Arthritis Care & Research

Vol. 65, No. 1, January 2013, pp 1522

DOI 10.1002/acr.21692
2013, American College of Rheumatology

SPECIAL THEME ARTICLE: OBESITY AND THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES

Body Weight Changes and Corresponding Changes

in Pain and Function in Persons With
Symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study
DANIEL L. RIDDLE1

AND

PAUL W. STRATFORD2

Objective. To determine if a dose-response relationship exists between percentage changes in body weight in persons
with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and self-reported pain and function.
Methods. Data from persons in the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) and the Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) study data
sets (n 1,410) with symptomatic function-limiting knee OA were studied. For the OAI, we used baseline and 3-year
followup data, while for the MOST study, baseline and 30-month data were used. Key outcome variables were Western
Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function and pain change scores. In addition
to covariates, the predictor variable of interest was the extent of weight change over the study period divided into 5
categories representing different percentages of body weight change.
Results. A signicant dose-response relationship (P < 0.003) was found between the extent of percentage change in body
weight and the extent of change in WOMAC physical function and WOMAC pain scores. For example, persons who gained
>10% of body weight had WOMAC physical function score changes of 5.4 (95% condence interval 8.7, 2.00) points,
indicating worsening physical function relative to the reference group of persons with weight changes between <5%
weight gain and <5% weight reduction.
Conclusion. Our data suggest a dose-response relationship exists between changes in body weight and corresponding
changes in pain and function. The threshold for this response gradient appears to be body weight shifts of >10%. Weight
changes of >10% have the potential to lead to important changes in pain and function for patient groups as well as
individual patients.

INTRODUCTION
Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee has multiple causes, but
one of the more powerful risk factors for OA onset and
progression is excessive body weight (1,2). The Framingham study, for example, reported that women who lost at
least 5 kg had a 50% reduction in the odds of developing
symptomatic knee OA (3). Given the high costs and high
prevalence of knee OA, many researchers have focused on
This article was prepared using Multicenter Osteoarthritis study data and does not necessarily reect the opinions
or views of the Multicenter Osteoarthritis study investigators. This article was prepared using an Osteoarthritis Initiative public use data set and does not necessarily reect
the opinions or views of the Osteoarthritis Initiative investigators, the NIH, or the private funding partners.
The Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) study is comprised of 4 cooperative grants (AG18820, AG18832,
AG18947, AG19069) funded by the NIH, a branch of the
Department of Health and Human Services, and conducted
by the MOST study investigators. The Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) is a public-private partnership comprised of 5
contracts (N01-AR-2-2258, N01-AR-2-2259, N01-AR-2-2260,
N01-AR-2-2261, N01-AR-2-2262) funded by the NIH, a
branch of the Department of Health and Human Services,

attempts to identify interventions that reduce the body

weight of persons with OA who are overweight or obese
(4 10).
A meta-analysis that examined the effects of various
approaches to weight reduction with or without cointerventions for persons with symptomatic knee OA found
that a weight reduction of 5% of body weight was associ-

and conducted by the OAI study investigators. Private funding partners include Merck, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline,
and Pzer. Private sector funding for the OAI is managed by
the Foundation for the NIH.
1
Daniel L. Riddle, PT, PhD: Departments of Physical Therapy and Orthopaedic Surgery, Virginia Commonwealth
University, Richmond; 2Paul W. Stratford, PT, MSc: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Dr. Riddle has received consultancy fees, speaking fees,
and/or honoraria (less than $10,000) from the Physical Therapy Editorial Board.
Address correspondence to Daniel L. Riddle, PT, PhD,
Virginia Commonwealth University Department of Physical Therapy, PO Box 980224, Richmond, VA 23298-0224.
E-mail: dlriddle@vcu.edu.
Submitted for publication October 18, 2011; accepted in
revised form March 26, 2012.

15

16

Riddle and Stratford

Signicance & Innovations

A dose-response relationship was found between

changes in body weight and subsequent self-reported pain and functional status over an approximately 3-year period.

The threshold for statistically signicant changes

in pain and function appears to be a 10% weight
gain or weight reduction.

This study indicates that body weight changes are

associated with changes in pain and functional
status in a dose-response fashion.

It is also unknown whether persons who gain weight actually experience worse pain and function and whether
this pain and functional loss is proportional to the amount
of weight gained. Knowing whether persons in the community report proportionate reductions (or increases) in
pain and function following changes in body weight
would equip clinicians with additional evidence-based
information to aid in the management of knee OA. The
purpose of our longitudinal cohort study was to determine
if a dose-response relationship exists between the extent of
weight changes (including both weight reduction and
weight gain) and the extent of changes in self-reported
function-related pain and functional status.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

ated with insignicant reductions in knee pain, but significant although small improvements in self-reported functional status (6). Christensen and colleagues also reported
a dose-response effect such that the extent of weight reduction was proportional to the extent of functional improvement. In recently published trials, weight reduction
strategies leading to losses approximating 10% or more of
body weight have resulted in more substantial reductions
in pain and improved function (4,7,10). In a recently published cohort study of 44 persons undergoing gastric surgery for severe obesity, the mean reduction in body weight
from baseline to 6 months following surgery was 20.2%
(11). Mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities
Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function
scores were reduced by 50% or more. These data, in combination, suggest that weight reduction and improvements
in pain and functional status may be proportional and
respond in a dose-response manner.
Several trials have examined the inuences of weight
loss on pain and function, and we found one cohort study
that examined the effects of body weight gain on pain or
functional status (12). If a dose-response relationship exists between body weight changes and corresponding
changes in pain and function for persons with symptomatic knee OA, one would expect that body weight gains
may also be associated with proportional increases in pain
and worsening functional status.
We found no studies that determined if a dose-response
relationship existed between body weight changes (both
gains and losses) and changes in knee-related pain and
functional status in a large sample of persons with symptomatic knee OA. Trial evidence suggests that weight reduction of at least 5% of body weight would lead to improved function and that weight reductions of 10% or
more would lead to greater reductions in pain and substantially improved function. The recommendations based
on trial ndings of persons with knee OA are similar to
federal government based recommendations for weight
reduction to optimize health (13,14).
Participants in weight loss trials receive extensive attention and training during the trial; it is unclear whether
persons in the community who are not part of a weight loss
trial and who undergo similar amounts of weight reduction also experience similar changes in pain and function.

We analyzed data from 2 public use data sets. The Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) is a publicly and privately funded
prospective longitudinal cohort study with 4 years of followup. A primary objective of the OAI was to develop
diverse cohorts of persons for the study of the natural
history, risk factors, onset, and progression of tibiofemoral
knee OA. The Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) study is
also a publically funded prospective longitudinal cohort
study. The overall aims of the MOST study were to identify novel and modiable biomechanical factors, bone and
joint structural factors, and nutritional factors that affect
the occurrence and progression of knee OA. All centers in
both studies required all subjects to read and sign institutional review boardapproved consent forms prior to participation.
OAI and MOST study samples. In the OAI, subjects
between the ages of 45 and 79 years with or at high risk for
developing knee OA were recruited from communities in
and around 4 clinical sites: the University of Maryland
School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, the Ohio State
University in Columbus, Ohio, the University of Pittsburgh in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and the Memorial Hospital of Rhode Island in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Persons
recruited for the MOST study also had or were at high risk
for developing knee OA and were ages 50 79 years. The
MOST subjects were recruited from communities in and
around 2 clinical sites: the University of Iowa in Iowa City,
Iowa, and the University of Alabama, Birmingham in Birmingham, Alabama. Details of the study populations from
both cohorts have been described in detail elsewhere
(15,16).
Persons from both the OAI and MOST study had to have
the following features to be recruited for our study: 1)
radiographic tibiofemoral knee OA, dened as denite
osteophytes (Osteoarthritis Research Society International
atlas grade 13 [17] in the OAI or Kellgren/Lawrence grade
2 or higher [18] in the MOST study) as measured on a
standardized xed-exion radiograph (19,20), 2) a
WOMAC pain scale score of 4 or higher, 3) a WOMAC
physical function score of 9 or higher, and 4) no knee
replacement surgery during the followup period. We intended to study a sample of persons who had radiologically conrmed knee OA and function-limiting pain.
Minimal detectable clinical improvement estimates for

Weight Changes and Changes in Pain and Function in Knee OA

17

WOMAC physical function scores generally range from

79 points, while for the WOMAC pain scale, estimates
range from 2 4 points (2126). We chose the more conservative change score criteria of 9 points for the WOMAC
physical function scale (26) and 4 points for the WOMAC
pain scale (25) to reduce the chances of falsely categorizing
a person as changed when in fact they had not changed.
Because we were interested in determining the effects
associated with differing amounts of weight change, we
wanted a sample with WOMAC scores that were substantial enough to allow for the detection of change at the
individual person level to allow for interpretation. We
excluded persons who underwent knee arthroplasty because the surgery would have likely resulted in dramatic
changes in WOMAC and performance-based measures
(27,28), and we were interested in weight loss effects in
nonsurgical cases. The complete protocol for the OAI can
be viewed online (http://www.oai.ucsf.edu/datarelease/
docs/StudyDesignProtocol.pdf), and details of the MOST
study are also available online (http://most.ucsf.edu/about.
asp).

