Cell-based versus corticosteroid injections for knee pain in osteoarthritis: a randomized phase 3 trial.

Various types of cellular injection have become a popular and costly treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis despite a paucity of literature establishing relative efficacy to each other or corticosteroid injections. Here we aimed to identify the safety and efficacy of cell injections from autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate, autologous adipose stromal vascular fraction and allogeneic human umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells, in comparison to corticosteroid injection (CSI). The study was a phase 2/3, four-arm parallel, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial with 480 patients with a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence II-IV). Participants were randomized to the three different arms with a 3:1 distribution. Arm 1: autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (n = 120), CSI (n = 40); arm 2: umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (n = 120), CSI (n = 40); arm 3: stromal vascular fraction (n = 120), CSI (n = 40). The co-primary endpoints were the visual analog scale pain score and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain score at 12 months versus baseline. Analyses of our primary endpoints, with 440 patients, revealed that at 1 year post injection, none of the three orthobiologic injections was superior to another, or to the CSI control. In addition, none of the four groups showed a significant change in magnetic resonance imaging osteoarthritis score compared to baseline. No procedure-related serious adverse events were reported during the study period. In summary, this study shows that at 1 year post injection, there was no superior orthobiologic as compared to CSI for knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03818737.

Use of Bone Marrow Concentrate to Treat Pain and Musculoskeletal Disorders: An Academic Delphi Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Acute and degenerative musculoskeletal disorders are among the most common etiologies of disability worldwide. Recently, there has been interest in the field of regenerative medicine to bridge the gap between conservative and surgical management of these conditions. Autologous bone marrow concentrate is one type of injectate that has increased in popularity over the last few decades. Though there is promising evidence supporting its efficacy, standard of care practice guidelines to govern the appropriate use and implementation of such technology are currently lacking. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to report findings from a survey administered using the Delphi technique to a group of physicians using bone marrow concentrate in practice to determine best practice consensus regarding optimization of patient safety and education. STUDY DESIGN: Delphi panel technique. SETTING: The study was first announced at a national meeting and continued remotely across the United States via 4 rounds of online surveys. METHODS: An initial panel of 30 expert members was convened and a 5-member steering committee was established. Four rounds of consensus questionnaires totaling 11 unique questions were distributed. Ten questions included a 5-point Likert scale from "Strongly Agree" to "Strongly Disagree," and one question had a selection of 5 options regarding minimum level of evidence required. The anonymized aggregate results of each round were shared with the group prior to voting in the subsequent round in accordance with the Delphi process. Consensus was defined as 80% agreement of the statements indicating either "Strongly Agree" or "Agree" for the 10 questions with the Likert Scale and 80% agreement among 2 of 5 choices in the question regarding levels of evidence. RESULTS: Three invited participants were excluded by the second round of questions due to lack of response in a timely manner, leaving 27 physicians queried. Nine of the 11 questions met criteria for > 80% consensus. Areas of agreement included importance of a treatment registry, candidacy grading, expanded informed consent, scientific accuracy in advertising, institutional review board approval for novel uses, performance of procedures by only licensed physicians or mid-level providers with direct physician oversight, use of image guidance for injections, data submission for publication in peer reviewed literature, and a minimum requirement of case-series level of evidence for use of bone marrow concentrate in musculoskeletal medicine. The 2 areas that did not meet criteria for consensus included online publishing of individual clinic data and standards around cell counting for dosing. LIMITATIONS: The Delphi panel of experts was convened on a voluntary basis rather than a nomination process. Our panel of experts were all physicians who use bone marrow concentrate in practice, therefore it is possible that a different panel of experts within other disciplines would reach different conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant consensus among a panel of physicians performing bone marrow concentrate injections regarding best practice guidelines for musculoskeletal conditions.

Bone Marrow Concentrate (BMC) Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders: Evidence-Based Policy Position Statement of American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The use of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) for treatment of musculoskeletal disorders has become increasingly popular over the last several years, as technology has improved along with the need for better solutions for these pathologies. The use of cellular tissue raises a number of issues regarding the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation in classifying these treatments as a drug versus just autologous tissue transplantation. In the case of BMC in musculoskeletal and spine care, this determination will likely hinge on whether BMC is homologous to the musculoskeletal system and spine. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to describe the current regulatory guidelines set in place by the FDA, specifically the terminology around "minimal manipulation" and "homologous use" within Regulation 21 CFR Part 1271, and specifically how this applies to the use of BMC in interventional musculoskeletal medicine. METHODS: The methodology utilized here is similar to the methodology utilized in preparation of multiple guidelines employing the experience of a panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties from differing regions of the world. The collaborators who developed these position statements have submitted their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these position statements. The literature pertaining to BMC, its effectiveness, adverse consequences, FDA regulations, criteria for meeting the standards of minimal manipulation, and homologous use were comprehensively reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available and relevant literature. RESULTS/Summary of Evidence: In conjunction with evidence-based medicine principles, the following position statements were developed: Statement 1: Based on a review of the literature in discussing the preparation of BMC using accepted methodologies, there is strong evidence of minimal manipulation in its preparation, and moderate evidence for homologous utility for various musculoskeletal and spinal conditions qualifies for the same surgical exemption. Statement 2: Assessment of clinical effectiveness based on extensive literature shows emerging evidence for multiple musculoskeletal and spinal conditions. • The evidence is highest for knee osteoarthritis with level II evidence based on relevant systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. There is level III evidence for knee cartilage conditions. • Based on the relevant systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized studies, the evidence for disc injections is level III. • Based on the available literature without appropriate systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials, the evidence for all other conditions is level IV or limited for BMC injections. Statement 3: Based on an extensive review of the literature, there is strong evidence for the safety of BMC when performed by trained physicians with the appropriate precautions under image guidance utilizing a sterile technique. Statement 4: Musculoskeletal disorders and spinal disorders with related disability for economic and human toll, despite advancements with a wide array of treatment modalities. Statement 5: The 21st Century Cures Act was enacted in December 2016 with provisions to accelerate the development and translation of promising new therapies into clinical evaluation and use. Statement 6: Development of cell-based therapies is rapidly proliferating in a number of disease areas, including musculoskeletal disorders and spine. With mixed results, these therapies are greatly outpacing the evidence. The reckless publicity with unsubstantiated claims of beneficial outcomes having putative potential, and has led the FDA Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue multiple warnings. Thus the US FDA is considering the appropriateness of using various therapies, including BMC, for homologous use. Statement 7: Since the 1980's and the description of mesenchymal stem cells by Caplan et al, (now called medicinal signaling cells), the use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders has been increasing in the management of pain and promoting tissue healing. Statement 8: The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) of the FDA requires minimal manipulation under same surgical procedure exemption. Homologous use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders is provided by preclinical and clinical evidence. Statement 9: If the FDA does not accept BMC as homologous, then it will require an Investigational New Drug (IND) classification with FDA (351) cellular drug approval for use. Statement 10: This literature review and these position statements establish compliance with the FDA's intent and corroborates its present description of BMC as homologous with same surgical exemption, and exempt from IND, for use of BMC for treatment of musculoskeletal tissues, such as cartilage, bones, ligaments, muscles, tendons, and spinal discs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of all available and pertinent literature, multiple position statements have been developed showing that BMC in musculoskeletal disorders meets the criteria of minimal manipulation and homologous use. KEY WORDS: Cell-based therapies, bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, medicinal signaling cells, Food and Drug Administration, human cells, tissues, and cellular tissue-based products, Public Health Service Act (PHSA), minimal manipulation, homologous use, same surgical procedure exemption.

Platelet-rich plasma versus Tenex in the treatment of medial and lateral epicondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Medial epicondylitis and lateral epicondylitis are among the most common elbow pathologies affecting people aged between 40 and 50 years. Although epicondylitis is often a self-limiting condition that improves with conservative treatment, the condition can be difficult to eradicate. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections and ultrasound-guided percutaneous tenotomy (Tenex) for the treatment of medial or lateral epicondylitis. Our hypothesis was that the Tenex procedure would not be inferior to PRP injections in the treatment of medial or lateral epicondylitis. METHODS: In this retrospective review, 62 of 75 patients were available for contact via phone and e-mail to complete post-procedure patient-reported outcome surveys. Subjective assessment of pain and function included a visual analog scale for pain; the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; and the EuroQol-5D questionnaire. The inclusion criteria included age of 18 years or older and previous failure of nonoperative treatment. RESULTS: The average ages in the PRP and Tenex groups were 47 years and 51 years, respectively. The PRP cohort (n = 32) included 10 female and 22 male patients, whereas the Tenex cohort (n = 30) included 12 female and 18 male patients. The PRP and Tenex groups both demonstrated clinical and statistical improvement in visual analog scale pain scores; Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand scores; and EuroQol-5D scores. No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: The PRP and Tenex procedures were both successful in producing clinically and statistically significant improvements in pain, function, and quality of life.

Sphenopalatine Ganglion Block for Management of Refractory Chronic Posttraumatic Headaches After a Sport-Related Concussion.

Posttraumatic headaches (PTHs) are one of the most frequently reported symptoms after a sport concussion, and treatment options for chronic PTH are limited. In this report, we present a case of a 17-year-old boy with persistent PTH after a sport concussion successfully treated with an intranasal sphenopalatine block.