This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Mesoblast's rexlemestrocel-L alone or combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in participants with chronic low back pain (\> 6 months) associated with moderate radiographic degenerative changes of a disc.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
QUADRUPLE
Enrollment
404
Rexlemestrocel-L injection
Rexlemestrocel-L was combined in 1:1 by-volume ratio with HA solution and the resulting mixture was injected
Saline control solution
Overall Treatment Success: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Overall treatment success was determined based on number of responders who had composite response at both months 12 and 24 evaluated per specified criteria. A treatment responder with treatment success was defined as a participant who met the 3 criteria of a composite responder analysis as: 50% or greater reduction in the lower-back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score; 15-point or greater reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score; and lack of post-treatment interventions at the treated level as of the study visit (Visits 6 \[12 months post-treatment\] and 8 \[24 months post-treatment\]). The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as Bayesian estimate\[BE\]) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Effectiveness Based on Pain Responders: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
A participant was defined as a pain responder for a given study visit if they achieved at least a 50% reduction from Baseline in the lower-back pain VAS score (average pain over 24 hours), as reported during in-clinic assessment. The participant should be qualified as a pain responder at both 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and must not have received a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Effectiveness Based on Functional Responders: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
A participant was defined as a functional responder for a given study visit if they achieved at least a 15-point reduction from Baseline in ODI score, as reported during in-clinic assessment. The participant should be qualified as a functional responder at both 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and must not have received a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up; any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Alabama Clinical Therapeutics, LLC
Birmingham, Alabama, United States
Tennessee Valley Pain Consultants
Huntsville, Alabama, United States
Arizona Pain Specialists
Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Physicians Research Group
Tempe, Arizona, United States
TriWest Research Associates, LLC
El Cajon, California, United States
Memorial Orthopaedics Surgical Group
Long Beach, California, United States
Newport Beach Headache and Pain
Newport Beach, California, United States
Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Clinical Research
Pasadena, California, United States
UC Davis Spine Center
Sacramento, California, United States
Orthopedic Pain Specialists
Santa Monica, California, United States
...and 38 more locations
Time frame: Up to 24 months
Effectiveness Based on Treatment Success at 24 Months: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
A treatment responder with treatment success was defined as a participant who met the 3 conditions of a composite responder analysis as: 50% or greater reduction in the lower-back pain VAS score; 15-point or greater reduction in ODI score; and lack of post-treatment interventions at the treated level as of the study visit. The participants qualified as responders if they satisfied the above conditions at the 24-month follow-up visit alone. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Time frame: Month 24
Effectiveness Based on Minimal Pain Responders at 24 Months: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
A minimal pain responder was defined as a participant who achieved a lower-back pain VAS score (average pain over 24 hours) of 20 mm or less at the given study visit. The participants qualified as responders if they satisfied the above condition at 24 months post-treatment, and did not receive a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Time frame: Month 24
Effectiveness Based on Time to First Intervention Over 24 Months
The effectiveness of the study drug was evaluated based on its ability in increasing the time to additional interventions at the treated level over 24 months post-treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates for the probability (expressed as a percentage) of participants to receive an intervention are presented.
Time frame: Up to Month 24
Effectiveness Based on Minimal Disability Responders at 24 Months: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
A minimal disability responder was defined as a participant who achieved an ODI score of 20% or less at the given study visit. The participants qualified as responders if they satisfied the above condition at 24 months post-treatment, and did not receive a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Time frame: Month 24