Skip to content

AMPLEX Ankle Fusion and Hindfoot

A Multi-Center, Randomized, Pivotal Study Evaluating AMPLEX Compared To Autogenous Bone Graft in Subjects Indicated for Arthrodesis Surgery Involving the Hindfoot or Ankle

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03028415
Enrollment
56
Registered
2017-01-23
Start date
2017-07-28
Completion date
2020-07-09
Last updated
2021-03-11

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Arthrodesis Surgery Involving the Hindfoot or Ankle

Brief summary

To demonstrate that AMPLEX is non-inferior to autogenous bone graft (ABG) for bone fusion in a population indicated for single, double, or triple hindfoot arthrodesis or ankle arthrodesis surgery with supplemental graft material.

Interventions

DEVICEAMPLEX

A bone graft substitute

PROCEDUREAutogenous Bone Graft (ABG)

Control material administered by surgical implant

Sponsors

Ferring Pharmaceuticals
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 74 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Signed written informed consent * Indicated for ankle or hindfoot arthrodesis and require one of the following arthrodesis procedures: Tibiotalar (ankle); Talocalcaneal (subtalar); Talonavicular; Calcaneocuboid; Double hindfoot (e.g., talonavicular and talocalcaneal joints); Triple hindfoot (subtalar, talonavicular and calcaneocuboid joints) * Presents with pain on weight-bearing of at least 40 mm on a 100 mm VAS at the area indicated for arthrodesis * Presents with at least one comorbid risk factors that warrant the use of supplemental autogenous bone or allograft: Radiographic evidence of bone defect, deficit, subsidence or subchondral cyst; More than one joint to be fused; Involvement of other adjacent or nonadjacent joints; Large surface area; Intra-articular or extra-articular deformity; Post-traumatic arthritis; Diagnosis of osteoporosis * The Investigator determines if the joint space(s) can be adequately filled with graft material (AMPLEX or ABG) according to the following parameters: Single hindfoot joint fusion: up to 5 cm\^3; Double or triple hindfoot fusion: each individual joint up to 5 cm\^3, but overall, not more than 10 cm3 for the full complement of joints; Ankle fusion: up to 10 cm\^3 * Each fused joint can be rigidly stabilized with with at least 1 and no more than 3 screws across the fusion plane. (Supplemental pins and staples may be used, as well as supplemental screws and plates external to the fusion site(s)) * Willing and able to comply with all study requirements including all postoperative clinical and radiographic evaluations * For women of childbearing potential (not post-menopausal for 12 months or surgically sterile), a urine pregnancy test with a negative result must be obtained at screening and within 24 hours prior to procedure. These trial participants must commit to adequate birth control (e.g., oral contraceptive, two methods of barrier birth control, or abstinence) through the 78 week follow-up

Exclusion criteria

* Bone deficit requiring a structural graft * Charcot foot disease * Radiographic evidence of open physes * Prior arthroplasty, arthrodesis, major surgical repair or reconstruction of the index ankle or hindfoot joint(s) * Requires osteotomy or fusion of the midfoot joints * BMI greater than 45 kg/m\^2 * Documented medical history of, or radiographic evidence of, a bone disease (e.g. avascular necrosis) or other condition (e.g., osteolysis) that would preclude the subject from receiving screw fixation in the opinion of the surgeon * Requires intramedullary nail fixation or an external fixator * Comorbidity that would limit the ability to administer any functional measurements such as FAAM-ADL * Has at the time of surgery, a systemic infection or local infection at the site of surgery * Medical condition, serious intercurrent illness, or extenuating circumstance that, in the opinion of the Investigator, would preclude participation in the study or potentially decrease survival or interfere with ambulation or rehabilitation (e.g., history of transient ischemic attack, stroke or liver disease) * HgbA1c level greater than or equal to 8% * Known hypersensitivity to any of the components of the product \[e.g. B2A peptide, Hydroxyapatite (HA): beta-tricalcium phosphate (βTCP), ceramic granule\] * Currently receiving treatment with a drug known to interfere with bone metabolism \[e.g., systemic corticosteroid therapy (topical corticosteroid therapy is permissible), methotrexate\] * Has previously received treatment with a drug known to interfere with bone metabolism \[e.g., systemic corticosteroid therapy (topical corticosteroid therapy is permissible), methotrexate\] and in the opinion of the investigator could continue to negatively interfere with bone metabolism or bone healing * History of any severe allergy or anaphylaxis, or a history of hypersensitivity to protein pharmaceuticals \[e.g., monoclonal antibodies or gamma globulins, recombinant Bone Morphogenetic Proteins (BMPs)\] * Medical condition requiring radiation, chemotherapy or immunosuppression * Have a prior or active history of malignancy (except for basal cell carcinoma of the skin) * Has a history of autoimmune disease known to affect bone metabolism. Examples include spondyloarthropathies (e.g., ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis), Juvenile Arthritis, Grave's disease and Hashimoto's thyroiditis; Rheumatoid Arthritis is allowed * Have pathological or genetic liver disease or who have clinically significant, elevated baseline liver function enzymes * Has obvious and/or documented alcohol or illicit drug addictions * Is a prisoner in a correctional institution/facility * Actively involved in litigation or workman's compensation * Has participated in clinical studies evaluating investigational devices, pharmaceuticals or biologics within 6 months of randomization * Requires chronic therapeutic use of NSAID during the first 6 post-operative weeks (except aspirin up to 325 mg bid for cardiovascular protection and/or DVT prophylaxis) * Has previously been treated with, or exposed to, therapeutic levels of synthetic or recombinant BMPs * Requires chronic subcutaneous or intravenous heparin therapies