the WOMAC pain scale change scores and the WOMAC

physical function scale change scores. Both outcome measures have demonstrated high levels of reliability and validity (26,3336). WOMAC Likert version 3.1 physical
function scores range from 0 68, with higher scores indicating worse function. WOMAC pain scores range from
0 20, with higher scores indicating greater function-related pain (37).

Baseline variables. The baseline variables were the

knee radiographic data, age, sex, comorbidity status measured on a continuous scale (29), body weight (in kg), race
(dichotomized as African American or other), presence of
frequent low back pain, depression status using a validated cut score of 16 or higher indicating likely clinical
depression on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (30,31), a dichotomized variable indicating
whether the person was not working (at least in part) for
health reasons, education level (less than a high school
diploma, high school diploma, or at least some college),
and current smoking status. We also included a variable
that was coded to indicate the presence of unilateral or
bilateral knee OA. We used the clinical data sets 0.2.2 and
5.2.1 from the OAI web site (http://oai.epi-ucsf.org/data
release/About.asp). All data for the MOST study are publically available.
Key predictor variable. The primary predictor variable
was changes in body weight from baseline to followup. We
chose to use 5 categories of body weight changes: 10%
body weight reduction, 59.9% body weight reduction,
4.9% body weight reduction to 4.9% body weight gain,
59.9% body weight gain, and 10% body weight gain.
We chose these categories to reect the weight changes
because they are similar to the categories of weight
changes generally described in the literature (6,32) and in
recommendations from government agencies (13,14). In
addition, these categories allow for the assessment of the
effects of proportionally similar changes in body weight on
pain and function.
Outcome variables of interest. The outcome measures
were the change scores calculated by subtracting the followup scores from baseline scores. The followup measures
were obtained during the 3-year visit for the OAI and at the
30-month followup visit for the MOST study. The outcome
variables were identical for both data sets and consisted of

Statistical analysis. We used chi-square tests for categorical baseline variables and t-tests for continuous variables to compare persons who had followup weight data
and those whose followup weight data were missing. The
subsequent analyses were performed for the dependent
variables of changes in WOMAC function score and
changes in WOMAC pain score. We investigated our primary question by rst performing 2 regression analyses
that included WOMAC function score and WOMAC pain
score as dependent variables and weight changes categorized into 5 groups (10% reduction, 59.9% reduction,
4.9% reduction to 4.9% gain, 59.9% gain, and 10%
gain) as the independent variable. These analyses tested
whether function or pain differed among the weight reduction or gain categories compared to the reference category
(4.9% reduction to 4.9% gain). Next, we repeated these
analyses adjusting for the following covariates: baseline
scores for the dependent variable of interest (i.e., either
WOMAC function or pain scores), sex (2 levels: female,
male) (38), depression (2 levels: depressed, not depressed)
(39), and number of comorbidities (40). Our regression
model was as follows: changes in WOMAC function or
pain constant b1(10% weight reduction) b2(5
9.9% weight reduction) b3(59.9% weight gain)
b4(10% weight gain) b5(baseline function or pain)
b6(number of comorbidities) b7(sex) b8(depression).
We applied the following dummy variable coding
scheme: 1 if the weight category applies, 0 if otherwise; 1
if female, 0 if male; and 1 if depressed, 0 if not depressed.
Applying this coding scheme, the reference weight category was the 4.9% weight reduction to 4.9% weight gain
category (i.e., b1 b2 b3 b4 0). We performed a
trend analysis to assess whether the results were consistent with a dose-response relationship. Specically, we
examined the extent to which linear, quadratic, cubic, and
quartic trends were evident.
Prior to initiating the analyses, we examined the distributional properties of the variables and checked for heterogeneity of dependent variable variances among the 5
weight change categories. For all analyses, we applied
2-tailed tests and an effect was considered statistically
signicant if a P value was less than 0.05. Analyses were
conducted using Stata, version 10.1.

RESULTS
The characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.
There were some demographic differences between the 2
data sets. For example, persons from the OAI data set were
generally younger, had a higher education level, and
weighed less than the persons in the MOST study data set.

