Proceedings of the signature series symposium "cellular therapies for orthopaedics and musculoskeletal disease proven and unproven therapies-promise, facts and fantasy," international society for cellular therapies, montreal, canada, may 2, 2018

Mesenchymal Stem/Progenitor Cells and Their Derivates in Tissue Regeneration-Part II

During the last three decades, mesenchymal stem/stromal cells (MSCs) were extensively studied, and are mainly considered within the setting of their regenerative and immunomodulatory properties in tissue regeneration [...].

The Use of Biologics in NFL Athletes: An Expert Consensus of NFL Team Physicians

Background

There is a lack of published information outlining the use of biologics in National Football League (NFL) athletes and limited data to guide biologic treatment strategies.

Purpose

To develop a consensus on the use of biologics among NFL team physicians.

Study Design

Consensus statement.

Methods

A working group of 6 experts convened a consensus process involving NFL team physicians using validated Delphi methodology. Physicians from 32 NFL teams as well as NFL London were invited to take part. This iterative process was used to define statements on the use of biologics in NFL athletes. A recent scoping review exploring biologics in professional athletes was used to inform the first of 3 rounds of surveys, with statements considered under 7 headings: biologics in general, challenges of treating NFL athletes, terminology/nomenclature, autologous blood products, cell-based therapies, guidance for NFL team physicians, and biologic research in the NFL. In addition to rating agreement, experts were encouraged to propose further items or modifications. Predefined criteria were used to refine item lists after each survey. For a consensus within the final round, defined a priori, items were included in the final information set if a minimum of 75% of respondents agreed and fewer than 10% disagreed.

Results

Physicians from 26 NFL teams and NFL London responded to the initial invitation to participate in the Delphi process; 88.9% of participating team physicians completed the round 1 survey, with response rates of 87.5% in round 2 and 95.2% in round 3. After 3 rounds, 47 statements reached a consensus. A consensus was achieved that platelet-rich plasma has a positive impact on patellar tendinopathy and on symptoms in early osteoarthritis but not for other indications. NFL team physicians agreed that while cell therapies have the potential to improve symptoms, the misrepresentation of uncharacterized preparations as "stem cells" has contributed to the widespread use of unproven therapies.

Conclusion

This study established an expert consensus on 47 statements relating to the use of biologics in NFL athletes. In addition to providing clinical guidance for the use of biologics in NFL athletes, this study identified key areas for future focus including the development of athlete education materials.

The composition of cell-based therapies obtained from point-of-care devices/systems which mechanically dissociate lipoaspirate: a scoping review of the literature

Purpose

Cell-based therapies using lipoaspirate are gaining popularity in orthopaedics due to their hypothesised regenerative potential. Several ‘point-of-care’ lipoaspirate-processing devices/systems have become available to isolate cells for therapeutic use, with published evidence reporting their clinical relevance. However, few studies have analysed the composition of their ‘minimally-manipulated’ cellular products in parallel, information that is vital to understand the mechanisms by which these therapies may be efficacious. This scoping review aimed to identify devices/systems using mechanical-only processing of lipoaspirate, the constituents of their cell-based therapies and where available, clinical outcomes.

Methods

PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed databases were systematically searched to identify relevant articles until 21^st April 2022. Information relating to cellular composition and clinical outcomes for devices/systems was extracted. Further information was also obtained by individually searching the devices/systems in the PubMed database, Google search engine and contacting manufacturers.

Results

2895 studies were screened and a total of 15 articles (11 = Level 5 evidence) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 13 unique devices/systems were identified from included studies. All the studies reported cell concentration (cell number regardless of phenotype per millilitre of lipoaspirate) for their devices/systems (range 0.005–21 × 10⁶). Ten reported cell viability (the measure of live cells- range 60–98%), 11 performed immuno-phenotypic analysis of the cell-subtypes and four investigated clinical outcomes of their cellular products. Only two studies reported all four of these parameters.

