Search

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous preparation that has been claimed to improve healing and mechanobiological properties of tendons both in vitro and in vivo. In this sub-study from the PATH-2 (PRP in Achilles Tendon Healing-2) trial, we report the cellular and growth factor content and quality of the Leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) (N = 103) prepared using a standardized commercial preparation method across 19 different UK centers. Baseline whole blood cell counts (red cells, leukocyte and platelets) demonstrated that the two groups were well-matched. L-PRP analysis gave a mean platelet count of 852.6 x 109/L (SD 438.96), a mean leukocyte cell count of 15.13 x 109/L (SD 10.28) and a mean red blood cell count of 0.91 x 1012/L (SD 1.49). The activation status of the L-PRP gave either low or high expression levels of the degranulation marker CD62p before and after ex-vivo platelet activation respectively. TGF-β, VEGF, PDGF, IGF and FGFb mean concentrations were 131.92 ng/ml, 0.98 ng/ml, 55.34 ng/ml, 78.2 ng/ml and 111.0 pg/ml respectively with expected correlations with both platelet and leukocyte counts. While PATH-2 results demonstrated that there was no evidence L-PRP is effective for improving clinical outcomes at 24 weeks after Achilles tendon rupture, our findings support that the majority of L-PRP properties were within the method specification and performance.

Abstract Background There has been a recent steep growth in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use for musculoskeletal conditions, but findings from high quality clinical trial data are lacking in the literature. Here, we describe the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the Platelet-rich plasma in Achilles Tendon Healing 2 (PATH-2) trial. Methods PATH-2 is a pragmatic, parallel-group, multi-centre, double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled, superiority trial. The study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of PRP in acute Achilles tendon rupture in terms of muscle-tendon function. Patients are identified in the orthopaedic/trauma outpatient clinic. The primary outcome is muscle-tendon work capacity from the Heel Rise Endurance Test result, expressed as the Limb Symmetry Index (work, in joules), at 24 weeks post randomisation. Multivariate linear regression adjusting for the stratification factors (centre and age) and additional prognostic factors will be used to investigate the adjusted effect of the intervention. The analysis will be by modified intention-to-treat. Sensitivity analysis will assess the internal validity of the trial results by performing a per-protocol analysis. Safety will be summarised by treatment arm for all patients who started treatment. Secondary patient-reported outcome measures will be analysed using linear mixed effects models to allow all data collected at all follow-up points to be considered. Missing data will be summarised and reported by treatment arm. Missing data imputation will be performed, if appropriate. Discussion The PATH-2 trial will be reported in accordance with the CONSORT statement. This SAP publication will avoid bias arising from prior knowledge of the study results. Any changes or deviations from the current SAP will be described and justified in the final report. Trial registration ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN54992179, assigned 12 January 2015. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02302664, received 18 November 2014. UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio Database: ID 17850.

Background: Achilles tendon rupture affects > 11,000 people each year in the UK, leading to prolonged periods away from work, sports and social activities. Traditionally, the ruptured tendon is held still in a plaster cast for ≥ 8 weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative treatment that allows patients to mobilise earlier, but there is little evidence about how bracing affects patients’ recovery. Objectives: To measure the Achilles Tendon Rupture Score, quality of life, complications and resource use of patients receiving non-operative treatment for an Achilles tendon rupture treated with plaster cast compared with those treated with functional bracing. Design: This was a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, two-group superiority trial. Setting: The setting was 39 NHS hospitals. Participants: A total of 540 adult patients treated non-operatively for Achilles tendon rupture were randomised from July 2016 to May 2018. Exclusion criteria included presenting after 14 days, having had previous rupture and being unable to complete questionnaires. Interventions: A total of 266 participants had a plaster cast applied, with their toes initially pointing to the floor. The cast was changed over 8 weeks to bring the foot into a walking position. A total of 274 patients had a functional brace that facilitated immediate weight-bearing. The foot position was adjusted within the brace over the same 8-week period. Main outcome measures: Achilles Tendon Rupture Score is patient reported and assesses symptoms and physical activity related to the Achilles tendon (score 0–100, with 100 being the best possible outcome). The secondary outcomes were quality of life, complications and resource use at 8 weeks and at 3, 6 and 9 months. Results: Participants had a mean age of 48.7 years, were predominantly male (79%) and had ruptured their tendon during sports (70%). Over 93% of participants completed follow-up. There was no statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 9 months post injury (–1.38, 95% confidence interval –4.9 to 2.1). There was a statistically significant difference in Achilles Tendon Rupture Score at 8 weeks post injury in favour of the functional brace group (5.53, 95% confidence interval 2.0 to 9.1), but not at 3 or 6 months post injury. Quality of life showed the same pattern, with a statistically significant difference at 8 weeks post injury but not at later time points. Complication profiles were similar in both groups. Re-rupture of the tendon occurred 17 times in the plaster cast group and 13 times in the functional brace group. There was no difference in resource use. Conclusions: This trial provides strong evidence that early weight-bearing in a functional brace provides similar outcomes to traditional plaster casting and is safe for patients receiving non-operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture. The probability that functional bracing is cost-effective exceeds 95% for the base-case imputed analysis, assuming a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. On average, functional brace is associated with lower costs (–£103, 95% confidence interval –£290 to £84) and more quality-adjusted life-years (0.015, 95% confidence interval –0.0013 to 0.030) than plaster cast. Limitations: Some patients declined to participate in the trial, but only a small proportion of these declined because they had a preference for one treatment or another. Overall, 58% of eligible patients agreed to participate, so the participants are broadly representative of the population under investigation. Future work: Although the UK Study of Tendo Achilles Rehabilitation provides guidance with regard to early management, rehabilitation following Achilles tendon rupture is prolonged and further research is required to define the optimal mode of rehabilitation after the initial cast/brace has been removed. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN62639639. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Achilles tendon rupture (ATR) has a long healing period, which is challenging for patients and clinicians. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous concentration of platelets thought to improve tendon function recovery. Although preliminary research has indicated positive effects, there is, as yet, no evidence of clinical efficacy from adequately powered robust clinical trials. Objectives: The objectives were to determine the clinical efficacy of PRP in patients with acute ATR using an objective mechanical muscle–tendon function measure and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine which PRP components contribute to its mechanism. Design: This was a multicentre, parallel-group, participant- and outcome assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing PRP with placebo. Two embedded substudies investigated the PRP’s quality and composition and its effects on healing tendon tissues. Setting: This trial was set in trauma and orthopaedic surgery departments in 19 NHS hospitals in England and Wales. Participants: Adults with acute ATR presenting within 12 days of injury to be treated non-surgically were eligible. Patients with platelet dysfunction or leg functional deficiency were excluded. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to the PRP injection group or the placebo group (dry needle in the rupture gap) by central computer-based randomisation using minimisation, stratified by centre and age. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the Limb Symmetry Index (LSI) of work during the heel-rise endurance test at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes measures, collected at 4, 7, 13 and 24 weeks, were repetitions, maximum heel-rise height, Achilles tendon Total Rupture Score (ATRS), quality of life (as measured using the Short Form questionnaire-12 items version 2), pain and participant goal attainment. Needle biopsies of the affected tendon zone were taken under ultrasound guidance at 6 weeks from 16 participants from one centre. Whole blood was analysed for cell count. PRP was analysed for cell count, platelet activation and growth factor concentration. The primary analysis was intention to treat. Results: A total of 230 participants were randomised: 114 to the PRP group (103 treated) and 116 to the placebo group (all treated). One participant withdrew after randomisation but before the intervention. At 24 weeks, 201 out of 230 participants (87.4%) completed the primary outcome and 216 out of 230 participants (93.9%) completed the PROMs. The treatment groups had similar participant characteristics. At 24 weeks, there was no difference in work LSI (mean difference –3.872; 95% confidence interval –10.454 to 2.710; p = 0.231), ATRS, pain or goal attainment between PRP- and placebo-injected participants. There were no differences between the groups in any PROM at any time point or in complication rates, including re-rupture and deep-vein thrombosis. There was no correlation between work LSI and platelet activation in PRP, or erythrocyte, leucocyte or platelet counts in whole blood or PRP. Biopsies showed similar cellularity and vascularity between groups. Conclusions: This trial design and standardised PRP preparation gives the first robust RCT evidence about PRP’s role in managing ATR, which suggests that PRP offers no patient benefit. Equally robust evidence to investigate PRP application in tendon and soft tissue injuries is required. The 24-month follow-up will be completed in April 2020. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN54992179. Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. The trial was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, and the NIHR Fellowship programme.