Aims. Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by a chronic inflammatory process involving multiple cytokine pathways, leading to articular cartilage degeneration. Intra-articular therapies using pharmaceutical or autologous anti-inflammatory factors offer potential non-surgical treatment options. Autologous protein solution (APS) is one such product that uses the patient’s blood to produce a concentrate of cells and anti-inflammatory cytokines. This study evaluated the effect of a specific APS intra-articular injection (nSTRIDE) on patient-reported outcome measures compared to saline in moderate knee OA. Methods. A parallel, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial was conducted, where patients with unilateral moderate knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 2 or 3) received either nSTRIDE or saline (placebo) injection to their symptomatic knee. The primary outcome was the difference in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score at 12 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included WOMAC component scores, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores at all follow-up timepoints (three, six, and 12 months). Results. A total of 40 patients were analyzed (21 nSTRIDE; 19 saline) in the study. No significant difference was found between nSTRIDE and saline groups for WOMAC total score at 12 months (mean difference -10.4 (95% CI -24.4 to 3.6; p = 0.141). There were no significant differences in WOMAC or KOOS scores across all timepoints. VAS scores favoured the saline group for both rest and worst pain scales at 12 months post-injection (mean difference (worst) 12 months 21.5 (95% CI 6.2 to 36.8; p = 0.008); mean difference (rest) 12 months 17.8 (95% CI 2.2 to 33.4; p = 0.026)). There were no adverse events recorded in either study group. Conclusion. Our study demonstrates no significant differences between nSTRIDE and saline groups in KOOS and WOMAC scores over time. Notably, APS injection resulted in significantly worse pain symptoms at 12 months compared to saline injection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):907–915

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing corticosteroid injection (CSI) to autologous protein solution (APS) injection for the treatment of subacromial shoulder pain in a community care setting. The study focused on recruitment rates and retention of participants throughout, and collected data on the interventions’ safety and efficacy. Methods. Participants were recruited from two community musculoskeletal treatment centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if aged 18 years or older, and had a clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome which the treating clinician thought was suitable for treatment with a subacromial injection. Consenting patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a patient-blinded subacromial injection of CSI (standard care) or APS. The primary outcome measures of this study relate to rates of recruitment, retention, and compliance with intervention and follow-up to determine feasibility. Secondary outcome measures relate to the safety and efficacy of the interventions. Results. A total of 53 patients were deemed eligible, and 50 patients (94%) recruited between April 2022 and October 2022. Overall, 49 patients (98%) complied with treatment. Outcome data were collected in 100% of participants at three months and 94% at six months. There were no significant adverse events. Both groups demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures over the six-month period. Conclusion. Our study shows that it is feasible to recruit to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing APS and CSI for subacromial pain in terms of clinical outcomes and health-resource use in the UK. Safety and efficacy data are presented. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):534–542

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: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:891–896.