Conclusion

When focussing on cell concentration, cell viability and MSC immuno-phenotypic analysis alone, the most effective manual devices/systems were ones using filtration and cutting/mincing. However, it was unclear whether high performance in these categories would translate to improved clinical outcomes. Due to the lack of standardisation and heterogeneity of the data, it was also not possible to draw any reliable conclusions and determine the role of these devices/systems in clinical practice at present.

Level of Evidence

Level V Therapeutic.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-022-00537-0.

Influence of Glucose Concentration on Colony-Forming Efficiency and Biological Performance of Primary Human Tissue-Derived Progenitor Cells

OBJECTIVE

Glucose concentrations used in current cell culture methods are a significant departure from physiological glucose levels. The study focuses on comparing the effects of glucose concentrations on primary human progenitors (connective tissue progenitors [CTPs]) used for cartilage repair.

DESIGN

Cartilage- (Outerbridge grade 1, 2, 3; superficial and deep zone cartilage), infrapatellar fatpad-, synovium-, and periosteum-derived cells were obtained from 63 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and cultured simultaneously in fresh chondrogenic media containing 25 mM glucose (HGL) or 5 mM glucose (NGL) for pairwise comparison. Automated ASTM-based quantitative image analysis was used to determine colony-forming efficiency (CFE), effective proliferation rates (EPR), and sulfated-proteoglycan (GAG-ECM) staining of the CTPs across tissue sources.

RESULTS

HGL resulted in increased cell cultures with CFE = 0 compared with NGL in all tissue sources (P = 0.049). The CFE in NGL was higher than HGL for superficial cartilage (P < 0.001), and contrary for synovium-derived CTPs (P = 0.046) when CFE > 0. EPR of the CTPs did not differ between the media in the 6-day assay time period (P = 0.082). The GAG-ECM area of the CTPs and their progeny was increased in presence of HGL (P = 0.027).

CONCLUSION

Glucose concentration is critical to progenitor's physiology and should be taken into account in the setting of protocols for clinical or in vitro cell expansion strategies.

Nonoperative and Operative Soft-Tissue and Cartilage Regeneration and Orthopaedic Biologics of the Knee: An Orthoregeneration Network (ON) Foundation Review

Orthoregeneration is defined as a solution for orthopedic conditions that harnesses the benefits of biology to improve healing, reduce pain, improve function, and optimally, provide an environment for tissue regeneration. Options include: drugs, surgical intervention, scaffolds, biologics as a product of cells, and physical and electro-magnetic stimuli. The goal of regenerative medicine is to enhance the healing of tissue after musculoskeletal injuries as both isolated treatment and adjunct to surgical management, using novel therapies to improve recovery and outcomes. Various orthopaedic biologics (orthobiologics) have been investigated for the treatment of pathology involving the knee, including symptomatic osteoarthritis and chondral injuries, as well as injuries to tendon, meniscus, and ligament, including the anterior cruciate ligament. Promising and established treatment modalities include hyaluronic acid (HA) in liquid or scaffold form; platelet-rich plasma (PRP); bone marrow aspirate (BMA) comprising mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs), hematopoietic stem cells, endothelial progenitor cells, and growth factors; connective tissue progenitor cells (CTPs) including adipose-derived mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs) and tendon-derived stem cells (TDSCs); matrix cell-based therapy including autologous chondrocytes or allograft; vitamin D; and fibrin clot. Future investigations should standardize solution preparations, because inconsistent results reported may be due to heterogeneity of HA, PRP, BMAC, or MSC preparations and regimens, which may inhibit meaningful comparison between studies to determine the true efficacy and safety for each treatment.

Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: The Role for Orthobiologic Therapies: Platelet-Rich Plasma and Cell Therapies

The glenohumeral (GH) joint ranks third on the list of the large joints that are most commonly affected by osteoarthritis, after the knee and the hip. General nonsurgical modalities, including changes in daily activities, physical therapy, pharmacotherapy, and corticosteroid injections, constitute the mainstay of treatment. Most of these options, however, have shown moderate and short-term effectiveness. Arthroplasty techniques have proven to be successful for elderly patients. Nevertheless, replacement options are not optimal for younger patients because their functional demands are higher and prostheses have a finite life span. This has led to the search for new nonoperative treatment options to target this subgroup of patients. It has been suggested that orthobiologic therapies, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and cell therapies, present great promise and opportunity for the treatment of GH osteoarthritis. Despite the promising results that have been shown by cell therapies and PRP for treating degenerative joint conditions, additional studies are needed to provide more definitive conclusions.

Ethical and Practical Considerations for Integrating Cellular ("Stem Cell") Therapy into Clinical Practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Cellular therapies, also known as "stem cell" interventions (SCI), have undergone a rapid popularization in the USA and worldwide. The current review aimed at outlining (1) the ethical challenges facing the implementation of SCI; (2) the applicability of the currently available SCI; and (3) recommendations to achieve ethical, well-regulated incorporation of SCI in the clinical setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

Concerns regarding the inadequate characterization, poor adverse effects disclosure, and unorthodox, often inappropriate, market practices have engendered a genuine concern regarding the SCI compliance with ethical standards. Six instances of litigation on the basis of misrepresentation or inappropriate informed consent were recorded between 2012 and 2018. Such concerns have been furthered by the loopholes in the regulatory aspect governing the use of SCI coupled with the unclear literature-reported efficacy and diverse spectrum of profess indications. Similarly, the application of SCI in the clinical field is yet to prove its value. The uncertain efficacy, coupled with obscure true-costs of utilization, impedes a value-based assessment. A multidisciplinary approach involving legislative and medical professional societies should continue to advance regulations that govern SCI. A well-regulated system that allows for the ethical integration of SCI with appositely evidenced-based described benefits and risks should be sought.

Analysis of Readability, Quality, and Content of Online Information Available for "Stem Cell" Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of patients use the Internet to obtain health information, although online information is unregulated and highly variable. We aimed to assess the readability, quality, and content of online information available for "stem cell" injections for knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed on March 2019, inputting the search term "stem cells osteoarthritis" into the 3 most popular global search engines: Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The first 50 search results of each engine were evaluated/categorized. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid Ease/Grade Level. Quality/content was assessed through DISCERN score and a stem cell content score created for this study.

RESULTS

Eighty-two websites were analyzed (18 academic websites, 21 commercial, 13 government/non-profit, 30 physician). Among all websites, mean Flesch-Kincaid readability was 35.9 with a grade level of 13.6. The average DISCERN score was 49.5/80 with statistically significant differences between academic vs physician websites (64.6 vs 38.1, P < .001), and commercial vs physician websites (52.3 vs 38.1, P = .001). Mean stem cell content score was 6.5/19 with a statistically significant difference between academic vs physician websites (8.5 vs 5.1, P = .007).

CONCLUSION

Readability of online materials available for patients regarding "stem cell" treatment for knee osteoarthritis is significantly higher than the grade 6-8 recommended by the National Institutes of Health. The quality and content of websites is highly variable, with physician websites scoring especially low. Improving quality and readability of online materials that discuss risks/benefits of stem cell injections may potentially enhance the physician-patient therapeutic alliance and indirectly lead to better patient outcomes.

Rogue stem cell clinics

Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(2):148–154

A Practical Guide for the Current Use of Biologic Therapies in Sports Medicine

Over the past decade, there has been an increased interest in the use of biologic therapies in sports medicine. Although these technologies are in relatively early stages of development, there have been substantial increases in marketing, patient demand, and clinical utilization of biologics, including platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and other cell-derived therapies. Direct-to-consumer marketing of biologics has also proliferated but is largely unregulated, and clinicians must accurately convey the safety and efficacy profiles of these therapies to patients. Because most insurance companies consider biologic treatments to be experimental or investigational for orthopaedic applications given the lack of high-quality evidence to support their efficacy, patients receiving these treatments often make substantial out-of-pocket payments. With a range of treatment costs among centers offering biologics, there is a need for appropriate and sustainable pricing and reimbursement models. Clinicians utilizing biologics must also have a thorough understanding of the recently clarified Food and Drug Administration guidelines that regulate the clinical use of cell and tissue products. There is a lack of consensus on the optimal preparation, source, delivery method, and dosing of biologic therapies, which has been exacerbated by a lack of sufficient experimental detail in most published studies. Future research must better identify the biologic target of treatment, adhere to better standards of reporting, and better integrate researchers, industry, and regulatory bodies to optimize applications.

