"Platelet-rich plasma holds promise in management of rheumatoid arthritis"-systematic review

Use of platelet-rich plasma in rheumatic diseases

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has gained increasing recognition as a promising therapeutic agent in managing rheumatic diseases. Conventional treatments, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), primarily act on reducing inflammation but fail to address the underlying mechanisms of connective tissue degradation. PRP, an autologous preparation enriched with growth factors and bioactive molecules, is pivotal in modulating inflammation and fostering tissue regeneration. This review overviews the therapeutic potential of PRP across a spectrum of rheumatic diseases, such as osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic sclerosis (SSc), and osteonecrosis. The regenerative capacity of PRP, driven by vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), promotes tissue repair, reduces cartilage damage and improves joint function. Emerging evidence supports the efficacy of PRP in early-stage OA, demonstrating superior outcomes over traditional therapies like hyaluronic acid and glucocorticoids in terms of pain relief and functional improvement. Despite its benefits, PRP therapy is characterized by variability in treatment responses, with challenges in standardizing preparation protocols and treatment regimens. This review highlights the need for robust clinical trials to establish uniform treatment protocols, optimize patient selection, and evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of PRP therapy in rheumatic diseases.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines on Regenerative Medicine Treatment for Chronic Pain: A Consensus Report from a Multispecialty Working Group

Purpose

Injectable biologics have not only been described and developed to treat dermal wounds, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, but have also been reported to treat chronic pain conditions. Despite emerging evidence supporting regenerative medicine therapy for pain, many aspects remain controversial.

Methods

The American Society of Pain and Neuroscience (ASPN) identified the educational need for an evidence-based guideline on regenerative medicine therapy for chronic pain. The executive board nominated experts spanning multiple specialties including anesthesiology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, and sports medicine based on expertise, publications, research, and clinical practice. A steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were reviewed and refined. Evidence was appraised using the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) criteria for evidence level and degree of recommendation. Using a modified Delphi approach, consensus points were distributed to all collaborators and each collaborator voted on each point. If collaborators provided a decision of "disagree" or "abstain", they were invited to provide a rationale in a non-blinded fashion to the committee chair, who incorporated the respective comments and distributed revised versions to the committee until consensus was achieved.

Results

Sixteen questions were selected for guideline development. Questions that were addressed included type of injectable biologics and mechanism, evidence in treating chronic pain indications (eg, tendinopathy, muscular pathology, osteoarthritis, intervertebral disc disease, neuropathic pain), role in surgical augmentation, dosing, comparative efficacy between injectable biologics, peri-procedural practices to optimize therapeutic response and quality of injectate, federal regulations, and complications with mitigating strategies.

Conclusion

In well-selected individuals with certain chronic pain indications, use of injectable biologics may provide superior analgesia, functionality, and/or quality of life compared to conventional medical management or placebo. Future high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted with implementation of minimum reporting standards, standardization of preparation protocols, investigation of dose-response associations, and comparative analysis between different injectable biologics.

The chimera of reaching a universal consensus on platelet-rich plasma treatment for knee osteoarthritis: a review of recent consensus statements and expert opinion

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent cause of disability worldwide, affecting millions and posing significant socioeconomic burdens. Various conservative measures like hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections aim to manage OA symptoms and delay surgical interventions. Despite the increasing utilization of PRP, consensus on its efficacy remains elusive, reflecting the evolving landscape of OA management.

AREAS COVERED

This study reviews guidelines and recommendations on intra-articular PRP injections for OA globally, highlighting divergent perspectives among different medical societies. A comprehensive literature search identified 19 relevant guidelines, indicating a temporal and geographic evolution in attitudes toward PRP use. While some guidelines endorse PRP for mild-to-moderate OA, others express caution due to concerns about product standardization and clinical evidence heterogeneity.

EXPERT OPINION

The lack of universal consensus on PRP for OA underscores the complex interplay between clinical evidence, practice patterns, and evolving perspectives. Recent shifts toward endorsing PRP may reflect advancements in preparation techniques and personalized medicine approaches. However, challenges persist, including patient selection and product standardization. Efforts to develop consensus and refine PRP classification systems are essential for guiding clinical practice and advancing OA management.