18

Riddle and Stratford

Table 1. Characteristics of the samples at baseline and those with complete versus missing data*

Age, years
Women, %
African American, %
Marital status, %
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Separated
Never married
Education, %
Less than high school
diploma
High school diploma
At least some college
Comorbidity
Weight, kg
Current smoker, %
CES-D, % depressed
WOMAC pain score
WOMAC physical function
score

OAI
baseline
(n 976)

MOST
baseline
(n 809)

Combined
baseline
(n 1,785)

Complete
weight data
at baseline
and followup
(n 1,410)

61.72 9.25
62.2
33.5

63.74 8.09
64.5
22.9

62.63 8.79
63.2
28.7

62.73 8.62
62.5
25.5

62.26 9.38
66.1
40.8

58.7
10.7
17.2
3.1
10.4

68.8
12.9
13.0
0.9
4.5

62.6
11.5
15.1
2.1
7.6

65.5
10.7
14.9
1.9
7.0

54.9
15.1
16.8
3.0
10.3

6.7

7.8

7.2

6.2

11.1

Missing
weight data
at followup
(n 375)

Comparing complete
and missing data,
2 or t-test (P)
0.94 (0.35)
1.70 (0.19)
34.07 ( 0.001)
16.4 (0.002)

15.0 (0.001)

18.9
30.2
24.0
23.2
23.7
74.4
62.1
68.8
70.6
61.7
0.55 0.95
0.64 1.01
0.59 0.98
0.57 0.95
0.67 1.07
86.63 16.50 93.55 20.98 89.80 19.98 89.62 18.6 90.32 20.25
8.6
13.1
9.8
9.0
12.6
17.9
19.2
18.5
17.7
21.6
7.96 3.20
8.15 3.11
8.05 3.17
7.83 3.06
8.85 3.42
25.23 10.76 26.73 10.29 25.91 10.57 25.12 10.14 28.88 11.63

1.80 (0.07)
0.63 (0.53)
3.58 (0.06)
3.03 (0.08)
5.57 ( 0.001)
6.17 ( 0.001)

* Values are the mean SD unless otherwise indicated. OAI Osteoarthritis Initiative; MOST Multicenter Osteoarthritis study; CES-D Center
for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

In addition, there was evidence of selective loss to followup when comparing persons who had followup weight
data (n 1,410) to persons whose followup weight data
were missing (n 375). For example, persons with missing followup weight measures had a lower level of education, were more frequently African American, and had
higher levels of pain and worse function. The distribution
of persons in each of the 5 weight change categories were
n 82 in the 10% weight reduction group, n 176 in
the 59.9% weight reduction group, n 953 in the 4.9%
weight reduction to 4.9% weight gain group, n 148 in
the 59.9% weight gain group, and n 51 in the 10%
weight gain group.
The distributions of the dependent variables approximated a normal distribution, and for each dependent variable, the variances among the 5 weight categories did not

differ statistically. Table 2 shows a descriptive summary of

the WOMAC physical function and pain change scores for
the 5 weight change categories as well as the percentage of
patients whose change scores met or exceeded the minimum clinically important thresholds of 9 WOMAC physical function points (26) or 4 WOMAC pain points (25).
The unadjusted analyses revealed statistically signicant
differences among the weight change categories for both
WOMAC function (F[4,1381] 4.72, P 0.001) and pain
(F[4,1401] 2.50, P 0.041). Table 3 shows the difference
between the weight change categories and the reference
category (4.9% weight reduction to 4.9% weight gain) in
the WOMAC function and pain points. Unadjusted and
adjusted coefcients are also shown in Table 3. The results
show that for both the unadjusted and adjusted analyses,
only the weight change categories 10% weight reduction

Table 2. Changes in WOMAC physical function and pain scores*

Weight change
group
10% reduction
59.9% reduction
4.9% reduction to
4.9% gain
59.9% gain
10% gain

WOMAC
physical function,
mean SD change

WOMAC
physical function
change score of >9 points,
no./total (%)

WOMAC pain,
mean SD change

WOMAC pain change

score of >4 points,
no./total (%)

7.50 13.24
3.34 12.62
2.78 11.82

37/82 (45.1)
50/171 (29.2)
269/940 (28.6)

2.05 4.60
0.99 4.34
1.09 3.86

31/82 (37.8)
33/171 (19.3)
233/951 (24.5)

3.23 12.34
1.67 13.6

41/145 (28.3)
10/48 (20.8)

