Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 558–565 | Cite as

The Economics and Regulation of PRP in the Evolving Field of Orthopedic Biologics

  • Ian A. Jones
  • Ryan C. Togashi
  • C. Thomas VangsnessJrEmail author
Protein-Rich Plasma: From Bench to Treatment of Arthritis (S Choate and J Tokish, section editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Protein-Rich Plasma: From Bench to Treatment of Arthritis


Purpose of Review

This review provides an update on the current status of platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Topics covered include the current regulatory environment, economic outlook, and current clinical evidence.

Recent Findings

The global PRP market is expected to grow to between 380 million and 4.5 billion (USD) over the next 5–10 years. The cost of a single treatment, which is not covered by most insurance, is roughly $500–$2500, with patients often returning for additional treatments.


While PRP is not ‘FDA-approved’, it can be legally offered in the clinic ‘off-label’ in the USA for a myriad of musculoskeletal indications. Recently published meta-analyses have demonstrated statistically significant improvements that, in some cases, suggest that PRP may have clinically meaningful effects. However, given the fact that clearance is not synonymous with approval, PRP is a costly treatment not covered by insurance, and clinical trials have not demonstrated definitive efficacy, we recommend informing patients when providing PRP ‘off-label’.


HCT/Ps Platelet-rich plasma PRP Orthopedics Sports medicine Regenerative medicine 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of Interest

