Lower Osteoarthritis Research Articles

Association between the lower extremity biomechanical factors with osteoarthritis of knee

Introduction: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee joint is one of the causes of pain and physical disability. Our aim is to prevent the OA of the knee joint. Hence, to prevent and to treat, the OA knee pain needs to find an association between various biomechanical factors of the lower limb and OA knee pain. Therefore, to assess the association between the lower extremity biomechanical factors with osteoarthritis of knee pain. Materials and Methods: Our study was a cross-sectional study, in that we have taken fifty participants who already diagnosed OA. The various biomechanical factors of the lower limb were measured along with outcome scales such as the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for the OA knee and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for the knee pain from each participant. Results: There was a significant correlation found between femoral anteversion and navicular drop with WOMAC scale with a P = 0.001 and 0.03, respectively. The significant correlation between femoral anteversion, hamstring muscle length, Q angle (dynamic), and tibial torsion with NRS pain scale with P = 0.07, 0.06, 0.07, and 0.06, respectively. Conclusion: The study concluded that body mass index, femoral anteversion, hamstring's length, navicular drop, tibial torsion, and Q angle (dynamic) are various biomechanical factors which might be responsible for the incidence of the OA knee along with functional limitation and OA knee pain.

Efficacy and safety of rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg in two similarly designed osteoarthritis studies

ABSTRACTObjective: To compare the lower osteoarthritis (OA) dose of rofecoxib to the recommended dose of celecoxib in two identically designed studies.Methods: Patients with knee OA were randomized (2:2:1 ratio: rofecoxib 12.5 mg once daily (qd), celecoxib 200 mg qd, or placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was patient global assessment of response to therapy (PGART) averaged over 6 weeks on a five-point scale. Rofecoxib would be declared at least as effective as celecoxib if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for difference in means was no lower than –0.5. Additional endpoints included Pain and Physical Function subscales of the Western Ontario and McMaster (WOMAC) OA Index. Adverse experiences (AEs) were recorded and combined from the two studies for analysis.Results: Study 1 enrolled 395 patients (rofecoxib, n = 160; celecoxib, n = 157; placebo, n = 78). Study 2 enrolled 413 patients (rofecoxib, n = 159; celecoxib, n = 169; placebo, n = 85). Rofecoxib 12.5 mg was at least as effective as celecoxib 200 mg by PGART (Study 1 difference –0.09 [95% CI: –0.32, 0.14] and Study 2 difference 0.02 [95% CI: –0.20, 0.24]), and both were significantly ( p < 0.001) more effective than placebo. Comparable efficacy was also seen for WOMAC Pain and Physical Function subscales with the active treatments. There was a significantly higher ( p < 0.05) incidence of serious AEs with celecoxib than rofecoxib or placebo, none of which was drug-related. There were no significant differences in the pre-specified measurements of safety including drug-related AEs or discontinuations due to AEs, and the medications demonstrated similar safety as assessed by spontaneous reporting.Conclusions: Rofecoxib 12.5 mg and celecoxib 200 mg provided comparable efficacy over 6 weeks, and both were significantly more efficacious than placebo. The medications demonstrated similar safety compared to one another and placebo. The primary limitations of these studies were that they were only 6 weeks long and were powered for efficacy. Therefore, conclusions about long-term safety cannot be inferred.