MDedge Rheumatology

Although there are several treatment options for PsA, there have been few head-to-head studies conducted to determine comparative efficacy. Ustekinumab, a biologic agent targeting IL-p40, and therefore both IL-12 and IL-23, has proven efficacy in PsA, but the impression is that this drug is less effective than are TNF inhibitors for the treatment of the peripheral arthritis domain. However, in a prospective, observational study, Gossec and colleagues report that the improvements in patient-reported outcomes were generally comparable between ustekinumab and TNF inhibitor treatments. This study evaluated 437 patients with PsA from the PsABio study who initiated first- to third-line ustekinumab (n = 219) or TNF inhibitors (n = 218) and continued the initial treatment for 3 years. At 3 years, ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors were associated with comparable improvements in the EuroQol-5 dimensions health state visual analog scale scores, Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item scores, and work productivity, although the improvements were generally greater in the TNF inhibitor–treated group. A randomized trial comparing ustekinumab to TNF inhibitors in PsA is warranted to confirm these findings and inform treatment decisions.

Targeted therapies, such as biologics, are proven to be more efficacious than are conventional therapies; however, only about 60% of patients initiating targeted therapies demonstrate treatment response. Identifying the predictors of treatment response is an active area of research. Linde and colleagues looked at data from 13,369 biologic-naive patients registered with a PsA diagnosis from 13 European registries who initiated a first TNF inhibitor treatment. The study demonstrated that sex, disease duration, C-reactive protein level, age at treatment initiation, and fatigue predicted the achievement of the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints remission at 6 months.

Could biomarkers help predict response beyond clinical predictors? An interesting study indicates that beta–defensin 2 (BD-2) may serve as a predictive biomarker for clinical response to secukinumab in PsA. BD-2 is an antimicrobial peptide and an important protein in innate immune response. Cardner and colleagues analyzed protein expression data in serum samples from the phase 3 FUTURE 1-5 trials that included 1989 patients with PsA who received secukinumab or placebo. Baseline BD-2 levels were associated with early as well as sustained PsA treatment response to secukinumab, independent of psoriasis severity. BD-2 levels did not predict response to adalimumab in PsA nor was it associated with treatment response to secukinumab in RA. The addition of BD-2 to the clinical prediction model significantly improved the prediction of the 16-week American College of Rheumatology 20 response. Thus, BD-2 seems to be a secukinumab treatment response biomarker and requires further evaluation.

Although there are several treatment options for PsA, there have been few head-to-head studies conducted to determine comparative efficacy. Ustekinumab, a biologic agent targeting IL-p40, and therefore both IL-12 and IL-23, has proven efficacy in PsA, but the impression is that this drug is less effective than are TNF inhibitors for the treatment of the peripheral arthritis domain. However, in a prospective, observational study, Gossec and colleagues report that the improvements in patient-reported outcomes were generally comparable between ustekinumab and TNF inhibitor treatments. This study evaluated 437 patients with PsA from the PsABio study who initiated first- to third-line ustekinumab (n = 219) or TNF inhibitors (n = 218) and continued the initial treatment for 3 years. At 3 years, ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors were associated with comparable improvements in the EuroQol-5 dimensions health state visual analog scale scores, Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item scores, and work productivity, although the improvements were generally greater in the TNF inhibitor–treated group. A randomized trial comparing ustekinumab to TNF inhibitors in PsA is warranted to confirm these findings and inform treatment decisions.

Targeted therapies, such as biologics, are proven to be more efficacious than are conventional therapies; however, only about 60% of patients initiating targeted therapies demonstrate treatment response. Identifying the predictors of treatment response is an active area of research. Linde and colleagues looked at data from 13,369 biologic-naive patients registered with a PsA diagnosis from 13 European registries who initiated a first TNF inhibitor treatment. The study demonstrated that sex, disease duration, C-reactive protein level, age at treatment initiation, and fatigue predicted the achievement of the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints remission at 6 months.

Could biomarkers help predict response beyond clinical predictors? An interesting study indicates that beta–defensin 2 (BD-2) may serve as a predictive biomarker for clinical response to secukinumab in PsA. BD-2 is an antimicrobial peptide and an important protein in innate immune response. Cardner and colleagues analyzed protein expression data in serum samples from the phase 3 FUTURE 1-5 trials that included 1989 patients with PsA who received secukinumab or placebo. Baseline BD-2 levels were associated with early as well as sustained PsA treatment response to secukinumab, independent of psoriasis severity. BD-2 levels did not predict response to adalimumab in PsA nor was it associated with treatment response to secukinumab in RA. The addition of BD-2 to the clinical prediction model significantly improved the prediction of the 16-week American College of Rheumatology 20 response. Thus, BD-2 seems to be a secukinumab treatment response biomarker and requires further evaluation.

