Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis at 1 Year: A Prospective, Randomized Trial

Microfragmented Adipose Tissue Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis at 12 Months Posttreatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT) is another orthobiologic that holds promise, but data supporting its use are limited. Previous studies showed that MFAT created using the Lipogems device was equivalent to PRP created via noncommercial laboratory-based processes.

Purpose

To perform a comparison of commercially available MFAT and PRP systems for treatment of knee OA.

Study Design

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

A total of 71 patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-4) were randomized to receive a single injection of either leukocyte-rich PRP (Angel; Arthrex) or MFAT (Lipogems) under ultrasound guidance. Patient-reported outcomes (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], visual analog scale for pain with activities of daily living [VAS pain], and Tegner activity level) were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after injection. The primary outcome was the KOOS-Pain subscale score at 12 months after injection.

Results

Overall, 49 patients completed their 12-month follow-up (PRP group, n = 23; MFAT group, n = 26). All demographic features were similar between groups, except that more men were randomized to the PRP group and more women to the MFAT group. At 12 months posttreatment, KOOS-Pain scores improved in both groups, with no significant group difference (PRP, 78 ± 17.9 vs MFAT, 77.8 ± 19.3; P = .69). Similarly, other KOOS subscales, VAS pain scores, and Tegner scores improved at 12 months, with no differences between treatment groups.

Conclusion

Both PRP and MFAT injections for knee OA resulted in improved patient-reported outcomes at 12 months posttreatment, with no differences found between treatments.

Registration

NCT04351087 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Protecting the regenerative environment: selecting the optimal delivery vehicle for cartilage repair-a narrative review

Focal cartilage defects are common in youth and older adults, cause significant morbidity and constitute a major risk factor for developing osteoarthritis (OA). OA is the most common musculoskeletal (MSK) disease worldwide, resulting in pain, stiffness, loss of function, and is currently irreversible. Research into the optimal regenerative approach and methods in the setting of either focal cartilage defects and/or OA holds to the ideal of resolving both diseases. The two fundamentals required for cartilage regenerative treatment are 1) the biological element contributing to the regeneration (e.g., direct application of stem cells, or of an exogenous secretome), and 2) the vehicle by which the biological element is suspended and delivered. The vehicle provides support to the regenerative process by providing a protective environment, a structure that allows cell adherence and migration, and a source of growth and regenerative factors that can activate and sustain regeneration. Models of cartilage diseases include osteochondral defect (OCD) (which usually involve one focal lesion), or OA (which involves a more diffuse articular cartilage loss). Given the differing nature of these models, the optimal regenerative strategy to treat different cartilage diseases may not be universal. This could potentially impact the translatability of a successful approach in one condition to that of the other. An analogy would be the repair of a pothole (OCD) versus repaving the entire road (OA). In this narrative review, we explore the existing literature evaluating cartilage regeneration approaches for OCD and OA in animal then in human studies and the vehicles used for each of these two conditions. We then highlight strengths and challenges faced by the different approaches presented and discuss what might constitute the optimal cartilage regenerative delivery vehicle for clinical cartilage regeneration.

The use of platelet-rich plasma in studies with early knee osteoarthritis versus advanced stages of the disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized clinical trials

INTRODUCTION

Reports have concluded that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an effective and safe biological approach to treating knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, the effectiveness of PRP in advanced stages of the disease is not entirely clear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether the use of PRP would be as effective in studies with early-moderate knee OA patients compared to studies including patients with end-stage OA, based on the Kellgren-Lawrence classification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of PRP injections versus other intra-articular treatments on pain and functionality. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and the generic inverse variance method.

RESULTS

We included 31 clinical trials that reported data of 2705 subjects. Meta-analysis revealed an overall significant improvement of both pain [MD, - 1.05 (95% CI - 1.41 to - 0.68); I² = 86%; P ≤ 0.00001] and function [SMD, - 1.00 (95% CI - 1.33, to - 0.66); I² = 94%; P ≤ 0.00001], favoring PRP. Subanalysis for pain and functional improvement showed a significant pain relief in studies with 1-3 and 1-4 Kellgren-Lawrence OA stages and a significant functional improvement in studies with 1-2, 1-3 and 1-4 knee OA stages, favoring PRP.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate that including patients with advanced knee OA does not seem to affect the outcomes of clinical trials in which the effectiveness of the PRP in knee OA is assessed.

Cell-based therapies have disease-modifying effects on osteoarthritis in animal models. A systematic review by the ESSKA Orthobiologic Initiative. Part 2: bone marrow-derived cell-based injectable therapies

PURPOSE

Aim of this systematic review was to determine if bone marrow-derived cell-based injectable therapies induce disease-modifying effects in joints affected by osteoarthritis (OA) in animal models.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase) according to PRISMA guidelines. A synthesis of the results was performed investigating disease-modifying effects in preclinical animal studies comparing injectable bone marrow-derived products with OA controls or other products, different formulations or injection intervals, and the combination with other products. The risk of bias was assessed according to the SYRCLE's tool.

RESULTS

Fifty-three studies were included (1819 animals) with an increasing publication trend over time. Expanded cells were used in 48 studies, point-of-care products in 3 studies, and both approaches were investigated in 2 studies. Among the 47 studies presenting results on the disease-modifying effects, 40 studies (85%) reported better results with bone marrow-derived products compared to OA controls, with positive findings evident in 14 out of 20 studies (70%) in macroscopic assessment, in 30 out of 41 studies (73%) in histological assessment, and in 10 out of 13 studies (77%) in immunohistochemical evaluations. Clinical evaluations showed positive results in 7 studies out of 9 (78%), positive imaging results in 11 studies out of 17 (65%), and positive biomarker results in 5 studies out of 10 (50%). While 36 out of 46 studies (78%) reported positive results at the cartilage level, only 3 out of 10 studies (30%) could detect positive changes at the synovial level. The risk of bias was low in 42% of items, unclear in 50%, and high in 8%.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review of preclinical studies demonstrated that intra-articular injections of bone marrow-derived products can induce disease-modifying effects in the treatment of OA, slowing down the progression of cartilage damage with benefits at macroscopic, histological, and immunohistochemical levels. Positive results have been also observed in terms of clinical and imaging findings, as well as in the modulation of inflammatory and cartilage biomarkers, while poor effects have been described on the synovial membrane. These findings are important to understand the potential of bone marrow-derived products and to guide further research to optimise their use in the clinical practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

AAOS Technology Overview Summary: Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate for Knee Osteoarthritis

The Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate (CBMA) for Knee Osteoarthritis Technology Overview is based on a systematic review of current scientific and clinical research. Through analysis of the current best evidence, this technology overview seeks to evaluate the efficacy of CBMA for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The systematic literature review resulted in 12 articles: three high-quality, four moderate-quality, and five low-quality. The findings of these studies were summarized to present findings on CBMA versus placebo and CBMA versus other treatment modalities. In addition, the work group highlighted areas for needed additional research when evidence proved lacking on the topic and carefully noted the potential harms associated with an intervention, required resource utilization, acceptability, and feasibility.

