CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Clinical Studies
Monovisc 0702 Pivotal Clinical Trial
Study Design
The Monovisc 0702 study was a randomized, double-blinded,
saline-controlled study conducted under IDE at 31 centers in the U.S. and
Canada to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a single injection of
Monovisc™ in patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. A total of
369 patients were enrolled. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either
Monovisc™ or saline injection. The outcome measures collected included the pain
and physical function subscales from the Western Ontario and McMaster
Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Visual Analog Scale, investigator and
patient global assessments and the use of rescue medication. The primary
endpoint was to determine the superiority of Monovisc™ compared to saline by
evaluating the proportion of patients achieving ≥ 40% relative
improvement and ≥ 15mm absolute improvement from baseline in the WOMAC
VAS Pain Score (100mm scale) through Week 12.
Study Population
The patients enrolled in the study were between 35 and 75
years old and had the diagnosis of idiopathic OA based upon clinical and/or
radiographic criteria of the American College of Rheumatology. Patient
exclusion criteria generally included conditions or medications that could
confound the assessment of pain and conditions that could be adversely affected
by an intra-articular injection. A total of 369 patients were randomized to
either Monovisc™ (n=184) or saline (n=185). These 369 patients comprised the
Safety Population. The Intent to Treat (ITT) Population included all randomized
subjects who received the study injection and had at least one follow-up visit
(n=365). The Per-protocol (PP) Population included all randomized subjects who
received the study injection, had at least one follow-up visit, and had no
major protocol deviations (n=334). Table 1 summarizes the baseline and patient
demographic characteristics for the ITT population.
Table 1: Â Monovisc 0702 Baseline and Patient
Demographic Summary
Patient Screening Characteristics |
All Patients
(N=365) |
MONOVISC™
(N=181) |
Saline
(N=184) |
Age (years) |
Mean |
59.2 |
59.7 |
58.7 |
Median |
60 |
60 |
59 |
Standard Deviation |
8.6 |
7.9 |
9.2 |
Gender [N (%)] |
Male |
152 (41.6%) |
74 (40.9%) |
78 (42.4%) |
Female |
213 (58.4%) |
107 (59.1%) |
106 (57.6%) |
Body Mass Index (kg/m^2) |
Mean |
30.1 |
29.8 |
30.4 |
Median |
29.6 |
29.1 |
30 |
Standard Deviation |
4.6 |
4.7 |
4.6 |
Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) Score - Study Knee |
Grade II |
200 (54.8%) |
103 (56.9%) |
97 (52.7%) |
Grade III |
165 (45.2%) |
78 (43.1%) |
87 (47.3%) |
Baseline WOMAC Pain Score – Index Knee (mm) |
Mean |
293 |
294 |
291.5 |
Median |
291 |
296 |
288 |
Standard Deviation |
60.3 |
60 |
60.7 |
Baseline WOMAC Pain Score – Contralateral Knee (mm) |
Mean |
62.5 |
59.5 |
65.5 |
Median |
54 |
44 |
60 |
Standard Deviation |
48.2 |
48 |
48.4 |
Treatment and Evaluation Schedule
Patients were followed for 26 weeks. Study visits were
scheduled for screening, baseline, and weeks 2, 4, 8, 12, 20, and 26.
Injections were performed aseptically at the baseline visit. Patients were
required to discontinue all analgesics, including NSAIDs, for 7 days prior to
the baseline visit and to accept “rescue” acetaminophen (up to a maximum of 4
grams per day) as the only medication for treatment of joint pain during the
study. “Rescue” medication was not permitted within 24 hours of any study visit.
Safety Results
Safety analyses were performed on the Safety Population,
which was defined as all randomized patients. Regardless of the cause and
device relatedness there were 244 (66.1%) patients that experienced adverse
events for the total study cohort, where 121 (65.8%) were observed in the
Monovisc™ group and 123 (66.5%) were observed in the control group. There were
no significant differences between the treatment and control study groups in
the frequency or type of observed adverse events.
The adverse events (AEs) most frequently reported ( > 5
% in each group) and not related to the index knee were arthralgia (17.4% in
the Monovisc™ group and 14.6% in the saline group); headache (13.0% in the
Monovisc™ group and 15.1% in the saline group); back pain (8.7% in the
Monovisc™ group and 8.6% in the saline group); pain in extremity (8.2% in the
Monovisc™ group and 7.0% in the saline group); and upper respiratory tract
infections (6.0% in the Monovisc™ group and 7.6% in the saline group). Adverse
events considered related to the treatment are listed in Table 2. Adverse
Events were considered typical of viscosupplementation injections in this
patient population and were mild or moderate in severity.
