This site is maintained for archival purposes only. New submissions, peer review, and editorial correspondence are handled through the new journal platform. Access the current journal site here.
Updated recommendations for physical activity and non-pharmacological treatment in patients with osteoarthritis
PDF
PDF BG

Keywords

recommendations
non-pharmacological treatment
physical activity
osteoarthritis

How to Cite

Terzieva, V., Boyadzhieva, V., Ivanova, M., & Stoilov, N. (2026). Updated recommendations for physical activity and non-pharmacological treatment in patients with osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Bulgaria), 33(3), 39-47. https://doi.org/10.35465/rbj.rbj.407

Abstract

Nailfold capillaroscopy (NFC) is a well-established, highly specialized, non-invasive method for assessing microcirculation and represents the “gold standard” in rheumatology for distinguishing primary from secondary Raynaud’s phenomenon (RP). Through analysis of capillary structures in the nailfold region, clinicians can identify diff erent patterns (scleroderma, scleroderma-like, and non-specifi c). Despite its clinical signifi cance, image interpretation remains challenging due to subjectivity and the requirement for substantial examiner expertise. In recent years, artifi cial intelligence (AI) has off ered novel solutions through the automated recognition and analysis of capillary structures. Machine learning and deep learning approaches have demonstrated high eff ectiveness in detecting abnormalities, classifying capillary patterns, and predicting the risk of systemic sclerosis. Projects such as CAPI-Detect, along with various other machine learning, deep learning, and neural network models (DenseNet-121, Effi cientNet-B0, ResNet-34, NFC-Net), have shown that AI can identify novel quantitative parameters not accessible through traditional visual assessment and can increase the objectivity and reproducibility of results up to 90%. Most studies in this fi eld focus on capillaroscopic patterns in systemic sclerosis (SSc); however, pilot studies in juvenile dermatomyositis, diabetes mellitus, and hypertension further highlight the applicability of these technologies. Some AI models are even capable of distinguishing onychomycosis, nail psoriasis, and subungual melanoma. Machine learning and deep learning models based on image analysis (Vision Transformer, ViT) appear to represent an additional valid system for the early and rapid interpretation of NFC images and morphological biomarkers in systemic sclerosis (SSc), integrating EULAR-validated algorithms for distinguishing scleroderma from non-scleroderma patterns with artifi cial intelligence (AI). Beyond its diagnostic applications, AI also holds potential in disease monitoring, assessment of therapeutic response, and the development of personalized treatment strategies. The processing of digital images through validated machine learning algorithms, neural networks, and related approaches is aligned with the priorities of the National Health Strategy 2030 for digitalization and the development of eHealth (Policy 2.5). The establishment of a National Digital Platform for Medical Diagnostics is envisaged, aimed at supporting all medical specialties. This platform will be integrated with the National Health Information System and the electronic patient record, with the primary objective of improving the quality of healthcare services. The integration of AI into medical practice opens new opportunities to support early diagnosis and improved management of patients with microangiopathy, facilitating timely detection and the prevention of complications, with the ultimate aim of ensuring better quality of life and preserved functional capacity.

https://doi.org/10.35465/rbj.rbj.407
PDF
PDF BG

References

  1. EULAR. EULAR recommendations for the management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(2):239-248.
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020.
  3. Zhang Y, Jordan JM. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Clin Geriatr Med. 2010;26(3):355-369.
  4. Global Burden of Disease Collaborative Network. Global burden of disease study 2023 (GBD 2023): Results. Global Burden of Disease Health Metrics; 2023.
  5. Lanyon P, Palmisano M, O‘Neill T, et al. Osteoarthritis in younger people: clinical and management perspectives. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018;32(4):530-540.
  6. Felson DT, Zhang Y, Hannan MT, et al. The effect of obesity on the risk of osteoarthritis in women and men. Am J Epidemiol. 1997;145(3):281-289.
  7. Woolf AD, Pfl eger B. Burden of major musculoskeletal conditions. Bull World Health Organ. 2003;81(9):646-656.
  8. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Osteoarthritis: Care and Management. NICE guideline [CG177]. London: NICE; 2014.
  9. American College of Rheumatology (ACR). 2019 ACR/ ARHP guidelines for the management of osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(9):1422-1433.
  10. Brannigan AE, McAuley JH, Robinson HS, et al. Evidence for non-pharmacological treatment of osteoarthritis. Phys Ther Rev. 2014;19(5):358-373.
  11. American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Osteoarthritis treatment guidelines: physical activity, weight control, and education. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2019;45(1):103-118. 12. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Osteoarthritis: Current Concepts in Management. Bethesda, MD: NIH; 2021.
  12. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). EULAR recommendations for non-pharmacological management of knee osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2023;82(7):735-743.
  13. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). EULAR recommendations for non-pharmacological management of hand osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(10):1434-1442.
  14. Glyn-Jones S, Palmer AJ, Agricola R, et al. Osteoarthritis. Lancet. 2015;386(9991):376-387.
  15. European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). Physical activity recommendations in osteoarthritis: a comprehensive approach. Rheumatology. 2018;57(6):991-1000.
  16. Williams A, McGaw C, Shaw D, et al. The role of physiotherapy in osteoarthritis treatment: A systematic review. J Clin Rheumatol. 2017;23(4):222-229.
  17. Braddock C, Edwards K, Finkelstein J. Informed decision-making in clinical practice: Challenges and solutions. JAMA. 2019;321(5):456-463.
  18. O‘Neill T, McGowan E, Pemberton S, et al. Low adherence to physical activity guidelines in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e035344.
  19. Bulgarian Rheumatology Society. Consensus on osteoarthritis management: Physical activity and rehabilitation recommendations. Sofia: Bulgarian Rheumatology Society; 2019.
  20. Bliddal H, Leeds A, Christensen R. Exercise and weight loss in osteoarthritis management. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2021;17(3):123-132.
  21. Haak T, Zhang Q, Parkinson W, et al. Cognitive-behavioral therapy for patients with osteoarthritis: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Psychosom Med. 2020;82(8):703-712.
  22. Sowers M, Karvonen-Gutierrez C, Albrecht S. Obesity and osteoarthritis: Implications for prevention and management. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018;44(1):97-113.
  23. Smith L, Williams S, Campbell D, et al. Aerobic exercise improves pain and function in knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2025;33(1):56-68.
  24. Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Molenaar K, Verhagen A, et al. Exercise interventions for the knee in osteoarthritis: A systematic review. Rheumatology. 2020;59(3):517-527.
  25. Weller A, Sullivan E, Cavanagh S, et al. Weight loss strategies for knee osteoarthritis management. J Clin Rheumatol. 2019;25(4):147-154.
  26. Sharma L, Kapoor D, D‘Agostino M, et al. Joint protection strategies and assistive devices in osteoarthritis management: A practical review. Clin Rheumatol. 2018;37(10):2637-2644.
  27. Bassi L, Green H, Turner M. Telehealth and digital tools for osteoarthritis management: A review. J Rheumatol. 2022;49(2):268-276.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.