FRI0421 RATES OF PROGRESSION DIFFER BETWEEN STRUCTURAL PHENOTYPES OF KNEE OSTEOARTHRITIS: A SECONDARY ANALYSIS FROM THE FNIH COHORT
Authors: F. Roemer, J. Collins, T. Neogi, M. Crema, A. Guermazi
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2020)

Background: Imaging plays an important role in determining structural disease severity and potential suitability of patients recruited to disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD) trials. It has been suggested that there may be three main structural phenotypes in OA, i.e., inflammation, meniscus/cartilage and subchondral bone. These may progress differently and may represent distinct tissue targets for DMOAD approaches. Objectives: To stratify the Foundation for National Institutes of Health Osteoarthritis Biomarkers Consortium (FNIH) cohort, a well-defined subsample of the larger Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) study, into distinct structural phenotypes based on semiquantitative MRI assessment and to determine their risk for progression over 48 months. Methods: The FNIH was designed as a case-control study with knees showing either 1) radiographic and pain progression (i.e., “composite” cases), 2) radiographic progression only (“JSL”), 3) pain progression only, and 4) neither radiographic nor pain progression. MRI of both knees was performed on 3 T systems at the four OAI clinical sites. Two musculoskeletal radiologists read the baseline MRIs according to the MOAKS scoring system. Knees were stratified into subchondral bone, meniscus/cartilage and inflammatory phenotypes 1 . A secondary, less stringent definition for inflammatory and meniscus/cartilage phenotype was used for sensitivity analyses. The relation of each phenotype to risk of being in the JSL or composite case group compared to those not having that phenotype was determined using conditional logistic regression. Only KL2 and 3 and those without root tears were included. Results: 485 knees were included. 362 (75%) did not have any phenotype, while 95 (20%) had the bone phenotype, 22 (5%) the cartilage/meniscus phenotype and 19 (4%) the inflammatory phenotype. The bone phenotype was associated with a higher risk of the JSL and composite outcome (OR 1.81;[95%CI 1.14,2.85] and 1.65; 95%CI [1.04,2.61]) while the inflammatory (OR 0.96 [95%CI 0.38,2.42] and 1.25; 95%CI [0.48,3.25]) and the meniscus/cartilage phenotypes were not (OR 1.30 95%CI [0.55,3.07] and 0.99; 95%CI [0.40,2,49]). In sensitivity analyses, the bone phenotype and having two phenotypes (vs. none) were both associated with increased risk of experiencing the composite outcome (bone: OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.04, 2.61; 2 phenotypes: OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.11, 3.16. Conclusion: The bone phenotype was associated with increased risk of having both radiographic and pain progression together, or radiographic progression alone, whereas the inflammatory phenotype or meniscus/cartilage phenotype each individually were not associated with either outcome. Phenotypic stratification appears to provide insights into risk for structural or composite structure plus pain progression, and therefore may be useful to consider when selecting patients for inclusion in clinical trials. References: [1]Roemer FW, Collins J, Kwoh CK, et al. MRI-based screening for structural definition of eligibility in clinical DMOAD trials: Rapid OsteoArthritis MRI Eligibility Score (ROAMES). Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2020;28(1):71-81 Disclosure of Interests: Frank Roemer: None declared, Jamie Collins Consultant of: Boston Imaging Core Lab (BICL), LLC., Tuhina Neogi Grant/research support from: Pfizer/Lilly, Consultant of: Pfizer/Lilly, EMD-Merck Serono, Novartis, Michel Crema: None declared, Ali Guermazi Consultant of: AventisGalapagos, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, and TissuGene