...
首页> 外文期刊>Arthritis Research >Comparison of two hyaluronic acid formulations for safety and efficacy (CHASE) study in knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 26-week non-inferiority trial comparing Durolane to Artz
【24h】

Comparison of two hyaluronic acid formulations for safety and efficacy (CHASE) study in knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 26-week non-inferiority trial comparing Durolane to Artz

机译:比较两种透明质酸制剂在膝部骨关节炎中的安全性和有效性(CHASE)研究:一项多中心,随机,双盲,为期26周的非劣效性试验,比较了杜洛仑和Artz

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Introduction Intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) is often used as therapy for knee osteoarthritis because it is less expensive and less aggressive than total knee replacement. Therefore, it is important to document whether HA is safe and efficacious. We tested whether single and multiple injection viscosupplementation with HA is associated with clinically meaningful pain relief in a new randomized clinical trial (RCT). Our objective was to compare safety and efficacy of intra-articular HA in two formulations: one 3.0 ml injection of Durolane versus five 2.5 ml injections of Artz for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis pain. Methods Patients ( N =?349) from the People’s Republic of China were randomized to treatment (Durolane?=?175, Artz?=?174). The Durolane group received a 3.0 ml injection at week 0 (baseline), with sham skin punctures at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. The Artz group received one 2.5 ml injection at each of the same time points. The primary assessment tool was the Likert-type Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) pain scale at weeks 0, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 26. Secondary assessments were WOMAC physical function, knee stiffness, and global self-assessment, at identical time points. Statistically-controlled analyses were non-inferiority of Durolane over 18, then over 26 weeks, with a priori non-inferiority defined as 8% of the relevant scale. Acetaminophen was permitted as rescue analgesia and all adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results Overall study retention was excellent; 332 patients (95.1%) completed 18 weeks and 319 (91.4%) completed 26 weeks, with no significant retention difference between treatment arms. All variables met non-inferiority criteria over 18 and 26 weeks. Efficacy response in both arms was >90%. Treatment-related AEs were 9.8% (17/174) for Artz and 13.1% (23/175) for Durolane. Conclusions A single injection of Durolane is non-inferior to 5 injections of Artz over 18 and 26 weeks for pain, physical function, global self-assessment, and knee stiffness. Both treatments were efficacious, safe, and well tolerated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295580 . Registered 11 February 2011.
机译:简介关节内注射透明质酸(HA)通常被用作膝关节骨关节炎的治疗方法,因为与全膝关节置换术相比,这种方法便宜且缺乏攻击性。因此,重要的是要记录HA是否安全有效。在一项新的随机临床试验(RCT)中,我们测试了单次或多次HA注射增粘剂是否与具有临床意义的疼痛缓解相关。我们的目的是比较两种制剂中关节内HA的安全性和有效性:一剂3.0 ml的杜洛烷注射液与五剂2.5 ml的Artz注射液治疗膝盖骨关节炎疼痛。方法将来自中国的患者(N =?349)随机分配至治疗组(Durolane?=?175,Artz?=?174)。 Durolane组在第0周(基线)接受3.0 ml注射,在第1、2、3和4周进行假皮肤穿刺。Artz组在每个相同时间点接受一次2.5 ml注射。主要评估工具是第0、6、10、14、18和26周的Likert型西安大略和麦克马斯特大学(WOMAC)疼痛量表。次要评估是WOMAC的身体机能,膝盖僵硬和整体自我评估,在相同的时间点。统计学控制的分析是Durolane在18周内,26周内均未发生劣质性,先验非劣质性为相关量表的8%。允许使用醋氨酚作为抢救性镇痛药,并记录所有不良事件(AE)。结果总体研究保留率极高; 332例患者(95.1%)完成了18周,而319例患者(91.4%)完成了26周,各治疗组之间的保留率无显着差异。在18周和26周内,所有变量均符合非自卑标准。两组的疗效反应均> 90%。与治疗相关的AEs对于Artz为9.8%(17/174),而对于Durolane为13.1%(23/175)。结论在18周和26周内,单次注射Durolane不亚于5次Artz注射,其疼痛,身体机能,整体自我评估和膝盖僵硬。两种治疗均有效,安全且耐受性良好。试用注册ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01295580。 2011年2月11日注册。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号