RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This research aims to determine the influence of industry on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) treatments in knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 2010 onwards using the terms "knee osteoarthritis" and "mesenchymal stem cells". After identifying relevant RCTs, studies were categorized as industry-affiliated or non-industry-affiliated. They were also classified as favorable if they achieved statistically significant (p < 0.05) results with MSC injections compared to control. Chi-squared tests were employed to analyze the relationship between industry affiliation and study outcome. RESULTS: Post exclusion criteria, 38 studies were analyzed. Of these, there were 20 (52.6%) industry affiliated (IA) and 18 (47.4%) non-industry affiliated (NIA) studies. Among the 20 IA studies, 17 (85.0%) reported favorable outcomes for MSC treatment arm, with the remaining 3 (15.0%) showing analogous (no difference between treatment arms) results. For the 18 NIA studies, 15 (83.3%) were favorable, and 3 (16.6%) were analogous. No significant difference in outcomes was observed between IA and NIA studies (p = 0.888). Analysis of patient reported outcomes also revealed no significant difference. Of note, studies using allogeneic MSCs were more likely to be IA than studies using autologous MSCs (p = 0.005) CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no strong association between industry affiliation and the outcomes of RCTs for MSC treatments in knee OA. Despite this, the potential influence of industry ties should always be considered when applying study findings to new treatment modalities for patient care.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To present hospital compliance with federal price transparency regulations for sports medicine procedures. METHODS: Online price estimator and machine-readable files were recovered for U.S. News and World Report's top 100 orthopaedic hospitals. From June to November 2023, compliance and monetary values were recorded for each of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services price transparency regulations. Price estimator data were assessed on the basis of hospital placement in the bottom and top 50 of the 100 institutions under review, as well as by region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West). Statistical analyses included 2-sample t tests and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESULTS: In total, 95% of hospitals had a price estimator tool for both subacromial decompression (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29826) and meniscectomy (CPT code 29881). Only 38% were compliant with all regulations for subacromial decompression and 39% for meniscectomy; the remaining did not list minimum or maximum procedure charges. Higher-ranked hospitals were significantly more likely to charge a greater cash price for subacromial decompression and meniscectomy (P = .040 and P = .009, respectively). Compliance with machine-readable file reporting was poor, with less than 20% meeting requirements for each CPT code. Reported prices varied greatly by hospital. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that U.S. News and World Report's top 100 orthopaedic hospitals exhibit poor overall compliance with federal price transparency regulations for sports medicine procedures. Most often they lack full compliance by not reporting minimum or maximum charges as part of their price estimator tool or do not report procedure prices in their machine-readable files. Hospitals also exhibit wide variation in prices reported for specific procedures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Consumer price transparency continues to be an important goal in health care, as it allows patients to make informed decisions when selecting appropriate treatment options and providers. To realize the full benefits of price transparency, hospitals should address areas of improvement.
