IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0211999.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A randomised pilot equivalence trial to evaluate diamagnetically enhanced transdermal delivery of key ground substance components in comparison to an established transdermal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory formulation in males with prior knee injury

Author

Listed:
  • Bill Vicenzino
  • Peter Lawrenson
  • Asaduzzaman Khan
  • Aiofe Stephenson
  • Luke Heales
  • Heather A E Benson
  • Anthony Wright

Abstract

Objective: 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%. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Bill Vicenzino & Peter Lawrenson & Asaduzzaman Khan & Aiofe Stephenson & Luke Heales & Heather A E Benson & Anthony Wright, 2019. "A randomised pilot equivalence trial to evaluate diamagnetically enhanced transdermal delivery of key ground substance components in comparison to an established transdermal non-steroidal anti-inflamm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0211999
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211999
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211999
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211999&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0211999?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0211999. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.