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate injections provide similar results versus viscosupplementation up to 24 months of follow-up in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

The purpose of this double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare clinical improvement and radiographic findings up to 2 years of follow-up of a single intra-articular injection of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) versus hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). The hypothesis was that BMAC injection could lead to better clinical and radiographic results compared to viscosupplementation.

METHODS

Patients with bilateral knee OA were randomized to one intra-articular injection of tibial-derived BMAC in one knee and one HA injection in the contralateral knee. Sixty patients were enrolled, and 56 were studied up to the final follow-up (35 men, 21 women, mean age 57.8 ± 8.9 years), for a total of 112 knees. Patients were evaluated before the injection and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months with the IKDC subjective score, VAS for pain, and the KOOS score. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient treatment judgement, and adverse events were documented, as well as bilateral X-Rays (Rosenberg view) before and after treatment.

RESULTS

No severe adverse events nor differences were reported in terms of mild adverse events (7.1% vs 5.4%, p = ns) and treatment failures (10.7% vs 12.5%, p = ns) in BMAC and HA groups, respectively. The IKDC subjective score improved from baseline to all follow-ups for BMAC (p < 0.0005), while it improved up to 12 months (p < 0.0005) and then decreased at 24 months (p = 0.030) for HA. Compared to HA, BMAC showed a higher improvement for VAS pain at 12 (2.2 ± 2.6 vs 1.7 ± 2.5, p = 0.041) and 24 months (2.2 ± 2.6 vs 1.4 ± 2.8, p = 0.002). The analysis based on OA severity confirmed this difference only in Kellgren-Lawrence 1-2 knees, while comparable results were observed in moderate/severe OA. Radiographic evaluation did not show knee OA deterioration for both treatment groups, without intergroup differences.

CONCLUSION

BMAC did not demonstrate a clinically significant superiority at short-term compared to viscosupplementation, reporting overall comparable results in terms of clinical scores, failures, adverse events, radiographic evaluation, MCID achievement, and patient treatment judgment. However, while HA results decreased over time, BMAC presented more durable results in mild OA knees.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I.

Short-Term Efficacy of Using a Novel Low-Volume Bone Marrow Aspiration Technique to Treat Knee Osteoarthritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background. Intra-articular bone marrow concentrate (BMC) and aspirate (BMA) injections have been used with mixed results to treat osteoarthritis (OA). Given the various aspiration and concentration methods available for preparing bone marrow, more data are needed to identify the optimal bone marrow harvesting techniques to treat OA. Methods. This retrospective cohort study examined the effect of using low-volume BMAs harvested using the Marrow Cellution™ (MC) device on 160 patients (262 knees) suffering from pain due to knee OA, KL grades 2-4, that did not respond to conservative treatment. Changes in visual analog scores (VAS) for overall daily activity were examined over a six-month time frame in these patients ( $63.5\pm 0.97$ years of age; 48.1% male). In addition, changes in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC scores) were examined over the same time frame in a smaller subset of patients (95 patients including 172 knees). Results. There was a statistically significant improvement in VAS scores for overall daily activity 6 months postprocedure in the study population, $7.29\pm 0.27$ vs. $3.76\pm 0.34$ ( $p<0.0001$ ), as well as statistically significant improvements in WOMAC scores, $49.3\pm 4.27$ vs. $66.3\pm 4.08$ ( $p<0.0001$ ). On the individual level, 71% of the cases displayed VAS improvements and 61% of the cases displayed WOMAC improvements that exceeded levels previous studies determined to be the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for knee OA treatments. The improvements in WOMAC scores were also seen in both the WOMAC pain subscore, $52.2\pm 4.39$ vs. $72.2\pm 4.36$ ( $p<0.0001$ ) and the WOMAC function subscore, $51.6\pm 4.67$ vs. $69.0\pm 4.36$ ( $p<0.0001$ ). In addition, the PGIC scores measuring patient satisfaction improved from $4.03\pm 0.26$ at 6 weeks postprocedure to $4.65\pm 0.28$ at 6 months postprocedure ( $p<0.0001$ ). Conclusions. Knee OA patients treated with MC BMA intra-articular injections exhibited significant reductions in VAS pain scores and significant improvements in WOMAC scores that exceeded the minimal clinically important difference thresholds. In addition, reductions in VAS pain scores and improvements in WOMAC scores correlated with higher PGIC scores.

Mesenchymal stem cells for subchondral bone marrow lesions: From bench to bedside

Subchondral bone marrow lesions (BMLs) are areas of disease within subchondral bone that appear as T1 hypointense and T2 hyperintense ill-defined areas of bone marrow on magnetic resonance imaging. The most common bone marrow lesions include subchondral lesions related to osteoarthritis, osteochondral defects, and avascular necrosis. Emerging therapies include autologous biologic therapeutics, in particular mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), to maintain and improve cartilage health; MSCs have become a potential treatment option for BMLs given the unmet need for disease modification. Active areas in the preclinical research of bone marrow lesions include the paracrine function of MSCs in pathways of angiogenesis and inflammation, and the use of bioactive scaffolds to optimize the environment for implanted MSCs by facilitating chondrogenesis and higher bone volumes. A review of the clinical data demonstrates improvements in pain and functional outcomes when patients with knee osteoarthritis were treated with MSCs, suggesting that BM-MSCs can be a safe and effective treatment for patients with painful knee osteoarthritis with or without bone marrow lesions. Preliminary data examining MSCs in osteochondral defects suggest they can be beneficial as a subchondral injection alone, or as a surgical augmentation. In patients with hip avascular necrosis, those with earlier stage disease have improved outcomes when core decompression is augmented with MSCs, whereas patients in later stages post-collapse have equivalent outcomes with or without MSC treatment. While the evidence for the use of MSCs in conditions with associated bone marrow lesions seems promising, there remains a need for continued investigation into this treatment as a viable treatment option.

•

Common BMLs include osteoarthritis, osteochondral defects, and avascular necrosis.

•

Patients with knee osteoarthritis treated with MSCs show improved pain and function.

