Search

Aims and objectives: The aim of this study is to systematically review randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) studying various types of regenerative medicine methods (such as platelet-rich plasma, stromal vascular fraction, cell therapy, conditioned media, etc.) in treating specific dermatologic diseases. Rejuvenation, scarring, wound healing, and other secondary conditions of skin damage were not investigated in this study. Method: Major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were meticulously searched for RCTs up to January 2024, focusing on regenerative medicine interventions for specific dermatologic disorders (such as androgenetic alopecia, vitiligo, alopecia areata, etc.). Key data extracted encompassed participant characteristics and sample sizes, types of regenerative therapy, treatment efficacy, and adverse events. Results: In this systematic review, 64 studies involving a total of 2888 patients were examined. Women constituted 44.8% of the study population, while men made up 55.2% of the participants, with an average age of 27.64 years. The most frequently studied skin diseases were androgenetic alopecia (AGA) (45.3%) and vitiligo (31.2%). The most common regenerative methods investigated for these diseases were PRP and the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells, respectively. Studies reported up to 68.4% improvement in AGA and up to 71% improvement in vitiligo. Other diseases included in the review were alopecia areata, melasma, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA), inflammatory acne vulgaris, chronic telogen effluvium, erosive oral lichen planus, and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Regenerative medicine was found to be an effective treatment option in all of these studies, along with other methods. The regenerative medicine techniques investigated in this study comprised the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells, isolated melanocyte transplantation, cell transplantation from hair follicle origins, melanocyte–keratinocyte suspension in PRP, conditioned media injection, a combination of PRP and basic fibroblast growth factor, intravenous injection of mesenchymal stem cells, concentrated growth factor, stromal vascular fraction (SVF), a combination of PRP and SVF, and preserving hair grafts in PRP. Conclusion: Regenerative medicine holds promise as a treatment for specific dermatologic disorders. To validate our findings, it is recommended to conduct numerous clinical trials focusing on various skin conditions. In our study, we did not explore secondary skin lesions like scars or ulcers. Therefore, assessing the effectiveness of this treatment method for addressing these conditions would necessitate a separate study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite patient demand for stem cell therapies (SCTs) for musculoskeletal conditions, there remains limited research on why patients seek SCTs or their sources of information. We employ three questions into a consult intake form: (1) Why are you interested in stem cell treatment for your condition? (2) How did you find out about stem cell treatment for your condition? (3) Have you contacted a stem cell clinic? Responses analyzed, using a qualitative content analysis approach to identify themes reveal many patients seek SCTs to treat pain or delay surgery which may align with some current clinical evidence while other patients express motivations as expected outcomes (e.g., SCTs are better than standard of care or can regenerate tissue) which are not supported by current medical evidence. These differences suggests that patient-centered counseling may help patients by addressing misconceptions and increasing health literacy about expected outcomes of SCTs for treating musculoskeletal conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMC) are being used clinically as therapeutic agents for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of BMC and PRP on pain and function in patients with knee osteoarthritis up to 24 months after injection. It was hypothesized that patients receiving BMC would have better sustained outcomes than those receiving PRP. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 90 participants aged between 18 and 80 years with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-3) were randomized into 2 study groups: PRP and BMC. Both groups completed the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire before and 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 months after a single intra-articular injection of leukocyte-rich PRP or BMC. A linear mixed-effects model was performed to quantify the effects over time and the difference between the groups. This model has the random effect for time to assess the extent in which the change over time differs from one person to another. Results: An overall 84 patients completed questionnaires from baseline to 12 months; however, 17 patients (n = 9; PRP group) were lost to follow-up at 18 months and 25 (n = 13; PRP group) at 24 months. There were no statistically significant differences in IKDC (P =.909; 95% CI, −6.26 to 7.03) or WOMAC (P =.789; 95% CI, −6.26 to 4.77) scores over time between the groups. Both groups had significantly improved IKDC (P <.001; 95% CI, 0.275-0.596) and WOMAC (P =.001; 95% CI, −0.41 to −0.13) scores from baseline to 24 months after the injection. These improvements plateaued at 3 months and were sustained for 24 months after the injection, with no difference between PRP and BMC at any time point. Conclusions: For the treatment of osteoarthritis, PRP and BMC performed similarly out to 24 months. BMC was not superior to PRP. Registration: NCT03289416 (ClincalTrials.gov identifier). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biology of regenerative medicine has steadily matured, providing the foundation for randomized clinical trials and translation into validated applications. Today, the growing regenerative armamentarium is poised to impact disease management, yet a gap in training next-generation healthcare providers, equipped to adopt and deliver regenerative options, has been exposed. This special report highlights a multiyear experience in developing and deploying a comprehensive regenerative curriculum for medical trainees. For academicians and institutions invested in establishing a formalized regenerative medicine syllabus, the Regenerative Medicine and Surgery course provides a patient-focused prototype for next-generation learners, offering a dedicated educational experience that encompasses discovery, development and delivery of regenerative solutions. Built with the vision of an evolving regenerative care model, this transdisciplinary endeavor could serve as an adoptable education portal to advance the readiness of the emergent regenerative healthcare workforce globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sports injuries and secondary joint problems, mainly of the knee, are common, especially in sports associated with high impact activities and/or torsional loading. The consequences can be career ending in elite athletes and reduce exercise activities in recreational people. Various cell products can be injected intra-articularly. First, fresh cellular mixtures can be prepared and injected in the same day, such as stromal vascular fraction of adipose tissue (SVF) and bone marrow concentrates (BMCs). Second, autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) can be isolated from BMCs or SVF and, after several weeks of laboratory expansion, several millions of MSCs can be obtained for intra-articular injection. Finally, allogeneic MSCs from the bone marrow, adipose tissue or perinatal tissues of selected donors constitute an 'off-the-shelf' experimental treatment for injection delivery in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. The perceived efficacy of all these products is based on the hypothesis of a paracrine mechanism of action: when living cells are delivered within the joint, they establish a molecular cross-talk with immune cells and local cell phenotypes, thereby modulating inflammation with subsequent modifications in the catabolic/degenerative milieu. Current clinical research examines whether injection delivery of MSCs translates into actual clinical benefits. Overall, clinical studies lack the quality needed to answer major research questions, including clinical and structural efficacy, optimal cell dose, and number of injections and specific protocol for cell delivery. Poor experimental designs are exacerbated by the diversity of patient phenotypes that hinder comparisons between treatments. Further understanding of disease pathology is paramount to develop potent function assays and understand whether the host tissue, the cell product or both should be primed before MSCs are injected intra-articularly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]