To analyse the efficacy and safety of
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major global disease with increasing prevalence. It is one of the most significant causes of disability worldwide and represents a major burden in terms of healthcare delivery and impact on the quality of life of patients. It is a cause of severe chronic pain and has given rise to alarming levels of opioid use and addiction. Despite this prevalence, there are no disease-modifying treatments which delay or reverse the degrative changes within joints which are characteristics of the disease. All treatments are symptom-modifying with the exception of joint arthroplasty, which is currently the most common surgical procedure carried out in US hospitals. Several pharmaceutical and biological interventions have been tested in recent years, including metalloproteinase inhibitors, chondrogenic agents such as Kartogenin, IL-1 antagonists and monoclonal antibodies. So far, none of these has provided an effective disease-modifying treatment.
There is good scientific rationale to support the use of growth factors to promote musculoskeletal tissue regeneration. However, the clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and other blood-derived products has yet to be proven. Characterization and reporting of PRP preparation protocols utilized in clinical trials for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease is highly inconsistent, and the majority of studies do not provide sufficient information to allow the protocols to be reproduced. Furthermore, the reporting of blood-derived products in orthopaedics is limited by the multiple PRP classification systems available, which makes comparison of results between studies challenging. Several attempts have been made to characterize and classify PRP; however, no consensus has been reached, and there is lack of a comprehensive and validated classification. In this annotation, we outline existing systems used to classify preparations of PRP, highlighting their advantages and limitations. There remains a need for standardized universal nomenclature to describe biological therapies, as well as a comprehensive and reproducible classification system for autologous blood-derived products. Cite this article:
Disease modifying approaches are commonly applied in OA patients. An aging society with better life expectancies is increasing in Europe and the globe. Orthobiologics cover intraarticular hyaluronan injections and also
Cell-based therapies have taken the emerging field in many clinical directions. Among them, orthopaedic surgery is one of the most promising directions – due to the clinical needs, and because of the availability of the advanced cell-based constructs dedicated to bone and cartilage regeneration. The current practical clinical input is, however, below expectations – because of numerous difficulties which have their source in scientific, practical, finance and legal issues. Regarding legal issues, Advanced Therapy Investigational Medicinal Products (ATIMP) are regulated by three different legal orders. As medicines (according to the EU law, ATIMP is a pharmaceutical) – they are subject to pharmaceutical law; as cell-containing specimens – to cell and tissue banking regulations; as tested by registered clinical trials - they are subject to Good Clinical Practice rules and regulations. Formal requirements coming from these three areas are completely different, sometimes contradictory and incompatible with the specific nature of cell-based products. At the same time they involves the need for huge financial expenditures. We discuss these issues from the perspective of the university laboratory, which currently conducts clinical trials of the ATIMPs for three different clinical indications and, at the same time, has experience in the basic and applied scientific work at the laboratory level – towards improvement of osteogenic capacity of stem cells. With the undoubtful need of well documented scientific results, which is accompanied by complicated and imperfect regulations, we think that the scientific community focused around
Background. Definitive proof is lacking on mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs)
Introduction and aims. Growth plate cartilage is responsible for bone growth in children. Injury to growth plate can often lead to faulty bony repair and bone growth deformities, which represents a significant clinical problem. This work aims to develop a biological treatment. Methods. Recent studies using rabbit models to investigate the efficacy of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) to promote cartilage regeneration and prevent bone defects following growth plate injury have shown promise. However, translational studies in large animal models (such as lambs), which more closely resemble the human condition, are lacking. Results. Very recently, our labs have shown that ovine bone marrow MSC are multipotential and can form cartilage-like tissue when transplanted into mice. However, using a growth plate injury model in lambs, analogous to those described in the rabbit, autologous marrow MSC seeded into gelatine scaffold containing chondrogenic factor TGF-1, failed to promote growth plate regeneration. T o date, no large animal studies have reported successful regeneration of injured growth plate cartilage using MSC highlighting the possibility that ex vivo expanded MSC may not represent a viable
In the repair of condylar cartilage injury, synovium-derived mesenchymal stem cells (SMSCs) migrate to an injured site and differentiate into cartilage. This study aimed to confirm that histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors, which alleviate arthritis, can improve chondrogenesis inhibited by IL-1β, and to explore its mechanism. SMSCs were isolated from synovium specimens of patients undergoing temporomandibular joint (TMJ) surgery. Chondrogenic differentiation potential of SMSCs was evaluated in vitro in the control, IL-1β stimulation, and IL-1β stimulation with HDAC inhibitors groups. The effect of HDAC inhibitors on the synovium and condylar cartilage in a rat TMJ arthritis model was evaluated.Aims
Methods