Table 2: 0702 Patients with Treatment-Related Adverse
Events
AE Type |
MONOVISC™
N=184 |
Control (Saline)
N= 185 |
Any Adverse Event* |
13 (7.1%) |
10 (5.4%) |
Arthralgia |
7 (3.8%) |
7 (3.8%) |
Joint swelling |
2 (1.1%) |
2 (1.1%) |
Joint stiffness |
1 (0.5%) |
2 (1.1%) |
Injection site pain |
3 (1.6%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Joint effusion |
1 (0.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Pain in extremity |
1 (0.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Synovitis |
1 (0.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Contusion |
1 (0.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Subcutaneous nodule |
1 (0.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Baker's Cyst |
1 (0.5%) |
0 (0.0%) |
* In some cases patients were
involved in more than one AE |
Effectiveness Results For
Monovisc 0702
In the 0702 study, Monovisc™
did not demonstrate superiority over saline for the primary effectiveness
endpoint of patients with ≥ 40 % relative improvement from baseline and
≥ 15 mm absolute improvement from baseline in the WOMAC VAS Pain Score
through Week 12 (p=0.145).
Monovisc vs. Orthovisc
Non-inferiority Analysis
A non-inferiority analysis was
performed to support the effectiveness of Monovisc™ for its intended use that
compared Monovisc™ with Orthovisc® , which was approved in PMA P030019 for
treatment of knee pain due to osteoarthritis. Monovisc™ offers in a single
injection the equivalent dose of three injections of Orthovisc® . The
effectiveness of Orthovisc® for the treatment of knee pain due to
osteoarthritis was demonstrated for either 3 or 4 injections of Orthovisc® using
a combined data set from two randomized, controlled, double-blind multicenter
IDE studies; OAK9501 and OAK2001. The combined dataset included the following
groups listed in Table 3, and included a combined 3-injection Orthovisc® group
(O3A1/O3) that consisted of 173 patients (83 patients from the OAK9501 study
and 90 patients from the OAK2001 study). The primary non-inferiority analysis
compared both the Monovisc 0702 ITT and PP populations to the Orthovisc® 3-injection
groups (O3A1, O3, and the combined O3A1/O3 group).
Table 3: Orthovisc® Combined
Dataset Treatment Arms
Group |
Study |
Description |
N |
O4 |
OAK2001 |
Four injections of Orthovisc |
104 |
O3 |
OAK9501 |
Three injections of Orthovisc |
83 |
O3A1 |
OAK2001 |
Three injections of Orthovisc plus one arthrocentesis |
90 |
O3A1/O3 |
OAK9501+ OAK2001 |
Combined group of three injections of Orthovisc |
173 |
A4 |
OAK2001 |
Four arthrocentesis procedures (control) |
100 |
Saline |
OAK9501 |
Three injections of Saline (control) |
81 |
The non-inferiority margins were set conservatively at
Δ5.0mm (on a 100mm WOMAC VAS Scale), or 5% for endpoints expressed as
percentages. The mean differences between treatment groups are calculated and a
lower one sided 97.5% confidence interval is constructed. If the lower bound is
greater than -Δ, then 'Non-inferiority' is obtained for Monovisc™ relative
to the three-injection Orthovisc® group. If, in addition, the lower bound of
the confidence interval is above zero, the Monovisc™ comparison is determined
to be 'Non-inferior and Superior.'
Primary and secondary endpoints for the non-inferiority
analysis were the same used for Orthovisc® approval. The primary endpoints were
the comparison of the Proportion of Responders at the 20%, 40%, and 50% threshold
levels. Secondary endpoints were the change from baseline for the WOMAC Pain
Score, Pain on Standing Score, Investigator Global Assessment Score, and
Patient Global Assessment Score.
Non-inferiority Analysis Results
The mean Proportions of Responders for the primary
endpoints are summarized in Table 4. For all the threshold levels, the
Monovisc™ ITT or PP populations have a higher Proportion of Responders as
compared to the three-injection Orthovisc® groups.
Table 4: Mean Proportion of Responders from GEE Model
(Weeks 7-22)
Variable |
M1 PP
N=164 %, CI |
M1 ITT
N=181 %, CI |
O3A1
N= 90 %, CI |
O3
N= 83 %, CI |
O3A1/O3
N=173 %, CI |
O4
N= 104 %, CI |
A4
N=100 %, CI |
Saline
N= 81 %, CI |
20% Improvement in WOMAC |
74.2 (67.7, 80.7) |
72.4 (65.8,79.1) |
63 (52.8, 73.2) |
70.8 (60.8, 80.8) |
67 (52.8, 81.3) |
73.1 (64.4, 81.8) |
62.9 (53.7, 72.2) |
60.2 (49.3, 71.1) |
40% Improvement in WOMAC |
61.8 (54.5, 69.0) |
58.9 (51.6, 66.2) |
50.2 (39.6, 60.7) |
54.5 (43.5, 65.4) |
52.5 (37.3, 67.7) |
63.4 (54.0, 72.9) |
48 (38.4, 57.6) |
41 (30.1, 52.0) |
50% Improvement in WOMAC |
53.6 (46.2, 61.0) |
51.2 (43.8, 58.6) |
43.3 (32.9, 53.8) |
46.3 (35.4, 57.3) |
45 (29.9, 60.1) |
55.6 (45.9, 65.4) |
42.6 (33.2, 52.1) |
34.4 (23.8, 44.9) |
Non-inferiority analyses for all endpoints were conducted
using the GEE repeated measures model for weeks 7-22. The Monovisc™ ITT and PP
study populations were each compared to the Orthovisc® three-injection groups
(O3A1, O3, and the combined effectiveness O3A1/O3 group) for the purposes of
establishing non-inferiority. Additional comparisons to the other treatment
arms (O4, A4, and Saline) that were used to support the Orthovisc® PMA approval
were also made.
The results of the primary endpoint analysis show that
Monovisc™ (ITT or PP) is non-inferior to three injections of Orthovisc® for the
O3A1 group and also for the combined O3A1/O3 group for all threshold levels.
Non-inferiority was not demonstrated against the O3 group with the chosen
margin.
The results from the secondary endpoints show that
Monovisc™ (ITT or PP) was non-inferior to the three-injection Orthovisc® groups
O3 and combined O3A1/O3 for Change in WOMAC Pain Score, Pain on Standing Score,
Investigator Global Score, and Patient Global Score. Monovisc™ (ITT or PP) was
non-inferior to the O3A1 group for Change in WOMAC Pain Score, Investigator
Global Score, and Patient Global Score (PP only).
Monovisc™ was not shown to be non-inferior to four
injections of Orthovisc® (O4). The four-injection series of Orthovisc® represents
a 33% increase in HA dose compared to a single injection of Monovisc™.
Monovisc™ (ITT or PP) was non-inferior or 'non-inferior
and superior' against the control groups A4 and Saline for primary and
secondary endpoints.
The clinical significance for the change from baseline
for each of the secondary endpoints was demonstrated using Cumulative
Distribution Function (CDF) plots comparing the Monovisc 0702 PP Population to
the Orthovisc® three-injection combined effectiveness subgroup (O3A1/O3) at
each timepoint. Figure 1 shows an example plot for the Change in WOMAC Pain
Score at 20-22 weeks. The vertical dashed black line in the plot is set at the
“minimum clinically important difference” (MCID). The MCID of 6.0mm was
previously determined to be an acceptable difference for HA injectable products
based on a meta-analysis of literature.
Figure 1: CDF Plot for Change in WOMAC Pain Score for
M1 PP vs. O3A1/O3 (Weeks 20-22)
The CDF curves for the endpoints (WOMAC Pain Score, Pain
on Standing Score, Investigator Global Score and Patient Global Score) show
that the Monovisc™ PP population demonstrates a higher degree of clinical
improvement at every timepoint relative to the Orthovisc® 3-injection combined
effectiveness group (O3A1/O3).
Monovisc 0802 Repeat Injection Extension Study
Study Design and Results:
An open label study, Monovisc 0802, was conducted as an
extension study of Monovisc 0702 in order to evaluate the safety of a repeat
injection of Monovisc™. The extension study enrolled 240 patients, 119 of whom
received a second injection of Monovisc™ and 121 of whom received an injection
of Monovisc™ after receiving a saline injection during the initial treatment.
The percentage of patients experiencing AEs, regardless
of cause and device relatedness, was similar for those who were previously
injected with Monovisc™ (49.6%) and those previously injected with saline
(45.5%). The local adverse event profile for the injected knee for those
receiving a second injection of Monovisc™ was similar to the adverse event
profile seen in the Monovisc 0702 study, regardless of whether patients had
initially received a Monovisc™ injection or a saline injection (Table 5).
Table 5: Monovisc 0802 Adverse Events of the Injected
Knee Regardless of Relatedness
Adverse Event (per patient) |
Monovisc after Monovisc initial injection
N=119 |
Monovisc after Saline initial injection
N=121 |
Injection site erythema |
0 (0.0%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Injection site edema |
2 (1.7%) |
3 (2.5%) |
Injection site pain |
6 (5.0%) |
4 (3.3%) |
Injection site reaction NOS† |
1 (0.8%) |
2 (1.7%) |
Pain NOS† |
1 (0.8%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Bursitis |
1 (0.8%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Joint effusion |
1 (0.8%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Joint stiffness |
1 (0.8%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Joint swelling |
1 (0.8%) |
2 (1.7%) |
Localized osteoarthritis |
2 (1.7%) |
1 (0.8%) |
†NOS = Not Otherwise Specified |