This month’s BJSM is hot off the press!

Lars Engebretsen and Kathrin Steffen Warm-Up by introducing us to the International Olympic Committee recommendations and discussing the controversy of PRP.

In this BJSM issue the IOC consensus group caution the use of PRP in elite athletes as we await the outcomes of robust scientific evidence. It addresses the history and what needs to be done in the future for PRP to be  routinely integrated into our practice.

Visit the December IPHP issue of BJSM to find out more. IPHP stands for Injury Prevention and Health Protection – the BJSM publishes 4 special issues on this topic annually in partnership with the IOC. Edited by Lars Engebretsen.

Feel free to post a comment below.

Achilles Tendinopathy is a major clinical problem.

Injections with Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) improve tissue repair and tendon structure. PRP also increases blood supply to the tendon collagen tissue by stimulating blood vessels to grow.

But, what does this mean for patients with Achilles Tendinopathy? What are the functional outcomes: Does it restore the tendon to its pre-injury strength? Can they run faster, jump higher? Or is an exercise programme just as effective?

de Vos and team looked at this issue in detail. With their randomized control trial, the effect of PRP and eccentric exercises on the Archilles tendon are evaluated using ultrasound techniques.

How do the current findings influence our practice?

Read their paper in BJSM Online First to find out more.

The following is a letter to BJSM from Ralph S. Bovard MD:

Dear BJSM,

I have a question regarding the use of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP) injections for tendinopathies of various sorts.  This procedure has been gaining favor with sports medicine clinicians for use in athletes with tendon injuries that are slow to respond or resistant to conservative therapies.  Despite the fact that it would appear to be a seemingly innocent matter of re-injecting one’s own spun down blood products, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) most recent 2009 Prohibited List, if taken literally, would make it an illegal procedure for international competition or national competition under any NGB’s who endorse WADA.  The culprit substances in this case would be growth hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factors (IGF-1), and Mechano Growth Factors (MGF’s).

The relevant section from the code is included below:

S2. HORMONES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES

The following substances and their releasing factors, are prohibited:
1. Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents (e.g. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoietin (dEPO), hematide);
2. Growth Hormone (GH), Insulin-like Growth Factors (e.g. IGF-1), Mechano Growth Factors (MGFs);
3. Chorionic Gonadotrophin (CG) and Luteinizing Hormone (LH) in males;
4. Insulins;
5. Corticotrophins;
and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

[Comment to class S2:
Unless the Athlete can demonstrate that the concentration was due to a physiological or pathological condition, a Sample will be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance (as listed above) where the concentration of the Prohibited Substance or its metabolites and/or relevant ratios or markers in the Athlete's Sample satisfies positivity criteria established by WADA or otherwise so exceeds the range of values normally found in humans that it is unlikely to be consistent with normal endogenous production.

If a laboratory reports, using a reliable analytical method, that the Prohibited Substance is of exogenous origin, the Sample will be deemed to contain a Prohibited Substance and shall be reported as an Adverse Analytical Finding.] The Prohibited List 2009 20 September 2008

It would thus seem that PRP is banned under “Class S2: Hormones and Related Substances”, rather than under “M1: Blood Doping”.  The re-delivery of blood is prohibited under blood doping; regardless of whether it is endogenous or exogenous.  There is no mention or attempt to discriminate between blood products that are re-injected immediately into soft tissues versus those that are shelved and re-infused by IV weeks or months later in the typical manner of “blood doping”.

The argument is made that while PRP indeed delivers  the athletes own growth factors to a musculoskeletal site, the platelets are concentrated to a level not normally achieved physiologically, and they are activated either chemically (via calcium addition) or mechanically (centrifugation) and thus degranulate  rapidly and deliver a bolus of factors never “normally” or physiologically achieved.

Given this stance it would seem that the use of platelet rich plasma injections is clearly prohibited.   Tendinopathies are not life threatening or otherwise serious medical conditions and as such the rational of applying for a therapeutic use exemption (TUE) would seem a difficult argument.   Yet how would PRP injections be detected other than by admission?  What is the opinion of the BJSM readership regarding this topic?

Thank you,

Raph S. Bovard MD