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

Corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, platelet-rich plasma, and cell-based therapies for knee osteoarthritis - literature trends are shifting in the injectable treatments' evidence: a systematic review and expert opinion

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this systematic review was to quantify the data available on corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid, (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and cell-based therapies for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, WebofScience according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria: clinical studies of any level of evidence, written in English, evaluating the intra-articular use of CS, HA, PRP, or cell-based therapies for knee OA treatment.

RESULTS

The initial search identified 17,415 records. A total of 766 studies from 1959 were included. Of these, 401 were randomized controlled trials, 110 comparative studies, and 255 case series, for a total of 75,834 patients. (11,245 treated with CS 40,862 with HA 16,174 with PRP, 7,553 with cell-based therapies).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence on injective knee OA treatments is increasing at different speeds with a more rapidly growing literature focusing on orthobiologics. Currently, HA has the largest evidence, followed by PRP that recently surpassed the number of studies evaluating CS. Cell-based therapies are also growing rapidly, although the number of studies is still lower. The rapid literature shift toward orthobiologics urges an update in societies' guidelines to align with the new body of evidence on knee OA treatments.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero identifier is CRD42024592972.

Bone Marrow Aspiration Concentrate in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis: A Review of its Current Clinical Application

BACKGROUND

Bone marrow aspiration concentrate (BMAC) has gained acceptance as a safe orthobiologic for treating osteoarthritis (OA), despite lacking robust supporting evidence. Although several publications have documented the use of BMAC in OA, evidence confirming its unequivocal efficacy remains limited.

METHODS

This review aims to summarize the current clinical evidence regarding BMAC as a therapeutic for OA, while also presenting the author's perspective. Sixteen studies were reviewed, including ten randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies.

RESULTS

From the review of existing literature, BMAC injections do not appear to significantly improve pain and function compared to conventional therapies such as hyaluronic acid and corticosteroids, although some studies report a longer duration of effectiveness. Furthermore, the evidence for structural improvement, which was the original rationale for cell therapy, is seldom reported.

CONCLUSION

In light of these findings, it is suggested that high-quality data from a large patient cohort is needed to determine the role of BMAC injections in OA treatment and address reimbursement issues. From the author's perspective, the introduction of a national registry system that provides valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of various orthopedic procedures may offer a solution.

Management of knee osteoarthritis using bone marrow aspirate concentrate: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint condition and a major cause of disability in the general population.

SOURCE OF DATA

Recent published literature identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Scopus.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

Orthobiological therapies try to regenerate articular cartilage and stop the progression of the degenerative lesion. Intra-articular injections of biological derivates have been increasingly used in the last decade.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

The indications for the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) are still unclear.

GROWING POINTS

We systematically reviewed the current literature on BMAC in the management of knee OA, giving an update on the current indications for the selection of the ideal patient and the preparations and efficacy of BMAC compared to other biological alternatives.

AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH

BMAC is a valuable source of mesenchymal stem cells, offering potential benefits in attenuating the inflammatory pathway associated with knee OA. Intra-articular injection of BMAC has shown effectiveness in clinical trials improving functional outcomes of knee OA patients. The superiority of BMAC over other orthobiological treatments cannot be assessed because of conflicting results.

Evaluation of Spin in Clinical Trials of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The regenerative potential of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) has sparked interest in their use for knee osteoarthritis. Concurrently, there have been investigations on how data in scientific journals are reported and how they may influence readers' interpretations, or "spin bias." These studies are at risk for bias, given the limited number of patients and inconsistent blinding or controls. The risk of spin bias also complicates the interpretation, as results may be presented in a way that favors a particular outcome.

PURPOSE

To quantify and characterize spin bias in clinical trials of MSCs for knee osteoarthritis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase searches were conducted using the terms "mesenchymal stem cells" or "MSCs" and "knee arthritis" or "osteoarthritis" and "therapy" or "treatment" or "regeneration." Overall, 2 independent reviewers classified spin as high, moderate, or low and as 1 of 3 types: (1) emphasizing statistically significant results, (2) interpreting nonsignificant results as treatment effectiveness, and (3) claiming treatment benefits despite nonsignificant results. Journals were categorized as orthopaedic or nonorthopaedic. Descriptive statistics, the chi-square test, and the Fisher exact test were used to analyze the data, with alpha set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Among the 54 studies, spin was found in 80.0% of articles, with 14.5% having high, 25.5% moderate, and 40.0% low levels of spin. Type 1 was found in 54.5% of articles, type 2 in 18.2%, and type 3 in 29.1%. Spin was less frequently observed in the Methods section of articles compared with the abstract (17.52; P = .003). Reports on adipose-derived MSCs were associated with a higher frequency and level of spin compared with reports on MSCs from other sources (18.92; P = .026). There was no difference in the frequency of spin between orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic journals (0.48; P = .49) and no association with the impact factor (5.34; P = .07). There was no association between spin and financial disclosures (0.02; P = .577).

CONCLUSION

Spin bias was present in most MSC-related trials for knee osteoarthritis, with a higher frequency among those that utilized adipose-derived MSCs. Understanding the prevalence and strategies of spin can mitigate any potential misinterpretations of study outcomes.

Advanced Non-Operative Interventions for Anterior Knee Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review presents evidence for advanced non-operative interventions, including extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT), prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), adipose tissue-derived cells, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, various additional non-corticosteroid injectates, and needle-based interventions for common causes of anterior knee pain in the adult population. These etiologies include osteoarthritis of the knee, patellofemoral pain syndrome, chondromalacia patella, Hoffa fat pad impingement syndrome, patellar/quadriceps tendinopathy, and prepatellar bursitis. This review discusses patient care options using a case-based understanding of interventions by condition while recognizing strength of evidence.

RECENT FINDINGS

ESWT and PRP are the most robustly studied and have greatest evidence for treating tibiofemoral osteoarthritis and for long-term benefit in treating patellar tendinopathy. PRP may have evidence for treatment of chondromalacia and prolotherapy for management of tibiofemoral arthritis; both have limited evidence. Botulinum neurotoxin type A has strong evidence to support use in treating patellofemoral pain syndrome. There is limited evidence to support the use of viscosupplementation, percutaneous needle tenotomy, and medicinal signaling cell-based therapies beyond platelet-rich plasma for anterior knee pain. There is limited research on the management of quadriceps tendinopathy, prepatellar bursitis, patellofemoral osteoarthritis, and Hoffa's fat pad impingement syndrome. Further research and standardization of protocols are necessary to fully assess these treatments' efficacy. ESWT, cell-based, and needle-based interventions, may serve as effective treatment options for patients with anterior knee pain. Selection of each intervention requires understanding the evidence, level of risk, and appropriate application based on a patient's level of activity to enable clinicians to enhance patient outcomes and quality of life.

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Osteoarthritis (OA) poses a significant global burden, with conventional treatments like corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections commonly used. Emerging injectable biologics, including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), show promise in OA management.

Purpose

To investigate the clinical efficacy of BMAC injection compared with other injection treatments for knee OA.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify randomized controlled trials with Level 1 evidence that compared the clinical efficacy of BMAC with other injections. The visual analog scale for pain and the Pain subscale of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were used as clinical scores representing pain. For functional assessment, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form were used. For studies comparing BMAC with HA, each clinical score was standardized to pain and function scales based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).

Results

Eight studies, consisting of a total of 937 patients, were included. Patients treated with BMAC showed a significant improvement in clinical scores compared with baseline, starting at 1 month postinjection. For pain scores at 6-month (P = .033) and 12-month follow-up (P = .011), BMAC demonstrated favorable results over HA, with a statistically significant difference. However, these differences did not exceed the MCID. When BMAC was compared with other injections, no significant differences were observed in the degree of clinical score improvement. No serious adverse events or events significantly associated with BMAC compared with other treatments were reported.

Conclusion

BMAC injections demonstrated effectiveness in providing pain relief and functional improvement for patients with knee OA. When BMAC was compared with other intra-articular injection options, distinct differences surpassing the MCID were not evident. Further research is deemed necessary to investigate the role of BMAC in the treatment of knee OA.

Randomized Controlled Trials Studying Nonoperative Treatments of Osteoarthritis Often Use Misleading and Uninformative Control Groups: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Because there are no known treatments that alter the natural course of the pathophysiology of osteoarthritis, nonoperative treatment needs to be compared with known effective treatments that seek to mitigate symptoms or with similarly invasive inert (placebo) treatments to determine effectiveness. Comparing a treatment to an uninformative control group may inappropriately legitimize and support the use of potentially ineffective treatments. We therefore investigated the prevalence of inappropriate control groups in musculoskeletal research and asked whether these are associated with reporting a positive treatment effect.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We systematically reviewed randomized trials of nonoperative treatments of osteoarthritis and asked: (1) What proportion of randomized trials use uninformative control groups (defined as a treatment less invasive than the tested treatment, or a treatment that might possibly not outperform placebo but is not acknowledged as such)? (2) Is the use of uninformative control groups independently associated with reporting a positive treatment effect (defined as p < 0.05 in favor of the intervention, or as making a recommendation favoring the intervention over the control treatment)?

METHODS

In a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase up to September 2023 for randomized controlled trials published between 2020 to 2022 that compared one or more nonoperative treatments for the symptoms of osteoarthritis. We excluded studies that contained a surgical treatment group. We identified 103 trials that met eligibility criteria, with a total of 15,491 patients. The risk of bias was high in 60% (n = 62) of trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, version 2. Although the high risk of bias in the included studies is concerning, it does not invalidate our design; instead, it highlights that some studies may use flawed methods to recommend treatments with unproven effectiveness beyond nonspecific effects because the kinds of bias observed would tend to increase the apparent benefit of the treatment(s) being evaluated. We used logistic regression to test the association of uninformative control groups with a positive treatment effect, accounting for potential confounders such as conflict of interest and study bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias score.

RESULTS

The use of uninformative control groups (treatments less invasive than the tested treatment, or treatments that might not outperform placebo but are not acknowledged as such) was found in 46% (47 of 103) of included studies. After accounting for potential confounding, there was no association between reporting positive treatment effects and the use of an uninformative control group. Studies with a low risk of bias had a lower likelihood of reporting a positive treatment effect (OR 0.2 [95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.9]; p = 0.04, model pseudo R2 = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

The finding that recent studies that mimic high-level evidence often use uninformative control groups that do not adequately account for nonspecific effects (perceived treatment benefits unrelated to a treatment's direct physiological effects) points to a high risk of legitimizing ineffective treatments. This raises the ethical imperative for patients, clinicians, journal peer reviewers, and journal editors to hold researchers to the standard of an adequate, informative control group. Awareness and risk of bias checklists might help patients and clinicians forgo new treatments based on seemingly high-level evidence that may carry only iatrogenic, financial, and psychological harm (false hope, in particular).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, therapeutic study.

Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate for Treatment of Primary Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective, Single-Center, Non-randomized Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a widespread, disabling condition with no intervention to fully restore cartilage or halt progression. Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), an autologous product from bone marrow aspiration, has shown promise as a regenerative therapy due to its cell composition and chondrogenic effects. Our study aims to assess the functional outcomes, including pain, function, satisfaction, and complications post-BMAC injection in knee OA patients.

Materials and Methods

In this prospective, single-center study, 63 patients with grade II-III knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) scale) unresponsive to conservative management underwent BMAC injection. The procedure involved bone marrow aspiration from the anterior iliac crest, processing to obtain a concentrate, followed by intra-articular injection. Patients were followed for 24 months, assessing outcomes using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and MOCART 2.0 score.

Results

The cohort, with a slight female predominance and predominantly aged 41-50 years, majorly comprised K-L grade III OA patients. BMAC treatment resulted in significant improvements in VAS pain scores, IKDC functional scores, and MOCART 2.0 scores over the 24-month follow-up.

Conclusion

BMAC injection provides significant improvement in both pain and functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up in patients with mild-to-moderate OA of the knee. Further high-quality, adequately powered, multi-center, prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up are necessary to justify the routine clinical use of BMAC for treatment of patients suffering with knee OA.

