Fengfeng Wang, Fei Meng, Timmy Chi Wing Chan, Stanley Sau Ching Wong
{"title":"富血小板血浆治疗慢性非癌性疼痛:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Fengfeng Wang, Fei Meng, Timmy Chi Wing Chan, Stanley Sau Ching Wong","doi":"10.1007/s40122-025-00751-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic noncancer pain represents a significant global health challenge, contributing to disability, lost productivity, diminished quality of life, and substantial socioeconomic burden. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for managing chronic pain. However, a comprehensive assessment of its efficacy and the evidence supporting its use remains limited. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of PRP compared with placebo or active drug treatments across a wide range of chronic noncancer pain conditions using a rigorous meta-analytic approach. The goal is to provide evidence-based insights to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A random-effects model was applied to account for heterogeneity among studies. The primary outcome, pain scores in patients with chronic noncancer pain, was assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD). The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2). The quality of evidence was rated by the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 691 RCTs were screened, and 56 studies (comprising 103 comparisons and 7142 patients) were eligible for analysis. PRP was associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain scores compared with both active drug treatments and placebo (SMD = -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.15, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in pain scores for follow-up periods shorter than 3 months (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.40, p > 0.05). A statistically significant and moderate reduction in pain score was found for follow-up durations of at least 3 months (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.40, p < 0.001). Meta-analyses of subgroups revealed statistically significant and moderate pain reduction in favor of PRP versus active drug treatments for osteoarthritic knee pain (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.17, p = 0.009) and rotator cuff tendinopathy/tear (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.19, p = 0.01), but no significant differences for plantar fasciitis (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.04, p > 0.05). PRP was associated with moderate pain reduction when compared with corticosteroid (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.08, p = 0.02) and hyaluronic acid injection (SMD = -0.55, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.21, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PRP injections appear to effectively reduce pain in various chronic noncancer pain conditions and show superior analgesic efficacy compared with corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injections. These findings suggest that PRP may be a preferred treatment option for managing chronic noncancer pain, offering a more sustainable alternative for long-term pain relief.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023441115.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"1169-1188"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12279671/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Platelet-Rich Plasma for Treating Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Fengfeng Wang, Fei Meng, Timmy Chi Wing Chan, Stanley Sau Ching Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-025-00751-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Chronic noncancer pain represents a significant global health challenge, contributing to disability, lost productivity, diminished quality of life, and substantial socioeconomic burden. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for managing chronic pain. However, a comprehensive assessment of its efficacy and the evidence supporting its use remains limited. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of PRP compared with placebo or active drug treatments across a wide range of chronic noncancer pain conditions using a rigorous meta-analytic approach. The goal is to provide evidence-based insights to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A random-effects model was applied to account for heterogeneity among studies. The primary outcome, pain scores in patients with chronic noncancer pain, was assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD). The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2). The quality of evidence was rated by the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 691 RCTs were screened, and 56 studies (comprising 103 comparisons and 7142 patients) were eligible for analysis. PRP was associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain scores compared with both active drug treatments and placebo (SMD = -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.15, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in pain scores for follow-up periods shorter than 3 months (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.40, p > 0.05). A statistically significant and moderate reduction in pain score was found for follow-up durations of at least 3 months (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.40, p < 0.001). Meta-analyses of subgroups revealed statistically significant and moderate pain reduction in favor of PRP versus active drug treatments for osteoarthritic knee pain (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.17, p = 0.009) and rotator cuff tendinopathy/tear (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.19, p = 0.01), but no significant differences for plantar fasciitis (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.04, p > 0.05). PRP was associated with moderate pain reduction when compared with corticosteroid (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.08, p = 0.02) and hyaluronic acid injection (SMD = -0.55, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.21, p = 0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PRP injections appear to effectively reduce pain in various chronic noncancer pain conditions and show superior analgesic efficacy compared with corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injections. These findings suggest that PRP may be a preferred treatment option for managing chronic noncancer pain, offering a more sustainable alternative for long-term pain relief.