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.
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
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.
- Conditions
- Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
- 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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Transforaminal epidural Amniotic Fluid injection | Experimental | Using 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 injection | Active comparator | Using 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.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- First posted3 Sep 2020
- Study start16 Jun 2021
- Primary completion1 Jul 2025
- Study completion1 Jul 2025
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Lumbar Spinal StenosisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Utah
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Zack McCormick, University of Utah
- Investigators
- Zachary L McCormick, MD, Principal investigator, University of Utah
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
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- 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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 25 Sep 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- 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.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04537026
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- IRB 131761
- Conditions
- Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
- Keywords
- Amniotic Fluid, Epidural Injection
- Phase
- Phase 1/2
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 58 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of UtahUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Cell Therapy & Regenerative Medicine
- Study start
- 16 Jun 2021 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Study completion
- 1 Jul 2025 (actual)
- First posted
- 3 Sep 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 25 Sep 2026
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
- 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.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Transforaminal epidural Amniotic Fluid injection | Experimental | Drug: Amniotic Fluid AllograftUsing 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. |
| Transforaminal epidural dexamethasone injection | Active comparator | Drug: Dexamethasone sodium phosphateUsing 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. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (7 listed)
- 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).
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- 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.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Amniotic Fluid AllograftAlso: Sterile Amniotic Fluid FiltrateAmniotic Fluid Allograft will be mixed with sterile water and injected using transforaminal approach | Drug | Transforaminal epidural Amniotic Fluid injection |
| Dexamethasone sodium phosphateAlso: DexamethasoneDexamethasone sodium phosphate mixed with 2 mL sterile water will be injected by transforaminal approach | Drug | Transforaminal epidural dexamethasone injection |
Primary outcome
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
Categorical measures of both pain and function will be used for the primary outcome analysis given recent recommendations by the National Institute of Health.
5 secondary outcomes
Mean Change in the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) Pain Score (Back and Leg Pain Separately).
Time frame: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)
The Number of Participants Reporting >30% Improvement in the Oswestry Disability Index at 3 Months
Time frame: 3 months
Mean Change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Score Improvement
Time frame: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)
The Percentage of Participants Reporting >30% Improvement in the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) Score.
Time frame: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)
Mean Change in the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire (SSSQ) Score
Time frame: From the Baseline Visit to Visit 8 (24 months) or after Protocol Version 15, Baseline Visit to Visit 6 (6 months)
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 25 Sep 2026.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41915069McCormick 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Recruiting
Surgical Treatment of Adjacent Segment Stenosis
Adjacent Segment Disease, Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
RecruitingObservational study
MILD® Percutaneous Image-Guided Lumbar Decompression: A Medicare Claims Study
Lumbar Spinal Stenosis
Not yet recruiting
Kore Fiber PLF Study
Degenerative Lumbar Spine Diseases, Lumbar Degenerative Disc Disease
Recruiting
Activity Post Spinal Surgery Engagement Trial
Spinal Surgery for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis (LSS)
Active, not recruiting
SLIP II Registry: Spinal Laminectomy Versus Instrumented Pedicle Screw Fusion
Lumbar Spondylolisthesis, Grade 1 Spondylolisthesis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Zachary L McCormick, MD principal investigator
University of Utah
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
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.