Back to Authors

Ha, C

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic Hospital

Citations 2

Radial Pressure Wave and Focused Shockwave Therapy for Proximal Hamstring Tendinopathy: The Role of Patient Positioning, a Narrative Review and Clinical Commentary
Arthurs, Jennifer R. , Ha, C, Pohlad, Julie L, Romero, J. García , Shapiro, Shane A. , Ha, Chris Thuc , Ha, Chris , Romero, Joshua M , Shapiro, Shane

International Journal of Sports Physical Therapy | April 1, 2026 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 4 | Pages: No page available

10.26603/001c.158527 Get It

Background Current literature has shown benefit of radial pressure wave (RPW) and focused shockwave (FSW) for management of proximal hamstring tendinopathy (PHT), although there remains a lack of consensus on treatment parameters and optimal patient positioning. Purpose The purpose of this narrative review and clinical commentary is to report what has been described for patient positioning during treatment of PHT with RPW or FSW and propose an alternative side lying approach. Methods A search was conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases for studies published from January 2005 to January 2026. Key search terms included proximal hamstring tendinopathy, shockwave therapy, extracorporeal shockwave treatment, radial pressure wave, hamstring tendinosis, hamstring tendinitis, and hamstring pain. Studies were included if they evaluated RPW or FSW for the treatment of PHT. Results Six manuscripts were identified for inclusion, two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two retrospective reviews, and two case reports; a total of 217 patients (145 female, 72 male) with PHT were treated with RPW and/or FSW. One RCT provided an in-depth description of patient positioning during shockwave treatment with the patient supine, with the hip and knee flexed, compared to other manuscripts detailing clinical focusing techniques only. One case report involving a para swimmer included a figure of treatment with the patient in a prone position. Improvement in patient reported outcomes with RPW and/or FSW was noted, with one RCT showing no differences between physiotherapy compared to RPW and FSW treatment. Conclusion RPW and FSW have some evidence regarding their benefits for treatment of PHT but controlled studies are limited and no consensus on treatment protocols or patient positioning during treatment have been determined. The authors’ preferred approach in treating PHT involves having the patient side lying with the hip and knee flexed to allow patient and clinician comfort while also creating compression of the proximal hamstring about the ischial tuberosity. It remains unclear how variance in patient positioning affects patient-reported outcomes. Future studies using RPW and FSW should include documentation of patient positioning when evaluating RPW and FSW efficacy. Level of Evidence 5
P0777 Dual targeted therapy with vedolizumab and tofacitinib in patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Initial results from the phase 4 ExiGem study
Yarur, Andrés , Barnes, E, Ha, C, Hudesman, D, Jairath, V, Lukin, D, Rubin, D T, Schreiber, S W, Gower, Megan, Jones, S, Robinson, Ian, Sanchirico, M, Yajnik, Vijay , Yarur, Andres J , Barnes, E, Deepak, Parakkal , Ha, Chris Thuc , Jairath, Vipul , Lukin, Dana J. , Schreiber, S W, Sanchirico, Marie

Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis | January 21, 2026 | Volume: 20 | Issue: Supplement_1 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjaf231.958 Get It