1.40 3.99
0.06 3.93

42/148 (28.4)
8/51 (15.7)

* WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Weight Changes and Changes in Pain and Function in Knee OA

19

Table 3. Comparison of weight change groups with the 4.9% reduction to 4.9% gain reference group*
Unadjusted analysis
WOMAC function
regression coefcient
(95% CI), P
Weight change category
10% reduction
4.71 (1.97, 7.45), 0.001
59.9% reduction
0.55 (1.42, 2.53), 0.582
4.9% reduction to
Ref.
4.9% gain
59.9% gain
0.44 (1.68, 2.57), 0.682
10% gain
4.45 (7.98, 0.93), 0.013
Baseline dependent
N/A
Female
N/A
Comorbidity (number)
N/A
Depressed (yes)
N/A
Constant
2.78 (2.01, 3.56), 0.001

Adjusted analysis

WOMAC pain
regression coefcient
(95% CI), P

WOMAC function
regression coefcient
(95% CI), P

WOMAC pain
regression coefcient
(95% CI), P

0.96 (0.06, 1.86), 0.036

0.10 (0.74, 0.54), 0.760
Ref.

4.07 (1.49, 6.65), 0.002

0.01 (1.87, 1.89), 0.991
Ref.

0.90 (0.06, 1.74), 0.035

0.26 (0.87, 0.35), 0.402
Ref.

0.31 (0.37, 1.00), 0.371

1.08 (0.91, 3.07), 0.288
1.15 (2.27, 0.03), 0.045
5.36 (8.74, 2.00), 0.002
N/A
0.43 (0.36, 0.49), 0.001
N/A
1.60 (2.85, 0.35), 0.012
N/A
1.26 (1.91, 0.61), 0.001
N/A
2.02 (3.73, 0.31), 0.020
1.08 (0.83, 1.34), 0.001
4.2 (6.73, 1.68), 0.001

0.50 (0.14, 1.15), 0.128

1.56 (2.62, 0.49), 0.004
0.49 (0.42, 0.56), 0.001
0.39 (0.80, 0.01), 0.058
0.33 (0.55, 0.12), 0.002
0.96 (1.50, 0.42), 0.001
1.74 (2.58, 0.92), 0.001

* WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; 95% CI 95% condence interval; N/A not applicable.

and 10% weight gain differed from the reference category. The dose-response relationship for weight changes
and the WOMAC physical function scale is shown in
Figure 1, while Figure 2 shows the dose-response relationship for the WOMAC pain scale. The trend analyses identied statistically signicant linear and cubic trends for
both the WOMAC physical function (linear: F[1,1362]
16.47, P 0.001 and cubic: F[1,1362] 12.11, P 0.001)
and pain (linear: F[1,1381] 8.77, P 0.003 and cubic:
F[1,1381] 13.79, P 0.001) measures. The linear trend
explains the extent to which there was a steady decline in
the scores of the outcome measures across the weight
change categories, while the cubic trend supports that
there was a attening or similarity in the scores of the
outcome measures for the middle 3 weight change categories.

DISCUSSION

Figure 1. Dose-response relationship for the Western Ontario

and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical function scale. Point estimates and 95% condence interval
(95% CI) bars were derived from unadjusted estimates.

Figure 2. Dose-response relationship for the Western Ontario

and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain
scale. Point estimates and 95% condence interval (95% CI) bars
were derived from unadjusted estimates.

Our study shows that there was a dose-response relationship between body weight changes and changes in selfreported pain and functional status. Such a study would at
a minimum require a large sample of persons followed up
over an extended period of time; well-dened methods for
quantifying arthritis, pain, and functional status; a high
rate of followup; and a sufcient number of persons who
either lost or gained weight during the followup period.
We found that persons who lost 10% of their body
weight over an approximately 3-year period reported signicantly lower function-related pain and improved functional status relative to the reference category. In contrast,
persons who gained 10% of their baseline body weight
had signicantly worse function-related pain and function
than persons in the reference category. The dose-response
relationship between weight changes and pain and func-

