Skip to main content

Table 1 Mean (SD) values for KAM and strength outcomes as well as for log-transformed, unadjusted biomarker levels and ratios of degradation to synthesis (sCPII) at baseline and follow-up for each group

From: Relationships amongst osteoarthritis biomarkers, dynamic knee joint load, and exercise: results from a randomized controlled pilot study

  Baseline data (n = 17) Follow-up data (n = 16) Between-group changes
Exercise No exercise Exercise No exercise Difference p-value
Gait outcomes       
Peak KAM (%BW*ht) 3.75 (0.91) 3.38 (0.78) 3.70 (0.91) 3.21 (0.95) 0.04 (-0.64, 0.72) 0.91
KAM impulse (%BW*ht*sec) 1.13 (0.40) 1.32 (0.41) 1.01 (0.35) 1.24 (0.55) –0.05 (–0.23, 0.32) 0.72
Walking speed (m/s) 1.18 (0.23) 1.03 (0.17) 1.28 (0.18) 1.04 (0.16) 0.08 (–0.02, 0.18) 0.11
Strength outcomes       
Knee extension torque (Nm/kg) 1.25 (0.34) 0.98 (0.25) 1.35 (0.39) 0.97 (0.23) 0.10 (–0.25, 0.06) 0.19
Knee flexion torque (Nm/kg) 1.06 (0.33) 0.82 (0.29) 1.12 (0.35) 0.70 (0.48) 0.18 (–0.41, 0.06) 0.12
Hip abduction torque (Nm/kg) 0.78 (0.19) 0.59 (0.26) 0.87 (0.28) 0.69 (0.13) –0.02 (–0.14, 0.18) 0.77
Urinary markers       
uCTX-II (log ng/mmol creatinine) 5.40 (0.81) 5.97 (0.57) 5.32 (0.93) 6.25 (0.68) –0.33 (–0.71, 0.04) 0.11
uC2C (log μg/mmol creatinine) 2.45 (0.68) 2.46 (0.76) 2.57 (0.81) 2.71 (0.58) –0.10 (–0.35, 0.16) 0.73
Serum markers       
sHA (log U/L) 3.47 (0.93) 3.80 (0.96) 3.26 (1.13) 4.21 (0.86) –0.79 (–1.67, 0.08) 0.10
sCOMP (log U/L) 2.20 (0.21) 2.26 (0.17) 2.11 (0.24) 2.36 (0.13) –0.16 (–0.30,–0.02) 0.04
sCPII (log U/L) 6.56 (0.19) 6.44 (0.53) 6.50 (0.36) 6.71 (0.40) –0.34 (–0.94, 0.24) 0.27
Ratios       
uCTX-II:sCPII –1.16 (0.74) –0.46 (0.49) –1.18 (0.97) –0.46 (0.81) 0.01 (–0.63, 0.66) 0.97
uC2C:sCPII –4.11 (0.69) –3.98 (1.19) –3.93 (0.98) –4.01 (0.73) 0.22 (–0.59, 1.03) 0.61
sHA:sCPII –3.09 (0.99) –2.64 (0.87) –3.24 (1.37) –2.50 (0.77) –0.45 (–1.43, 0.53) 0.39
  1. Group comparisons (exercise – no exercise) denote the difference in mean change (95% CIs). Between-group mean differences for gait and strength data are unadjusted, while biomarker data for each log-transformed biomarker and ratio using linear regression modeling while adjusting for age and sex. Note that negative log-transformed values indicate that the absolute ratio was less than 1.0, with greater negative values indicating a smaller ratio of the degradation biomarker to the synthesis biomarker sCPII. Thus, improvements in the ratio of degradation to synthesis would be reflected in smaller negative values at follow-up.