Knee meniscal extrusion in a largely non-osteoarthritic cohort: association with greater loss of cartilage volume

We conducted a longitudinal study (duration 2 years), including 294 individuals (mean age 45 years, 58% female), in order to examine associations between meniscal extrusion, knee structure, radiographic changes and risk factors for osteoarthritis (OA) in a largely non-osteoarthritic cohort. Meniscal extrusion, tibiofemoral cartilage defect score and cartilage volume, and tibial plateau bone area were determined using T1-weighted fat-saturated magnetic resonance imaging. At baseline the presence of medial meniscal extrusion was significantly associated with body mass index (odds ratio [OR] per kg/m2 = 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02–1.25), past knee injury (positive versus negative history: OR = 3.73, 95% CI = 1.16–11.97), medial tibial bone area (OR per cm2 = 1.37, 95% CI = 1.02–1.85), and osteophytes (OR per grade = 4.89, 95% CI = 1.59–15.02). Two-year longitudinal data revealed that medial meniscal extrusion at baseline was associated with a greater rate of loss of medial tibiofemoral cartilage volume (extrusion versus no extrusion: -1.4%/year; P < 0.05) and greater risk for increased medial femoral cartilage defects (OR = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.14–5.86) and lateral tibial cartilage defects (OR = 2.64, 95% CI = 1.03–6.76). However, the latter two associations became nonsignificant after adjustment for tibial bone area and osteophytes. This study suggests that increasing body mass index and bone size, past knee injury, and osteophytes may be causally related to meniscal extrusion. Most importantly, meniscal extrusion at baseline is associated with greater loss of knee cartilage over 2 years, and this seems to be mediated mostly by subchondral bone changes, suggesting extrusion represents one pathway between bone expansion and cartilage loss

Long term evaluation of disease progression through the quantitative magnetic resonance imaging of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis patients: correlation with clinical symptoms and radiographic changes

The objective of this study was to further explore the cartilage volume changes in knee osteoarthritis (OA) over time using quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (qMRI). These were correlated with demographic, clinical, and radiological data to better identify the disease risk features. We selected 107 patients from a large trial (n = 1,232) evaluating the effect of a bisphosphonate on OA knees. The MRI acquisitions of the knee were done at baseline, 12, and 24 months. Cartilage volume from the global, medial, and lateral compartments was quantified. The changes were contrasted with clinical data and other MRI anatomical features. Knee OA cartilage volume losses were statistically significant compared to baseline values: -3.7 ± 3.0% for global cartilage and -5.5 ± 4.3% for the medial compartment at 12 months, and -5.7 ± 4.4% and -8.3 ± 6.5%, respectively, at 24 months. Three different populations were identified according to cartilage volume loss: fast (n = 11; -13.2%), intermediate (n = 48; -7.2%), and slow (n = 48; -2.3%) progressors. The predictors of fast progressors were the presence of severe meniscal extrusion (p = 0.001), severe medial tear (p = 0.005), medial and/or lateral bone edema (p = 0.03), high body mass index (p < 0.05, fast versus slow), weight (p < 0.05, fast versus slow) and age (p < 0.05 fast versus slow). The loss of cartilage volume was also slightly associated with less knee pain. No association was found with other Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, joint space width, or urine biomarker levels. Meniscal damage and bone edema are closely associated with more cartilage volume loss. These data confirm the significant advantage of qMRI for reliably measuring knee structural changes at as early as 12 months, and for identifying risk factors associated with OA progression

Value of biomarkers in osteoarthritis: Current status and perspectives

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. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial

Money for writing: Screenplay development and screenwriters earnings in French cinema

The funds allocated to developing screenplays currently constitute on average 2 to 3% of the overall budget of a film in France. Producers are more than ever dependent on presenting attractive draft screenplays to find their financial partners. As a result, screenwriters undoubtedly are active economic partners of production planning, but they do not seem to receive much professional recognition for this vital role. Moreover, their earnings often fail to reflect the amount of work produced and do not reward adequately the risks taken, including the possibility that production could stop after the screenplay is written. This article investigates the place of screenplay development within the economics of French cinema. Using recently published official reports and interviews, the author identifies different types of screenwriters – freestanding screenwriters, writing teams and screenwriters co-writing with the director – and addresses their working conditions. She surveys some of the contract modalities for the remuneration of professional screenwriters. Finally, she reviews the proposals made by different professional bodies to improve the remuneration of screenwriters and reform the financing of screenwriting