Comparison of two hyaluronic acid formulations for safety and efficacy (chase) study of knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 26 week non-inferiority trial comparing durolane® to artz®

kelin zhang,xiu li zhang,z a zhu,s g yan,t s sun,anyuan guo,j t jones,g steen,h q zhang,baoci shan,jin han lin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2014.02.742
IF: 7.507
2014-01-01
Osteoarthritis and Cartilage
Abstract:Purpose: To compare efficacy and safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) in two formulations: one 3.0ml injection of Durolane® vs five 2.5ml injections of ARTZ® for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis pain. Methods: Subjects (N=349) from the People’s Republic of China were randomized to treatment (Durolane=175, ARTZ=174). The Durolane group received 3.0ml at week 0 (baseline), with sham skin punctures at weeks 1, 2, 3, and 4. The ARTZ group received one 2.5ml injection at each of the same time points. The primary assessment was a Likert pain scale (Western Ontario and McMaster University scale, WOMAC). Secondary assessments included WOMAC scales of physical function and knee stiffness, and global self-evaluationat weeks 0, 6, 10, 14, 18, and 26. The primary analysis was non-inferiority of Durolane over 18 weeks, with secondary analysis over 26 weeks, with a priori non-inferiority defined as 8% of the respective scale. Only acetaminophen was permitted as rescue analgesia and all adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: Overall study retention was excellent; 332 (95.1%) subjects completed 18 weeks and 319 (91.4%) completed 26 weeks, with no significant retention difference between treatment arms. All variables met non-inferiority criteria over 18 and 26weeks and efficacy response was >90%. Treatment-related AEs were 9.8% (17/174) for Durolane and 13.1% (23/175) for ARTZ.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?