinically significant improvement for both groups (both p15 points in all subscales) and no significant differences between groups (all differences p>0.05). After one year, 70% of patients were responders (regular care 61%, trial 75%; p = 0.120). Neither regular care compared to clinical trial, nor any other characteristic could predict clinical response. CONCLUSIONS:KJD as joint-preserving treatment in clinical practice, to postpone arthroplasty for end-stage knee osteoarthritis patient below the age of 65, results in an outcome similar to that thus far demonstrated in clinical trials. Longer follow-up in regular care is needed to test whether also long-term results remain beneficial and comparable to trial data

Return to Sport and Work after Randomization for Knee Distraction versus High Tibial Osteotomy: Is There a Difference?

Knee joint distraction (KJD) is a novel technique for relatively young knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. With KJD, an external distraction device creates temporary total absence of contact between cartilage surfaces, which results in pain relief and possibly limits the progression of knee OA. Recently, KJD showed similar clinical outcomes compared with high tibial osteotomy (HTO). Yet, no comparative data exist regarding return to sport (RTS) and return to work (RTW) after KJD. Therefore, our aim was to compare RTS and RTW between KJD and HTO. We performed a cross-sectional follow-up study in patients <65 years who previously participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing KJD and HTO. Out of 62 eligible patients, 55 patients responded and 51 completed the questionnaire (16 KJDs and 35 HTOs) at 5-year follow-up. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of RTS and RTW. Secondary outcome measures included time to RTS/RTW, and pre-and postoperative Tegner's (higher is more active), and Work Osteoarthritis or Joint-Replacement Questionnaire (WORQ) scores (higher is better work ability). Patients' baseline characteristics did not differ. Total 1 year after KJD, 79% returned to sport versus 80% after HTO (not significant [n.s.]). RTS <6 months was 73 and 75%, respectively (n.s.). RTW 1 year after KJD was 94 versus 97% after HTO (n.s.), and 91 versus 87% <6 months (n.s.). The median Tegner's score decreased from 5.0 to 3.5 after KJD, and from 5.0 to 3.0 after HTO (n.s.). The mean WORQ score improvement was higher after HTO (16 ± 16) than after KJD (6 ± 13; p = 0.04). Thus, no differences were found for sport and work participation between KJD and HTO in our small, though first ever, cohort. Overall, these findings may support further investigation into KJD as a possible joint-preserving option for challenging young knee OA patients. The level of evidence is III

Joint distraction using a purpose-built device for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective 2-year follow-up

Objective Knee distraction treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis successfully postpones arthroplasty for years. Studies performed thus far used general intended use, patient-personalised or custom-made devices. In this study, for the first time, a device specifically designed for knee distraction is evaluated.Design 65 patients (≤65 years) with end-stage knee osteoarthritis indicated for arthroplasty received knee distraction. Before, 1-year and 2-year post-treatment, questionnaires were filled out and knee radiographs made. Adverse events and self-reported pain medication were registered.Results Forty-nine patients completed 2-year follow-up: one patient did not complete treatment, three patients received arthroplasty in the first and four patients in the second year follow-up. Eight patients were lost to follow-up in the second year. The total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score showed a clinically relevant improvement at 1 and 2 years (+26 and +24 points), as did all subscales (all p&lt;0.001). The minimum radiographic joint space width improved over 1 (+0.5 mm; p&lt;0.001) and 2 (+0.4 mm; p=0.015) years, as did the physical Short-Form 36 (+10 points; p&lt;0.001). The most common adverse event was pin tract infection, experienced by 66% of patients, in 88% successfully treated with oral antibiotics. In two cases, hospitalisation and/or intravenous antibiotics were needed. Eight patients experienced device-related complications. None of the complications influenced 2-year outcomes. Before treatment, 42% of patients used pain medication, which had nearly been halved 1 (23%; p=0.02) and 2 years (29%; p=0.27) post-treatment.Conclusions Patients treated with a general applicable, for knee distraction purpose-built device showed, despite adverse events, significant clinical and structural improvement over 2 years.Trial registration number NL7986

Predicted and actual 2-year structural and pain progression in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis cohort

Abstract Objectives: The IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis study used machine learning (ML) to predict structural and/or pain progression, expressed by a structural (S) and pain (P) predicted-progression score, to select patients from existing cohorts. This study evaluates the actual 2-year progression within the IMI-APPROACH, in relation to the predicted-progression scores. Methods: Actual structural progression was measured using minimum joint space width (minJSW). Actual pain (progression) was evaluated using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain questionnaire. Progression was presented as actual change (Δ) after 2 years, and as progression over 2 years based on a per patient fitted regression line using 0, 0.5, 1 and 2-year values. Differences in predicted-progression scores between actual progressors and non-progressors were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) reported. Using Youden’s index, optimal cut-offs were chosen to enable evaluation of both predicted-progression scores to identify actual progressors. Results: Actual structural progressors were initially assigned higher S predicted-progression scores compared with structural non-progressors. Likewise, actual pain progressors were assigned higher P predicted-progression scores compared with pain non-progressors. The AUC-ROC for the S predicted-progression score to identify actual structural progressors was poor (0.612 and 0.599 for Δ and regression minJSW, respectively). The AUC-ROC for the P predicted-progression score to identify actual pain progressors were good (0.817 and 0.830 for Δ and regression KOOS pain, respectively). Conclusion: The S and P predicted-progression scores as provided by the ML models developed and used for the selection of IMI-APPROACH patients were to some degree able to distinguish between actual progressors and non-progressors. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, https://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03883568

Neuropathic pain in the IMI-APPROACH knee osteoarthritis cohort:prevalence and phenotyping

Abstract Objectives:Osteoarthritis (OA) patients with a neuropathic pain (NP) component may represent a specific phenotype. This study compares joint damage, pain and functional disability between knee OA patients with a likely NP component, and those without a likely NP component. Methods:Baseline data from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Applied Public-Private Research enabling OsteoArthritis Clinical Headway knee OA cohort study were used. Patients with a painDETECT score ≥19 (with likely NP component, n=24) were matched on a 1:2 ratio to patients with a painDETECT score ≤12 (without likely NP component), and similar knee and general pain (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain and Short Form 36 pain). Pain, physical function and radiographic joint damage of multiple joints were determined and compared between OA patients with and without a likely NP component. Results:OA patients with painDETECT scores ≥19 had statistically significant less radiographic joint damage (p≤0.04 for Knee Images Digital Analysis parameters and Kellgren and Lawrence grade), but an impaired physical function (p&lt;0.003 for all tests) compared with patients with a painDETECT score ≤12. In addition, more severe pain was found in joints other than the index knee (p≤0.001 for hips and hands), while joint damage throughout the body was not different. Conclusions: OA patients with a likely NP component, as determined with the painDETECT questionnaire, may represent a specific OA phenotype, where local and overall joint damage is not the main cause of pain and disability. Patients with this NP component will likely not benefit from general pain medication and/or disease-modifying OA drug (DMOAD) therapy. Reserved inclusion of these patients in DMOAD trials is advised in the quest for successful OA treatments. Trial registration number. The study is registered under clinicaltrials.gov nr: NCT03883568