The aim of the HIPGEN consortium is to develop the first cell therapy product for hip fracture patients using PLacental-eXpanded (PLX-PAD) stromal cells. HIPGEN is a multicentre, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. A total of 240 patients aged 60 to 90 years with low-energy femoral neck fractures (FNF) will be allocated to two arms and receive an intramuscular injection of either 150 × 106 PLX-PAD cells or placebo into the medial gluteal muscle after direct lateral implantation of total or hemi hip arthroplasty. Patients will be followed for two years. The primary endpoint is the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) at week 26. Secondary and exploratory endpoints include morphological parameters (lean body mass), functional parameters (abduction and handgrip strength, symmetry in gait, weightbearing), all-cause mortality rate and patient-reported outcome measures (Lower Limb Measure, EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire). Immunological biomarker and in vitro studies will be performed to analyze the PLX-PAD mechanism of action. A sample size of 240 subjects was calculated providing 88% power for the detection of a 1 SPPB point treatment effect for a two-sided test with an α level of 5%.Aims
Methods
Bone demonstrates good healing capacity, with a variety of strategies being utilized to enhance this healing. One potential strategy that has been suggested is the use of stem cells to accelerate healing. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, WHO-ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, as well as reference checking of included studies. The inclusion criteria for the study were: population (any adults who have sustained a fracture, not including those with pre-existing bone defects); intervention (use of stem cells from any source in the fracture site by any mechanism); and control (fracture healing without the use of stem cells). Studies without a comparator were also included. The outcome was any reported outcomes. The study design was randomized controlled trials, non-randomized or observational studies, and case series.Aims
Methods
Cell therapies hold significant promise for the treatment of injured or diseased musculoskeletal tissues. However, despite advances in research, there is growing concern about the increasing number of clinical centres around the world that are making unwarranted claims or are performing risky biological procedures. Such providers have been known to recommend, prescribe, or deliver so called ‘stem cell’ preparations without sufficient data to support their true content and efficacy. In this annotation, we outline the current environment of stem cell-based treatments and the strategies of marketing directly to consumers. We also outline the difficulties in the regulation of these clinics and make recommendations for best practice and the identification and reporting of illegitimate providers. Cite this article:
Stem cells are defined by their potential for self-renewal and the ability to differentiate into numerous cell types, including cartilage and bone cells. Although basic laboratory studies demonstrate that cell therapies have strong potential for improvement in tissue healing and regeneration, there is little evidence in the scientific literature for many of the available cell formulations that are currently offered to patients. Numerous commercial entities and ‘regenerative medicine centres’ have aggressively marketed unproven cell therapies for a wide range of medical conditions, leading to sometimes indiscriminate use of these treatments, which has added to the confusion and unpredictable outcomes. The significant variability and heterogeneity in cell formulations between different individuals makes it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy. The ‘minimally manipulated’ preparations derived from bone marrow and adipose tissue that are currently used differ substantially from cells that are processed and prepared under defined laboratory protocols. The term ‘stem cells’ should be reserved for laboratory-purified, culture-expanded cells. The number of cells in uncultured preparations that meet these defined criteria is estimated to be approximately one in 10 000 to 20 000 (0.005% to 0.01%) in native bone marrow and 1 in 2000 in adipose tissue. It is clear that more refined definitions of stem cells are required, as the lumping together of widely diverse progenitor cell types under the umbrella term ‘mesenchymal stem cells’ has created confusion among scientists, clinicians, regulators, and our patients. Validated methods need to be developed to measure and characterize the ‘critical quality attributes’ and biological activity of a specific cell formulation. It is certain that ‘one size does not fit all’ – different cell formulations, dosing schedules, and culturing parameters will likely be required based on the tissue being treated and the desired biological target. As an alternative to the use of exogenous cells, in the future we may be able to stimulate the intrinsic vascular stem cell niche that is known to exist in many tissues. The tremendous potential of cell therapy will only be realized with further basic, translational, and clinical research. Cite this article:
Introduction The devastating and permanent effects of complete spinal cord injury are well documented. In animal models, olfactory ensheathing cells (OEC) transplanted into areas of complete spinal cord injury have promoted regeneration of the neural elements with reconnection of the descending motor pathways. This reproducible anatomical finding is associated with significant motor functional recovery. Accordingly,
Non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head
is a potentially devastating condition, the prevalence of which
is increasing. Many joint-preserving forms of treatment, both medical
and surgical, have been developed in an attempt to slow or reverse
its progression, as it usually affects young patients. However, it is important to evaluate the best evidence that is
available for the many forms of treatment considering the variation
in the demographics of the patients, the methodology and the outcomes
in the studies that have been published, so that it can be used
effectively. The purpose of this review, therefore, was to provide an up-to-date,
evidence-based guide to the management, both non-operative and operative,
of non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Cite this article: