Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Register a trial
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02412735
Registration number
NCT02412735
Ethics application status
Date submitted
25/03/2015
Date registered
9/04/2015
Titles & IDs
Public title
Placebo-controlled Study to Evaluate Rexlemestrocel-L Alone or Combined With Hyaluronic Acid in Participants With Chronic Low Back Pain
Query!
Scientific title
A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Single Injection of Rexlemestrocel-L Alone or Combined With Hyaluronic Acid (HA) in Subjects With Chronic Low Back Pain
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
MSB-DR003
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
MSB-DR003
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Degenerative Disc Disease
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Musculoskeletal
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other muscular and skeletal disorders
Query!
Neurological
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other neurological disorders
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Drugs - Rexlemestrocel-L
Treatment: Drugs - Rexlemestrocel-L + HA Mixture
Treatment: Drugs - Placebo
Experimental: Rexlemestrocel-L - Participants received rexlemestrocel-L 2.0 mL injection of approximately 6 million rexlemestrocel-L cells in freeze media mixed in a 1:1 by-volume ratio with saline on Day 0 (Visit 2).
Experimental: Rexlemestrocel-L + HA - Participants received rexlemestrocel-L 2.0 mL injection of approximately 6 million rexlemestrocel-L cells in freeze media mixed in a 1:1 by-volume ratio with hyaluronic acid (HA) solution on Day 0 (Visit 2).
Placebo comparator: Placebo - Participants received saline solution as matching-placebo on Day 0 (Visit 2).
Treatment: Drugs: Rexlemestrocel-L
Rexlemestrocel-L injection
Treatment: Drugs: Rexlemestrocel-L + HA Mixture
Rexlemestrocel-L was combined in 1:1 by-volume ratio with HA solution and the resulting mixture was injected
Treatment: Drugs: Placebo
Saline control solution
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Drugs
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Overall Treatment Success: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
Overall treatment success was determined based on number of responders who had composite response at both months 12 and 24 evaluated per specified criteria. A treatment responder with treatment success was defined as a participant who met the 3 criteria of a composite responder analysis as: 50% or greater reduction in the lower-back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score; 15-point or greater reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score; and lack of post-treatment interventions at the treated level as of the study visit (Visits 6 \[12 months post-treatment\] and 8 \[24 months post-treatment\]). The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as Bayesian estimate\[BE\]) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Up to 24 months
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Effectiveness Based on Pain Responders: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
A participant was defined as a pain responder for a given study visit if they achieved at least a 50% reduction from Baseline in the lower-back pain VAS score (average pain over 24 hours), as reported during in-clinic assessment. The participant should be qualified as a pain responder at both 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and must not have received a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Up to 24 months
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Effectiveness Based on Functional Responders: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
A participant was defined as a functional responder for a given study visit if they achieved at least a 15-point reduction from Baseline in ODI score, as reported during in-clinic assessment. The participant should be qualified as a functional responder at both 12 and 24 months post-treatment, and must not have received a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up; any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Up to 24 months
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Effectiveness Based on Treatment Success at 24 Months: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
A treatment responder with treatment success was defined as a participant who met the 3 conditions of a composite responder analysis as: 50% or greater reduction in the lower-back pain VAS score; 15-point or greater reduction in ODI score; and lack of post-treatment interventions at the treated level as of the study visit. The participants qualified as responders if they satisfied the above conditions at the 24-month follow-up visit alone. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Month 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Effectiveness Based on Minimal Pain Responders at 24 Months: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
A minimal pain responder was defined as a participant who achieved a lower-back pain VAS score (average pain over 24 hours) of 20 mm or less at the given study visit. The participants qualified as responders if they satisfied the above condition at 24 months post-treatment, and did not receive a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Month 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Effectiveness Based on Time to First Intervention Over 24 Months
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
The effectiveness of the study drug was evaluated based on its ability in increasing the time to additional interventions at the treated level over 24 months post-treatment. Kaplan-Meier estimates for the probability (expressed as a percentage) of participants to receive an intervention are presented.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Up to Month 24
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Effectiveness Based on Minimal Disability Responders at 24 Months: Bayesian Estimated Response Rate
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
A minimal disability responder was defined as a participant who achieved an ODI score of 20% or less at the given study visit. The participants qualified as responders if they satisfied the above condition at 24 months post-treatment, and did not receive a post-treatment intervention through 24 months' follow-up. Any participant that did not have a minimum of a visit at 3 months (Study Visit 4) was considered a non-responder for this outcome measure. The average response rate (proportion of participants with response presented as BE) was based upon the average of multiple Bayesian simulations.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Month 24
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* Male and female participants 18 years of age and older
* If female of childbearing potential, participant is non-pregnant, non-nursing, and agrees to use highly effective methods of contraception for a minimum of 24 months post-treatment
* Signed informed consent and country-appropriate privacy forms indicating participant is willing to undergo treatment and willing to be available for each examination scheduled over the study duration
* Have documented diagnosis of moderate radiographic degeneration of an intervertebral disc from L1 to S1, with a disc suspected of causing chronic low back pain (CLBP) associated with moderate radiographic degeneration at a lumbar disc is defined as the following (participant must meet all of the listed conditions):
1. Chronic low back pain for at least 6 months
2. Have failed 6 months of conservative back pain care. (Conservative treatment regimens may include any or all of the following: initial rest, medications [e.g., anti-inflammatory, analgesics, narcotics/opioids, muscle relaxants], massage, acupuncture, chiropractic manipulations, activity modification, home-directed lumbar exercise program, and non-invasive pain control treatments or procedures)
3. Have at a minimum undergone supervised physical therapy, such as daily walking routines, therapeutic exercises, and back education programs specifically for the treatment of low back pain and taken a pain medication for back pain (e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and/or opioid medication).
4. Change from normal disc morphology of the index disc as defined by radiographic evaluation by the core imaging evaluation provider. Radiographs must show all of the following:
* A modified Pfirrmann score of 3, 4, 5 or 6 on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at the index disc
* Modic Grade II changes or less on MRI at the index disc
* With or without contained disc protrusion at the index disc on MRI
e. Low back pain of at least 40mm and not more than 90mm of 100mm on low back pain visual analogue scale (VAS) (average pain over 24 hours)
f. Leg pain =20mm in both legs on a 100mm VAS scale
g. Oswestry disability index (ODI) score of at least 30 and no more than 90 on a 100 point scale.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
* Female participants who are pregnant or nursing, or women planning to become pregnant in the first 24 months post-treatment
* Extreme obesity, as defined by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Guidelines Body Mass Index (BMI > 40)
* Have undergone a surgical procedure (e.g. discectomy, intradiscal electrothermal therapy, intradiscal radiofrequency, artificial disc replacement, interbody fusion) on the disc at the index or adjacent level
* Osteoporosis, as defined by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) scan. A DEXA T-score of = -2.5 will exclude the participant.
* Any lumbar intradiscal injection, including steroids, into the index or adjacent discs prior to treatment injection, with the exception of the following injections performed at least 2 weeks prior to study treatment:
1. Contrast medium (discography or other diagnostic injection)
2. NSAIDs
3. Nerve-blocking anesthetics (e.g., lidocaine, bupivacaine)
4. Antibiotics
5. Saline
* Have undergone a procedure affecting the structure/biomechanics of the index disc level (e.g., posterolateral fusion)
* Active malignancy or tumor as source of symptoms or history of malignancy within the 5 years prior to enrolment on study
* Have been a recipient of prior allogeneic stem cell/progenitor cell therapy for any indication or autologous stem cell/progenitor cell therapy or other biological intervention to repair the index intervertebral disc
* An average baseline morphine equivalent dose (MED) of >75mg/day as determined by e-diary entries during the screening period
* Taking systemic immunosuppressants
* A medical condition, serious intercurrent illness, or extenuating circumstance that would preclude participation in the study or potentially decrease survival or interfere with ambulation or rehabilitation.
* Participants involved in spinal litigation, including workman's compensation, unless litigation is complete
* Are transient or has a severe alcohol or substance abuse problem
* Clinically significant nerve pain (e.g., chronic radiculopathy or neuropathy)
* Clinically significant sacroiliac joint pain
* Compressive pathology due to stenosis or disc protrusion on MRI with associated clinical symptoms defined as leg pain VAS>20mm out of 100mm or neurologic deficit on neurologic exam
* Disc extrusion with a maximum dimension greater or equal to twice the posterior height of the disc, or disc sequestration in the lumbar spine on MRI as determined by radiographic core lab
* Modified Pfirrmann score of 7 or 8 at any lumbar level (L1-S1) on MRI evaluation as determined by radiographic core lab
* Symptomatic involvement of more than one lumbar disc
* Symptomatic central vertebral canal stenosis as defined by neurogenic claudication
* Spondylolisthesis or retrolisthesis Grade 2 and above or Spondylolysis at the index or adjacent level(s)
* Lumbar spondylitis or other undifferentiated spondyloarthropathy affecting the index disc
* Spinal deformity defined as lumbar scoliosis with a Cobb angle of the lumbar spine greater than 15 degrees
* Any fracture of the spine at the index or adjacent levels that has not healed, or clinically compromised vertebral bodies at the index level due to current or past trauma
* Facet pain at the index level or adjacent segments as determined by a diagnostic medial branch block (a facet block injection is not acceptable for making this determination) to rule out facet joint involvement.
* Full thickness annular tears in the index level as determined by free flowing contrast media through the annulus fibrosis.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people administering the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 3
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
6/03/2015
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
15/06/2021
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
404
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
VIC
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
Monash Medical Center - Clayton
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
3168 - Clayton
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Alabama
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Arizona
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
California
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Colorado
Query!
Country [5]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [5]
0
0
District of Columbia
Query!
Country [6]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [6]
0
0
Florida
Query!
Country [7]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [7]
0
0
Georgia
Query!
Country [8]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [8]
0
0
Idaho
Query!
Country [9]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [9]
0
0
Illinois
Query!
Country [10]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [10]
0
0
Kentucky
Query!
Country [11]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [11]
0
0
Louisiana
Query!
Country [12]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [12]
0
0
Minnesota
Query!
Country [13]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [13]
0
0
Nevada
Query!
Country [14]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [14]
0
0
New Jersey
Query!
Country [15]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [15]
0
0
New York
Query!
Country [16]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [16]
0
0
North Carolina
Query!
Country [17]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [17]
0
0
Ohio
Query!
Country [18]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [18]
0
0
Oklahoma
Query!
Country [19]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [19]
0
0
Pennsylvania
Query!
Country [20]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [20]
0
0
Rhode Island
Query!
Country [21]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [21]
0
0
South Carolina
Query!
Country [22]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [22]
0
0
Texas
Query!
Country [23]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [23]
0
0
Utah
Query!
Country [24]
0
0
United States of America
Query!
State/province [24]
0
0
Virginia
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Mesoblast, Ltd.
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Other collaborator category [1]
0
0
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name [1]
0
0
Quintiles, Inc.
Query!
Address [1]
0
0
Query!
Country [1]
0
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Mesoblast's rexlemestrocel-L alone or combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in participants with chronic low back pain (\> 6 months) associated with moderate radiographic degenerative changes of a disc.
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02412735
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Roger Brown
Query!
Address
0
0
Mesoblast, Ltd.
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Type
Other Details
Attachment
Study protocol
Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/35/NCT02412735/Prot_SAP_001.pdf
Statistical analysis plan
Study Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/35/NCT02412735/Prot_SAP_001.pdf
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02412735