
==== Front
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis
TAB
sptab
Therapeutic Advances in Musculoskeletal Disease
1759-720X
1759-7218
SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England

10.1177/1759720X241273009
10.1177_1759720X241273009
Review
Knee osteoarthritis: disease burden, available treatments, and emerging options
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3985-0283
Langworthy Michael Southcoast Health, 300 A Faunce Corner Road, Dartmouth, MA 02720-3703, USA
Menko Labs, Mattapoisett, MA, USA
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5282-4026
Dasa Vinod Louisiana State University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
Spitzer Andrew I. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Conceptualization Writing – review & editing
lcdrlang@aol.com
15 9 2024
2024
16 1759720X2412730099 11 2023
10 7 2024
© The Author(s), 2024
2024
SAGE Publications Ltd unless otherwise noted. Manuscript content on this site is licensed under Creative Commons Licenses
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent condition that affects nearly 528 million people worldwide, including 23% of the global population aged ⩾40, and is characterized by progressive damage to articular cartilage, which often leads to substantial pain, stiffness, and reduced mobility for affected patients. Pain related to OA is a barrier to maintaining physical activity and a leading cause of disability, accounting for 2.4% of all years lived with disability globally, reducing the ability to work in 66% of US patients with OA and increasing absenteeism in 21% of US patients with OA. The joint most commonly involved in OA is the knee, which is affected in about 60%–85% of all OA cases. The aging population and longer life expectancy, coupled with earlier and younger diagnoses, translate into a growing cohort of symptomatic patients in need of alternatives to surgery. Despite the large number of patients with knee OA (OAK) worldwide, the high degree of variability in patient presentation can lead to challenges in diagnosis and treatment. Multiple society guidelines recommend therapies for OAK, but departures from guidelines by healthcare professionals in clinical settings reflect a discordance between evidence-based treatment algorithms and routine clinical practice. Furthermore, disease-modifying pharmacotherapies are limited, and treatment for OAK often focuses solely on symptom relief, rather than underlying causes. In this narrative review, we summarize the patient journey, analyze current disease burden and nonsurgical therapy recommendations for OAK, and highlight emerging and promising therapies—such as cryoneurolysis, long-acting corticosteroids, and gene therapies—for this debilitating condition.

emerging therapies
guidelines
intraarticular injections
NSAIDs
osteoarthritis
Pacira BioSciences https://doi.org/10.13039/100020292 cover-dateJanuary-December 2024
typesetterts1
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disorder of synovial joints characterized by progressive articular cartilage damage; structural alterations of subchondral bone, menisci, ligaments, joint capsule, and periarticular muscles; and degrees of synovial proliferation, resulting in substantial joint pain, stiffness, and functional limitations.1–3 Clinical presentation of knee OA (OAK) and etiologies can be highly variable, 3 with inflammatory, metabolic, mechanical, and environmental factors including mechanical stress, limb overuse, injury, age, genetic disorders, and metabolic syndromes contributing to disease onset and progression.2–4 Direct costs of OA account for 1%–2.5% of gross national product in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia; total direct medical costs in the United States are approximately $72 billion. 5 Rates of disability associated with OA will likely increase given an earlier onset of disease, an aging population with longer life expectancy, and growing obesity rates.6,7

Racial and social factors (e.g., socioeconomic status) can impact disease prevalence, radiographic features, healthcare resource accessibility, and disease severity. 8 Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) grading, based on cartilage histopathology, defines mild OA (grades 1–3) as lacking erosion of collagen matrix, while more severe disease (grades 4–6) is typified by partial to complete erosion of the cartilage matrix and deformation of joint surfaces. 9 Although objective findings (e.g., physical examination, X-ray analyses) are necessary for diagnosis, pain is the key presenting symptom and clinical measure of severity, which guides treatment.10,11

Currently, there are no office-based/nonsurgical curative or disease-modifying agents for OA.3,12,13 Nonsurgical options are the first line of treatment for patients with OA, 14 yet there is often a disconnect between treatment guidelines and clinical practice. 15 As there is robust literature describing surgical management of OAK,16–19 this narrative review will focus on nonsurgical management, providing an overview of disease burden, current guidelines, standard treatments, and evidence for emerging therapies. We end with suggested clinical scenarios for various treatment approaches.

Epidemiology of OAK

OA affects millions of people worldwide, with the highest prevalence observed in the United States (9961 per 100,000 people), 20 where the overall lifetime risk of symptomatic OA is between 41% and 45%. 21 The joint most commonly affected by OA is the knee, accounting for 60%–85% of total OA cases.20,22,23 Incidence of OAK is 1.39 times higher in women than men (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.24–1.56; p < 0.00). 22 Prevalence of OAK in women is 1.69 times higher than it is among men (95% CI, 1.59–1.80; p < 0.00). 22 Prevalence of OAK in the United States has been increasing in tandem with an aging population and a growing obesity epidemic.7,24,25 The incidence of OAK in the United States is approximately 240 people per 100,000 each year 1 and is highest among patients aged 55–64 years. 7 However, OA is also being diagnosed in an increasingly younger population. 7 As the face of OA becomes younger and life expectancy increases, patients are anticipated to be symptomatic for a greater proportion of their lives.

Risk factors vary across age and gender; they are often studied in older populations with accumulated OA symptoms.26,27 Factors that increase OAK risk in adults aged ⩾50 years include overweight/obesity, previous knee injury, female sex, older age, presence of hand OA, family history of OA, and exposure to physical exertion at work.26,28 Increased age and physical activity in men, and increased body mass index (BMI) and alcohol intake in women, are associated with an elevated risk of OA. 27 In addition, both bilateral thumb OA and upper limb disability increase the risk of OAK among women. 27 Studies have identified 90 genetic risk loci for OA. 29 Gene single-nucleotide polymorphisms linked to increased OA risk or increased disease progression are associated with proinflammatory mediators, including interleukin-1 (IL-1) family cytokines; factors in skeletal development, including tumor growth factor-beta; and collagen components, including COL2.29–32

OA patient journey

Diagnosis and presentation

Patients often avoid seeking healthcare until they experience burdensome symptoms; therefore, healthcare providers (HCPs) may not see patients with OA until they become symptomatic with severe pain, stiffness, and functional limitations—often with concomitant advanced joint degeneration.1,33,34 A survey of HCPs and patients with OAK noted the absence of persistent pain, difficulty in scheduling medical appointments, slow progression of OA, and optimism about OA getting better without intervention as reasons for the delay in seeking treatment. 34 Furthermore, imaging modalities used to diagnose OAK may not correlate with physical signs and symptoms as the presence of cartilage defects is estimated at 43% in adults ⩾40 years old; this prevalence may be impacted by different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques, including field strength and the type of MRI sequences used.35,36

Upon presentation to a physician with symptoms consistent with OA, established guidelines may aid in OA diagnosis. The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) clinical classification criteria outline idiopathic OA as knee pain with ⩾3 of the following characteristics: age >50 years, morning stiffness <30 min in duration, crepitus, bony tenderness, bony enlargement, and no palpable warmth. 37 A heterogeneous condition, OAK can be further defined using patients’ radiographic severity, comorbidity status (Charlson Comorbidity Index), pain, joint sensitivity, and psychological factors to give an overall OA phenotype.38,39 Patient phenotypes can be broadly categorized into four groups: (1) age-related and systemic phenotypes driven by metabolic diseases, aging, and endocrine diseases; (2) extra-articular phenotypes involving ligament and tendon laxity, sarcopenia, and varus and valgus malalignment; (3) intraarticular (IA) phenotypes including alterations in articular cartilage, subchondral bone, and meniscus, as well as the presence of synovitis; and (4) secondary phenotypes capturing OA driven by development of crystals, traumatic injury, previous autoimmune arthritis, and occupational injuries. 40 However, the phenotype may neither predict symptoms nor inform specific treatment and management strategy,40,41 and not all patient types fit neatly within these four phenotypes (e.g., a young athlete with a sports injury or a patient with generalized pain such as fibromyalgia). Pain at presentation can vary significantly and may be affected by neuroinflammation, joint inflammation (synovitis), OA-triggering joint trauma severity, compromised endogenous joint-repair processes, structural changes (bone marrow lesions, subchondral bone remodeling, and osteophyte formation), and peripheral and central sensitization.41–43 In addition, patient symptoms may not align with structural changes observed on X-ray or MRI.44,45 Structural changes precede disease development, diagnosis, and chronic pain, 33 and MRI imaging can often detect changes in soft tissues, such as meniscus changes or articular cartilage degeneration, better than radiographic imaging. 46 However, MRI is often not used if radiographic OA is present—unless mechanical symptoms or unusual pain suggestive of an alternative diagnosis are observed—given high cost, limited availability, generally long scanning times, and lack of standardization in MRI acquisition and interpretation.46,47

Disease progression and monitoring

Loss of articular cartilage, combined with cellular changes and biomechanical stress, can cause subchondral bone remodeling; osteophyte formation; development of bone marrow lesions; changes in the synovium, joint capsule, ligaments, and periarticular muscles; and meniscal tears and extrusion. 48 Disease progression is determined by assessing cartilage volume, thickness, and defects; presence and severity of bone marrow lesions via imaging; signs of inflammation (i.e., synovitis); and presence of meniscal alterations. 49 Chondrocyte hypertrophy and endochondral ossification are key indicators of OA progression. 31 However, key factors in determining the clinical significance of disease progression are worsening pain and persistent symptoms.

Multiple methods have been used to assess OA severity. The Kellgren–Lawrence (K–L) scale, the most common, grades the radiographic extent of disease overall between 0 (no OA) and 4 (severe; Figure 1). 50 Risk for medical progression to surgical treatment increases considerably as the K–L grade increases. 51 In addition, the OARSI system grades changes to the subchondral bone and articular cartilage on a scale between grade 0 (normal cartilage) and grade 6 (articular cartilage and subchondral bone changes present). 9

Figure 1. Disease Severity Ranking Scales for osteoarthritis.9,50,52

K–L, Kellgren–Lawrence scale; OA, osteoarthritis; OARSI, Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Biomarkers in bodily fluids that indicate type 2 collagen degradation may allow for further characterization of disease progression. 53 This disease’s impact on patients and symptomatic treatments can be evaluated via patient-reported assessments, such as the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score and its multiple subscales, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and its subscales, and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System.54,55 Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds have been characterized for OAK assessments, though a recent meta-analysis found that proposed MCID values differed across pain assessment publications. 55

Ultimately, despite an improved understanding of diagnosis and patient phenotypes, responsiveness to treatment based on phenotypes, MRI, or other radiographic presentations, symptomatic classification systems remain unpredictable.

Patient burden

As OA is the leading cause of disability among US adults, 56 and OA-related pain is a barrier to physical activity, 57 OAK symptoms can cause considerable functional limitations.1,57–59 Disability can range from minimal to severe, with severe disability involving chronic pain and reduced function. 57 Patients with OAK lost an average of 0.55 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) per person because of inactivity, with Black Hispanic women having the highest per-person QALY loss of 0.76. 60 Factors influencing the degree of disability and loss of function include female sex, lower education levels, and social disadvantages. 57 Disability associated with OA most substantially impacts patients whose careers or daily activities require weight-bearing exercise or positions that involve walking or knee bending. 57 Specific changes in physical abilities, such as gait alterations, can alter load distribution at the knee and have been associated with the risk of OAK, disease severity, and progression.58,59

Patients with OA reported significant pain interference with activities outside the home, including work, relative to those without OA (p < 0.0001). 61 Those with OA missed more work days and had higher odds of experiencing OA-related limitations than those without (3.68; p = 0.000). 62 Workers employed as manual laborers may be more affected by OA-related disability because of the activity level their jobs require. 63 Patients with higher disease severity are more likely to be unemployed and, if employed, are more likely to experience impairment while working.61,64 The economic burden of OA can be summarized in annual per-patient costs (primarily indirect costs due to lost productivity) ranging from $9801 for mild disease to $22,111 for severe disease,61,64 which is comparable to heart failure ($17,000–$30,000) and cancer ($2160–$31,176).65,66

Pain and functional limitations vary in intensity and over time.1,57–59,67,68 In a study of 719 participants, 23%–32% reported substantial pain variability over time. 67 Another study reported significant variation in pain intensity by age, particularly between age groups of 20–39 and 40–59 years (mean difference, −3.68; p = 0.01) and 60–79 years (mean difference, −3.23; p = 0.04), with higher pain intensity in the 40–59 years group. 68 In addition, significant variation in physical function was observed between age groups of 60–79 and 20–39 years (mean difference, −20.85; p = 0.02) and 40–59 years (mean difference, −10.70; p = 0.03), with greater function in the 20–39 years group. Increased pain and decreased function in the 40–59 age group could reduce employment capacity and increase the economic burden of OAK.

Decreased ability to participate in physical exercise can increase obesity among patients with OA. 57 In the United States, adults with obesity and OA were 44% more likely to be physically inactive than adults with obesity who did not have OA. 69 Comorbidities with common risk factors (i.e., age and obesity), such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension, are increased in patients with OA. 57 The prevalence of diabetes among patients with knee or hip OA is between 9.7% and 33%, and patients with OA have a relative risk of 1.32 of developing diabetes over 12 years. 57 Approximately 52% of patients with DM also suffer from some form of arthritis. 70 Furthermore, US patients with OA and diabetes experience more inactivity (29.8%) than those with OA or diabetes alone (17.3% and 21.0%, respectively). This is a particularly difficult cohort of patients to treat, as some effective treatment modalities, such as IA corticosteroid injections, may adversely impact glucose control. 71 Between 32% and 81% of patients with OA also have hypertension, and the combination of OA and hypertension is the most common combination of comorbidities, impacting more than 24% of adults over 65 years. 57 Metabolic syndrome—the combination of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia—affects 59% of patients with OA compared with 23% of those without; physical and mental burdens of OA may limit the ability to self-manage comorbidities. 57 Overall, comorbidities associated with OA and their consequences may worsen the clinical impact of OA, and OA may contribute to the development and/or exacerbation of comorbidities, which creates a negative feedback loop, impacting physical function and treatment decisions.

The cumulative impact of all these associations may explain why OA is also an independent risk factor for all-cause mortality. Patients with symptomatic or radiographic OAK have greater mortality (15.7 or 14.1 deaths per 1000 person-years, respectively) than patients with neither OAK nor knee pain (9.4 deaths per 1000 person-years), mediated in part by the impact of OA on either disability or physical component scores of quality of life assessments. 72 Of particular importance are activity restrictions; increases in physical activity, such as brisk walking, are associated with decreased all-cause mortality, but symptomatic OAK may preclude any vigorous activity. 73 As OA is prevalent among older patients, additional comorbidities increase the likelihood of polypharmacy, increasing the risk for frailty, falls, hospitalizations, and cognitive and physical impairment.74–76

Treatment selection

As noted previously, patients with symptomatic OAK present with different phenotypes, and with variable symptom severity. Therefore, therapeutic decisions must be individualized, focused on reducing pain and improving function, slowing disease progression, improving patient mobility and well-being, and ultimately reducing healthcare resource utilization. 77 Parameters such as patient age, comorbidities, presence of inflammation, disease severity, and patient preferences and expectations should be considered when determining patient-specific treatment plans.78,79 Initiation of both nonpharmacological and pharmacological interventions is standard, and therapies progress from noninvasive treatment to more advanced, potent pharmaceuticals. 77 Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may be required if a patient does not respond to interventions or is experiencing severe symptoms and poor quality of life. 77

The decision to move forward with surgical intervention in the form of knee replacement when nonsurgical management has failed is almost entirely subjective. In addition, TKA outcomes are not always predictable and can be impacted by patient age, gender, activity level, expectations, comorbidities, surgeon and institutional volume and expertise, and many other patient- and surgeon-specific determinants.80–82 In addition, some patients are either unready or cannot medically tolerate the intervention of knee replacement and rehabilitation that follows; conversely, some surgical practices delay or deny TKA procedures for patients who are above a certain BMI or who have other modifiable risk factors such as diabetes control and smoking.83–85 Other individuals may be at risk for catastrophic complications, including fracture, infection, and poor functional outcomes. 86 Recent data suggest that roughly 10%–20% of patients are not fully satisfied with their pain and functional outcomes,87,88 and 31%–54% of patients have residual symptoms. 89 Finally, although the longevity and durability of TKA are outstanding, with 82.3% of TKAs lasting 25 years, 90 need for revision due to aseptic loosening, infection, or other mechanical complications increases over time 91 ; furthermore, revision knee arthroplasty is typically less durable than the primary procedure. 92 Younger patients with symptomatic OA, particularly those under 55 years, are at increased risk for revision,93–95 primarily because of surface wear and biological responses to wear debris; new implant designs are not effectively reducing residual symptoms or revision risks among this population.96,97 In addition, patients under 50 who undergo a knee revision are more likely to require re-revision than older patients. 98 Given the challenges with TKA in younger patients, it is crucial to understand and incorporate nonsurgical management options into the management paradigm of symptomatic OAK for patients who want to or for whom it is medically advisable to delay TKA. The remainder of this manuscript is devoted to reviewing current therapeutic guidelines established to support clinicians in identifying current and emerging nonsurgical therapies for patients with OA.

Nonsurgical treatment options for OA

Several guidelines for nonsurgical OAK treatment recommend weight loss, exercise, and pharmacologic interventions (Table 1).1,41,78,99–101 Treatment selection should be based on patient-specific factors, such as disease duration, pain intensity, and presence of comorbid conditions.78,102 Current OA therapies generally focus on reducing pain and improving function, and many therapies and technologies are under investigation to further improve disease outcomes. As of May 2023, there are 109 active interventional phase II or phase III studies for OAK (including 42 phase III studies).103,104

Table 1. Pharmacologic treatment guidelines for osteoarthritis.1,41,78,99–101

Treatment	AAOS	ACR	NICE	OARSI a	EULAR b	ASPN	
Topical NSAID	Strong recommendation	Strongly recommender	Recommended	Level 1A recommendation	Level A recommendation	Strong recommendation	
Oral NSAID	Strong recommendation	Strongly recommender	Recommended	Level 1B recommendation	Level A recommendation	Strong recommendation	
Oral acetaminophen	Strong recommendation	Conditionally recommender	Recommended	Conditionally not recommended	Level 1B recommendation	No recommendation	
Oral narcotics	Strong recommendation	No recommendation	Recommended	No recommendation	No recommendation	Strongly against	
Hyaluronic acid	Moderate recommendation	Conditionally against	Not recommended	Level 1B recommendation	Level B recommendation	Strong recommendation	
Intraarticular corticosteroids	Moderate recommendation	Strongly recommender	Recommended	Level 1B recommendation	Level A recommendation	Moderate recommendation	
Platelet-rich plasma	Limited recommendation	Strongly against	No recommendation	Strongly against	No recommendation	Strong recommendation	
a Level 1A: ⩾75% of panelists in favor of recommendation and >50% in favor of strong recommendation; Level 1B: ⩾75% of panelists in favor of recommendation and >50% in favor of conditional recommendation.

b Level A: directly based on category 1 evidence (meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials or ⩾1 randomized controlled trial); Level B: directly based on category 2 evidence (⩾1 controlled study without randomization or ⩾1 type of quasi-experimental study) or extrapolated from category 1 evidence.

AAOS, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; ACR, American College of Rheumatology; ASPN, American Society of Pain and Neuroscience; EULAR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology; NICE, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; OARSI, Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Nonpharmacologic interventions

The AAOS guidelines for OAK recommend manual therapy delivered by a therapist in conjunction with an exercise program. 1 Supervised or unsupervised exercise (land or aquatic) to strengthen muscles is recommended by AAOS, NICE, OARSI, and ACR.1,41,99,101 To reduce the burden on and increase the function of the affected joint, guidelines also recommend self-management (i.e., patient-driven therapy and exercise programs), mobility aids, braces, heat and cold therapies, neuromuscular training, and weight loss.1,105 Weight loss reduces joint loads, decreases joint pain, and has been associated with improved long-term prognoses and adherence to subsequent therapies. 106 Despite known health benefits, weight loss is difficult to achieve and has a high recidivism rate 106 because of dietary habits, sedentary behaviors, and difficulties with exercise—including temporary soreness or increase in knee pain. 106 In addition, dyslipidemia in patients with obesity, specifically elevations in proinflammatory adipokines and reduced high-density lipoproteins, is associated with bone lesions and increased inflammation, both systemically and within the joint.107,108 Recent advances in treatment for type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) like semaglutide, liraglutide, and dulaglutide, are potentially disease-modifying therapies for OAK. 109 An observational study of 1807 patients with OAK showed clinically relevant (>5%) weight reductions in 57.9% of patients treated with GLP-1RA (135/233). 109 Significant differences from baseline were observed in WOMAC total scores (p = 0.038) and pain subscores (p = 0.007) for patients treated with GLP-1RA compared with those who were not, as well as lower incidence of TKA (p = 0.014) and IA steroid use (p < 0.001). 109 Cartilage-loss velocity was significantly lower in patients with predominantly lateral OA who were treated with GLP-1RA compared with those who were not (p = 0.026). 109 Importantly, changes were not consistently found to be mediated by weight reduction and HbA1c change, 109 so further research is needed to understand the impact of GLP-1RAs on OAK.

