Clinical comparison of platelet-rich plasma injection and daily celecoxib administration in the treatment of early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of applied biomedicine Pub Date : 2020-08-01 Epub Date: 2020-08-20 DOI:10.32725/jab.2020.012
Ruben Reyes-Sosa, Agustin Lugo-Radillo, Lizzet Cruz-Santiago, Celia Rubi Garcia-Cruz, Oliver Mendoza-Cano
{"title":"Clinical comparison of platelet-rich plasma injection and daily celecoxib administration in the treatment of early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Ruben Reyes-Sosa,&nbsp;Agustin Lugo-Radillo,&nbsp;Lizzet Cruz-Santiago,&nbsp;Celia Rubi Garcia-Cruz,&nbsp;Oliver Mendoza-Cano","doi":"10.32725/jab.2020.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Oral and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics and intra-articular corticosteroid injections are the recommended first line of treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, they have serious side effects. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been posited as an effective and safer alternative treatment for knee OA. Hitherto, there is only one study comparing the effectiveness of PRP against an NSAID.</p><p><strong>Aim of the study: </strong>The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of PRP against celecoxib in the treatment of early knee OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>60 patients with knee OA grade II and III were randomly alocated in two groups. Group 1 received one injection of autologous PRP in each affected knee, with a reinjection after 15 days; Group 2 received 200 mg of oral celecoxib each 24 h for a year. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and WOMAC subscales for pain, stiffness and function were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the start of the treatment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the end of the study PRP was significantly better than celecoxib (p < 0.05) in improving VAS (40.40%), total WOMAC (58.95%) and WOMAC subscales of pain (50.60%), stiffness (34.13%) and function (51.90%). Significant differences remained after adjusting for age, sex or knee OA grade II or III.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intra-articular PRP is significantly better than celecoxib in improving pain, function and stiffness in early knee OA. This significant difference is independent of age, sex or knee OA grade II or III.</p>","PeriodicalId":14912,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied biomedicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied biomedicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32725/jab.2020.012","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Oral and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), analgesics and intra-articular corticosteroid injections are the recommended first line of treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, they have serious side effects. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been posited as an effective and safer alternative treatment for knee OA. Hitherto, there is only one study comparing the effectiveness of PRP against an NSAID.

Aim of the study: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of PRP against celecoxib in the treatment of early knee OA.

Methods: 60 patients with knee OA grade II and III were randomly alocated in two groups. Group 1 received one injection of autologous PRP in each affected knee, with a reinjection after 15 days; Group 2 received 200 mg of oral celecoxib each 24 h for a year. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and WOMAC subscales for pain, stiffness and function were measured at baseline and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after the start of the treatment.

Results: At the end of the study PRP was significantly better than celecoxib (p < 0.05) in improving VAS (40.40%), total WOMAC (58.95%) and WOMAC subscales of pain (50.60%), stiffness (34.13%) and function (51.90%). Significant differences remained after adjusting for age, sex or knee OA grade II or III.

Conclusions: Intra-articular PRP is significantly better than celecoxib in improving pain, function and stiffness in early knee OA. This significant difference is independent of age, sex or knee OA grade II or III.

富血小板血浆注射和每日给药塞来昔布治疗早期膝骨关节炎的临床比较:一项随机临床试验。
背景:口服和外用非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)、镇痛药和关节内皮质类固醇注射是膝关节骨性关节炎(OA)的首选治疗方法;然而,它们有严重的副作用。富血小板血浆(PRP)已被认为是一种有效和安全的替代治疗膝关节OA。迄今为止,只有一项研究比较了PRP与非甾体抗炎药的有效性。研究目的:本研究的目的是确定PRP对塞来昔布治疗早期膝关节OA的有效性。方法:60例II级和III级膝关节OA患者随机分为两组。组1在患膝各注射1次自体PRP, 15天后再注射一次;组2口服塞来昔布200 mg / 24 h,连续1年。在基线和治疗开始后1、3、6和12个月测量视觉模拟量表(VAS)、西安大略省和麦克马斯特大学关节炎指数(WOMAC)和WOMAC疼痛、僵硬和功能亚量表。结果:研究结束时,PRP在改善VAS(40.40%)、总WOMAC(58.95%)、疼痛(50.60%)、僵硬(34.13%)和功能(51.90%)方面均显著优于塞来昔布(p < 0.05)。在调整了年龄、性别或膝关节OA II级或III级后,仍存在显著差异。结论:在改善早期膝关节OA患者的疼痛、功能和僵硬方面,关节内PRP明显优于塞来昔布。这一显著差异与年龄、性别或膝关节OA II级或III级无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of applied biomedicine
Journal of applied biomedicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
13
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Applied Biomedicine promotes translation of basic biomedical research into clinical investigation, conversion of clinical evidence into practice in all medical fields, and publication of new ideas for conquering human health problems across disciplines. Providing a unique perspective, this international journal publishes peer-reviewed original papers and reviews offering a sensible transfer of basic research to applied clinical medicine. Journal of Applied Biomedicine covers the latest developments in various fields of biomedicine with special attention to cardiology and cardiovascular diseases, genetics, immunology, environmental health, toxicology, neurology and oncology as well as multidisciplinary studies. The views of experts on current advances in nanotechnology and molecular/cell biology will be also considered for publication as long as they have a direct clinical impact on human health. The journal does not accept basic science research or research without significant clinical implications. Manuscripts with innovative ideas and approaches that bridge different fields and show clear perspectives for clinical applications are considered with top priority.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信