Advertisement

Composite measures of physical activity and pain associate better with functional assessments than pain alone in knee osteoarthritis

  • Kelli D. AllenEmail author
  • Grace Lo
  • Lauren M. Abbate
  • Theresa A. Floegel
  • Jennifer H. Lindquist
  • Cynthia Coffman
  • Eugene Z. Oddone
  • Shannon Stark Taylor
  • Katherine Hall
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction

Recent research showed that physical activity (PA)–adjusted pain measures were more strongly associated with radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) severity than an unadjusted pain measure. This exploratory study examined whether PA-adjusted pain measures were more closely associated with other key OA-related measures, compared to unadjusted pain scores.

Method

Participants were 122 Veterans (mean age = 61.2 years, 88.5% male) with knee OA. Baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores were adjusted for accelerometer-derived daily: (1) step counts, (2) minutes of any activity, (3) minutes of moderate or greater intensity activity, (4) minutes of light intensity activity, and (5) energy expenditure. Partial correlations, adjusted for age, sex, and body mass index, estimated associations of unadjusted and PA-adjusted WOMAC pain scores with functional assessments (6-minute walk test, 8-foot walk test, chair stand test, satisfaction with physical function), fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory), and anxiety/depressive symptoms (single item).

Results

Significant (p < 0.05) associations were found in 29 of 36 of models. For the four function-related assessments, step count and energy expenditure–adjusted WOMAC pain scores had stronger associations (partial rs = 0.24–0.48) than WOMAC pain score (partial rs = 0.19–0.25). For fatigue and anxiety/depressive symptoms, WOMAC pain score had stronger, positive associations than most PA-adjusted pain scores. Of the PA-adjusted measures, the strongest associations overall were observed for step count and energy expenditure.

Conclusion

PA-adjusted pain scores may have particular value for OA studies involving functional assessments, whereas unadjusted WOMAC pain scores are more closely associated with psychological symptoms. This has implications for measurement in clinical OA studies.

Trial registration

NCT01058304

Key points

Among patents with osteoarthritis, physical activity–adjusted pain measures (particularly those adjusted for step count and energy expenditure) were more strongly associated with measures of physical function, compared to unadjusted pain scores, whereas unadjusted pain score was more strongly associated with a measure of psychological symptoms.

In clinical osteoarthritis research, the most appropriate or sensitive symptom measure (pain vs. physical activity–adjusted pain) may depend on the type of intervention or outcome being studied.

Keywords

Measurement Osteoarthritis Pain Physical activity 

Notes

Funding

This study received financial support from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Health Services Research and Development Service (IIR 09-056). Dr. Hall receives support from the Rehabilitation Research and Development Service of the Department of Veterans Affairs (2RX001316). Drs. Allen, Coffman, and Oddone receive support from the Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation, Durham VA Health Care System (CIN 13-410). This work is supported in part with resources at the VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN 13-413), at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX (Dr. Lo). Dr. Allen receives support from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Center P60 AR062760.

Compliance with ethical standards

This research was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the DVAHCS. All participants provided written informed consent.

Disclosures

None.

Disclaimer

The authors had full control of all primary data and allow the journal to review their data if requested.

