Dataset Information

Evolution of pain at 3 months by oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL): protocol for a multicentre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Osteoarthritis (OA) pathophysiology is driven in part by joint inflammation. Resveratrol has in vitro anti-inflammatory properties. We aim to assess the efficacy of oral resveratrol for knee pain at 3 months in people with knee OA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Overall, 164 individuals with knee OA fulfilling 1986 American College of Rheumatology criteria will be recruited in three tertiary care centres in France and randomised to receive oral resveratrol, 40?mg (two caplets) two times per day for 1?week, then 20?mg (one caplet) two times per day or a matching placebo for a total of 6 months. Randomisation will be centralised and stratified by centre. The allocation ratio of assignments will be 1:1. The primary outcome will be the mean change from baseline in knee pain on a self-administered 11-point pain Numeric Rating Scale at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will be the mean change in knee pain at 6 months, the function subscore of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score, patient global assessment, proportion of responders according to the Osteoarthritis Research Society International-Outcome Measures in Rheumatology criteria at 3 and 6 months, and self-reported number of intra-articular injections of corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid and consumption of analgesics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs since the last contact. Other interventions will be allowed and self-reported. Adherence will be monitored by capsule counts and a booklet and adverse events recorded at 3 and 6 months. Statisticians, treating physicians and participants will be blinded to the allocated treatment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL) trial has been authorised by the AgenceNationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé and ethics were approved by the Comité deProtection des Personnes Île-de-France III. The findings of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at conferences. The design of ARTHROL will warrant the translation of its findings into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02905799. Pre-results. First received: 14 September 2016. Last updated: 16 September 2016. Status: not yet recruiting.

SUBMITTER: Nguyen C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5640106 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evolution of pain at 3 months by oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL): protocol for a multicentre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Nguyen Christelle C Boutron Isabelle I Baron Gabriel G Coudeyre Emmanuel E Berenbaum Francis F Poiraudeau Serge S Rannou François F

BMJ open 20170929 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Osteoarthritis (OA) pathophysiology is driven in part by joint inflammation. Resveratrol has in vitro anti-inflammatory properties. We aim to assess the efficacy of oral resveratrol for knee pain at 3 months in people with knee OA.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>We will conduct a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Overall, 164 individuals with knee OA fulfilling 1986 American College of Rheumatology criteria will be recruited in three tertiary care centres in Fra ...[more]

PMID: 28965100

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the morphine-sparing effects of the sequential treatment versus placebo in subjects undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the effects on pain relief, inflammation control and functional rehabilitation after TKA and safety.DesignDouble-blind, pragmatic, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.SettingFour tertiary hospitals in China.Participants246 consecutive patients who underwent elective unilateral TKA because of osteoarthritis (OA).InterventionsPatients were randomised 1:1 to the parecoxib/celecoxib group or the control group. The patients in the parecoxib/celecoxib group were supplied sequential treatment with intravenous parecoxib 40 mg (every 12 hours) for the first 3 days after surgery, followed by oral celecoxib 200 mg (every 12 hours) for up to 6 weeks. The patients in the control group were supplied with the corresponding placebo under the same instructions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was the cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks post operation (intention-to-treat analysis). Secondary endpoints included the Knee Society Score, patient-reported outcomes and the cumulative opioid consumption.ResultsThe cumulative opioid consumption at 2 weeks was significantly smaller in the parecoxib/celecoxib group than in the control group (median difference, 57.31 (95% CI 34.66 to 110.33)). The parecoxib/celecoxib group achieving superior Knee Society Scores and EQ-5D scores and greater Visual Analogue Scale score reduction during 6 weeks. Interleukin 6, erythrocyte sedation rate and C-reactive protein levels were reduced at 72 hours, 2 weeks and 4 weeks and prostaglandin E2 levels were reduced at 48 hours and 72 hours in the parecoxib/celecoxib group compared with the placebo group. The occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was significantly lower in the parecoxib/celecoxib group.ConclusionsThe sequential intravenous parecoxib followed by oral celecoxib regimen reduces morphine consumption, achieves better pain control and functional recovery and leads to less AEs than placebo after TKA for OA.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02198924).

Project description:BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2-24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18-50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16-17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13-16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13-16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and -1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·20 [97·5% CI -0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was -1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and -0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference -0·18 [97·5% CI -0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the efficacy and safety of chondroitin sulfate plus glucosamine hydrochloride (CS+GH) versus celecoxib in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe pain.MethodsDouble-blind Multicentre Osteoarthritis interVEntion trial with SYSADOA (MOVES) conducted in France, Germany, Poland and Spain evaluating treatment with CS+GH versus celecoxib in 606 patients with Kellgren and Lawrence grades 2-3 knee osteoarthritis and moderate-to-severe pain (Western Ontario and McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score ?301; 0-500 scale). Patients were randomised to receive 400 mg CS plus 500 mg GH three times a day or 200 mg celecoxib every day for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mean decrease in WOMAC pain from baseline to 6 months. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC function and stiffness, visual analogue scale for pain, presence of joint swelling/effusion, rescue medication consumption, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria and EuroQoL-5D.ResultsThe adjusted mean change (95% CI) in WOMAC pain was -185.7 (-200.3 to -171.1) (50.1% decrease) with CS+GH and -186.8 (-201.7 to -171.9) (50.2% decrease) with celecoxib, meeting the non-inferiority margin of -40: -1.11 (-22.0 to 19.8; p=0.92). All sensitivity analyses were consistent with that result. At 6 months, 79.7% of patients in the combination group and 79.2% in the celecoxib group fulfilled OMERACT-OARSI criteria. Both groups elicited a reduction >50% in the presence of joint swelling; a similar reduction was seen for effusion. No differences were observed for the other secondary outcomes. Adverse events were low and similarly distributed between groups.ConclusionsCS+GH has comparable efficacy to celecoxib in reducing pain, stiffness, functional limitation and joint swelling/effusion after 6 months in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis, with a good safety profile.Trial registration numberNCT01425853.

Dataset Information

Evolution of pain at 3 months by oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL): protocol for a multicentre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Publications

Evolution of pain at 3 months by oral resveratrol in knee osteoarthritis (ARTHROL): protocol for a multicentre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets