Efficacy and Safety of Massage for Osteoarthritis of the Knee: a Randomized Clinical Trial.
arthritis
knee pain
massage
musculoskeletal pain
osteoarthritis
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
received:
06
03
2018
accepted:
20
11
2018
revised:
30
05
2018
pubmed:
14
12
2018
medline:
14
8
2020
entrez:
14
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Current treatment options for knee osteoarthritis have limited effectiveness and potentially adverse side effects. Massage may offer a safe and effective complement to the management of knee osteoarthritis. Examine effects of whole-body massage on knee osteoarthritis, compared to active control (light-touch) and usual care. Multisite RCT assessing the efficacy of massage compared to light-touch and usual care in adults with knee osteoarthritis, with assessments at baseline and weeks 8, 16, 24, 36, and 52. Subjects in massage or light-touch groups received eight weekly treatments, then were randomized to biweekly intervention or usual care to week 52. The original usual care group continued to week 24. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Five hundred fifty-one screened for eligibility, 222 adults with knee osteoarthritis enrolled, 200 completed 8-week assessments, and 175 completed 52-week assessments. Sixty minutes of protocolized full-body massage or light-touch. Primary: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Secondary: visual analog pain scale, PROMIS Pain Interference, knee range of motion, and timed 50-ft walk. At 8 weeks, massage significantly improved WOMAC Global scores compared to light-touch (- 8.16, 95% CI = - 13.50 to - 2.81) and usual care (- 9.55, 95% CI = - 14.66 to - 4.45). Additionally, massage improved pain, stiffness, and physical function WOMAC subscale scores compared to light-touch (p < 0.001; p = 0.04; p = 0.02, respectively) and usual care (p < 0.001; p = 0.002; p = 0.002; respectively). At 52 weeks, the omnibus test of any group difference in the change in WOMAC Global from baseline to 52 weeks was not significant (p = 0.707, df = 3), indicating no significant difference in change across groups. Adverse events were minimal. Efficacy of symptom relief and safety of weekly massage make it an attractive short-term treatment option for knee osteoarthritis. Longer-term biweekly dose maintained improvement, but did not provide additional benefit beyond usual care post 8-week treatment. clinicaltrials.gov NCT01537484.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Current treatment options for knee osteoarthritis have limited effectiveness and potentially adverse side effects. Massage may offer a safe and effective complement to the management of knee osteoarthritis.
OBJECTIVE
Examine effects of whole-body massage on knee osteoarthritis, compared to active control (light-touch) and usual care.
DESIGN
Multisite RCT assessing the efficacy of massage compared to light-touch and usual care in adults with knee osteoarthritis, with assessments at baseline and weeks 8, 16, 24, 36, and 52. Subjects in massage or light-touch groups received eight weekly treatments, then were randomized to biweekly intervention or usual care to week 52. The original usual care group continued to week 24. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.
PARTICIPANTS
Five hundred fifty-one screened for eligibility, 222 adults with knee osteoarthritis enrolled, 200 completed 8-week assessments, and 175 completed 52-week assessments.
INTERVENTION
Sixty minutes of protocolized full-body massage or light-touch.
MAIN MEASURES
Primary: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index. Secondary: visual analog pain scale, PROMIS Pain Interference, knee range of motion, and timed 50-ft walk.
KEY RESULTS
At 8 weeks, massage significantly improved WOMAC Global scores compared to light-touch (- 8.16, 95% CI = - 13.50 to - 2.81) and usual care (- 9.55, 95% CI = - 14.66 to - 4.45). Additionally, massage improved pain, stiffness, and physical function WOMAC subscale scores compared to light-touch (p < 0.001; p = 0.04; p = 0.02, respectively) and usual care (p < 0.001; p = 0.002; p = 0.002; respectively). At 52 weeks, the omnibus test of any group difference in the change in WOMAC Global from baseline to 52 weeks was not significant (p = 0.707, df = 3), indicating no significant difference in change across groups. Adverse events were minimal.
CONCLUSIONS
Efficacy of symptom relief and safety of weekly massage make it an attractive short-term treatment option for knee osteoarthritis. Longer-term biweekly dose maintained improvement, but did not provide additional benefit beyond usual care post 8-week treatment.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
clinicaltrials.gov NCT01537484.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30543021
doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4763-5
pii: 10.1007/s11606-018-4763-5
pmc: PMC6420526
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT01537484']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
379-386Subventions
Organisme : NCCIH NIH HHS
ID : R01 AT004623
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Radiol Clin North Am. 2004 Jan;42(1):1-9, v
pubmed: 15049520
Trials. 2012 Oct 04;13:185
pubmed: 23035641
Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):1039-49
pubmed: 3741515
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Apr;45(4):660-9
pubmed: 23017610
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2006 Feb;20(1):3-25
pubmed: 16483904
Natl Health Stat Report. 2015 Feb 10;(79):1-16
pubmed: 25671660
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009 Sep;17(9):591-600
pubmed: 19726743
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2010 Feb;2(1):17-28
pubmed: 22870434
Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005 Sep-Oct;23(5 Suppl 39):S148-53
pubmed: 16273799
Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Aug;45(4):384-91
pubmed: 11501727
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Sep;21(9):1145-53
pubmed: 23973124
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014 Mar;22(3):363-88
pubmed: 24462672
Arthritis Rheum. 2009 Nov 15;61(11):1545-53
pubmed: 19877092
Clin Ther. 2005 Aug;27(8):1196-214
pubmed: 16199245
Arch Intern Med. 2006 Dec 11-25;166(22):2533-8
pubmed: 17159021
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2004 Sep;16(5):604-8
pubmed: 15314502
Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2002 Jan;14(1):58-62
pubmed: 11790998
J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833-40
pubmed: 3068365
Clin Rehabil. 2007 Feb;21(2):99-111
pubmed: 17264104
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 May 15;28(10):1051-60
pubmed: 12768148
Scand J Rehabil Med. 1997 Dec;29(4):213-21
pubmed: 9428055
J Clin Rheumatol. 2010 Mar;16(2):64-7
pubmed: 20130482
PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30248
pubmed: 22347369
Pain. 2010 Jul;150(1):173-82
pubmed: 20554116
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1992 Jan;73(1):29-36
pubmed: 1729969
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Jan;58(1):26-35
pubmed: 18163497
Natl Health Stat Report. 2008 Dec 10;(12):1-23
pubmed: 19361005
Eur J Med Res. 2015 Mar 13;20:24
pubmed: 25889669
Arthritis Rheum. 2001 Oct;45(5):453-61
pubmed: 11642645
J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2013 Jan;5(1):30-8
pubmed: 23559821
BMJ. 2006 Mar 18;332(7542):639-42
pubmed: 16543327
Complement Ther Med. 2008 Jun;16(3):169-76
pubmed: 18534330
Am J Med Sci. 2016 Nov;352(5):472-480
pubmed: 27865294
Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2012 Dec;10(6):331-42
pubmed: 23036838
J Altern Complement Med. 2012 Aug;18(8):789-97
pubmed: 22775448
J Jpn Phys Ther Assoc. 2013;16(1):7-21
pubmed: 25792899
Drug Saf. 2006;29(2):119-32
pubmed: 16454539