Rheumatology & Clin. Immunol., University Medical Centre Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013 Oct;21(10):1452-64. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2013.08.012. Epub 2013 Aug 14.
In 2010, in Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, we published a comprehensive systematic review applying the consensus BIPED criteria (Burden of Disease, Investigative, Prognostic, Efficacy of Intervention and Diagnostic) criteria on serum and urinary biochemical markers for knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) using publications that were available at that time. It appeared that none of the biochemical markers at that time were sufficiently discriminating to allow diagnosis and prognosis of OA in individual or limited numbers of patients, nor performed so consistently that they could function as primary outcome parameters in clinical trials. Also at present, almost 3 years later, this ultimate goal has not been reached (yet). Frankly, it might be questioned whether we are making the most adequate steps ahead and maybe we have to take a step back to reconsider our approaches. Some reflections are made and discussed: A critical review of molecular metabolism in OA and validation of currently investigated marker molecules in this may be vital and may lead to new and better markers. Creating cohorts in which synovial fluid (SF) is obtained in a systematic way, together with serum and urine, may also bring the field a further step ahead. Thirdly, better understanding of different phenotypes (subtypes) of OA may facilitate identification and validation of biochemical markers. Finally, the systems biology approach as discussed in the last years OA in review on biomarkers, although very complex, might provide steps forward. Looking ahead, we are optimistic but realistic in our expectations, we believe that the field can be brought forward by critically and cautiously reconsidering our approaches, and making changes forward, one step at a time.
2010 年,在《骨关节炎与软骨》杂志上,我们根据共识 BIPED 标准(疾病负担、研究、预后、干预效果和诊断),对当时可获得的膝关节和髋关节骨关节炎(OA)的血清和尿液生化标志物进行了全面的系统综述。当时似乎没有任何生化标志物具有足够的鉴别能力,可以对个体或少数患者的 OA 进行诊断和预后,也没有一种标志物能够始终如一地作为临床试验的主要结局参数。而近 3 年后的现在,我们仍然没有实现这一终极目标。坦率地说,我们是否正在采取最恰当的措施向前推进,也许我们不得不退一步重新考虑我们的方法,这一点值得质疑。对此,我们进行了一些反思和讨论:对 OA 分子代谢的深入研究以及对当前研究中标志物分子的验证可能至关重要,这可能会带来新的、更好的标志物。系统地获取滑膜液(SF),并与血清和尿液一起进行研究,也可能使该领域向前迈进一大步。第三,对 OA 不同表型(亚型)的深入了解,可能有助于生化标志物的鉴定和验证。最后,正如近年来在骨关节炎生物标志物综述中讨论的那样,尽管系统生物学方法非常复杂,但它可能为我们提供前进的步骤。展望未来,我们对自己的期望持乐观但现实的态度,我们相信,通过批判性和谨慎性地重新考虑我们的方法,并逐步做出改变,该领域可以向前推进。