School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Science, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
PLoS One. 2019 Feb 22;14(2):e0211999. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211999. eCollection 2019.
This pilot study assessed the efficacy of a knee guard device, which used magnetophoresis to transdermally deliver Glucosamine, Chondroitin and Hyaluronic Acid in a cohort of individuals with prior knee injury. The aim was to determine if the change in physical function and pain with the knee guard device was equivalent to the change produced by an established topical NSAID formulation containing diclofenac sodium 1%.
A randomized, controlled, equivalence trial evaluated outcomes following treatment with the knee guard device or NSAID formulation. The study recruited 114 male participants (aged 40-55 years). Participants were randomly allocated to wear the knee guard device or to use a NSAID gel daily for two weeks. The primary outcomes were the knee injury osteoarthritis function score (KOOS-F) and an aggregated function score (AFS). The lower extremity functional scale (LEFS), pain numerical rating scale (PNRS), global rating of change (GROC) and other KOOS scores were also evaluated.
Multiple linear regression analyses indicated that there were no significant differences between the interventions for changes in the primary outcomes of AFS and KOOS_F. The 95% confidence interval (-2.89 to 5.15) of the estimated treatment difference for KOOS-F was within the lower (-5.61) and upper (5.61) bounds of the 7% equivalence margin for that measure, The mean value for the AFS was within, but the 95% CI (-3.11 to 7.37) exceeded the 7% equivalence margin (-2.97 to 2.97) for that measure. There was a significant difference in PNRS, which favored the knee guard device.
The knee guard device demonstrated equivalence for the KOOS-F measure but not the AFS measure of function over the two week trial period when compared to a widely available NSAID gel that has been shown to be superior to placebo. The knee guard produced a greater reduction in pain report (p = 0.002) than the NSAID gel. Users of the knee guard device experienced more skin irritation than participants using the NSAID gel. Further research is required to fully evaluate the therapeutic potential of this innovative treatment approach.
本初步研究评估了一种膝关节护具的疗效,该护具通过磁泳经皮传递葡萄糖胺、软骨素和透明质酸,应用于既往膝关节损伤的患者。目的是确定膝关节护具在改善患者身体功能和减轻疼痛方面的效果是否等同于含 1%双氯芬酸钠的已确立的局部非甾体抗炎药(NSAID)制剂。
一项随机、对照、等效性试验评估了膝关节护具或 NSAID 制剂治疗后的结果。该研究招募了 114 名年龄在 40-55 岁的男性参与者。参与者被随机分配佩戴膝关节护具或每天使用 NSAID 凝胶治疗两周。主要结局是膝关节损伤骨关节炎功能评分(KOOS-F)和综合功能评分(AFS)。还评估了下肢功能量表(LEFS)、疼痛数字评分量表(PNRS)、总体变化评级(GROC)和其他 KOOS 评分。
多元线性回归分析表明,两种干预措施在 AFS 和 KOOS_F 的主要结局变化方面无显著差异。KOOS-F 的估计治疗差异的 95%置信区间(-2.89 至 5.15)在该测量值的 7%等效范围的下限(-5.61)和上限(5.61)内。AFS 的平均值在该范围内,但 95%CI(-3.11 至 7.37)超过了该测量值的 7%等效范围(-2.97 至 2.97)。PNRS 存在显著差异,膝关节护具更优。
与已证实优于安慰剂的广泛应用的 NSAID 凝胶相比,在为期两周的试验期间,膝关节护具在 KOOS-F 测量上表现出等效性,但在 AFS 功能测量上则不然。膝关节护具在疼痛报告方面的降低更为显著(p = 0.002)。与使用 NSAID 凝胶的参与者相比,膝关节护具使用者的皮肤刺激更多。需要进一步的研究来全面评估这种创新治疗方法的治疗潜力。