Observational analysis shows effective pain reduction in knee osteoarthritis with repeated polynucleotide cycles, suggesting a promising alternative treatment.
Background/Objectives: Intra-articular polynucleotide (PN) has emerged as an alternative to hyaluronic acid (HA) for treating knee osteoarthritis (OA), with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting similar or greater pain reduction. Real-world evidence on both single- and repeated-cycle outcomes remains limited. This study evaluated PN's real-world effectiveness and safety and whether its pain reduction falls within ranges reported in previous PN-HA RCTs, and evaluated repeated-cycle outcomes. Methods: Clinical data from 1048 PN-treated OA patients were retrospectively reviewed. The safety set comprised 1024 patients with follow-up visits. The efficacy set included 975 patients who completed 3-5 weekly PN injections with evaluable VAS, CGI, and PGI data at baseline, 3, and 6 months. A repeated-treatment subgroup (n = 45) received a second PN cycle 6 months later. First-cycle outcomes were compared with PN-HA RCTs. Results: In the first-cycle (n = 975), VAS decreased from 50.30 mm to 23.02 and 22.43 mm at 3 and 6 months (-27.28 and -27.87 mm; p < 0.0001), showing a comparable magnitude to RCT-reported ranges (~27-41 mm). CGI improvement was 81.0% and 79.6%, and PGI improvement 78.8% and 78.1% at 3 and 6 months. In the repeated-treatment subgroup (n = 45), despite a lower second-cycle baseline VAS of 31.00 mm (vs. 50.30 mm at first-cycle baseline), VAS decreased to 14.07 mm and 17.33 mm at 3 and 6 months (-16.93 and -13.67 mm; p < 0.001), achieving comparable absolute post-treatment pain levels. Among 1024 patients, three mild-to-moderate arthralgia events (0.29%) occurred, with no serious device-related adverse events in either cycle. Conclusions: PN provided meaningful 6-month pain reduction in a comparable magnitude to previous RCTs and showed consistent benefit with repeated administration without new safety concerns.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: