Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24993143›Full record

ReviewClinical orthopaedics and related research2014

Are biologic treatments a potential approach to wear- and corrosion-related problems?

R Lane Smith, Edward M Schwarz

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R Lane SmithDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA.
Edward M Schwarz
Stanford University · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

WHERE ARE WE NOW?: Biological treatments, defined as any nonsurgical intervention whose primary mechanism of action is reducing the host response to wear and/or corrosion products, have long been postulated as solutions for osteolysis and aseptic loosening of total joint arthroplasties. Despite extensive research on drugs that target the inflammatory, osteoclastic, and osteogenic responses to wear debris, no biological treatment has emerged as an approved therapy. We review the extensive preclinical research and modest clinical research to date, which has led to the central conclusion that the osteoclast is the primary target. We also allude to the significant changes in health care, unabated safety concerns about chronic immunosuppressive/antiinflammatory therapies, industry's complete lack of interest in developing an intervention for this condition, and the practical issues that have narrowly focused the possibilities for a biologic treatment for wear debris-induced osteolysis. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: Based on the conclusions from research, and the economic, regulatory, and practical issues that limit the future directions toward the development of a biologic treatment, there are a few rational approaches that warrant investigation. These largely focus on FDA-approved osteoporosis therapies that target the osteoclast (bisphosphonates and anti-RANK ligand) and recombinant parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) prophylactic treatment to increase osseous integration of the prosthesis to overcome high-risk susceptibility to aseptic loosening. The other roadblock that must be overcome if there is to be an approved biologic therapy to prevent the progression of periprosthetic osteolysis and aseptic loosening is the development of radiological measures that can quantify a significant drug effect in a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. We review the progress of volumetric quantification of osteolysis in animal studies and clinical pilots. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Accepting the aforementioned rigid boundaries, we describe the emergence of repurposing FDA-approved drugs for new indications and public (National Institutes of Health, FDA, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private (universities and drug and device manufactures) partnerships as the future roadmap for clinical translation. In the case of biologic treatments for wear debris-induced osteolysis, this will involve combined federal and industry funding of multicenter clinical trials that will be run by thought leaders at large medical centers.

Indexed as

Joint ProsthesisProsthesis FailureAnimalsArthroplasty, ReplacementBiological ProductsBiomechanical PhenomenaCorrosionHumansJointsOsteolysisProsthesis DesignStress, MechanicalTreatment OutcomeBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID24993143
PMCPMC4397762
OpenAlexW2064396098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.