Dataset Information

Safety and efficacy of single CHAP Hyaluronan injection versus three injections of linear Hyaluronan in pain relief for knee osteoarthritis: a prospective, 52-week follow-up, randomized, evaluator-blinded study.

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.

SUBMITTER: Huang TL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8223367 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe therapeutic effects of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) are well documented in upper limb spasticity. However, several factors may influence treatment efficacy, including targeting of neuromuscular junctions (NMJs). We examined whether NMJ-targeted BoNT injections were non-inferior, in terms of efficacy, to current injection practices.DesignOpen-label prospective evaluator-blinded study.SettingConducted across 20 medical centres in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (24 September 2012 to 11 March 2015).ParticipantsAged ˃18 years with upper limb spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale [MAS] score of 2 or 3) following stroke or traumatic brain injury, had received ≥2 consecutive BoNT-A treatment cycles (the latest of which was abobotulinumtoxinA [aboBoNT-A]) and needed BoNT-A retreatment (same modality as previous cycle). Patients requiring aboBoNT-A doses >800units were excluded. In total, 88 patients were randomised (intention-to-treat [ITT] population), most were male (n=58/88, 65.9%) and 54/88 (61.4%) completed the study (per protocol [PP] population).InterventionsRandomisation (1:1) to receive a single dose of aboBoNT-A (≤800 U) according to either current clinical practice (300 U/mL) or as an NMJ-targeted injection (100 U/mL).Primary outcome measureProportion of patients with a ≥1 level reduction from baseline in MAS score at week 4 post-injection (responders).ResultsIn the ITT population, the proportion of responders at elbow flexors was 72.7% in the current practice group and 56.8% in the NMJ-targeted group (adjusted difference -0.1673 [95% CIs: -0.3630 to 0.0284]; p=0.0986). Similar results were observed in the PP population (69.0% vs 68.0%, respectively, adjusted difference 0.0707 [-0.1948 to 0.3362]; p=0.6052).ConclusionsOwing to the limited number of participants, non-inferiority of NMJ-targeted injections could not be determined. However, there was no statistical difference between groups. Larger studies are needed confirm whether the two techniques offer comparable efficacy.Trial registration numberNCT01682148.

Project description:IntroductionAphasia is a common language disorder acquired after stroke that reduces the quality of life of affected patients. The impairment is frequently accompanied by a deficit in cognitive functions. The state-of-the-art therapy is speech and language therapy but recent findings highlight positive effects of high-frequency therapy. Telerehabilitation has the potential to enable high-frequency therapy for patients at home. This study investigates the effects of high-frequency telerehabilitation speech and language therapy (teleSLT) on language functions in outpatients with aphasia compared with telerehabilitative cognitive training. We hypothesise that patients training with high-frequency teleSLT will show higher improvement in language functions and quality of life compared with patients with high-frequency tele-rehabilitative cognitive training (teleCT).Methods and analysisThis study is a randomised controlled, evaluator-blinded multicentre superiority trial comparing the outcomes following either high-frequency teleSLT or teleCT. A total of 100 outpatients with aphasia will be recruited and assigned in a 1:1 ratio stratified by trial site and severity of impairment to one of two parallel groups. Both groups will train over a period of 4 weeks for 2 hours per day. Patients in the experimental condition will devote 80% of their training time to teleSLT and the remaining 20% (24 min/day) to teleCT, vice versa for patients in the control condition. The primary outcome measure is the understandability of verbal communication on the Amsterdam Nijmegen Everyday Language Test and secondary outcome measures are intelligibility of the verbal communication, impairment of receptive and expressive language functions, confrontation naming. Other outcomes measures are quality of life and acceptance (usability and subjective experience) of the teleSLT system.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Ethics Committee Bern (ID 2016-01577). Results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03228264.

Project description:BackgroundThe ability of injection of corticosteroids into the subacromial space to relieve pain ascribed to rotator cuff tendinosis is debated. The number of patients who have an injection before one gets relief beyond what a placebo provides is uncertain.Questions/purposesWe asked: (1) Do corticosteroid injections reduce pain in patients with rotator cuff tendinosis 3 months after injection, and if so, what is the number needed to treat (NNT)? (2) Are multiple injections better than one single injection with respect to pain reduction at 3 months?MethodsWe systematically searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials of corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff tendinosis compared with a placebo injection. Eligible studies had at least 10 adults and used pain intensity as an outcome measure. The Hedges's g as adjusted pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) (which expresses the size of the intervention effect in each study relative to the total variability observed among pooled studies) and NNT were calculated at assessment points less than 1 month, 1-2 months, and 2-3 months. The protocol of this study was registered at the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Eleven studies of 726 patients satisfied our criteria for data pooling. Three studies containing 292 patients used repeat injections. A random effects model was used owing to substantial heterogeneity among studies. The funnel plot indicated the possibility of some missing studies, but Orwin's fail-safe N and Duval and Tweedie's trim and fill suggested that missing studies would not significantly affect the results.ResultsCorticosteroid injection did not reduce pain intensity in adult patients with rotator cuff tendinosis more than a placebo injection at the 3-month assessment. A small transient pain relief occurred at the assessment between 4 and 8 weeks with a SMD of 0.52 (range, 0.27-0.78) (p < 0.001). At least five patients must be treated for one patient's pain to be transiently reduced to no more than mild. Multiple injections were not found to be more effective than a single injection at any time.ConclusionsCorticosteroid injections provide-at best-minimal transient pain relief in a small number of patients with rotator cuff tendinosis and cannot modify the natural course of the disease. Given the discomfort, cost, and potential to accelerate tendon degeneration associated with corticosteroids, they have limited appeal. Their wide use may be attributable to habit, underappreciation of the placebo effect, incentive to satisfy rather than discuss a patient's drive toward physical intervention, or for remuneration, rather than their utility.Level of evidenceLevel I, therapeutic study.