The current state of the osteoarthritis drug development pipeline: a comprehensive narrative review of the present challenges and future opportunities

Tissue engineering and future directions in regenerative medicine for knee cartilage repair: a comprehensive review

This review evaluates the current landscape and future directions of regenerative medicine for knee cartilage repair, with a particular focus on tissue engineering strategies. In this context, scaffold-based approaches have emerged as promising solutions for cartilage regeneration. Synthetic scaffolds, while offering superior mechanical properties, often lack the biological cues necessary for effective tissue integration. Natural scaffolds, though biocompatible and biodegradable, frequently suffer from inadequate mechanical strength. Hybrid scaffolds, combining elements of both synthetic and natural materials, present a balanced approach, enhancing both mechanical support and biological functionality. Advances in decellularized extracellular matrix scaffolds have shown potential in promoting cell infiltration and integration with native tissues. Additionally, bioprinting technologies have enabled the creation of complex, bioactive scaffolds that closely mimic the zonal organization of native cartilage, providing an optimal environment for cell growth and differentiation. The review also explores the potential of gene therapy and gene editing techniques, including CRISPR-Cas9, to enhance cartilage repair by targeting specific genetic pathways involved in tissue regeneration. The integration of these advanced therapies with tissue engineering approaches holds promise for developing personalized and durable treatments for knee cartilage injuries and osteoarthritis. In conclusion, this review underscores the importance of continued multidisciplinary collaboration to advance these innovative therapies from bench to bedside and improve outcomes for patients with knee cartilage damage.

The evolving landscape of gene therapy strategies for the treatment of osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVES

Significant advances have been made in our understanding of osteoarthritis (OA) pathogenesis; however, no disease-modifying therapies have been identified. This review will summarize the gene therapy landscape, its initial successes for OA, and possible challenges using recent studies and examples of gene therapies in clinical trials.

DESIGN

This narrative review has three major sections: 1) vector systems for OA gene therapy, 2) current and emerging targets for OA gene therapy, and 3) considerations and future directions.

RESULTS

Gene therapy is the strategy by which nucleic acids are delivered to treat and reverse disease progression. Specificity and prolonged expression of these nucleic acids are achieved by manipulating promoters, genes, and vector systems. Certain vector systems also allow for the development of combinatorial nucleic acid strategies that can be delivered in a single intraarticular injection - an approach likely required to treat the complexity of OA pathogenesis. Several viral and non-viral vector-based gene therapies are in clinical trials for OA, and many more are being evaluated in the preclinical arena.

CONCLUSIONS

In a post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era, the future of gene therapy for OA is certainly promising; however, the majority of preclinical validation continues to focus heavily on post-traumatic models and changes in only cartilage and subchondral bone. To ensure successful translation, new candidates in the preclinical arena should be examined against all joint tissues as well as pain using diverse models of injury-, obesity-, and age-induced disease. Lastly, consideration must be given to strategies for repeat administration and the cost of treatment owing to the chronic nature of OA.

Current status of catabolic, anabolic and inflammatory biomarkers associated with structural and symptomatic changes in the chronic phase of post-traumatic knee osteoarthritis- a systematic review

Post-traumatic OA (PTOA) can occur within 5 years after a significant injury and is a valuable paradigm for identifying biomarkers. This systematic review aims to summarise published literature in human studies on the associations of known serum and synovial fluid biomarkers at least a year from injury to structural, symptomatic changes and underlying PTOA processes. A systematic review was performed using PRISMA guidelines, prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022371838), for all 'wet' biomarkers a year or more post-injury in 18-45-year-old participants. Three independent reviewers screened search results, extracted data, and performed risk of bias assessments (Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Study heterogeneity meant a narrative synthesis was undertaken, utilising SWiM guidelines. 952 studies were identified, 664 remaining after deduplication. Following first-round screening, 53 studies underwent second-round screening against pre-determined criteria. Eight studies, with 879 participants (49 ​% male), were included, measuring serum (n ​= ​7), synovial fluid (SF, n ​= ​6), or both (n ​= ​5). The pooled participant mean age was 29.1 (±4). 51 biomarkers were studied (serum ​= ​38, SF ​= ​13), with no correlation between paired serum and SF samples. One serum biomarker, cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP), and four SF biomarkers, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, tumour necrosis factor (TNF), and COMP, were measured in multiple studies. Associations were described between 11 biomarkers related to catabolism (n ​= ​4), anabolism (n ​= ​2), inflammation (n ​= ​4) and non-coding RNA (n ​= ​1), with OA imaging changes (X-ray and MRI), pain, quality of life and function. Widespread differences in study design and methodology prevented meta-analysis, and evidence was generally weak. A unified approach is required before widespread research and clinical biomarker use.

Osteoarthritis in the UK Armed Forces: a review of its impact, treatment and future research

Within the UK Armed Forces, musculoskeletal injuries account for over half of all medical downgrades and discharges. Data from other Armed Forces show that osteoarthritis (OA), more common in military personnel, is likely to contribute to this, both in its primary form and following injury (post-traumatic OA, PTOA), which typically presents in the third or fourth decade. OA is not a progressive 'wear and tear' disease, as previously thought, but a heterogenous condition with multiple aetiologies and modulators, including joint damage, abnormal morphology, altered biomechanics, genetics, low-grade inflammation and dysregulated metabolism. Currently, clinical diagnosis, based on symptomatic or radiological criteria, is followed by supportive measures, including education, exercise, analgesia, potentially surgical intervention, with a particular focus on exercise rehabilitation within the UK military. Developments in OA have led to a new paradigm of organ failure, with an emphasis on early diagnosis and risk stratification, prevention strategies (primary, secondary and tertiary) and improved aetiological classification using genotypes and phenotypes to guide management, with the introduction of biological markers (biomarkers) potentially having a role in all these areas. In the UK Armed Forces, there are multiple research studies focused on OA risk factors, epidemiology, biomarkers and effectiveness of different interventions. This review aims to highlight OA, especially PTOA, as an important diagnosis to consider in serving personnel, outline current and future management options, and detail current research trends within the Defence Medical Services.

Comparison between Low-Level and High-Intensity Laser Therapy as an Adjunctive Treatment for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Low-level (LLLT) and high-intensity laser therapy (HILT) can be beneficial additions to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) rehabilitation exercises; however, it is still being determined which electrophysical agent is more effective.

AIM

To compare the effects of LLLT and HILT as adjuncts to rehabilitation exercises (LL + EX and HL + EX) on clinical outcomes in KOA.

METHODS

Thirty-four adults with mild-to-moderate KOA were randomly allocated to either LL + EX or HL + EX (n = 17 each). Both groups underwent their respective intervention weekly for twelve weeks: LL + EX (400 mW, 830 nm, 10 to 12 J/cm², and 400 J per session) or HL + EX (5 W, 1064 nm, 19 to 150 J/cm², and 3190 J per session). The laser probe was placed vertically in contact with the knee and moved in a slow-scan manner on the antero-medial/lateral sides of the knee joint. Participants' Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), active knee flexion, and Timed Up-and-Go test (TUG) were assessed.

RESULTS

Post intervention, both groups showed improvements in their KOOS, NPRS, active knee flexion, and TUG scores compared to baseline (p < 0.01). The mean difference of change in KOOS, NPRS, and active knee flexion scores for the HL + EX group surpassed the minimal clinically important difference threshold. In contrast, the LL + EX group only demonstrated clinical significance for the NPRS scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporating HILT as an adjunct to usual KOA rehabilitation led to significantly higher improvements in pain, physical function, and knee-related disability compared to LLLT applied in scanning mode.

Biomarkers for osteoarthritis: Current status and future prospects

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common form of arthritis globally and a major cause of pain, physical disability, and loss of economic productivity, with currently no causal treatment available. This review article focuses on current research on OA biomarkers and the potential for using biomarkers in future clinical practice and clinical trials of investigational drugs. We discuss how biomarkers, specifically soluble ones, have a long path to go before reaching clinical standards of care. We also discuss how biomarkers can help in phenotyping and subtyping to achieve enhanced stratification and move toward better-designed clinical trials. We also describe how biomarkers can be used for molecular endotyping and for determining the clinical outcomes of investigational cell-based therapies. Biomarkers have the potential to be developed as surrogate end points in clinical trials and help private-public consortia and the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries develop more effective and targeted personalized treatments and enhance clinical care for patients with OA.