Biologic Approaches in Sports Medicine: Potential, Perils, and Paths Forward

Nonoperative and Operative Soft-Tissue, Cartilage, and Bony Regeneration and Orthopaedic Biologics of the Elbow and Upper Extremity: An Orthoregeneration Network Foundation Review

Orthoregeneration is defined as a solution for orthopaedic 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 electromagnetic 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 elbow and upper extremity, including the tendons (lateral epicondylitis, medial epicondylitis, biceps tendonitis, triceps tendonitis), articular cartilage (osteoarthritis, osteochondral lesions), and bone (fractures, nonunions, avascular necrosis, osteonecrosis). Promising and established treatment modalities include hyaluronic acid; botulinum toxin; corticosteroids; leukocyte-rich and leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma; autologous blood; bone marrow aspirate comprising mesenchymal stromal cells (alternatively termed medicinal signaling cells and frequently mesenchymal stem cells [MSCs]) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate; MSCs harvested from adipose and skin (dermis) sources; vascularized bone grafts; bone morphogenic protein scaffold made from osteoinductive and conductive β-tricalcium phosphate and poly-ε-caprolactone with hydrogels, human MSCs, and matrix metalloproteinases; and collagen sponge. Autologous blood preparations such as autologous blood injections and platelet-rich plasma show positive outcomes for nonresponsive tendinopathy. In addition, cellular therapies such as tissue-derived tenocyte-like cells and MSCs show a promising ability to regulate degenerative processes by modulating tissue response to inflammation and preventing continuous degradation and support tissue restoration.

Activated Serum Increases In Vitro Cellular Proliferation and Growth Factor Expression of Musculoskeletal Cells

The purpose of this study was to investigate proteomic alteration that occurs to whole blood when converted to activated serum (AS) using an autologous thrombin system. This study further sought to evaluate the functional in vitro effect of AS on tenocytes, chondrocytes, subacromial bursal cells, and osteoblasts. The peptide/protein composition of AS was analyzed by liquid chromatography−mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS). The cell lines were treated with AS, and cellular proliferation was quantified 48 h after treatment. Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), and interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) were quantified utilizing enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). LC-MS identified 357 proteins across the AS and whole blood. Fifty-four of the proteins identified had significant differences between the relative protein abundance of the AS samples compared to whole blood. Treatment with AS in all cell lines significantly increased proliferation compared to control cells at 48 h. Increased PDGF, VEGF, and IGF-1 in all cell lines exposed to AS compared to the control (p < 0.05) were observed. These findings suggest that treatment with AS increases in vitro cellular proliferation and the release of growth factors that may play a role in tissue repair.

Patient registries in orthopedics and orthobiologic procedures: a narrative review

There has been increasing evidence and growing popularity of orthobiologic treatments, such as platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and microfragmented adipose tissue. However, real-world data, including patient-reported pain and function outcomes, remains sparse for these procedures. Thus, collecting patient-reported outcome measures is important to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these treatments and hopefully improve patient care. Patient reported outcome measures can systematically be collected through patient registries. This narrative review serves to describe the data collection platforms and registries that obtain patient-reported outcome measures on orthobiologic procedures and provide a discussion on the benefits and limitations of registries. An internet search of the list of orthopedic registries available was conducted, and registries that collect patient-reported outcome measures for orthobiologic procedures were identified. Additional information regarding these various registries was collected by directly contacting these vendors. Publications from these registries, including case series, observational studies, and annual reports, were also reviewed. Providing this review will inform clinicians of a digital tool that can increase the efficiency of collecting outcome measures for orthobiologics and aid physicians in choosing a data collection platform.

Sports Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer

Artificial intelligence (AI) represents the fourth industrial revolution and the next frontier in medicine poised to transform the field of orthopaedics and sports medicine, though widespread understanding of the fundamental principles and adoption of applications remain nascent. Recent research efforts into implementation of AI in the field of orthopaedic surgery and sports medicine have demonstrated great promise in predicting athlete injury risk, interpreting advanced imaging, evaluating patient-reported outcomes, reporting value-based metrics, and augmenting the patient experience. Not unlike the recent emphasis thrust upon physicians to understand the business of medicine, the future practice of sports medicine specialists will require a fundamental working knowledge of the strengths, limitations, and applications of AI-based tools. With appreciation, caution, and experience applying AI to sports medicine, the potential to automate tasks and improve data-driven insights may be realized to fundamentally improve patient care. In this Current Concepts review, we discuss the definitions, strengths, limitations, and applications of AI from the current literature as it relates to orthopaedic sports medicine.

The use of biologics to improve patient-reported outcomes in hip preservation

Despite lack of clear understanding, the use of biologic treatment methods has increased in the United States. Therapeutic methods, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and hyaluronic acid (HA) among other biologics, are commonly associated with relief of pain in a number of different orthopedic conditions. Within the past two decades, hip preservationists have investigated the roles of these biologic treatments in both non-operative and surgical management of common hip conditions. The purpose is to review the published literature surrounding the application and efficacy of biologics, most notably PRP, BMAC and HA, in the clinical management of hip conditions. The hip conditions examined in this review include hip osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and associated labral tear pathology, avascular necrosis of the femoral head and gluteal/hamstring tendinopathy. While our review of the literature suggests that there is support for the implementation of biologics to relieve pain and improve function for hip conditions. Through further research efforts, it is important to stay updated with the clinical efficacy of biologics in hip preservation.

Intra-Articular Injections of Platelet-Rich Plasma, Adipose Mesenchymal Stem Cells, and Bone Marrow Mesenchymal Stem Cells Associated With Better Outcomes Than Hyaluronic Acid and Saline in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate clinical efficacy and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA), leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP), leukocyte-rich platelet-rich plasma (LR-PRP), bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), adipose mesenchymal stem cells (AD-MSCs), and saline (placebo) during 6 and 12 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Six databases were searched for randomized controlled trials. Outcome assessment included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) pain subscore, WOMAC score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and treatment-related AEs. Main inclusion criteria were at least one of the aforementioned outcome measurements, a minimum follow-up period of 5 months, and >80% patient follow-up. Treatments combined with the use of other operations or drugs were excluded.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. At 6 months, VAS scores and WOMAC pain subscores showed that AD-MSCs were the best treatment option (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 96.7%, SUCRA = 85.3%, respectively). According to WOMAC scores and subjective IKDC scores, LP-PRP was the most effective treatment (SUCRA = 86.0%, SUCRA = 80.5%, respectively). At 12 months, only AD-MSCs were associated with improved VAS scores compared with the placebo (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -20.93, 95% credibility interval [CrI], -41.71 to -0.78). Both LP-PRP and AD-MSCs were more beneficial than the placebo for improving WOMAC pain subscores (WMD = -30.08; 95% CrI, -53.59 to -6.25; WMD = -34.85; 95% CrI, -68.03 to -4.86, respectively). For WOMAC scores, LP-PRP and LR-PRP were significantly associated with improved WOMAC scores compared with the placebo after sensitivity analysis was performed (WMD = -35.26; 95% CrI, -64.99 to -6.01; WMD = -38.69; 95% CrI, -76.21 to -2.76). LP-PRP exhibited relatively better efficacy in improving subjective IKDC scores than the placebo (WMD = 13.67; 95% CrI, 4.05-23.39). Regarding safety, all treatments except for LP-PRP (relative risk = 1.83; 95% CrI, 0.89-4.64) increased treatment-related AEs compared with the placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of current research findings, during 6 months of follow-up, AD-MSCs relieved pain the best; LP-PRP was most effective for functional improvement. During the 12-month follow-up, both AD-MSCs and LP-PRP showed potential clinical pain relief effects; functional improvement was achieved with LP-PRP. Unfortunately, AD-MSC/LP-PRP functional comparisons were only based on WOMAC scores due to missing IKDC scores. BM-MSCs seem to have potentially beneficial effects, but the wide credibility interval makes it impossible to draw a well-supported conclusion. HA viscosupplementation clinical efficacy was lower than that of biological agents during follow-up, which may be related to the properties of the drugs. Considering the evaluation of treatment-related AEs, LP-PRP is the most advisable choice; although the AEs of these treatments are not serious, they may affect treatment compliance and satisfaction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Orthobiologics

Use of orthobiologics in sports medicine and musculoskeletal surgery has gained significant interest. However, many of the commercially available and advertised products are lacking in clinical evidence. Widespread use of products before fully understanding their true indications may result in unknown adverse outcomes and may also lead to increased health care costs. As more products become available, it is important to remain judicial in use and to practice evidence-based medicine. Likewise, it is important to continue advances in research in hopes to improve surgical outcomes. This article reviews clinical evidence behind common orthobiologics in the treatment of foot and ankle pathology.

The Clinical Evidence Behind Biologic Therapies Promoted at Annual Orthopaedic Meetings: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the available clinical data for biologic therapies promoted for articular cartilage defects and osteoarthritis of the knee at the 2016 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Meeting (AOSSM) and the 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America meeting (AANA).

METHODS

Our sample included all exhibitors at the 2016 AOSSM meeting and 2017 AANA meeting. All biologic products marketed at each conference were identified by reviewing exhibition booths and company websites. A systematic review of the clinical data on each product was then completed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the product's own webpage. All clinical peer-reviewed studies with level I-IV evidence were included in the study. Basic science or preclinical studies were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 16 products promoted for biologic therapy for articular cartilage defects or osteoarthritis of the knee at the AOSSM meeting and 11 products promoted at the AANA meeting. A total of 280 articles detailed clinical findings for the articular cartilage products displayed at AOSSM and AANA. Of the 280, there were 36 level I evidence studies, 37 level II evidence studies, 18 level III evidence studies, and 189 level IV evidence studies. Of these articles, 91% were for 4 products. Of all biologic products promoted at the 2 meetings, 65% did not have any peer-reviewed clinical data supporting their use.

CONCLUSION

Overall, many biologic therapies promoted at leading arthroscopy and sports medicine conferences did not have clinical evidence evaluating their use in the peer-reviewed literature. Although scientific advancement requires new technology, orthopaedic surgeons should be cautious about using biologic therapies in their practice with no proven efficacy. There are likely promising new interventions that, with additional scientific research, will be proven efficacious for our patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This article gives orthopaedic surgeons a detailed example of some of the biologic treatments being offered on the market for the treatment of knee articular cartilage disease. When patients request these treatments, physicians must be able to explain the data supporting their use.

Orthobiologics for Bone Healing

Orthobiologics are a group of biological materials and substrates that promote bone, ligament, muscle, and tendon healing. These substances include bone autograft, bone allograft, demineralized bone matrix, bone graft substitutes, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, platelet-rich plasma, bone morphogenetic proteins, platelet-derived growth factor, parathyroid hormone, and vitamin D and calcium. Properties of orthobiologics in bone healing include osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and osteogenesis. This article discusses the important properties of orthobiologics in bone healing, many of the orthobiologics currently available for bone healing, the related literature, their current clinical uses in sports medicine, and systemic factors that inhibit bone healing.

Growth Factors Levels Determine Efficacy of Platelets Rich Plasma Injection in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Double Blind Noninferiority Trial Compared With Viscosupplementation

PURPOSE

To assess the noninferiority of a single platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection compared with hyaluronic acid (HA), to alleviate pain and enhance functional capacity in knee osteoarthritis, and identify biological characteristics of PRP that may affect their efficacy.

METHODS

Fifty-four patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis received a single injection of either PRP (26 patients) or HA (28 patients). They were assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary endpoint was the change in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score at 3 months, and secondary endpoints were responders' rate (improvement of at least 5 points or 40% of WOMAC total score at 3 months) of pain evaluation and patient's subjective satisfaction. Cell counts and the contents of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), platelet-derived growth factor-AB (PDGF-AB), transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1) content of injected PRP were assessed to analyze their relationship with clinical outcome.

RESULTS

Both treatments proved their improvement in knee functional status and symptom relief, with a significant decrease observed at 1 month on all scores except for pain VAS in PRP group and WOMAC function score in the HA group. No difference between groups regarding WOMAC and VAS scores was observed. A higher percentage of responders was observed in the PRP group (72.7%) than in the HA group (45.8%) without significance (P = .064). The quantity of injected PDGF-AB and TGF-β1 correlated with the change in WOMAC scores at 3 months and was lower in responders than in nonresponders (P = .009 and P = .003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Current results indicated that a single injection of very pure PRP offers a significant clinical improvement in the management of knee osteoarthritis, equivalent to a single HA injection in this patient population. Moreover, a significant correlation between the doses of TGF-β1 and PDGF-AB and the worsening of WOMAC score 3 months after the procedure was found.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, randomized double blind controlled trial.

Tissue-specific endothelial cells: a promising approach for augmentation of soft tissue repair in orthopedics

Biologics are playing an increasingly significant role in the practice of modern medicine and surgery in general and orthopedics in particular. Cell-based approaches are among the most important and widely used modalities in orthopedic biologics, with mesenchymal stem cells and other multi/pluripotent cells undergoing evaluation in numerous preclinical and clinical studies. On the other hand, fully differentiated endothelial cells (ECs) have been found to perform critical roles in homeostasis of visceral tissues through production of an adaptive panel of so-called "angiocrine factors." This newly discovered function of ECs renders them excellent candidates for novel approaches in cell-based biologics. Here, we present a review of the role of ECs and angiocrine factors in some visceral tissues, followed by an overview of current cell-based approaches and a discussion of the potential applications of ECs in soft tissue repair.

Biologic injections for osteoarthritis and articular cartilage damage: can we modify disease?

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present investigation is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to review the clinical results of platelet rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal stem cell treatments (MSC) (biologics) for articular cartilage lesions and osteoarthritis of the knee.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies involving biologic therapy for osteoarthritis or osteochondral defects. Only Level I-III clinical trials with at least 3-month follow-up were included. Outcome data was gathered on any patient-completed surveys, 2nd look arthroscopy, follow-up imaging, biopsy/histology results, and any adverse effects of treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-three articles met our inclusion criteria. There was a total of 21 PRP studies in the study. All PRP studies showed clinical improvement with PRP therapies in outcomes surveys measuring patient satisfaction, pain, and function. Two studies reported no significant difference in improvement compared to hyaluronic acid (HA). Similarly, the 7/9 MSC studies showed improvement. One study found BM-MSC implantation was not significantly superior to matrix assisted chondrocyte implantation (MACI), while one reported peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) did not significantly improve outcomes over HA. Of the three studies looking at a combination of MSC/PRP, two found MSC/PRP combination did not improve outcomes compared to MSC or PRP therapy alone. The one PRP study that had a 2nd look arthroscopy reported increases cartilage regeneration with PRP. All 8 MSC studies with follow-up MRI and all 7 MSC studies with 2nd look arthroscopy showed improvement in cartilage regeneration in terms of coverage, fill of the defect, and/or firmness of the new cartilage.

CONCLUSION

Current data suggests that, of the two treatments, MSC provides more significant disease modifying effect; however, further research needs to be done to compare these two treatments and determine if there is a synergetic effect when combined.

Postinjury Exercise and Platelet-Rich Plasma Therapies Improve Skeletal Muscle Healing in Rats But Are Not Synergistic When Combined

BACKGROUND

Skeletal muscle injuries are the most common sports-related injury and a major concern in sports medicine. The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections on muscle healing is still poorly understood, and current data are inconclusive.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of an ultrasound-guided intramuscular PRP injection, administered 24 hours after injury, and/or posttraumatic daily exercise training for 2 weeks on skeletal muscle healing in a recently established rat model of skeletal muscle injury that highly mimics the muscle trauma seen in human athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A total of 40 rats were assigned to 5 groups. Injured rats (medial gastrocnemius injury) received a single PRP injection (PRP group), daily exercise training (Exer group), or a combination of a single PRP injection and daily exercise training (PRP-Exer group). Untreated and intramuscular saline-injected animals were used as controls. Muscle force was determined 2 weeks after muscle injury, and muscles were harvested and evaluated by means of histological assessment and immunofluorescence microscopy.

RESULTS

Both PRP (exhibiting 4.8-fold higher platelet concentration than whole blood) and exercise training improved muscle strength (maximum tetanus force, TetF) in approximately 18%, 20%, and 30% of rats in the PRP, PRP-Exer, and Exer groups, respectively. Specific markers of muscle regeneration (developmental myosin heavy chain, dMHC) and scar formation (collagen I) demonstrated the beneficial effect of the tested therapies in accelerating the muscle healing process in rats. PRP and exercise treatments stimulated the growth of newly formed regenerating muscle fibers (1.5-, 2-, and 2.5-fold increase in myofiber cross-sectional area in PRP, PRP-Exer, and Exer groups, respectively) and reduced scar formation in injured skeletal muscle (20%, 34%, and 41% of reduction in PRP, PRP-Exer, and Exer groups, respectively). Exercise-treated muscles (PRP-Exer and Exer groups) had significantly reduced percentage of dMHC-positive regenerating fibers (35% and 47% decrease in dMHC expression, respectively), indicating that exercise therapies accelerated the muscle healing process witnessed by the more rapid replacement of the embryonic-developmental myosin isoform by mature muscle myosin isoforms.

CONCLUSION

Intramuscular PRP injection and, especially, treadmill exercise improve histological outcome and force recovery of the injured skeletal muscle in a rat injury model that imitates sports-related muscle injuries in athletes. However, there was not a synergistic effect when both treatments were combined, suggesting that PRP does not add any beneficial effect to exercise-based therapy in the treatment of injured skeletal muscle.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study demonstrates the efficacy of an early active rehabilitation protocol or single intramuscular PRP injection on muscle recovery. The data also reveal that the outcome of the early active rehabilitation is adversely affected by the PRP injection when the two therapies are combined, and this could explain why PRP therapies have failed in randomized clinical trials where the athletes have adhered to postinjection rehabilitation protocols based on the principle of early, active mobilization.