Do Ibuprofen or Glucosamine in Addition to Resistance Exercise Training Improve Muscle Strength in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: To compare the effects on muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) strength, and function, of treatment with ibuprofen, glucosamine, or placebo in addition to a strength training program, in older adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Design: Randomized, controlled, double-blinded 12-week trial. Setting: Community study in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2005 and 2006. Participants: Patients were recruited through newspaper advertisements. Of the 181 persons screened, 36 (20 women and 16 men) met the inclusion criteria: age 50 to 70 years and bilateral tibiofemoral OA of the knees, based on the American College of Rheumatology clinical and radiographic classification criteria, and with a Kellgren and Lawrence score between 1 and 4. Exclusion criteria were other chronic diseases, contraindication to the study medications, regular exercise training, severe obesity, excess alcohol consumption, and knee injury or previous or planned knee surgery. Intervention: Participants were instructed not to take ibuprofen and/or glucosamine for 1 month before the study. They were randomized to receive 500 mg of glucosamine sulfate 3 times per day, 600 mg of ibuprofen 2 times per day, or placebo. All patients were instructed to take 5 tablets per day (active and/or placebo) to maintain blinding, beginning 4 weeks before the exercise intervention so that training could be preceded by 4 weeks of glucosamine and 1 week of active ibuprofen. Acupuncture or 50 mg of tramadol was permitted for severe pain. The 12-week strength training program (45-minute supervised sessions, 3 per week) comprised progressive unilateral training for both legs focusing on the quadriceps muscle, using leg press and knee extension machines. Main Outcome Measures: Quadriceps muscle CSA was measured using magnetic resonance imaging. Isometric, concentric, and eccentric quadriceps strength was assessed using an isokinetic dynamometer. Maximal unilateral leg extension power was measured using a Nottingham Power Rig (Medical Engineering Unit, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom). Muscle strength was also measured as the greatest load that could be lifted 5 times without resting, on the knee extension and the leg press machines. Function was assessed as walking speed, stair-climbing time, and speed of chair stands. Pain was rated during strength measurements using a visual analog scale (VAS). All measures were done 2 to 4 days before and again after the 12 weeks of training. Main Results: After 12 weeks, CSA of the quadriceps muscle increased for all groups (P ≤ 0.05) but did not differ among them. In comparison with the placebo group, the ibuprofen group increased more in maximal isometric strength (difference, 0.22 Nm/kg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.42; P = 0.04), in maximal eccentric muscle strength (difference, 0.38 Nm/kg; 95% CI, 0.05-0.70; P = 0.02), and in maximal eccentric work (difference, 0.27 J/kg; 95% CI, 0.01-0.53; P = 0.04). In comparison with the placebo group, the glucosamine group increased more in maximal concentric muscle work (difference, 0.24 J/kg; 95% CI, 0.06-0.42; P = 0.01). On other measures of strength and power, the groups did not differ. Strength on the knee extension and leg press machines increased for both the ibuprofen and glucosamine groups (P < 0.05) but did not differ from placebo. No differences between groups were found on the measures of function, but all groups improved from baseline. Compared with placebo, both ibuprofen (difference, 0.82 points; 95% CI, 0.23-1.42; P < 0.01) and glucosamine (difference, 0.79 points; 95% CI, 0.24-1.33; P < 0.01) reduced reported pain (VAS) during the strength assessment. Satellite cell number increased in the glucosamine and placebo groups but not in the ibuprofen group. Conclusions: Quadriceps muscle mass increased with 12 weeks of strength training and was not affected by taking ibuprofen or glucosamine. The supplements did increase some measures of muscle strength and reduced pain while training.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».