•

MSCs used as subchondral injection or surgical augmentation in osteochondral defects

•

Improved outcomes of early hip avascular necrosis after core decompression with MSCs

•

Additional preclinical and clinical evidence of MSCs as treatment for BMLs is needed.

Consensus Guidelines on Interventional Therapies for Knee Pain (STEP Guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience

Knee pain is second only to the back as the most commonly reported area of pain in the human body. With an overall prevalence of 46.2%, its impact on disability, lost productivity, and cost on healthcare cannot be overlooked. Due to the pervasiveness of knee pain in the general population, there are no shortages of treatment options available for addressing the symptoms. Ranging from physical therapy and pharmacologic agents to interventional pain procedures to surgical options, practitioners have a wide array of options to choose from – unfortunately, there is no consensus on which treatments are “better” and when they should be offered in comparison to others. While it is generally accepted that less invasive treatments should be offered before more invasive ones, there is a lack of agreement on the order in which the less invasive are to be presented. In an effort to standardize the treatment of this extremely prevalent pathology, the authors present an all-encompassing set of guidelines on the treatment of knee pain based on an extensive literature search and data grading for each of the available alternative that will allow practitioners the ability to compare and contrast each option.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Microfragmented Adipose Tissue for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been established as safe and effective for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Another orthobiologic therapy, microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT), has gained attention because of its heterogeneous cell population (including mesenchymal stem cells). However, prospective comparative data on MFAT are lacking. Because of the safety, efficacy, and simplicity of PRP, new therapeutics such as MFAT should be compared directly with PRP.

Purpose:

To compare patient-reported outcomes of a single injection of PRP versus MFAT for knee OA.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A total of 58 patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-4) were randomized to receive a single injection of either leukocyte-rich PRP or MFAT under ultrasound guidance. PRP was created by processing 156 mL of whole blood. MFAT was created by harvesting 30 mL of adipose tissue via standard lipoaspiration. Scores for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales and visual analog scale for pain with Activities of Daily Living (VAS-ADL) were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the injection. The primary outcome was the KOOS–Pain subscore at 6 months after the injection.

Results:

The PRP group (n = 30) had a mean volume of 5.12 ± 1.12 mL injected. This consisted of a mean platelet count of 2673.72 ± 1139.04 × 10³/µL and mean leukocyte count of 25.36 ± 13.27 × 10³/µL (67.81% lymphocytes, 18.66% monocytes, and 12.33% neutrophils). The MFAT group (n = 28) had a mean volume of 7.92 ± 3.87 mL injected. The mean total nucleated cell count was 3.56 ± 4.62 million/mL. In both groups, KOOS subscale and VAS-ADL scores improved from baseline, and there was no significant difference between the PRP and MFAT groups in the final KOOS–Pain subscore (80.38 ± 16.07 vs 81.61 ± 16.37, respectively; P = .67) or any other outcome score.

Conclusion:

A single injection of either PRP or MFAT resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement for patients with knee OA at 6 months, with no difference between treatment groups.

Registration:

NCT04351087 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) has emerged as a therapeutic option for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA).

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the efficacy of isolated BMAC injection in the treatment of OA of the knee joint.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases up to July 2020 to identify human studies that assessed the clinical outcomes of isolated BMAC injection for the treatment of knee OA. The electronic search strategy used was "bone marrow aspirate concentrate knee osteoarthritis."

RESULTS

Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 299 knees with a mean follow-up of 12.9 months (range, 6-30 months). Of all patient-reported outcomes assessed across studies, 34 of 36 (94.4%) demonstrated significant improvement from baseline to latest follow-up (P < .05). Five studies evaluating numerical pain scores (visual analog scale and Numeric Rating Scale) reported significant improvements in pain level at final follow-up (P < .01). However, 3 comparative studies evaluating BMAC in relation to other therapeutic injections failed to demonstrate the clinical superiority of BMAC.

CONCLUSION

The BMAC injection is effective in improving pain and patient-reported outcomes in patients with knee OA at short- to midterm follow-up. Nevertheless, BMAC has not demonstrated clinical superiority in relation to other biologic therapies commonly used in the treatment of OA, including platelet-rich plasma and microfragmented adipose tissue, or in relation to placebo. The high cost of the BMAC injection in comparison with other biologic and nonoperative treatment modalities may limit its utility despite demonstrable clinical benefit.

The Hunt Is On! In Pursuit of the Ideal Stem Cell Population for Cartilage Regeneration

Cartilage injury and degeneration are hallmarks of osteoarthritis (OA), the most common joint disease. OA is a major contributor to pain, loss of function, and reduced quality of life. Over the last decade, considerable research efforts have focused on cell-based therapies, including several stem cell-derived approaches to reverse the cartilage alterations associated with OA. Although several tissue sources for deriving cell-based therapies have been identified, none of the resident stem cell populations have adequately fulfilled the promise of curing OA. Indeed, many cell products do not contain true stem cells. As well, issues with aggressive marketing efforts, combined with a lack of evidence regarding efficacy, lead the several national regulatory bodies to discontinue the use of stem cell therapy for OA until more robust evidence becomes available. A review of the evidence is timely to address the status of cell-based cartilage regeneration. The promise of stem cell therapy is not new and has been used successfully to treat non-arthritic diseases, such as hematopoietic and muscle disorders. These fields of regenerative therapy have the advantage of a considerable foundation of knowledge in the area of stem cell repair mechanisms, the role of the stem cell niche, and niche-supporting cells. This foundation is lacking in the field of cartilage repair. So, where should we look for the ideal stem cell to regenerate cartilage? It has recently been discovered that cartilage itself may contain a population of SC-like progenitors. Other potential tissues include stem cell-rich dental pulp and the adolescent growth plate, the latter of which contains chondrocyte progenitors essential for producing the cartilage scaffold needed for bone growth. In this article, we review the progress on stem cell therapies for arthritic disorders, focusing on the various stem cell populations previously used for cartilage regeneration, successful cases of stem cell therapies in muscle and hemopoietic disorders, some of the reasons why these other fields have been successful (i.e., “lessons learned” to be applied to OA stem cell therapy), and finally, novel potential sources of stem cells for regenerating damaged cartilage in vivo.

The Current Status of Clinical Trials on Biologics for Cartilage Repair and Osteoarthritis Treatment: An Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov Data

OBJECTIVE

Biologics are increasingly used for cartilage repair and osteoarthritis (OA) treatment. This study aimed to provide an overview of the clinical trials conducted on this subject.

DESIGN

Two-word combinations of two sets of key words "cartilage"; "joint"; "osteoarthritis" and "biologics"; "stem cells"; "cell implantation" were used to search the database of ClinicalTrials.gov and supplemented with searches of PubMed and EMbase. The registered trials were analyzed for clinical conditions, completion status, phases, and investigated biologics. Recently completed trials with posted/published results were summarized.

RESULTS

From 2000 to 2022, a total of 365 clinical trials were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov to use biologics for cartilage repair and OA treatment. Since 2006, the number of registered trials accelerated at an annual rate of 16.4%. Of the 265 trials designated with a phase, 72% were early Phase 1, Phase 1, and Phase 2. Chondrocytes and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) were studied in nearly equal number of early- and late-stage trials. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) were the most commonly investigated biologics (38%) and mostly derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue (70%). In last 5 years, 32 of the 72 completed trials posted/published results, among which seven Phase 3 trials investigated chondrocytes, PRP, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, hyaluronic acid, collagen membrane, and albumin.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a rapid increase in the number of registered clinical trials in recent years, using a variety of biologics for cartilage repair and OA treatment. Majority of the biologics still require late-stage trials to validate their clinical effectiveness.

Clinical Efficacy of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Versus Stromal Vascular Fraction Injection in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Knee injection using either bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) or stromal vascular fraction (SVF) from adipose tissue has been shown to result in symptomatic improvement in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). It is still unclear whether one of these therapies is superior over the other.

PURPOSE

To systematically report the clinical studies evaluating BMAC and SVF in the treatment of knee OA and to compare the clinical efficacy of these 2 injection therapies.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed per the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Studies were included if they reported the clinical outcomes after a single BMAC or SVF injection in the knee joint of patients with OA. Studies evaluating preparations of culture-expanded stem cells were excluded. A random effects model was used; the clinical efficacy of BMAC or SVF injection was assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and compared. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) knee index were the primary outcomes. The level of statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Ten studies and 472 patients with knee OA who received either BMAC (233 patients) or SVF (239 patients) were included. Patients who received an injection had improved VAS outcomes (mean ± SD): from 5.8 ± 1.3 to 2.6 ± 17 for BMAC and from 6.4 ± 1.4 to 3.4 ± 0.5 for SVF. They also experienced significantly reduced pain (SMD [VAS], 2.6 for BMAC and 3.4 for SVF) and improved function (SMD [WOMAC], 1.4 for BMAC and 1.2 for SVF). However, the SVF injection had a significantly greater effect on pain reduction than did the BMAC injection (P < .0001). Based on WOMAC, the clinical effect of BMAC versus SVF knee injection in patients with knee OA was equivalent (P = .626). Results were limited by the presence of publication bias as well as variability in the preparation methods utilized in the BMAC and SVF injection protocols. Complications were reported in 50% of the BMAC studies (knee stiffness, persistent knee swelling) and 67% of the SVF studies (knee swelling, knee pain, positive SVF cultures without symptoms of infection, and bleeding at the abdominal harvest site).

CONCLUSION

A single BMAC or SVF injection into the knee joint of patients with OA resulted in symptomatic improvement at short-term follow-up. However, SVF seemed to be more effective than did BMAC in the reduction of knee pain. There was significant variation in the BMAC and SVF injection preparation techniques used across the studies and a lack of stratification of outcomes based on the radiologic classification of OA. Therefore, these results should be taken with caution.

Methodological Flaws in Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies on the Management of Knee Osteoarthritis with Stem Cells: A Systematic Review

(1) Background: Conclusions of meta-analyses of clinical studies may substantially influence opinions of prospective patients and stakeholders in healthcare. Nineteen meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of primary knee osteoarthritis (pkOA) with stem cells, published between January 2020 and July 2021, came to inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of this treatment modality. It is possible that a separate meta-analysis based on an independent, systematic assessment of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells may reach a different conclusion. (2) Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for clinical studies and meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells. All clinical studies and meta-analyses identified were evaluated in detail, as were all sub-analyses included in the meta-analyses. (3) Results: The inconsistent conclusions regarding the efficacy of treating pkOA with stem cells in the 19 assessed meta-analyses were most probably based on substantial differences in literature search strategies among different authors, misconceptions about meta-analyses themselves, and misconceptions about the comparability of different types of stem cells with regard to their safety and regenerative potential. An independent, systematic review of the literature yielded a total of 183 studies, of which 33 were randomized clinical trials, including a total of 6860 patients with pkOA. However, it was not possible to perform a scientifically sound meta-analysis. (4) Conclusions: Clinicians should interpret the results of the 19 assessed meta-analyses of clinical studies on the management of pkOA with stem cells with caution and should be cautious of the conclusions drawn therein. Clinicians and researchers should strive to participate in FDA and/or EMA reviewed and approved clinical trials to provide clinically and statistically valid efficacy.

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Is Equivalent to Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis at 2 Years: A Prospective Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMC) are being used clinically as therapeutic agents for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of BMC and PRP on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis up to 24 months after injection. It was hypothesized that patients receiving BMC would have better sustained outcomes than those receiving PRP.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 90 participants aged between 18 and 80 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-3) were randomized into 2 study groups: PRP and BMC. Both groups completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire before and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after a single intra-articular injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or BMC. A linear mixed-effects model was performed to quantify the effects over time and the difference between the groups. This model has the random effect for time to assess the extent in which the change over time differs from one person to another.

RESULTS

An overall 84 patients completed questionnaires from baseline to 12 months; however, 17 patients (n = 9; PRP group) were lost to follow-up at 18 months and 25 (n = 13; PRP group) at 24 months. There were no statistically significant differences in IKDC (P = .909; 95% CI, -6.26 to 7.03) or WOMAC (P = .789; 95% CI, -6.26 to 4.77) scores over time between the groups. Both groups had significantly improved IKDC (P < .001; 95% CI, 0.275-0.596) and WOMAC (P = .001; 95% CI, -0.41 to -0.13) scores from baseline to 24 months after the injection. These improvements plateaued at 3 months and were sustained for 24 months after the injection, with no difference between PRP and BMC at any time point.

CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of osteoarthritis, PRP and BMC performed similarly out to 24 months. BMC was not superior to PRP.

REGISTRATION

NCT03289416 (ClincalTrials.gov identifier).

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate versus platelet-rich plasma for treating knee osteoarthritis: a one-year non-randomized retrospective comparative study

Background

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating condition affecting human body biomechanics and quality of life. Current standard care for knee OA leads to trivial improvement and entails multiple adverse effects or complications. Recently, investigational cell therapies injected intra-articularly, such as bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP), have shown safety and therapeutic potency providing patients with pain relief. In the current retrospective comparative study, we investigated the differences in pain and functional improvements in patients with symptomatic knee OA receiving intra-articular injections of BMAC vs PRP.

