scholarly journals Randomised, double-blind comparison of a fixed co-formulation of intra-articular polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid versus hyaluronic acid alone in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: two-year follow-up

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Stagni ◽  
Martina Rocchi ◽  
Alessandro Mazzotta ◽  
Nicolandrea Del Piccolo ◽  
Nicola Rani ◽  
...  

Abstract Background A first-year interim analysis of this two-year study suggested that intra-articular injections of highly purified, natural-origin polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid (HA) as a fixed combination (PNHA) might improve knee function and joint pain more effectively than HA alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). The purpose of the second-year analysis herein described was to verify whether the first-year interim outcomes persist over the whole two-year period. Methods Randomised, double-blind, HA-controlled clinical trial in 100 knee OA patients (98 randomised, 79 completing the study) in a high-specialisation tertiary care setting. The hypothesised difference of efficacy between PNHA and HA for the original sample size estimate is 20%. Treatment cycle: three intra-articular knee injections of either PNHA or HA, at baseline and weekly for two weeks. Evaluations: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score and Knee Society Score (KSS) as, respectively, primary and secondary endpoints, evaluated at baseline and after 2, 6, 12, and 24 months; synovial fluid levels of mediators (at baseline and the end of the treatment cycle). Adverse effects investigated at each control visit. Statistical analysis: Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples (nonparametric one-way analysis of variance) after correction of means for age, Body Mass Index and Kellgren-Lawrence grade. If significant, pairwise post-hoc Sidak multiple comparisons. Results KSS total score and KSS pain item: significant improvement in both groups, with significantly more pain improvement in patients treated with PNHA (2-point reduction) than HA (1-point reduction). Both groups experienced significant long-term reductions in WOMAC total scores: significantly stronger in PNHA-treated patients after 24 months with a steady difference of 16% favouring PNHA in WOMAC pain subscore. No clinically significant adverse events in either group. Conclusions The outcomes of the 2-year study confirmed that a short cycle of intra-articular treatment (3 weekly double-blind injections) with polynucleotides (long-acting viscosupplementation properties, chondrocyte activation, pain-relieving properties) in fixed combination with high molecular weight hyaluronic acid is more effective in improving knee function and pain in knee OA patients than HA alone. PNHA may be elective for viscosupplementation in knee OA patients with fastidious and resistant pain and worsening disease. Trial registration NCT02417610. Registration, 15/04/2015. ClinicalTrials.gov database link:

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Stagni ◽  
Martina Rocchi ◽  
Alessandro Mazzotta ◽  
Nicolandrea Del Piccolo ◽  
Nicola Rani ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: A first-year interim analysis of this two-year study suggested that intra-articular injections of highly purified, natural-origin polynucleotides and hyaluronic acid (HA) as a fixed combination (PNHA) might improve knee function and joint pain more effectively than HA alone in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose of the second-year analysis herein described was verifying whether the first-year interim outcomes persist over the whole two-year period. Methods: Randomised, double-blind, HA-controlled clinical trial in 100 knee OA patients (98 randomised, 69 completing the study) in a high-specialisation tertiary care setting. The hypothesised difference of efficacy between PNHA and HA for the original sample size estimate is 20%. Treatment cycle: 3 weekly intra-articular knee injections of either PNHA or HA. Evaluations: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) score and Knee Society Score (KSS) as, respectively, primary and secondary endpoints, evaluated at baseline and after 2, 6, 12, and 24 months; synovial fluid levels of proinflammatory mediators (biochemical and immunoenzymatic assays at baseline and the end of the treatment cycle). Adverse effects investigated at each control visit. Statistical analysis: Kruskal-Wallis test for independent samples (nonparametric one-way analysis of variance) after correction of means for age, Body Mass Index and Kellgren-Lawrence grade. If significant, pairwise post-hoc Sidak multiple comparisons. Results: KSS total score and KSS pain item: significant improvement in both groups, with significantly more pain improvement in patients treated with PNHA (2-point reduction) than HA (1-point reduction). Both groups experienced significant long-term reductions in WOMAC total scores: significantly stronger in PNHA-treated patients after 24 months with a steady difference of 16% favouring PNHA in WOMAC pain subscore. No clinically significant adverse events in either group. Conclusions: The outcomes of the 2-year study confirmed that a short cycle of intra-articular treatment (3 weekly double-blind injections) with polynucleotides (long-acting viscosupplementation properties, pro-trophic activity on chondrocytes, pain-relieving properties) in fixed combination with high molecular weight hyaluronic acid is more effective in improving knee function and pain in knee OA patients than HA alone. PNHA may be elective for viscosupplementation in knee OA patients with fastidious and resistant pain, signs of inflammation or worsening disease.


2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teng-Le Huang ◽  
Chun-Hao Tsai

Abstract Background The hyaluronic acid (HA) injections are widely used in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. We conducted the study comparing the efficacy and safety of single injection of Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Platform Hyaluronan (CHAP-HA) with 3-injection of linear hyaluronan in knee OA patients. Methods This was a randomized two-arms, evaluator-blinded, controlled, single-center study. Participants with knee OA received single CHAP-HA or three-injection of linear-HA. The 140 patients aged 35–85 years with radiographically confirmed knee OA were enrolled. At week 4, 12, 26, 39, and 52, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, timed up and go (TUG) and subject’s adverse events (AE) of these 2 groups were recorded. Primary outcome of the differences of VAS pain score at week 26 between groups was analyzed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). At week 52, those who met the inclusion criteria could receive a CHAP-HA injection and being followed-up for the adverse events for 4 weeks. Results The trial was conducted from September 2015 to April 2017. A total 140 subjects were available for analysis (71 in the CHAP-HA group and 69 in the linear-HA group). At 26th week, there were significant more improvements in VAS pain scores in CHAP-HA compared with linear-HA. Both CHAP-HA and linear-HA showed significant improvements in the VAS pain score at week 26 compared with the baseline, and the occurrence of adverse events during the study period showed no between-group difference. In subjects with KL = 2, both groups showed significant improvements in VAS pain scores within 26 weeks. In patients with KL = 3, only CHAP-HA group showed significant improvement in VAS pain from 4 to 39 weeks. No unexpected or severe AEs were reported. Conclusions A single injection of CHAP-HA may be safe and more effective for 26 weeks in patients with knee OA by comparing to linear-HA; moreover, the pain relief effect of CHAP-HA may remain until 52 weeks. For patients with more severe OA, CHAP-HA was demonstrated to be more preferable to relieve OA pain. Furthermore, repeat treatment of CHAP-HA or using CHAP-HA after a three-injection HA was proved to be safe. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03643588. Date: August 23, 2018 (retrospectively registered). Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toshiyuki Tashiro ◽  
Satoshi Seino ◽  
Toshihide Sato ◽  
Ryosuke Matsuoka ◽  
Yasunobu Masuda ◽  
...  

This study was conducted to investigate the efficacy of oral hyaluronic acid (HA) administration for osteoarthritis (OA) in knee joints. Sixty osteoarthritic subjects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3) were randomly assigned to the HA or placebo group. The subjects in the HA group were given 200 mg of HA once a day everyday for 12 months, while the subjects in the placebo group were given placebo. The subjects in both groups were requested to conduct quadriceps strengthening exercise everyday as part of the treatment. The subjects’ symptoms were evaluated by the Japanese Knee Osteoarthritis Measure (JKOM) score. The symptoms of the subjects as determined by the JKOM score improved with time in both the HA and placebo groups. This improvement tended to be more obvious with the HA group, and this trend was more obvious with the subjects aged 70 years or less. For these relatively younger subjects, the JKOM score was significantly better than the one for the placebo group at the 2nd and 4th months after the initiation of administration. Oral administration of HA may improve the symptoms of knee OA in patients aged 70 years or younger when combined with the quadriceps strengthening exercise.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 232596711989790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Miller ◽  
Michael Fredericson ◽  
Roy D. Altman