Graphical Abstract

Short-Term Clinical Results of Single-Injection Autologous Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate (BMAC) as a Therapeutic Option/Tool in Knee Osteoarthritis

Purpose: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a very common cartilage disorder affecting millions of people globally and is characterized by pain, stiffness, swelling, loss of articular cartilage, and osteophyte formation, resulting in disability. The presently available treatments for KOA are palliative. Hence, there is a need to explore a non-surgical treatment portfolio. Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) is one of the predominant attention-drawing managements/treatments for KOA in recent times due to its potential advantages of disease-modifying and regeneration capacities. Principle: This study aimed to evaluate the role of single-injection autologous BMAC as a therapeutic option in the treatment of KOA and evaluate the functional and clinical outcomes of KOA patients. In this study, 132 patients with KOA (Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade II and III) were included as per the inclusion criteria. Autologous bone marrow was aspirated and separated, and concentrated bone marrow aspirate was administered into the knee joint of the affected individual. Results: At the end of the 12th month (end of the follow-up period), 95% of patients showed complete pain relief and improvement in joint function, which shows that the results were promising and encouraging. Unpaired t-test results also indicated that the two-tailed p-value is less than 0.0001, and the difference is extremely statistically significant. No adverse effects were observed in the study patients. Conclusions: BMAC therapy has potential, with satisfactory, efficient, and durable results in KL grades II and III in KOA patients. This can be a safe alternative therapy in the treatment of KOA, especially in the early grades of OA. In summary, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study from India that evaluated BMAC efficacy both subjectively and objectively in KOA (KL-II and KL-III) patients.

Conservative Treatment for Ankle Cartilage: Cellular and Acellular Therapies: A Systematic Review

Biological agents like growth factors (ie, platelet rich plasma) and mesenchymal stem cells are rising in popularity among orthopedics. Orthobiologics therapy aims to fill the gap between conventional conservative therapies like hyaluronic acid and surgery, especially for cartilage disease. Ankle cartilage defects are very symptomatic and could lead to a severe decrease of quality of life in patients, because of pain, swelling, and inability to walk without pain. In this scenario, this paper aims to systematically review the current literature available about biological therapies for ankle cartilage.

Platelet-Rich Plasma, Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate, and Hyaluronic Acid Injections Outperform Corticosteroids in Pain and Function Scores at a Minimum of 6 Months as Intra-Articular Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of common intra-articular injections used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, including corticosteroid (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), with a minimum follow-up of 6-months.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in August 2022 in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Level I to II randomized clinical trials with a minimum follow-up of 6 months that investigated the treatments of interest were included. Patient-reported outcome scores for pain and function at baseline and at latest follow-up were extracted, and the change in scores was converted to uniform 0 to 100 scales. Arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis using a random-effects model was created to compare the treatment arms in pain and function.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies comprising a total of 9,338 knees were included. The most studied intra-articular injection was HA (40.9%), followed by placebo (26.2%), PRP (21.5%), CS (8.8%), and then BMAC (2.5%). HA and PRP both led to a significant improvement in pain compared with placebo. HA, PRP, and BMAC all led to a significant improvement in function scores when compared with placebo. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRAs) of the interventions revealed that PRP, BMAC, and HA were the treatments with the highest likelihood of improvement in both pain and function, with overall SUCRA scores of 91.54, 76.46, and 53.12, respectively. The overall SUCRA scores for CS and placebo were 15.18 and 13.70, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 6-month follow-up, PRP demonstrated significantly improved pain and function for patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with placebo. Additionally, PRP exhibited the highest SUCRA values for these outcomes when compared with BMAC, HA, and CS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I to II studies.

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).

Intra-articular injection of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (mesenchymal stem cells) in KL grade III and IV knee osteoarthritis: 4 year results of 37 knees