Methods

Pain and functionality scores were measured at baseline and at different time points post-injection over 12 months, using 3 self-administered, clinically validated questionnaires: the visual analogue scale (VAS) for assessing pain intensity, the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) for evaluating functionality and knee-related quality of life, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) for evaluating physical function. The repeated-measures general linear model with Sidak test for pairwise comparisons was used to investigate the influence of the treatment on the score evolution within groups (between baseline and each time point) and between groups (overall).

Results

The BMAC group (n = 26 knees) significantly improved in VAS, KOOS, and WOMAC scores between baseline and 12 months (57.4, 75.88, and 73.95% mean score improvement, respectively). In contrast, the PRP group (n = 13 knees) witnessed nonsignificant improvement in all scores. BMAC, in comparison to PRP, induced significant improvement in outcomes by 29.38% on the VAS scale, 53.89% on the KOOS scale, and 51.71% on the WOMAC scale (P < .002, P < .01, P < .011, respectively).

Conclusions

Intra-articular autologous BMAC injections are safe, effective in treating pain, and ameliorate functionality in patients with symptomatic knee OA to a greater extent than PRP injections.

Graphical abstract

Intra-articular autologous BMAC therapy is safe and provides more relief to patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis compared to PRP therapy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04910-5.

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate versus Platelet Rich Plasma or Hyaluronic Acid for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis

Background: In the last decade, regenerative therapies have become one of the leading disease modifying options for treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Still, there is a lack of trials with a direct comparison of different biological treatments. Our aim was to directly compare clinical outcomes of knee injections of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate (BMAC), Platelet-rich Plasma (PRP), or Hyaluronic acid (HA) in the OA treatment. Methods: Patients with knee pain and osteoarthritis KL grade II to IV were randomized to receive a BMAC, PRP, and HA injection in the knee. VAS, WOMAC, KOOS, and IKDC scores were used to establish baseline values at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. All side effects were reported. Results: A total of 175 patients with a knee osteoarthritis KL grade II-IV were randomized; 111 were treated with BMAC injection, 30 with HA injection, and 34 patients with PRP injection. There were no differences between these groups when considering KL grade, BMI, age, or gender. There were no serious side effects. The mean VAS scores after 3, 7, 14, and 21 days showed significant differences between groups with a drop of VAS in all groups but with a difference in the BMAC group in comparison to other groups (p < 0.001). There were high statistically significant differences between baseline scores and those after 12 months (p < 0.001) in WOMAC, KOOS, KOOS pain, and IKDC scores, and in addition, there were differences between these scores in the BMAC group in comparison with other groups, except for the PRP group in WOMAC and the partial IKDC score. There were no differences between the HA and PRP groups, although PRP showed a higher level of clinical improvement. Conclusions: Bone marrow aspirate concentrate, Leukocyte rich Platelet Rich Plasma, and Hyaluronic acid injections are safe therapeutic options for knee OA and provide positive clinical outcomes after 12 months in comparison with findings preceding the intervention. BMAC could be better in terms of clinical improvements in the treatment of knee OA than PRP and HA up to 12 months. PRP provides better outcomes than HA during the observation period, but these results are not statistically significant. More randomized controlled trials and high quality comparative studies are needed for direct correlative conclusions.

Injection of Bone Marrow Aspirate for Glenohumeral Joint Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Control Trial

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of a single, intra-articular, nonconcentrated bone marrow aspirate (BMA) injection in comparison to cortisone for the treatment of glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis (GHJ OA).

Methods

Inclusion criteria were patients between the ages of 18 and 75 with a diagnosis of GHJ OA on radiograph. Patients were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided, intra-articular cortisone injection or BMA injection (without concentration). The primary outcome measure was the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures were the QuickDASH, EuroQOL 5-dimensions 5-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analogue scale.

Results

The study included 25 shoulders of 22 patients who completed baseline and 12 months’ patient-reported outcome measures (12 shoulders received cortisone, 13 shoulders received BMA) after the study was terminated early by changes in Health Canada regulations. Baseline characteristics demonstrated a significant difference in the ages of the 2 groups, with the BMA group being older (61.6 vs 53.8 mean years, P = 0.021). For the BMA group, a significant improvement was seen in the WOOS index (P = 0.002), the QuickDASH (P < 0.001), and the EQ-5D-5L pain dimension (P = 0.004) between baseline and 12 months. No significant difference was seen for any outcome in the cortisone group between baseline and 12 months. No significant difference was demonstrated between changes in the WOOS scores from baseline to 12 months when compared between groups (P = 0.07). However, a significant difference in changes in scores was seen in the QuickDASH (P = 0.006) and the EQ-5D-5L pain scores (P = 0.003) and the EQ-5D-5L health scores (P = 0.032) in favor of BMA.

Conclusions

The results of this study demonstrate that patients with GHJ OA treated with BMA have superior changes in the QuickDASH and EQ-5D-5L pain and health scores but not in the WOOS outcomes measures at 12 months post injection when compared to patients treated with cortisone. However, because of the limited number of patients as a result of the early termination of the study, larger randomized studies are required to confirm these findings.

Level of Evidence

Level II, randomized controlled trial.

A Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial of Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee with Active Control

Background: Osteoarthritis is most prevalent in the knee and drives the growing incidence of total knee arthroplasty. There is a need to explore non-surgical treatment options to increase the portfolio of alternatives available. The study aimed to determine the clinical response to an autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injection compared to an active comparator. Methods: The study was a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled pilot study. Participants with diagnosed knee osteoarthritis were allocated to one of two treatment groups to receive a BMAC injection immediately followed by a PRP injection or a single injection of Gel-One® crosslinked hyaluronate (HA). Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Results: Significant improvements were observed in both treatment groups for all Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales with the exception of the symptoms assessment at 12 months in the HA group. BMAC KOOS scores peaked at 12 months, while HA KOOS scores generally peaked at 6 months. The gap in mean scores at 12 months in favor of the BMAC group did not reach statistical significance. Secondary outcomes included a greater reduction in pain at 12 months in the BMAC group (-3.13 points; 95% CI: -3.96, -3.29) compared to the HA group (-1.56 points; 95% CI: -2.59, -0.53; p= 0.02) via the numeric pain rating scale. Conclusions: Results demonstrate that both treatment groups experienced clinically and statistically significant improvement across the KOOS subscales. While BMAC has shown promise in the treatment of knee OA, there is a need for multi-center investigations with larger sample sizes, an extended follow-up, and placebo-based control. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02958267.

