Biologics in professional and Olympic sport: a scoping review

Abstract

Aims The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate the use of biologic therapies in the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley frameworks were followed. A three-step search strategy identified relevant published primary and secondary studies, as well as grey literature. The identified studies were screened with criteria for inclusion comprising clinical studies evaluating the use of biologic therapies in professional and Olympic athletes, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and conference proceedings. Data were extracted using a standardized tool to form a descriptive analysis and a thematic summary. Results A total of 202 studies were initially identified, and 35 met criteria for the scoping review; 33 (94.3%) were published within the last eight years, and 18 (51.4%) originated from the USA. Platelet rich plasma was the most studied biologic therapy, being evaluated in 33 (94.3%) studies. Ulnar collateral ligament and hamstring injuries were the conditions most studied (nine (25.7%) studies and seven (20.0%) studies, respectively). Athletes most frequently participated in baseball, soccer, and American football. Only two (5.7%) studies were level 1 evidence, with interpretation and comparison between studies limited by the variations in the injury profile, biologic preparations, and rehabilitation protocols. Conclusion There is diverse use of biologic therapies in the management of musculoskeletal injuries in professional and Olympic athletes. There is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support the widespread use of biologic therapies in athletes. Further research priorities include the development of condition/pathology-specific preparations of biologic therapies, and of outcome measures and imaging modalities sufficiently sensitive to detect differences in outcomes, should they exist. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(7):1189–1196.