Comparing Five Major Knee Osteoarthritis Cohort Studies

Similarities, Differences, and Unique Aspects of CHECK, OAI, FNIH, IMI-APPROACH, and MOST

Journal Article (2025)
Author(s)

Mariia Oliinyk (University Medical Center Utrecht)

Simon C. Mastbergen (University Medical Center Utrecht)

Anne Karien C.A. Marijnissen (University Medical Center Utrecht)

David T. Felson (Boston University)

David J. Hunter (Northern Sydney Local Health District, University of Sydney)

Micheal C. Nevitt (University of California)

Harrie Weinans (University Medical Center Utrecht, TU Delft - Biomaterials & Tissue Biomechanics)

Mylène P. Jansen (University Medical Center Utrecht)

Research Group
Biomaterials & Tissue Biomechanics
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.1177/19476035251326276
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Research Group
Biomaterials & Tissue Biomechanics
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze and synthesize the information available from five pivotal, large-scale, multicenter, observational studies (CHECK, OAI, FNIH Biomarkers Consortium, IMI-APPROACH, and MOST) focusing on knee osteoarthritis (OA), which can be used to elucidate disease progression, risk factors, and the effectiveness of potential interventions. Design: For this narrative review, a comprehensive literature search and data extraction from official web pages and scientific databases were conducted to compare methodologies, in- and exclusion criteria, outcomes, and cohort characteristics across the studies. Thematic, comparative, and qualitative analyses were employed to identify trends, commonalities, and disparities among the findings. Results: The studies collectively enhanced understanding of the onset and progression of knee OA, and in several of the studies, hip OA, emphasizing the importance of both systemic and local risk factors. Advanced imaging and biomarkers are important components in all the cohorts, with the goal of aiding early diagnosis and tracking disease progression. All cohorts evaluated unique markers generally not available in the other cohorts, while other factors overlap, suggesting possibilities for combining or cross-validating between cohorts. Conclusions: The collaborative efforts of major OA research significantly advance our understanding of knee OA. These studies highlight the importance of a multifaceted approach, integrating advanced imaging, biomarkers, and longitudinal data to tackle the complexities of OA. By synthesizing findings and addressing knowledge gaps such as heterogeneity of patients and used measurements, and use of novel pain measures, future research can develop more effective diagnostic tools and treatments, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for OA patients.