The objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of intra-articular injections of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) vs hyaluronic acid (HA) for symptomatic early osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip. Secondarily, this study aims to determine the feasibility and safety of treating early OA of the hip with HA and PRP.
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common, painful condition affect adults and causes mobility disability in the United States and Europe. Unfortunately, there is no agents available that halt OA progression. Analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have suboptimal effectiveness, and there is concern of systemic side effects. A large challenge is the development of appropriate and effective therapy in patients with OA. Currently, the most suitable route for administering OA therapy appears to be intra-articular injections that allow accumulation of critical doses of the drug within the damaged area and also reduce the risk of systemic side effects. The primary objective of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy of intra-articular injections of Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) vs. Hyaluronic Acid for symptomatic early OA of the hip. Secondarily, the study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of both medications delivered. Patients, which meet inclusion criteria, are confirmed eligible, and agree to enroll in the study, would be randomized and treated with either three intra-articular PRP injections or three intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid injections. If the patient has OA in both hips, they will be randomized to receive the same injection in both hips. The Primary investigator will be unblinded to the treatment that the subject is randomized to. The PI will only be involved in the initial assessment of the patient and the actual injections. All of the follow up visits, clinical assessments and outcome scores will be performed by the sub-investigator, who will also be the examining physician. The sub-investigator will be blinded to the treatment throughout the study. All of the study subjects will be blinded to which treatment that they are assigned to. Physical exams will be performed to assess range of motion of the hip joint. The difference in ranges of motion will be statistically compared at different time points between the two groups to determine the difference in improvement between the two compared to baseline. The primary efficacy outcome will be defined as the percentage of patients having a 50% decrease in the summed score for the WOMAC pain subscale from baseline to week 24. We will measure this outcome by applying the WOMAC questionnaire compared with baseline therapy. The secondary efficacy outcomes will also include IHOT and Non Arthritic Hip Score. An anterior posterior hip radiograph will be performed at 12 months and 24 months to assess Kellgren-Classification and compared to baseline.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE
Enrollment
38
Each PRP preparation requires a total of 36 ml of peripheral blood. This will be obtained via venapuncture and collected in four 9 ml extraction tubes containing 3.8% sodium citrate. The tubes are then centrifuged at 640 rpm for 8 minutes at room temperature. The 1ml plasma fraction located above the buffy coat is aspirated from each tube and dispensed into the fractioning tube. The entire PRP process takes place under laminar airflow. Immediately prior to injection, calcium chloride is is drawn up from the activator ampoule with the activation syringe and is added to the PRP fractioning tube. The activated PRP is then injected in its entirety into the hip joint under strict aseptic technique.
Hyaluronic acid is supplied as a non-pyrogenic solution in 2.5 ml pre-filled syringes and is administered by intra-articular injection using a 22-23 gauge needle. The full 2.5 ml is injected in one joint under strict aseptic administration.
University of Colorado, Hip Preservation Center, Orthopedic Department
Boulder, Colorado, United States
Survivorship, as Measured by the Frequency of Patient Withdrawal of Their Treated Hip to Undergo Surgery (Total Hip Arthroplasty [THA] or Hip Resurfacing Procedure).
To measure duration of clinical benefit, survivorship was analyzed by investigating the frequency of patient withdrawal of their treated hip to undergo surgery (total hip arthroplasty \[THA\] or hip resurfacing procedure). Survivorship was evaluating hips, not patients in this outcome measure. This served as the primary outcome measure for the study.
Time frame: Baseline, 24 Months
Change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Pain Sub-score
The primary efficacy outcome was defined as the percentage of patients having a 50% decrease in the summed score for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain sub-score from baseline to week 24. The WOMAC score is a normalized patient-reported outcome measure in which 0 represents the worst possible score and 100 represents the best possible score. The WOMAC is primarily used in osteoarthritis clinical trials to evaluate the effects of arthroplasty and drug interventions in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Thus, a 50% increase in the WOMAC pain sub-score would indicate reduced pain or improvement, while a 50% decrease would indicate worsening pain.
Time frame: Baseline, Week 24
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Scores at Baseline
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score was defined as the secondary outcome measurement. The WOMAC score is a normalized patient-reported outcome measure in which 0 represents the worst possible score and 100 represents the best possible score. The WOMAC is primarily used in osteoarthritis clinical trials to evaluate the effects of arthroplasty and drug interventions in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
Time frame: Baseline
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Scores at Week 6
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score was defined as the secondary outcome measurement. The WOMAC score is a normalized patient-reported outcome measure in which 0 represents the worst possible score and 100 represents the best possible score. The WOMAC is primarily used in osteoarthritis clinical trials to evaluate the effects of arthroplasty and drug interventions in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
Time frame: Week 6
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Scores at Week 12
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score was defined as the secondary outcome measurement. The WOMAC score is a normalized patient-reported outcome measure in which 0 represents the worst possible score and 100 represents the best possible score. The WOMAC is primarily used in osteoarthritis clinical trials to evaluate the effects of arthroplasty and drug interventions in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
Time frame: Week 12
Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Scores at Week 24
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score was defined as the secondary outcome measurement. The WOMAC score is a normalized patient-reported outcome measure in which 0 represents the worst possible score and 100 represents the best possible score. The WOMAC is primarily used in osteoarthritis clinical trials to evaluate the effects of arthroplasty and drug interventions in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
Time frame: Week 24
Change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) Scores
The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score was defined as the secondary outcome measurement. The WOMAC score is a normalized patient-reported outcome measure in which 0 represents the worst possible score and 100 represents the best possible score. The WOMAC is primarily used in osteoarthritis clinical trials to evaluate the effects of arthroplasty and drug interventions in patients with hip osteoarthritis.
Time frame: Baseline, Month 24
Hip Range of Motion (ROM) at Baseline
The range of motion (ROM) of the hip is reported for both groups of treatment. This includes external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), and flexion (FL).
Time frame: Baseline
Hip Range of Motion (ROM) at Week 6
The range of motion (ROM) of the hip is reported for both groups of treatment. This includes external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), and flexion (FL).
Time frame: Week 6
Hip Range of Motion (ROM) at Week 12
The range of motion (ROM) of the hip is reported for both groups of treatment. This includes external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), and flexion (FL).
Time frame: Week 12
Hip Range of Motion (ROM) at Week 24
The range of motion (ROM) of the hip is reported for both groups of treatment. This includes external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), and flexion (FL).
Time frame: Week 24
Change in Hip Range of Motion (ROM)
The range of motion (ROM) of the hip is reported for both groups of treatment. This includes external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), and flexion (FL).
Time frame: Baseline, 24 Months
Change in International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT)
The International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT) score is reported for both groups of treatment as the change from baseline to 24 months post-injection. The iHOT12 instrument is a joint-specific PRO for evaluating quality of life (QoL). A score of 100 indicates excellent QoL (full function and no symptoms), whereas zero signifies the worst QoL (maximum limitations and extreme symptoms).
Time frame: Baseline, 24 Months
Change in Non-Arthritic Hip Score
The Non Arthritic Hip subjective score is reported for both groups of treatment as the change from baseline to 24 months post-injection. The maximum score is 100 indicating normal hip function.
Time frame: Baseline, 24 Months
Change in Flexion-Abduction-External Rotation (FABER) Test.
The flexion-abduction-external rotation (FABER) test is a clinical test utilized as a provocation test to detect hip, lumbar spine, or sacroiliac joint pathology. A positive FABER test is one that reproduces the patient's pain or limits their range of movement, while a negative FABER test is one that does not reproduce the patient's pain or limit their range of movement. The FABER test is reported for both groups of treatment as count of hips experiencing a decrease in pain (from a positive test to a negative test) during the FABER test from baseline to 24 months.
Time frame: Baseline, 24 Months
Change in Anterior Posterior (AP) Pelvis Radiograph/ Kellgren-Lawrence Grading Scale Classification.
Anterior posterior hip x-rays were performed for each hip and classified according to Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grading scale, which is defined as follows: 0 = normal; 1 = doubtful narrowing of joint space and possible osteophytic lipping; 2 = definite osteophytes and possible narrowing of joint space; 3 = moderate multiple osteophytes, definite narrowing of joint space, some sclerosis, and possible deformity of bone contour; 4 = large osteophytes, marked narrowing of joint space, severe sclerosis, and definite deformity of bone contour. The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) Grading Scale is reported for both groups of treatment as the change from baseline to 24 months.
Time frame: Baseline, 24 Months