Background: Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) injections and oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are common treatments for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the comparative effects of these treatments are unclear. Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of intra-articular HA injections compared with oral NSAIDs for the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized trials of knee OA treatment with HA injections compared with oral NSAIDs. The main outcomes were knee pain, knee function, adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, study withdrawals, and study withdrawals because of AEs. Pooled effect sizes were reported at the final follow-up with standardized mean difference (SMD) for efficacy outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for safety outcomes. Results: In 6 randomized trials of 831 patients (414 HA, 417 NSAIDs), with follow-up ranging from 5 to 26 weeks, HA injections were associated with small, statistically significant improvements in knee pain (SMD, 0.15; P = .04) and knee function (SMD, 0.23; P = .01) compared with oral NSAIDs. The risk of AEs was lower with HA compared with NSAIDs (19.8% vs 29.0%; RR, 0.74; P = .01). The risk of a serious AE (RR, 1.37; P = .71), study withdrawal (RR, 1.05; P = .68), or study withdrawal because of an AE (RR, 0.65; P = .22) was comparable between groups. Gastrointestinal concerns were the most frequent AE reported, occurring more often with NSAIDs (23.4% vs 14.1%; P = .001). AEs reported more frequently with HA injections were injection site pain (11.7% vs 4.7%; P < .001), headache (8.4% vs 4.4%; P = .03), and arthralgia (8.1% vs 2.9%; P = .001). Significant heterogeneity or publication bias was not observed for any outcome. Conclusion: Comparing short-term outcomes of HA injections with oral NSAIDs for treatment of knee OA, HA injections provided statistically significant but not clinically important improvements in knee pain and function, along with a lower overall risk of AEs.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. e024065 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Gudbergsen ◽  
Marius Henriksen ◽  
Eva Ejlersen Wæhrens ◽  
Anders Overgaard ◽  
Henning Bliddal ◽  
...  

IntroductionWith an increasing prevalence of citizens of older age and with overweight, the health issues related to knee osteoarthritis (OA) will intensify. Weight loss is considered a primary management strategy in patients with concomitant overweight and knee OA. However, there are no widely available and feasible methods to sustain weight loss in patients with overweight and knee OA. The present protocol describes a randomised controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist liraglutide in a 3 mg/day dosing in patients with overweight and knee OA.Methods and analysis150 volunteer adult patients with overweight or obesity and knee OA will participate in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and single-centre trial. The participants will partake in a run-in diet intervention phase (week −8 to 0) including a low calorie diet and dietetic counselling. At week 0, patients will be randomised to either liraglutide 3 mg/day or liraglutide placebo 3 mg/day for 52 weeks as an add-on to dietetic guidance on re-introducing regular foods and a focus on continued motivation to engage in a healthy lifestyle. The co-primary outcomes are changes in body weight and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale from week 0 to week 52.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by the regional ethics committee in the Capital Region of Denmark, the Danish Medicines Agency and the Danish Data Protection Agency. An external monitoring committee (The Good Clinical Practice Unit at Copenhagen University Hospitals) will oversee the trial. The results will be presented at international scientific meetings and through publications in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numbers2015-005163-16,NCT02905864, U1111-1171-4970Based on protocol versionV.6; 30 January 2017, 15:30 hours


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (11) ◽  
pp. 1143-1154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Farr ◽  
Andreas H. Gomoll ◽  
Adam B. Yanke ◽  
Eric J. Strauss ◽  
Katie C. Mowry ◽  
...  

AbstractPlacental-derived tissues are a known source of anti-inflammatory and immune modulating factors. Published pilot data on amniotic suspension allograft (ASA) for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) demonstrated safety and trends for improved pain and function. A multicenter randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy of symptom modulation with ASA compared with saline and hyaluronic acid (HA) in subjects with knee OA. A total of 200 subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to ASA, HA, or saline, with subjects blinded to their allocation. Changes from baseline of patient-reported outcomes (PROs)—EQ-5D-5L, Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), visual analog scale (VAS), Tegner, and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE)—were compared between groups. Patients reporting unacceptable pain at 3 months were considered treatment failures and withdrawn from the study. Statistical analysis was completed by comparing changes in PROs from baseline to 3 and 6 months for all groups. Comparison of demographics between treatment groups showed no significant differences between groups. Patients reporting unacceptable pain at 3 months in each group were ASA (13.2%), HA (68.8%), and saline (75%). Patients receiving ASA demonstrated significantly greater improvements from baseline for overall pain (VAS), KOOS pain, and KOOS-activities of daily living scores compared with those in the HA group (3 months) and both groups (6 months). ASA patients had significantly greater improvements in KOOS symptom scores compared with HA and saline at 3 and 6 months, respectively. OMERACT-OARSI responder rates for ASA, HA, and saline groups were 69.1, 39.1, and 42.6%, respectively (p = 0.0007). Subjects receiving ASA treatment showed greater improvements in PROs and fewer patients reported unacceptable pain compared with HA and saline. The evidence presented in this Level I Randomized Controlled Trial suggests that ASA injection is an effective treatment for the nonoperative management of symptomatic knee OA.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document