Background: Use of platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) injections for treating knee osteoarthritis has increased over the past decade. We used cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the value of PRP in delaying the need for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: We developed a Markov model to analyze the baseline case: a 55-year-old patient with Kellgren-Lawrence grade-II or III knee osteoarthritis undergoing a series of 3 PRP injections with a 1-year delay to TKA versus a TKA from the outset. Both health-care payer and societal perspectives were included. Transition probabilities were derived from systematic review of 72 studies, quality-of-life (QOL) values from the Tufts University Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, and individual costs from Medicare reimbursement schedules. Primary outcome measures were total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), organized into incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and evaluated against willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000. One and 2-way sensitivity analyses were performed as well as a probabilistic analysis varying PRP-injection cost, TKA delay intervals, and TKA outcomes over 10,000 different simulations. Results: From a health-care payer perspective, PRP resulted in 14.55 QALYs compared with 14.63 for TKA from the outset, with total health-care costs of $26,619 and $26,235, respectively. TKA from the outset produced a higher number of QALYs at a lower cost, so it dominated. From a societal perspective, PRP cost $49,090 versus $49,424 for TKA from the outset. The ICER for TKA from the outset was $4,175 per QALY, below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Assuming the $728 published cost of a PRP injection, no delay time that was 0.89, PRP therapy was cost-effective with even a 1-year delay to TKA. Conclusions: When considering direct and unpaid indirect costs, PRP injections are not cost-effective. The primary factor preventing PRP from being cost-effective is not the price per injection but rather a lack of established clinical efficacy in relieving pain and improving function and in delaying TKA. PRP may have value for higher-risk patients with high perioperative complication rates, higher TKA revision rates, or poorer postoperative outcomes. Level of Evidence: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The use of stem-cell therapies for the treatment of various musculoskeletal conditions, especially knee osteoarthritis (OA), is rapidly expanding, despite only low-level evidence to support its use. Centers offering these therapies are often marketing and charging patients out-of-pocket costs for such services. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the current marketed: (1) prices and (2) clinical efficacy of stem-cell therapies for knee OA. This was a prospective cross-sectional study which queried 317 U.S. centers that offered direct-to-consumer stem-cell therapies for musculoskeletal conditions. A total of 273 of 317 centers were successfully contacted via phone or e-mail, using a simulated 57-year-old male patient with knee OA. Scripted questions were asked by the simulated patient to determine the marketed prices and clinical efficacy. Centers generally reported the proportion of patients who had “good results” or “symptomatic improvement.” The mean price of a unilateral (same-day) stem-cell knee injection was $5,156 with a standard deviation of $2,446 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $4,550–5,762, n = 65). The mean proportion of claimed clinical efficacy was 82% with a standard deviation of 9.6% (95% CI: 79.0–85.5%, n = 36). Most American stem-cell centers offer therapies for knee OA. The cost of these therapies averages about $5,000 per injection, and centers claim that 80% of the patients had “good results” or “symptomatic improvement,” denoting a gap between what is documented in the published literature and the marketing claims. These findings offer both patients and physicians insight into the current stem-cell market for knee OA. We hope that with this information, providers can more optimally make patients aware of discrepancies between what is being marketed versus the current evidence-based landscape of these therapies for knee OA. ^* The authors Nicolas S. Piuzzi and Mitchell Ng contributed equally to this work.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are often used for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), despite clinical value and cost-effectiveness not being definitely established. PRP injections are considered as a potential means of reducing pain and improving function in patients with knee OA, in the hope of delaying or avoiding the need for surgical intervention. Centers that offer PRP injections usually charge patients out of pocket and directly market services. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to quantify the current (1) prices and (2) marketed clinical efficacy of autologous PRP injections for knee OA. A prospective cross-sectional study was performed based on 286 centers identified in the United States offering PRP injections for knee OA. A total of 179 (73.4%) centers were successfully contacted via e-mail or phone, using a simulated 52-year-old male patient with knee OA. Scripted questions were asked by the simulated patient to determine the current marketed prices and clinical efficacy, either reported as “good results” or “symptomatic improvement,” claimed by each treating center. The mean price for a single unilateral knee same-day PRP injection was $714 with a standard deviation of $144 (95% confidence interval [CI]: $691–737, n = 153). The mean claim of clinical efficacy was 76% with a standard deviation of 11% (95% CI: 73.5–78.3%, n = 84). Out of the 84 clinics, 10 claimed “90 to 100% efficacy,” 27 claimed “80 to 90%,” 29 claimed “70 to 80%,” 9 claimed “60 to 70%,” 8 claimed “50 to 60%,” and 1 claimed “40 to 60%.” These findings provide a unique perspective on the PRP market for the treatment of knee OA that is valuable to physicians and health care providers in providing better education to patients on the associated costs and purported clinical benefits of PRP injections.

Cellular therapies are emerging as potentially promising treatments for numerous musculoskeletal conditions, such as knee osteoarthritis (OA). As orthopaedic surgeons represent a sizable portion of the providers who deliver these therapies, it is particularly essential for them to understand their fundamental principles. One major principle is to identify the appropriate sources for obtaining these cells, with bone marrow being most common. Therefore, the purpose of this review was to provide an overview of cell-based therapies available for the treatment of knee OA with a focus on bone marrow-derived cellular therapies. Specifically, we discuss (1) bone marrow aspiration technique, (2) processing to bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and (3) the rational and clinical evidence for the use of bone marrow cellular therapies for the treatment of knee OA.