Skip to main content
Download PDF

A pre-market interventional, single-arm clinical investigation of a new topical lotion based on hyaluronic acid and peptides, EGYFILTM, for the treatment of pain and stiffness in soft tissues

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders volume 24, Article number: 777 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Muscle pain and stiffness are strictly interconnected. Injuries frequently occur during sport activities, causing muscle pain, with or without stiffness, and require effective as well as fast-acting treatments. Topical products can be ideal for the treatment of such physical alterations as they are convenient and simple to use. In this study, it was investigated the application of a novel topical formulation, EGYFIL™, for the treatment of pain and stiffness due to muscle contracture, trauma, and/or overtraining. The lotion is composed of hyaluronic acid, a well-known ingredient for the pain alleviation, mixed with skin conditioning SH-Polypeptide-6 and SH-Oligopeptide-1, embedded in it.

Methods

Twenty-six patients with pain and/or stiffness were enrolled. After a screening visit (Time 0, t0), patients were treated for the first time with the IP. The treatment consisted of topical application of the pain lotion. Level of pain and stiffness were measured with Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Patients’ pain and/or stiffness were evaluated at t0 (prior to using the product), after three hours (t1), and after three days (t2) of treatment. Participants were free to apply and re-apply the product ad libitum over the course of the study period (3 days). Potential adverse events (AE) and tolerance were evaluated during each visit.

Results

There was a 22% decrease in pain in the first three hours (p < 0.001), followed by an additional 20% decrease after three days (p=0.0873). Overall, there was a 42% decrease in pain over the three days of the study (p =0.001). Furthermore, a 24% reduction in stiffness in the first three hours (p=0.025) and a 38% decrease in stiffness over three days (p < 0.001) were observed. Reduction in pain and stiffness were neither age, nor sex dependent. No adverse effects were reported during the study.

Conclusion

EGYFIL™ is safe and seems to reduce pain and stiffness in patients during the 3 days of treatment, already after 3 h from the first application.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05711953. This trial was registered on 03/02/2023.

Peer Review reports

Background

Stiffness is a prelude to musculoskeletal pain [1, 2]. Myofascial tone is characterized by ‘stiffness’ that progressively leads to unfavourable loading conditions that cause micro injury and other pathologies such as tendinopathy, osteoarthritis, enthesopathies as well as vascular tension and claudication that can cause pain [3,4,5]. The mechanobiological pathways relevant to myofascial tone encompass cell signals, as well as sensing of external forces (activity, sports actions), causing muscular contractions [6, 7]. In this sense, stiffness is a feature of pain or injury resulting from shear stresses and pressures.

Mechano-molecular pathways associated with myofascial tension can lead to musculoskeletal pain [8, 9]. Myofascial tension (from athletics, loading, etc.) occurs over the entire muscle fibre surface and generates actomyosin filaments, contributing to force (action) of the skeletal muscles [10,11,12,13]. Although stiffness is often a prelude to pain, it is most commonly a consequence of chronic myofascial tension. The pain from sports injuries or osteoarthritis usually starts with changes in myofascial tone, leading to tension and stress that then cause injuries and pain [5, 14,15,16,17,18].

Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a hygroscopic glycosaminoglycan often utilised for the treatment of articular pathologies due to the elastoviscous property conferred by the polymer: it is thought to increase the viscoelastic and shock absorbing properties of the synovial fluid while also reducing the inflammation and pain in joint diseases of the knee or hip, more typically in over-weight patients [19,20,21,22,23,24]. HA has been studied as both a therapeutic component, in its own right; as well as a carrier for topical application of other substances [25]. Considering its well-known safety and biocompatibility, it is largely used in medical practice. In order to promote its functionality and soothing properties, it was combined in the EGYFIL™ formula with skin-conditioning peptides. They contribute to the conditioning of skin tissue, allowing a better penetration of active ingredients into deeper dermal tissue when topically applied [26,27,28]. Peptides have been utilized in several cases such as bone healing [29,30,31], osteoporosis [32], cartilage regeneration [33, 34] and wound healing [35]. Peptides are derived from starting proteins that can encompass a number of regulating proteins such as growth factors [36], that contribute to a range of therapeutic effects [37,38,39].

