Advertisement

Collagenase: What We May Never Know (A Discussion)

  • David WarwickEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Whilst randomised trials can provide robust and clinically essential data, they cannot answer all questions. There are certain aspects about collagenase which we will have to deduce and cannot prove. Some cords are “twigs” and some are “logs”; it is unlikely that one treatment will be equally suitable for both. Suitable outcome measures are not established. There is no established broadly agreed scoring scheme for Dupuytren disease. One cannot, for example, balance a lower recurrence rate with surgery with the prompter recovery from PNF or collagenase, nor the higher complication rate with surgery against the lower cost of collagenase nor the very cheap cost of needle fasciotomy. A randomised trial requires equipoise from both the investigators and the subjects; the preconceptions of doctors and patients may compromise equipoise and introduce bias into recruitment. Proper comparative trials cost a vast amount of money so that sourcing adequate funding may be a challenge, particularly since long-term outcomes are required particularly to compare recurrence.

Keywords

Collagenase Side effects Research Heterogeneity of disease Outcome measures Randomised controlled trial Efficacy Percutaneous needle fasciotomy Fasciectomy 

Notes

Conflict of Interest

The author has been a paid consultant to Pfizer and SOBI (European distributors of Xiapex) and Actelion (Australian distributor of Xiaflex.) He has received travel support, accommodation and honoraria on several occasions in relation to advising on the drug and giving presentations to learned societies and other groups. He has not been paid or received any other support in relation to the International Dupuytren Symposium or to this chapter.

References

  1. Arvind M, Vadher J, Ismail H, Warwick D (2014) The Southampton Dupuytren’s scoring scheme. Plast Surg Hand Surg 48:28–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaudreuil J et al. URAM Study Group (2011) Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale: development and validation of a tool to assess Dupuytren’s disease-specific disability. Arthritis Care Res 10:1448–1455Google Scholar
  3. Budd HR, Larson D, Chojnowski A, Shepstone L (2011) The QuickDASH score: a patient-reported outcome measure for Dupuytren’s surgery. J Hand Ther 24:15–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman S et al (2014) Efficacy and safety of concurrent collagenase clostridium histolyticum injections for multiple Dupuytren contractures. J Hand Surg Am 39:57–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hay DC et al (2014) Surgical findings in the treatment of Dupuytren’s disease after initial treatment with clostridial collagenase. J Hand Surg Eur 39:463–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jupiter J, Burke D (2013) Scott’s parabola and the rise of the medical–industrial complex. Hand (N Y) 8:249–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Manning CJ, Delaney R, Hayton MJ (2014) Efficacy and tolerability of Day 2 manipulation and local anaesthesia after collagenase injection in patients with Dupuytren’s contracture. J Hand Surg Eur 39:466–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mickelson DT et al (2014) Prospective RCT comparing 1-versus 7-day manipulation following collagenase injection for Dupuytren contracture. J Hand Surg Am 39:1933–1941CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Peimer CA, McGoldrick CA, Fiore GJ (2013) Nonsurgical treatment of Dupuytren’s contracture: 1-year US post-marketing safety data for collagenase clostridium histolyticum. Hand 7:143–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peimer CA, Wilbrand S, Gerber RA et al (2015a) Safety and tolerability of collagenase Clostridium histolyticum and fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s contracture. J Hand Surg Eur 40:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peimer C, Blazar P, Coleman S, Kaplan T, Smith T, Lindau T (2015b) Dupuytren Contracture Recurrence Following Treatment With Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum (CORDLESS [Collagenase Option for Reduction of Dupuytren Long-Term Evaluation of Safety Study]): 5-Year Data. J Hand Surg Am 40:1597–1605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Rodrigues JN et al (2015) What patients want from the treatment of Dupuytren’s Disease- is the URAM sale relevant. J Hand Surg Eur 40:150–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scott JW (2001) Scott’s parabola: the rise and fall of a surgical technique. Br Med 323:1477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Verheyden JR (2015) Early outcomes of a sequential series of 144 patients with Dupuytren’s contracture treated by collagenase injection using an increased dose, multi-cord technique. J Hand Surg Eur 40:133–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Warwick D et al (2015a) Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum in patients with Dupuytren's contracture: results from POINT X, an open-label study of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. J Hand Surg Eur 40:124–132Google Scholar
  16. Warwick D, Graham D, Worsley D (2015b) New insights into the immediate outcome of collagenase injections for Dupuytren’s contracture. J Hand Surg published online doi: 10.1177/1753193415600670
  17. Witthaut G et al (2013) Efficacy and safety of collagenase clostridium histolyticum injection for Dupuytren contracture: short-term results from 2 open-label studies. J Hand Surg Am 38:2–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hand Surgery Unit, OrthopaedicsUniversity Hospital Southampton, University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations