AzTrials
AzTrials

Lumbar Spinal StenosisPhase 1/2NCT04537026

Sterile Amniotic Fluid Filtrate Epidural Injection.

A Phase 1/2 study testing Amniotic Fluid Allograft and Dexamethasone sodium phosphate in people with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, run by University of Utah at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

There is a large population of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis who do not respond to physical therapy or oral medication management, yet wish to avoid spinal surgery or are simply not candidates due to medical co-morbidity. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
What is being tested?
Amniotic Fluid Allograft and Dexamethasone sodium phosphate
Type of treatment
Injection or infusion
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
58 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
16 Jun 2021to 1 Jul 2025
Phase
Phase 1/2
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Patients who are ≥ 18 years old
  • Pain in the low back and lower extremity (pain NRS >4) with buttock/leg pain > back pain.
  • Radicular distribution of leg pain based on history and correlation with advancing imaging. Radicular pain may be fixed or claudicatory in nature.
  • Pain resistant to a trial of conservative therapy (i.e. oral steroids, NSAIDs, opioids, muscle relaxants, physical therapy, chiropractic or other non-invasive care) for at least 3 months.
  • Mild-moderate-severe lumbar foraminal or subarticular zone stenosis, and/or mild-moderate central canal spinal stenosis identified by MRI or CT scan according to radiologic criteria (Boden 1996).
  • Ability to read English and complete the assessment questionnaires.
  • Must have been 90 days since last steroid injection.

Who cannot join

  • Patients in the opinion of the treating investigator who are unwilling or unable to comply with study procedures.
  • Systemic infection or local infection over planned injection site.
  • Bleeding disorder, current use of anticoagulants or anti-platelet medications.
  • Intrinsic spinal cord lesions.
  • History of central neurologic, cerebrovascular, demyelinating or muscular disease.
  • Severe vascular, pulmonary or coronary artery disease that limits ambulation including recent myocardial infarction (within the last 6 months).
Show all 13Show fewer
  • Allergy to medications being used for injection procedures.
  • Women who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or plan to become pregnant while participating in the study. If of child-bearing potential, unwillingness to use effective birth control while participating in the study.
  • Cognitive deficit or motor neuron disease.
  • Spinal instability requiring surgery.
  • History of spinal fusion surgery
  • Metastatic cancer.
  • Concordant pain with internal rotation of the hip (or known hip joint pathology)

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • University of Utah Orthopaedic Center

    Salt Lake City, Utah, 84108

Other trials in United States

About this study

Official title: A Phase I/II Double-Blinded Randomized Prospective Study of Sterile Amniotic Fluid Filtrate Epidural Injection for the Treatment of Lumbosacral Radicular Pain Due to Spinal Stenosis: Improving Safety and Outcomes in the Treatment of Pain and Disability Related to Spinal Stenosis.

There is a large population of patients with lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis who do not respond to physical therapy or oral medication management, yet wish to avoid spinal surgery or are simply not candidates due to medical co-morbidity. Given the natural history of lumbar spinal stenosis, these patients typically suffer from chronic pain and disability. Currently, the typical treatment for this population is serial corticosteroid injection. The efficacy of the treatment specifically for the indication of spinal stenosis is in question and is associated with both concerning chronic sequelae and the risk, although low, of catastrophic neurologic compromise. Alternatively, hAF is a promising new biologic treatment with neuro-protective and regenerative properties. Early studies demonstrate its anti-inflammatory properties, with high levels of anti-inflammatory cytokines, in addition to its ability to assist with regeneration of peripheral nerves. Furthermore, it has a favorable side-effect profile without concern for long-term sequelae or potential for neurologic compromise. The present study aims to determine if epidural injection of hAF compared to the corticosteroid dexamethasone is more effective for the treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis, as measured by pain, disability, psychological function, oral analgesic use, and avoidance of surgery. Evidence for superiority of epidural hAF compared to dexamethasone injection would change the treatment paradigm for refractory radicular pain due to spinal stenosis. Furthermore, even if shown to be non-inferior to epidural dexamethasone, epidural hAF would be favored given its superior safety profile. Thus, this research has the potential to improve outcomes and patient safety in a very large population with chronic pain.

Read the detailed description

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of chronic pain and disability in older adults and is the leading reason for spinal surgery in older adults. In this condition, degenerative changes in intervertebral discs and osseous anatomy of the spine result in narrowing of the spinal canal and neuroforamen in close proximity to the traversing spinal nerve roots, causing back and radicular leg pain, paresthesias and weakness. In the absence of a progressive neurologic deficit, initial treatment of lumbosacral radicular pain includes physical therapy, activity modification, and oral neuropathic or analgesic medications. If this conservative approach fails to relieve pain, an image guided epidural steroid injection (ESI) is the second-line treatment. Surgical decompression may be a treatment option for some patients who fail conservative therapy, but it is not uniformly effective and is associated with substantial direct and indirect risks. Further, some patients are unwilling to undergo invasive surgical treatments, and in others, surgery is contraindicated due to medical co-morbidities.

Epidural steroid injections are widely used for the treatment of spinal stenosis. Over 25% of all epidural steroid injection in the Medicare population are administered for the treatment of pain associated with spinal stenosis, accounting for more than 500,000 injections per year. When performed with sterile technique and fluoroscopic-guidance, epidural spine injections of steroid are safe. However, steroid use in the epidural space is associated with rare but catastrophic sequelae including paraplegia due to spinal cord infarction. The larger size or aggregation of particulate steroids likely obstructs arteriolar blood flow to the spinal cord if inadvertently injected into radicular arteries during TFESI. In addition, epidural steroid use is associated with common immediate/short-term adverse events such as facial flushing, headache, insomnia, transient hypertension, increased blood glucose in patients with diabetes. Injections must often be repeated when administered for chronic radicular pain given a typical natural history of life-long pain associated with this condition, which increases the risk of long-term sequelae including osteoporosis, adrenal suppression, hypertension, cataracts, gastrointestinal bleeding, and immune system dysfunction among many others.

Furthermore, the injection treatment paradigm for patients with spinal stenosis has not been optimized. While transforaminal epidural steroid injection appears to be superior to both placebo saline injection and lidocaine injection at short-term to intermediate follow-up when performed for the indication of radicular pain due to acute disc herniation, the highest quality evidence to date suggests a lesser degree of efficacy for the indication of leg pain due to spinal stenosis This is particularly problematic given that radicular pain related to disc herniation is self-limited, whereas spinal-stenosis related radicular pain does not tend to improve over time. Thus, there is a large group of patients with spinal stenosis who fail to respond to physical therapy and oral medication management, yet either wish to avoid spinal surgery or are not eligible, and suffer from chronic pain and debility given the poor treatment options. Clearly, better treatments with more optimal safety and side-effect profiles compared to epidural corticosteroids must be investigated in this context.

There is therefore a critical need to identify safe and effective treatments for this common clinical condition, which would allow for improved patient function and pain relief. Amniotic Fluid (AF) is a promising new biologic treatment with neuro-protective and regenerative properties. Early after conception and until the mother's water breaks for the delivery of their infant, the fetus is bathed in amniotic fluid. AF functions as a supportive cushion to the fetus and provides a protective environment. AF is a rich source of nutrients, cytokines and growth factors that are required for fetal development and maturation. AF also contains multiple cell types with the potential to differentiate along multiple cell lineages. The protective and regenerative properties of AF are achieved via the exchange of water and solutes with surrounding tissues. This is accomplished via the utilization of different pathways during the course of a pregnancy that likely contribute to changes in the composition of AF with gestational age.

Early evidence demonstrates that concentrates of AF inhibit the development of peritonitis and accelerate defense-repair mechanisms within damaged joints, demonstrating protective biological properties. Since these early publications, more sophisticated evaluations have revealed the presence of antimicrobial, immunomodulatory, and growth-promoting activities of AF. For example, low AF antimicrobial activity is associated with a high incidence of an infectious syndromes in pregnant women. Components with antimicrobial, antiviral and antifungal activity that are present in AF include lysozyme, peroxidase, transferrin, beta-lysin, immunoglobulins and zinc-peptide complexes. Immunomodulatory properties of AF are evident from studies showing that enteral feeding of AF suppresses the pro-inflammatory responses in preterm pigs with necrotizing enterocolitis. Further, growth-promoting activities of AF are supported by both animal studies and in vitro studies, showing that AF can enhance neochondrogenesis, regenerate peripheral nerves and bone, accelerate re-epithelialization in corneas, and promote healing of human skin wounds. Some of the factors that are found in AF that may contribute to these activities include inflammatory mediators such as TNF-a, IL-6, IL8, and IL-1048 trophic factors that include EGF, IGF-1, FGF, HGF and TGF-a, and hyaluronic acid, an important factor in promoting re- epithelialization in human skin wounds.

Human AF also contains factors that appear to minimize scarring and adhesions. Ozgenel et al, describe how adhesions and scarring are reduced or eliminated in a peripheral nerve rat model. It is interesting that a fetal incision made early in gestation will heal without a scar whereas one made in late gestation heals with scar formation. Hyaluronic acid, which is found in high levels in AF, inhibits collagen synthesis. This hyaluronic acid-rich environment is due to a relative lack of hyaluronidase in AF and to the presence of hyaluronic acid-stimulating factor in AF. In a study investigating the effect of AF on proteases important to wound healing, human AF was shown to enhance collagenase activity, but to inhibit activities of hyaluronidase, elastase, and cathepsin.

Being tested
Amniotic Fluid Allograft, Dexamethasone sodium phosphate
Keywords
Amniotic Fluid, Epidural Injection
Medical subject headings
Spinal Stenosis

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Amniotic Fluid AllograftDrug

    Also called Sterile Amniotic Fluid Filtrate

    Amniotic Fluid Allograft will be mixed with sterile water and injected using transforaminal approach

  • Dexamethasone sodium phosphateDrug

    Also called Dexamethasone

    Dexamethasone sodium phosphate mixed with 2 mL sterile water will be injected by transforaminal approach

Study groups in NCT04537026
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Transforaminal epidural Amniotic Fluid injectionExperimentalUsing fluoroscopic guidance, a lumbosacral epidural injection will be performed. 2-5cc of 1% lidocaine will be injected into the skin and subcutaneous tissue to anesthetize the skin and subcutaneous structures over the site of planned entry to the neural foramen. A 22 or 25 g Whitacre needle (3.5-7") will be used to access the epidural space using the sub-pedicular or infraneural transforaminal approach, depending on individual anatomy at the discretion of the treating physician. Needle tip position will be confirmed using anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopic views as well as with injection of a standard 1-3 mL aliquot of omnipaque 180 (Iohexol) (GE Healthcare) contrast material during live fluoroscopy to confirm epidural flow of contrast and to rule out an intravascular injection. Then 3 mL of Amniotic Fluid will be injected through the spinal needle for unilateral symptoms, for a total injection volume of 3 mL in both groups.
Receives: Drug: Amniotic Fluid Allograft
Transforaminal epidural dexamethasone injectionActive comparatorUsing fluoroscopic guidance, a lumbosacral epidural injection will be performed. 2-5cc of 1% lidocaine will be injected into the skin and subcutaneous tissue to anesthetize the skin and subcutaneous structures over the site of planned entry to the neural foramen. A 22 or 25 g Whitacre needle (3.5-7") will be used to access the epidural space using the sub-pedicular or infraneural transforaminal approach, depending on individual anatomy at the discretion of the treating physician. Needle tip position confirmed using anterior-posterior and lateral fluoroscopic views as well as with injection of a standard 1-3 mL aliquot of omnipaque 180 (Iohexol) (GE Healthcare) contrast material during live fluoroscopy to confirm epidural flow of contrast and to rule out an intravascular injection. 1 mL of dexamethasone sodium phosphate (10 mg/mL) combined with 2 mL of sterile water will be injected through the spinal needle for unilateral symptoms, for a total injection volume of 3 mL in both groups.
Receives: Drug: Dexamethasone sodium phosphate

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. The Percentage of Participants Reporting >50% Improvement in the Numeric Rating Scale Pain Score at 3 Months; Back and Leg Pain Separately.

    Categorical measures of both pain and function will be used for the primary outcome analysis given recent recommendations by the National Institute of Health.

    Measured: 3 months

Secondary outcomes (5)
  1. Mean Change in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) Pain Score (Back and Leg Pain Separately).

    NPRS scale from 0 to 10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being worst imaginable pain

    Measured: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)

  2. The Number of Participants Reporting >30% Improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index at 3 Months

    How many participants reported a greater than 30% improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index at 3 months.

    Measured: 3 months

  3. Mean Change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Score Improvement

    The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) consists of 10 questions, scored from 0-5 (minimum to maximum).

    The point total from each section is summed, divided by the total points possible of all sections answered, and multiplied by 100 to create a percentage disability from 0-100%, with a lower percentage indicating less disability.

    Measured: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)

  4. The Percentage of Participants Reporting >30% Improvement in the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) Score.

    The Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) used for this study is scored by summing responses across two subscales:

    Symptom severity:

    Questions 1-4: Assess pain in the back and lower limbs. Questions 5-7: Assess neuroischemic symptoms (numbness, weakness, balance).

    Scoring:

    Each question (except Q7) is scored on a 1 to 5 scale, with 1 indicating no symptoms and 5 indicating very severe symptoms.

    Question 7 (balance) has three options: 1, 3, or 5. 7 Calculation: Sum the scores for questions 1-7 to get the total symptom severity score.

    Physical function:

    Questions 8-12: Assess walking capacity and functional limitations. Scoring: Each question is scored on a 1 to 4 scale, with higher scores indicating greater disability.

    Calculation: Sum the scores for questions 8-12 to get the total functional disability score.

    The scores from follow-up visits will be compared to the participant's Baseline scores to calculate improvement percentage.

    Measured: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)

  5. Mean Change in the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) Score

    Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) is scored across two scales: Symptom Severity (7 Q) and Physical Function (5 Q). The Symptom Severity scale is subdivided into two domains: Pain and Neuroischemic Symptoms.

    1. Symptom Severity Scale (Q 1-7) This section evaluates pain intensity and frequency (Pain domain; Q 1-4), as well as neuroischemic symptoms such as numbness, tingling, and weakness (Neuroischemic Symptoms domain; Q 5-7).
    • Scoring Range: 1 - 5 per question, (1 = none, 5 = very severe) Highest Pain score=20 Lowest=4 / Highest Neuro=15 Lowest=3
    • Calculation: Average of answers.
    • Interpretation: A higher score indicates a greater severity of symptoms.
    1. Physical Function Scale (Q 8-12) This section measures how much symptoms restrict daily activities
    • Scoring Range: 1 - 4 per question (1 = normal activity, 4 = severe limitation) Highest score=20 / Lowest=5
    • Calculation: Average of answers
    • Interpretation: Higher score shows greater functional disability.

    Measured: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted3 Sep 2020
  2. Study start16 Jun 2021
  3. Primary completion1 Jul 2025
  4. Study completion1 Jul 2025

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 1/2
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Crossover
Model description
A Double-blinded, randomized, prospective study to evaluate the standard of care (Corticosteriod) vs. Sterile Amniotic Fluid Filtrate Epidural Injection for the treatment of Lumbosacral Radicular Pain due to Spinal Stenosis.
Masking
Triple blind
Who is masked
Participant, Care provider, Investigator
Enrolment
58 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT04537026
Sponsor's protocol ID
IRB 131761
Status last verified
May 2026
First submitted
28 Aug 2020
Last updated
25 Sep 2026
Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
Individual data sharing
No

Publications

  • McCormick ZL, Sen H, Cooper AN, Conger AM, Fogarty AE, Glinka Przybysz A, Burnham T, Kendall R, Wagner G, Hansen PA, Pierce J, Hashimoto B, Cushman DM, Martin BI. The safety and effectiveness of lumbar transforaminal injection of sterile amniotic fluid filtrate compared to steroid for lumbosacral radicular pain due to spinal stenosis: a phase I/II double-blinded randomized trial. Pain Med. 2026 Sep 1;27(9):972-988. doi: 10.1093/pm/pnag048.

    PubMed 41915069

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 1/2 study testing Amniotic Fluid Allograft and Dexamethasone sodium phosphate in people with Lumbar Spinal Stenosis, run by University of Utah at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 7 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 25 Sep 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this combined phase mean?

Phase 1 studies test a treatment in a small group of people for the first time or in a new way, mainly to check safety and find the right dose.

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 25 Sep 2026). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

The Percentage of Participants Reporting >50% Improvement in the Numeric Rating Scale Pain Score at 3 Months; Back and Leg Pain Separately. (time frame: 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04537026, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 25 Sep 2026.

Free account

Keep searching with a free account

You’ve used your 3 free searches for this session. Log in or create a free AzTrials account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in