ClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT04521387Updated Mar 11, 2022

Evaluation of Clinical Efficacy of Different Injection Therapies for Treating Humeral Epicondylopathy

A Phase 4 interventional study of injection therapy and Platelet Rich Plasma in Elbow Tendinopathy, sponsored by Wroclaw Medical University. Status unknown at 1 site in Poland. Open to participants aged 30 Years to 60 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2022-03-11.

Sponsored by Wroclaw Medical University · Phase 4, Interventional, and Treatment

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Aug 2021), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Phase
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
120
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
30 Years to 60 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Humeral epicondylopathies are common disorders which can significantly impair upper limb function. In case of failure of rehabilitation protocol there is no evidence based second line therapy. It is common practice to perform one of the injection procedures. The biological mechanisms of these procedures are unclear, and may even be contrary. These include, but are not limited to, injections of corticosteroids, autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA). Despite the frequent use there is much controversy about their clinical effectiveness and more evidence based data are required.

The aim of the study is to compare three different injection therapies for lateral epicondylopathy. In addition, correlation between selected bioactive compounds in PRP and its clinical effectiveness will be evaluated.

The study is planned as a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial on 120 patients aged 30-60 who suffer for lateral epicondylitis. After meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria patients will receive an injection of leukocyte-rich autologous PRP (N1), corticosteroid (N2), HA (N3) in the area of the common extensors tendon attachment, respectively. Patients from control group (N4) will get an injection of saline in the same area. All groups will be instructed how to perform everyday stretching and strengthening exercises. Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of the treatment will be based on objective measurements such as range of motion, limb girth, grip strength, X-ray and ultrasound examination and subjective measurements such as pain (VAS), functional (PRTEE, DASH, SEV, MEPS) and quality of life questionnaires (SF-36) before and during follow-up period (1, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks). PRP samples will undergo laboratory analysis of levels of bioactive compounds including platelets, white blood cells, erythrocytes and selected growth factors and inflammatory cytokines.

After data collection, the clinical effectiveness of three different injection therapies will be evaluated and statistically analyzed. Subjective and objective outcomes, safety, costs-effectiveness of three different injection therapies compared to placebo and between each other will be assessed. In addition, correlation between levels of bioactive compounds in PRP and its efficacy will be checked.

Read the detailed description

The study will be a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial with placebo. It is planned to enroll 120 patients with lateral epicondylopathy and divide them to four equal groups receiving an autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) (N1=30), corticosteroid (N2=30) or hyaluronic acid (N3=30) injection in the area of lateral epicondyle, or to control group (N4=30) receiving an injection of saline in the same area.

After meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria and before therapeutic intervention patients will undergo clinical and radiological examination and laboratory analysis of blood samples - complete blood count, C reactive protein (CRP), selected cytokines. Elbow anterior-posterior and lateral view X-ray and ultrasound examination will be performed to find signs of enthesopathy, asses calcifications and to exclude other pathologies.

To measure the clinical effectiveness of the treatment examination including range of motion, limb girth measurements, grip and muscle strength measured by dedicated device (digital dynamometer) and regional pain severity measured by professional digital algometer will be performed. Patients will be asked to fulfil pain, functional and quality of live questionnaires, including Visual Analog Scale for pain intensity evaluation (VAS), Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), The Oxford Elbow Score, The Subjective Elbow Value (SEV) and The Quality of life questionnaire SF-36.

Patients from the experimental group will receive an injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) without activator (2ml) in the area of attachment of the common extensor tendon under supervision of ultrasound (N1=30), corticosteroid - 2ml of 7mg Betamethasone (N2=30) or 2ml of 40mg hyaluronic acid with mannitol (N3=30). Patients from control group will get an injection of saline (2ml 0,9% NaCl) in the same area (N=30). The injection will be carried out with aseptic precautions, under regional anesthesia with Lignocaine 1%. Saline injection as placebo intervention for control group was chosen because of a similar impression for the patient comparing to other injections. Also there are some previously reported positive outcomes of that kind of intervention alone. The procedure will be performed in accordance with the principle of double-blinding. Every patient will get identification number which will be randomly assigned to one from all groups, in equal proportion. Both, patient and investigator will not know what kind of substance was used for the treatment. Only person giving the injection will have access to patients identification numbers list and will know the exact type of treatment.

Part of the PRP sample (1ml) will undergo laboratory analysis of levels of bioactive compounds. Assessment of levels and concentrations of platelets, white blood cells and erythrocytes will be performed. The investigators will evaluate the content of selected cytokines in PRP using flow cytometry for growth hormones: Platelet Derived Growth Factor-AA (PDGF-AA), Platelet Derived Growth Factor-BB (PDGF-BB), Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF), Hepatocyte Growth Factor (HGF), Fibroblast Growth Factor basic (FGF), Transforming Growth Factor Beta1 free active (TGFβ1) and inflammatory cytokines: Interleukin-1β (IL-1β), Interferon-α2 (IFN-α2), Interferon-γ (IFN-γ), Tumor Necrosis Factor -α (TNF-α), Monocyte Chemotactic Protein -1 (MCP-1), Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-8 (IL-8), Interleukin-10 (IL-10), Interleukin-12p70 (IL-12p70), Interleukin-17A (IL-17A), Interleukin-18 (IL-18), Interleukin-23 (IL-23), Interleukin-33 (IL-33).

Patients will be reassessed 1, 4, 12, 24 and 52 weeks after intervention. All patients will undergo ultrasound examination before treatment and during follow-up period. Every group will be instructed how to perform everyday stretching and strengthening exercises during the whole period of the study. All information about any complications will be collected and evaluated.

After data unblinding, statistical analysis will be performed. Subjective and objective outcomes, safety, costs-effectiveness of three different injection therapies compared to placebo and between each other will be assessed.

There are no original studies comparing clinical effectiveness between corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, autologous platelet rich plasma and placebo in patients with elbow tendinopathy. There are only few good quality studies on the clinical effectiveness of lateral epicondylopathy treatment with different injection therapies. Most of them compare only one injection method to active comparator or placebo. Usually follow-up period is less than 3 months. Frequent follow-up visits will help to reliably evaluate rate of recurrence and to evaluate correlation between subjective and objective (e.g. USG) findings.

It is believed that results of this study will show significant positive clinical effect of different injection treatments of patients with lateral humeral epicondylopathy. The investigators would like to find which one from injection treatments among corticosteroids, autologous platelet rich plasma and hyaluronic acid will provide best outcomes, safety profile, short and long-term efficacy, cost-effectiveness and the fastest return to work. The results of the study will increase the knowledge about the treatment of lateral epicondylopathy, helping to create a reliable algorithm for supporting the decision-making process in everyday clinical practice.

02

Conditions studied

  • Elbow Tendinopathy

Keywords

  • Tennis elbow
  • Lateral humeral epicondylopathy
  • Lateral epicondylitis
  • injection therapies
  • platelet rich plasma
  • hyaluronic acid injection
  • steroid injection
  • lateral elbow tendinopathy
  • epicondylopathia humeri
03

In context

Elbow Tendinopathy

28 studies on the registry are indexed under Elbow Tendinopathy; 10 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 120 is above the median of 50 across 25 interventional studies indexed under Elbow Tendinopathy.

Browse Elbow Tendinopathy studies →

Lead sponsor

Wroclaw Medical University is the lead sponsor of 99 studies on the registry; 29 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
30 Years to 60 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • pain on the lateral side of the elbow joint for at least three months,
  • confirmation of lateral epicondylitis in at least one provocative test,
  • no previous invasive treatment,
  • no improvement after rehabilitation

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • nervous system diseases related to the upper limb,
  • hematological diseases,
  • diabetes,
  • tumors of upper extremity,
  • gout,
  • advanced osteoarthritis,
  • previously performed operations around the elbow joint,
  • suspicion of the infectious process,
  • pregnant
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 4
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
120 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    N1 Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP)

    2ml of autologous platelet rich plasma injection

    Procedure: injection therapy · Drug: Platelet Rich Plasma

  • Active comparator
    N2 Corticosteroid (CS)

    2ml of 7mg Betamethasone injection

    Procedure: injection therapy · Drug: Corticosteroid Injection

  • Active comparator
    N3 Hyaluronic Acid (HA)

    2ml of 40mg hyaluronic acid with mannitol injection

    Procedure: injection therapy · Drug: Hyaluronic Acid Injection

  • Placebo comparator
    N4 Saline (NaCl)

    2ml saline (0,9%NaCl) injection

    Procedure: injection therapy · Other: Placebo Injection

Interventions

  • Procedureinjection therapy

    The injection will be carried out with aseptic precautions, under regional anesthesia with 1ml of 1% Lignocaine through one puncture of the skin and frequent changes in the inside needle position.

    Also known as: injection

  • Platelet rich plasma injection in the painful area of humeral epicondyle.

    Also known as: PRP

  • DrugCorticosteroid Injection

    Corticosteroid injection in the painful area of humeral epicondyle.

    Also known as: CS

  • Hyaluronic acid injection in the painful area of humeral epicondyle.

    Also known as: HA

  • OtherPlacebo Injection

    Saline injection in the painful area of humeral epicondyle.

    Also known as: NaCl

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in pain level assessed by Visual Analog Scale

    the change of pain level in the region of lateral or medial humeral epicondyle after treatment represented on Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scoring from 0 (no-pain) to 10 (worst imaginable pain)

    Time frame: 0, 1, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  2. Change in functional outcome assessed by Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation

    the change in the results of functional questionnaire - Patient-rated Tennis Elbow Evaluation (PRTEE), scale from 0 to 100, lower value means less disability

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in muscle strength assessed by hand held dynamometer

    the forearm muscle strength and grip strength change after treatment measured by hand held dynamometer (higher load means better outcome)

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  2. Change in ultrasound examination image

    any changes in ultrasound examination images of lateral or medial humeral epicondyle region after treatment

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  3. Change in results of quality of life questionnaire SF-36

    any changes in the results of The Quality of life questionnaire SF-36, scale 0-100, lower score means more disability

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  4. Change in functional outcome assessed by Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand

    the change in the results of functional questionnaire - Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH), scale from 0 to 100, higher scores reflects to more disability

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  5. Change in functional outcome assessed by The Subjective Elbow Value

    the change in the results of functional questionnaire - The Subjective Elbow Value (SEV), scale from 0 to 100%, subjective self rating of patients elbow, 100% means normal elbow

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  6. Change in functional outcome assessed by Mayo Elbow Performance Score

    the change in the results of functional questionnaire - Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), scale from 0 to 100, higher value indicates a better condition

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  7. Change in functional outcome assessed by The Oxford Elbow Score

    the change in the results of functional questionnaire - The Oxford Elbow Score, scale from 0 to 100, higher value indicates a better condition

    Time frame: 0, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

Other outcomes

  1. Rate of adverse events

    collecting information about any adverse events related with treatment

    Time frame: 0, 1, 4, 12, 24, 52 weeks

  2. Comparison of treatment cost-effectiveness

    comparison of different methods total treatment costs from intervention to complete recovery

    Time frame: 52 weeks

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
  • Sport Division, Wroclaw Medical University
    Wroclaw, Woj. Dolnośląskie 51-618, Poland
    Recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reached

Started Feb 2021 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for May 2022, 15 months after the start.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
May 21, 2020
First posted
Aug 20, 2020
StartActual
Feb 1, 2021
Primary completionEst.
May 1, 2022
CompletionEst.
May 31, 2022
Last update
Mar 11, 2022
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 11, 2022, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04521387
Lead sponsor
Wroclaw Medical University
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 20, 2020
Start date
Feb 1, 2021
Primary completion
May 1, 2022 (estimated)
Completion
May 31, 2022 (estimated)
Last update
Mar 11, 2022

Study contacts

Maciej Dejnek
Contact
maciej.dejnek@student.umed.wroc.pl
793999245 ext. +48
Pawel Reichert, PhD
Contact
pawel.reichert@umed.wroc.pl
Pawel Reichert, PhD
principal investigator · Division of Sports Medicine/ Wroclaw Medical University

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Aug 2021. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drug tested here: Platelet rich plasma

Start the discussion