Treatment of knee OA with PRP and minimally manipulated autologous cells are already widely used in the United States. The existing studies do not show that these therapies are associated with substantial risk of harm.12 , 39 Where a proposed therapy does not present significant safety concerns, the focus can be directed toward phase II, III, and IV trials. For optimal evaluation of efficiency, prospective multicenter trials with randomization and placebo control are need. Given the prevalence of OA and the number of proposed biological treatments, randomization schemes with a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of treatment groups to placebo will accelerate progress.
Although radiographs are helpful in assessing the knee mechanical axis and are reproducible for assessing joint space with appropriate technique, they are relatively insensitive to focal chondral defects and are inadequate for staging early disease. Because of its direct multiplanar acquisition, tomographic nature, and superior soft-tissue contrast, MRI is necessary to evaluate cartilage morphology and has shown superior reproducibility compared with arthroscopy.44 , 45 Recent advances in quantitative MR allow for assessment of cartilage relaxometry, targeting specific changes in proteoglycan content and collagen orientation, respectively, that improves the sensitivity of MRI for changes of early knee OA.
Characterization of the treated population with respect to clinical, structural, and biological attributes and disease state (eg, subtype, grade) is important. In addition to cell and protein composition, establishing specimen biorepositories will facilitate genomic and molecular analyses that can synergize with existing NIH areas of emphasis such as Helping to End Addiction Long-term, Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium, and precision medicine initiatives.
For evaluation of knee OA treatments, the primary clinical research goals are to determine efficacy in relation to pain, function, and structure, with additional goals of evaluating cost-effectiveness if proven to be efficacious. Key elements from a federally funded pre-post observational trial in Veterans that influenced the consensus trial design include establishment of a biorepository, targeted biospecimen analysis, linkage of the resulting compositional data with clinical data, and PRO metrics along with the use of MRI to establish and stage OA disease and to assess structural outcomes.41 , 44 - 48 The MIBO checklists for PRP (Table 2) and cell therapy (Table 3) should be used as a guide for clinical study design and standardized reporting.29 Elements recommended for a knee OA clinical trial are summarized in Table 4.
A patient panel highlighted the tremendous need and demand for effective treatments to restore function and alleviate musculoskeletal pain. This is particularly true for degenerative conditions such as OA and tendinopathy. The clinical history with minimally manipulated autogenous cell products and culture-expanded cells without genetic modifications for musculoskeletal indications suggest that these treatments can be considered “lower risk.”
Two international models for the use of culture-expanded MSC to treat orthopaedic complications were examined. In Japan, provisional approval is granted for a biologic that has been shown to be safe in a small sample of patients and with data showing a potential therapeutic effect.49 The manufacturer then has 7 years through postmarket studies to prove efficacy. If efficacy is not shown during postmarket surveillance, the product is withdrawn. In Chile, the government partnered with a private medical clinic to provide therapies based on culture-expanded bone MSC for a variety of musculoskeletal conditions. Data from this public-private partnership have demonstrated a low incidence of adverse effects and suggest therapeutic efficacy, most notably for OA.50
Patient demand and clinical need along with the international experience support exploration of new pathways developed through the 21st Century Cures Act to accelerate clinical evaluation of the use of autogenous cell sources and culture-expanded cell-based therapies to treat musculoskeletal conditions.32
The authors thank Fei Wang, PhD, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases collaborator who inspired and assisted with the conference and consensus statement development, and Erin Ransford, Manager, Research Advocacy, who assisted with all aspects of conference development and coordination. This symposium was funded by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, the Stanford University Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, and NIH U-13 AR073668 (Chu).
Evidence-based Medicine: Levels of evidence are described in the table of contents. In this article, references 11, 15, 17, 21, 22, 28, 38, 39 are level I studies. References 23, 24, 25, 26, 34, 35, 36, 41, 44, 47, 51, 52 are level II studies. References 43, 48, 45 are level III studies. References 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 16, 31, 40, 42, 50 are level IV studies. References 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, 20, 27, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 46, 49 are level V expert opinion.
References printed in bold type are those published within the past 5 years.
2. Yelin E, Weinstein S, King T: The burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the United States. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016;46:259–260.
3. Jacobs JJ, King TR, Klippel JH, et al: Beyond the decade: Strategic priorities to reduce the burden of musculoskeletal disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2013;95:e1251–e1256.
4. Piuzzi N, Ng M, Chughtai M, et al: The stem-cell market for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A patient perspective. J Knee Surg 2018;31:551–556.
5. Turner L, Knoepfler P: Selling stem cells in the USA: Assessing the direct-to-consumer industry. Cell Stem Cell 2016;19:154–157.
7. Dominici M, Nichols K, Srivastava A, et al: Positioning a scientific community on unproven cellular therapies: The 2015 International Society for Cellular Therapy Perspective. Cytotherapy 2015;17:1663–1666.
8. Sipp D, Caulfield T, Kaye J, et al: Marketing of unproven stem cell–based interventions: A call to action. Sci Transl Med 2017;9:eaag0426.
9. LaPrade RF, Dragoo JL, Koh JL, Murray IR, Geeslin AG, Chu CR: AAOS research symposium updates and consensus. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016;24:e62–e78.
11. Luangphakdy V, Boehm C, Pan H, Herrick J, Zaveri P, Muschler GF: Assessment of methods for rapid intraoperative concentration and selection of marrow-derived connective tissue progenitors for bone regeneration using the canine femoral multidefect model. Tissue Eng Part A 2016;22:17–30.
12. Chahla J, Piuzzi NS, Mitchell JJ, et al: Intra-articular cellular therapy for osteoarthritis and focal cartilage defects of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg 2016;98:1511–1521.
13. Piuzzi NS, Chahla J, Jiandong H, et al: Analysis of cell therapies used in clinical trials for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head: A systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2017;32:2612–2618.
14. Muschler GF, Nakamoto C, Griffith LG: Engineering principles of clinical cell-based tissue engineering. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86-A:1541–1558.
15. Crisan M, Yap S, Casteilla L, et al: A perivascular origin for mesenchymal stem cells in multiple human organs. Cell Stem Cell 2008;3:301–313.
16. Piuzzi NS, Hussain ZB, Chahla J, et al: Variability in the preparation, reporting, and use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate in musculoskeletal disorders. J Bone Joint Surg 2018;100:517–525.
17. Chu CR, Fortier LA, Williams A, et al: Minimally manipulated bone marrow concentrate compared with microfracture treatment of full-thickness chondral defects. J Bone Joint Surg 2018;100:138–146.
18. Muschler GF, Midura RJ: Connective tissue progenitors: Practical concepts for clinical applications. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;66–80.
19. Caplan AI: Mesenchymal stem cells. J Orthop Res 1991;9:641–650.
20. Bianco P, Cao X, Frenette PS, et al: The meaning, the sense and the significance: Translating the science of mesenchymal stem cells into medicine. Nat Med 2013;19:35–42.
21. Castillo TN, Pouliot MA, Kim HJ, Dragoo JL: Comparison of growth factor and platelet concentration from commercial platelet-rich plasma separation systems. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:266–271.
22. Mazzocca AD, McCarthy MBR, Chowaniec DM, et al: Platelet-rich plasma differs according to preparation method and human variability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:308–316.
23. Xiong G, Lingampalli N, Koltsov JCB, et al: Men and women differ in the biochemical composition of platelet-rich plasma. Am J Sports Med 2018;46:409–419.
24. Weibrich G, Kleis WKG, Hafner G, Hitzler WE: Growth factor levels in platelet-rich plasma and correlations with donor age, sex, and platelet count. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2002;30:97–102.
25. Payne KA, Didiano DM, Chu CR: Donor sex and age influence the chondrogenic potential of human femoral bone marrow stem cells. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2010;18:705–713.
26. Maletis GB, Chen J, Inacio MCS, Funahashi TT: Age-related risk factors for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:331–336.
