Arthurs, Jennifer R.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an emerging therapy that demonstrates potential benefits for knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, the accessibility of PRP remains limited, in part, because its use is not covered by insurance. Purpose: To identify factors contributing to health disparities in PRP treatment for knee OA using machine learning models. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors collected data from electronic medical records at 2 upper Midwest medical centers (Mayo Clinic and Detroit Medical Center) from 2022 to 2023 encompassing demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical factors. Data collection encompassed age, sex, race, ethnicity, area deprivation index, marital status, income, rurality, insurance, employment, language, religion, treatment site, and region. Logistic regression and random forest models were applied to 3667 samples (80% training, 20% testing), comparing PRP recipients against a standard care group. Models were evaluated using 10-fold cross-validation to ensure robust performance assessment. Results: Logistic regression revealed that increased age, widowed status, lower income, rural residence, unemployment/disability, and Medicaid/Medicare insurance were associated with lower odds of receiving PRP. Upper-middle income, contracted insurance, and treatment at the Mayo-Arizona and Mayo-Florida sites were associated with higher odds. The model achieved areas under the curve of 0.83 (training set) and 0.82 (testing set). Random forest analysis identified distance to care, age, area deprivation index, income, and treatment site as top predictors, with areas under the curve of 0.92 (training) and 0.87 (testing). Conclusion: The current study demonstrated that both models discerned key barriers (income, distance to care, retirement status) and facilitators (regional differences) affecting PRP accessibility. These findings provide potential policy initiatives aimed at improving PRP access for underserved demographics, offering a quantitative blueprint to foster equitable access to regenerative therapies for knee OA.

Background Current literature has shown benefit of radial pressure wave (RPW) and focused shockwave (FSW) for management of proximal hamstring tendinopathy (PHT), although there remains a lack of consensus on treatment parameters and optimal patient positioning. Purpose The purpose of this narrative review and clinical commentary is to report what has been described for patient positioning during treatment of PHT with RPW or FSW and propose an alternative side lying approach. Methods A search was conducted of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE electronic databases for studies published from January 2005 to January 2026. Key search terms included proximal hamstring tendinopathy, shockwave therapy, extracorporeal shockwave treatment, radial pressure wave, hamstring tendinosis, hamstring tendinitis, and hamstring pain. Studies were included if they evaluated RPW or FSW for the treatment of PHT. Results Six manuscripts were identified for inclusion, two randomized controlled trials (RCT), two retrospective reviews, and two case reports; a total of 217 patients (145 female, 72 male) with PHT were treated with RPW and/or FSW. One RCT provided an in-depth description of patient positioning during shockwave treatment with the patient supine, with the hip and knee flexed, compared to other manuscripts detailing clinical focusing techniques only. One case report involving a para swimmer included a figure of treatment with the patient in a prone position. Improvement in patient reported outcomes with RPW and/or FSW was noted, with one RCT showing no differences between physiotherapy compared to RPW and FSW treatment. Conclusion RPW and FSW have some evidence regarding their benefits for treatment of PHT but controlled studies are limited and no consensus on treatment protocols or patient positioning during treatment have been determined. The authors’ preferred approach in treating PHT involves having the patient side lying with the hip and knee flexed to allow patient and clinician comfort while also creating compression of the proximal hamstring about the ischial tuberosity. It remains unclear how variance in patient positioning affects patient-reported outcomes. Future studies using RPW and FSW should include documentation of patient positioning when evaluating RPW and FSW efficacy. Level of Evidence 5

Abstract Within the field of regenerative medicine for musculoskeletal regenerative medicine, orthobiologics and cellular therapies are evolving at a rapid pace. Exuberant ideas for new treatments often outpace their scientific evidence, which may create confusion for both patients and providers on what treatments are evidence based. Orthobiologics and cellular therapies are a subset of regenerative therapies focused on treatment of musculoskeletal disease. For the field of orthobiologics to progress, it is essential that musculoskeletal providers understand the necessary components for translating novel therapies from discovery into practice. In this article, we provide an overview of both the lexicon and regulatory processes related to translation of orthobiologics and cellular therapies along with a comparison of how to translate orthobiologics and related novel cellular therapies in hopes to dispel misinformation while promoting responsible advancements and ethical practices in medicine.

Abstract Background: Chronic dry eye disease (CDED) is a condition of the ocular surface that causes discomfort, visual disturbance, conjunctival injection, and photophobia. A debilitating form of CDED in patients undergoing allogeneic bone marrow transplant results from ocular graft versus host disease (oGVHD). Autologous serum eye drops (ASED) have beneficial effects on the ocular surface. The aim of this study is to compare improvements in symptoms and function in a cohort of CDED patients with ocular GVHD treated with ASED and a cohort of CDED without GVHD (non-GVHD). We additionally report on some of the biologic characteristics of one specific ASED formulation. Materials and Methods: A total of 71 patients seen in a multi-specialty ophthalmology practice in a university hospital setting receiving ASEDs underwent ocular surface disease index (OSDI) and visual function questionnaire measurements at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Twenty-four ASED samples were studied for biomarkers. Results: Compared to baseline, OSDI scores significantly decreased after 3 and 6 months of ASED treatment in both oGVHD and non-GVHD CDED groups. Additionally, visual function questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) subscales (ocular pain, distance activity, driving, role difficulties, dependency, and mental health) were significantly improved at 3 months and 6 months, and social functioning was improved at 6 months. The majority of patients in both groups had severe disease. Improvements in patient-reported outcomes were greater in the oGHD CDED group than in the non-GVHD CDED group There were no reported complications. Conclusion: ASED is safe and effective in patients with CDED due to oGVHD and non-GVHD. Those with oGVHD had greater improvements. These findings potentiate the wider adoption of this therapy in CDED patients and warrant additional studies into the biochemical makeup of ASED.

Background: The regenerative properties of platelet growth factors make platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) an attractive modality for treatment of aging skin. The main objective of this study was to determine efficacy and safety of PRP injections and microneedling compared with saline injections in women with aging skin of the face. Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 18 women with facial aging were randomized to receive either PRP injections to the unilateral face and saline injections to the contralateral side, or vice versa. Microneedling was performed after injections on the entire face. Physician assessment, photographs, and treatment satisfaction questionnaires were used for outcome assessment at baseline and 16- and 24-week follow-ups. Results: There was no evidence of improvement and suggestion of worsening in skin laxity and rhytides from baseline to weeks 4, 16, and 24 for PRP and saline (all P ≤ 0.004) and no notable difference in skin roughness between baseline and follow-up time points for PRP or saline (all P ≥ 0.19). The degree of change in skin laxity, rhytides, and skin roughness from baseline to follow-up time points was similar for PRP and saline. All patients experienced some degree of pain/discomfort and burning/stinging sensation at treatment weeks 4, 8, and 12 for both saline and PRP. Conclusions: PRP injections did not seem to be effective for treatment of aging skin of the face in women, with no notable macroscopic improvement in appearance when compared with baseline or saline injections. Advanced age of study participants (>45 years) and less-sensitive methods of evaluation may be potential contributing factors to the lack of detected response.

Background: The presence of various growth factors in platelets makes platelet-rich plasma (PRP) a powerful tool in the stimulation of collagen regeneration in aging skin. The main objective of this study was to determine efficacy and safety of PRP compared with saline solution in women with aging skin of the hands. Methods: In this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 18 women with hand aging received PRP injections every 4 weeks into the unilateral dorsal hand for 12 weeks total; with saline injections into the contralateral hand in a randomized, controlled, single-blind fashion. Physician assessment, photographs, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used for assessment at baseline and at 12-week and 24-week follow-up. Results: The majority of patients reported pain and discomfort along with a burning/stinging sensation in both PRP- and saline-treated hands, with no significant differences noted in any patient outcome measures between the 2 treatments (all P ≥ 0.25). No differences were reliably detected between the treatment hands by a blinded investigator comparing before-and-after clinical photographs of the hands. Conclusions: Three injections of PRP spaced 4 weeks apart did not appear to be effective for treatment of aging skin of the hands in women, with no noted difference as compared with baseline, or saline injection. Although age older than 45 years may be a factor accounting for nonresponse (ie, subtle skin changes are difficult to appreciate, and possible limited platelet regenerative capacity in advanced age), it appears that PRP is not a reliable cosmetic option for management of hand aging. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Introduction: Direct to consumer stem cell and regenerative interventions (SCRIs) for various medical conditions have increased in popularity due to unmet medical needs and the promise of SCRIs to meet those needs. These interventions may have varying levels of safety and efficacy data and many lack sufficient scientific data to be marketed. The direct to consumer SCRI industry has received significant attention due to potential physical, economic, and emotional harms to patients. Patients may seek the counsel of their primary care providers when considering stem cell therapy for their condition. Methods: Here we describe strategies primary care providers can utilize when counseling patients. Results: Although we recommend constructing these discussions around individual patients’ needs, one can utilize a general approach consisting of 4 parts. First, providers should recognize what information the patient is seeking and what is their understanding of stem cell and regenerative medicine. Next, providers should convey evidence-based information at the level of patients understanding so that they are aware of the risks, benefits, and descriptions of possible procedures. Throughout the conversations, attempts should be made to guide patients to a trusted resource that can provide additional information. Finally, providers should make an effort to address misinformation in a way that is nonjudgmental and patient-centered to make the patient feel safe and comfortable. Conclusion: Effectively communicating risk information by primary care providers to patients is important given the harms reported from direct-to-consumer SCRIs. Correcting misinformation remains a priority when discussing SCRI’s. Providers should strive to offer patients with additional resources such as the opportunity for consultation with a specialist or a consultation service dedicated to informing patients about regenerative medicine.

BACKGROUNDAndrogenic alopecia (AGA) is a common hair loss disorder. Studies have demonstrated successful treatment with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in men, but studies in women are few.OBJECTIVETo evaluate PRP in the treatment of AGA in women, compared with topical minoxidil.MATERIALS AND METHODSTwenty women with AGA received topical minoxidil for 12 weeks and injectable PRP for 12 weeks in a randomized crossover design with an 8-week washout between treatments. Standardized TrichoScan analysis and quality-of-life questionnaires were assessed at baseline and 12-week follow-up for each treatment.RESULTSAfter PRP, significant increases from baseline to Week 12 in TrichoScan analysis hair count (p= .002) and vellus hair density (p= .009) occurred. However, minoxidil resulted in significant increases in hair count (p< .001), vellus hair density (p= .03), terminal hair density (p= .004), and cumulative thickness (p= .004). Several quality of life responses improved from baseline to Week 12 after PRP treatment, whereas no improvements were noted after minoxidil.CONCLUSIONPlatelet-rich plasma is an effective treatment for hair regrowth in female AGA, although not as effective as minoxidil. However, the improved quality of life responses after PRP, but not minoxidil, suggest a potential overall greater degree of satisfaction with PRP.LEVELS OF EVIDENCEI.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATIONNCT03488108.