Topical therapies

For OA-related pain, guidelines recommend topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and topical capsaicin.1,100,110 A meta-analysis evaluated topical NSAIDs—including diclofenac, ketoprofen, piroxicam, eltenac, felbinac, flurbiprofen, piketoprofen, nimesulide, flufenamate, indomethacin, and ibuprofen—applied as solutions, gels, or patches, and found topical NSAIDs, particularly diclofenac, to be as effective as oral NSAIDs in OAK. 111 In addition, topical NSAID therapy was well tolerated in patients ⩾65 years of age and patients with multiple comorbidities, including hypertension, type 2 DM, and cardiovascular disease. 112 While studies on long-term use of topical NSAIDs are scarce, consistent improvement was seen in pain, stiffness, and physical function after 12 months of consistent treatment with topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel. 113 In addition, the most common adverse events (AEs) reported with long-term use of topical NSAIDs were headache, arthralgia, back pain, and application-site dry skin or dermatitis.113,114 Topical capsaicin provides comparable pain control to topical NSAIDs but has limited evidence in OA. 115 Though topical treatments limit the amount of medication absorbed systemically, 116 a comprehensive evaluation found topical NSAIDs not clinically important for the treatment of OAK. 117 Furthermore, topical treatments can cause skin reactions, including dry skin, rash, and dermatitis, 118 but reactions are generally mild and transient. 111

Systemic therapies

Systemic, oral therapies recommended for OA pain management include oral NSAIDs (nonselective and COX-2 selective, with/without proton pump inhibitor), oral acetaminophen, and oral tramadol,1,100,110 but chronic treatment with systemic therapies includes substantial risks. For example, acetaminophen is an adjunctive therapy that should be used with caution given risks of liver toxicity with excessive dosing,1,119 and NSAIDs are contraindicated in patients taking some antihypertensives or with a history of hypertension. 120 In addition, narcotics should be avoided except in extreme cases given the high risk of AEs. 1

In 2007, the Food and Drug Administration released a medication guide for oral NSAIDs. 121 This guide details associated AEs, including serious AEs (e.g., heart attack, stroke, intestinal bleeding, and kidney failure) and less-threatening AEs (e.g., stomach pain, constipation, and heartburn). 121 The guide specifies that NSAIDs should be taken at the lowest dose possible for the shortest time needed. 121 However, >111 million prescriptions for NSAIDs are written in the United States annually. 122 Chronic use of NSAIDs increases with age, so even low percentages of AEs can add up to a large number of affected patients. Most NSAIDs are used as needed, and whereas NSAIDs such as ibuprofen have a short half-life and are absorbed quickly for immediate relief, NSAIDs with a longer half-life—such as naproxen or celecoxib—may be more beneficial for the persistent chronic OAK-associated pain. 122 Compared with the efficacy of opioids for musculoskeletal conditions such as OA, NSAIDs have been shown to comparably reduce pain intensity, with some studies showing significantly lower rates of AEs. 123 Similarly, compared with acetaminophen, NSAIDs are associated with improved pain control and a better safety profile. 124 Though a recent meta-analysis of symptom relief and AEs with oral NSAIDs for treatment of OA found that all NSAIDs were associated with an increased probability of gastrointestinal (GI) AEs and minor cardiovascular events relative to placebo, this cardiovascular risk was lower with increased COX-2 selectivity. 125 Furthermore, the absolute risk of serious GI and cardiovascular complications such as GI bleeding and heart failure-related mortality increases with age among patients taking nonselective NSAIDs, particularly those with prior bleeding complications, hospitalizations for heart failure, and concomitant use of anticoagulants. 126 These collective safety issues with NSAIDs suggest alternatives should be explored for long-term OA pain management.

Novel systemic treatments under investigation to target specific pain-signaling channels may improve OA-related pain treatment by avoiding off-target effects that may lead to AEs (PF05089771 for Nav1.7 sodium channels, capsaicin for transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1).127,128 In addition, treatments developed for osteoporosis, including strontium ranelate and denosumab, have shown potential as disease-modifying therapies in OA, with significant improvements in radiological changes, as well as function and pain.129,130 For example, in patients with OAK, daily treatment with 2 g strontium ranelate significantly improved versus placebo in joint space width (−0.27 vs −0.37 mm, respectively; p = 0.018), WOMAC total score (−51.9/300 vs −40.7/300 mm; p = 0.045), and WOMAC pain subscore (−19.1/100 vs −14.7/100 mm; p = 0.028). 129

Local injection therapies

Locally delivered therapies, such as IA injections, can more directly address OA symptoms. In general, guidelines recommend IA-CS injections and do not recommend other IA injections, although AAOS gives IA platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP) a limited recommendation (discussed in “Emerging Treatments”). 1 Injections of IA-CS can provide effective relief of OAK pain for up to 3 months. 131 While IA-CS injections are recommended for short-term OAK relief, 1 a comparison of short-acting IA-CS with other injectables found no difference in pain level for all injections; however, other injectables led to greater improvements in function than IA-CS injectables at and beyond 3 months following treatment. 132 In addition, a review of nonoperative treatments for OAK found that IA injections of hyaluronic acid (IA-HA) demonstrated clinical efficacy at molecular weights between ⩾1500 to <6000 and ⩾6000 kDa, 117 though they are not generally recommended by guidelines.1,41,78,99–101 In 54 trials that used IA-HA injections to treat OAK pain, function, and stiffness, IA-HA was efficacious at 4 weeks, reached peak effectiveness at 8 weeks, and had a residual effect at 24 weeks after treatment. 133 Across 74 trials, IA-HA products were well tolerated, with AE rates similar to those of placebo. 134 In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of data regarding viscosupplementation with IA-HA—which reviewed 24 placebo-controlled trials (N = 8997) for pain outcomes, 19 placebo-controlled trials (N = 6307) for function, and 15 placebo-controlled trials (N = 6462) for serious AEs—viscosupplementation demonstrated greater reductions in pain intensity than those of placebo, but the incidence of serious AEs was higher in the treatment group and pain reductions were below the MCID. 135 Many randomized controlled trials of viscosupplementation with IA-HA exhibited similar or worse treatment outcomes compared with placebo, though these results were never published. 135 The implications of these findings for ongoing and future use of viscosupplementation are yet to be determined.

The AAOS cautions that short-acting IA injections carry a potential risk of accelerating OA, 1 yet some evidence for this is based on populations not representative of typical OA patients and derived from studies with notable limitations. Two observational studies published in 2019 investigated OA progression to TKA following IA-CS. 136 One found an increased risk of TKA with IA-CS treatment compared with those treated without IA-CS (22.3% vs 5.4%), but the authors also acknowledged that only one patient in the IA-CS group had TKA due to worsening K/L assessment.136,137 The other study found no increased 5-year risk in patients treated with IA-CS compared with patients treated with IA-HA.136,138 Another questionnaire-based study identified a possible increase in risk for TKA in professional soccer players; results for this study were limited to survey respondents, and information gathered from professional athletes is not directly translatable to the general arthritic patient.136,139 Despite these concerns, a trial of 140 patients with OAK injected with IA triamcinolone or placebo every 3 months found that cartilage thickness loss was not statistically different between groups (p = 0.14) among study completers. 140 The reported worst-case scenario of cartilage loss with IA triamcinolone (~0.055 mm/year over 2 years) 140 is unlikely to be clinically meaningful, particularly if the steroid provides symptomatic relief.

A significant challenge of IA-CS, which contributes to its short-term clinical impact, is that small-molecule drugs such as triamcinolone acetonide (TA) are not retained in the joint space, leading to rapid egress from the joint into plasma circulation and waning analgesic effects. 141 Formulation of these drugs with compounds that allow longer joint residence should enable longer treatment periods without increased toxicity. 142 An extended-release formulation of TA (TA-ER) has been developed that embeds TA within poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) microspheres. 141 These microspheres reside within the synovium of the joint and slowly degrade to release bioactive TA. 143 The microspheres, which degrade to carbon dioxide and water, reside in the joint for at least 3 months—this corresponds with clinically relevant detectable levels of TA within the joint at 3 months in contrast to standard TA, which is gone from the joint by 6 weeks.143,144 The low IA concentration leads to a low diffusion gradient and an 18 times lower peak plasma concentration of TA. 144 This lower plasma concentration has demonstrated no adrenal suppression and minimal impact on blood glucose in diabetic patients.144–147 Initial phase II studies demonstrated significant pain reduction with TA-ER relative to saline placebo.141,148 A subsequent three-arm, phase III study comparing placebo, crystalline-suspension formulation of TA (TA-CS), and TA-ER demonstrated an approximately 50% reduction in pain from baseline with TA-ER at 12 weeks (average daily pain (ADP) intensity scores from baseline to week 12 of −3.12 compared with −2.86 with TA-CS (p = 0.2964) and −2.14 with placebo (p < 0.0001)), with a statistically and clinically meaningful reduction in pain compared with placebo (least squares mean (LSM) difference −0.37; p < 0.0001) and TA-CS (LSM difference −0.17; p = 0.0475) at 12 weeks, and rescue medication use was also significantly reduced with TA-ER versus placebo (LSM difference −0.50; p = 0.0006). 149 Subsequent post hoc analysis of these same data also demonstrated statistically significant improvement using TA-ER versus TA-CS in ADP intensity scores from weeks 4 to 21 (p < 0.05) and WOMAC-A scores at weeks 4, 8, 12, and 24 (p < 0.05) in patients with unilateral OAK and those who at baseline had consistent concordant pain reporting utilizing both ADP and WOMAC-A.150,151 Furthermore, in a phase IIIb real-world study, 92% of participants opted for a repeat injection based on efficacy of the first injection. 152 The clinical response of the second injection was comparable in duration and magnitude to the first injection, with a median time for redosing of 16.6 weeks. 152 At 52 weeks, there were no radiographic signals to suggest progression of disease with no change in joint space narrowing, subchondral bone changes, insufficiency fracture, and osteonecrosis. 152 Other than a slight increase in arthralgia, the second dose of TA-ER did not increase incidence of AEs, and the increase in arthralgia was attributed to disease pathology or progression of OA. 152 Extended-release intraarticular corticosteroids (IA-CS) are included in the AAOS guidelines with a moderate recommendation to improve patient outcomes over immediate-release corticosteroids. 1

Other liposomal or extended-release formulations of corticosteroids have been investigated for OAK. In a preliminary phase I study, extended-release fluticasone propionate (FP-ER) was well tolerated with a trend toward improved pain relative to placebo between 8 and 12 weeks, although significance was not reached. 153 In addition, TLC599, a liposome-delivered extended-release formulation of dexamethasone sodium phosphate, was evaluated in a phase IIa study in 75 patients with OAK. 154 One 12-mg dose significantly improved patient pain compared with placebo (p = 0.0027) and showed sustained pain control through week 24. 154 A phase III trial of TLC599 has been completed, but results have not yet been released [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04123561]. In addition, nano products—such as micelles, exosomes, and cell-based nanotherapies—for targeted and sustained delivery of therapies are under investigation. 155 Emerging treatments also include potential disease-modifying therapies that would prevent further joint destruction and improve function (e.g., IL-1 receptor antagonist IA injection, gene therapy such as PCRX201, cell-based therapies including ELIXCYTE and TissueGene-C, and inhibitors of Wnt signaling pathway (lorecivivint)).142,156–159

PRP products concentrate platelets, white blood cells, and platelet-derived growth factors from a patient’s centrifuged blood. 160 IA-PRP receives a limited recommendation in the AAOS guidelines 1 but is not recommended in the ACR guidelines. 101 In a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of IA-PRP compared with IA-HA, ozone, and IA-CS, significant differences for IA-PRP over the control group were demonstrated in total WOMAC scores and WOMAC physical function subscores at 3, 6, and 12 months. 161 Similarly, significant improvements in total WOMAC scores and International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form scores at 24 weeks were noted in a systematic review and analyses of four randomized clinical trials and two prospective cohort studies comparing IA-PRP with IA-HA or placebo. 162 Significant improvement in radiographic parameters, including patellofemoral cartilage volume and synovitis, was observed 8 months after IA-PRP treatment compared with placebo (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026, respectively) in a 2020 randomized clinical trial. 163 Hypertension and proteinuria have been noted by AAOS as treatment-related AEs for IA-PRP, 1 but a meta-analysis found that all AEs—including pain, stiffness, syncope, dizziness, headache, nausea, gastritis, sweating, and tachycardia—were neither specific nor severe and resolved within days. 161 Although the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) consensus group found enough evidence to support the use of PRP in OAK, 164 AAOS guidelines note that additional evidence over a 2-to-5-year period is needed to determine whether IA-PRP is cartilage sparing compared with IA-CS. 1 Given the heterogeneity of preparation and variable concentrations of blood products (e.g., platelets, leukocytes), investigators have also called for increased consistency in reporting PRP preparation steps and composition of the PRP delivered in clinical studies, 165 as available data lack sufficient detail to interpret results or enable trial replication. 166 Furthermore, current studies lack knee function or structural change data, limiting analysis of long-term efficacy. 167

Other formulations of human plasma are under investigation for localized pain management. A combination of human plasma containing clonidine and HA, JTA-004, was designed for injectable pain control. 168 Although improvements were seen in the WOMAC pain subscale, physical function subscale, and total scores at all time points, the initial dosing study for JTA-004 did not show a significant difference from a reference treatment. 168

Denervation therapies

Cryoneurolysis is a form of thermal neurolysis in which a cryoprobe cooled from −20°C to −100°C (−88°C with nitrous oxide as a coolant) is used to freeze peripheral sensory nerves at or near the source of pain.169,170 The mechanism of action is to locally freeze the nerve, which results in Wallerian degeneration of the axon and myelin distal to the injury, but preservation of the nerve sheath. Over time, the nerve regenerates at 1–2 mm per day along the intact nerve sheath to its target innervation.169,171 In a study including 180 patients with OAK, the application of cryoneurolysis to the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve in patients with OA-related knee pain was well tolerated, with most commonly reported AEs (bruising, numbness, redness, tenderness upon palpation, and swelling) resolving within 30 days. 172 Cryoneurolysis significantly decreased knee pain (visual analog scale score) compared with sham treatment through 150 days (least-squares mean difference, −14.6; p = 0.0010). 172 A parallel-group randomized controlled trial currently recruiting in KOA [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03774121] will allocate participants 1:1 to cryoneurolysis or sham treatment in combination with exercise and education 173 .

Another form of thermal denervation is radiofrequency ablation (RFA).174,175 In contrast to cryoneurolysis, cooled RFA delivers radiofrequency energy to degrade nerve structures through ionic heating at a high thermal temperature of 60°C to disrupt or destroy neurons.176,177 The temperature is cooled locally during treatment, but high temperatures still may cause injury to surrounding tissues or permanent nerve injury.176,178 In a randomized study of 38 patients with severe OAK pain lasting over 3 months, RFA (n = 19) significantly reduced visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores from baseline after 1 week compared with a sham-treated control group (n = 19). 179 Among patients treated with RFA, 59% achieved 50% pain reduction after 12 weeks, with no patients in the control group showing a similar reduction. In a direct comparison between RFA (n = 37) and IA-delivered analgesics (morphine and betamethasone; n = 36), patients treated with RFA saw significant reductions in VAS-pain, WOMAC total scores, and WOMAC-physical function after 1 month and VAS-pain and WOMAC stiffness after 3 months compared with those treated with IA. 180 Similar results were observed in comparisons of RFA with oral analgesics. 181 Patients treated with RFA showed sustained pain control, with a 67% improvement in pain from baseline at 3 months post-RFA and a 95% improvement at 6 months post-RFA, 182 and improvements in physical function and general health perceptions were seen post-RFA treatment. 161 Although AAOS guidelines suggest that denervation therapy may reduce pain and improve function, the number of studies is too limited for a full recommendation. 1 Data on long-term outcomes are limited for denervation therapies, and there is additional research, which is warranted regarding the potential complications of treating a neuropathic joint.

Framework to guide clinical decision-making

Although guidelines have been established for OAK treatment, real-world treatment decisions vary greatly based on patient phenotype and may differ from guideline recommendations. 15 Although guidelines outline general recommendations for clinical management of OA, they are based on evidence from clinical trials and meta-analyses, which may not reflect patient outcomes in clinical practice. 183 In addition, clinical trials rarely include stacked therapy of multiple modalities, which is frequently utilized in clinical practice. For example, clinical trials have a limited duration of patient follow-up, whereas an HCP may see patients for a decade or more and thus develop a different perspective on safety and effectiveness, particularly for therapies continued over many years. 183 Likewise, efficacy thresholds set in clinical trials and incorporated into meta-analyses may not adequately reflect the chronicity of OA. 183 One study compared treatment effect sizes and thresholds of statistical significance and clinical importance to illustrate that 19 interventions, including commonplace treatments such as acetaminophen and topical NSAIDs, did not meet the standards of clinical importance. 117 Continuous ultrasound, lateral wedge insole, pulsed ultrasound, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and valgus bracing demonstrated possible clinical importance in this analysis. 117 To address the clinical complexity in the treatment of real-world OA patient populations, step-wise treatment algorithms have been utilized alongside published guidelines, as well as algorithms that monitor for suboptimal therapy and increased morbidity from AEs. 184

With the development of technologies such as microspheres for targeted steroid release, denervation therapies, and gene therapy, it is appropriate to tailor treatment options to specific patients at specific times in their OA journey. To this end, the authors propose the following principles for consideration for treatment selection. Nonpharmacologic therapies, including bracing, therapy, and exercise, should be utilized throughout a patient’s treatment plan. Depending on the level of pain at presentation, topical NSAIDs can be an initial choice for pain management to limit systemic exposure, followed by over-the-counter analgesics, such as oral NSAIDs and acetaminophen, if topical treatments are ineffective. These first-line anti-inflammatory adjuncts are important, but managing a 45-year-old male manual labor worker with severe bone-on-bone arthritis with ibuprofen for 10 years would not be an ideal treatment choice and could lead to a multitude of deleterious health consequences. In addition, a 50-year-old female account executive who wants to ski and ride horseback would likely be more amenable to targeted and local anti-inflammatory technologies versus oral medication that has significant systemic deleterious effects. For chronic treatment in patients with risk factors or comorbidities for AEs associated with systemic, pharmacologic agents, repeat treatment with TA-ER, cryoneurolysis, or emerging injectables may provide a local treatment option with minimal risk for systemic AEs.

As described previously, OAK is a chronic condition with significant negative effects on life and work, in addition to potential comorbid contributions from various treatment options. Newer technologies appear to be safer, more effective, and possibly more economically feasible in younger patients who are not candidates for joint arthroplasty. Though evidence for chondrotoxicity from IA injections is sparse and poor, in younger patients, consideration might be given to HA or biologic injections given their generally anecdotal improved safety profile over IA steroids; meanwhile, patients with diabetes may be good candidates for targeted IA technologies that are long-acting and slowly elute steroid to modulate IA inflammation with minimal systemic absorption. Emerging technologies may be even more beneficial in patients of advanced age who are no longer candidates for surgical replacement. Denervation therapy in conjunction with long-acting IA steroids has not only been shown to be effective and safe, but they have also demonstrated improved mobility and fall reduction in the authors’ experience (e-mail, M.L., 25 March 2023). As patients approach the need for TKA, injections should be avoided within 3 months of planned surgery, and cryoneurolysis becomes an attractive extra-articular option without increasing perioperative risk or morbidity. Currently, there are no guidelines regarding which therapeutic interventions or treatment sequences are recommended for any given phenotype. Future expert consensus and additional studies will hopefully delineate this important clinical information; however, the current choice and sequence of therapeutic agents are empiric.

