A systematic review on the potential value of synovial fluid biomarkers to predict clinical outcomes in cartilage repair treatments. Issue 8 (August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lineham, B.; Altaie, A.; Harwood, P.; McGonagle, D.; Pandit, H.; Jones, E.
• Is Part Of: Osteoarthritis and cartilage. Volume 30:Issue 8(2022)
• Page Start: 1035
• Page End: 1049
• Publication Date: 2022-08
• Subjects: Synovial fluid -- Biomarkers -- Cartilage repair -- Regeneration; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Cartilage -- Periodicals; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Cartilage -- Periodicals; Arthrose -- Périodiques; Articulations -- Maladies -- Périodiques; 616.7223005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2022.05.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1063-4584

Abstract

Summary: Objective: Multiple biochemical biomarkers have been previously investigated for the diagnosis, prognosis and response to treatment of articular cartilage damage, including osteoarthritis (OA). Synovial fluid (SF) biomarker measurement is a potential method to predict treatment response and effectiveness. However, the significance of different biomarkers and their correlation to clinical outcomes remains unclear. This systematic review evaluated current SF biomarkers used in investigation of cartilage degeneration or regeneration in the knee joint and correlated these biomarkers with clinical outcomes following cartilage repair or regeneration interventions. Method: PubMed, Institute of Science Index, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases were searched. Studies evaluating SF biomarkers and clinical outcomes following cartilage repair intervention were included. Two researchers independently performed data extraction and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Score 2 (QUADAS-2) analysis. Biomarker inclusion, change following intervention and correlation with clinical outcome was compared. Results: 9 studies were included. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. There was significant variation in sampling and analysis. 33 biomarkers were evaluated in addition to microRNA and catabolic/anabolic ratios. Five studies reported on correlation of biomarkers with six biomarkers significantly correlated with clinical outcomes following intervention. However, correlation was only demonstrated in isolated studies. Conclusion: This review demonstrates significant difficulties in drawing conclusions regarding the importance of SF biomarkers based on the available literature. Improved standardisation for collection and analysis of SF samples is required. Future publications should also focus on clinical outcome scores and seek to correlate biomarkers with progression to further understand the significance of identified markers in a clinical context. Registration number: PROSPERO CRD42022304298. Study protocol available on PROSPERO website.