Objective Bone marrow aspiration and concentration (BMAC) is becoming a more common regenerative therapy for musculoskeletal pathology. In our current pilot study, we studied patients with mild-to-moderate bilateral knee osteoarthritis, compared pain at 12-month follow-up between BMAC-injected and saline-injected knees, and examined cartilage appearance measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2 quantitative mapping. Design Twenty-five patients with mild-to-moderate bilateral osteoarthritic knee pain were randomized to receive BMAC into one knee and saline placebo into the other. Bone marrow was aspirated from the iliac crests, concentrated in an automated centrifuge, combined with platelet-poor plasma for knee injection, and compared with saline injection into the contralateral knee. Primary outcome measures were T2 MRI cartilage mapping at 6-month and Visual Analog Scale and Osteoarthritis Research Society International Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain scores and radiographs at 12-month follow-up. Results Constant, intermittent, and overall knee pain remained significantly decreased from baseline at 12-month follow-up (all P ⩽ 0.01), with no apparent difference between BMAC- and saline-treated knees (all P ⩾ 0.54). A similar significant increase from baseline to 12-month follow-up regarding quality of life was observed for both BMAC- and saline-treated knees (all P ⩽ 0.04). T2 quantitative MRI mapping showed no significant changes as a result of treatment. Conclusions BMAC is safe to perform and relieves pain from knee arthritis but showed no superiority to saline injection at 12-month follow-up. MRI cartilage sequences failed to show regenerative benefit with single BMAC injection. The mechanisms of action that led to pain relief remain unclear and warrant further studies.

Aim: To address the unmet needs of patients interested in regenerative medicine, Mayo Clinic created a Regenerative Medicine Consult Service (RMCS). We describe the service and patient satisfaction. Materials & methods: We analyzed RMCS databases through retrospective chart analysis and performed qualitative interviews with patients. Results: The average patient was older to elderly and seeking information about regenerative options for their condition. Patients reported various conditions with osteoarthritis being most common. Over a third of consults included discussions about unproven interventions. About a third of patients received a clinical or research referral. Patients reported the RMCS as useful and the consultant as knowledgeable. Conclusion: An institutional RMCS can meet patients’ informational needs and support the responsible translation of regenerative medicine.

BACKGROUND Androgenic 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. OBJECTIVE To evaluate PRP in the treatment of AGA in women, compared with topical minoxidil. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty 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. RESULTS After 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. CONCLUSION Platelet-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 EVIDENCE I. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT03488108.