Osteoarthritis affects the whole joint structure with progressive changes in cartilage, menisci, ligaments and subchondral bone, and synovial inflammation. Biomarkers are being developed to quantify joint remodelling and disease progression. This article was prepared following a working meeting of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis convened to discuss the value of biochemical markers of matrix metabolism in drug development in osteoarthritis. The best candidates are generally molecules or molecular fragments present in cartilage, bone or synovium and may be specific to one type of joint tissue or common to them all. Many currently investigated biomarkers are associated with collagen metabolism in cartilage or bone, or aggrecan metabolism in cartilage. Other biomarkers are related to non-collagenous proteins, inflammation and/or fibrosis. Biomarkers in osteoarthritis can be categorised using the burden of disease, investigative, prognostic, efficacy of intervention, diagnostic and safety classification. There are a number of promising candidates, notably urinary C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type II and serum cartilage oligomeric protein, although none is sufficiently discriminating to differentiate between individual patients and controls (diagnostic) or between patients with different disease severities (burden of disease), predict prognosis in individuals with or without osteoarthritis (prognostic) or perform so consistently that it could function as a surrogate outcome in clinical trials (efficacy of intervention). Future avenues for research include exploration of underlying mechanisms of disease and development of new biomarkers; technological development; the ‘omics’ (genomics, metabolomics, proteomics and lipidomics); design of aggregate scores combining a panel of biomarkers and/or imaging markers into single diagnostic algorithms; and investigation into the relationship between biomarkers and prognosis.

The success of disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD) development is still elusive. While there have been successes in preclinical and early clinical studies, phase 3 clinical trials have failed so far and there is still no approved, widely available DMOAD on the market. The latest research suggests that, among other causes, poor trial outcomes might be explained by the fact that osteoarthritis (OA) is a heterogeneous disease with distinct phenotypes. OA trials might be more successful if they would address and target a specific phenotype. The increasing availability of advanced techniques to detect particular OA characteristics expands the possibilities to distinguish between such potential OA phenotypes. Magnetic resonance imaging is among the key imaging techniques to stratify and monitor patients with changes in bone, cartilage and inflammation. Biochemical markers have mainly used as secondary parameters and could further delineate phenotypes. Moreover, post-hoc analyses of trial data have suggested the existence of distinct pain phenotypes and their relevance in the design of clinical trials. Although ongoing work in the field supports the concept of OA heterogeneity, this has not yet resulted in more effective treatment options. This paper reviews the current knowledge about potential OA phenotypes and suggests that combining patient clinical data, quantitative imaging, biochemical markers and utilizing data-driven approaches in patient selection and efficacy assessment will allow for more successful development of effective DMOADs.

The aim of this "Year in Review" article is to summarize and discuss the implications of biochemical marker related articles published between the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) 2015 Congress in Seattle and the OARSI 2016 Congress in Amsterdam. The PubMed/MEDLINE bibliographic database was searched using the combined keywords: 'biomarker' and 'osteoarthritis'. The PubMed/MEDLINE literature search was conducted using the Advanced Search Builder function (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/advanced). Over two hundred new biomarker-related papers were published during the literature search period. Some papers identified new biomarkers whereas others explored the biological properties and clinical utility of existing markers. There were specific references to several adipocytokines including leptin and adiponectin. ADAM Metallopeptidase with Thrombospondin Type 1 motif 4 (ADAMTS-4) and aggrecan ARGS neo-epitope fragment (ARGS) in synovial fluid (SF) and plasma chemokine (CeC motif) ligand 3 (CCL3) were reported as potential new knee biomarkers. New and refined proteomic technologies and novel assays including a fluoro-microbead guiding chip (FMGC) for measuring C-telopeptide of type II collagen (CTX-II) in serum and urine and a novel magnetic nanoparticle-based technology (termed magnetic capture) for collecting and concentrating CTX-II, were described this past year. There has been steady progress in osteoarthritis (OA) biomarker research in 2016. Several novel biomarkers were identified and new technologies have been developed for measuring existing biomarkers. However, there has been no "quantum leap" this past year and identification of novel early OA biomarkers remains challenging. During the past year, OARSI published a set of recommendations for the use of soluble biomarkers in clinical trials, which is a major step forward in the clinical use of OA biomarkers and bodes well for future OA biomarker development.

Purpose of review: This review focuses on the molecular taxonomy of osteoarthritis from the perspective of molecular biomarkers. We discuss how wet biochemical markers may be used to understand disease pathogenesis and progression and define molecular endotypes of osteoarthritis and how these correspond to clinical phenotypes. Recent findings: Emerging evidence suggests that osteoarthritis is a heterogeneous and multifaceted disease with multiple causes, molecular endotypes and corresponding clinical phenotypes. Biomarkers may be employed as tools for patient stratification in clinical trials, enhanced disease management in the primary care centres of the future and for directing more rational and targeted osteoarthritis drug development. Proximal molecular biomarkers (e.g synovial fluid) are more likely to distinguish between molecular endotypes because there is less interference from systemic sources of biomarker noise, including comorbidities. Summary: In this review, we have focused on the molecular biomarkers of four distinct osteoarthritis subtypes including inflammatory, subchondral bone remodelling, metabolic syndrome and senescent age-related endotypes, which have corresponding phenotypes. Progress in the field of osteoarthritis endotype and phenotype research requires a better understanding of molecular biomarkers that may be used in conjunction with imaging, pain and functional assessments for the design of more effective, stratified and individualized osteoarthritis treatments.