Standardization and validation of a conventional high yield platelet-rich plasma preparation protocol

BACKGROUND

Of late, numerous randomised controlled trials report platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to be ineffective with preparation protocols of low platelet yield despite using expensive commercial PRP kits.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and standardize a preparation protocol for PRP with maximum platelets yield and concentration to obtain favourable results without the use of commercial preparation kits.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Blood samples were collected from 40 healthy volunteers who signed informed consent for participation in the study. The double spin protocol of PRP preparation was analyzed for variables such as centrifugal acceleration, time, and volume of blood processed and final product utilized. The final PRP prepared was investigated for platelet recovery, concentration, integrity, and viability. Each protocol investigated with technical and biological duplicates to avoid reporting and sampling bias.

RESULTS

We noted maximum platelet recovery (86-99%) with a consistent 6.4 ± 0.8 times the baseline concentration of platelets with first centrifugation at 100g for 15 min followed by second centrifugation at 1600g for 20 min. We did not note a loss of integrity or viability of the platelets in the final product from the above-said protocol. We also validated the protocol among all the study participants demonstrating consistency.

CONCLUSION

The preparation of PRP by the double-spin protocol using 10 ml of blood at 100 g followed by 1600 g for 15 and 20 min respectively in a 15 ml tube and using the lower 1/3rd of the final product demonstrated consistent high platelet recovery (86-99%) and concentration (6x) without disturbing the platelet integrity or viability.

The Effects of Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injections in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review

Platelet-rich plasma injections have been a therapeutic option with exponential growth in several pathologies in the last decades, particularly musculoskeletal for their effect on improving pain and functionality. Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic joint disease, which involves inflammation of the synovial membrane with cartilage and juxta-articular bone destruction. Conventional and biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drugs are the cornerstone of the treatment of this disease. However, the use of intra-articular glucocorticoids is often necessary and the role of platelet-rich plasma injections in these patients remains uncertain.

A literature review was carried out through the PubMed database, Cochrane and Google Scholar for the search terms “rheumatoid arthritis” and “platelet-rich plasma”. Eleven studies have been included in this review: two of these are in vitro studies, five are animal studies, one case report, two case series and one randomized controlled trial. Most of the studies demonstrated a decrease in pain and inflammatory mediators and improvement of functional outcomes, with no severe adverse effects reported.

However, the quantity and quality of literature about the effects and safety of plasma-rich plasma injections in rheumatoid arthritis patients are still scarce. It is essential that well-designed randomized controlled trials are made on this topic to understand if platelet-rich plasma may be useful as a coadjuvant therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

Leukocyte-Rich Platelet-Rich Plasma as an Effective Source of Molecules That Modulate Local Immune and Inflammatory Cell Responses

Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection is a safe biological method used to treat various musculoskeletal diseases. By downregulation of inflammatory cytokines and stimulation of synovial fibroblasts, PRP injection is a promising adjunctive treatment for patients with chronic autoimmune inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. A major problem in comparing the results of clinical trials in this area is the considerable variability in the cytokine content of PRP. We presented the profile of selected growth factors and inflammatory cytokines in the obtained PRP samples and compared them with baseline serum levels to assess the efficacy of PRP as a source of those paracrine molecules. Additionally, we wanted to determine whether the difference is only quantitative, which would suggest the use of a cheaper alternative by injecting a large amount of autologous serum. For this purpose, we analyzed whole blood and PRP samples prepared using the Mini GPS III Platelet Concentration System (Biomet Inc., USA) in 31 subjects aged 35-60 years. Cellular content, seven selected growth factors, and 13 human inflammatory cytokines were evaluated. Multiplex bead immunoassays that use fluorescence-encoded beads LEGENDplex™ (BioLegend, USA) and flow cytometer measurements were used. As a result, we found a statistically significant increase in four of the growth factors tested and eight of the inflammatory cytokines tested in PRP compared to blood serum. The difference is not only quantitative but also in the composition of paracrine molecules. In conclusion, the study confirmed that PRP is an efficient source of several growth factors and some inflammatory cytokines. These data provide additional insight into the potential mechanisms of PRP’s effects on cellular metabolism and inflammatory response and may contribute to a better understanding of its clinical efficacy.