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of Subjects Who Met All Five Criteria for Subject Performance Composite (SPC) EndpointAt week 52Proportion of subjects who met all the following criteria for the SPC endpoint at 52 weeks: 1. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at fusion site (≥20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm visual analog scale \[VAS\]); 2. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain (\<20 mm on 100 mm VAS); 3. Improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL) (≥8 points improvement from baseline); 4. Absence of device related or procedure related serious adverse events (up to week 52); 5. Absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion (up to week 52). The last observation carried forward was used for subjects with missing response status at 52 weeks.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Proportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion SuccessAt week 12Defined as ≥50% bone bridging across the joint space for the full complement of joints in the absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion.
Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)Baseline, and at week 12Weight-bearing pain at the fusion site was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire. Subjects were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced, with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at the fusion site was defined as ≥ 20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.
Proportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)At week 2Graft harvest site pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire, and was only assessed among subjects in the ABG group. Subjects in the ABG group were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain was defined as \<20 mm on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.
Proportion of Subjects Achieving Computerized Tomography (CT) Radiographic Fusion SuccessAt week 52Defined as ≥50% bone bridging across the joint space for the full complement of joints in the absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion. The last observation carried forward was used for subjects with missing response status at 52 weeks.
Subject Performance Composite (SPC) EndpointAt week 12Proportion of subjects who met all the following criteria for the Subject Performance Composite (SPC) endpoint at 12 weeks: 1. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at fusion site (≥20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm visual analog scale \[VAS\]); 2. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain (\<20 mm on 100 mm VAS); 3. Improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL) (≥8 points improvement from baseline); 4. Absence of device related or procedure related serious adverse events (up to week 12); 5. Absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion (up to week 12).
Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)Baseline, and at week 24The Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Survey includes 12 questions from the SF-36 Health Survey. These include: 2 questions concerning physical functioning; 2 questions on role limitations because of physical health problems; 1 question on bodily pain; 1 question on general health perceptions; 1 question on vitality (energy/fatigue); 1 question on social functioning; 2 questions on role limitations because of emotional problems; and 2 questions on general mental health (psychological distress and psychological well-being). These eight domain scales were used to derive Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. All scores were calculated through scoring software. Domain scales and component summary scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher score considered better.
Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADLBaseline, and at week 12Functional improvement was assessed using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) subscale, a subject self-assessment questionnaire that consists of 21 items pertaining to basic functional activities. Each item is scored on a 5 point Likert scale anchored by 4 (no difficulty at all) and 0 (unable to do). The total item subscale score ranges from 0 to 84, which are transformed to a scale of 0 to 100 as the final score. Higher scores represent a higher level of function, with 100 representing no dysfunction.

Countries

Canada, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

The trial was conducted at 19 sites (14 sites in the United States and 5 sites in Canada) between July 2017 to July 2020.

Pre-assignment details

A total of 80 subjects were screened in the trial, of which, 56 subjects were randomized. All the 56 randomized subjects were exposed to graft material: 39 subjects were exposed to AMPLEX and 17 subjects were exposed to autogenous bone graft (ABG).

