17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A phase I–II controlled randomized trial using a promising novel cell-free formulation for articular cartilage regeneration as treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the knee

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          A promising novel cell-free bioactive formulation for articular cartilage regeneration, called BIOF2, has recently been tested in pre-clinical trials. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of BIOF2 for intra-articular application in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee.

          Methods

          A prospective, randomized, 3-arm, parallel group clinical trial was conducted. It included 24 patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee (WOMAC score 65.9 ± 17). Before they entered the study, all the patients were under osteoarthritis control through the standard treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), prescribed by their family physician. Patients were distributed into three groups of 8 patients each (intra-articular BIOF2, total joint arthroplasty, or conservative treatment with NSAIDs alone). The WOMAC score, RAPID3 score, and Rasmussen clinical score were evaluated before treatment and at months 3, 6, and 12. BIOF2 was applied at months 0, 3, and 6. Complete blood count and blood chemistry parameters were determined in the BIOF2 group before treatment, at 72 h, and at months 1, 3, 6, and 12. In addition, articular cartilage volume was evaluated (according to MRI) at the beginning of the study and at month 12.

          Results

          The NSAID group showed no improvement at follow-up. Arthroplasty and BIOF2 treatments showed significant improvement in all the scoring scales starting at month 3. There were no statistically significant differences between the BIOF2 group and the arthroplasty group at month 6 (WOMAC score: 19.3 ± 18 vs 4.3 ± 5; P = 0.24) or month 12 (WOMAC score: 15.6 ± 15 vs 15.7 ± 17; P = 1.0). Arthroplasty and BIOF2 were successful at month 12 (according to a WOMAC score: ≤ 16) in 75% of the patients and the daily use of NSAIDs was reduced, compared with the group treated exclusively with NSAIDs (RR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.12–0.87, P = 0.02. This result was the same for BIOF2 vs NSAIDs and arthroplasty vs NSAIDs). BIOF2 significantly increased the articular cartilage by 22% (26.1 ± 10 vs 31.9 ± 10 cm 2, P < 0.001) and produced a significant reduction in serum lipids. BIOF2 was well tolerated, causing slight-to-moderate pain only upon application.

          Conclusions

          The intra-articular application of the new bioactive cell-free formulation (BIOF2) was well tolerated and showed no significative differences with arthroplasty for the treatment of severe osteoarthritis of the knee. BIOF2 can regenerate articular cartilage and is an easily implemented alternative therapy for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

          Trial registration Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials (RPCEC) Database RPCEC00000250. Registered 08/15/2017—Retrospectively registered, http://rpcec.sld.cu/en/trials/RPCEC00000250-En.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s40001-018-0349-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Current research on pharmacologic and regenerative therapies for osteoarthritis

          Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative joint disorder commonly encountered in clinical practice, and is the leading cause of disability in elderly people. Due to the poor self-healing capacity of articular cartilage and lack of specific diagnostic biomarkers, OA is a challenging disease with limited treatment options. Traditional pharmacologic therapies such as acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioids are effective in relieving pain but are incapable of reversing cartilage damage and are frequently associated with adverse events. Current research focuses on the development of new OA drugs (such as sprifermin/recombinant human fibroblast growth factor-18, tanezumab/monoclonal antibody against β-nerve growth factor), which aims for more effectiveness and less incidence of adverse effects than the traditional ones. Furthermore, regenerative therapies (such as autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), new generation of matrix-induced ACI, cell-free scaffolds, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells or iPSCs), and endogenous cell homing) are also emerging as promising alternatives as they have potential to enhance cartilage repair, and ultimately restore healthy tissue. However, despite currently available therapies and research advances, there remain unmet medical needs in the treatment of OA. This review highlights current research progress on pharmacologic and regenerative therapies for OA including key advances and potential limitations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Disease-modifying treatments for osteoarthritis (DMOADs) of the knee and hip: lessons learned from failures and opportunities for the future.

            Osteoarthritis (OA) is the biggest unmet medical need among the many musculoskeletal conditions and the most common form of arthritis. It is a major cause of disability and impaired quality of life in the elderly. We review several ambitious but failed attempts to develop joint structure-modifying treatments for OA. Insights gleaned from these attempts suggest that these failures arose from unrealistic hypotheses, sub-optimal selection of patient populations or drug dose, and/or inadequate sensitivity of the trial endpoints. The long list of failures has prompted a paradigm shift in OA drug development with redirection of attention to: (1) consideration of the benefits of localized vs systemic pharmacological agents, as indicated by the increasing number of intra-articularly administered compounds entering clinical development; (2) recognition of OA as a complex disease with multiple phenotypes, that may each require somewhat different approaches for optimizing treatment; and (3) trial enhancements based on guidance regarding biomarkers provided by regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that could be harnessed to help turn failures into successes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Knee Osteoarthritis Injection Choices: Platelet- Rich Plasma (PRP) Versus Hyaluronic Acid (A one-year randomized clinical trial)

              INTRODUCTION Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common articular disease. Different methods are used to alleviate the symptoms of patients with knee OA, including analgesics, physical therapy, exercise prescription, and intra-articular injections (glucocorticoids, hyaluronic acid [HA], etc). New studies have focused on modern therapeutic methods that stimulate cartilage healing process and improve the damage, including the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a complex of growth factors. Due to the high incidence of OA and its consequences, we decided to study the long-term effect of intraarticular injection of PRP and HA on clinical outcome and quality of life of patients with knee OA. METHOD This non-placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial involved 160 patients affected by knee OA, grade 1–4 of Kellgren–Lawrence scale. In the PRP group (n = 87), two intra-articular injections at 4-week interval were applied, and in the HA group (n = 73), three doses of intra-articular injection at 1-week interval were applied. All patients were prospectively evaluated before and at 12 months after the treatment by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and SF-36 questionnaires. The results were analyzed using SPSS 16.1 software (RCT code: IRCT2014012113442N5). RESULTS At the 12-month follow-up, WOMAC pain score and bodily pain significantly improved in both groups; however, better results were determined in the PRP group compared to the HA group (P < 0.001). Other WOMAC and SF-36 parameters improved only in the PRP group. More improvement (but not statistically significant) was achieved in patients with grade 2 OA in both the groups. CONCLUSION This study suggests that PRP injection is more efficacious than HA injection in reducing symptoms and improving quality of life and is a therapeutic option in select patients with knee OA who have not responded to conventional treatment.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +52 55 1826 6051 , bpaz@esteripharma.com.mx
                Journal
                Eur J Med Res
                Eur. J. Med. Res
                European Journal of Medical Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                0949-2321
                2047-783X
                24 October 2018
                24 October 2018
                2018
                : 23
                : 52
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Instituto Estatal de Cancerologia, Colima State Health Services, 28000 Colima, Mexico
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2375 8971, GRID grid.412887.0, School of Medicine, , University of Colima, ; 28030 Colima, Mexico
                [3 ]Centro Hospitalario Union, Villa de Álvarez, 28970 Colima, Mexico
                [4 ]Hospital Regional Universitario, Colima State Health Services, 28019 Colima, Mexico
                [5 ]Hospital General de Zona No. 1 IMSS, Villa de Álvarez, 28983 Colima, Mexico
                [6 ]Esteripharma México, S.A. de C.V, Patricio Sanz 1582, Colonia del Valle Centro, 03100 Ciudad de México, Mexico
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2203 0321, GRID grid.411455.0, School of Biological Sciences, , Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, ; 64460 Monterrey, Nuevo León Mexico
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2105 1788, GRID grid.412865.c, Molecular Medicine Laboratory, Academic Unit of Human Medicine and Health Sciences, , Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, ; 98160 Zacatecas, Mexico
                [9 ]Foundation for Cancer Ethics, Education and Research of the Cancerology State Institute, 28085 Colima, Mexico
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9848-862X
                Article
                349
                10.1186/s40001-018-0349-2
                6199741
                30355362
                5abce2bc-3e20-42cf-aa36-fefd80e85bab
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 16 March 2018
                : 15 October 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: INFRAESTRUCTURA CONACYT 2016
                Award ID: 270485
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FOSISS CONACYT 2016
                Award ID: 272792
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Medicine
                osteoarthritis,knee,treatment,cartilage regeneration,chondrocytes,stem cell,clinical trial,arthroplasty,nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,mesenchymal cells,chondrogenesis

                Comments

                Comment on this article