20
tional status changes was highly signicant (P 0.003)
both for linear and cubic trends.
We found no other evidence that quantied the potential
impact of body weight gain on subsequent pain and functional status. Our study suggests that body weight gains of
10% body weight have signicant effects particularly on
self-reported function, but also on pain. After adjusting for
covariates, mean WOMAC physical function scores worsened (increased) by 5.4 points (95% condence interval
[95% CI] 2.0, 8.7 points), while WOMAC pain scores worsened (increased) by 1.6 points (95% CI 0.5, 2.6 points)
relative to scores in the reference group. While these differences are approximately half the amount of difference
required to infer change at the level of the individual
patient (2126), for group-level changes, these estimates
approximate the magnitude of changes reported in successful weight loss (6 8) and knee exercise (41) trials.
When interpreting the meaningfulness of these group-level
changes, it is necessary to distinguish between an important within-patient change and an important betweengroup difference. Goldsmith and colleagues have shown
that an important within-patient change is substantially
greater than an important between-group difference (42).
For example, randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis
patients have found an important within-patient change in
pain to be 36% of the baseline scores compared to 20% of
the baseline scores for a between-group difference. Similarly, Goldsmith et al identied an important within-patient change in disability to be 49% of the baseline scores
compared to 16% of the baseline scores for a betweengroup difference (42). Applying the percentage difference
estimates reported by Goldsmith et al to the 9-point
WOMAC physical function (26) and 4-point WOMAC pain
(25) minimal detectable change estimates used in our
study yields important between-group differences of 2.2
and 2.9 WOMAC pain and function points, respectively.
Referring to Table 3, the mean disability change scores of
the 10% weight reduction and 10% weight gain groups
differ signicantly from the reference group. For pain, all
between-group comparisons with the reference group are
less than 2.2 points.
Table 2 delineates the percentages of patients who met
or exceeded the minimum clinically important thresholds
for important within-person change. For example, 45.1%
of the patients who lost 10% of body weight reported
changes that met or exceeded the criterion of 9 WOMAC
physical function points, while 29.2% of persons who lost
between 5% and 9.9% of body weight met the WOMAC
physical function change threshold. Similar estimates
were reported for the WOMAC pain scale. These data
suggest that weight changes of 10% appear to be important thresholds for individual patient pain and function
changes.
Most of the studies examining the effects of body weight
changes on pain and function have been directed toward
weight loss. Trials have consistently shown that a 5% or
greater weight loss resulted in signicantly reduced pain
or improved function. For example, Messier and colleagues examined the efcacy of a diet and exercise intervention on obese persons with symptomatic knee OA (8).
The authors found that a mean 5.7% weight loss was

Riddle and Stratford

associated with signicant reductions of 5.7 WOMAC
physical function points and 2.2 WOMAC pain points
after 18 months. These WOMAC changes are somewhat
larger than our estimates for persons with 10% loss in
body weight (point estimates of 4.1 WOMAC physical
function points and 0.9 WOMAC pain points). In another
trial in which loss in body weight approached 9% in an
experimental group, reductions in WOMAC physical function scores were even greater, with a mean 8.4-point reduction in 6 months (9). Bliddal and colleagues reported a
similar magnitude of changes in both WOMAC physical
function and pain scores in their 1-year trial of persons
who lost a mean of 11% of body weight (4). The baseline
WOMAC pain and physical function scores in these previous trials were very similar to our sample, suggesting
that our sample was similar although with a lower body
mass index than these previous trials.
For persons in our study with comparable weight reduction (between a 5% and 9.9% weight loss) to that reported
in 2 successful trials (8,9) and a systematic review (6),
changes in WOMAC pain and physical function scores
were essentially nonexistent. We suspect this may be related to the fact that persons in our study were not enrolled
in a weight loss study and did not receive the additional
training and attention compared to persons in a weight
loss trial. The effects of weight loss on pain and function,
when assessed in multiple sites in the context of a cohort
study like ours with no focus on weight changes per se,
may dilute the effects as compared to those seen in trials.
It is also possible that the longer followup period in our
study inuenced the effect of weight loss on pain and
function. Even with these differences in study design and
length, weight loss, when appreciable (10% of body
weight), was shown to have therapeutic effects.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) published clinical guidelines on the identication, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults (14). The recommendation for the extent of weight loss is the following:
the initial goal of weight loss therapy should be to reduce
body weight by approximately 10 percent from baseline.
While the NIH guidelines are not designed specically for
persons with knee OA, our ndings support the NIH recommendation for weight loss when applied to OA-related
pain reduction and functional improvement.
Our study has some notable strengths, but also some
important limitations. First, despite our large sample size,
the loss to followup was substantial in that 21% of the
sample did not have followup weight data. Those lost to
followup were generally more symptomatic, tended to be
African American, and were less likely to report being
married. A selective loss to followup, while not uncommon in large cohort studies (43), likely impacted our ndings. We suspect that this loss likely diluted the effects of
weight changes, given that those lost to followup were
more symptomatic. Future research should focus on enhanced methods of recruitment and retention for these
at-risk populations. In addition, persons in the OAI and
MOST study data sets met all of the inclusion criteria, but
they also differed in several ways. We chose not to adjust
for these differences. In total, the combined data set is
more heterogeneous than either the OAI or MOST study

