Background: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) expresses both the extent of the improvement and the value that patients place on it. MCID use is becoming increasingly widespread to understand the clinical efficacy of a given treatment, define guidelines for clinical practice, and properly interpret trial results. However, there is still large heterogeneity in the different calculation methods. Purpose: To calculate and compare the MCID threshold values of a PROM by applying various methods and analyzing their effect on the study results interpretation. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The data set used to investigate the different MCID calculation approaches was based on a database of 312 patients affected by knee osteoarthritis and treated with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma. MCID values were calculated on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 6 months using 2 approaches: 9 methodologies referred to an anchor-based approach and 8 methodologies to a distribution-based approach. The obtained threshold values were applied to the same series of patients to understand the effect of using different MCID methods in evaluating patient response to treatment. Results: The different methods employed led to MCID values ranging from 1.8 to 25.9 points. The anchor-based methods ranged from 6.3 to 25.9, while the distribution-based ones were from 1.8 to 13.8 points, showing a 4.1× variation of the MCID values within the anchor-based methods and a 7.6× variation within the distribution-based methods. The percentage of patients who reached the MCID for the IKDC subjective score changed based on the specific calculation method used. Among the anchor-based methods, this value varied from 24.0% to 66.0%, while among the distribution-based methods, the percentage of patients reaching the MCID varied from 44.6% to 75.9%. Conclusion: This study proved that different MCID calculation methods lead to highly heterogeneous values, which significantly affect the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in a given population. The wide-ranging thresholds obtained with the different methodologies make it difficult to evaluate the real effectiveness of a given treatment questioning the usefulness of MCID, as currently available, in the clinical research.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is gaining large interest in clinical practice as a minimally invasive injective treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). Different preparation methods are available, and the presence of leukocytes, deemed detrimental in some preclinical studies, is one of the most debated aspects regarding PRP efficacy. Purpose: To compare the safety and effectiveness of leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) and leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP) for the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 192 patients with symptomatic knee OA (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 1-3) were randomly allocated to 3 weekly injections of LR-PRP or LP-PRP. LP-PRP was obtained with a filter for leukodepletion. LR-PRP and LP-PRP were divided into aliquots of 5 mL, with a mean platelet concentration of 1146.8 × 10 ⁹ /L and 1074.9 × 10 ⁹ /L and a mean leukocyte concentration of 7991.4 × 10 ⁶ /L and 0.1 × 10 ⁶ /L, respectively. Patients were evaluated at baseline and thereafter at 2, 6, and 12 months for the primary outcome, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score; and for secondary outcomes, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, EuroQol–visual analog scale (EQ-VAS), and Tegner score. Results: No differences between groups were observed in terms of absolute values or improvement of the clinical scores across all follow-up intervals. The mean IKDC subjective score at baseline and 12 months improved from 45.6 to 60.7 in the LR-PRP group as compared with 46.8 to 62.9 in the LP-PRP group ( P = .626). No severe adverse events were described in either group, although 15 mild adverse events (knee pain or swelling) were reported: 12.2% for LR-PRP and 4.7% for LP-PRP ( P = .101). No statistically significant difference was also found between LR-PRP and LP-PRP in terms of failures (7.8% vs 3.5%, P = .331). Conclusion: This double-blind randomized trial showed that 3 intra-articular LR-PRP or LP-PRP injections produced similar clinical improvement in the 12 months of follow-up in patients with symptomatic knee OA. Both treatment groups reported a low number of adverse events, without intergroup differences. The presence of leukocytes did not significantly affect the clinical results of PRP injections. Registration: NCT02923700 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the evidence about the efficacy of the several synovial fluid (SF) biomarkers proposed for knee osteoarthritis (OA), categorizing them by both molecular characteristics and clinical use according to the BIPEDs criteria, to provide a comprehensive and structured overview of the current literature. Design: A systematic review was performed in May 2020 on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases about SF biomarkers in patients with knee OA. The search was limited to articles in the last 20 years on human studies, involving patients with knee OA, reporting SF biomarkers. The evidence for each selected SF biomarker was quantified according to the 6 categories of BIPEDs classification. Results: A total of 159 articles were included in the qualitative data synthesis and 201 different SF biomarkers were identified. Among these, several were investigated multiple times in different articles, for a total of 373 analyses. The studies included 13,557 patients with knee OA. The most promising SF biomarkers were C4S, IL-6, IL-8, Leptin, MMP-1/3, TIMP-1, TNF-α, and VEGF. The “burden of disease” and “diagnostic” categories were the most represented with 132 and 106 different biomarkers, respectively. Conclusions: The systematic review identified numerous SF biomarkers. However, despite the high number of studies on the plethora of identified molecules, the evidence about the efficacy of each biomarker is supported by limited and often conflicting findings. Further research efforts are needed to improve the understanding of SF biomarkers for a better management of patients with knee OA.

Background: Intra-articular microfragmented adipose tissue (MF-AT) injections have been proposed for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose: To compare a single injection of MF-AT or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in terms of clinical outcomes and OA progression. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 118 patients with symptomatic knee OA were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of MF-AT or PRP. Patients were evaluated before the injection and at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales, EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain. Primary outcomes were the IKDC subjective score and the KOOS pain subscore at 6 months. Knees were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months with radiography and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using the Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score (WORMS). Results: Both MF-AT and PRP provided a statistically and clinically significant improvement up to 24 months. The improvement in the IKDC subjective score from baseline to 6 months was similar in both MF-AT (41.1 ± 16.3 to 57.3 ± 18.8) and PRP (44.8 ± 17.3 to 58.4 ± 18.1) groups ( P < .0005). The improvement in the KOOS pain subscore from baseline to 6 months was similar in both the MF-AT (58.4 ± 15.9 to 75.8 ± 17.4) and PRP (63.5 ± 17.8 to 75.5 ± 16.1) groups ( P < .0005). Overall, no differences were found between the MF-AT and PRP groups in terms of clinical outcomes, adverse events (18.9% and 10.9%, respectively), and failures (15.1% and 25.5%, respectively). Radiographic and MRI findings did not show changes after the injection. As a secondary outcome, more patients in the MF-AT group with moderate/severe OA reached the minimal clinically important difference for the IKDC score at 6 months compared with the PRP group (75.0% vs 34.6%, respectively; P = .005). Conclusion: A single intra-articular injection of MF-AT was not superior to PRP, with comparable low numbers of failures and adverse events and without disease progression. No differences were found in clinical and imaging results between the 2 biological approaches.

Purpose: To investigate the available literature on the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and summarize the current evidence supporting its potential for the injective treatment of joints affected by osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) in April 2020, using the following string: “((bone marrow concentrate) OR (BMC) OR (bone marrow aspirate concentrate) OR (BMAC)) AND (osteoarthritis)”, and inclusion criteria: clinical and preclinical (animal) studies of any level of evidence, written in English language, and evaluating the intra-articular or subchondral use of BMAC for the injective treatment of OA joints. Results: The publication trend remarkably increased over time. A total of 22 studies were included in the qualitative data synthesis: four preclinical studies and 18 clinical studies, for a total number of 4626 patients. Safety was documented by all studies, with a low number of adverse events. An overall improvement in pain and function was documented in most of the studies, but the clinical studies present significant heterogeneity, few patients, short-term follow-up, and overall poor methodology. Conclusion: There is a growing interest in the field of BMAC injections for the treatment of OA, with promising results in preclinical and clinical studies in terms of safety and effectiveness. Nevertheless, the current knowledge is still preliminary. Preclinical research is still needed to optimize BMAC use, as well as high-level large controlled trials to better understand the real potential of BMAC injections for the treatment of patients affected by OA.

Purpose: To compare the number and properties of bone marrow stromal cells (BMSCs) collected from bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) obtained from different harvest sites and from patients of different ages.Methods: BMAC was obtained from two groups of patients based on age (n = 10 per group): 19.0 ± 2.7 years for the younger and 56.8 ± 12.5 for the older group. In the latter, BMAC was obtained from both iliac crest and proximal tibia for a donor‐matched analysis. Mononucleated cell count and CFU‐F assay were performed, together with phenotype characterization of BMSCs from iliac crest and proximal tibia, the study of chondrogenic and osteogenic differentiation capacity, histological staining and spectrophotometric quantification, and the analysis of mRNAs expression.Results: Cells derived from iliac crest and proximal tibia showed the same phenotypic pattern at flow cytometry, as well as similar chondrogenic and osteogenic potential. However, a significantly higher number of mononuclear cells per ml was observed in younger patients (3.8 ± 1.8 × 10⁷) compared to older patients (1.2 ± 0.8 × 10⁷) (p < 0.0005). The latter yield, obtained from the iliac crest, was significantly higher than resulting from the BMAC harvested from the proximal tibia in the same group of patients (0.3 ± 0.2 × 10⁷, p < 0.0005). This result was confirmed by the CFU‐F analysis at day 10 (15.9 ± 19.4 vs 0.6 ± 1.0, p = 0.001) and day‐20 (21.7 ± 23.0 vs 2.9 ± 4.2, p = 0.006).Conclusion: Harvest site and age can affect the quality of BMAC. BMSCs obtained from iliac crest and proximal tibia present comparable mesenchymal markers expression as well as osteogenic and chondrogenic differentiation potential, but iliac crest BMAC presents a four times higher number of mononucleated cells with significantly higher clonogenic capacity compared to the tibia. BMAC of younger patients also had a three‐time higher number of mononucleated cells. The identification of BMAC characteristics could help to optimize its preparation and to identify the most suitable indications for this orthobiologic treatment in the clinical practice.