300,000+ clinical trials. Find the right one.

197 active trials for Osteoarthritis (Knee)

Cryoneurolysis for the Management of Chronic Pain in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis

Pain is the principal symptom in knee osteoarthritis (OA) and results in a considerable amount of years lived with disability, emotional distress and has significant socioeconomic consequences. Conservative treatment options, such as exercise, often fail to provide long-term pain relief and alternatively patients may be subjected to total knee arthroplasty. More than 20% of these patients experience persistent and unchanged pain post-surgery. Novel advances in the field of cryoneurolysis applies low temperatures to disrupt nerve signaling at the painful area and a recent study showed that it was possible to target the peripheral nerves in the knee and provide significant pain relief in patients with knee OA. This could potentially improve the efficacy of other therapies such as exercise, delaying or perhaps avoiding surgical intervention and improving quality of life in OA patients considerably. Further prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm the effects of cryoneurolysis treatment in patients with knee OA. The primary objective of the current project is to determine the effectiveness of cryoneurolysis in its ability to decrease pain in patients with knee OA. The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of cryoneurolysis in its ability to improve outcomes in the GLA:D program to potentially delay or avoid surgical intervention. 90 individuals with knee OA in the knee will be randomly allocated in either a cryoneurolysis intervention group or a sham group. Both groups will be assessed at baseline, 2 weeks post cryoneurolysis, post GLA;D and at 6, 12 and 24 month follow-up. The patients, therapists and data-manager will be blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome will be VAS knee pain intensity score, measured post cryoneurolysis treatment. Secondary outcome measures include functional performance, PRO-data (KOOS, EQ5D), analgesic use, a socio-economic evaluation and adverse effects.

Start: June 2019
Antibiotic Loaded Bone Cement in Prevention of Periprosthetic Joint Infections in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

Introduction: The current evidence on the efficacy of Antibiotic Loaded Bone Cement (ALBC) in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary joint reconstruction is insufficient. In several European countries, the use of ALBC is routine practice unlike in the US where ALBC use is not approved in low-risk patients. It has been claimed that the antibiotic in ALBC increase the risk of aseptic loosening, risk of systemic toxicity, allergic reaction, and bacterial resistance. Therefore we designed a double-blinded (patients and data analysts) pragmatic multicenter register-based randomized controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate the effects of ALBC compared to plain bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods and analysis: A minimum of 9,172 patients undergoing full-cemented primary TKA will be recruited and equally randomized into the ALBC group and the plain bone cement group. This trial will be conducted in Norwegian hospitals that routinely perform cemented primary TKA. . The primary outcome will be risk of revision surgery due to PJI at 1-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be: risk of revision due to any reason including aseptic loosening at 1-, 6-, 10-, and 20-years of follow-up; patient related outcome measures (PROMs) like function, pain, satisfaction, and health-related quality of life at 1-, 6-, and 10-years of follow-up; risk of changes in the microbial pattern and resistance profiles of organisms cultured in subsequent revisions at 1-, 6-, 10-, and 20-years of follow-up; and cost-effectiveness of routine ALBC vs plain bone cement use in primary TKA. We will use 1:1 randomization with random permuted blocks and stratify by participating hospitals to randomize patients to receive ALBC or plain bone cement. Inclusion, randomization, and follow-up will be through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Ethics and dissemination: The trial has been approved by the Western Norway Regional Committees on Medical and Health Research Ethics (REK-Vest) (reference number: 2019/751/REK vest) dated: 21.06.2019. The trial results will be reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Extension (CONSORT Extension) reporting guideline 2010 statement for non-inferiority trials. The trial results will be reported to the public through national and international scientific conferences, participating hospitals, patient organizations, and peer-reviewed journals. Discussion: If we find that plain bone cement is non-inferior to the ALBC, it will challenge the routine use of ALBC in primary arthroplasty, due to ecological concerns and costs. However, if routine use of ALBC is associated with a reduced risk of PJI and with minor impact on bacterial resistance, PROMs, and costs, the well-established use of prophylactic ALBC in primary arthroplasty will be supported

Start: January 2021
A Mechanism Based Proof of Concept Study of the Effects of Duloxetine in the Treatment of Patients With Osteoarthritic Knee Pain