References

  1. 1.
    Hawker GA, Stewart L, French MR, Cibere J, Jordan JM, March L, Suarez-Almazor M, Gooberman-Hill R (2008) Understanding the pain experience in hip and knee osteoarthritis--an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthr Cartil 16(4):415–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holla JF, van der Leeden M, Knol DL, Peter WF, Roorda LD, Lems WF, Wesseling J, Steultjens MP, Dekker J (2012) Avoidance of activities in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: results from the CHECK cohort. Ann Behav Med 44(1):33–42.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-012-9353-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunlop DD, Song J, Lee J, Gilbert AL, Semanik PA, Ehrlich-Jones L, Pellegrini CA, Pinto D, Ainsworth B, Chang RW (2017) Physical activity minimum threshold predicting improved function in adults with lower-extremity symptoms. Arthritis Care Res 69(4):475–483.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song J, Gilbert AL, Chang RW, Pellegrini CA, Ehrlich-Jones LS, Lee J, Pinto D, Semanik PA, Sharma L, Kwoh CK, Jackson RD, Dunlop DD (2017) Do inactive older adults who increase physical activity experience less disability: evidence from the osteoarthritis initiative. J Clin Rheumatol 23(1):26–32.  https://doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000000473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sun K, Song J, Lee J, Chang RW, Eaton CB, Ehrlich-Jones L, Kwoh KC, Manheim LM, Semanik PA, Sharma L, Sohn MW, Dunlop DD (2014) Relationship of meeting physical activity guidelines with health-related utility. Arthritis Care Res 66(7):1041–1047.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.22262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bellamy N (2002) WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol 29(12):2473–2476Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lo GH, McAlindon TE, Hawker GA, Driban JB, Price LL, Song J, Eaton CB, Hochberg MC, Jackson RD, Kwoh CK, Nevitt MC, Dunlop DD (2015) Symptom assessment in knee osteoarthritis needs to account for physical activity level. Arthritis Rheum 67(11):2897–2904.  https://doi.org/10.1002/art.39271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Allen KD, Bongiorni D, Bosworth HB, Coffman CJ, Datta SK, Edelman D, Hall KS, Lindquist JH, Oddone EZ, Hoenig H (2016) Group versus individual physical therapy for veterans with knee osteoarthritis: randomized clinical trial. Phys Ther 96(5):597–608.  https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20150194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Song J, Semanik P, Sharma L, Chang RW, Hochberg MC, Mysiw WJ, Bathon JM, Eaton CB, Jackson R, Kwoh CK, Nevitt M, Dunlop DD (2010) Assessing physical activity in persons with knee osteoarthritis using accelerometers: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arthritis Care Res 62(12):1724–1732.  https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart TL, Swartz AM, Cashin SE, Strath SJ (2011) How many days of monitoring predict physical activity and sedentary behaviour in older adults? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 8:62.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sasaki JE, John D, Freedson PS (2011) Validation and comparison of ActiGraph activity monitors. J Sci Med Sport 14(5):411–416.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2011.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Troiano RP, Berrigan D, Dodd KW, Masse LC, Tilert T, McDowell M (2008) Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40(1):181–188.  https://doi.org/10.1249/mss.0b013e31815a51b3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15:1833–1840Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dobson F, Hinman RS, Roos EM, Abbott JH, Stratford P, Davis AM, Buchbinder R, Snyder-Mackler L, Henrotin Y, Thumboo J, Hansen P, Bennell KL (2013) OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthr Cartil 21(8):1042–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2013.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stratford PW, Kennedy DM (2006) Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients. J Clin Epidemiol 59(2):160–167.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.07.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, Gollish JD, Penney D (2005) Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 6:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lin YC, Davey RC, Cochrane T (2001) Tests for physical function of the elderly with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports 11(5):280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Christiansen CL, Stevens-Lapsley JE (2010) Weight-bearing asymmetry in relation to measures of impairment and functional mobility for people with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(10):1524–1528.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2010.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ostchega Y, Harris TB, Hirsch R, Parsons VL, Kington R, Katzoff M (2000) Reliability and prevalence of physical performance examination assessing mobility and balance in older persons in the US: data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. J Am Geriatr Soc 48(9):1136–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jette AM, Jette DU, Ng J, Plotkin DJ, Bach MA (1999) Are performance-based measures sufficiently reliable for use in multicenter trials? Musculoskeletal Impairment (MSI) Study Group. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 54(1):M3–M6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Katula JA, Rejeski WJ, WIckley KL, Berry MJ (2004) Perceived difficulty, importance, and satisfaction with physical function in COPD patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mendoza TR, Wang XS, Cleeland CS, Morrissey M, Johnson BA, Wendt JK, Huber SL (1999) The rapid assessment of fatigue severity in cancer patients: use of the Brief Fatigue Inventory. Cancer 85:1186–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rabin R, Gudex C, Selai C, Herdman M (2014) From translation to version management: a history and review of methods for the cultural adaptation of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire. Value Health 17(1):70–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.10.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bonett DG (2017) SAS programs: part 1. Confidence interval programs. https://people.ucsc.edu/~dgbonett/docs/psyc214a/214SASPrograms.docx. Accessed May 18 2018

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelli D. Allen
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Grace Lo
    • 4
    • 5
  • Lauren M. Abbate
    • 6
    • 7
  • Theresa A. Floegel
    • 8
  • Jennifer H. Lindquist
    • 3
  • Cynthia Coffman
    • 3
    • 9
  • Eugene Z. Oddone
    • 3
    • 10
  • Shannon Stark Taylor
    • 11
    • 12
  • Katherine Hall
    • 10
    • 13
    • 14
  1. 1.Thurston Arthritis Research CenterUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Division of Rheumatology, Allergy, and Immunology, Department of MedicineUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice TransformationDurham VA Health Care SystemDurhamUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineBaylor College of MedicineHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Medical Care Line and Research Care Line, Houston VA HSR&D Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and SafetyMichael E. DeBakey Medical CenterHoustonUSA
  6. 6.Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical CenterVA Eastern Colorado Healthcare SystemDenverUSA
  7. 7.Department of Emergency MedicineUniversity of Colorado School of MedicineAuroraUSA
  8. 8.College of NursingEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  9. 9.Department of Biostatistics and BioinformaticsDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  10. 10.Department of MedicineDuke University Medical CenterDurhamUSA
  11. 11.University of South Carolina School of Medicine GreenvilleGreenvilleUSA
  12. 12.Greenville Health SystemGreenvilleUSA
  13. 13.Center for Aging and Human DevelopmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  14. 14.Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical CenterDurham VA Medical CenterDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations