The combination of the biomarkers urinary C-terminal telopeptide of type II collagen, serum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein, and serum chondroitin sulfate 846 reflects cartilage damage in hemophilic arthropathy

Biomarker development for musculoskeletal diseases

More than one in 4 Americans has a musculoskeletal (MSK) disorder that requires medical diagnosis and treatment. Imaging tools are able to demonstrate structural changes but cannot reflect the disease activity or symptom severity of MSK conditions. This is of paramount concern in the aging population, in which imaging findings have poor correlation with symptoms, and multiple pain generators frequently coexist. Because levels of inflammatory and matrix breakdown products address disease activity, evaluation of biomarkers has the potential to provide assessment of active pain generators above and beyond the changes observable on imaging studies. This fact has stimulated research interest in the search for novel biomarkers of disease activity and response to treatment in body fluids. The goal is to develop panels of multi-biomarkers, which could be used independently or in conjunction with the imaging tools, for the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment validation in MSK diseases. The current review of MSK biomarkers is organized into 3 mechanistic categories: the metabolites of extracellular matrix of MSK tissues; inflammatory cytokines and chemokines; and pain-related neuropeptides and/or chemicals. Although some representative biomarkers could be used alone, the fact that MSK diseases are multi-tissue disorders that involve the muscles, bones, cartilage, and nerves suggests that panels of biomarkers may have greater potential than any single biomarker used in isolation. As advances in biotechnology make this a reality, multi-biomarker panels that include all 3 categories of biomarkers, used either alone or in combination with imaging tools, has the potential to revolutionize the clinical approach to MSK diseases.

The need for speed in the management of haemophilia patients with inhibitors

Rapid control of bleeding is the key to reducing bleeding complications and thereby preserving joint and musculoskeletal function in haemophilia patients with inhibitors. However, this requires early diagnosis following the onset of bleeding and strategies for rapid treatment in an outpatient setting. Overarching themes on the need for speed in managing bleeds in haemophilia patients were examined by a panel of clinicians experienced in managing inhibitor patients and joint disease during the Third Zürich Haemophilia Forum on 8 May 2009. This report summarizes the opinions of the panel on how to achieve rapid bleeding control in inhibitor patients and areas that were identified by the panel for future research or as needing new consensus guidelines. The consensus was that home treatment should be established for haemophilia patients with inhibitors, as it is associated with a faster time to treatment, as well as improvements in the quality of life of patients and their carers. In addition, as improved haemostatic control now allows inhibitor patients to participate in a wider range of physical activities, specific guidelines are required on which types of sport and work are appropriate. It was agreed that clear, systematic approaches are needed for early diagnosis of joint and muscle bleeds in inhibitor patients, which could facilitate rapid treatment. There may be opportunities for exploiting new diagnostic techniques from osteoarthritis to enable earlier diagnosis of haemophilic arthropathy. Overall, it was concluded that greater emphasis should be placed on education and patients' psychological needs, to enable inhibitor patients to cope up more effectively with their disease.

Comparative study of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and quantitative ultrasonography with the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover in boys with haemophilia

Our aim was to evaluate bone status in boys with haemophilia using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and quantitative ultraSonography (QUS), and in addition, to compare these two methods with the use of biochemical markers of bone turnover. Twenty-six boys with a mean decimal age of 12.08 ± 4.44 years were included in the study which included a DXA scan at lumbar spine and radial, as well as tibial QUS. Serum levels of soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor κB ligand (sRANK-L), osteoprotegerin (OPG) and osteocalcin (OC) were measured and joint evaluation was performed using the Hemophilia Joint Health Score (HJHS). With regard to the study results, only 2 of 26 patients (7.7%) had bone mineral density (BMD) Z-scores < -2, and 4 patients (15.4%) had BMD Z-scores between -1 and -2. Only one patient had radial and other two had tibial QUS Z-scores < -2. No agreement was recorded between QUS and DXA in identifying patients at risk for osteoporosis (k = 0.275, P = 0.063). Haemophiliacs had significantly higher serum levels of sRANK-L (21.04 ± 4.78 vs. 18.58 ± 2.28 ng mL(-1), P = 0.038) and of OC (5.35 ± 2.29 vs. 3.09 ± 0.61 ng mL(-1), P = 0.002) and significantly decreased levels of OPG (15.78 ± 2.53 vs. 23.79 ± 4.39 pg mL(-1), P < 0.001) compared with controls. QUS Z-scores at tibia significantly correlated with HJH Scores (r = -0.450, P = 0.040), whereas lumbar BMD Z-scores significantly correlated with body mass index Z-scores (r = 0.500, P = 0.009). More studies are warranted to identify the most accurate densitometric method for assessing bone status in haemophiliacs.