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023441115.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1169-1188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12279671/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00751-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/5/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-025-00751-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
慢性非癌性疼痛是一项重大的全球健康挑战,导致残疾、生产力丧失、生活质量下降和严重的社会经济负担。富血小板血浆(PRP)已成为治疗慢性疼痛的一种有前途的治疗选择。然而,对其疗效的全面评估和支持其使用的证据仍然有限。本研究旨在采用严格的荟萃分析方法,系统地评估PRP与安慰剂或积极药物治疗在广泛的慢性非癌性疼痛条件下的镇痛效果。目标是提供基于证据的见解,为临床决策提供信息并改善患者预后。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,在PubMed、Embase、MEDLINE和Cochrane图书馆数据库中进行全面的文献检索,以确定随机对照试验(RCTs)。根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准筛选研究。随机效应模型用于解释研究间的异质性。主要结局是慢性非癌性疼痛患者的疼痛评分,采用标准化平均差(SMD)进行评估。使用修订后的Cochrane风险-偏倚工具(RoB 2)评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。证据的质量通过推荐评估、发展和评价等级(Grade)方法来评定。结果:共筛选691项rct, 56项研究(包括103项比较和7142例患者)符合分析条件。与积极药物治疗和安慰剂治疗相比,PRP与疼痛评分的统计学显著降低相关(SMD = -0.37, 95%可信区间(CI) -0.59至-0.15,p = 0.001)。随访时间短于3个月的疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(SMD = 0.12, 95% CI -0.16 ~ 0.40, p < 0.05)。在至少3个月的随访期间,疼痛评分有统计学意义的中度降低(SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -0.98 ~ -0.40, p 0.05)。与皮质类固醇(SMD = -0.53, 95% CI -0.98至-0.08,p = 0.02)和透明质酸注射(SMD = -0.55, 95% CI -0.89至-0.21,p = 0.004)相比,PRP与中度疼痛减轻有关。结论:与皮质类固醇和透明质酸注射相比,PRP注射可有效减轻各种慢性非癌性疼痛,镇痛效果更佳。这些发现表明,PRP可能是治疗慢性非癌性疼痛的首选治疗方案,为长期疼痛缓解提供了更可持续的选择。系统评价注册:PROSPERO CRD42023441115。
Platelet-Rich Plasma for Treating Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Introduction: Chronic noncancer pain represents a significant global health challenge, contributing to disability, lost productivity, diminished quality of life, and substantial socioeconomic burden. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a promising therapeutic option for managing chronic pain. However, a comprehensive assessment of its efficacy and the evidence supporting its use remains limited. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of PRP compared with placebo or active drug treatments across a wide range of chronic noncancer pain conditions using a rigorous meta-analytic approach. The goal is to provide evidence-based insights to inform clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes.
Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies were screened according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A random-effects model was applied to account for heterogeneity among studies. The primary outcome, pain scores in patients with chronic noncancer pain, was assessed using the standardized mean difference (SMD). The risk of bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2). The quality of evidence was rated by the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Results: A total of 691 RCTs were screened, and 56 studies (comprising 103 comparisons and 7142 patients) were eligible for analysis. PRP was associated with a statistically significant reduction in pain scores compared with both active drug treatments and placebo (SMD = -0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.15, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in pain scores for follow-up periods shorter than 3 months (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.40, p > 0.05). A statistically significant and moderate reduction in pain score was found for follow-up durations of at least 3 months (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.40, p < 0.001). Meta-analyses of subgroups revealed statistically significant and moderate pain reduction in favor of PRP versus active drug treatments for osteoarthritic knee pain (SMD = -0.59, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.17, p = 0.009) and rotator cuff tendinopathy/tear (SMD = -0.60, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.19, p = 0.01), but no significant differences for plantar fasciitis (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.04, p > 0.05). PRP was associated with moderate pain reduction when compared with corticosteroid (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.08, p = 0.02) and hyaluronic acid injection (SMD = -0.55, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.21, p = 0.004).
Conclusions: PRP injections appear to effectively reduce pain in various chronic noncancer pain conditions and show superior analgesic efficacy compared with corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injections. These findings suggest that PRP may be a preferred treatment option for managing chronic noncancer pain, offering a more sustainable alternative for long-term pain relief.
期刊介绍:
Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged.
Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia.
The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.