Efficacy and safety of intra-articular injection of tropomyosin receptor kinase A inhibitor in painful knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study

OBJECTIVE

This trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of GZ389988A, a tropomyosin receptor kinase A (TrkA) inhibitor, in subjects with painful knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHOD

In this single center, double-blind, placebo-controlled and randomized trial, 104 subjects with moderate-to-severe knee OA pain were enrolled to receive a single intra-articular (IA) injection of either GZ389988A or placebo. Efficacy measures were assessed over 12 weeks and included walking pain (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] A1), overall knee pain, WOMAC A, B, C and total score, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), OMERACT-OARSI responder rate and rescue medication use. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored up to 24 weeks.

RESULTS

The primary efficacy endpoint was met with a between-group difference of -7.49 (VAS 0-100) on WOMAC A1 changes over 4 weeks (P < 0.05 favoring GZ389988A). The secondary outcome on WOMAC A1 changes over 12 weeks had a between-group difference of -6.78 (P = 0.064). Among weekly assessments, statistically significant greater improvement in the GZ389988A group was observed in WOMAC A1, overall knee pain and/or WOMAC A at weeks 2-5. Although not statistically significant, improvements over placebo on pain and WOMAC C persisted over 12 weeks. Greater AE incidence was observed in the GZ389988A group including transient and self-limited injection joint inflammatory reactions with a spike of acetaminophen intake within the first week post-injection.

CONCLUSION

IA injection of TrkA inhibitor GZ389988A in knee OA subjects reduced pain with a numerically functional gain and an acceptable safety profile. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02845271).

Urinary and blood concentrations of beta2-agonists in trained subjects: comparison between routes of use

We aimed to assess the plasma and urine concentrations of beta2-agonists and evaluate the difference between three routes of administration in trained adults in order to distinguish doping from prevention of exercise-induced asthma. Ten young healthy Caucasian male subjects received during a four treatment period study: 1) inhaled salbutamol (S(I)) 2 x 100 microg t.i.d. for 3 days, 2) inhaled formoterol (F(I)) 2 x 12 microg b.i.d. for 3 days, 3) a single subcutaneous injection of salbutamol (S(S)) 0.5 mg, and 4) salbutamol 2 x 2 mg t.i.d. orally for 3 days (S(O)). Blood samples were taken during the first and the third day of experimentation at baseline, 30 min, 1 h, 2 h, 4 h and 6 h after administration; additional blood samples were drawn at 15 min for S(I), S(S) and F(I) and at 12 h for F(I). Urinary samples were collected at baseline, 2 h, 4 h, 6 h and 12 h after administration. Urinary concentrations were 20 to almost 50 times higher after S(O) than after S(I). Mean urinary concentration after S(O) increased to above 800 ng.mL(-1) within the two hours and above 1000 ng.mL(-1) at 6 to 12 hours post-drug administration. Urinary concentrations after S(S) were maximal during the first 2 hours (mean: 340 +/- 172 ng.mL(-1)). Plasma concentrations were very low, whatever the routes of administration. Results showed that we could eliminate the use of S(I) (authorized) and S(S) administration when individual urinary concentrations are higher than 230 ng.mL(-1) and 615 ng.mL(-1), respectively. Therefore, at rest, the cut-off value used to discriminate therapeutic from doping salbutamol intake could be fixed at 250 ng.mL(-1) instead of the 1000 ng.mL(-1) still authorized by international committees.