<b>PURPOSE: </b>To assess the efficacy and safety of one and two intra-articular (IA) injections of the new viscosupplement, hylastan, compared with a single IA corticosteroid injection for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (OA). Hylastan is a high-molecular-weight hyaluronan derivative prepared from bacterial fermented sodium hyaluronate that was developed to remain in the joint for longer than most other viscosupplements.<b>METHODS: </b>This 6-month, double-blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter trial enrolled patients aged ≥40 years who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee OA and had continued pain despite conservative treatment. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three arms: 2 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 129; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, same treatment Week 2); 1 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 130; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2); steroid (n = 132; arthrocentesis then IA methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2). Participants and evaluators were blinded to treatment. The primary clinical outcome measure was change from baseline in WOMAC A pain score over all postbaseline visits to Week 26.<b>RESULTS: </b>Statistically significant pain reduction was observed in all three arms, with similar mean (95 % CI) changes in WOMAC A: 2 × 4 mL hylastan -0.9 (-1.0, -0.7); 1 × 4 mL hylastan -0.8 (-0.9, -0.7); steroid -0.9 (-1.0, -0.8); all P < 0.0001 versus baseline. Changes in secondary outcomes (OMERACT-OARSI and WOMAC A responder rates, patient/clinical observer global assessments, and WOMAC A1 walking pain) were similar in all three arms. Target knee adverse events were comparable for all treatments.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>Both IA hylastan injection regimens were effective in relieving pain with an acceptable safety profile. IA hylastan did not show a difference versus IA corticosteroid; therefore, the hypothesis of superior pain relief was not met. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy and safety of hylastan with other viscosupplements.
Purpose: To determine the effect of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) on gait velocity, pain, and function, in older knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. Materials and methods: Thirty knee OA patients (Kellgren-Lawrence II-III) [72.44 (± 6.11) years old] were randomized, using the 'RANDBETWEEN' function in Microsoft Excel, to receive three weekly injections of HA (2 ml of 20 mg/ml HA), or placebo (P) (1.2 ml of 0.001 mg/ml HA), with fifteen participants per group. Patients and assessors were blind to treatment. Self-selected and fast gait velocities were measured with the GAITRite system. Knee pain, stiffness, and physical function were measured with the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis OA index (WOMAC OA index). Data from 1 week, 3 and 6 months post-treatment were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Results: The HA group significantly improved self-selected and fast gait velocity, while the P group only significantly improved self-selected gait velocity. Mean improvements in self-selected gait velocity [Mean (SD); 95% CI] [1.25 (52.4)cm/s; -18.38; 20.88] and fast gait velocity [7.16 (71.75)cm/s; -19.72; 34.04] were not significantly different between groups. Improvements in WOMAC pain scores were significantly greater in the HA group than the P group [-2.47 (6.39); -4.86; -0.08], while improvements in stiffness [-0.87 (2.42); -1.77; 0.04] and physical function [-7.23 (19.77); -14.63; 0.16] scores were not. Conclusions: The overall effect of HA on gait velocity in older knee OA patients was not significant compared to placebo. The preliminary results of improved fast gait velocity following HA treatment should be investigated further, along with the incidence of falls, in a larger sample of older knee OA patients.ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00778076.
<b>OBJECTIVE: </b>To compare the safety and efficacy of a single intra-articular (IA) injection of a new cross-linked hyaluronic acid product, Gel-200, with phosphate buffered saline (PBS, control) in a multi-center randomized controlled trial in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee.<b>DESIGN: </b>Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive a single injection of Gel-200 or PBS, after joint aspiration. The primary measure of effectiveness was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscores by 100-mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS); secondary outcomes included: total WOMAC, physical function, and stiffness subscores; patient and physician global assessments of disease activity, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) strict responders, as well as safety of Gel-200.<b>RESULTS: </b>Of 379 patients randomized, safety was evaluated in 377 and efficacy in 375 (98.9% randomized) in the intent-to-treat population. Effectiveness of Gel-200 by WOMAC pain subscores was statistically significant at week 13 (P=0.037). Mean improvements from baseline in WOMAC pain subscores consistently favored Gel-200 at each visit. Effectiveness of Gel-200 treatment was statistically significant over weeks 3-13 by WOMAC total score, physical function, and physician global evaluations (P<0.05). The number of "strict" OMERACT-OARSI responders was statistically significant from weeks 6 to 13 (P=0.022). Adverse events were not significantly different between treatment groups, including serious adverse events considered related to study treatment.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>This trial demonstrated that a single injection of Gel-200 was well tolerated and relieved pain associated with symptomatic OA of the knee over 13 weeks.<b>Trial Registration Number: </b>ClinicalTrials.gov NTC 00449696.
<b>BACKGROUND: </b>The efficacy and tolerability of 500-730 kDa sodium hyaluronate (Hyalgan®) for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) pain has been established in clinical trials, but few data are available in the Asian population. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of this preparation in a Taiwanese population.<b>METHODS: </b>Two hundred patients with mild to moderate OA of the knee were randomized to receive five weekly intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the change from baseline to Week 25 in patients' evaluation of pain using a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) during the 50-foot walking test. Additional outcomes included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores, time on the 50-foot walking test, patient's and investigator's subjective assessment of effectiveness, acetaminophen consumption, and the amounts of synovial fluid.<b>RESULTS: </b>The Hyalgan® treatment group showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline to Week 25 in VAS pain on the 50-foot walking test than the placebo group (p = 0.0020). The Hyalgan® group revealed significant improvements from baseline to week 25 in WOMAC pain and function score than the placebo group (p = 0.005 and 0.0038, respectively) Other outcomes, such as time on the 50-foot walking test and subjective assessment of effectiveness, did not show any significant difference between groups. Both groups were safe and well tolerated.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>The present study suggests that five weekly intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate are well tolerated, can provide sustained relief of pain, and can improve function in Asian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.<b>Trial Registration: </b>Therapeutic study, Level I-1a (randomized controlled trial with a significant difference).
OBJECTIVE: AMELIA (OsteoArthritis Modifying Effects of Long-term Intra-articular Adant) was designed to compare against placebo the efficacy and safety of repeated injections of hyaluronic acid (HA) and its effect on disease progression over 40 months.
METHODS: A multicentre, randomised, patient and evaluator-blinded, controlled study in 306 patients fulfilling American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee osteoarthritis, radiological grades II-III (Kellgren-Lawrence) and joint space width ≥ 2 mm. Patients received four cycles of five intra-articular HA or placebo injections with a follow-up of 6 months after the first and second cycles, and 1 year after the third and fourth cycles. Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2004 responder criteria were used to assess efficacy. The consumption of rescue medication was a secondary outcome. Adverse events were recorded for safety purposes.
RESULTS: At the 40-month visit significantly more patients responded to HA compared with placebo (OARSI 2004, p=0.004). The number of responders to HA increased through the study, whereas those to placebo did not change. Significant differences were also found in favour of HA for each individual component of the OARSI 2004. No safety problems were recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of AMELIA offer pioneer evidence that repeated cycles of intra-articular injections of HA not only improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms during the in-between cycle period but also exert a marked carry-over effect for at least 1 year after the last cycle. In this respect, it is not possible to establish if this carry-over effect reflects true osteoarthritis remission or just a modification of the disease's natural course. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00669032.
Objectives: The primary objective was to compare a single, 6 ml, intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 with placebo in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. The safety of a repeat injection of hylan G-F 20 was also assessed. Methods: Patients with primary osteoarthritis knee pain were randomly assigned to arthrocentesis plus a 6 ml intra-articular injection of either hylan G-F 20 or placebo in a prospective, double-blind (one injector/one blinded observer) study. Results were evaluated at 4, 8, 12, 18 and 26 weeks post-injection. The primary outcome criterion was change from baseline over 26 weeks in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index A pain. Secondary outcome measures included WOMAC A1 and C, patient global assessment (PGA) and clinical observer global assessment (COGA) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, Osteoarthritis Research Society International responder rates. A 4-week, open, repeat treatment phase evaluated safety only. Results: A total of 253 patients (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III) was randomly assigned. Patients receiving hylan G-F 20 experienced statistically significantly greater improvements in WOMAC A pain scores (20.15, SE 0.076, p = 0.047), and several of the secondary outcome measures (WOMAC A1, PGA and COGA), than patients receiving placebo. There was no difference between the safety results of the two groups. No increased risk of local adverse events was observed in the open, repeat treatment phase. Conclusions: This placebo-controlled study demonstrated that, in patients with knee osteoarthritis, a single 6 ml intra-articular injection of hylan G-F 20 is safe and effective in providing statistically significant, clinically relevant pain relief over 26 weeks, with a modest difference versus placebo. Trial registration number: NCT00131352.
ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To assess prospectively the efficacy and tolerability of hylan G-F 20 (HG-F 20; Synvisc) and intraarticular triamcinolone hexacetonide (TH; Aristospan) for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) knee pain in a 26 week, randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blind study. METHODS: Patients with OA were treated with typical regimens of HG-F 20 (n = 113) and TH (n = 102). Primary assessments were the WOMAC question A1 (pain walking on a flat surface), and a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) for patient and investigator overall assessments. Total WOMAC and WOMAC domain C (function) scores were also assessed. The intent-to-treat population was analyzed using a last-observation carried forward approach. RESULTS: Maximum pain relief occurred at 1-2 weeks for TH and at Week 12 for HG-F 20. At Weeks 12 and 26, HG-F 20 was significantly better than TH for the WOMAC question A1 responses (p = 0.0071 and p = 0.0129, respectively), and patient VAS (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001) and investigator VAS (p < 0.0300 and p = 0.0004) assessments. Similar significant (p < 0.01) results were observed at Weeks 12 and 26 for total WOMAC and domain C scores. While 15 TH-treated patients discontinued the study due to lack of efficacy, none did so with HG-F 20 treatment (p < 0.01). Both agents were well tolerated with similar adverse event profiles. CONCLUSION: Viscosupplementation with HG-F 20 resulted in a longer duration of effect than TH with a comparable tolerability profile. These data support the preferential use of HG-F 20 over TH for treatment of chronic OA knee pain.
OBJECTIVE: Non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA) is a novel hyaluronan (HA) preparation with a 4-week intra-articular half-life. This study compared the efficacy of a single injection of NASHA with placebo in patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. DESIGN: This was a 26-week randomized, double-blind, multicenter study of a single intra-articular knee injection with either NASHA or placebo (saline). Assessments included the Western Ontario McMasters Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC, Likert Scale) and patients' overall global disease status. A positive response was defined as a reduction in WOMAC pain score for the study knee of 40% from baseline with a minimum improvement of > or =5 points. RESULTS: A total of 346 (NASHA 172; placebo 174) patients were treated. WOMAC scores and quality of life were improved in both the NASHA and placebo groups. For the overall population, there were no statistically significant between-group differences in response rates for any efficacy parameters. In patients with OA confined to the knee (N=216), a greater response to NASHA than placebo was observed at week 6 (P=0.025). There were few treatment-related events. CONCLUSIONS: NASHA was not superior to placebo for the primary efficacy analysis. However, these data may be confounded by the inclusion of patients with OA at other sites, as significant benefits over placebo were found among patients with OA confined to the knee. Future trials of OA that examine a local therapy might need to consider restricting the study population to those patients having OA of only the signal joint.
To assess the efficacy and safety of one and two intra-articular (IA) injections of the new viscosupplement, hylastan, compared with a single IA corticosteroid injection for pain due to knee osteoarthritis (OA). Hylastan is a high-molecular-weight hyaluronan derivative prepared from bacterial fermented sodium hyaluronate that was developed to remain in the joint for longer than most other viscosupplements.
METHODS:
This 6-month, double-blind, randomized, parallel group, multicenter trial enrolled patients aged ≥40 years who met American College of Rheumatology criteria for knee OA and had continued pain despite conservative treatment. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to one of three arms: 2 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 129; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, same treatment Week 2); 1 × 4 mL hylastan (n = 130; arthrocentesis then IA hylastan Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2); steroid (n = 132; arthrocentesis then IA methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg Day 0, arthrocentesis only Week 2). Participants and evaluators were blinded to treatment. The primary clinical outcome measure was change from baseline in WOMAC A pain score over all postbaseline visits to Week 26.
RESULTS:
Statistically significant pain reduction was observed in all three arms, with similar mean (95 % CI) changes in
WOMAC A:
2 × 4 mL hylastan -0.9 (-1.0, -0.7); 1 × 4 mL hylastan -0.8 (-0.9, -0.7); steroid -0.9 (-1.0, -0.8); all P < 0.0001 versus baseline. Changes in secondary outcomes (OMERACT-OARSI and WOMAC A responder rates, patient/clinical observer global assessments, and WOMAC A1 walking pain) were similar in all three arms. Target knee adverse events were comparable for all treatments.
CONCLUSIONS:
Both IA hylastan injection regimens were effective in relieving pain with an acceptable safety profile. IA hylastan did not show a difference versus IA corticosteroid; therefore, the hypothesis of superior pain relief was not met. Further research is needed to compare the efficacy and safety of hylastan with other viscosupplements.
