Autologous conditioned serum for chronic pain in patients with osteoarthritis: A feasibility observational study

Abstract

Background

Autologous conditioned serum is a product of blood origin, with fragmented evidence of therapeutic properties in osteoarthritis chronic pain. This pilot observational prospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a treatment with conditional autologous serum (ACS) in patients with severe chronic pain and grade I-III osteoarthritis and to describe its cytokine content.

Methods

We prospectively collected data on consecutive patients affected by osteoarthritis grade I to III and treated with four weekly injections of ACS at our outpatient pain service. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the visual analogic scale (VAS). Additional outcomes were symptoms evaluated using joint district-specific scales. The study also evaluated concentrations of 48 cytokines and chemokines involved in the balance pro-inflammation/anti-inflammation and tissue repair in the ACS.

Results

We included 26 patients, mostly female (65.4%), with a median age of 63.5 years [IQR 58.25–73]. A median reduction of VAS of −3 cm [−5; −1.25] was observed 6 months after the first injection of ACS. The analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the values of VAS (p < .01; X² = 69.6; df = 6, N = 26) at the different time points. No adverse events were observed or reported by patients during the entire study period.

Conclusions

Conditional autologous serum may be a feasible option for patients with chronic pain due to grade I-III osteoarthritis refractory to other treatments. These preliminary findings should be confirmed in studies with adequate design.

Keywords

osteoarthritis autologous conditioned serum visual analogic scale short form health survey-36

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Hadi

McHugh

Closs

. Impact of chronic pain on patients’ quality of life: a comparative mixed-methods study. J Patient Exp 2019; 6(2): 133–141.

Perrot

. Osteoarthritis pain. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2015; 29(1): 90–97.

Wehling

Moser

Frisbie

, et al. Autologous conditioned serum in the treatment of orthopedic diseases the orthokine therapy. Nov Ther Strateg 2007; 21(5): 323–332.

Desai

Mansfield

Robinson

, et al. Regenerative medicine for axial and radicular spine-related pain: a narrative review. Pain Pract 2020; 20(4): 437–453.

Goldring

Berenbaum

. Emerging targets in osteoarthritis therapy. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2015; 22: 51–63.

Conaghan

Peloso

Everett

, et al. Inadequate pain relief and large functional loss among patients with knee osteoarthritis: evidence from a prospective multinational longitudinal study of osteoarthritis real-world therapies. Rheumatol (United Kingdom) 2015; 54(2): 270–277.

Evans

Chevalier

Wehling

. Autologous conditioned serum. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am 2016; 27(4): 893–908.

Becker

Heidersdorf

Drewlo

, et al. Efficacy of epidural perineural injections with autologous conditioned serum for lumbar radicular compression. Spine 2007; 32(17): 1803–1808.

Godek

Szajkowski

Golicki

. Evaluation of the effectiveness of orthokine therapy – Retrospective analysis of 1000 cases. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2020; 22(2): 107–119.

10.

Raeissadat

Rayegani

Sohrabi

, et al. Effectiveness of intra-articular autologous-conditioned serum injection in knee osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis study. Futur Sci OA 2021; 7(9): FSO759.

11.

Price

McGrath

Rafii

, et al. The validation of visual analogue scales as ratio scale measures for chronic and experimental pain. Pain 1983; 17: 45–56.

12.

Ponkilainen

Häkkinen

Uimonen

, et al. Validation of the western ontario and mcmaster universities osteoarthritis index in patients having undergone ankle fracture surgery. J Foot Ankle Surg 2019; 58(6): 1100–1107.

13.

Bellamy

Buchanan

Goldsmith

, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15(12): 1833–1840.

14.

Salaffi

Leardini

Canesi

, et al. Reliability and validity of the western Ontario and McMaster universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis index in Italian patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthr Cartil 2003; 11(8): 551–560.

15.

Gummesson

Ward

Atroshi

. The shortened disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand questionnaire (QuickDASH): Validity and reliability based on responses within the full-length DASH. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2006; 7: 44.

16.

Padua

Ceccarelli

, et al. Italian version of the disability of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Hand Surg Am 2003; 28: 179–186.

17.

Monticone

Baiardi

Ferrari

, et al. Development of the Italian version of the oswestry disability index (ODI-I): A cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity study. Spine 2009; 34(19): 2090–2095.

18.

Vianin

. Psychometric properties and clinical usefulness of the oswestry disability index. J Chiropr Med 2008; 7(4): 161–163.

19.

Brazier

Harper

Jones

NMB

, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. Br Med J 1992; 305(6846): 160–164.

20.

Schag

Heinrich

Ganz

. Karnofsky performance status revisited: Reliability, validity, and guidelines. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2(3): 187–193.

21.

Mor

Laliberte

Morris

, et al. The karnofsky performance status scale: an examination of its reliability and validity in a research setting. Cancer 1984; 53(9): 2002–2007.

22.

Boonstra

Preuper

HRS

Balk

, et al. Cut-off points for mild, moderate, and severe pain on the visual analogue scale for pain in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain 2014; 155(12): 2545–2550.

23.

Carreon

Glassman

Campbell

, et al. Neck disability index, short form-36 physical component summary, and pain scales for neck and arm pain: the minimum clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after cervical spine fusion. Spine J 2010; 10(6): 469–474.

24.

Ogura

Yakoub

Christ

, et al.

What are the minimum clinically important differences in sf-36 scores in patients with orthopaedic oncologic conditions?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478(9): 2148–2158.

25.

Clement

Bardgett

Weir

, et al.

What is the minimum clinically important difference for the womac index after TKA?

Clin Orthop Relat Res 2018; 476(10): 2005–2014.

26.

Vanti

Ferrari

Villafañe

, et al. Responsiveness and minimum important change of the oswestry disability Index in Italian subjects with symptomatic lumbar spondylolisthesis. J Orthop Traumatol 2017; 18(2): 145–150.

27.

Franchignoni

Vercelli

Giordano

, et al. Minimal clinically important difference of the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand outcome measure (DASH) and its shortened version (quickDASH). J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014; 44(1): 30–39.

28.

Chapman

Reyes

Gupta

. Normal physiological levels of human cytokines using bio-plex pro^TM cytokine assays. Bull Bio-rad Lab 2010: 6029.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.36 MB