Comparative effectiveness of nonsurgical interventions in the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis

A Comprehensive Summary of the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews on Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapies for Knee Osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Osteoarthritis (OA), including that of the knee joint, represents a significant proportion of musculoskeletal injuries in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) due to the frequent, high-stress physical activity for which member participation is necessary. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a conservative, autologous treatment that has the potential to relieve symptoms and improve functionality of military members to decrease the impact of the disease and ultimately strengthen the CAF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted to determine the efficacy of PRP injections in treating knee OA. The Scopus database, PubMed database, and Omni academic search tools were scoped for relevant publications. English literature, published up to and including March 2023, that investigated only clinically randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was eligible for inclusion. The results of network meta-analyses were investigated and summarized independent of reviews and non-network meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 225 unique systematic reviews and meta-analyses were initially identified, of which 39 publications, including 7 network meta-analyses, adhered to the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. PRP was found to significantly alleviate symptoms of pain based on the visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain scores within the 12-month follow-up. Function, activity, sport, quality of life, and stiffness were additionally determined to generally improve to a greater extent from PRP treatment compared to controls, while adverse effects were minor and temporary. PRP placed in the top 3 in 9 reported surface under the cumulative ranking curves, while individually reported rankings of leukocyte-poor and leukocyte-rich PRP both placed in the top 4. The clinical recommendations made were generally positive, with 17 publications acknowledging the benefits of PRP, 3 supporting possible efficacy, and an additional 8 recommending that it be an option for the conservative treatment of knee OA.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review support the efficacy of PRP for relieving symptoms of pain and improving function, stiffness, and quality of life for patients experiencing knee OA within 12 months. As a result, leukocyte-poor-PRP could be considered for members of the CAF with mild to moderate knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-3) to slow the progression of OA and extend the military careers of CAF members. There continues to be a need for future studies to investigate the longer-term effects of PRP to verify sustained benefits at follow-up points greater than 12 months, including findings of improvement in a delayed fashion at the 3- and 6-month timeframe compared to hyaluronic acid treatment.

Efficacy of a single dose of cryopreserved human umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis:a randomized, controlled, double-blind pilot study

BACKGROUND

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is the most prevalent degenerative musculoskeletal disorder, which is particularly common in older population. While conventional treatments have limited effectiveness, the development of more effective therapeutic strategies is necessary to address this primary source of pain and disability. Umbilical cord mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) offer a promising therapeutic approach for treating knee OA.

AIM

This randomized, prospective, double-blind and controlled pilot study was carried out to evaluate and compare the safety and therapeutic efficacy of a single intra-articular injection of a standardized product CellistemOA (5 × 106 ± 5 × 105 UC-MSCs), vs. triamcinolone (a synthetic corticosteroid) (10 mg/mL) in thirty patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III).

METHODS

The outcomes included changes in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores based on a Likert scale, numerical rating score (NRS) for pain, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and quality of life (SF-36 questionnaire), from baseline and throughout 12-months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients treated with CellistemOA showed significant improvement in WOMAC score (including the three subscale scores (pain, stiffness and function), NRS in pain, and SF-36 profile from baseline to 12 months (p < 0.05) compared to the triamcinolone group, and no severe adverse events were reported. There were no significant differences in MRI WORMS scores between the two groups. However, patients who received the cellular treatment experienced a significant improvement in their SF-36 profile (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study revealed that a single dose of CellistemOA is safe and superior to the active comparator in knee OA at 1-year of follow-up, making it a compelling therapeutic alternative to treat symptomatic OA patients.

Effects of the combination of various pharmacological treatments and exercise on knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Purpose

The combination of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions is strongly recommended by current guidelines for knee osteoarthritis. However, few systematic reviews have validated their combined efficacy. In this study, we investigated the effects of the combination of pharmacological agents and exercise on knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials that investigated the efficacy of pharmacological agents combined with exercise for knee osteoarthritis were searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 2024. The network meta-analysis was performed within the frequentist framework. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI was estimated for pain and function. Grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations were used to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Results

In total, 71 studies were included. The combination therapy outperformed pharmacological or exercise therapy alone. Among the various pharmacological agents combined with exercise, mesenchymal stem cell injection was ranked the best for short-term pain reduction (SMD: -1.53, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.13, high certainty), followed by botulinum toxin A, dextrose, and platelet-rich plasma. For long-term pain relief, dextrose prolotherapy was the optimal (SMD: -1.76, 95% CI: -2.65 to -0.88, moderate certainty), followed by mesenchymal stem cells, platelet rich in growth factor, and platelet-rich plasma.

Conclusion

Exercise programs should be incorporated into clinical practice and trial design. For patients undergoing exercise therapies, mesenchymal stem cell, dextrose, platelet-rich plasma, platelet rich in growth factor, and botulinum toxin A may be the optimal agents.

What Is the Efficacy of Intra-articular Injections in the Treatment of Ankle Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Ankle osteoarthritis (OA) is painful and can impact a patient's physical and mental quality of life. Although intra-articular injections are commonly used to alleviate symptoms, there is conflicting evidence concerning their efficacy. Therefore, an updated systematic review would be informative.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

In this systematic review, we asked: Are there clinically important benefits or harms associated with the use of intra-articular injections in the treatment of ankle OA?

METHODS

We used PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to search for randomized controlled trials on intra-articular injections for the treatment of ankle OA in June 2021, and updated the search in January 2022; eligible dates were from the date of inception of each database through January 2022. Reference lists of eligible studies and previous reviews were manually screened. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility. We included seven studies. Three compared hyaluronic acid (HA) with saline, one compared HA with exercise, one compared four different regimens of HA [ 34 ], one compared platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with saline, and one compared botulinum toxin Type A (BoNT-A) with HA. A total of 340 patients were included: 141 in the HA arms, 48 in the PRP arm, 38 in the BoNT-A arm, and 113 in the saline arms. Across all studies, the mean age was 52 ± 21 years, and 35% were women (119 of 340 patients). Methodologic quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Of the included studies, the risk of bias was low in two studies, presented some concerns in one study, and was high in four studies. According to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology, the level of evidence was very low for HA, moderate for PRP, and very low for BoNT-A. The level of heterogeneity was high, and we opted to perform a systematic review rather than a meta-analysis. A clinically relevant difference was based on whether the between-group difference surpassed the cutoff point determined as the minimum clinically important difference.

RESULTS

No clinically relevant differences were found among HA, PRP, and BoNT-A and their control groups at 3, 6, or 12 months. No studies reported any serious adverse events in any treatment group.

CONCLUSION

Given the lack of observed efficacy in this systematic review, these treatments should not be used in practice until or unless future high-quality studies find evidence of efficacy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Platelet-Rich Plasma for Knee Osteoarthritis: What Does the Evidence Say?

The utilization of platelet-rich-plasma as a therapeutic intervention for knee osteoarthritis has gained immense attention since 2008. The increase in the number of scientific publications dedicated to this area can be attributed to the majority of favorable results reported in clinical trials and basic science studies. However, despite the growing evidence, the use of platelet-rich plasma in clinical practice still poses controversial aspects. The potential mechanisms of action described for platelet-rich-plasma so far indicate that it could serve as a disease-modifying drug, acting to counteract important aspects of knee osteoarthritis pathophysiology (cartilage breakdown, inflammation, and bone remodeling). Nevertheless, its efficacy in slowing down the progression of knee osteoarthritis remains unproven. While inconsistencies have been noted, the majority of controlled clinical trials and meta-analyses advocate for the utilization of platelet-rich-plasma in treating knee osteoarthritis, as it has demonstrated greater efficacy than hyaluronic acid and placebo, with a follow-up of at least 1 year. Despite advancements made in certain areas, significant diversity persists regarding the formulations used, therapeutic regimen, extended follow-up periods, patient selection, and assessment of clinically relevant outcomes. Consequently, the leading clinical practice guidelines do not recommend its use. In light of the emerging evidence, this narrative review aims to provide an objective evaluation of the recent available scientific literature (last 5 years) focused on randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses to present a current overview of the topic.

Joint interventions in osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis (OA) is among the most common diseases affecting both axial and appendicular joints and the lead cause of disability worldwide. OA incidence is rising due to extended life expectancy and the increasing obesity epidemic. Several joint interventions are available to manage pain and joint function in patients with OA, most of these treatments being widely applied using intra-articular injections. In this chapter, we will describe the different joint interventions available for the management of pain in OA focusing on intra-articular injections, including discussion on the evidence regarding the efficacy of these treatments, based on the most recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses available. We also discuss the importance of imaging in guiding these treatments, including the different imaging modalities available for intra-articular injection guidance, their advantages, and disadvantages. Finally, we briefly discuss safety data and the consensus regarding the most used intra-articular treatments to manage pain in OA.

Cooled radiofrequency ablation versus cryoneurolysis of the genicular nerves for the symptomatic pain management in knee osteoarthritis: a study protocol of a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Cooled radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) and cryoneurolysis (CRYO) are two novel methods of genicular neurolysis to relief pain in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (KOA). In this study, the two methods will be compared, giving us the opportunity to investigate their efficacy, safety and complications.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized trial 70 patients with KOA will be recruited using a diagnostic block of four genicular nerves. Two groups will be created through software randomization: a CRFA group (35 patients) and a CRYO group (35 patients). The target of the interventions will be four genicular nerves; the superior medial, superior lateral, inferior medial, as well as the medial (retinacular) genicular branch from vastus intermedius. The primary outcome of this clinical trial will be the efficacy of CRFA or CRYO at 2-, 4-, 12-and 24-weeks post-intervention using the Numerical Rating Pain Scale (NRPS). The secondary outcomes are the safety of the two techniques, as well as the clinical evaluation using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and the 7-point scale of Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).

DISCUSSION

These two novel techniques can block pain transmission through genicular nerves in different ways. In contrast to cryoneurolysis, the CRFA method has been well documented in the past. This is the first clinical trial to compare CRFA vs CRYO and draw conclusions about their safety and efficacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN87455770 [ https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN87455770 ]. Registered 29/3/2022, first patient recruited 31/8/2022.

Intraarticular Injections of Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Review of Their Current Molecular Mechanisms of Action and Their Efficacy

More than 10% of the world's population suffers from osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, with a lifetime risk of 45%. Current treatments for knee OA pain are as follows: weight control; oral pharmacological treatment (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, opioids); mechanical aids (crutches, walkers, braces, orthotics); therapeutic physical exercise; and intraarticular injections of corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, and platelet-rich plasma (PRP). The problem is that such treatments usually relieve joint pain for only a short period of time. With respect to intraarticular injections, corticosteroids relieve pain for several weeks, while hyaluronic acid and PRP relieve pain for several months. When the above treatments fail to control knee pain, total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is usually indicated; however, although a very effective surgical technique, it can be associated with medical and postoperative (surgery-related) complications. Therefore, it seems essential to look for safe and effective alternative treatments to TKA. Recently, there has been much research on intraarticular injections of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for the management of OA of the knee joint. This article reviews the latest information on the molecular mechanisms of action of MSCs and their potential therapeutic benefit in clinical practice in patients with painful knee OA. Although most recent publications claim that intraarticular injections of MSCs relieve joint pain in the short term, their efficacy remains controversial given that the existing scientific information on MSCs is indecisive. Before recommending intraarticular MSCs injections routinely in patients with painful knee OA, more studies comparing MSCs with placebo are needed. Furthermore, a standard protocol for intraarticular injections of MSCs in knee OA is needed.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Mechanisms of Action and Clinical Effects in Osteoarthritis: A Narrative Review

With the insufficient satisfaction rates and high cost of operative treatment for osteoarthritis (OA), alternatives have been sought. Furthermore, the inability of current medications to arrest disease progression has led to rapidly growing clinical research relating to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The availability and function of MSCs vary according to tissue source. The three primary sources include the placenta, bone marrow, and adipose tissue, all of which offer excellent safety profiles. The primary mechanisms of action are trophic and immunomodulatory effects, which prevent the further degradation of joints. However, the function and degree to which benefits are observed vary significantly based on the exosomes secreted by MSCs. Paracrine and autocrine mechanisms prevent cell apoptosis and tissue fibrosis, initiate angiogenesis, and stimulate mitosis via growth factors. MSCs have even been shown to exhibit antimicrobial effects. Clinical results incorporating clinical scores and objective radiological imaging have been promising, but a lack of standardization in isolating MSCs prevents their incorporation in current guidelines.