Intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma decrease pain and improve functional outcomes than sham saline in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE

To compare the long-term clinical efficacy provided by intra-articular injections of either Pure Platelet-rich Plasma (P-PRP) or sham saline to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

METHODS

This prospective, parallel-group, double-blind, multi-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with KOA from orthopedic departments at nine public hospitals (five tertiary medical centers, four secondary medical units) starting January 1, 2014, with follow-up completed on February 28, 2021. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2021, to July 15, 2021. Three sessions (1 every week) of P-PRP or sham saline injected by physicians. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) at 3, 6, 12, 24, 60 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, intra-articular biochemical marker concentrations, cartilage volume, and adverse events. Laboratory of each hospital analyzed the content and quality of P-PRP.

RESULTS

610 participants (59% women) with KOA who received three sessions of P-PRP (n = 308, mean age 53.91 years) or sham saline (n = 302, mean age 54.51 years) injections completed the trial. The mean platelet concentration in PRP is 4.3-fold (95% confidence interval 3.6-4.5) greater than that of whole blood. Both groups showed significant improvements in IKDC, WOMAC, and VAS scores at 1 month of follow-up. However, only the P-PRP group showed a sustained improvement in clinical outcome measurements at month 24 (P < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences between the P-PRP and sham saline groups in all clinical outcome measurements at each follow-up time point (P < 0.001). The benefit of P-PRP was clinically better in terms of WOMAC-pain, WOMAC-physical function and WOMAC-total at 6, 12, 24, and 60 months of follow-up. No clinically significant differences between treatments were documented in terms of WOMAC-stiffness at any follow-up. A clinically significant difference favoring P-PRP group against saline in terms of IKDC and VAS scores was documented at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months of follow-up. At 6 months after injection, TNF-α and IL-1β levels in synovial fluid were lower in the P-PRP group (P < 0.001). Tibiofemoral cartilage volume decreased by a mean value of 1171 mm in the P-PRP group and 2311 mm in the saline group over 60 months and the difference between the group was statistically significant (intergroup difference, 1140 mm, 95% CI - 79 to 1320 mm; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomized clinical trial of patients with KOA, P-PRP was superior to sham saline in treating KOA. P-PRP was effective for achieving at least 24 months of symptom relief and slowing the progress of KOA, with both P-PRP and saline being comparable in safety profiles.