Cell based therapies are increasingly used and results of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) show encouraging short- to middle term results, superior to hyaluronic acid and platelet rich plasma (PRP). Most studies describe patients with mild to moderate arthritis and results of patients with KL III and IV osteoarthritis of the knee are limited to short term evaluations. Hence, the aim of this prospective study was to investigate the mid-term outcome of BMAC injections in patients with severe osteoarthritis of the knee. The BMAC was retrieved from the iliac crest as previously published with the "reorientation technique" from the iliac crest in supine position in analgosedation and injected into the patients' osteoarthritic knees. Patients were followed-up for 4 years. WOMAC, IKDC, SF 36 and walking distance were measured in a total of 37 participants. There was an improvement of IKDC and WOMAC from the first year onwards and a significant improvement beginning from year 2 up to the mid-term follow-up: IKDC increased significantly from 56 ± 12 (range 34-81) to 73 ± 13 (range 45-100), p < 0.001. WOMAC decreased significantly from 40 ± 23 (range 6-96) to 18 ± 18 (range 0-67), p < 0.001. 35 of 37 knees improved regarding IKDC and WOMAC score from the first to the last follow-up. Not a single protheses had to be implanted. Elaborate statistical analysis was done to exclude covariates and confounders (age, time, BMI,…). In summary, this is the first study on BMAC injections into 37 osteoarthritic knees with a 4-year follow up showing significant improvements in IKDC and WOMAC scores, and with a 95% success rate and significant improvement in walking distance.Clinical relevance Describes the 4-year outcome of BMAC injections for knees with severe osteoarthritis.

Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Who Receive Platelet-Rich Plasma or Bone-Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections Have Better Outcomes Than Patients Who Receive Hyaluronic Acid: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature in order to compare the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I studies that compared the clinical efficacy of at least 2 of the following 3 injection therapies: PRP, BMAC, and HA for knee OA. The search phrase used was knee AND osteoarthritis AND randomized AND ("platelet rich plasma" OR "bone marrow aspirate" OR "hyaluronic acid"). Patients were primarily assessed based on patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies (all Level I) met inclusion criteria, including 1,042 patients undergoing intra-articular injection(s) with PRP (mean age 57.7 years, mean follow-up 13.5 months), 226 patients with BMAC (mean age 57.0 years, mean follow-up 17.5 months), and 1,128 patients with HA (mean age 59.0 years, mean follow-up 14.4 months). Non-network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better post-injection WOMAC (p < 0.001), VAS (p < 0.01), and Subjective IKDC scores (p < 0.001) in PRP patients when compared to HA patients. Similarly, network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better post-injection WOMAC (p < 0.001), VAS (p = 0.03), and Subjective IKDC (p < 0.001) scores in BMAC patients when compared to HA patients. There were no significant differences in post-injection outcome scores when comparing PRP to BMAC.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP or BMAC can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared to HA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, Meta-Analysis of Level I studies.

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.

Combined subchondral and intra-articular injections of bone marrow aspirate concentrate provide stable results up to 24 months

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and imaging findings up to 24 months of follow-up in patients treated with combined subchondral and intra-articular bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

Thirty consecutive patients (19 males, 11 females) aged between 40 and 75 years (mean age 56.4 ± 8.1 years) with unilateral symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence 2-3) were included in the study. Patients were treated with combined intra-articular and subchondral bone BMAC injections (total 9 ml) under fluoroscopic control. IKDC subjective score, VAS for pain, KOOS, and EQ-VAS were prospectively evaluated up to 24 months. Radiographs were performed at baseline and at 24 months after the procedure. MRI was evaluated with the WORMS score at baseline, 6-12 months, and 24 months of follow-up. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.19.0 and for all tests p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

No major complications and a 13% failure rate were reported. The IKDC subjective score remained stable from 62.6 ± 19.4 at 12 months to 63.4 ± 17.1 at 24 months (both p < 0.0005 compared to baseline, 40.5 ± 12.5). Similar improvements were reported for all KOOS subscales, while EQ-VAS did not report any significant improvement. VAS pain worsened from 3.0 ± 1.9 at 12 months to 4.4 ± 1.8 at the final follow-up (p = 0.0001), although remaining lower compared to the baseline value of 6.3 ± 1.8 (p = 0.002). The radiographic evaluation did not reveal signs of improvement or deterioration of the OA grade. The MRI findings showed a worsening in marginal osteophytes and synovitis, but a significant reduction of bone marrow edema at 24 months (p < 0.0005).

CONCLUSION

Combined intra-articular and subchondral BMAC injections provided clinical and imaging benefits up to 24 months for the treatment of symptomatic knee OA, with durable clinical results, a low failure rate, and a significant reduction of bone marrow edema.