Does Needle Design Affect the Regenerative Potential of Bone Marrow Aspirate? An In Vitro Study

While autologous bone is still the gold standard for treatment of bone defects, its availability is limited. Sufficient numbers of mesenchymal stroma cells (MSC) may be an alternative. Small volumes of bone marrow aspirate (BMA) were harvested with two different needle systems comparing the yield and regenerative potency of the MSCs. BMA (10 mL) was aspirated from the posterior iliac crest of 12 patients with degenerative spinal disc disease using both needle systems in each patient: the Jamshidi needle (JAM) and on the contralateral side the Marrow Cellution^® Needle (AMC). Number of mononuclear cells (MNCs) and regeneration capacity (colony-forming unit/CFU) were determined. MSCs were characterized for surface markers and their differentiation into trilineages. There was no significant difference between the two harvesting needles regarding the quantity of MNCs in BMA: 5.2 ± 1.8 × 10⁹ MNC/mL for AMC vs. 4.8 ± 2.5 × 10⁹ MNC/mL for JAM, p = 0.182. The quantity of CFUs per ml BMA was similar for both groups: 3717 ± 5556 for AMC and 4305 ± 5507 for JAM (p = 0.695). The potency of MSCs expressed as colony-forming potential per 10⁶ MNC resulted in 0.98 ± 1.51 for AMC and 1.00 ± 0.96 for JAM (p = 0.666). Regardless of the needle design, 10 mL bone marrow aspirate contains a sufficient number of about 40,000 MSCs that can be used to enhance bone healing.

The safety and effectiveness of bone marrow concentrate injection for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a Canadian cohort

Aim: Describe the safety and effectiveness of intra-articular bone marrow concentrate (BMC) injection to treat knee and/or hip osteoarthritis (OA) in a Canadian cohort. Materials & methods: A total of 112 patients with refractory OA received a single intra-articular injection of BMC into their knee(s) and/or hip(s). Pain, disability and quality of life were prospectively assessed prior to and 3, 6 and 12 months post-injection. Results: Outcome scores were significantly improved at all time points post-BMC injection with maximal improvement observed at 3-6 months. Improvements were unrelated to patient age, sex or radiographic OA severity. The complication rate was <2%. Interpretation: In this Canadian cohort, knee/hip OA treated with a single BMC injection resulted in significant improvements in pain, disability and quality of life and a low complication rate.

Advantages and challenges of stem cell therapy for osteoarthritis (Review)

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disorder of the cartilage and is one of the leading causes of disability, particularly amongst the elderly, wherein patients with advanced-stage OA experience chronic pain and functional impairment of the limbs, thus resulting in a significantly reduced quality of life. The currently available treatments primarily revolve around symptom management, and is thus palliative rather than curative. The aim of the present review is to briefly discuss the limitations of some of the currently available treatments for patients with OA, and highlight the value of the potential use of stem cells in cellular therapy, which is widely regarded as the breakthrough that can address the present unmet medical needs for treatment of degenerative diseases, such as OA. The advantages of stem cell therapy, particularly mesenchymal stem cells, and the challenges involved are also discussed in this review.

Autologous stem cell therapy in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Stem cell therapy is increasingly used for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). We aimed to review the evidence of autologous mesenchymal stem cell therapy on pain, function and severity on imaging in KOA.

DESIGN

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

RCTs evaluating autologous mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy on patient-reported outcome measures and disease severity.

DATA SOURCES

Seven databases were searched until 31 December 2020.

RISK OF BIAS AND DATA SYNTHESIS

Risk of bias was assessed using the ROB V.2. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to appraise the certainty of the evidence. Data were synthesised descriptively.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were included. A total of 408 patients with KOA received MSC therapy derived from bone marrow, adipose tissue or activated peripheral blood. After 1 year, 19 of 26 (73%) clinical outcome measures improved with MSCs compared with control. In the MSC group, patients improved by 1.8-4.4 points on the Visual Analogue Scale (0-10) and 18-32 points of the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (0-100). Four studies showed better disease severity on imaging after MSC compared with control at 1 year. Ten of 14 (71%) RCTs were at high risk of bias on all outcomes. No serious adverse events were reported after MSC therapy during a maximum of 4 years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

We found a positive effect of autologous MSC therapy compared with control treatments on patient-reported outcome measures, and disease severity. The certainty of this evidence was low to very low.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019120506.

Role of Scaffolds, Subchondral, Intra-Articular Injections of Fresh Autologous Bone Marrow Concentrate Regenerative Cells in Treating Human Knee Cartilage Lesions: Different Approaches and Different Results

The value of bone marrow aspirate concentrates for treatment of human knee cartilage lesions is unclear. Most of the studies were performed with intra-articular injections. However, subchondral bone plays an important role in the progression of osteoarthritis. We investigated by a literature review whether joint, subchondral bone, or/and scaffolds implantation of fresh autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrated (BMAC) containing mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) would improve osteoarthritis (OA). There is in vivo evidence that suggests that all these different approaches (intra-articular injections, subchondral implantation, scaffolds loaded with BMAC) can improve the patient. This review analyzes the evidence for each different approach to treat OA. We found that the use of intra-articular injections resulted in a significant relief of pain symptoms in the short term and was maintained in 12 months. However, the clinical trials indicate that the application of autologous bone marrow concentrates in combination with scaffolds or in injection in the subchondral bone was superior to intra-articular injection for long-term results. The tendency of MSCs to differentiate into fibrocartilage affecting the outcome was a common issue faced by all the studies when biopsies were performed, except for scaffolds implantation in which some hyaline cartilage was found. The review suggests also that both implantation of subchondral BMAC and scaffolds loaded with BMAC could reduce the need for further surgery.

An Update on Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Centered Therapies in Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis

Temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA) is a degenerative disease characterized by cartilage degeneration, disrupted subchondral bone remodeling, and synovitis, seriously affecting the quality of life of patients with chronic pain and functional disabilities. Current treatments for TMJOA are mainly symptomatic therapies without reliable long-term efficacy, due to the limited self-renewal capability of the condyle and the poorly elucidated pathogenesis of TMJOA. Recently, there has been increased interest in cellular therapies for osteoarthritis and TMJ regeneration. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), self-renewing and multipotent progenitor cells, play a promising role in TMJOA treatment. Derived from a variety of tissues, MSCs exert therapeutic effects through diverse mechanisms, including chondrogenic differentiation; fibrocartilage regeneration; and trophic, immunomodulatory, and anti-inflammatory effects. Here, we provide an overview of the therapeutic roles of various tissue-specific MSCs in osteoarthritic TMJ or TMJ regenerative tissue engineering, with an additional focus on joint-resident stem cells and other cellular therapies, such as exosomes and adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF). Additionally, we summarized the updated pathogenesis of TMJOA to provide a better understanding of the pathological mechanisms of cellular therapies. Although limitations exist, MSC-centered therapies still provide novel, innovative approaches for TMJOA treatment.

Treatment of knee osteoarthritic pain with platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review of clinical studies

Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis is a degenerative joint disease that is secondary to degradation of articular cartilage, reformation of subchondral bone through degradation and proliferation as well as presence of synovitis. Materials & methods: This systematic review was conducted and reported as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Results: A total of 30 of the 48 comparators showed statistically significant superiority with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) compared with a control, while the other 16 comparators showed no significant difference between PRP and the comparator. Conclusion: We can only recommend PRP for patients with early-stage osteoarthritis (I or II) and who are aged below 65, based on our findings. Based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) recommendations, while studies reviewed were randomized controlled studies, and therefore, high grade, due to variance in imprecision, risk of bias and inconsistency among the 37 studies, it would be reasonable to rate this paper as subjectively moderate.

Return to Play After Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection for Elbow UCL Injury: Outcomes Based on Injury Severity

Background:

Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries of the elbow are uncommon in the general population but prevalent in the athletic community, particularly among baseball players. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection therapy has become a popular nonoperative adjuvant treatment for such injuries to help reduce recovery time and avoid surgery.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

To analyze patient outcomes by injury severity and identify injury types that responded most favorably and unfavorably to PRP treatment. It was hypothesized that PRP therapy would prove to be most beneficial in the treatment of lower-grade, partial UCL tears and less effective in the treatment of more severe, complete UCL tears.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A cohort of 50 patients with UCL injuries in their dominant elbow, diagnosed by MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) arthrogram, underwent PRP therapy in conjunction with an established rehabilitation program. UCL injuries were classified by MRI as low-grade partial tear (Type I), high-grade partial tear (Type II), complete tear (Type III), or tear in more than 1 location (Type IV).

Results:

In total, 24 of 39 (61.5%) Type I and II tears, 3 of 3 (100%) Type III tears, and 1 of 8 (12.5%) patients with Type IV tears responded to UCL PRP injection therapy and were able to return to play without surgery. Ten patients required subsequent UCL PRP injections, of which 3 (30%) were able to return to sport without surgery.

Conclusion:

PRP treatment for Types I and II UCL tears shows great promise when combined with physical therapy and a rehabilitation program. Type III UCL tears demonstrated a high rate of success, although with low cohort numbers. Type IV UCL tears did not appear to respond well to PRP injection therapy and often required surgical intervention or cessation of sport. Therefore, PRP treatment does not appear to be appropriate for patients with complete Type IV UCL tears but may enhance recovery and improve outcomes in throwing athletes with Types I, II, and III UCL injuries.

Mesenchymal stromal cell products for intra-articular knee injections for conservative management of osteoarthritis

Sports injuries and secondary joint problems, mainly of the knee, are common, especially in sports associated with high impact activities and/or torsional loading. The consequences can be career ending in elite athletes and reduce exercise activities in recreational people. Various cell products can be injected intra-articularly. First, fresh cellular mixtures can be prepared and injected in the same day, such as stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue (SVF) and bone marrow concentrates (BMCs). Second, autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) can be isolated from BMCs or SVF and, after several weeks of laboratory expansion, several millions of MSCs can be obtained for intra-articular injection. Finally, allogeneic MSCs from the bone marrow, adipose tissue or perinatal tissues of selected donors constitute an ‘off-the-shelf’ experimental treatment for injection delivery in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The perceived efficacy of all these products is based on the hypothesis of a paracrine mechanism of action: when living cells are delivered within the joint, they establish a molecular cross-talk with immune cells and local cell phenotypes, thereby modulating inflammation with subsequent modifications in the catabolic/degenerative milieu. Current clinical research examines whether injection delivery of MSCs translates into actual clinical benefits. Overall, clinical studies lack the quality needed to answer major research questions, including clinical and structural efficacy, optimal cell dose, and number of injections and specific protocol for cell delivery. Poor experimental designs are exacerbated by the diversity of patient phenotypes that hinder comparisons between treatments. Further understanding of disease pathology is paramount to develop potent function assays and understand whether the host tissue, the cell product or both should be primed before MSCs are injected intra-articularly.

Comparison of Clinical and Imaging Outcomes of Different Doses of Adipose-Derived Stromal Vascular Fraction Cell Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis

Favorable clinical outcomes of intra-articular injection of adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have been reported, but the effects of different doses of SVF cells have not been examined. This study aimed to compare the short-term clinical and imaging outcomes of different doses of SVF cells for knee OA treatment. This study included 60 patients with knee OA who underwent intra-articular injection of SVF cells. The follow-up period was at least 12 months. Thirty patients received an intra-articular injection of 2.5×10⁷ SVF cells (low-dose group), and the remaining 30 patients received an intra-articular injection of 5.0×10⁷ SVF cells (high-dose group). Clinical evaluations were performed for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Imaging evaluations, including the magnetic resonance imaging Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) features (bone marrow lesions, cartilage defects, osteophytes, Hoffa’s synovitis, and effusion synovitis), were also performed. All clinical and imaging evaluations were performed preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively and compared between the groups. In demographic data, no significant differences were found between the two groups. The total score of KOOS at 12 months postoperatively was significantly more favorable than the preoperative score in the high-dose groups. Pain and symptoms subscale scores of KOOS at 12 months postoperatively were significantly better in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group. The bone marrow lesions, Hoffa’s synovitis, and effusion synovitis improved approximately 30–40% at 12 months postoperatively compared to baseline in both groups. However, there were no significant differences in imaging evaluations between the two groups. In conclusion, the pain and symptoms subscale scores of KOOS from baseline to 12 months postoperatively improved better in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group. Our findings suggest that intra-articular injection of SVF cells for knee OA is an innovative approach.

Quantification and Qualification of Stem Cells From Blood After Mobilization With Filgrastim, and Concentration Using a Platelet-Rich Plasma System

PURPOSE

To determine the cellular composition of a product created with peripheral blood harvested after systemic mobilization with filgrastim and processed with one point-of-care blood concentrating system, i.e., a platelet-rich plasma (PRP) system. The second purpose was to compare mobilized platelet-rich plasma (M-PRP) with a concentrated bone marrow aspirate (cBMA) and a PRP created from the same subjects with the same PRP system.

METHODS

Ten healthy volunteer subjects were recruited for collection and analysis of 3 tissue sources: non-treated peripheral blood, bone marrow aspirate, and filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood, involving 4 doses of weight-based filgrastim. One point-of-care blood and bone marrow concentrating system was used to create 3 products: PRP, cBMA, and M-PRP. Automated hematologic analysis was performed on all products to quantify total red blood cells, white blood cells (WBCs), monocyte, platelet, and hematopoietic progenitor cell (HPC) concentrations. Flow cytometry was used to determine hematopoietic and mesenchymal progenitor cell populations. Lastly, concentrates were cultured and fibroblast colony-forming units (CFU-F) and morphology of adherent cells were evaluated.

RESULTS

M-PRP contained a greater concentration of WBC (mean difference = 53.2 k/μL; P < .0001), monocytes (mean difference = 8.3 k/μL; P = .002), and a trend toward a greater concentration of HPC (mean difference = 200.5 /μL; P = .060) when compared with PRP. M-PRP contained a greater concentration of monocytes (mean difference = 5.5 k/μL; P = .017) and a trend toward a greater concentration of platelets (mean difference = 348 k/μL; P = .051) and HPC (mean difference = 193.4 /μL; P = .068) when compared with cBMA. M-PRP had a similar concentration of platelets to PRP (mean difference = 110 k/μL; P = .051) and PRP had a greater concentration than cBMA (mean difference = 458 k/μL; P = .003). cBMA remained the only product capable of producing CFU-Fs (446 ± 247 /mL) as neither the M-PRP nor PRP produced CFU-Fs. M-PRP produced colonies consistent with WBC.

CONCLUSIONS

M-PRP, produced with filgrastim mobilized blood and a proprietary PRP system, contained more total WBCs, monocytes, platelets, and HPCs than cBMA and more WBCs, monocytes, and HPCs than PRP.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Filgrastim mobilized PRP may be an alternative to cBMA for use as a point-of-care product for orthopaedic treatments.

Biological strategies for osteoarthritis: from early diagnosis to treatment

PURPOSE

To provide an updated review of the literature on the use of orthobiologics as a potential treatment option to alleviate symptoms associated with osteoarthritis (OA), slow the progression of the disease, and aid in cartilage regeneration.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to identify basic science and clinical studies examining the role of orthobiologics in the diagnosis and management of osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

Certain molecules (such as interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), matrix metalloproteinase (MMPs), cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF), microRNAs, growth differentiation factor 11 (GDF-11)) have been recognized as biomarkers that are implicated in the pathogenesis and progression of degenerative joint disease (DJD). These biomarkers have been used to develop newer diagnostic applications and targeted biologic therapies for DJD. Local injection therapy with biologic agents such as platelet-rich plasma or stem cell-based preparations has been associated with significant improvement in joint pain and function in patients with OA and has increased in popularity during the last decade. The combination of PRP with kartogenin or TGF-b3 may also enhance its biologic effect. The mesenchymal stem cell secretome has been recognized as a potential target for the development of OA therapies due to its role in mediating the chondroprotective effects of these cells. Recent experiments have also suggested the modification of gut microbiome as a newer method to prevent OA or alter the progression of the disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of orthobiologics for the diagnosis and treatment of DJD is a rapidly evolving field that will continue to expand. The identification of OA-specific and joint-specific biomarker molecules for early diagnosis of OA would be extremely useful for the development of preventive and therapeutic protocols. Local injection therapies with HA, PRP, BMAC, and other stem cell-based preparations are currently being used to improve pain and function in patients with early OA or those with progressed disease who are not surgical candidates. Although the clinical outcomes of these therapies seem to be promising in clinical studies, future research will determine the true role of orthobiologic applications in the field of DJS.

Autologous Mesenchymal Stem Cell Treatment is Consistently Effective for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: The Results of a Systematic Review of Treatment and Comparison to a Placebo Group

Background: Numerous studies have used autologous mesenchymal stem cell injections (AMSCI) to treat osteoarthritis. We hypothesized that AMSCI is an effective osteoarthritis treatment with increasing efficacy at higher doses. Methods: We conducted a PubMed search for human clinical studies using AMSCI for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and a second search for placebo arms of injectate OA treatment. Inclusion criteria included treatment outcomes ratings both pre-treatment and at least 6 months post-treatment. Results: 45 AMSCI cohorts from 34 studies met criteria. All AMSCI cohorts showed improvement at mean 15.3 months post-treatment. Mean WOMAC and VAS scores improved at 6-months and at final follow-up (p < 0.0001 for all). Scores > 2 years were also significant (WOMAC p = 0.001/VAS p = 0.004). Results greatly exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at each time point. AMSCI improvement also substantially exceeded previously published 6-month placebo-treatment improvement. No dose-response relationship was seen. AMSCI cohorts showed continuing improvement ≥ 6 months, and continued upward at one year. Placebo scores were already trending downward by 6 months. Conclusions: AMSCI is a consistently significantly effective treatment for osteoarthritis. It should no longer be stated that data is insufficient to establish AMSCI efficacy for OA. Given its excellent safety profile, AMSCI should be widely used for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Bone marrow concentrate injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis: evidence from preclinical findings to the clinical application

Purpose

To investigate the available literature on the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and summarize the current evidence supporting its potential for the injective treatment of joints affected by osteoarthritis (OA).

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted on three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) in April 2020, using the following string: “((bone marrow concentrate) OR (BMC) OR (bone marrow aspirate concentrate) OR (BMAC)) AND (osteoarthritis)”, and inclusion criteria: clinical and preclinical (animal) studies of any level of evidence, written in English language, and evaluating the intra-articular or subchondral use of BMAC for the injective treatment of OA joints.

Results

The publication trend remarkably increased over time. A total of 22 studies were included in the qualitative data synthesis: four preclinical studies and 18 clinical studies, for a total number of 4626 patients. Safety was documented by all studies, with a low number of adverse events. An overall improvement in pain and function was documented in most of the studies, but the clinical studies present significant heterogeneity, few patients, short-term follow-up, and overall poor methodology.

Conclusion

There is a growing interest in the field of BMAC injections for the treatment of OA, with promising results in preclinical and clinical studies in terms of safety and effectiveness. Nevertheless, the current knowledge is still preliminary. Preclinical research is still needed to optimize BMAC use, as well as high-level large controlled trials to better understand the real potential of BMAC injections for the treatment of patients affected by OA.