In EGYFIL™, two specific peptides are included in the lotion to promote the functional relief of pain and stiffness. SH-Polypeptide-6, derived from the interleukin-10 (IL-10) starting protein: SH-Polypeptide-6 carries IL-10's anti-inflammatory activity by engaging signals that modulate NF-kB pathways, downregulating pro-inflammatory cytokines TNF, IL-6, IL-1 and IL-8 [40, 41]. Like its parent protein IL-10, SH-Polypeptide-6 inhibits protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B expression that can cause dysregulation of the energy metabolism of skeletal muscles causing pain and muscular spasms [42]. Unlike its parent protein that requires breakdown to achieve this function, SH-Polypeptide-6 floods the in situ area immediately upon application; this achieves a better circulating bioavailability within tissue right at the site of pain, thereby quickly regulating the pain mechanisms.

The other peptide in EGYFIL™, SH-Oligopeptide-1 is synthesized from starting protein Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF). In the connective tissue matrix, EGF inhibits kappa B (NF-κB) pathway I and protects osteoblasts from inflammation and oxidative injury [43]. SH-Oligopeptide-1 is a functional matricellular peptide [44] that highly contributes functional healing within dermal cells and the connective tissue matrix structures such as tendons, ligaments, and muscles [45]. It mainly functions to improve circulation, stimulating vascular and lymphatic channels and cell mobility during the repair mechanism following injury, thereby reducing swelling and its associated pain [46]. Stimulated by the inflammatory response, EGF-derived SH-Oligopeptide-1 accelerates dermal repair and vascularization and promotes the synthesis of growth factors [47]. Considering its activity on vascular pathways, it supports recovery in case of oedema and swelling that can occur in concomitance with an injury, improving circulation and promoting faster recovery from the mechanical trauma to myofascial structures [48].

This prospective pre-market, interventional, single arm investigation aimed to enrol participants with stiffness, inflammatory pain, or both stiffness and pain, to evaluate the effectiveness of the Investigational Product (IP), EGYFIL™, a topical lotion.

Methods

Patients’ enrolment and follow-up

The study was approved by the independent Ethics Committee of International Institute of Clinical Ecology (IICE), (Approval Number: i072021E). The study was conducted according to the ISO 14155:2020, Good Clinical Practice guidelines, laws regarding the use of personal data (EU 2016/679), local Italian laws (196/2003) and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. This clinical trial was registered on 03/02/2023 with the following ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT05711953.

Initial examination and assessment were performed by the PI immediately following consultation.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria are indicated in Table 1. A total of 26 healthy adult participants were enrolled for the study, male or female, > 18 years old.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Full size table

The maximum time of treatment for each enrolled patient was 3 days. Following an explanation of the aims of the study, patients that met all the inclusion criteria and none of the exclusion criteria, after having signed the informed consent form (ICF), entered the screening phase during which the baseline tests was conducted. At the baseline visit (t0), according to the instructions for use (IFU) and the judgement of the principal investigator (PI), the enrolled subjects were treated for the first time with the IP. The treatment consisted of topical application of the pain lotion immediately following the baseline visit. Primary endpoints, pain and stiffness, were both assessed through the use of a numerical rating scale (NRS) where zero corresponded to no pain/stiffness, and 10 represented the maximum possible pain/stiffness. Participants were asked about their pain and/or stiffness prior to using the product (t0), after three hours from the first treatment (t1), and after three days (t2) through phone contact and by means of NRS for pain and a questionnaire (Supplementary File 1). Participants were free to apply and re-apply the IP as desired. Time until relief was felt, was recorded as was the frequency of application. Potential adverse events (AE) and tolerance were evaluated during each visit.

Treatment with EGYFIL™

EGYFIL™ is a novel topical product formulated as a water and glycerine-based lotion, containing sodium hyaluronate, a peptide mixture and some botanicals inside a 50 mL tube. The composition of the EGYFIL™ is reported in Table 2.

Table 2 Composition of EGYFIL™
Full size table

Statistical analysis

Analyses were performed comparing each of the three timepoints with each other. Distribution of data was tested for normality by D’Agostino-Pearson tests. According to the result of this test, one-way ANOVA test with Tukey’s post hoc test were used to analyse the differences in the NRS between study visits. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare non-matched groups (different age brackets, sexes). P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data were analysed using Prism software v9.4 (Graphpad Prism, La Jolla, CA).

Results

In the study, 26 patients were enrolled. All 26 enrolled patients completed the study. However, 3 patients used other analgesic products during the course of the study and were therefore excluded from the protocol set. Of the 23 remaining patients, 12 (52%) were male and 11 (48%) were female (Fig. 1A), and the mean age was 44 years old (ranging from 24 to 78 years old, Fig. 1B). There were no adverse effects noted during the study.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Characteristics of the enrolled population. A Patients ID number (abscissa) and relative age (ordinate). B Patients sex distribution

Full size image

Most of the 23 patients, 14 (61%), complained of both pain and stiffness, with 7 (30%) complaining of pain only, and just 2 (9%) participants with only stiffness (Fig. 2A). 9 patients out of 23 (35%) stated that their complaint was due to sports activities (Fig. 2B).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Description of patient’s symptoms and their causes at the t0. A Distribution of the number of patients affected by pain, stiffness, or both, at the time of the visit 1. B Representation of the number of patients suffering from complaints due to sports or not

Full size image

NRS pain and stiffness scores are listed on Supplementary Table 1. The initial mean pain score was 5.8 which decreased to 4.5 after three hours and to 3.3 after three days (Fig. 3A). These scores indicate a 22% decrease in pain in the first three hours (p < 0.001), followed by an additional 20% decrease after three days relative to 3 h (p = 0.0873). Overall, there was a significant (p = 0.001) 42% decrease in pain over the three days of the study (Fig. 3B). The other endpoint, stiffness, was also reduced over the course of the study: from an initial mean score of 6.4 at T0 to 4.9 after three hours, and then to 3.9 after 3 days (Fig. 3C). These reduced scores in stiffness were statistically significant (p = 0.025, p < 0.001) and correspond to a 24% reduction in stiffness in the first three hours and a 38% decrease in stiffness over three days (Fig. 3D).

Fig. 3
figure 3

A, B. Mean NRS pain at t0, after 3 h (t1) and 3 days (t2) (A) and ratio Vs t0 (B). C, D Mean NRS stiffness at t0 and after 3 h and 3 days (C) and ratio Vs t0 (D)

Full size image

The differences in the two endpoints, pain and stiffness, as assessed by NRS were neither sex nor age-dependent (Fig. 4. Age data not shown).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Distribution of pain (A) and stiffness (B) related to the sex of patients

Full size image

When asked at both 3-h and 3-day intervals, most patients reported that reapplying the product maintained the initial symptom relief (Fig. 5). There was no significant difference between the initial pain or stiffness levels of patients which indicated that repeated application of the product provided sustained relief from either stiffness or pain. However, patients that indicated that reapplication provided sustained relief from pain had a significantly lower NRS score for pain at the 3-day time point than patients that indicated no relief (2.6 Vs 5.8, p < 0.001).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Sustained relief after 3 h (A) and 3 days (B) reapplication of the product

Full size image

There was a weak, but positive correlation between mean response (mean of 0-3 h and 3 h-3d responses) and satisfaction score (R2 = 0.13).

Discussion

Overall, the product was well tolerated and favourably received by the participants of the study; there were no adverse reactions.

The 3-hours timepoint was selected for the speed of evaluation in a clinical setting. Furthermore, the study design was a real-time evaluation in the established setting of a sport practice, and 3 h is the timeline established within the parameters of the on-site event. The 3-days timepoint was used to evaluate the need for further administration of the product, if any, which also yielded initial data to further explore the efficacy and use of the product.

Pain was significantly decreased over the course of the study revealing a mean decrease in pain of 42% of initial levels after 3 days. In the short-term, pain was also decreased significantly by 22%. These decreases were not dependent on the sex or age bracket of patients (when patients were grouped by decade of birth). A robust response was seen in all groups. Similar results were seen for the reduction of stiffness at both 3 h (24%) and 3 days (38%) timepoints. Although it is not a standard scale to evaluate the stiffness, the use of NRS to assess this condition is not a completely novelty: it was already used to measure stiffness following small molecule therapy and tenosynovial giant tumor [49, 50] and rheumatic diseases [51, 52]. Stiffness is also quantified numerically as a sub-parameter of standard questionnaires to evaluate pain and joint mobility, like the WOMAC index [53].

Concerning the pain, the effectiveness of EGYFIL™ is comparable to other drug-based topical treatments. Normalizing data to the relative t0, in patient with ankle pain, where non-surgical treatments are the first choice, in case of acute lateral sprains [54], long-term NRS reductions are higher than using a 1.3% diclofenac imbued patch: 22% vs 19% after 3 h, although lower after 3 days (42% vs 46%) [55]. Similarly, EGYFIL™ shows better pain relief than 1% topical diclofenac after 3 days of treatment (42% vs 26% normalized-NRS reduction) [56] but lower than 4% topical diclofenac [57]. Considering that the systemic effect of topical NSAIDs cannot be excluded [58] and considering the environmental pollution caused by these drugs [59], the use of EGYFIL™ HA-peptide mix represents a safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly alternative to soothe the pain.

Hyaluronic acid has been used successfully for the treatment of pain in a variety of pathologies, most notably in osteoarthritis and joint pain via intra-articular injection [19, 21, 60,61,62,63], however, based on our knowledge, no other clinical trial reports the usefulness of topical HA and peptides lotion to relieve muscle tension and pain. Puhl et al. showed that concentrations as low as 0.01% (0.25 mg/2.5 ml) of hyaluronate provided relief from OA pain [64], and results from other studies indicate that the analgesic effects of HA are not necessarily coupled to the lubricating or shock-absorbing actions of the macromolecule [21]. Indeed, Gomis et al. proposed that the elastoviscous properties of HA solutions are able to block the transmission of forces within the joint from passing to the stretch-activated channels in the nociceptor nerve terminals [21]. Something similar is potentially responsible for the observed effects in this study with EGYFIL™, where the peptides are dispersed into the hydrogel: SH-Polypeptide-6 and SH-Oligopeptide-1, were specifically selected to enhance the efficacy of HA in reducing discomfort and relieving pain. The skin, in particular the Stratum Corneum, represents a barrier for topical therapeutics, however, there are numerous strategies to overcome it; a variety of skin penetrating peptides have been documented which have the capacity to significantly increase the transdermal penetration of bound macromolecules [26, 65, 66]. The combination of these two peptides with HA seems to increase dermal penetration of this simple lotion without the need for excessive rubbing or massaging into the affected area, as well as to effectively cover and relieve a large surface area.

Additionally, topical application of HA and other large molecules can benefit through the use of penetration enhancers, such as glycerol, which has been shown to increase the transdermal penetration of HA almost 200 time more than HA in water [67].

This study has some limitations, in that it is a single arm study and thus cannot exclude the natural and physiological resolution of the symptoms over time. However, the data collected during the study highly suggests that the application of the lotion has a profound effect on reducing stiffness and pain in an expedited time frame, demonstrating that the lotion has a beneficial effect at quickly reducing discomfort over large body zones. Although acceptable from a statistics point of view, a further study into the mechanism of action, within a larger cohort of patients, including a control group, is warranted. Another limitation of the study is the absence of a follow-up later than three days, to verify if the positive effect of EGYFIL™ treatment continued once the application is interrupted. Finally, a more precise diagnosis before the treatment, could better identify the most suitable conditions for the alleviating efficacy of the lotion.

Conclusions

The study herein shows that EGYFIL™ lotion appears to be safe and well tolerated by all patients exposed to its treatment. The reduction of both pain and stiffness over the course of the study, evaluated by Numerical Rate Score, revealed a quick response rate in relieving discomfort within three hours and significantly reduced pain and stiffness within three days, suggesting that the product can be effective for use in the treatment of stiffness and pain-related complaints in both sexes, in all age groups. No adverse reactions were recorded or observed throughout the study, denoting the product’s safety in repeated application.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analysed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

HA:

Hyaluronic acid

SH:

Synthetic Human

NF-kB:

Nuclear Factor kappa B

TNF:

Tumor Necrosis Factor

EGF:

Epidermal Growth Factor

ICF:

Informed Consent Form

IFU:

Instruction For Use

NRS:

Numerical Rating Scale

AE:

Adverse Events

OA:

Osteoarthritis

References

  1. Suzuki H, Aono S, Inoue S, Imajo Y, Nishida N, Funaba M, et al. Clinically significant changes in pain along the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with chronic low back pain. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(3):e0229228.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Pain, Disability, and Chronic Illness Behavior. Pain and Disability: Clinical, Behavioral, and Public Policy Perspectives. Osterweis M, Kleinman A, Mechanic D, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1987;1(3):123–145.

  3. Kjaer M, Langberg H, Heinemeir K, Bayer ML, Hansen M, Holm L, et al. From mechanical loading to collagen synthesis, structural changes and function in human tendon. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2009;19(4):500–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ross TD, Coon BG, Yun S, Baeyens N, Tanaka K, Ouyang M, et al. Integrins in mechanotransduction. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2013;25(5):613–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Langevin HM. Connective tissue: A body-wide signaling network? Med Hypotheses. 2006;66(6):1074–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frère J. Spectral properties of multiple myoelectric signals: New insights into the neural origin of muscle synergies. Neuroscience. 2017;4(355):22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ivanenko YP, Cappellini G, Poppele RE, Lacquaniti F. Spatiotemporal organization of α-motoneuron activity in the human spinal cord during different gaits and gait transitions. Eur J Neurosci. 2008;27(12):3351–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Almazán-Polo J, López-López D, Romero-Morales C, Rodríguez-Sanz D, Becerro-de-Bengoa-Vallejo R, Losa-Iglesias ME, et al. Quantitative Ultrasound Imaging Differences in Multifidus and Thoracolumbar Fasciae between Athletes with and without Chronic Lumbopelvic Pain: A Case-Control Study. J Clin Med. 2020;9(8):2647.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Menon RG, Oswald SF, Raghavan P, Regatte RR, Stecco A. T1ρ-Mapping for Musculoskeletal Pain Diagnosis: Case Series of Variation of Water Bound Glycosaminoglycans Quantification before and after Fascial Manipulation® in Subjects with Elbow Pain. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):708.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Dischiavi SL, Wright AA, Hegedus EJ, Bleakley CM. Biotensegrity and myofascial chains: A global approach to an integrated kinetic chain. Med Hypotheses. 2018;1(110):90–6.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wilke J, Krause F, Vogt L, Banzer W. What Is Evidence-Based About Myofascial Chains: A Systematic Review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(3):454–61.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Woledge RC, Curtin NA, Linari M. Energy Storage During Stretch of Active Single Fibres. In: Sugi H, editor. Molecular and Cellular Aspects of Muscle Contraction. Vol. 538. Boston: Springer US; 2003. p. 627–34. (Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology).

  13. Gallasch E, Kozlovskaya IB. Vibrografic signs of autonomous muscle tone studied in long term space missions. Acta Astronaut. 1998;43(3–6):101–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maeda E, Ohashi T. Mechano-regulation of gap junction communications between tendon cells is dependent on the magnitude of tensile strain. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;465(2):281–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pavan PG, Stecco A, Stern R, Stecco C. Painful connections: densification versus fibrosis of fascia. Curr Pain Headache Rep. 2014;18(8):441.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Findley T, Chaudhry H, Dhar S. Transmission of muscle force to fascia during exercise. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2015;19(1):119–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wilke J, Schleip R, Yucesoy CA, Banzer W. Not merely a protective packing organ? A review of fascia and its force transmission capacity. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2018;124(1):234–44.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stecco C, Pavan P, Pachera P, De Caro R, Natali A. Investigation of the mechanical properties of the human crural fascia and their possible clinical implications. Surg Radiol Anat. 2014;36(1):25–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. de la Peña E, Sala S, Rovira JC, Schmidt RF, Belmonte C. Elastoviscous substances with analgesic effects on joint pain reduce stretch-activated ion channel activity in vitro. Pain. 2002;99(3):501–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Caires R, Luis E, Taberner FJ, Fernandez-Ballester G, Ferrer-Montiel A, Balazs EA, et al. Hyaluronan modulates TRPV1 channel opening, reducing peripheral nociceptor activity and pain. Nat Commun. 2015;6. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4560824/. Cited 2020 Aug 26.

  21. Gomis A, Pawlak M, Balazs EA, Schmidt RF, Belmonte C. Effects of different molecular weight elastoviscous hyaluronan solutions on articular nociceptive afferents. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(1):314–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Temple-Wong MM, Ren S, Quach P, Hansen BC, Chen AC, Hasegawa A, et al. Hyaluronan concentration and size distribution in human knee synovial fluid: variations with age and cartilage degeneration. Arthritis Res Ther. 2016;18(18):1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Scaturro D, Vitagliani F, Terrana P, Cuntrera D, Falco V, Tomasello S, Mauro GL. Intra-Articular Hybrid Hyaluronic Acid Injection Treatment in Overweight Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Single-Center, Open-Label, Prospective Study. Appl Sci. 2021;11(18):8711.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Scaturro D, Vitagliani F, Terrana P, Tomasello S, Falco V, Cuntrera D, Spoto I, Midiri M, Mauro GL. Hybrid Hyaluronic Acid versus High Molecular Weight Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Hip Osteoarthritis in Overweight/Obese Patients. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol. 2022;7(1):20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Brown MB, Jones SA. Hyaluronic acid: a unique topical vehicle for the localized delivery of drugs to the skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2005;19(3):308–18.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen M, Gupta V, Anselmo AC, Muraski JA, Mitragotri S. Topical Delivery of Hyaluronic Acid into Skin using SPACE-peptide Carriers. J Control Release. 2014;10(173):67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hsu T, Mitragotri S. Delivery of siRNA and other macromolecules into skin and cells using a peptide enhancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108(38):15816–21.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Singh A, Corvelli M, Unterman SA, Wepasnick KA, McDonnell P, Elisseeff JH. Enhanced lubrication on tissue and biomaterial surfaces through peptide-mediated binding of hyaluronic acid. Nat Mater. 2014;13(10):988–95.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Pountos I, Panteli M, Lampropoulos A, Jones E, Calori GM, Giannoudis PV. The role of peptides in bone healing and regeneration: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2016;11(14):103.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Xu J, Wang J, Chen X, Li Y, Mi J, Qin L. The Effects of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide on Bone Homeostasis and Regeneration. Curr Osteoporos Rep. 2020;18(6):621–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. He B, Ou Y, Zhou A, Chen S, Zhao W, Zhao J, et al. Functionalized d-form self-assembling peptide hydrogels for bone regeneration. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2016;10:1379–88.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Whitfield JF, Morley P, Willick GE. Parathyroid hormone, its fragments and their analogs for the treatment of osteoporosis. Treat Endocrinol. 2002;1(3):175–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Shafiq M, Kim SH. Covalent immobilization of MSC-affinity peptide on poly(L-lactide-co-ε-caprolactone) copolymer to enhance stem cell adhesion and retention for tissue engineering applications. Macromol Res. 2016;24(11):986–94.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Hastar N, Arslan E, Guler MO, Tekinay AB. Peptide-Based Materials for Cartilage Tissue Regeneration. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2017;1030:155–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lam HJ, Li S, Lou N, Chu J, Bhatnagar RS. Synthetic peptides cytomodulin-1 (CM-1) and cytomodulin-2 (CM-2) promote collagen synthesis and wound healing in vitro. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2004;2004:5028–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dignass AU, Sturm A. Peptide growth factors in the intestine. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13(7):763–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brunetti J, Falciani C, Bernini A, Scali S, Bracci L, Lozzi L. Molecular definition of the interaction between a tumor-specific tetrabranched peptide and LRP6 receptor. Amino Acids. 2020;52(6–7):915–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gurtner GC, Werner S, Barrandon Y, Longaker MT. Wound repair and regeneration. Nature. 2008;453(7193):314–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sarkar B, Nguyen PK, Gao W, Dondapati A, Siddiqui Z, Kumar VA. Angiogenic Self-Assembling Peptide Scaffolds for Functional Tissue Regeneration. Biomacromol. 2018;19(9):3597–611.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Santangelo KS, Nuovo GJ, Bertone AL. In vivo reduction or blockade of interleukin-1β in primary osteoarthritis influences expression of mediators implicated in pathogenesis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20(12):1610–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Raza A, Crothers JW, McGill MM, Mawe GM, Teuscher C, Krementsov DN. Anti-inflammatory roles of p38α MAPK in macrophages are context dependent and require IL-10. J Leukoc Biol. 2017;102(5):1219–27.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Través PG, Pardo V, Pimentel-Santillana M, González-Rodríguez Á, Mojena M, Rico D, et al. Pivotal role of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B (PTP1B) in the macrophage response to pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory challenge. Cell Death Dis. 2014;5(3):e1125.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Chunhui Y, Wenjun C, Hui W, Liquan S, Changwei Z, Tianzhu Z, et al. Pilose antler peptide protects osteoblasts from inflammatory and oxidative injury through EGF/EGFR signaling. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;1(99):15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Patil NA, Tailhades J, Hughes RA, Separovic F, Wade JD, Hossain MA. Cellular Disulfide Bond Formation in Bioactive Peptides and Proteins. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(1):1791–805.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Seiwerth S, Rucman R, Turkovic B, Sever M, Klicek R, Radic B, et al. BPC 157 and Standard Angiogenic Growth Factors. Gastrointestinal Tract Healing, Lessons from Tendon, Ligament, Muscle and Bone Healing. Current Pharmaceutical Design. 2018;24(18):1972–89.

  46. Nikolaeva I, Huber RJ, O’Day DH. EGF-like peptide of Dictyostelium discoideum is not a chemoattractant but it does restore folate-mediated chemotaxis in the presence of signal transduction inhibitors. Peptides. 2012;34(1):145–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kuroyanagi M, Kuroyanagi Y. Tissue-engineered products capable of enhancing wound healing. AIMS Materials Science. 2017;4(3):561–81.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Thiele G. Lesão muscular nos atletas. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia. 2011;46(4):354–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Blay JY, Gelderblom H, Rutowski P, Wagner AJ, Van de Sande MAJ, Stacchiotti S, et al. P63 Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Treatment with Vimseltinib for Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumour in a Phase 2 Expansion Study. Value Health. 2022;25(12):S15.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Gelhorn HL, Tong S, McQuarrie K, Vernon C, Hanlon J, Maclaine G, et al. Patient-reported Symptoms of Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumors. Clin Ther. 2016;38(4):778–93.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Craig ET, Orbai AM, Mackie S, Bartlett SJ, Bingham CO 3rd, Goodman S, et al. Advancing Stiffness Measurement in Rheumatic Disease: Report from the Stiffness Special Interest Group at OMERACT 2018. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(10):1374–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Sinnathurai P, Bartlett SJ, Halls S, Hewlett S, Orbai AM, Buchbinder R, et al. Investigating Dimensions of Stiffness in Rheumatoid and Psoriatic Arthritis: The Australian Rheumatology Association Database Registry and OMERACT Collaboration. J Rheumatol. 2019;46(11):1462–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15(12):1833–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Altomare D, Fusco G, Bertolino E, Ranieri R, Sconza C, et al. Evidence-based treatment choices for acute lateral ankle sprain: a comprehensive systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022 Mar;26(6):1876–188455.Lionberger D, Joussellin E, Lanzarotti A, Yanchick J, Magelli M. Diclofenac epolamine topical patch relieves pain associated with ankle sprain. J Pain Res. 2011;4:47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lionberger D, Joussellin E, Lanzarotti A, Yanchick J, Magelli M. Diclofenac epolamine topical patch relieves pain associated with ankle sprain. J Pain Res. 2011;4:47-53.

  56. Lai PM, Collaku A, Reed K. Efficacy and safety of topical diclofenac/menthol gel for ankle sprain: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and active-controlled trial. J Int Med Res. 2017;45(2):647–61.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Predel HG, Giannetti B, Pabst H, Schaefer A, Hug AM, Burnett I. Efficacy and safety of diclofenac diethylamine 1.16% gel in acute neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:250.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Kienzler JL, Gold M, Nollevaux F. Systemic bioavailability of topical diclofenac sodium gel 1% versus oral diclofenac sodium in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50(1):50–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sathishkumar P, Meena RA, Palanisami T, Ashokkumar V, Palvannan T, Gu FL. Sci Total Environ. 2020;698:134057.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Jiménez I, Marcos-García A, Muratore-Moreno G, Romero-Pérez B, Álvarez-León EE, Medina J. Subacromial sodium hyaluronate injection for the treatment of chronic shoulder pain: A prospective series of eighty patients. Acta Ortop Mex. 2018;32(2):70–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Bellamy N, Campbell J, Robinson V, Gee T, Bourne R, Wells G. Viscosupplementation for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;18(2):CD005321.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Waddell DD, Cefalu CA, Bricker DC. An open-label study of a second course of hylan G-F 20 for the treatment of pain associated with knee osteoarthritis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2003;19(6):499–507.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Sconza C, Di Matteo B, Queirazza P, Dina A, Amenta R, Respizzi S, et al. Ozone Therapy versus Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Pain Relief in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: Preliminary Findings on Molecular and Clinical Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(10):8788.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Puhl W, Bernau A, Greiling H, Köpcke W, Pförringer W, Steck KJ, et al. Intra-articular sodium hyaluronate in osteoarthritis of the knee: a multicenter, double-blind study. Osteoarthr Cartil. 1993;1(4):233–41.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Lewin M, Carlesso N, Tung CH, Tang XW, Cory D, Scadden DT, et al. Tat peptide-derivatized magnetic nanoparticles allow in vivo tracking and recovery of progenitor cells. Nat Biotechnol. 2000;18(4):410–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Janůšová B, Skolová B, Tükörová K, Wojnarová L, Simůnek T, Mladěnka P, et al. Amino acid derivatives as transdermal permeation enhancers. J Control Release. 2013;165(2):91–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Shokri N, Javar HA, Ghadermazi R. Effects of Skin Penetration Enhancers in Topical Antiaging Products Containing α-Hydroxyacids and Hyaluronic Acid. Avicenna J Med Biochem. 2014;2(2):2–18611.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Neil Fisher for his participation in the initial drafting of the manuscript.

Funding

The study received support and funding from the International Institute of Clinical Ecology (IICE); non-profit entity: Institut International de Clinico-Ecology (Scientifique RLRQ, chapiterC-38) NEQ 1176019355.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Poliambulatorio Centro Sistema Salute, Varese, Italy

    Stefano Picotti

  2. Contrad Swiss SA, Via Ferruccio Pelli 2, Lugano, 6900, Switzerland

    Luca Forte

  3. International Institute of Clinical Ecology (IICE), Quebec, Canada

    Jo Serrentino

Authors
  1. Stefano Picotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luca Forte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jo Serrentino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design of study: JS, manuscript writing: LF, JS; manuscript revision, and approval of submitted version: JS, LF. SP performed the experiments; SP and LF collected the data. LF treated raw data, analysed and discussed data. Revision and final approval of the article JS; LF.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luca Forte.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the independent Ethics Committee of International Institute of Clinical Ecology (IICE). Ethical review of the study was performed under IICE governance framework; ethical committee 1A; designated as Low Risk Observational Research (LROR.). IICE and its committee deemed the project to have no controversial ethical issues. To be in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki; and with the local laws within the region of the study (Italian laws 196/2003).

Informed Consent was obtained from patients involved in the study. All documents are compliant with regional study and ISO requirements as verified by the IICE committee’s European liaison officer.

IICE category LROR study; IICE committee-1A members:

Christine Pomerleau (participant ethics).

Knud Pelzer (International projects ethics).

Carmen Gerardi (IICE European liaison officer; study conception and design).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Luca Forte is employed by Contrad Swiss. Jo Serrentino is director of IICE and consultant for Contrad Swiss. Stefano Picotti has no financial links or other to Contrad Swiss.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. 

Additional file 2: Supplementary Table 1. 

Patients’ NRS pain and stiffness scores for each time-point.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Picotti, S., Forte, L. & Serrentino, J. A pre-market interventional, single-arm clinical investigation of a new topical lotion based on hyaluronic acid and peptides, EGYFILTM, for the treatment of pain and stiffness in soft tissues. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 24, 777 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06903-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-023-06903-y

Keywords

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ISSN: 1471-2474

Contact us