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.

Percutaneous autologous bone marrow concentrate for knee osteoarthritis: patient-reported outcomes and progenitor cell content

PURPOSE

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common, progressively debilitating joint disease, and the intra-articular injection of autologous bone marrow concentrate (BMC) may offer a minimally invasive method of harnessing the body's own connective tissue progenitor cells to counteract accompanying degenerative effects of the disease. However, the extent to which the progenitor cell content of BMC influences treatment outcomes is unclear. We sought to determine whether patient-reported outcome measures associated with BMC treatment for knee OA are related to the concentration of progenitor cells provided.

METHODS

In the present study, 65 patients (72 knees) underwent treatment for knee OA with autologous BMC and self-reported their outcomes for up to one year using follow-up questionnaires tracking function, pain, and percent improvement. A small fraction of each patient's BMC sample was reserved for quantification with a haematological analyzer and cryopreserved for subsequent analysis of potential connective tissue progenitor cells using a colony-forming unit fibroblast (CFU-F) assay.

RESULTS

Patients reported significant increases in function and overall percent improvement in addition to decreases in pain relative to baseline levels following treatment with autologous BMC that persisted through 12 months. Patients reporting improved outcomes (46 of 72 knees) received BMC injections having higher CFU-F concentrations than non-responding patients (21.1×10³ ± 12.4×10³ vs 14.3×10³ ± 7.0 x10³ CFU-F per mL). A progenitor cell concentration of 18×10³ CFU-F per mL of BMC was found to best differentiate responders from non-responders.

CONCLUSION

This study provides supportive evidence for using autologous BMC in the minimally invasive treatment of knee OA and suggests that increased progenitor cell content leads to improved treatment outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03011398, 1/7/17.

Bone marrow aspirate concentrate quality is affected by age and harvest site

PURPOSE

To compare the number and properties of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) collected from bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) obtained from different harvest sites and from patients of different ages.

METHODS

BMAC was obtained from two groups of patients based on age (n = 10 per group): 19.0 ± 2.7 years for the younger and 56.8 ± 12.5 for the older group. In the latter, BMAC was obtained from both iliac crest and proximal tibia for a donor-matched analysis. Mononucleated cell count and CFU-F assay were performed, together with phenotype characterization of BMSCs from iliac crest and proximal tibia, the study of chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation capacity, histological staining and spectrophotometric quantification, and the analysis of mRNAs expression.

RESULTS

Cells derived from iliac crest and proximal tibia showed the same phenotypic pattern at flow cytometry, as well as similar chondrogenic and osteogenic potential. However, a significantly higher number of mononuclear cells per ml was observed in younger patients (3.8 ± 1.8 × 10⁷) compared to older patients (1.2 ± 0.8 × 10⁷) (p < 0.0005). The latter yield, obtained from the iliac crest, was significantly higher than resulting from the BMAC harvested from the proximal tibia in the same group of patients (0.3 ± 0.2 × 10⁷, p < 0.0005). This result was confirmed by the CFU-F analysis at day 10 (15.9 ± 19.4 vs 0.6 ± 1.0, p = 0.001) and day-20 (21.7 ± 23.0 vs 2.9 ± 4.2, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Harvest site and age can affect the quality of BMAC. BMSCs obtained from iliac crest and proximal tibia present comparable mesenchymal markers expression as well as osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation potential, but iliac crest BMAC presents a four times higher number of mononucleated cells with significantly higher clonogenic capacity compared to the tibia. BMAC of younger patients also had a three-time higher number of mononucleated cells. The identification of BMAC characteristics could help to optimize its preparation and to identify the most suitable indications for this orthobiologic treatment in the clinical practice.

Prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial protocol comparing bone marrow aspirate concentrate intra-articular injection combined with subchondral injection versus intra-articular injection alone for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Subchondral and intra-articular injections of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) showed promising results for knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients. To date, there is no evidence to demonstrate whether the combination of these treatments provides higher benefits than the intra-articular injection alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Eighty-six patients with symptomatic knee OA (aged between 40 and 70 years) are randomised to BMAC intra-articular injection combined with subchondral BMAC injection or BMAC intra-articular injection alone in a ratio of 1:1. The primary outcome is the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the secondary outcomes are the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective and Objective Knee Evaluation Form, the Tegner activity scale, the EuroQol-Visual Analogue Scale, and the health questionnaire European Quality of Life Five Dimension score. Additional CT and MRI evaluations are performed at the baseline assessment and at the final 12-month follow-up. The hypothesis is that the combined injections provide higher knee pain and function improvement compared with BMAC intra-articular injection alone. The primary analysis follows an intention to treat principle.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol has been approved by the Emilia Wide Area Ethical Committee of the Emilia-Romagna Region (CE-AVEC), Bologna, Italy. Written informed consent is obtained from all the participants. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 1 (14 May 2018).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03876795.

Clinical Safety and Effectiveness of Adipose-Derived Stromal Cell vs Stromal Vascular Fraction Injection for Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: 2-Year Results of Parallel Single-Arm Trials

BACKGROUND

There are currently no disease-modifying treatments available for knee osteoarthritis (OA), although cultured adipose-derived stromal cells (ASCs) have shown promise in experimental models. However, given the regulatory limits on the use of cultured cells in humans, previous trials have focused primarily on the stromal vascular fraction (SVF) intra-articular injection. Therefore, the therapeutic value of ASCs for knee OA remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To study ASC versus SVF intra-articular injection in patients with Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) knee OA grades 2 to 4 in parallel single-arm trials.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

A total of 80 patients were enrolled, with 42 (72 knees) receiving ASC intra-articular injection and 38 (69 knees) receiving SVF. Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 5 (KOOS5) and pain visual analog scale (VAS). The percentages of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were also calculated. Per protocol, a subset of the ASC group received an ASC booster injection after 6 months. A repeated-measures analysis of variance compared results between treatment arms and by KL grade over time.

RESULTS

Patient-reported outcome measures improved substantially after both treatments (P < .05 at all time points), with the ASC group more likely to achieve the MCID (50% vs 24%; P = .01) and PASS (45% vs 24%; P = .04) for the pain VAS and the MCID (43% vs 16%; P = .02) for the KOOS5 at 12 months, although not at 24 months. Knees treated with ASC for KL grade 2/3 OA had significantly superior outcomes compared with those with KL grade 4 OA for the KOOS5 (P = .01) and pain VAS (P = .03), but no such difference was observed in knees treated with SVF. Three patients receiving ASCs (7%; all KL grade 3) sought additional nonoperative treatment by 24 months versus 9 patients receiving SVF (24%; all KL grade 3) (P = .06). ASC booster injections conferred no additional benefit. Notably, patients in the ASC cohort reported more injection-site pain and swelling after the booster injection than after the initial injection (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

This represents the first head-to-head comparison of ASCs and SVF for the treatment of knee OA in humans. ASC and SVF injections both substantially improved knee pain and function at all follow-up time points, although ASC injections demonstrated significantly better improvements with regard to the MCID and PASS for the pain VAS and the MCID for the KOOS5 at 12 months. There appears to be no benefit to a booster ASC injection after initial treatment. Given less donor-site morbidity and equivalent superior outcomes at 2 years, the use of ASCs over SVF in the treatment of knee OA may be warranted.

Impact of the Process Variables on the Yield of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells from Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate

Human bone marrow (BM) has been highlighted as a promising source of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) containing various growth factors and cytokines that can be potentially utilized in regenerative procedures involving cartilage and bone. However, the proportion of MSCs in the nucleated cell population of BM is only around 0.001% to 0.01% thereby making the harvesting and processing technique crucial for obtaining optimal results upon its use in various regenerative processes. Although several studies in the literature have given encouraging results on the utility of BM aspiration concentrate (BMAC) in various regenerative procedures, there is a lack of consensus concerning the harvesting variables such as choice of anesthetic agent to be used, site of harvest, size of the syringe to be used, anticoagulant of choice, and processing variables such as centrifugation time, and speed. In this review article, we aim to discuss the variables in the harvesting and processing technique of BMAC and their impact on the yield of MSCs in the final concentrate obtained from them.