27. Baer PC, Geiger H: Adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal/stem cells: Tissue localization, characterization, and heterogeneity. Stem Cells Int 2012;2012:812693.
28. Trivanović D, Jauković A, Popović B, et al: Mesenchymal stem cells of different origin: Comparative evaluation of proliferative capacity, telomere length and pluripotency marker expression. Life Sci 2015;141:61–73.
29. Murray IR, Geeslin AG, Goudie EB, Petrigliano FA, LaPrade RF: Minimum information for studies evaluating biologics in orthopaedics (MIBO). J Bone Joint Surg 2017;99:809–819.
30. Etkin CD, Springer BD: The American Joint Replacement Registry: The first 5 years. Arthroplast Today 2017;3:67–69.
31. Chahla J, Cinque ME, Piuzzi NS, et al: A call for standardization in platelet-rich plasma preparation protocols and composition reporting. J Bone Joint Surg 2017;99:1769–1779.
32. Marks P, Gottlieb S: Balancing safety and innovation for cell-based regenerative medicine. N Engl J Med 2018;378:954–959.
34. Hawker GA, Croxford R, Bierman AS, et al: All-cause mortality and serious cardiovascular events in people with hip and knee osteoarthritis: A population based cohort study. PLoS One 2014;9:e91286.
35. Guccione AA, Felson DT, Anderson JJ, et al: The effects of specific medical conditions on the functional limitations of elders in the Framingham Study. Am J Public Health 1994;84:351–358.
36. Ravi B, Croxford R, Austin PC, et al: The relation between total joint arthroplasty and risk for serious cardiovascular events in patients with moderate-severe osteoarthritis: Propensity score matched landmark analysis. BMJ 2013;347:f6187.
38. Fitzpatrick J, Bulsara M, Zheng MH: The effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of tendinopathy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Am J Sports Med 2017;45:226–233.
39. Riboh JC, Saltzman BM, Yanke AB, Fortier L, Cole BJ: Effect of leukocyte concentration on the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:792–800.
40. White DK, Master H: Patient-reported measures of physical function in knee osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2016;42:239–252.
41. Williams AA, Titchenal MR, Andriacchi TP, Chu CR: MRI UTE-T2* profile characteristics correlate to walking mechanics and patient reported outcomes 2 years after ACL reconstruction. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018;26:569–579.
42. Chughtai M, Piuzzi N, Yakubek G, et al: Use of an app-controlled neuromuscular electrical stimulation system for improved self-management of knee conditions and reduced costs. Surg Technol Int 2017;31:221–226.
43. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M: Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg 2007;89:780–785.
44. Crema MD, Nogueira-Barbosa MH, Roemer FW, et al: Three-dimensional turbo spin-echo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and semiquantitative assessment of knee osteoarthritis: Comparison with two-dimensional routine MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2013;21:428–433.
45. Peterfy CG, Guermazi A, Zaim S, et al: Whole-organ magnetic resonance imaging score (WORMS) of the knee in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2004;12:177–190.
46. Argentieri E, Burge A, Potter H: Magnetic resonance imaging of articular cartilage within the knee. J Knee Surg 2018;31:155–165.
47. Chu CR, Williams AA, West RV: Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging UTE-T2* mapping of cartilage and meniscus healing after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:1847–1856.
48. Hunter DJ, Guermazi A, Lo GH, et al: Evolution of semi-quantitative whole joint assessment of knee OA: MOAKS (MRI osteoarthritis knee score). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011;19:990–1002.
49. Cyranoski D: Japan relaxes human stem-cell rules. Nature 2009;460:1068.
50. Mardones R, Jofré CM, Tobar L, Minguell JJ: Mesenchymal stem cell therapy in the treatment of hip osteoarthritis. J Hip Preserv Surg 2017;4:159–163.
51. Wheaton AJ, Casey FL, Gougoutas AJ, et al: Correlation of T1rho with fixed charge density in cartilage. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:519–525.
52. Gallo MC, Wyatt C, Pedoia V, et al: T1ρ and T2 relaxation times are associated with progression of hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016;24:1399–1407.