Participants by arm

ArmCount
AMPLEX
AMPLEX: A bone graft substitute
39
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG): Control material administered by surgical implant
17
Total56

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001
Overall StudyDiscontinued due to COVID-1910
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up63
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject10

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicAMPLEXAutogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Total
Age, Continuous55.4 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12
50.5 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.4
53.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.8
Age, Customized
<65 years
29 participants14 participants43 participants
Age, Customized
>=65 years
10 participants3 participants13 participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants1 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
39 Participants16 Participants55 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
2 Participants3 Participants5 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
36 Participants12 Participants48 Participants
Region of Enrollment
Canada
20 participants7 participants27 participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
19 participants10 participants29 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
18 Participants13 Participants31 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
21 Participants4 Participants25 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 390 / 17
other
Total, other adverse events
27 / 3912 / 17
serious
Total, serious adverse events
7 / 397 / 17

Outcome results

Primary

Proportion of Subjects Who Met All Five Criteria for Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint

Proportion of subjects who met all the following criteria for the SPC endpoint at 52 weeks: 1. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at fusion site (≥20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm visual analog scale \[VAS\]); 2. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain (\<20 mm on 100 mm VAS); 3. Improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL) (≥8 points improvement from baseline); 4. Absence of device related or procedure related serious adverse events (up to week 52); 5. Absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion (up to week 52). The last observation carried forward was used for subjects with missing response status at 52 weeks.

Time frame: At week 52

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects Who Met All Five Criteria for Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint79.5 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects Who Met All Five Criteria for Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint35.3 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADL

Functional improvement was assessed using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) subscale, a subject self-assessment questionnaire that consists of 21 items pertaining to basic functional activities. Each item is scored on a 5 point Likert scale anchored by 4 (no difficulty at all) and 0 (unable to do). The total item subscale score ranges from 0 to 84, which are transformed to a scale of 0 to 100 as the final score. Higher scores represent a higher level of function, with 100 representing no dysfunction.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 12

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in FAAM-ADL11.16 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.67
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADL7.17 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.46
Secondary

Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADL

Functional improvement was assessed using the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) subscale, a subject self-assessment questionnaire that consists of 21 items pertaining to basic functional activities. Each item is scored on a 5 point Likert scale anchored by 4 (no difficulty at all) and 0 (unable to do). The total item subscale score ranges from 0 to 84, which are transformed to a scale of 0 to 100 as the final score. Higher scores represent a higher level of function, with 100 representing no dysfunction.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 52

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in FAAM-ADL34.99 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.51
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADL11.37 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.49
Secondary

Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADL

Functional improvement was assessed using the e Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) subscale, a subject self-assessment questionnaire that consists of 21 items pertaining to basic functional activities. Each item is scored on a 5 point Likert scale anchored by 4 (no difficulty at all) and 0 (unable to do). The total item subscale score ranges from 0 to 84, which are transformed to a scale of 0 to 100 as the final score. Higher scores represent a higher level of function, with 100 representing no dysfunction.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 24

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in FAAM-ADL25.36 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.82
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in FAAM-ADL13.28 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.3
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)

The Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Survey includes 12 questions from the SF-36 Health Survey. These include: 2 questions concerning physical functioning; 2 questions on role limitations because of physical health problems; 1 question on bodily pain; 1 question on general health perceptions; 1 question on vitality (energy/fatigue); 1 question on social functioning; 2 questions on role limitations because of emotional problems; and 2 questions on general mental health (psychological distress and psychological well-being). These eight domain scales were used to derive Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. All scores were calculated through scoring software. Domain scales and component summary scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher score considered better.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 52

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Physical component summary (Week 52)10.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.7
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Mental component summary (Week 52)4.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.6
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Physical component summary (Week 52)3.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.4
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Mental component summary (Week 52)-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)

The Short Form-12 (SF-12) Health Survey includes 12 questions from the SF-36 Health Survey. These include: 2 questions concerning physical functioning; 2 questions on role limitations because of physical health problems; 1 question on bodily pain; 1 question on general health perceptions; 1 question on vitality (energy/fatigue); 1 question on social functioning; 2 questions on role limitations because of emotional problems; and 2 questions on general mental health (psychological distress and psychological well-being). These eight domain scales were used to derive Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. All scores were calculated through scoring software. Domain scales and component summary scores ranged from 0 to 100, with a higher score considered better.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 24

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Physical component summary (Week 24)9.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.2
AMPLEXChange From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Mental component summary (Week 24)2.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.5
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Physical component summary (Week 24)5.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.1
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Change From Baseline in Short Form-12 (SF-12)SF-12 Mental component summary (Week 24)-3.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.2
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects Achieving Computerized Tomography (CT) Radiographic Fusion Success

Defined as ≥50% bone bridging across the joint space for the full complement of joints in the absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion. The last observation carried forward was used for subjects with missing response status at 52 weeks.