Ian A. Jones and Ryan C. Togashi declare that they have no conflict of interests. C. Thomas Vangsness is a shareholder of CarthroniX.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Hall MP, Band PA, Meislin RJ, Jazrawi LM, Cardone DA. Platelet-rich plasma: current concepts and application in sports medicine. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2009;17:602–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    FDA. Code of Federal Regulations - Title 21, Volume 7 [Internet]. Code of Federal Regulations Code of Federal Regulations; Apr 1, 2017. Available from:
  3. 3.
    Dohan Ehrenfest DM, Rasmusson L, Albrektsson T. Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). Trends Biotechnol. 2009;27:158–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hsu WK, Mishra A, Rodeo SR, Fu F, Terry MA, Randelli P, et al. Platelet-rich plasma in orthopaedic applications: evidence-based recommendations for treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21:739–471.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mazzucco L, Balbo V, Cattana E, Guaschino R, Borzini P. Not every PRP-gel is born equal. Evaluation of growth factor availability for tissues through four PRP-gel preparations: Fibrinet, RegenPRP-Kit, Plateltex and one manual procedure. Vox Sang. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2009;97:110–8.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Castillo TN, Pouliot MA, Kim HJ, Dragoo JL. Comparison of growth factor and platelet concentration from commercial platelet-rich plasma separation systems. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:266–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    • Andia I, Maffulli N. Platelet-rich plasma for managing pain and inflammation in osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. Nature Publishing Group; 2013;9:721–30. Available from: . A comprehensive review of the bioactive molecules in PRP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    • Dhurat R, Sukesh M. Principles and methods of preparation of platelet-rich plasma: a review and author's perspective. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. Medknow Publications; 2014;7:189–97. A review of the basic principles and preparation methods of PRP. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchbinder R, Maher C, Harris IA. Setting the research agenda for improving health care in musculoskeletal disorders. Nat Rev Rheumatol Nature Publishing Group. 2015;11:597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazzocca AD, McCarthy MBR, Chowaniec DM, Cote MP, Romeo AA, Bradley JP, et al. Platelet-rich plasma differs according to preparation method and human variability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:308–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lopez-Vidriero E, Goulding KA, Simon DA, Sánchez M, Johnson DH. The use of platelet-rich plasma in arthroscopy and sports medicine: optimizing the healing environment. Arthroscopy. 2010;26:269–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giusti I, Rughetti A, D'Ascenzo S, Millimaggi D, Pavan A, Dell'Orso L, et al. Identification of an optimal concentration of platelet gel for promoting angiogenesis in human endothelial cells. Transfusion Blackwell Publishing Inc. 2009;49:771–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Murray IR, LaPrade RF. Platelet-rich plasma: renewed scientific understanding must guide appropriate use. Bone Joint Res. 2016;5:92–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foster TE, Puskas BL, Mandelbaum BR, Gerhardt MB, Rodeo SA. Platelet-rich plasma: from basic science to clinical applications. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:2259–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    LaPrade RF, Geeslin AG, Murray IR, Musahl V, Zlotnicki JP, Petrigliano F, et al. Biologic treatments for sports injuries II think tank-current concepts, future research, and barriers to advancement, part 1: biologics overview, ligament injury, tendinopathy. Am J Sports Med. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA. 2016;44:3270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Khoshbin A, Leroux T, Wasserstein D, Marks P, Theodoropoulos J, Ogilvie-Harris D, et al. The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29:2037–48. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mi B, Liu G, Zhou W, Lv H, Liu Y, Wu Q, et al. Platelet rich plasma versus steroid on lateral epicondylitis: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Phys Sportsmed. 2017;45:97–104.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Chen X, Jones IA, Park C, Vangsness CT. The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma on tendon and ligament healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis with bias assessment. Am J Sports Med. 2017;2016:363546517743746. A meta-analysis evaluating the therapeutic effectiveness of PRP for tendon and ligament injury/pathology. The paper finds that PRP may reduce pain associated with lateral epicondylitis and rotator cuff injuries.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wang-Saegusa A, Cugat R, Ares O, Seijas R, Cuscó X, Garcia-Balletbó M. Infiltration of plasma rich in growth factors for osteoarthritis of the knee short-term effects on function and quality of life. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. Springer-Verlag. 2011;131:311–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harm SK, Fung MK. Platelet-rich plasma injections: out of control and on the loose? Transfusion. 2015;55:1596–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dhillon RS, Schwarz EM, Maloney MD. Platelet-rich plasma therapy - future or trend? Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14:219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Beitzel K, Allen D, Apostolakos J, Russell RP, McCarthy MB, Gallo GJ, et al. US definitions, current use, and FDA stance on use of platelet-rich plasma in sports medicine. J Knee Surg. 2015;28:29–34. This paper provides a regulatory overview of PRP. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Marks P, Gottlieb S. Balancing safety and innovation for cell-based regenerative medicine. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:954–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sweet BV, Schwemm AK, Parsons DM. Review of the processes for FDA oversight of drugs, medical devices, and combination products. J Manag Care Pharm. 2011;17:40–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gutman SI. 510(k) SUMMARY [internet]. The United States Department of Health and Human Services; 2000 Feb. Available from:
  26. 26.
    Melkerson MN. 510(k) SUMMARY [Internet]. The United States Department of Health and Human Services; 2009 Nov. Report No.: K082333. Available from:
  27. 27.
