Expanding the Potential of Nonoperative Therapies In Advanced Knee Osteoarthritis: Treatment Response to Repeat Administration Triamcinolone Acetonide Extended-Release Is Similar Across Kellgren-Lawrence Grades 2-4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Triamcinolone acetonide extended-release (TA-ER) is approved in the US to treat pain associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Intra-articular corticosteroids (IACS) are often used to manage recurrence of pain and symptoms during the prolonged course of OA. Effectiveness of IACS in advanced knee OA is unknown, and lack of effective nonoperative treatments may accelerate consideration of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This post hoc subgroup analysis of a Phase 3b, single-arm, open-label study (NCT03046446) evaluated the efficacy of initial and repeat administration TA ER in knee OA with a range of radiographic severity classified by Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade. Methods: Patients aged ≥40 years with symptomatic knee OA for ≥6 months, KL Grade 2-4, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) -A (pain) total sum score ≥6, and index knee pain for >15 days during the prior month received the 1st injection of TA-ER on Day 1. Patients received the 2nd injection at the first visit (Week 12, 16, 20, or 24) at which repeat dose criteria were met (ie, patient benefited from and tolerated the 1st injection without safety concerns and was clinically indicated to receive the 2nd injection). Patients who received 2 injections were evaluated every 4 weeks up to 52 weeks after the 1st injection. Patients who did not benefit from the 1st injection at Week 12 completed at Week 12. Patients who did not meet repeat dose criteria by Week 24 completed at Week 24. Safety was evaluated via treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), and by index-knee radiography at end of study. Exploratory efficacy endpoints included WOMAC A (pain), -B (stiffness), C (function), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Quality of Life following each injection. Results: Of 208 enrolled patients, 179 received 2 injections. Of these, 56 (31.3%) had KL Grade 2, 68 (38.0%) had KL Grade 3, and 55 (30.7%) had KL Grade 4. The patient population reflected the ‘real-world’ knee OA population (Table). Demographics and baseline disease characteristics were generally similar across KL grade subgroups; however, as expected, age and time since OA diagnosis increased with KL grade. Prior index-knee OA treatments did not correlate with KL grade except for increased use of IA hyaluronic acid. The incidence of TEAEs and index-knee TEAEs were similar across KL grades (Table). Most TEAEs were Grade 1 or Grade 2 and there were no unexpected TEAEs. There were no indications of chondrolysis, osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fractures, or clinically significant subchondral bone changes in any subgroup. Response rates for the 1st injection and median times to 2nd injection were 95% and 120 days for KL Grade 4, 96% and 118 days for KL Grade 3 and 94% and 113 days for KL Grade 2. Regardless of KL grade, mean WOMAC-A (pain) scores were comparable following injections (Figure). At 12 weeks after both the 1st and 2nd injections, mean scores were similar for patients with KL Grade 4 (1.34 and 1.36), KL Grade 3 (1.37 each), and KL Grade 2 (1.24 and 1.20) (Figure). Conclusion: Overall and across baseline KL grades, repeat administration of TA-ER using a dosing schedule tailored to patient response was well tolerated, with no radiographic evidence for an impact on cartilage. In this ‘real-world’ patient population, TA-ER reliably reduced OA symptoms with similar improvements observed after both injections across KL grade subgroups, including those with KL Grade 4 who may otherwise be considering TKA. [Table: see text][Figure: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".