Abstract
Introduction and Objective
Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a frequent disease for which therapeutic possibilities are limited. In current recommendations, the first-line analgesic is acetaminophen. However, low efficacy of acetaminophen, frequently leads to the use of weak opioids (WO) despite their poor tolerance, especially in elderly patients. The primary objective was to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of a new wearable transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (W-TENS) to weak opioids (WO) in the treatment of moderate to severe, nociceptive, chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis patients.
Materials and Methods
ArthroTENS study is a phase 3, non-inferiority, multicentric, prospective, randomized, single-blinded for primary efficacy outcome, controlled, in 2-parallel groups, clinical study comparing W-TENS versus WO over a 3-month controlled period with an additional, optional, non-controlled, 3-month follow-up for patients in W-TENS group. The co-primary outcome was KOA pain intensity (PI) at month 3 and the number of adverse events (AEs) over 3 months.
Results
The non-inferiority of W-TENS was demonstrated in both the PP and ITT populations. At M3, PI in PP population was 3.87 (2.12) compared to 4.66 (2.37) (delta: −0.79 (0.44); 95% CI (−1.65; 0.08)) in W-TENS and WO groups, respectively. Since the absolute value of the 95% CI of the between-treatments mean PI difference [−1.71, – 0.12] was above 0 in ITT set, the planned superiority analysis was performed, demonstrating that W-TENS was significantly superior to WO at M3 (P=0.0124). At M1 and M3, the W-TENS group reached the absolute minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for an analgesic (1.8 (2.1) and 2.1 (2.3), respectively), corresponding to a 20 mm reduction in PI (interquartile range: 15–30) on a 0–100 mm visual analogic scale – i.e. 2 points on a numerical rating scale – which equates to “much better”. Conversely, in the WO group, a 0.5 (1.8) and a 1.1 (2.1) reduction in PI were observed at M1 and M3, respectively, while a 1-point reduction in PI is required to be considered as a “slightly better” improvement. In WO group, AEs were the common systemic AEs reported with WO (nausea, constipation, drowsiness, dizziness, pruritus, vomiting, dry mouth). AEs in W-TENS group were local, such as local cutaneous reaction (erythema). Thirty-nine (70.9%) patients wished to extend W-TENS treatment for 3 additional months. Only one patient discontinued this additional period and results were maintained at M6.
Conclusions
W-TENS was more effective and better tolerated than WO in the treatment of nociceptive KOA chronic pain and could represent an interesting non-pharmacological alternative to WO.