Weight Changes and Changes in Pain and Function in Knee OA

21

data sets in isolation and therefore better reects variation

in the types of patients with knee OA seen in clinical
practice. The sample sizes for the 10% weight gain and
10% weight loss groups (n 51 and n 82, respectively) were fairly small relative to the other weight change
categories. Despite these relatively small samples, our
ndings were consistent and statistically robust. Finally,
our study design was descriptive in nature, and we cannot
determine whether the weight loss (or gain) caused predictable changes in pain and functional status or vice
versa.
The results of our study have the potential to impact
clinical practice. Clinicians should encourage patients
who are overweight to lose weight, and the target magnitude of weight loss, based on our study and the NIH
recommendations (14), should be 10% or more of body
weight. Guidance can also be provided regarding weight
gain and the potential impact of future weight gain on
subsequent pain and functional status. Patients can benet
by knowing that the dose of changes in body weight is
important and is related to pain and functional status.

in a weight loss trial in obese women with knee osteoarthritis.

BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011;12:56.
Messier SP, Loeser RF, Miller GD, Morgan TM, Rejeski WJ,
Sevick MA, et al. Exercise and dietary weight loss in overweight and obese older adults with knee osteoarthritis: the
Arthritis, Diet, and Activity Promotion Trial. Arthritis Rheum
2004;50:150110.
Miller GD, Nicklas BJ, Davis C, Loeser RF, Lenchik L, Messier
SP. Intensive weight loss program improves physical function
in older obese adults with knee osteoarthritis. Obesity (Silver
Spring) 2006;14:1219 30.
Riecke BF, Christensen R, Christensen P, Leeds AR, Boesen
M, Lohmander LS, et al. Comparing two low-energy diets for
the treatment of knee osteoarthritis symptoms in obese
patients: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial. Osteoarthritis
Cartilage 2010;18:746 54.
Richette P, Poitou C, Garnero P, Vicaut E, Bouillot JL, Lacorte
JM, et al. Benets of massive weight loss on symptoms, systemic inammation and cartilage turnover in obese patients
with knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:139 44.
White-OConnor B, Sobal J, Muncie HL Jr. Dietary habits,
weight history, and vitamin supplement use in elderly osteoarthritis patients. J Am Diet Assoc 1989;89:378 82.
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, United States Food
and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: developing
products for weight management. Rockville (MD): United
States Food and Drug Administration; 2007.
National Institutes of Health, National Heart Lung and Blood
Institute. Clinical guidelines on the identication, evaluation,
and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1998.
Thompson LR, Boudreau R, Newman AB, Hannon MJ, Chu
CR, Nevitt MC, et al. The association of osteoarthritis risk
factors with localized, regional and diffuse knee pain. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:1244 9.
Felson DT, Niu J, Guermazi A, Roemer F, Aliabadi P, Clancy
M, et al. Correlation of the development of knee pain with
enlarging bone marrow lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:2986 92.
Altman RD, Hochberg M, Murphy WA Jr, Wolfe F, Lequesne
M. Atlas of individual radiographic features in osteoarthritis.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage 1995;3 Suppl A:370.
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957;16:494 502.
Peterfy C, Li J, Zaim S, Duryea J, Lynch J, Miaux Y, et al.
Comparison of xed-exion positioning with uoroscopic
semi-exed positioning for quantifying radiographic jointspace width in the knee: test-retest reproducibility. Skeletal
Radiol 2003;32:128 32.
Kothari M, Guermazi A, von Ingersleben G, Miaux Y, Sieffert
M, Block JE, et al. Fixed-exion radiography of the knee
provides reproducible joint space width measurements in
osteoarthritis. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1568 73.
Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Steiner W, Stucki G. Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with
the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Ann Rheum
Dis 2001;60:834 40.
Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and
minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes
using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities.
Arthritis Rheum 2001;45:384 91.
Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Michel BA, Stucki G. Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. J Rheumatol 2002;29:131 8.
Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg
BC, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement
with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol 2000;27:2635 41.
Halket A, Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Woodhouse LJ, Spadoni G. Measurement properties of performance-specic pain

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it
critically for important intellectual content, and all authors approved the nal version to be published. Dr. Riddle had full
access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for
the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Study conception and design. Riddle, Stratford.
Acquisition of data. Riddle.
Analysis and interpretation of data. Riddle, Stratford.