Time frame: At week 52

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects Achieving Computerized Tomography (CT) Radiographic Fusion Success66.7 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects Achieving Computerized Tomography (CT) Radiographic Fusion Success82.4 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion Success

Defined as ≥50% bone bridging across the joint space for the full complement of joints in the absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion.

Time frame: At week 12

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion Success47.4 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion Success58.8 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion Success

Defined as ≥50% bone bridging across the joint space for the full complement of joints in the absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion.

Time frame: At week 24

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion Success73.0 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects Achieving CT Radiographic Fusion Success75.0 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)

Graft harvest site pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire, and was only assessed among subjects in the ABG group. Subjects in the ABG group were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain was defined as \<20 mm on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: At week 12

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)73.3 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)

Graft harvest site pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire, and was only assessed among subjects in the ABG group. Subjects in the ABG group were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain was defined as \<20 mm on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: At week 24

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)60.0 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)

Graft harvest site pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire, and was only assessed among subjects in the ABG group. Subjects in the ABG group were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain was defined as \<20 mm on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: At week 52

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)68.8 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)

Graft harvest site pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire, and was only assessed among subjects in the ABG group. Subjects in the ABG group were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain was defined as \<20 mm on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: At week 2

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)33.3 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)

Graft harvest site pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire, and was only assessed among subjects in the ABG group. Subjects in the ABG group were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain was defined as \<20 mm on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: At week 6

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Absence of Graft Harvest Site Pain (<20 mm on 100 mm VAS)60.0 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)

Weight-bearing pain at the fusion site was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire. Subjects were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced, with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at the fusion site was defined as ≥ 20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 24

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)88.9 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)62.5 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)

Weight-bearing pain at the fusion site was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire. Subjects were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced, with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at the fusion site was defined as ≥ 20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 12

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)78.4 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)68.8 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)

Weight-bearing pain at the fusion site was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS), a subject self-assessment questionnaire. Subjects were asked to mark the location on a 100 mm line corresponding to the amount of pain they experienced, with 0 mm being no pain and 100 mm being the worst pain imaginable. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at the fusion site was defined as ≥ 20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm VAS, and is presented for this outcome measure.

Time frame: Baseline, and at week 52

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXProportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)90.6 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Proportion of Subjects With Change From Baseline in Pain on Weight-bearing at Fusion Site (>20 mm Reduction From Baseline on 100 mm VAS)80.0 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint

Proportion of subjects who met all the following criteria for the Subject Performance Composite (SPC) endpoint at 12 weeks: 1. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at fusion site (≥20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm visual analog scale \[VAS\]); 2. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain (\<20 mm on 100 mm VAS); 3. Improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL) (≥8 points improvement from baseline); 4. Absence of device related or procedure related serious adverse events (up to week 12); 5. Absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion (up to week 12).

Time frame: At week 12

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXSubject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint40.5 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint31.3 percentage of subjects
Secondary

Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint

Proportion of subjects who met all the following criteria for the SPC endpoint at 24 weeks: 1. Improvement in pain on weight-bearing at fusion site (≥20 mm reduction from baseline on 100 mm visual analog scale \[VAS\]); 2. Absence of significant graft harvest site pain (\<20 mm on 100 mm VAS); 3. Improvement in Foot and Ankle Ability Measure Activities of Daily Living subscale (FAAM-ADL) (≥8 points improvement from baseline); 4. Absence of device related or procedure related serious adverse events (up to week 24); 5. Absence of secondary surgical or nonsurgical interventions intended to promote fusion (up to week 24).

Time frame: At week 24

Population: The mITT analysis set comprised all randomized subjects who had an attempted fusion of the index joint(s). Subjects were analyzed according to randomized (planned) treatment.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
AMPLEXSubject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint66.7 percentage of subjects
Autogenous Bone Graft (ABG)Subject Performance Composite (SPC) Endpoint6.7 percentage of subjects

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026