Dataset Information

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Stem Cell injections for symptomatic relief and strUctural improvement in people with Tibiofemoral knee OsteoaRthritis: protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial (the SCUlpTOR trial).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a highly prevalent disabling joint disease. Intra-articular stem cell therapy is increasingly being used for treating KOA with little high-quality evidence to support its use. The aim of this study is to investigate the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of allogeneic mesenchymal stem cells (Cymerus MSCs) for treating symptomatic tibiofemoral KOA and improving knee structure over 24 months.

Methods and analysis

The Stem Cell injections for symptomatic relief and strUctural improvement in people with Tibiofemoral knee OsteoaRthritis study is a phase III, multi-centre, parallel, superiority, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which will be conducted in Sydney and Hobart, Australia. 440 participants (220 per arm) aged over 40 years with painful KOA and mild to moderate structural change on X-ray (Kellgren and Lawrence grade 2 or 3) with medial minimum joint space width between 1 and 4 mm in the study knee will be recruited from the community and randomly allocated to receive either intra-articular MSCs or saline at baseline, week 3 and week 52. The coprimary outcomes will be the proportion of participants achieving patient-acceptable symptom state for knee pain at 24 months and quantitative central medial femorotibial compartment cartilage thickness change from baseline to 24 months. Main secondary outcomes include change in knee pain, Patient Global Assessment, physical function, quality of life and other structural changes. Additional data for cost-effectiveness analysis will also be recorded. Adverse events will be monitored throughout the study. The primary analysis will be conducted using modified intention-to-treat.

Ethics and dissemination

This protocol has been approved by The University of Sydney (USYD) Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) #: 2020/119 and The University of Tasmania (UTAS) HREC #: H0021868. All participants will be required to provide informed consent. Dissemination will occur through conferences, social media, and scientific publications.

Trial registration numbers

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12620000870954); U1111-1234-4897.

SUBMITTER: Liu X

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8633994 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWearable long-duration low-intensity ultrasound is an emerging non-invasive and non-narcotic therapy for the daily treatment of musculoskeletal pain. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to examine whether long-duration low-intensity ultrasound was effective in treating pain and improving function in patients with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsNinety patients with moderate to severe knee pain and radiographically confirmed knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade I/II) were randomized for treatment with active (n = 55) or placebo (n = 35) devices applied daily to the treated knee. Investigators and subjects were blinded to treatment groups. Ultrasound (3 MHz, 0.132 W/cm2, 1.3 W) was applied with a wearable device for 4 h daily for 6 weeks, delivering 18,720 J per treatment. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity (numeric rating scale) assessed prior to intervention (baseline) and after 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes of functional change were measured at baseline and after 6 weeks using the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Questionnaire (n = 84), along with range of motion (flexion, extension) and isometric muscle strength (flexion, extension and rotation) tests on the injured knee in a small pilot subset (n = 17).ResultsThe study had a 93% retention rate, and there were no significant differences between the groups regarding demographic variables or baseline outcome measures. Patients treated with active therapy observed a significant mean NRS pain reduction over the 6-week study of 1.96 points for active (p < 0.0001), compared with a 0.85 points reduction for placebo (p = 0.13). The functional score was also significantly improved by 505 points for the active group over the 311-point improvement for placebo group compared to baseline (p = 0.02). In the pilot subset evaluated, rotational strength increased from baseline to 6 weeks (3.2 N, p = 0.03); however, no other measures were significant.ConclusionsLong-duration low-intensity ultrasound significantly reduced pain and improved joint function in patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis knee pain. The clinical findings suggest that ultrasound may be used as a conservative non-pharmaceutical and non-invasive treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Additional research is warranted on non-weight bearing joints of the musculoskeletal system as well as extended treatment time frames and follow-up.Trial registrationNCT02083861, registered 11 March 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/results/NCT02083861.