Abstract Background There is an unmet need for ulcerative colitis (UC) treatments that show improved effectiveness while maintaining safety profiles comparable with existing advanced therapies. Dual targeted therapy (DTT) has been proposed as a strategy to combine benefits of different advanced therapies to improve outcomes. The ExiGem study (NCT06095128) aims to assess the efficacy and safety of combined therapy with vedolizumab (VDZ) and tofacitinib (TOF) in adults with UC. We report results for the induction phase from the first 24 patients. Methods ExiGem is an ongoing phase 4, single-arm, multicentre study including adults with moderately to severely active UC (complete Mayo [cMayo] score of 6–12 with a rectal bleeding subscore ≥ 1 and centrally read endoscopic subscore ≥ 2). Eligible patients have previously had an inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to 1 or 2 anti-tumour necrosis factor α treatments. Patients receive induction therapy with intravenous (IV) VDZ 300 mg at weeks 0, 2, and 6 plus twice-daily oral TOF 10 mg for 8 weeks and then VDZ 300 mg IV monotherapy as maintenance from week 14. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients in clinical remission by cMayo score at week 8. Secondary endpoints include clinical response and clinical remission by modified Mayo (mMayo) score at week 8. Changes in faecal calprotectin (FCP) levels and endoscopic improvement were evaluated. Efficacy data were analysed using non-responder imputation. For the final analysis a pre-specified Bayesian approach will be used. The safety profile of DTT was evaluated. Results Patient baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. At week 8, 12/24 patients (50%) and 14/24 patients (58%) had clinical remission assessed by cMayo and mMayo scores, respectively; these rates were higher than pre-specified benchmark rates (Figure 1). Clinical response was observed in 21/24 patients (88%). At week 8, 14/24 patients (58%) showed endoscopic improvement, and 12/21 patients (57%) had normalization of FCP levels (< 250 µg/g). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were experienced by 10 patients (42%), and 1 serious TEAE was reported (suspected viral infection). One severe adverse event (AE; cough) and 2 moderate AEs (herpes zoster, drug intolerance) were considered related to TOF. No moderate or severe AEs were considered related to VDZ. One patient withdrew from the study before week 8 owing to intolerance to TOF. Conclusion Initial data suggest that induction with a combination of VDZ and TOF can produce improved rates of response and remission in patients with UC with a comparable safety profile to existing advanced monotherapies. Further data, including outcomes of VDZ maintenance as monotherapy, are pending. Conflict of interest: Prof. Dr. Yarur, Andres: Andres Yarur has served as an advisory board member for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Roche/Genentech, and Takeda. This study was funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Medical writing support was provided by Adam Errington PhD of PharmaGenesis Cardiff, Cardiff, UK, and funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Barnes, Edward: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI. Ha, Christina: Christina Ha has served as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Bausch Health, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Merck, Takeda, and Sanofi has received educational programming support from AbbVie, Celltrion, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Pfizer, and Takeda and has received consulting fees from AbbVie. Hudesman, David: Consultant: Abbvie, Abivax, BMS, Biocon, Eli Lilly, Fresenius Kabi, Pfizer, Prometheus, CorEvitas, Takeda, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi Research Support: Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer Jairath, Vipul: Consulting Fees: Abbvie, Alimentiv, Amgen, Anaptys Bio, Asahi Kasei, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, Attovia, Blackbird Labs, BMS, Boehringer Ingleheim, Biomebank, Caldera, Calluna, Catalytic Health, Celltrion, Ensho, Enthera, Exeliome Biosciences, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Granite Bio, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mountainfield, MRM Health, Nxera, Organon, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pendopharm, Pioneering Medicine, Pfizer, Prometheus, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, SCOPE, Shattuck Labs, Sorriso, Spyre, Synedgen, Takeda, Teva, Tillotts, Union Therapeutics, Ventus, Ventyx, Vividion, Xencor, Zealand Pharma. Lukin, Dana: Dana Lukin has served as a consultant/advisory board member for AbbVie, AltruBio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Palatin, Pfizer, Prime, PSI, Takeda, and Vedanta has received grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Johnson & Johnson and serves as a speaker for AbbVie and Johnson & Johnson. Rubin, David T.: Grant support: Takeda Pharmaceuticals. Consultant: Abbvie, Abivax SA, Altrubio, Athos Therapeutics, Inc, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Connect BioPharma, Eli Lilly & Co., Genentech (Roche) Inc., Iterative Health, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Mirador, Odyssey Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sanofi, Spyre, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Vedanta Biosciences, and Ventyx. Schreiber, Stefan Wolfgang: Stefan Schreiber has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Dr Falk Pharma, Eli Lilly, Ferring, Fresenius, Galapagos, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, I-MAB Biopharma, Janssen, Merck, Novartis/Sandoz, Pfizer, Protagonist, Takeda, and Ventyx Biosciences. Gower, Megan: Megan Gower is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Jones, Stephen: Stephen Jones is an independent medical consultant who provides services for Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Robinson, Ian: Ian Robinson is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Sanchirico, Marie: Marie Sanchirico is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Yajnik, Vijay: Vijay Yajnik is an employee and hold stock/stock options at Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.