Areas for future research

Multiple therapies are under clinical development for OAK, with some highlighted in Table 2. Although research has been conducted into real-world treatment patterns in OAK, additional information on how extant and emerging therapies are used in clinical settings is needed. Expanded randomized clinical trials that distinguish between patient phenotypes and incorporate more long-term data, along with additional information from registries and real-world studies, will give a more thorough picture of how novel therapies impact the heterogeneous population of patients with OA. In addition, standardized time points and measurement scales would allow for more direct comparisons between current and novel therapies. Further health economics and outcomes research is also needed to better understand the financial impact of OA on the community and individuals. One real-world registry for OA is the Innovations in Genicular Outcomes Registry, which is prospectively collecting real-world data from patients undergoing treatments for OAK [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05495334]. Clinical effectiveness, safety, health-related quality of life, and economic burden are being assessed through patient-reported outcome measures and clinical, reimbursement, and healthcare resource utilization data [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05495334].

Table 2. Select therapies in development for OAK a .

Therapy	Current clinical development stage b	Mechanism of action	Route of administration	
Ion channel targeting	
 PF05089771 127	Preclinical	Selective intracellular blockade of Nav1.7 sodium channels	IA	
 Capsaicin 128	Phase IIb TRIUMPH study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02558439)	Transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1 agonist	IA	
 OLP-1002 185	Phase II [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05216341]	PNA-based drug; inhibits expression of Nav1.7 sodium channels	SC	
 RTX 186	Phase II [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04885972]	TRPV1 calcium channel agonist	IA	
Cartilage formation promoter	
 Strontium ranelate 129	Phase III SEKOIA study (ISRCTN1323372)	Stimulates cartilage matrix formation and inhibits subchondral bone resorption	PO	
Anti-inflammatories	
 Denosumab 130	Phase II (EUDRACT CT 2015-003223-53)	Receptor activator of NF-κB ligand inhibitor	NR	
 ER fluticasone propionate 153	Phase I (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02609126)	Corticosteroid; anti-inflammatory	IA	
 TLC599 (ER dexamethasone sodium phosphate) 154	Phase IIa (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03005873) and Phase III [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04123561]	Glucocorticoid; anti-inflammatory	IA	
 JTA-004 168	Phase II/III (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02740231)	Antihypertensive and hyaluronic acid; anti-inflammatory and analgesic	IA	
Gene therapies	
 PCRX201 156	Phase I (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04119687)	Gene therapy; IL-1R antagonist triggered by an NF-κB promoter	IA	
 ICM-203 187	Phase I/II
[ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT05454566, NCT04875754]	Gene therapy; enhance NKx3.2 expression	IA	
 XT-150 188	Phase II [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04124042]	Gene therapy; induce IL-10 expression	IA	
Cell-based therapies	
 ELIXCYTE 157	Phase I/II (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02784964)	MSCs; immunomodulator, also targets chondrocytes and cartilage	IA	
 TissueGene-C 159	Phase III (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02072070)	Cell-based expression of TGF-β; cartilage restoration	IA	
 XSTEM	Phase I/II [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05344157]	Allogenic MSCs selected for integrin α10β1	IA	
 SMUP-IA-01 189	Phase II [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05182034]	UBC-derived MSCs producing anti-inflammatory PTX-3	IA	
Amnion-based therapy	
 Amniotic suspension allograft 190	Phase III [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04636229]	Amniotic membrane particulate and amniotic fluid cells	IA	
a This table includes representative therapies from each category and is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

b As of January 2024.

ER, extended release; IA, intraarticular; IL-1R, interleukin-1 receptor; IL-10, interleukin 10; MSC, mesenchymal stem cell; NF-κB, nuclear factor kappa B; NKx3.2, NK3 homeobox 2; NR, not reported; OAK, knee OA; PNA, peptide nucleic acid; PO, by mouth; PTX-3, pentraxin 3; RTX, Resiniferatoxin; TGF-β, tumor growth factor-beta; SC, subcutaneous; TRPV1, transient receptor potential cation channel subfamily V member 1; UBC, umbilical cord; Wnt, Wingless-related integration site.

Conclusion

OAK is a prevalent condition with variable disease presentation and trajectory that leads to a large humanistic and economic burden. While disease modification therapies have not yet been identified, several nonsurgical options have been characterized. Nevertheless, there is an unmet need for therapies that can meaningfully improve pain and functional outcomes. Recently emerging treatment options present opportunities to manage pain and increase mobility more effectively. While treatment guidelines provide a scaffold for determining the appropriate treatment path, each patient presents with a unique set of needs which, along with emerging treatment options, should be incorporated into an individualized approach to OAK management.

Writing and editorial assistance was provided under the direction of the authors by Jenny Johnson, PhD, ELS, MedThink SciCom, and funded by Pacira BioSciences. All authors have authorized MedThink SciCom to submit this approved manuscript on their behalf.

Declarations

ORCID iDs: Michael Langworthy https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3985-0283

Vinod Dasa https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5282-4026

Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Author contributions: Michael Langworthy: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Vinod Dasa: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Andrew I. Spitzer: Conceptualization; Writing – review & editing.

Funding: The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding for this study was provided by Pacira BioSciences.

M.L. has served as a consultant for Pacira BioSciences, Inc., and receives royalties from Orthodevelopment. V.D. has served as a consultant or speaker for, received research support from, and/or has stock in Bioventus (specifically regarding DUROLANE), Emovi, Ferring, Goldfinch Consulting, Grand Care, J. Robert Gladden Orthopaedic Society, Medi Post, MEND, Motive, My Medical Images, Pacira BioSciences, Inc. (specifically regarding EXPAREL, iovera°, and ZILRETTA), Sanofi (specifically regarding SYNVISC), SIGHT Medical, STRIVE MedTech, the Journal of Orthopaedic Experience & Innovation, the National Institutes of Health, the Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation, and Vertex. A.I.S. has served as a consultant, speaker, and/or researcher for DePuy, Pacira BioSciences, Inc. (specifically regarding ZILRETTA), and TraumaCad (Brainlab).

Availability of data and materials: Not applicable.
==== Refs
References

1 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Management of osteoarthritis of the knee (nonarthroplasty) evidence-based clinical practice guideline, https://www.aaos.org/oak3cpg (2021, accessed 24 April 2024).
2 Whittaker JL Runhaar J Bierma-Zeinstra S , et al . A lifespan approach to osteoarthritis prevention. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021; 29 : 1638–1653.34560260
3 Grassel S Muschter D . Recent advances in the treatment of osteoarthritis. F1000Research 2020; 9 : F1000 Faculty Rev-1325.
4 Sakalauskiene G Jauniskiene D . Osteoarthritis: etiology, epidemiology, impact on the individual and society and the main principles of management. Medicina (Kaunas) 2010; 46 : 790–797.21467838
5 Leifer VP Katz JN Losina E . The burden of OA-health services and economics. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30 : 10–16.34023527
6 Hunter DJ March L Chew M . Osteoarthritis in 2020 and beyond: a lancet commission. Lancet 2020; 396 : 1711–1712.33159851
7 Deshpande BR Katz JN Solomon DH , et al . Number of persons with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in the US: impact of race and ethnicity, age, sex, and obesity. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68 : 1743–1750.27014966
8 Callahan LF Cleveland RJ Allen KD , et al . Racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and geographic disparities in the epidemiology of knee and hip osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2021; 47 : 1–20.34042049
9 Pritzker KP Gay S Jimenez SA , et al . Osteoarthritis cartilage histopathology: grading and staging. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006; 14 : 13–29.16242352
10 Astephen Wilson JL Deluzio KJ Dunbar MJ , et al . The association between knee joint biomechanics and neuromuscular control and moderate knee osteoarthritis radiographic and pain severity. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19 : 186–193.21074628
11 Silva NCdOVE Dos Anjos RL Santana MMC , et al . Discordance between radiographic findings, pain, and superficial temperature in knee osteoarthritis. Reumatologia 2020; 58 : 375–380.33456080
12 Van Spil WE Kubassova O Boesen M , et al . Osteoarthritis phenotypes and novel therapeutic targets. Biochem Pharmacol 2019; 165 : 41–48.30831073
13 Jang S Lee K Ju JH . Recent updates of diagnosis, pathophysiology, and treatment on osteoarthritis of the knee. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22 : 2619.33807695
14 Kan HS Chan PK Chiu KY , et al . Non-surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Hong Kong Med J 2019; 25 : 127–133.30919810
15 Dysart S Utkina K Stong L , et al . Insights from real-world analysis of treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed knee osteoarthritis. Am Health Drug Benefits 2021; 14 : 56–62.34267860
16 Peng H Ou A Huang X , et al . Osteotomy around the knee: the surgical treatment of osteoarthritis. Orthop Surg 2021; 13 : 1465–1473.34110088
17 Ronn K Reischl N Gautier E , et al . Current surgical treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis 2011; 2011 : 454873.22046517
18 Quinn RH Murray JN Pezold R , et al . Surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2018; 26 : e191–e193.
19 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based clinical practice guideline, https://www.aaos.org/quality/quality-programs/lower-extremity-programs/surgical-management-of-osteoarthritis-of-the-knee/ (accessed 24 April 2024).
20 Long H Liu Q Yin H , et al . Prevalence trends of site-specific osteoarthritis from 1990 to 2019: findings from the global burden of disease study 2019. Arthritis Rheumatol 2022; 74 : 1172–1183.35233975
21 Murphy L Schwartz TA Helmick CG , et al . Lifetime risk of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59 : 1207–1213.18759314
22 Cui A Li H Wang D , et al . Global, regional prevalence, incidence and risk factors of knee osteoarthritis in population-based studies. EClinicalMedicine 2020; 29–30 : 100587.
23 GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 2016; 388 : 1545–1602.27733282
24 Liu M Jin F Yao X , et al . Disease burden of osteoarthritis of the knee and hip due to a high body mass index in China and the USA: 1990–2019 findings from the global burden of disease study 2019. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2022; 23 : 63.35039041
25 Wallace IJ Worthington S Felson DT , et al . Knee osteoarthritis has doubled in prevalence since the mid-20th century. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017; 114 : 9332–9336.28808025
26 van Tunen JAC Peat G Bricca A , et al . Association of osteoarthritis risk factors with knee and hip pain in a population-based sample of 29–59 year olds in Denmark: a cross-sectional analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19 : 300.30126395
27 Szilagyi IA Waarsing JH Schiphof D , et al . Towards sex-specific osteoarthritis risk models: evaluation of risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in males and females. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2022; 61 : 648–657.33895803
28 Silverwood V Blagojevic-Bucknall M Jinks C , et al . Current evidence on risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 : 507–515.25447976
29 Reynard LN Barter MJ . Osteoarthritis year in review 2019: genetics, genomics and epigenetics. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2020; 28 : 275–284.31874234
30 Loughlin J . Genetic contribution to osteoarthritis development: current state of evidence. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2015; 27 : 284–288.25775188
31 Park S Bello A Arai Y , et al . Functional duality of chondrocyte hypertrophy and biomedical application trends in osteoarthritis. Pharmaceutics 2021; 13 : 1139.34452101
32 Budhiparama NC Lumban-Gaol I Sudoyo H , et al . Interleukin-1 genetic polymorphisms in knee osteoarthritis: what do we know? A meta-analysis and systematic review. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2022; 30 : 23094990221076652.35227123
33 Felson DT Hodgson R . Identifying and treating preclinical and early osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2014; 40 : 699–710.25437286
34 Prasanna SS Korner-Bitensky N Ahmed S . Why do people delay accessing health care for knee osteoarthritis? Exploring beliefs of health professionals and lay people. Physiother Can 2013; 65 : 56–63.24381383
35 Culvenor AG Oiestad BE Hart HF , et al . Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis features on magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic uninjured adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2019; 53 : 1268–1278.29886437
36 Crema MD Roemer FW Marra MD , et al . Articular cartilage in the knee: current MR imaging techniques and applications in clinical practice and research. Radiographics 2011; 31 : 37–61.21257932
37 Altman R Asch E Bloch D , et al . Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis. Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee. Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American Rheumatism Association. Arthritis Rheum 1986; 29 : 1039–1049.3741515
38 Kittelson AJ Schmiege SJ Maluf K , et al . Determination of pain phenotypes in knee osteoarthritis using latent profile analysis. Pain Med 2021; 22 : 653–662.33367906
39 Kittelson AJ Stevens-Lapsley JE Schmiege SJ . Determination of pain phenotypes in knee osteoarthritis: a latent class analysis using data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68 : 612–620.26414884
40 Mobasheri A Saarakkala S Finnila M , et al . Recent advances in understanding the phenotypes of osteoarthritis. F1000Research 2019; 8 : F1000 Faculty Rev-2091.
41 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Osteoarthritis: care and management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2020.
42 Bjurstrom MF Bodelsson M Montgomery A , et al . Differential expression of cerebrospinal fluid neuroinflammatory mediators depending on osteoarthritis pain phenotype. Pain 2020; 161 : 2142–2154.32384383
43 Fu K Robbins SR McDougall JJ . Osteoarthritis: the genesis of pain. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018; 57 : iv43–iv50.
44 Martel-Pelletier J Barr AJ Cicuttini FM , et al . Osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016; 2 : 16072.27734845
45 Bedson J Croft PR . The discordance between clinical and radiographic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic search and summary of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2008; 9 : 116.18764949
46 Lee LS Chan PK Fung WC , et al . Imaging of knee osteoarthritis: a review of current evidence and clinical guidelines. Musculoskeletal Care 2021; 19 : 363–374.33387447
47 Sherman SL Gulbrandsen TR Lewis HA , et al . Overuse of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of moderate to severe osteoarthritis. Iowa Orthop J 2018; 38 : 33–37.30104922
48 Man GS Mologhianu G . Osteoarthritis pathogenesis—a complex process that involves the entire joint. J Med Life 2014; 7 : 37–41.
49 Raynauld JP Martel-Pelletier J Berthiaume MJ , et al . Long term evaluation of disease progression through the quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis patients: correlation with clinical symptoms and radiographic changes. Arthritis Res Ther 2006; 8 : R21.
50 Kellgren JH Lawrence JS . Radiological assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957; 16 : 494–502.13498604
51 Cerejo R Dunlop DD Cahue S , et al . The influence of alignment on risk of knee osteoarthritis progression according to baseline stage of disease. Arthritis Rheum 2002; 46 : 2632–2636.12384921
52 Schiphof D. Identifying knee osteoarthritis: classification, early recognition and imaging, https://repub.eur.nl/pub/31136/120201_Schiphof,%20Dieuwke%20-%20Identifying%20Knee%20Osteoarthritis_%20Classification,%20early%20recognition%20and%20imaging.pdf (2012, accessed 25 April 2024).
53 Bay-Jensen AC Andersen TL Charni-Ben Tabassi N , et al . Biochemical markers of type II collagen breakdown and synthesis are positioned at specific sites in human osteoarthritic knee cartilage. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008; 16 : 615–623.17950629
54 Concoff A Rosen J Fu F , et al . A comparison of treatment effects for nonsurgical therapies and the minimum clinically important difference in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 2019; 7 : e5.
55 Molino J Harrington J Racine-Avila J , et al . Deconstructing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Orthop Res Rev 2022; 14 : 35–42.35210873
56 Weber KL Jevsevar DS McGrory BJ . AAOS clinical practice guideline: surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee: evidence-based guideline. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24 : e94–e96.
57 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Osteoarthritis: a serious disease. Mount Laurel, NJ: Osteoarthritis Research Society International, 2016.
58 Favre J Jolles BM . Gait analysis of patients with knee osteoarthritis highlights a pathological mechanical pathway and provides a basis for therapeutic interventions. EFORT Open Rev 2016; 1 : 368–374.28461915
59 Segal NA Nevitt MC Gross KD , et al . The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST): opportunities for rehabilitation research. PM R 2013; 5 : 647–654.23953013
60 Losina E Silva GS Smith KC , et al . Quality-adjusted life-years lost due to physical inactivity in a US population with osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2020; 72 : 1349–1357.31350803
61 Dibonaventura MD Gupta S McDonald M , et al . Impact of self-rated osteoarthritis severity in an employed population: cross-sectional analysis of data from the National Health and Wellness Survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10 : 30.22420468
62 Menon J . Osteoarthritis related absenteeism and activity limitations. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 (Suppl. 2 ): A343.
63 Holte HH Tambs K Bjerkedal T . Manual work as predictor for disability pensioning with osteoarthritis among the employed in Norway 1971–1990. Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29 : 487–494.10869321
64 Sadosky AB Bushmakin AG Cappelleri JC , et al . Relationship between patient-reported disease severity in osteoarthritis and self-reported pain, function and work productivity. Arthritis Res Ther 2010; 12 : R162.
65 Hessel FP . Overview of the socio-economic consequences of heart failure. Cardiovasc Diagn Ther 2021; 11 : 254–262.33708497
66 Iragorri N de Oliveira C Fitzgerald N , et al . The out-of-pocket cost burden of cancer care—a systematic literature review. Curr Oncol 2021; 28 : 1216–1248.33804288
67 Parry E Ogollah R Peat G . Significant pain variability in persons with, or at high risk of, knee osteoarthritis: preliminary investigation based on secondary analysis of cohort data. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18 : 80.28196504
68 Ekediegwu E Ekechukwu EE Odole A . Variations in chronic pain intensity and physical function by age and sex for patients with knee osteoarthritis. J Musculoskelet Disord Treat 2022; 8 : 108.
69 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Arthritis as a potential barrier to physical activity among adults with heart disease—United States, 2005 and 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2009; 58 : 165–169.19247262
70 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Arthritis as a potential barrier to physical activity among adults with diabetes—United States, 2005 and 2007. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008; 57 : 486–489.18463606
71 Habib G Khazin F Sakas F , et al . The impact of intra-articular injection of diprospan at the knee joint on blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. Eur J Rheumatol 2018; 5 : 96–99.30185356
72 Wang Y Nguyen UDT Lane NE , et al . Knee osteoarthritis, potential mediators, and risk of all-cause mortality: data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021; 73 : 566–573.31961495
73 Kraus VB Sprow K Powell KE , et al . Effects of physical activity in knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic umbrella review. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2019; 51 : 1324–1339.31095089
74 Pazan F Wehling M . Polypharmacy in older adults: a narrative review of definitions, epidemiology and consequences. Eur Geriatr Med 2021; 12 : 443–452.33694123
75 Salaffi F Di Carlo M Carotti M , et al . Frailty prevalence according to the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe-Frailty Instrument (SHARE-FI) definition, and its variables associated, in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: findings from a cross-sectional study. Aging Clin Exp Res 2021; 33 : 1519–1527.32734577
76 Betancourt MC Marchi E Machado EG , et al . Detection of possible problematic polypharmacy in patients with osteoarthritis and associated factors. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30 : S195–S196.
77 Bruyère O Honvo G Veronese N , et al . An updated algorithm recommendation for the management of knee osteoarthritis from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Semin Arthritis Rheum 2019; 49 : 337–350.31126594
78 Pendleton A Arden N Dougados M , et al . EULAR recommendations for the management of knee osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis 2000; 59 : 936–944.11087696
79 Johnson CB . A personalized shared decision-making tool for osteoarthritis management of the knee. Orthop Nurs 2021; 40 : 64–70.33756532
80 Patel AP Gronbeck C Chambers M , et al . Gender and total joint arthroplasty: variable outcomes by procedure type. Arthroplast Today 2020; 6 : 517–520.32743033
81 Olsen U Lindberg MF Rose C , et al . Factors correlated with physical function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5 : e2219636.
82 Rankin EA Alarcon GS Chang RW , et al . NIH consensus statement on total knee replacement December 8–10, 2003. J Bone Joint Surg 2004; 86 : 1328.15173310
83 Ighani Arani P Wretenberg P W-Dahl A . Information and BMI limits for patients with obesity eligible for knee arthroplasty: the Swedish surgeons’ perspective from a nationwide cross-sectional study. J Orthop Surg Res 2022; 17 : 550.36536418
84 Royal College of Surgeons of England. Smokers and overweight patients: soft targets for NHS savings? London: Royal College of Surgeons, 2016.
85 Harris AH Bowe TR Gupta S , et al . Hemoglobin A1C as a marker for surgical risk in diabetic patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28 : 25–29.23910511
86 Heo SM Harris I Naylor J , et al . Complications to 6 months following total hip or knee arthroplasty: observations from an Australian clinical outcomes registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21 : 602.32912197
87 DeFrance MJ Scuderi GR . Are 20% of patients actually dissatisfied following total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 : 594–599.36252743
88 Bourne RB Chesworth BM Davis AM , et al . Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 : 57–63.19844772
89 Parvizi J Nunley RM Berend KR , et al . High level of residual symptoms in young patients after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2014; 472 : 133–137.24061845
90 Evans JT Walker RW Evans JP , et al . How long does a knee replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case series and national registry reports with more than 15 years of follow-up. Lancet 2019; 393 : 655–663.30782341
91 Lee DH Lee SH Song EK , et al . Causes and clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2017; 29 : 104–109.28545174
92 Roman MD Russu O Mohor C , et al . Outcomes in revision total knee arthroplasty (review). Exp Ther Med 2022; 23 : 29.34824637
93 Losina E Katz JN . Total knee arthroplasty on the rise in younger patients: are we sure that past performance will guarantee future success? Arthritis Rheum 2012; 64 : 339–341.22252374
94 Julin J Jamsen E Puolakka T , et al . Younger age increases the risk of early prosthesis failure following primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. A follow-up study of 32,019 total knee replacements in the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 : 413–419.20809740
95 Charette R Sloan M DeAngelis RD , et al . Higher rate of early revision following primary total knee arthroplasty in patients under age 55: a cautionary tale. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 : 2918–2924.31353252
96 Nunley RM Nam D Berend KR , et al . New total knee arthroplasty designs: do young patients notice? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 : 101–108.24903823
97 Keeney JA . Total knee arthroplasty in the younger patient: challenges and solutions. Orthop Res Rev 2015; 7 : 33–38.
98 Chalmers BP Syku M Joseph AD , et al . High rate of re-revision in patients less than 55 years of age undergoing aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 : 2348–2352.33390338
99 Bannuru RR Osani MC Vaysbrot EE , et al . OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 : 1578–1589.31278997
100 Hunter CW Deer TR Jones MR , et al . Consensus guidelines on interventional therapies for knee pain (STEP guidelines) from the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience. J Pain Res 2022; 15 : 2683–2745.36132996
101 Kolasinski SL Neogi T Hochberg MC , et al . 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020; 72 : 220–233.31908163
102 Geenen R Overman CL Christensen R , et al . EULAR recommendations for the health professional’s approach to pain management in inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2018; 77 : 797–807.29724726
103 ClinicalTrials.gov. Knee osteoarthritis | not yet recruiting, recruiting, active, not recruiting, enrolling by invitation studies | Phase: 2, 3 | Interventional studies https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Knee+Osteoarthritis&recrs=b&recrs=a&recrs=f&recrs=d&age_v=&gndr=&type=Intr&rslt=&phase=1&phase=2&Search=Apply (accessed 16 May 2023).
104 ClinicalTrials.gov. Knee osteoarthritis | not yet recruiting, recruiting, active, not recruiting, enrolling by invitation studies | phase: 3 | interventional studies. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Knee+Osteoarthritis&recrs=b&recrs=a&recrs=f&recrs=d&age_v=&gndr=&type=Intr&rslt=&phase=2&Search=Apply (accessed 16 May 2023).
105 Yusuf E . Pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment of osteoarthritis. Curr Treatm Opt Rheumatol 2016; 2 : 111–125.
106 Bliddal H Leeds AR Christensen R . Osteoarthritis, obesity and weight loss: evidence, hypotheses and horizons—a scoping review. Obes Rev 2014; 15 : 578–586.24751192
107 Thijssen E van Caam A van der Kraan PM . Obesity and osteoarthritis, more than just wear and tear: pivotal roles for inflamed adipose tissue and dyslipidaemia in obesity-induced osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015; 54 : 588–600.25504962
108 Koonce RC Bravman JT . Obesity and osteoarthritis: more than just wear and tear. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013; 21 : 161–169.23457066
109 Zhu H Zhou L Wang Q , et al . Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists as a disease-modifying therapy for knee osteoarthritis mediated by weight loss: findings from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort. Ann Rheum Dis 2023; 82 : 1218–1226.37258065
110 Hochberg MC Altman RD April KT , et al . American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64 : 465–474.22563589
111 Derry S Moore RA Rabbie R . Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 9 : CD007400.
112 Peniston JH Gold MS Wieman MS , et al . Long-term tolerability of topical diclofenac sodium 1% gel for osteoarthritis in seniors and patients with comorbidities. Clin Interv Aging 2012; 7 : 517–523.23204844
113 Peniston JH Gold MS Alwine LK . An open-label, long-term safety and tolerability trial of diclofenac sodium 1% gel in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Phys Sportsmed 2011; 39 : 31–38.22030938
114 Shainhouse JZ Grierson LM Naseer Z . A long-term, open-label study to confirm the safety of topical diclofenac solution containing dimethyl sulfoxide in the treatment of the osteoarthritic knee. Am J Ther 2010; 17 : 566–576.20216203
115 Persson MSM Stocks J Walsh DA , et al . The relative efficacy of topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and capsaicin in osteoarthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26 : 1575–1582.30172837
116 Rannou F Pelletier JP Martel-Pelletier J . Efficacy and safety of topical NSAIDs in the management of osteoarthritis: evidence from real-life setting trials and surveys. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2016; 45 : S18–S21.
117 Vannabouathong C Bhandari M Bedi A , et al . Nonoperative treatments for knee osteoarthritis: an evaluation of treatment characteristics and the intra-articular placebo effect: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 2018; 6 : e5.
118 Makris UE Kohler MJ Fraenkel L . Adverse effects of topical nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in older adults with osteoarthritis: a systematic literature review. J Rheumatol 2010; 37 : 1236–1243.20360183
119 Lee WM . Acute liver failure. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 33 : 36–45.22447259
120 Fanelli A Ghisi D Aprile PL , et al . Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors: latest evidence and clinical implications. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2017; 8 : 173–182.28607667
121 US Food & Drug Administration. Medication guide for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/018766s015MedGuide.pdf (accessed 25 April 2024).
122 Conaghan PG . A turbulent decade for NSAIDs: update on current concepts of classification, epidemiology, comparative efficacy, and toxicity. Rheumatol Int 2012; 32 : 1491–1502.22193214
123 Hung CW Riggan ND Hunt TR III , et al . What’s important: a rallying call for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in musculoskeletal pain: improving value of care while combating the opioid epidemic. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 : 659–663.34437306
124 Lee C Straus WL Balshaw R , et al . A comparison of the efficacy and safety of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agents versus acetaminophen in the treatment of osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2004; 51 : 746–754.15478167
125 Osani MC Vaysbrot EE Zhou M , et al . Duration of symptom relief and early trajectory of adverse events for oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2020; 72 : 641–651.30908885
126 Chou R McDonagh MS Nakamoto E , et al . AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. In: Analgesics for osteoarthritis: an update of the 2006 comparative effectiveness review. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2011.
127 Reid AR Cote PD McDougall JJ . Long-term blockade of nociceptive Na(v)1.7 channels is analgesic in rat models of knee arthritis. Biomolecules 2022; 12 : 1571.36358921
128 Stevens RM Ervin J Nezzer J , et al . Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intraarticular trans-capsaicin for pain associated with osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheumatol 2019; 71 : 1524–1533.30888737
129 Reginster JY Badurski J Bellamy N , et al . Efficacy and safety of strontium ranelate in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: results of a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. Ann Rheum Dis 2013; 72 : 179–186.23117245
130 Wittoek R Verbruggen A Vanhaverbeke T , et al . Effect of denosumab on structure modification in erosive hand osteoarthritis: results of a 48-week, monocentric, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 study and open label extension phase [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol 2022; 74 (Suppl. 9 ). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/effect-of-denosumab-on-structure-modification-in-erosive-hand-osteoarthritis-results-of-a-48-week-monocentric-randomized-placebo-controlled-double-blind-phase-2-study-and-open-label-extension-pha/
131 Saltychev M Mattie R McCormick Z , et al . The magnitude and duration of the effect of intra-articular corticosteroid injections on pain severity in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2020; 99 : 617–625.31972612
132 Donovan RL Edwards TA Judge A , et al . Effects of recurrent intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis at 3 months and beyond: a systematic review and meta-analysis in comparison to other injectables. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30 : 1658–1669.36108937
133 Bannuru RR Natov NS Dasi UR , et al . Therapeutic trajectory following intra-articular hyaluronic acid injection in knee osteoarthritis—meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19 : 611–619.21443958
134 Bannuru RR Osani M Vaysbrot EE , et al . Comparative safety profile of hyaluronic acid products for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016; 24 : 2022–2041.27492466
135 Pereira TV Juni P Saadat P , et al . Viscosupplementation for knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2022; 378 : e069722.
136 Samuels J Pillinger MH Jevsevar D , et al . Critical appraisal of intra-articular glucocorticoid injections for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021; 29 : 8–16.32911075
137 Zeng C Lane NE Hunter DJ , et al . Intra-articular corticosteroids and the risk of knee osteoarthritis progression: results from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 : 855–862.30703543
138 Latourte A Rat AC Sime WN , et al . Do corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid intra-articular injections impact the risk of total knee replacement? Real-life data from the Khoala cohort. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019; 27 : S509–S510.
139 Fernandes GS Parekh SM Moses JP , et al . Intra-articular injection administration in UK ex-professional footballers during their playing careers and the association with post-career knee osteoarthritis. Sports Med 2020; 50 : 1039–1046.31925768
140 McAlindon TE LaValley MP Harvey WF , et al . Effect of intra-articular triamcinolone vs saline on knee cartilage volume and pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017; 317 : 1967–1975.28510679
141 Bodick N Lufkin J Willwerth C , et al . An intra-articular, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone acetonide prolongs and amplifies analgesic effect in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a randomized clinical trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97 : 877–888.26041848
142 Mehta S He T Bajpayee AG . Recent advances in targeted drug delivery for treatment of osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2021; 33 : 94–109.33229973
143 Kraus VB Conaghan PG Aazami HA , et al . Synovial and systemic pharmacokinetics (PK) of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) following intra-articular (IA) injection of an extended-release microsphere-based formulation (FX006) or standard crystalline suspension in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2018; 26 : 34–42.29024802
144 Paik J Duggan ST Keam SJ . Triamcinolone acetonide extended-release: a review in osteoarthritis pain of the knee. Drugs 2019; 79 : 455–462.30847805
145 Russell S Sala R Conaghan P , et al . In type 2 diabetes mellitus patients with knee osteoarthritis intra-articular injection of FX006 (Extended Release Triamcinolone) is associated with reduced blood glucose elevation vs. standard triamcinolone; a randomized, blinded, parallel group study. Diabetes 2017; 66 : A289.
146 Spitzer AI Robard H Iqbal SU , et al . A double-blind, randomized, parallel-group comparison of intraarticular triamcinolone acetonide extended-release versus triamcinolone acetonide immediate-release on glucose in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a post hoc analysis. Paper presented at OARSI World Congress on Osteoarthritis, 17–20 March 2023, Denver, CO.
147 Russell SJ Sala R Conaghan PG , et al . Triamcinolone acetonide extended-release in patients with osteoarthritis and type 2 diabetes: a randomized, phase 2 study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2018; 57 : 2235–2241.30203101
148 Conaghan PG Cohen SB Berenbaum F , et al . Brief report: a phase IIb trial of a novel extended-release microsphere formulation of triamcinolone acetonide for intraarticular injection in knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol 2018; 70 : 204–211.29088579
149 Conaghan PG Hunter DJ Cohen SB , et al . Effects of a single intra-articular injection of a microsphere formulation of triamcinolone acetonide on knee osteoarthritis pain: a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, multinational study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 : 666–677.29664853
150 Langworthy MJ Conaghan PG Ruane JJ , et al . Efficacy of triamcinolone acetonide extended-release in participants with unilateral knee osteoarthritis: a post hoc analysis. Adv Ther 2019; 36 : 1398–1411.30968336
151 Ross E Katz NP Conaghan PG , et al . Improved treatment effect of triamcinolone acetonide extended-release in patients with concordant baseline pain scores on the average daily pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index pain scales. Pain Ther 2022; 11 : 289–302.34791634
152 Spitzer AI Richmond JC Kraus VB , et al . Safety and efficacy of repeat administration of triamcinolone acetonide extended-release in osteoarthritis of the knee: a phase 3b, open-label study. Rheumatol Ther 2019; 6 : 109–124.30741382
153 Malone A Price J Price N , et al . Safety and pharmacokinetics of EP-104IAR (sustained-release fluticasone propionate) in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 1 trial. Osteoarthr Cartil Open 2021; 3 : 100213.36474755
154 Hunter DJ Chang CC Wei JC , et al . TLC599 in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: a phase IIa, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study. Arthritis Res Ther 2022; 24 : 52.35189943
155 Guo X Lou J Wang F , et al . Recent advances in nano-therapeutic strategies for osteoarthritis. Front Pharmacol 2022; 13 : 924387.35800449
156 Cohen S Kivitz A Klassen L , et al . Safety and preliminary efficacy of PCRX201, an intra-articular gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis: a phase 1, open-label, single ascending dose study. 2023; 31 (Suppl. 1 ): S8–S9.
157 Chen CF Hu CC Wu CT , et al . Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with intra-articular injection of allogeneic adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs) ELIXCYTE(R): a phase I/II, randomized, active-control, single-blind, multiple-center clinical trial. Stem Cell Res Ther 2021; 12 : 562.34717765
158 Yazici Y McAlindon TE Gibofsky A , et al . A phase 2b randomized trial of lorecivivint, a novel intra-articular CLK2/DYRK1A inhibitor and Wnt pathway modulator for knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021; 29 : 654–666.33588087
159 Kim MK Ha CW In Y , et al . A multicenter, double-blind, phase III clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a cell and gene therapy in knee osteoarthritis patients. Hum Gene Ther Clin Dev 2018; 29 : 48–59.29641281
160 Gato-Calvo L Magalhaes J Ruiz-Romero C , et al . Platelet-rich plasma in osteoarthritis treatment: review of current evidence. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2019; 10 : 2040622319825567.30815245
161 Shen L Yuan T Chen S , et al . The temporal effect of platelet-rich plasma on pain and physical function in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Orthop Surg Res 2017; 12 : 16.28115016
162 Khoshbin A Leroux T Wasserstein D , et al . The efficacy of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review with quantitative synthesis. Arthroscopy 2013; 29 : 2037–2048.24286802
163 Raeissadat SA Ghorbani E Sanei Taheri M , et al . MRI changes after platelet rich plasma injection in knee osteoarthritis (randomized clinical trial). J Pain Res 2020; 13 : 65–73.32021396
164 Laver L Filardo G Sanchez M , et al .; ESSKA-ORBIT Group. The use of injectable orthobiologics for knee osteoarthritis: A European ESSKA-ORBIT consensus. Part 1-Blood-derived products (platelet-rich plasma). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2024; 32 : 783–797.38436492
165 Chahla J Cinque ME Piuzzi NS , et al . A call for standardization in platelet-rich plasma preparation protocols and composition reporting: a systematic review of the clinical orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 : 1769–1779.29040132
166 Su CA Jildeh TR Vopat ML , et al . Current state of platelet-rich plasma and cell-based therapies for the treatment of osteoarthritis and tendon and ligament injuries. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022; 104 : 1406–1414.35867717
167 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for knee osteoarthritis technology overview, https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/biologics/technology-overview_prp-for-knee-oa.pdf (accessed 25 April 2024).
168 Bettonville M Leon M Margaux J , et al . Safety and efficacy of a single intra-articular injection of a novel enhanced protein solution (JTA-004) compared to hylan G-F 20 in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, controlled phase II/III study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 : 888.34666767
169 Ilfeld BM Preciado J Trescot AM . Novel cryoneurolysis device for the treatment of sensory and motor peripheral nerves. Expert Rev Med Devices 2016; 13 : 713–725.27333989
170 Narayanapanicker V Das G . Cryoneurolysis: is it the future of neurolysis. . .? J Recent Adv Pain 2019; 5 : 78.
171 Zhou L Kambin P Casey KF , et al . Mechanism research of cryoanalgesia. Neurol Res 1995; 17 : 307–311.7477749
172 Radnovich R Scott D Patel AT , et al . Cryoneurolysis to treat the pain and symptoms of knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 : 1247–1256.28336454
173 Nygaard NB Koch-Jensen C Vaegter HB , et al . Cryoneurolysis for the management of chronic pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis; a double-blinded randomized controlled sham trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22 : 228.33637085
174 Cosman ER Jr Cosman ER Sr . Electric and thermal field effects in tissue around radiofrequency electrodes. Pain Med 2005; 6 : 405–424.16336478
175 Jamison DE Cohen SP . Radiofrequency techniques to treat chronic knee pain: a comprehensive review of anatomy, effectiveness, treatment parameters, and patient selection. J Pain Res 2018; 11 : 1879–1888.30271194
176 Chen AF Khalouf F Zora K , et al . Cooled radiofrequency ablation provides extended clinical utility in the management of knee osteoarthritis: 12-month results from a prospective, multi-center, randomized, cross-over trial comparing cooled radiofrequency ablation to a single hyaluronic acid injection. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21 : 363.32517739
177 Ball RD . The science of conventional and water-cooled monopolar lumbar radiofrequency rhizotomy: an electrical engineering point of view. Pain Physician 2014; 17 : E175–E211.
178 Pride K Poliak-Tunis M . Radiofrequency ablation and its role in treating chronic pain, https://www.asra.com/news-publications/asra-newsletter/newsletter-item/asra-news/2020/08/01/radiofrequency-ablation-and-its-role-in-treating-chronic-pain (2020, accessed 25 April 2024).
179 Choi WJ Hwang SJ Song JG , et al . Radiofrequency treatment relieves chronic knee osteoarthritis pain: a double-blind randomized controlled trial. Pain 2011; 152 : 481–487.21055873
180 Sarı S Aydın ON Turan Y , et al . Which one is more effective for the clinical treatment of chronic pain in knee osteoarthritis: radiofrequency neurotomy of the genicular nerves or intra-articular injection? Int J Rheum Dis 2018; 21 : 1772–1778.27515095
181 El-Hakeim EH Elawamy A Kamel EZ , et al . Fluoroscopic guided radiofrequency of genicular nerves for pain alleviation in chronic knee osteoarthritis: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. Pain Physician 2018; 21 : 169–177.29565947
182 Iannaccone F Dixon S Kaufman A . A review of long-term pain relief after genicular nerve radiofrequency ablation in chronic knee osteoarthritis. Pain Physician 2017; 20 : E437–E444.
183 Migliore A Bizzi E Herrero-Beaumont J , et al . The discrepancy between recommendations and clinical practice for viscosupplementation in osteoarthritis: mind the gap! Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2015; 19 : 1124–1129.25912569
184 Langworthy MJ Saad A Langworthy NM . Conservative treatment modalities and outcomes for osteoarthritis: the concomitant pyramid of treatment. Phys Sportsmed 2010; 38 : 133–145.20631473
185 Brazil R . Peptide nucleic acids promise new therapeutics and gene editing tools. ACS Cent Sci 2023; 9 : 3–6.36712482
186 Leiman D Minkowitz H Levitt RC , et al . Preliminary results from a phase 1b double-blind study to assess the safety, tolerability and efficacy of intra-articular administration of resiniferatoxin or placebo for the treatment of moderate to severe pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2020; 28 : S138.
187 Park M Collins J Lee N , et al . Semi-quantitative and quantitative cartilage improvement after intra-articular injection of ICM-203 in canine OA model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2022; 30 : S162–S163.
188 Grigsby E Rickam M Thewlis D , et al . XT-150—a novel immunomodulatory gene therapy for osteoarthritis pain in phase 2b development. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2021; 29 : S12.
189 Lee M Kim GH Kim M , et al . PTX-3 secreted by intra-articular-injected SMUP-cells reduces pain in an osteoarthritis rat model. Cells 2021; 10 : 2420.34572070
190 Gomoll AH Farr J Cole BJ , et al . Safety and efficacy of an amniotic suspension allograft injection over 12 months in a single-blinded, randomized controlled trial for symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthroscopy 2021; 37 : 2246–2257.33716121
