Clinical trial design in fracture-healing research: meeting the challenge

Are large fracture trials really possible? What we have learned from the randomized controlled damage control study?

PURPOSE

Although they are considered the 'gold standard' of evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials are still a rarity in orthopedic surgery. In the management of patients with multiple trauma, there is a current trend toward 'damage control orthopedics', but to date, there is no proof of the superiority of this concept in terms of evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this article is to present unexpected difficulties we encountered in successfully completing our randomized controlled trial and to discuss the problematic differences between theoretically planning a trial and real-life practical experience of implementing the plan, with attention to published strategies.

METHODS

The multicenter randomized controlled trial on risk adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple trauma patients (DCO study) was designed to determine whether 'risk adapted damage control orthopedics' of femoral shaft fractures is advantageous when treating multiple trauma patients. We compared our methods of study planning and realization point by point with published methods for conducting such trials.

RESULTS

The study was methodically planned. We met the most prerequisites for successfully completing a large fracture trial, but experienced unexpected difficulties. After 2.5 years, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft suspended the financing because of low recruitment. The reasons were multifactorial.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe it is much more difficult to perform a large fracture trial in reality than to plan it in theory. Even the theoretically best designed trial can prove unsuccessful in its implementation. The question remains: are large fracture trials even possible? Hopefully YES!

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10321620. Date assigned: 09/02/2007.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Angiogenic conditioning of peripheral blood mononuclear cells promotes fracture healing

Objectives

The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effect of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMNCs) treated with quality and quantity control culture (QQ-culture) to expand and fortify angiogenic cells on the acceleration of fracture healing.

Methods

Human PBMNCs were cultured for seven days with the QQ-culture method using a serum-free medium containing five specific cytokines and growth factors. The QQ-cultured PBMNCs (QQMNCs) obtained were counted and characterised by flow cytometry and real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Angiogenic and osteo-inductive potentials were evaluated using tube formation assays and co-culture with mesenchymal stem cells with osteo-inductive medium in vitro. In order to evaluate the therapeutic potential of QQMNCs, cells were transplanted into an immunodeficient rat femur nonunion model. The rats were randomised into three groups: control; PBMNCs; and QQMNCs. The fracture healing was evaluated radiographically and histologically.

Results

The total number of PBMNCs was decreased after QQ-culture, however, the number of CD34+ and CD206+ cells were found to have increased as assessed by flow cytometry analysis. In addition, gene expression of angiogenic factors was upregulated in QQMNCs. In the animal model, the rate of bone union was higher in the QQMNC group than in the other groups. Radiographic scores and bone volume were significantly associated with the enhancement of angiogenesis in the QQMNC group.

Conclusion

We have demonstrated that QQMNCs have superior potential to accelerate fracture healing compared with PBMNCs. The QQMNCs could be a promising option for fracture nonunion.

Cite this article: K. Mifuji, M. Ishikawa, N. Kamei, R. Tanaka, K. Arita, H. Mizuno, T. Asahara, N. Adachi, M. Ochi. Angiogenic conditioning of peripheral blood mononuclear cells promotes fracture healing. Bone Joint Res 2017;6: 489–498. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.68.BJR-2016-0338.R1.

Effects of Teriparatide Compared with Risedronate on Recovery After Pertrochanteric Hip Fracture: Results of a Randomized, Active-Controlled, Double-Blind Clinical Trial at 26 Weeks

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis drugs might affect fracture-healing. We therefore studied the effects of teriparatide in comparison with risedronate on recovery after pertrochanteric hip fractures.

METHODS

The study was a randomized, multicenter, active-controlled, 78-week trial comparing teriparatide (20 μg/day) with risedronate (35 mg/week) initiated within 2 weeks after fixation of a low-trauma pertrochanteric hip fracture (AO/OTA 31-A1 or 31-A2). The main inclusion criteria were a bone mineral density T-score of ≤-2.0 and 25-OH-vitamin D of ≥9.2 ng/mL. During the first 26 weeks, patients received study medication with oral or injectable placebo plus calcium and vitamin D in a double-blinded fashion. Secondary (Timed Up-and-Go [TUG] test, hip pain, Short Form [SF]-36 health status, and safety) and exploratory (radiographic outcomes and ability to walk) 26-week end points are reported.

RESULTS

Of the 224 patients who were randomized, 171 (86 teriparatide, 85 risedronate) were included in the analysis. The mean age was 77 ± 8 years, 77% were female, and 26% had a prior history of low-trauma fracture. The teriparatide group completed the TUG test in a shorter time at 6, 12, 18, and 26 weeks (differences of -5.7, -4.4, -3.1, and -3.1 seconds, respectively; p = 0.021 for the overall difference). They also reported less pain on a visual analog scale immediately after the TUG test at 12 and 18 weeks (adjusted absolute differences of 10.6 and 11.9 mm, respectively; p < 0.05). There were no significant between-group differences in the SF-36 score, Charnley hip pain score, ability to walk, or use of walking aids during follow-up. Radiographic healing at 6, 12, and 26 weeks, mechanical failure of the implant (teriparatide, 7; risedronate, 8), loss of reduction (teriparatide, 2; risedronate, 4), and nonunion (0 cases) were not significantly different. Mild hypercalcemia and hyperuricemia were more frequent with teriparatide.

CONCLUSIONS

Teriparatide was associated with less pain and a shorter time to complete the TUG test between 6 and 26 weeks compared with risedronate. Other fracture-recovery outcomes were similar. The results should be interpreted with caution as these were secondary end points.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Autologous bone grafts with MSCs or FGF-2 accelerate bone union in large bone defects

BACGROUND

Although the contribution of fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-2 and mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) to bone formation is well known, few studies have investigated the combination of an autologous bone graft with FGF-2 or MSCs for large bone defects.

METHODS

We studied an atrophic non-union model with a large bone defect, created by resecting a 10-mm section from the center of each femoral shaft of 12-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats. The periosteum of the proximal and distal ends of the femur was cauterized circumferentially, and excised portions were used in the contralateral femur as autologous bone grafts. The rats were randomized to three groups and given no further treatment (group A), administered FGF-2 at 20 μg/20 μL (group B), or 1.0 × 10⁶ MSCs (group C). Radiographs were taken every 2 weeks up to 12 weeks, with CT performed at 12 weeks. Harvested femurs were stained with toluidine blue and evaluated using radiographic and histology scores.

RESULTS

Radiographic and histological evaluation showed that bone union had been achieved at 12 weeks in group C, while group B showed callus formation and bridging callus but non-union, and in group A, callus formation alone was evident. Both radiographic and histological scores were significantly higher at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 weeks in groups B and C than group A and also significantly higher in group C than group B at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that autologous bone grafts in combination with MSCs benefit difficult cases which cannot be treated with autologous bone grafts alone.

Biologic adjuvants for fracture healing

Bone tissue has an exceptional quality to regenerate to native tissue in response to injury. However, the fracture repair process requires mechanical stability or a viable biological microenvironment or both to ensure successful healing to native tissue. An improved understanding of the molecular and cellular events that occur during bone repair and remodeling has led to the development of biologic agents that can augment the biological microenvironment and enhance bone repair. Orthobiologics, including stem cells, osteoinductive growth factors, osteoconductive matrices, and anabolic agents, are available clinically for accelerating fracture repair and treatment of compromised bone repair situations like delayed unions and nonunions. Preclinical and clinical studies using biologic agents like recombinant bone morphogenetic proteins have demonstrated an efficacy similar or better than that of autologous bone graft in acute fracture healing. A lack of standardized outcome measures for comparison of biologic agents in clinical fracture repair trials, frequent off-label use, and a limited understanding of the biological activity of these agents at the bone repair site have limited their efficacy in clinical applications.

In vivo bioluminescence imaging of transplanted bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells using a magnetic delivery system in a rat fracture model

For the treatment of ununited fractures, we developed a system of delivering magnetic labelled mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) using an extracorporeal magnetic device. In this study, we transplanted ferucarbotran-labelled and luciferase-positive bone marrow-derived MSCs into a non-healing femoral fracture rat model in the presence of a magnetic field. The biological fate of the transplanted MSCs was observed using luciferase-based bioluminescence imaging and we found that the number of MSC derived photons increased from day one to day three and thereafter decreased over time. The magnetic cell delivery system induced the accumulation of photons at the fracture site, while also retaining higher photon intensity from day three to week four. Furthermore, radiological and histological findings suggested improved callus formation and endochondral ossification. We therefore believe that this delivery system may be a promising option for bone regeneration.

Revisiting sample size: are big trials the answer?

The superiority of the evidence generated in randomized controlled trials over observational data is not only conditional to randomization. Randomized controlled trials require proper design and implementation to provide a reliable effect estimate. Adequate random sequence generation, allocation implementation, analyses based on the intention-to-treat principle, and sufficient power are crucial to the quality of a randomized controlled trial. Power, or the probability of the trial to detect a difference when a real difference between treatments exists, strongly depends on sample size. The quality of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials is frequently threatened by a limited sample size. This paper reviews basic concepts and pitfalls in sample-size estimation and focuses on the importance of large trials in the generation of valid evidence.

The darker side of randomized trials: recruitment challenges

Randomized trials are thought to provide optimal evidence if carried out correctly. Their application to important questions is the best guide to clinical decision-making. However, these trials are expensive to complete and have a variety of challenges in design and application. This article will review some of the factors that affect our ability to recruit patients into randomized controlled trials for conditions that may be treated surgically by different methods or for conditions for which both nonsurgical and surgical treatments exist.

Implications for fracture healing of current and new osteoporosis treatments: an ESCEO consensus paper

Osteoporotic fracture healing is critical to clinical outcome in terms of functional recovery, morbidity, and quality of life. Osteoporosis treatments may affect bone repair, so insights into their impact on fracture healing are important. We reviewed the current evidence for an impact of osteoporosis treatments on bone repair. Treatment with bisphosphonate in experimental models is associated with increased callus size and mineralization, reduced callus remodeling, and improved mechanical strength. Local and systemic bisphosphonate treatment may improve implant fixation. No negative impact on fracture healing has been observed, even after major surgery or when administered immediately after fracture. Experimental data for denosumab and raloxifene suggest no negative implications for bone repair. The extensive experimental results for teriparatide indicate increased callus formation, improved biomechanical strength, and greater external callus volume and total bone mineral content and density. Case reports and a randomized trial have produced mixed results but are consistent with a positive impact of teriparatide on clinical fracture healing. Studies with strontium ranelate in models of fracture healing indicate that it is associated with improved bone microstructure, callus volume, and biomechanical properties. Finally, there is experimental evidence for a beneficial effect of some of the agents currently being developed for osteoporosis, notably sclerostin antibody and DKK1 antibody. There is currently no evidence that osteoporosis treatments are detrimental for bone repair and some promising experimental evidence for positive effects on healing, notably for agents with a bone-forming mode of action, which may translate into therapeutic applications.

Are large fracture trials possible?

Reliable clinical orthopaedic trauma research is important and necessary to guide orthopaedic surgeons and their patients to best practices and expected outcomes. Currently, most fracture care is guided by suboptimal clinical research. To address this need, large fracture trials are necessary to deliver Level I evidence and direct the orthopaedic trauma surgeon in the best treatments. Although trials of this nature have been rare, they have been completed successfully. Although each fracture trial comes with its own set of obstacles, the trial can be successful with proper expertise, study planning, and study design. The purpose of this article is to present the rationale, methodology, and implementation strategies to successfully complete a large fracture trial.

Challenges for Large Orthopaedic Hospitals Worldwide-An ISOC Position Statement

Since the foundation of the International Society of Orthopaedic Centers in 2006, the group has continued to grow, with currently 11 members worldwide. During the 2008 annual meeting, the bylaws and mission of the group were approved as well as the acceptance of two additional members. Strict inclusion criteria were established to keep the group both small and effective. The goal of the 2008 meeting and this position statement is to identify current challenges in both research and education for large-volume orthopedic hospitals and to discuss possible approaches and solutions.

Resolving controversies in hip fracture care: the need for large collaborative trials in hip fractures

Hip fractures are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and the burden of disability associated with hip fractures globally vindicate the need for high-quality research to advance the care of patients with hip fractures. Historically, large, multi-centre randomized controlled trials have been rare in the orthopaedic trauma literature. Similar to other medical specialties, orthopaedic research is currently undergoing a paradigm shift from single centre initiatives to larger collaborative groups. This is evident with the establishment of several collaborative groups in Canada, in the United States, and in Europe, which has proven that multi-centre trials can be extremely successful in orthopaedic trauma research.Despite ever increasing literature on the topic of his fractures, the optimal treatment of hip fractures remains unknown and controversial. To resolve this controversy large multi-national collaborative randomized controlled trials are required. In 2005, the International Hip Fracture Research Collaborative was officially established following funding from the Canadian Institute of Health Research International Opportunity Program with the mandate of resolving controversies in hip fracture management. This manuscript will describe the need, the information, the organization, and the accomplishments to date of the International Hip Fracture Research Collaborative.