ROLE OF THE STUDY SPONSOR

Merck, Novartis, Glaxosmithkline, and Pzer had no role in the
study design or in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the
data, the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the
manuscript for publication. Publication of this article was not
contingent upon approval by Merck, Novartis, Glaxosmithkline,
and Pzer.

REFERENCES
1. Blagojevic M, Jinks C, Jeffery A, Jordan KP. Risk factors for
onset of osteoarthritis of the knee in older adults: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:
24 33.
2. Zhang Y, Jordan JM. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Rheum
Dis Clin North Am 2008;34:51529.
3. Felson DT, Zhang Y, Anthony JM, Naimark A, Anderson JJ.
Weight loss reduces the risk for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in women: the Framingham Study. Ann Intern Med
1992;116:5359.
4. Bliddal H, Leeds AR, Stigsgaard L, Astrup A, Christensen R.
Weight loss as treatment for knee osteoarthritis symptoms in
obese patients: 1-year results from a randomised controlled
trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2011;70:1798 803.
5. Christensen R, Astrup A, Bliddal H. Weight loss: the treatment of choice for knee osteoarthritis? A randomized trial.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:20 7.
6. Christensen R, Bartels EM, Astrup A, Bliddal H. Effect of
weight reduction in obese patients diagnosed with knee
osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann
Rheum Dis 2007;66:4339.
7. Gudbergsen H, Boesen M, Christensen R, Astrup A, Bliddal H.
Radiographs and low eld MRI (0.2T) as predictors of efcacy

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.
24.

25.

22

26.

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.

34.

35.

Riddle and Stratford

ratings of patients awaiting total joint arthroplasty as a consequence of osteoarthritis. Physiother Can 2008;60:255 63.
Pua YH, Cowan SM, Wrigley TV, Bennell KL. The Lower
Extremity Functional Scale could be an alternative to the
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis
Index physical function scale. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:
110311.
Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Riddle DL, Hanna SE, Gollish JD.
Assessing recovery and establishing prognosis following total
knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther 2008;88:2232.
Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, Sledge CB. Predicting the
outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am
2004;86:2179 86.
Katz JN, Chang LC, Sangha O, Fossel AH, Bates DW. Can
comorbidity be measured by questionnaire rather than medical record review? Med Care 1996;34:73 84.
Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self report depression scale for
research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977;
1:385 401.
Blalock SJ, DeVellis RF, Brown GK, Wallston KA. Validity of
the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in
arthritis populations. Arthritis Rheum 1989;32:9917.
Messier SP. Diet and exercise for obese adults with knee
osteoarthritis. Clin Geriatr Med 2010;26:46177.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW. A preliminary evaluation of the
dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability
in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol 1986;5:
231 41.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt
LW. 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 1988;15:1833 40.
Bellamy N. The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis
Indices: development, validation, globalization and inuence

36.

37.

38.
39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005;23:S148 53.
Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Hanna SE. Condition-specic
Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index was not superior to region-specic Lower Extremity Functional Scale at
detecting change. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:102532.
Baron G, Tubach F, Ravaud P, Logeart I, Dougados M. Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and McMaster
Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and
knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57:633 8.
Martinson ML, Teitler JO, Reichman NE. Health across the life
span in the United States and England. Am J Epidemiol 2011;
173:858 65.
Zhao G, Ford ES, Li C, Tsai J, Dhingra S, Balluz LS. Waist
circumference, abdominal obesity, and depression among
overweight and obese U.S. adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006. BMC Psychiatry 2011;
11:130.
Losina E, Walensky RP, Reichmann WM, Holt HL, Gerlovin
H, Solomon DH, et al. Impact of obesity and knee osteoarthritis on morbidity and mortality in older Americans. Ann Intern
Med 2011;154:21726.
Jenkinson CM, Doherty M, Avery AJ, Read A, Taylor MA,
Sach TH, et al. Effects of dietary intervention and quadriceps
strengthening exercises on pain and function in overweight
people with knee pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ
2009;339:b3170.
Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P, for the
OMERACT Committee. Criteria for clinically important
changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of
rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial proles. J Rheumatol
1993;20:5615.
Hunt JR, White E. Retaining and tracking cohort study members. Epidemiol Rev 1998;20:5770.