    Murray IR, LaPrade RF, Musahl V, Geeslin AG, Zlotnicki JP, Mann BJ, et al. Biologic treatments for sports injuries II think tank-current concepts, future research, and barriers to advancement, part 2: rotator cuff. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4:2325967116636586.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zlotnicki JP, Geeslin AG, Murray IR, Petrigliano FA, LaPrade RF, Mann BJ, et al. Biologic treatments for sports injuries II think tank-current concepts, future research, and barriers to advancement, part 3: articular cartilage. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4:2325967116642433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilkes M, Johns M. Informed consent and shared decision-making: a requirement to disclose to patients off-label prescriptions. PLoS Med Public Libr Sci. 2008;5:e223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wittich CM, Burkle CM, Lanier WL. Ten common questions (and their answers) about off-label drug use. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:982–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Radley DC, Finkelstein SN, Stafford RS. Off-label prescribing among office-based physicians. Arch Intern Med American Medical Association. 2006;166:1021–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Research GV. Platelet Rich Plasma (PRP) Market analysis by product (pure, leukocyte-rich, leukocyte-rich fibrin), by application (orthopedics, cosmetic surgery, ophthalmic surgery, neurosurgery), and segment forecasts, 2014–2025 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Mar 17]. p. 100. Available from:
  33. 33.
    Engine MR. Platelet rich plasma market by type analysis (pure-PRP, leukocyte-rich-PRP, pure-PRF); by origin analysis (autologous PRP, allogeneic PRP, homologous PRP); by applications analysis (orthopedic surgery, cosmetic surgery, general surgery, neurosurgery) and by regional analysis – global forecast by 2016 - 2024 [Internet].; 2017 Jun. Report no.: PPRPM617. Available from:
  34. 34.
    Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) market was valued at USD 201.2 Mn in 2016. SA-BRC; 2017.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Oudelaar BW, Peerbooms JC, Huis In't Veld R, Vochteloo AJH. Concentrations of blood components in commercial platelet-rich plasma separation systems: a review of the literature. Am J Sports Med. 2018;14:363546517746112.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vaught MS, Cole BJ. Coding and reimbursement issues for platelet-rich plasma. Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine. WB Saunders. 2011;19:185–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gosens T, Peerbooms JC, van Laar W, Oudsten den BL. Ongoing positive effect of platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection in lateral epicondylitis: a double-blind randomized controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:1200–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2009;18:927–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tashjian RZ, Hung M, Keener JD, Bowen RC, McAllister J, Chen W, et al. Determining the minimal clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2017;26:144–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hurley ET, Lim Fat D, Moran CJ, Mullett H. The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma and platelet-rich fibrin in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA. 2018;363546517751397:79.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Johnston BC, Thorlund K, Schünemann HJ, Xie F, Murad MH, Montori VM, et al. Improving the interpretation of quality of life evidence in meta-analyses: the application of minimal important difference units. Health Qual Life Outcomes. BioMed Central. 2010;8:116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Thomas RJ, Hourd PC, Williams DJ. Application of process quality engineering techniques to improve the understanding of the in vitro processing of stem cells for therapeutic use. J Biotechnol. 2008;136:148–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tran-Khanh N, Chevrier A, Lascau-Coman V, Hoemann CD, Buschmann MD. Young adult chondrocytes proliferate rapidly and produce a cartilaginous tissue at the gel-media interface in agarose cultures. Connect Tissue Res. 2010;51:216–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maniar KH, Jones IA, Gopalakrishna R, JR CTV. Lowering side effects of NSAID usage in osteoarthritis: recent attempts at minimizing dosage. Expert Opin Pharmacother. Taylor & Francis. 2017;6:14656566.2017.1414802–null. Scholar
  45. 45.
    McIntyre JA, Jones IA, Han B, Vangsness CT Jr. Intra-articular Mesenchymal Stem Cell Therapy for the human joint: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. SAGE PublicationsSage CA: Los Angeles, CA. 2017;11:036354651773584. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Kanchanatawan W, Arirachakaran A, Chaijenkij K, Prasathaporn N, Boonard M, Piyapittayanun P, et al. Short-term outcomes of platelet-rich plasma injection for treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2016;24:1665–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Aróstegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15:273–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Michel BA, Stucki G. Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:131–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Leite VF, Daud Amadera JE, Buehler AM. Viscosupplementation for hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy on pain and disability, and the occurrence of adverse events. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99:574–583.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Grassi A, Napoli F, Romandini I, Samuelsson K, Zaffagnini S, Candrian C, et al. Is platelet-rich plasma (PRP) effective in the treatment of acute muscle injuries? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. Springer International Publishing. 2018;39:1226–19.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sheth U, Simunovic N, Klein G, Fu F, Einhorn TA, Schemitsch E, et al. Efficacy of autologous platelet-rich plasma use for orthopaedic indications: a meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:298–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Moraes VY, Lenza M, Tamaoki MJ, Faloppa F, Belloti JC. Platelet-rich therapies for musculoskeletal soft tissue injuries. In: Moraes VY, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, vol. 40. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014. p. CD010071.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Turner L. US stem cell clinics, patient safety, and the FDA. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21:271–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian A. Jones
    • 1
  • Ryan C. Togashi
    • 1
  • C. Thomas VangsnessJr
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryKeck School of Medicine of USCLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations