This review explores the dual regenerative and antimicrobial properties of platelet- and marrow-derived biologics, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), autologous protein solutions, and plasma fractions. These biologics, widely used in regeneration and tissue repair, offer multiplex bioactivity through growth factors, cytokines, and cellular components that promote healing while reducing infection risk. PRP and BMAC demonstrate significant regenerative effects in musculoskeletal conditions, wound healing, and cartilage repair, with platelets and leukocytes contributing antimicrobial peptides and immune modulation for more indirect regenerative mechanisms. Preparation methods, patient factors, and lack of standardization impact clinical outcomes and efficacy. While promising for reducing reliance on chronic pain medications and improving function, these therapies face limitations including inconsistent preparation and utilization protocols, limited long-term safety data, and regulatory challenges. Here, we review the need for consensus-building, standardized procedures, and robust research to optimize clinical integration and realize the full potential of biologic regenerative therapies in pain medicine.

Body Protective Compound-157 (BPC-157) is a synthetic pentadecapeptide derived from gastric proteins that has demonstrated notable reparative and anti-inflammatory properties across diverse preclinical models. Experimental evidence reveals that BPC-157 supports angiogenesis, collagen synthesis, fibroblast activity, and modulation of nitric oxide pathways, contributing to enhanced healing of muscle, tendon, ligament, bone, and gastrointestinal tissue. Studies also report reduced inflammatory cytokine activity, improved microvascular integrity, and beneficial effects on pain modulation through peripheral and dopaminergic mechanisms. Although animal data indicate favorable safety and pharmacokinetics, human research remains limited to small pilot studies investigating musculoskeletal pain, interstitial cystitis, and intravenous administration, all suggesting potential therapeutic value without reported major adverse effects. However, inconsistent preparation standards, limited clinical validation, and regulatory restrictions underscore the need for rigorous controlled trials. BPC-157 remains a promising candidate for regenerative medicine, yet comprehensive evaluation is required before clinical translation can be recommended.

Micro-fragmented adipose tissue (mFAT) is a promising autologous biologic in regenerative medicine because it provides a mechanically processed adipose-derived product that preserves native extracellular matrix architecture and a cellular milieu rich in mesenchymal stem cells, pericytes, growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular vesicles. Mechanistically, mFAT is hypothesized to act largely through paracrine signaling that dampens inflammation, supports vascular stabilization, and promotes cartilage and soft-tissue repair; in vitro data suggest modulation of osteoarthritic synovial macrophage signaling, including reductions in chemokines such as CCL2 and CCL3. Preparation involves liposuction harvest followed by closed, sterile mechanical processing without enzymatic digestion or cell expansion, aligning with “minimal manipulation” concepts relevant to regulatory frameworks. Preclinical animal studies generally demonstrate favorable effects on synovial inflammation and cartilage matrix markers (e.g., glycosaminoglycan content) with limited adverse events. Clinically, the strongest body of evidence is in knee osteoarthritis, where multiple prospective and retrospective studies report improvements in pain and function from months to several years after single injections, though response rates vary and study designs are heterogeneous. Evolving data support potential benefit in hip osteoarthritis and select tendon conditions, but cohorts remain small. Overall, mFAT appears safe and potentially effective, yet larger, standardized, long-term randomized controlled trials and comparative studies versus platelet-rich plasma and bone marrow aspirate concentrates are needed to clarify indications, dosing, durability, and mechanisms in vivo.

Micro-fragmented adipose tissue (mFAT) is a promising autologous biologic in regenerative medicine because it provides a mechanically processed adipose-derived product that preserves native extracellular matrix architecture and a cellular milieu rich in mesenchymal stem cells, pericytes, growth factors, cytokines, and extracellular vesicles. Mechanistically, mFAT is hypothesized to act largely through paracrine signaling that dampens inflammation, supports vascular stabilization, and promotes cartilage and soft-tissue repair; in vitro data suggest modulation of osteoarthritic synovial macrophage signaling, including reductions in chemokines such as CCL2 and CCL3. Preparation involves liposuction harvest followed by closed, sterile mechanical processing without enzymatic digestion or cell expansion, aligning with “minimal manipulation” concepts relevant to regulatory frameworks. Preclinical animal studies generally demonstrate favorable effects on synovial inflammation and cartilage matrix markers (e.g., glycosaminoglycan content) with limited adverse events. Clinically, the strongest body of evidence is in knee osteoarthritis, where multiple prospective and retrospective studies report improvements in pain and function from months to several years after single injections, though response rates vary and study designs are heterogeneous. Evolving data support potential benefit in hip osteoarthritis and select tendon conditions, but cohorts remain small. Overall, mFAT appears safe and potentially effective, yet larger, standardized, long-term randomized controlled trials and comparative studies versus platelet-rich plasma and bone marrow aspirate concentrates are needed to clarify indications, dosing, durability, and mechanisms in vivo.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a commonly used intra-articular therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA), yet substantial heterogeneity in PRP preparation and delivery limits comparability across trials and complicates clinical translation. We conducted a scoping review in accordance with PRISMA and PRISMA-ScR guidance. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to 15 November 2025 for English-language randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with non-regenerative comparators (e.g., hyaluronic acid, corticosteroids, radiofrequency ablation, or saline placebo) in adults with knee OA. Data were charted on study characteristics, OA severity, injection guidance, centrifugation protocols, injected PRP volume and platelet concentration, dosing regimens, follow-up, adverse events, and overall conclusions (superior/non-inferior/inferior). Twenty-one studies (2012–2025) were included, spanning multiple regions and enrolling 21–288 participants per study with follow-up from 12 weeks to 60 months. PRP protocols varied widely, including single- versus double-spin centrifugation, spin rates and durations, injected volumes (approximately 1.4–8 mL), and platelet enrichment (approximately 1.15x to 9.85x baseline when reported). The most common regimen was three injections, typically weekly. Across studies, major adverse events were not reported, and post-injection pain or transient synovitis/effusion were the most frequent events. PRP for knee OA is generally safe and frequently demonstrates comparable or improved outcomes versus standard injectables, but marked protocol heterogeneity persists. Standardized reporting and consensus parameters for PRP preparation and administration are needed to improve reproducibility and guide evidence-based practice.