OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to determine whether a composite measure of pain and activity is a more responsive assessment of analgesic effect than pain alone or activity alone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, crossover study of celecoxib vs. placebo in subjects with chronic pain due to knee OA. Patients with knee OA and baseline pain intensity score ≥4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) before each period were randomized. Pain endpoints included in-clinic pain score (24-hour and 1-week recall), daily paper diary pain score, current pain on an electronic pain diary (each on NRS), and WOMAC pain subscale. Activity measures included WOMAC function subscale and actigraphy using a device. Three composite pain-activity measures were prespecified. RESULTS:Sixty-three patients were randomized and 47 completed the study. The WOMAC pain subscale was the most responsive of all five pain measures. Pain-activity composites resulted in a statistically significant difference between celecoxib and placebo but were not more responsive than pain measures alone. However, a composite responder defined as having 20% improvement in pain or 10% improvement in activity yielded much larger differences between celecoxib and placebo than with pain scores alone. Actigraphy was more responsive than the WOMAC function scale, possibly due to lower placebo responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We have identified composite pain-activity measures that are similarly or more responsive than pain-alone measures in patients with OA. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal method for computing these composites.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The primary goal was to determine whether a composite measure of pain and activity is a more responsive assessment of analgesic effect than pain alone or activity alone in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-period, crossover study of celecoxib vs. placebo in subjects with chronic pain due to knee OA. Patients with knee OA and baseline pain intensity score ≥4 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) before each period were randomized. Pain endpoints included in-clinic pain score (24-hour and 1-week recall), daily paper diary pain score, current pain on an electronic pain diary (each on NRS), and WOMAC pain subscale. Activity measures included WOMAC function subscale and actigraphy using a device. Three composite pain-activity measures were prespecified. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were randomized and 47 completed the study. The WOMAC pain subscale was the most responsive of all five pain measures. Pain-activity composites resulted in a statistically significant difference between celecoxib and placebo but were not more responsive than pain measures alone. However, a composite responder defined as having 20% improvement in pain or 10% improvement in activity yielded much larger differences between celecoxib and placebo than with pain scores alone. Actigraphy was more responsive than the WOMAC function scale, possibly due to lower placebo responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We have identified composite pain-activity measures that are similarly or more responsive than pain-alone measures in patients with OA. Further research is warranted to determine the optimal method for computing these composites.
Authors: Christopher G Salib; Nicolas Reina; William H Trousdale; Afton K Limberg; Megan E Tibbo; Anthony G Jay; Joseph X Robin; Travis W Turner; Carter R Jones; Christopher R Paradise; Eric A Lewallen; Brad Bolon; Jodi M Carter; Daniel J Berry; Mark E Morrey; Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo; Andre J van Wijnen; Matthew P Abdel Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Jason S Kim; Silvana Borges; Daniel J Clauw; Philip G Conaghan; David T Felson; Thomas R Fleming; Rachel Glaser; Elizabeth Hart; Marc Hochberg; Yura Kim; Virginia B Kraus; Larissa Lapteva; Xiaojuan Li; Sharmila Majumdar; Timothy E McAlindon; Ali Mobasheri; Tuhina Neogi; Frank W Roemer; Rebecca Rothwell; Robert Shibuya; Jeffrey Siegel; Lee S Simon; Kurt P Spindler; Nikolay P Nikolov Journal: Semin Arthritis Rheum Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 5.431
Authors: Grace H Lo; Timothy E McAlindon; Gillian A Hawker; Jeffrey B Driban; Lori Lyn Price; Jing Song; Charles B Eaton; Marc C Hochberg; Rebecca D Jackson; C Kent Kwoh; Michael C Nevitt; Dorothy D Dunlop Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Elizabeth S Goldsmith; Brent C Taylor; Nancy Greer; Maureen Murdoch; Roderick MacDonald; Lauren McKenzie; Christina E Rosebush; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nathaniel Katz; Robert H Dworkin; Richard North; Simon Thomson; Sam Eldabe; Salim M Hayek; Brian H Kopell; John Markman; Ali Rezai; Rod S Taylor; Dennis C Turk; Eric Buchser; Howard Fields; Gregory Fiore; McKenzie Ferguson; Jennifer Gewandter; Chris Hilker; Roshini Jain; Angela Leitner; John Loeser; Ewan McNicol; Turo Nurmikko; Jane Shipley; Rahul Singh; Andrea Trescot; Robert van Dongen; Lalit Venkatesan Journal: Pain Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Jennifer S Gewandter; Michael P McDermott; Scott Evans; Nathaniel P Katz; John D Markman; Lee S Simon; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin Journal: Pain Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 7.926
Authors: Kushang V Patel; Robert Allen; Laurie Burke; John T Farrar; Jennifer S Gewandter; Ian Gilron; Nathaniel P Katz; John D Markman; Scott F Marshall; Malca Resnick; Andrew S C Rice; Michael C Rowbotham; Shannon M Smith; Geertrui F Vanhove; Ajay D Wasan; Shuyu Zhang; Robert H Dworkin; Dennis C Turk Journal: Pain Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 7.926