Project description:Purpose ?The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical effects of HYADD® 4, an hydrogel based on a hyaluronic acid derivative, in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, on symptoms, and joint function. Methods ?This retrospective study of patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade II to IV knee osteoarthritis (American College of Rheumatology criteria) enrolled patients who had received two infiltrations of HYADD® 4, (24 mg/3 mL) 1?week apart, and evaluated: pain at rest, pain with movement, change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score; change in nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/acetaminophen use; satisfaction with therapy; tolerability. Study duration was 6 months for all predefined endpoints, with a 6-month extension for pain symptoms only. Results ?After 6 months, all predefined endpoints were evaluable in 698 of 937 enrolled patients (74.5%). Mean WOMAC scores were reduced by 56.3% from baseline ( p ?<?0.05). NSAIDs/acetaminophen use ?2 times/week (48.8% of patients at baseline) was substantially reduced after 1?month and was 19.6% after 6 months. After 6 months, 85.6% of patients were satisfied about efficacy. There were no significant adverse effects. The effect on resting pain was rapid, strong, and lasting: reduction from baseline was 45.1% at 1?month ( p ?<?0.05), 56.8% at 6 months ( p ?<?0.05), and 53.6% at 12 months ( p ?<?0.05). Pain on moving was reduced by 47.4% after 6 months ( p ?<?0.05) and 46.0% after 12 months ( p ?<?0.05), results at 6 and 12 months were similar. Conclusion ?HYADD® 4 is a new-generation hyaluronic acid with distinctive viscoelastic and rheological properties. In patients with mild-to-severe knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades II-IV), two consecutive infiltrations 1?week apart reduced WOMAC scores and NSAIDs/acetaminophen consumption for at least 6 months. In a subpopulation ( n ?=?106), efficacy on pain lasted approximately 12 months. Adverse events were reported in 11.2% of patients; the most frequent were arthralgias. No cases of allergic reactions or systemic effects were recorded. Level of Evidence ?Level IV, retrospective case series.

Project description:BackgroundIntra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.MethodsAll published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.ResultsIncluded were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (- 0.78 (- 1.34 to - 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and - 1.63 (- 2.14 to - 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (- 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).ConclusionsIA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.Prospero trial registration numberCRD42020181928 .

Project description:PurposeThere has been much debate regarding the use of intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as symptomatic treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The objective of this consensus was to develop guidelines for PRP injections in knee osteoarthritis according to the French National Authority for Health recommendations.MethodsFifteen physicians from different French-speaking countries (10 rheumatologists, 4 specialists in rehabilitation and sports medicine and 1 radiologist) were selected for their expertise in the areas of PRP and osteoarthritis. A comprehensive literature review was conducted on Medline including all published therapeutic trials, open studies, meta-analysis and systematic reviews focusing on the effects of PRP in knee OA, as well as fundamental studies concerning the characteristics of the various types of PRP and their mechanisms, indexed before April 2019. Using the method recommended by the French National Authority for Health inspired by the Delphi consensus process, 25 recommendations were finally retained and evaluated. The recommendations were classified as appropriate or not appropriate, with strong or relative agreement, or uncertain if a consensus was not achieved.ResultsAmong the 25 recommendations selected, the main ones are the following: (1) Intra-articular injections of PRP are an effective symptomatic treatment for early to moderate knee osteoarthritis. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a relative agreement (Median = 8; rank = 6-9). Level of evidence 1A. (2) A PRP treatment sequence in knee osteoarthritis may include 1-3 injections. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a strong agreement (Median = 9; rank = 7-9). Level of evidence 1A. (3) Leucocytes-poor PRP should be preferred in knee osteoarthritis. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a relative agreement (Median = 8; rank = 5-9). Level of evidence 5. (4) Intra-articular PRP knee injections should be performed under ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance. This recommendation was considered uncertain with no consensus (Median = 8; rank = 3-9). Level of evidence 5. (5) PRP should not be mixed with an anesthetic or intra-articular corticosteroid. This recommendation was considered appropriate with a relative agreement (Median = 9; rank = 6-9). Level of evidence 5 CONCLUSION: Those 25 recommendations should standardize and facilitate the use of IA PRP injections, which are considered by experts as an effective treatment especially in early or moderate knee OA. Although a strong or relative agreement from the experts was obtained for most of the recommendations, many of them had a very low level of evidence (Level 5) and were principally based on the clinical experience of the experts.