Cynthia J Coffman1, Liubov Arbeeva2, Todd A Schwartz3, Leigh F Callahan2, Yvonne M Golightly2, Adam P Goode4, Kim M Huffman5, Kelli D Allen6. 1. Durham Veterans Administration Healthcare System and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 3. Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 4. Duke University School of Medicine and Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 5. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 6. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Durham Veterans Administration Healthcare System, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate heterogeneity of treatment effects in a trial of exercise-based interventions for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Participants (n = 350) were randomized to standard physical therapy (PT; n = 140), internet-based exercise training (IBET; n = 142), or wait list (WL; n = 68) control. We applied qualitative interaction trees (QUINT), a sequential partitioning method, and generalized unbiased interaction detection and estimation (GUIDE), a regression tree approach, to identify subgroups with greater improvements in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score over 4 months. Predictors included 24 demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics. We conducted internal validation to estimate optimism (bias) in the range of mean outcome differences among arms. RESULTS: Both QUINT and GUIDE indicated that for participants with lower body mass index (BMI), IBET was better than PT (improvements of WOMAC ranged from 6.3 to 9.1 points lower), and for those with higher BMI and a longer duration of knee OA, PT was better than IBET (WOMAC improvement was 6.3 points). In GUIDE analyses comparing PT or IBET to WL, participants not employed had improvements in WOMAC ranging from 1.8 to 6.8 points lower with PT or IBT versus WL. From internal validation, there were large corrections to the mean outcome differences among arms; however, after correction, some differences remained in the clinically meaningful range. CONCLUSION: Results suggest there may be subgroups who experience greater improvement in symptoms from PT or IBET, and this finding could guide referrals and future trials. However, uncertainty persists for specific treatment-effects size estimates and how they apply beyond this study sample.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate heterogeneity of treatment effects in a trial of exercise-based interventions for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Participants (n = 350) were randomized to standard physical therapy (PT; n = 140), internet-based exercise training (IBET; n = 142), or wait list (WL; n = 68) control. We applied qualitative interaction trees (QUINT), a sequential partitioning method, and generalized unbiased interaction detection and estimation (GUIDE), a regression tree approach, to identify subgroups with greater improvements in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score over 4 months. Predictors included 24 demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics. We conducted internal validation to estimate optimism (bias) in the range of mean outcome differences among arms. RESULTS: Both QUINT and GUIDE indicated that for participants with lower body mass index (BMI), IBET was better than PT (improvements of WOMAC ranged from 6.3 to 9.1 points lower), and for those with higher BMI and a longer duration of knee OA, PT was better than IBET (WOMAC improvement was 6.3 points). In GUIDE analyses comparing PT or IBET to WL, participants not employed had improvements in WOMAC ranging from 1.8 to 6.8 points lower with PT or IBT versus WL. From internal validation, there were large corrections to the mean outcome differences among arms; however, after correction, some differences remained in the clinically meaningful range. CONCLUSION: Results suggest there may be subgroups who experience greater improvement in symptoms from PT or IBET, and this finding could guide referrals and future trials. However, uncertainty persists for specific treatment-effects size estimates and how they apply beyond this study sample.
Authors: Marlene Fransen; Sara McConnell; Alison R Harmer; Martin Van der Esch; Milena Simic; Kim L Bennell Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 13.800
Authors: R R Bannuru; M C Osani; E E Vaysbrot; N K Arden; K Bennell; S M A Bierma-Zeinstra; V B Kraus; L S Lohmander; J H Abbott; M Bhandari; F J Blanco; R Espinosa; I K Haugen; J Lin; L A Mandl; E Moilanen; N Nakamura; L Snyder-Mackler; T Trojian; M Underwood; T E McAlindon Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Sharon L Kolasinski; Tuhina Neogi; Marc C Hochberg; Carol Oatis; Gordon Guyatt; Joel Block; Leigh Callahan; Cindy Copenhaver; Carole Dodge; David Felson; Kathleen Gellar; William F Harvey; Gillian Hawker; Edward Herzig; C Kent Kwoh; Amanda E Nelson; Jonathan Samuels; Carla Scanzello; Daniel White; Barton Wise; Roy D Altman; Dana DiRenzo; Joann Fontanarosa; Gina Giradi; Mariko Ishimori; Devyani Misra; Amit Aakash Shah; Anna K Shmagel; Louise M Thoma; Marat Turgunbaev; Amy S Turner; James Reston Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-01-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: K D Allen; L Arbeeva; L F Callahan; Y M Golightly; A P Goode; B C Heiderscheit; K M Huffman; H H Severson; T A Schwartz Journal: Osteoarthritis Cartilage Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 6.576
Authors: Justine Seidenfeld; Karen M Stechuchak; Cynthia J Coffman; Elizabeth P Mahanna; Micaela N Gladney; Susan N Hastings Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 4.093