Comparative Effect between Infiltration of Platelet-rich Plasma and the Use of Corticosteroids in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective and Randomized Clinical Trial

Corticosteroid injections for knee osteoarthritis offer clinical benefits similar to hyaluronic acid and lower than platelet-rich plasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Intra-articular corticosteroid (CS) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) management are endorsed by several scientific societies, while the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is more controversial. Aim of the study was to quantify and compare the clinical effectiveness of CS injections with respect to HA and PRP in patients with knee OA.

Methods

The search was conducted on PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the comparison of CS injections and HA or PRP injections for the treatment of knee OA were included. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to interpret the clinical relevance of the improvements at different follow-ups up to 12 months. The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool and the GRADE guidelines.

Results

Thirty-five RCTs were included (3348 patients). The meta-analysis comparing CS and HA revealed no difference in terms of WOMAC improvement, while HA showed superior VAS pain improvement at long-term follow-up (P = 0.011), without reaching the MCID. PRP offered a superior WOMAC improvement compared to CS at short- (P = 0.002), mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID), and long-term (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) follow-ups. PRP offered a superior VAS improvement at mid- (P < 0.001, exceeding the MCID) and long-term (P = 0.023) follow-ups.

Conclusion

CS injections for knee OA offer similar results to HA and PRP only at short term, while there is an overall superiority of PRP at longer follow-ups. This difference is not only statistically significant but also clinically relevant in favour of PRP.

Comparative effectiveness of intra-articular therapies in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis comparing platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with other treatment modalities

Introduction

Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a progressive joint disease commonly treated with intra-articular injections, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), or corticosteroids (CS). This updated meta-analysis aims to enhance the statistical power of the results and provide comprehensive clinical evidence that reflects the most current research. By doing so, the authors aim to suggest a reliable estimate for the development of guidelines, addressing the pressing need for effective and minimally invasive treatment options.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Central were searched until March 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of intra-articular injectable therapies, including PRP, HA, CS, and placebo, in KOA. Data extraction involved baseline characteristics and outcome measures [Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, KOOS, and IKDC scores] at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Statistical analysis, including subgroup analysis, assessment of heterogeneity, and publication bias, was conducted using Review Manager.

Results

Our meta-analysis of 42 studies involving 3696 patients demonstrated that PRP treatment resulted in significant pain relief compared to HA injections, as evidenced by improved WOMAC pain (MD: -0.74; 95% CI: -1.02 to -0.46; P≤0.00001; I 2=94%) and VAS pain (MD: -0.65; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.06; P=0.03; I2=97%) outcomes. Similarly, PRP showed greater efficacy in reducing WOMAC pain (MD: -8.06; 95% CI: -13.62 to -2.51: P=0.004; I 2=96%) and VAS pain (MD: -1.11; 95% CI: -1.64 to -0.59; P≤0.0001; I 2=68%) compared to CS injections, with the most significant improvement observed at 6 months.

Conclusions

PRP is an effective treatment for KOA. It provides symptomatic relief, has the potential to reduce disease progression, and has sustained effects up to 12 months. PRP offers superior pain relief and functional enhancement compared to CS and HA injections.

Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma vs. corticosteroid injections efficacy in knee osteoarthritis treatment: a systematic review

Osteoarthritis (OA) affects the entire joint structure. The most injured joints are the hands, knees, and hips. OA is a common disease all over the world, and a cause of disability in the elderly; hence, medicine is facing a steady challenge to find effective therapeutics to relieve the pain, improving symptoms for a better quality of life for patients.

Purpose

To compare the results, in the recent literature, of intra-articular injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and corticosteroids (CSs) in osteoarthritic knees at early and mid-term postinjection.

Methods

A PubMed and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) database search was performed. Initial screening yielded 108 randomized controlled trials, 17 results, and 17 others were added after updates. The final review includes nine randomized control trials, with outcome evaluating of knee OA by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Osteoarthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scale Index, and Visual Analog Scale.

Results

PRP and CS intra-articular injections both are safe and effective treatments in knee OA for alleviating pain, and improving symptoms. It seems that PRP injections have prolonged and shown better improvement in some studies. However, the results do not prefer one method over the other.