Background: Duloxetine provides an analgesic effect of patients with OA. The mode of action of duloxetine is partly believed to act through modulating the descending inhibitory pain pathways from the brainstem towards the spinal cord thereby dampening pain by gating the afferent pain signals from the periphery during their passage to the brain. This study aims to investigate if the analgesic effect of duloxetine is due to modulation of pain mechanisms. Study Rationale: The present study will utilize a set of quantitative pain biomarkers developed to assess peripheral and central manifestations in OA and the influence of duloxetine on those manifestations. Treatment: Patients will be randomized to one of two treatment sequences: Sequence 1: 20 mg duloxetine QD for 1 week, 40 mg Duloxetine QD for 1 week, 60 mg duloxetine QD for 10 weeks, 40 mg duloxetine QD for 1 week, 20 mg duloxetine QD for 1 week, followed by 14 weeks of corresponding placebo Sequence 2: 14 weeks of placebo followed by 20 mg Duloxetine QD for 1 week, 40 mg duloxetine QD for 1 week, 60 mg duloxetine QD for 10 weeks, 40 mg duloxetine QD for 1 week and 20 mg duloxetine QD for 1 week. The two treatment periods of 14 weeks each are separated by a washout period of two weeks and include a two-week titration period. Primary Objective: To assess the effect of 60 mg daily maintenance dose administration of Duloxetine for 10 weeks compared with placebo on pain mechanisms. Sample Size Justification/Statistics: The sample size was calculated to 32 patients providing a power of 85% with a significant level of 0.05 to detect a group difference of 1 point in the change from baseline of the week 12 mean of 24-hour worst pain between duloxetine and placebo treatment. Patient Selection: Up to 40 patients with osteoarthritic knee pain will be enrolled in this study in order to complete 32 patients. Study sites: Mech-Sense Aalborg University Hospital, DK-9000 Aalborg, Denmark Study Assessments: As the primary objective of this study is the assessment of which pain mechanisms are modulated by administration of the study drug, the primary endpoints will be Experimental Mechanism Based Pain Measures (EPMs) including 1) Pressure Pain Thresholds (PPTs), Temporal Summation, Conditioned Pain Modulation (CPM) and Offset Analgesia. In addition, efficacy will be evaluated using 1) pain severity (worst daily pain and night pain), 2) Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), 3) Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), 4) Investigator and Patient Global Assessment of Changes (IGIC and PGAC), 5) Western Ontario and MacMaster (WOMAC) OA physical function, 6) PainDetect, and 7) Central Sensitization Index (CSI). Safety: Discontinuation rates and Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAEs). Key Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria: Males or females between 40 and 75 years of age, who are postmenopausal or using allowed contraception methods, and have a Body Mass Index (BMI) between 20-35 kg/m2 inclusive Patient with unilateral or bilateral OA of knee diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria based on clinical and radiographic evidence with pain severity equal to or higher than 5 on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) assessed as the worst pain within the last 24 hours.

Start: January 2020
Knee Registry (Knieregister)

Rationale: In view of patient care, patient characteristics and treatment parameters are registered for all patients visiting the Mobility Clinic of the University Medical Center Utrecht for orthopaedic knee treatment. Patients also fill out questionnaires for function, pain and mobility of the knee, before and after treatment. Objective: The main objective of this registry is to collect patient characteristics and treatment parameters together with data from the questionnaires in a database. This knee registry can be used for future research questions. Study design: This is a longitudinal observational registry. Study population: All patients that visit the Mobility Clinic will be asked to participate in the knee registry. Patients that meet one or more of the following criteria will be excluded: are below the age of 16, not able or willing to sign the broad consent form, not being able to read and understand Dutch language, or receiving medical treatment for their knee elsewhere. Main study parameters/endpoints: Data will be collected for future research for which the purpose is not known at this time. When new research will be conducted, study parameters will be set. A study application has to be submitted to the institutional ethical review board of the University Medical Center Utrecht. Patients do not need to be asked permission for the use of their data for each study individually. Only when additional information is needed. Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness: The burden for patients to participate in this registry is minimal and consists of time. Any future results may be beneficial for patients. Participation or refusal to participate in the registry has no consequences for their treatment.

Start: January 2017