Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-25 @ 3:09 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-26 @ 1:48 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01476605
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2019-02-18
First Post:
2011-10-25
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Efficacy of Injection Therapy for Lateral Epicondylosis
Sponsor:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
The Efficacy of Prolotherapy and Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Lateral Epicondylosis: a Pilot Study
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2019-02
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
None
Brief Summary:
While evidence does not identify any conventional therapy as definitive for chronic lateral epicondylosis (CLE, tennis elbow), basic science and limited pilot level trials support rigorous assessment of prolotherapy (PrT) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as therapy for CLE. The proposed study will conduct a pilot RCT assessing 2 PrT solutions and PRP injections commonly used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe tennis elbow using clinical, biomechanical and radiological outcomes. Data from this study will support a future confirmatory study to find an effective treatment for moderate-to-severe tennis elbow. In support of this goal, the investigators propose the following research questions.
Does PrT or PRP, compared to waitlist control:
1. improve pain- and function-dependent, CLE-specific quality of life among adults with CLE, as assessed by a validated questionnaire, the elbow-specific Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation?
2. improve upper extremity performance among adults with CLE as assessed by a blinded assessor using elbow-specific, effort-dependent biomechanical measures of grip strength (pain-free and maximal), stiffness, effective mass and damping
3. improve the radiologic appearance of several pathologic features of CLE as evaluated using imaging studies of lateral elbow structures: ultrasound to assess a) neovascularity (color Doppler), b) hypoechogenicity (grayscale US), and c) tendon stiffness ("acousto-elastic strain gauge" technique) using standardized, 0-3 severity scales, and d) MRI to assess the overall common extensor tensor tendon disease severity using a standardized 0-3 scale?
4. provide satisfying treatment to subjects as assessed by a treatment satisfaction survey and a qualitative exit interview?
Does PrT or PRP, compared to waitlist control:
1. improve pain- and function-dependent, CLE-specific quality of life among adults with CLE, as assessed by a validated questionnaire, the elbow-specific Patient-Rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation?
2. improve upper extremity performance among adults with CLE as assessed by a blinded assessor using elbow-specific, effort-dependent biomechanical measures of grip strength (pain-free and maximal), stiffness, effective mass and damping
3. improve the radiologic appearance of several pathologic features of CLE as evaluated using imaging studies of lateral elbow structures: ultrasound to assess a) neovascularity (color Doppler), b) hypoechogenicity (grayscale US), and c) tendon stiffness ("acousto-elastic strain gauge" technique) using standardized, 0-3 severity scales, and d) MRI to assess the overall common extensor tensor tendon disease severity using a standardized 0-3 scale?
4. provide satisfying treatment to subjects as assessed by a treatment satisfaction survey and a qualitative exit interview?
Detailed Description:
CLE is a prevalent, disabling condition with significant individual and societal costs. The incidence of CLE is increasing. CLE is often refractory to care. There is limited scientific evidence to support specific therapies.
PrT and PRP show promise as effective therapy for CLE that can be performed in the primary care setting. Pilot-level RCTs of PrT and PRP for CLE have reported large absolute effect sizes. Findings from invitro and animal studies are consistent with the results of clinical trials and suggest that both therapies can improve clinical outcomes and modify disease in CLE. However, prior research is limited by lack of methodological rigor, non-validated outcome measures and lack of integrated multidisciplinary outcome measures.
Positive trends in the proposed study would suggest the effect size of PrT and PRP for CLE, and allow the calculation of a robust sample size to power an R01 study, and pilot test the use of an integrated set of outcome measures. Statistically significant positive results on clinical, biomechanical and radiological outcomes would demonstrate that PrT and PRP can treat, modify the disease of and may be a cure for CLE. Such findings would provide enormous benefits to patients through improved quality of life, reduced pain and disability, and to industry and society at large through reduced workers' injury claims and absenteeism.
PrT and PRP show promise as effective therapy for CLE that can be performed in the primary care setting. Pilot-level RCTs of PrT and PRP for CLE have reported large absolute effect sizes. Findings from invitro and animal studies are consistent with the results of clinical trials and suggest that both therapies can improve clinical outcomes and modify disease in CLE. However, prior research is limited by lack of methodological rigor, non-validated outcome measures and lack of integrated multidisciplinary outcome measures.
Positive trends in the proposed study would suggest the effect size of PrT and PRP for CLE, and allow the calculation of a robust sample size to power an R01 study, and pilot test the use of an integrated set of outcome measures. Statistically significant positive results on clinical, biomechanical and radiological outcomes would demonstrate that PrT and PRP can treat, modify the disease of and may be a cure for CLE. Such findings would provide enormous benefits to patients through improved quality of life, reduced pain and disability, and to industry and society at large through reduced workers' injury claims and absenteeism.
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
True
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?:
Secondary ID Infos
| Secondary ID | Type | Domain | Link | View |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G0810 | OTHER_GRANT | American Academy of Family Physicians-Foundation | View |