Craniosynostosis is the early fusion of one or more sutures of the infant skull and is a common defect occurring in approximately 1 of every 2,500 live births. Non-syndromic craniosynostosis accounts for approximately 80% of all cases and is thought to have strong genetic determinants that are yet to be identified. ALX4 is a homeodomain transcription factor with known involvement in osteoblast regulation. By direct sequencing of the ALX4 coding region in sagittal or sagittal-suture-involved non-syndromic craniosynostosis probands, we identified novel, nonsynonymous, familial variants in three of 203 individuals with NSC. Using dual-luciferase assay we show that two of these variants (V7F and K211E) confer a significant gain-of-function effect on ALX4. Our results suggest that ALX4 variants may have an impact on the genetic etiology of NSC.

Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 38:485-502, 2020.

Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Various types of cellular injection have become a popular and costly treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis despite a paucity of literature establishing relative efficacy to each other or corticosteroid injections. Here we aimed to identify the safety and efficacy of cell injections from autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate, autologous adipose stromal vascular fraction and allogeneic human umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells, in comparison to corticosteroid injection (CSI). The study was a phase 2/3, four-arm parallel, multicenter, single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial with 480 patients with a diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence II-IV). Participants were randomized to the three different arms with a 3:1 distribution. Arm 1: autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (n = 120), CSI (n = 40); arm 2: umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (n = 120), CSI (n = 40); arm 3: stromal vascular fraction (n = 120), CSI (n = 40). The co-primary endpoints were the visual analog scale pain score and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain score at 12 months versus baseline. Analyses of our primary endpoints, with 440 patients, revealed that at 1 year post injection, none of the three orthobiologic injections was superior to another, or to the CSI control. In addition, none of the four groups showed a significant change in magnetic resonance imaging osteoarthritis score compared to baseline. No procedure-related serious adverse events were reported during the study period. In summary, this study shows that at 1 year post injection, there was no superior orthobiologic as compared to CSI for knee osteoarthritis. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03818737.