Conclusion

Up till now, it is not easy to draw firm conclusions about prioritizing PRP or CS injections for knee OA treatment due to the limitation of this review.

Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Platelet-Rich Plasma With Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injections in Patients With Bilateral Knee Osteoarthritis

Introduction

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) intra-articular injections have gained popularity and are suggested to be more effective and longer lasting than corticosteroid or visco-supplementation therapy. There are few studies comparing PRP with corticosteroid injections and none comparing PRP in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis with the patient acting as their own control.

Methods

We performed a double-blind randomized controlled trial including 29 patients (58 knees) with radiologically confirmed mild-to-moderate bilateral knee osteoarthritis. They were randomized to receive an intra-articular PRP injection into one knee and a methylprednisolone injection with a local anesthetic into the contralateral knee. The primary outcome was measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) before the treatment and at six weeks, three months, and six months. Secondary outcome was measured pain with the visual numerical pain rating scale (VNS).

Results

Corticosteroids and PRP were both effective in improving pain, stiffness, and function at all time points, with maximal improvements at six weeks and three months. PRP scored slightly better than steroid injections at six months; nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference between corticosteroids and PRP injections (F_2,139=0.173, p=0.84). The secondary outcome also delivered the same result with improvement at all time points but no statistically significant difference (F_2,139=0.168, p=0.85).

Conclusions

Both corticosteroids and PRP interventions are effective in improving pain, stiffness, and function in patients with bilateral knee osteoarthritis up to six months with no statistically significant difference between the two.

Intra-articular injection with platelet-rich plasma compared to triamcinolone hexacetonide or saline solution in knee osteoarthritis: A double blinded randomized controlled trial with one year follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of intra-articular injection (IAI) of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) with Triamcinolone Hexacetonide (TH) and Saline Solution (SS), in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA).

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial, with blinded patients and assessor.

SETTING

Outpatient rheumatology service.

SUBJECTS

Patients with knee osteoarthritis grades II and III.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received IAI with PRP, 40 mg TH, or SS.

METHODS

Patients were assessed at baseline and after 4, 8, 12 e 52 weeks with: visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain at rest and movement, WOMAC questionnaire, Timed to Up and Go test, 6-min walk test, percentage of improvement, goniometry, quality of life SF-36 questionnaire, Likert scale and Kelgreen & Lawrence (KL) radiographic scale (only at baseline and 52 weeks).

RESULTS

100 patients were studied, with a mean age of 67.13(6.56) years. The TH group was superior for: percentage of improvement (versus SS group from 4 to 52 weeks); WOMAC total and pain (versus PRP group at 4 weeks); and WOMAC stiffness (versus SS group at 12 weeks). The SS group was inferior for WOMAC function (from 8 to 52 weeks). The PRP group showed lowest radiographic progression [TH 17 (51.51%) to 24 (72.72%); SS 17 (51.51%) to 30 (90.90%); PRP 20 (58.82%) to 21 (61.76%)].

CONCLUSION

The Triamcinolone Hexacetonide group was superior for percentage of improvement and WOMAC, pain and stiffness. For the WOMAC function, the Platelet-Rich Plasma group and Triamcinolone Hexacetonide group were superior to the Saline group. The Platelet-Rich Plasma group showed the lowest radiographic progression at 52 weeks of follow-up.

PRP Injections for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate effectiveness, in terms of patient-reported outcome measures, of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for knee osteoarthritis compared to placebo and other intraarticular treatments.

DESIGN

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, as well as the gray literature were searched on January 17, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PRP injections with placebo or other injectable treatments, in any language, on humans, were included. Risk of bias was assessed following the Cochrane guidelines; quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-four RCTs, including 1403 knees in PRP groups and 1426 in control groups, were selected. WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) score favored PRP, with a statistically and clinically significant difference versus placebo at 12-month follow-up (P = 0.02) and versus HA (hyaluronic acid) at 6-month (P < 0.001) and 12-month (P < 0.001) follow-ups. A clinically significant difference favoring PRP versus steroids was documented for VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) pain (P < 0.001), KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) pain (P < 0.001), function in daily activities (P = 0.001), and quality of life (P < 0.001) at 6-month follow-up. However, superiority of PRP did not reach the minimal clinically important difference for all outcomes, and quality of evidence was low.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of platelet concentrates goes beyond its mere placebo effect, and PRP injections provide better results than other injectable options. This benefit increases over time, being not significant at earlier follow-ups but becoming clinically significant after 6 to 12 months. However, although substantial, the improvement remains partial and supported by low level of evidence. This finding urges further research to confirm benefits and identify the best formulation and indications for PRP injections in knee OA.

The effects of resistance training with blood flow restriction on muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy and functionality in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Introduction

Rheumatoid arthritis(RA) and osteoarthritis(OA) patients showed systemic manifestations that may lead to a reduction in muscle strength, muscle mass and, consequently, to a reduction in functionality. On the other hand, moderate intensity resistance training(MIRT) and high intensity resistance training(HIRT) are able to improve muscle strength and muscle mass in RA and OA without affecting the disease course. However, due to the articular manifestations caused by these diseases, these patients may present intolerance to MIRT or HIRT. Thus, the low intensity resistance training combined with blood flow restriction(LIRTBFR) may be a new training strategy for these populations.

Objective

To perform a systematic review with meta-analysis to verify the effects of LIRTBFR on muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in RA and OA patients.

Materials and methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials(RCTs), published in English, between 1957–2021, was conducted using MEDLINE(PubMed), Embase and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality was assessed using Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.0. Mean difference(MD) or standardized mean difference(SMD) and 95% confidence intervals(CI) were pooled using a random-effects model. A P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Five RCTs were included. We found no significant differences in the effects between LIRTBFR, MIRT and HIRT on muscle strength, which was assessed by tests of quadriceps strength(SMD = -0.01[-0.57, 0.54], P = 0.96; I² = 58%) and functionality measured by tests with patterns similar to walking(SMD = -0.04[-0.39, 0.31], P = 0.82; I² = 0%). Compared to HIRT, muscle mass gain after LIRTBFR was reported to be similar. When comparing LIRTBFR with low intensity resistance training without blood flow restriction(LIRT), the effect LIRTBFR was reported to be higher on muscle strength, which was evaluated by the knee extension test.

Conclusion

LIRTBFR appears to be a promising strategy for gains in muscle strength, muscle mass and functionality in a predominant sample of RA and OA women.

Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma injections versus intra-articular corticosteroid injections for symptomatic management of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid (CS) injections are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic management in knee osteoarthritis (OA), particularly in the UK. IA platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are a promising alternative, but no systematic reviews to date have compared them to the current standard of care, IA CS injections. We aim to investigate the effect of IA PRP injections versus IA corticosteroid injections for the symptomatic management of knee OA.

Methods

All published trials comparing IA PRP and CS injections for knee OA were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through June 2020. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A random effects model was used to calculate standardized mean difference with 95% confidence interval in WOMAC/VAS score (or subscores), comparing IA PRP to CS injections across studies.

Results

Included were eight studies and 648 patients, 443 (68%) were female, mean age 59 years, with a mean BMI of 28.4. Overall, the studies were considered at low risk of bias. Compared with CS injections, PRP was significantly better in reducing OA symptoms (pain, stiffness, functionality) at 3, 6 and 9 months post-intervention (P < 0.01). The greatest effect was observed at 6 and 9 months (− 0.78 (− 1.34 to − 0.23) standard mean deviations (SMD) and − 1.63 (− 2.14 to − 1.12) SMD respectively). At 6 months, this equates to an additional reduction of 9.51 in WOMAC or 0.97 on the VAS pain scales. At 6 months PRP allowed greater return to sporting activities than CS, measured by the KOOS subscale for sporting activity, of magnitude 9.7 (− 0.45 to 19.85) (P = 0.06). Triple injections of PRP, generally separated by a week, were superior to single injections over 12 months follow-up (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

IA-PRP injections produce superior outcomes when compared with CS injections for symptomatic management of knee OA, including improved pain management, less joint stiffness and better participation in exercise/sporting activity at 12 months follow-up. Giving three IA-PRP, with injections separated by a week, appears more effective than 1 IA-PRP injection.

Prospero trial registration number

CRD42020181928.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04308-3.