Scrabeck, Tyson L.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major global health problem with no disease-modifying therapies. Interleukin-1 (IL-1) is a critical cytokine associated with the pathophysiology of OA and can be inhibited by IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra). Here, we tested the delivery of a gene therapeutic encoding the human IL-1Ra to the knee in a phase 1, open-label clinical trial that enrolled nine patients with radiographic knee OA. The IL-1Ra gene was delivered by a self-complementary (sc)–recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) serotype 2.5 (sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra) by intra-articular injection into an index knee at one of three doses: low [1 × 10 11 viral genomes (vg)], mid (1 × 10 12 vg), or high (1 × 10 13 vg). The primary outcome was safety. There were no serious adverse events (AEs) related to sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra. Two AEs occurred that were possibly related to the vector. Both were effusions with increased pain and resolved with conservative treatment. sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra did not cause changes in vital signs, physical findings, or clinical laboratory measures. Less than 1% of the injected dose of sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra vg was detected in circulation after 1 day and was cleared within a week. Titers of neutralizing antibodies to AAV2.5 rose in serum and synovial fluid. In all cases, IL-1Ra concentration increased in the synovial fluid, and IL-1Ra concentrations remained elevated after 1 year. Baseline pain and function scores improved during the study. Therefore, we found that intra-articular gene therapy with sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra was safe. The sustained increase in local IL-1Ra in human knee joints supports the further clinical examination of this therapy to provide therapeutic benefit in OA.

Background: Restoring touch perception for individuals with upper extremity limb loss is an ambitious task. It is important to understand how persons with upper limb loss think this would be best achieved. Methods: An anonymous online survey was developed to obtain data from prosthetic users. Participants ranked the perceived acceptability and effectiveness of noninvasive sensory feedback to areas of intact sensation not typically involved in sensory feedback (i.e., the arm). The focus was on 4 main types of haptic information—object contact, proprioception, surface texture, and grasp force—as well as how best to convey those senses with various stimuli. The users were asked to grade themselves in certain tasks and then analyze which tasks would be improved with sensory feedback. Associations were explored between demographic characteristics and interest in sensory feedback. Results: Nationally, prostheses providers sent more than 2000 email invitations to the online survey and received 142 unique responses. Responses indicated interest in sensory feedback through prosthetic limbs by individuals with upper limb loss. The most popular pairing of haptic information with sensory substitution was grasp force paired with gentle vibration. Tasks that most persons taking the survey agreed would benefit from sensory feedback were zipping a jacket, tying shoes, buttoning a shirt, and using a cup. No difference was observed in interest between sex and employment status, but a significant decrease (P = .004) was seen in interest among participants with more years of prosthetic use. Discussion: The results from this national survey of upper extremity prosthetic users can be used to help guide the development of noninvasive sensory feedback options.