Native-Osteoarthritic Joint Resident Stem and Progenitor Cells for Cartilage Cell-Based Therapies: A Quantitative Comparison With Respect to Concentration and Biological Performance

BACKGROUND

Cell-based therapy for cartilage repair is a promising approach and is becoming an established technique. Yet, there is no consensus on the optimal cell source.

PURPOSE

To provide a donor-matched quantitative comparison of the connective tissue progenitors (CTPs) derived from cartilage (Outerbridge grade 1-3 [G1-2-3]), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMC), infrapatellar fat pad (IPFP), synovium, and periosteum with respect to (1) cell concentration ([Cell], cells/mL), (2) CTP prevalence (P_CTP, colonies per million cells), and (3) biological performance based on in vitro proliferation potential (cells per colony) colony density, and differentiation potential (expression of negatively charged extracellular matrix: glycosaminoglycan-rich extra cellular matrix [GAG-ECM]).

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive laboratory study.

METHODS

Tissues were obtained from 10 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (mean age, 59 years; women, n = 6). Automated quantitative colony-forming unit analysis was used to compare [Cell], P_CTP, and CTP biological performance across tissue sources.

RESULTS

[Cell] was highest in grade 3 cartilage (P = .002) and BMC (P = .001). Median P_CTP was highest in IPFP (P = .001), synovium (P = .003), and G1-2 cartilage (P = .02). Proliferation was highest in synovium-derived CTPs (P < .001). Median colony density was highest in G1-2-3 (P < .001). Median GAG-ECM was highest in G1-2-3 (P < .001). Within each patient, CTPs derived from all tissues were highly heterogeneous in biological performance as determined by cells per colony, density, and GAG-ECM.

CONCLUSION

Tissue sources differ in [Cell], P_CTP, and biological attributes. The data presented in this study suggest that cartilage (G1-2-3) is the preferred tissue source for cartilage repair based on P_CTP and GAG-ECM, followed by synovium, IPFP, BMC, and periosteum. However, due to the heterogeneous mixture of CTPs within each tissue source, there exists a subset of CTPs with biological performance similar to G1-2-3 cartilage, particularly in synovium and IPFP. Performance-based clonal selection and expansion of preferred CTPs and their progeny will potentially lead to improved cell population with predictive future.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Optimal tissue regeneration strategies will require informed decisions regarding which of the available tissue sources to use. Optimizing cell sourcing in any tissue may require separation of CTPs with preferred attributes from those with less desirable attributes. The heterogeneity manifest in the early stage of colony formation represents an opportunity for performance-based clone selection for clinical cell processing and manufacturing.

Donor-matched comparison of chondrogenic progenitors resident in human infrapatellar fat pad, synovium, and periosteum - implications for cartilage repair

Purpose: There is a clinical need to better characterize tissue sources being used for stem cell therapies. This study focuses on comparison of cells and connective tissue progenitors (CTPs) derived from native human infrapatellar fatpad (IPFP), synovium (SYN), and periosteum (PERI). Materials and Methods: IPFP, SYN, PERI were harvested from twenty-eight patients undergoing arthroplasty. CTPs were quantitatively characterized using automated colony-forming-unit assay to compare total nucleated cell concentration-[Cell], cells/mg; prevalence-(P_CTP), CTPs/million nucleated cells; CTP concentration-[CTP], CTPs/mg; proliferation and differentiation potential; and correlate outcomes with patient's age and gender. Results: [Cell] did not differ between IPFP, SYN, and PERI. P_CTP was influenced by age and gender: patients >60 years, IPFP and SYN had higher P_CTP than PERI (p < 0.001) and females had higher P_CTP in IPFP (p < 0.001) and SYN (p = 0.001) than PERI. [CTP] was influenced by age: patients <50 years, SYN (p = 0.0165) and PERI (p < 0.001) had higher [CTP] than IPFP; patients between 60 and 69 years, SYN (p < 0.001) had higher [CTP] than PERI; patients >70 years, IPFP (p = 0.006) had higher [CTP] than PERI. In patients >60 years, proliferation potential of CTPs differed significantly (SYN>IPFP>PERI); however, differentiation potentials were comparable between all three tissue sources. Conclusion: SYN and IPFP may serve as a preferred tissue source for patients >60 years, and PERI along with SYN and IPFP may serve as a preferred tissue source for patients <60 years for cartilage repair. However, the heterogeneity among the CTPs in any given tissue source suggests performance-based selection might be useful to optimize cell-sourcing strategies to improve efficacy of cellular therapies for cartilage repair.

Classification systems for platelet-rich plasma

There is good scientific rationale to support the use of growth factors to promote musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. However, the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other blood-derived products has yet to be proven. Characterization and reporting of PRP preparation protocols utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies do not provide sufficient information to allow the protocols to be reproduced. Furthermore, the reporting of blood-derived products in orthopaedics is limited by the multiple PRP classification systems available, which makes comparison of results between studies challenging. Several attempts have been made to characterize and classify PRP; however, no consensus has been reached, and there is lack of a comprehensive and validated classification. In this annotation, we outline existing systems used to classify preparations of PRP, highlighting their advantages and limitations. There remains a need for standardized universal nomenclature to describe biological therapies, as well as a comprehensive and reproducible classification system for autologous blood-derived products.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:891–896.

Biomarkers of bone healing induced by a regenerative approach based on expanded bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stromal cells

BACKGROUND

Safety and feasibility of a regenerative strategy based on the use of culture-expanded mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have been investigated in phase 2 trials for the treatment of nonunion and osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). As part of the clinical study, we aimed to evaluate if bone turnover markers (BTMs) could be useful for predicting the regenerative ability of the cell therapy product.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The bone defects of 39 patients (nonunion: n = 26; ONFH: n = 13) were treated with bone marrow-derived MSCs, expanded using a clinical-grade protocol and combined with biphasic calcium phosphate before implantation. Bone formation markers, bone-resorption markers and osteoclast regulatory proteins were measured before treatment (baseline) and after 12 and 24 weeks from surgery. At the same time-points, clinical and radiological controls were performed to evaluate the bone-healing progression.

RESULTS

We found that C-Propeptide of Type I Procollagen (CICP) and C-terminal telopeptide of type-I collagen (CTX) varied significantly, not only over time, but also according to clinical results. In patients with a good outcome, CICP increased and CTX decreased, and this trend was observed in both nonunion and ONFH. Moreover, collagen biomarkers were able to discriminate healed patients from non-responsive patients with a good diagnostic accuracy.

DISCUSSION

CICP and CTX could be valuable biomarkers for monitoring and predicting the regenerative ability of cell products used to stimulate the repair of refractory bone diseases. To be translated in a clinical setting, these results are under validation in a currently ongoing phase 3 clinical trial.

MSC Therapy for Osteoarthritis: An Unfinished Story

Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have firmly occupied the attention of orthopedic clinicians and scientists for most of the last 25 years. Hundreds of laboratories worldwide have carried out research aimed at unraveling the biological characteristics of these cells and probing the manner in which they potentially contribute to cartilage and bone repair. Clinical trials registries indicate that they are also being tested in patient studies for a wide range of conditions such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fracture repair, regeneration of articular cartilage, tendon repair, and for treatment of degenerative disc disease. Despite these efforts, the effectiveness of MSCs as a treatment modality for these conditions is still uncertain and market authorizations have been limited. In addition, critical and clear phenotypic parameters for defining MSCs are uncertain and a coherent biological framework surrounding the therapeutic mechanism of action is not yet available. Added to this, cell manufacturing protocols are complex and costly and present substantial challenges in terms of regulatory oversight and standardization. Despite these obstacles, MSCs still remain at the forefront of efforts in Regenerative Medicine, based on a conviction that this technology can provide an effective treatment paradigm for major diseases where there is still an unmet need. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:1229-1235, 2019.