Although there are several treatment options for PsA, there have been few head-to-head studies conducted to determine comparative efficacy. Ustekinumab, a biologic agent targeting IL-p40, and therefore both IL-12 and IL-23, has proven efficacy in PsA, but the impression is that this drug is less effective than are TNF inhibitors for the treatment of the peripheral arthritis domain. However, in a prospective, observational study, Gossec and colleagues report that the improvements in patient-reported outcomes were generally comparable between ustekinumab and TNF inhibitor treatments. This study evaluated 437 patients with PsA from the PsABio study who initiated first- to third-line ustekinumab (n = 219) or TNF inhibitors (n = 218) and continued the initial treatment for 3 years. At 3 years, ustekinumab and TNF inhibitors were associated with comparable improvements in the EuroQol-5 dimensions health state visual analog scale scores, Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease 12-item scores, and work productivity, although the improvements were generally greater in the TNF inhibitor–treated group. A randomized trial comparing ustekinumab to TNF inhibitors in PsA is warranted to confirm these findings and inform treatment decisions.

Targeted therapies, such as biologics, are proven to be more efficacious than are conventional therapies; however, only about 60% of patients initiating targeted therapies demonstrate treatment response. Identifying the predictors of treatment response is an active area of research. Linde and colleagues looked at data from 13,369 biologic-naive patients registered with a PsA diagnosis from 13 European registries who initiated a first TNF inhibitor treatment. The study demonstrated that sex, disease duration, C-reactive protein level, age at treatment initiation, and fatigue predicted the achievement of the Disease Activity in Psoriatic Arthritis in 28 joints remission at 6 months.

Could biomarkers help predict response beyond clinical predictors? An interesting study indicates that beta–defensin 2 (BD-2) may serve as a predictive biomarker for clinical response to secukinumab in PsA. BD-2 is an antimicrobial peptide and an important protein in innate immune response. Cardner and colleagues analyzed protein expression data in serum samples from the phase 3 FUTURE 1-5 trials that included 1989 patients with PsA who received secukinumab or placebo. Baseline BD-2 levels were associated with early as well as sustained PsA treatment response to secukinumab, independent of psoriasis severity. BD-2 levels did not predict response to adalimumab in PsA nor was it associated with treatment response to secukinumab in RA. The addition of BD-2 to the clinical prediction model significantly improved the prediction of the 16-week American College of Rheumatology 20 response. Thus, BD-2 seems to be a secukinumab treatment response biomarker and requires further evaluation.

With several new biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD now available for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), information regarding their comparative effectiveness would be of interest. Relatively few head-to-head trials have been published, however. Though "real-world" studies have been published to provide some information about comparative effectiveness, Deakin and colleagues used a target trial emulation framework to apply clinical trial methods to real-world data. Using the Australian OPAL registry of bDMARD/tsDMARD-naive patients, they developed a randomized controlled trial protocol of tofacitinib vs adalimumab using an intention-to-treat analysis. Under this framework, there was small reduction of disease activity with tofacitinib vs adalimumab at 3 months and no difference at 9 months. While this framework is conceptually interesting, it may be more meaningful used in side-by-side comparison to a real-world analysis of the same data to evaluate pitfalls and biases in both; otherwise, its utility as a stand-alone analysis of observational data is not fully clear.

Østergaard and colleagues also performed a head-to-head study of several different therapies to address the question of optimal treatment strategies for patients with early RA. Patients with moderate to severe disease activity were randomly assigned to treatment with methotrexate combined with (1) oral glucocorticoid or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular steroid injections, (2) certolizumab, (3) abatacept, or (4) tocilizumab. Disease activity and radiographic changes were evaluated at 48 weeks. In this study of over 800 patients, treatment with abatacept or certolizumab was associated with improved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission rates compared with the active conventional therapy (group 1), but tocilizumab was not. The overall differences between bDMARD treatment groups were small and thus may not reflect significant differences in effectiveness. Instead, this study challenges the notion of initiating conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy in patients with early RA and stepping up to bDMARD, as initial bDMARD therapy may be of benefit in patients with more active early RA.

Alongside the question of the effectiveness of bMARD and tsDMARD in real-world settings, the appropriate role for long-term low-dose prednisone in the treatment of RA remains unknown. A recent study by Güler-Yüksel and colleagues examined the effects of 5 mg prednisolone daily in addition to standard therapy in patients over 65 years of age with active RA. Due to the potential complications of weight gain and glucose intolerance with long-term glucocorticoids, in addition to low-bone-density issues, their use has generally not been viewed favorably. In this multicenter trial, 449 patients were randomly assigned to receive prednisolone vs placebo in addition to their usual medications over 2 years. Notably, patients in the prednisolone group had an average of 0.9 kg weight gain compared with placebo with 0.4 kg weight loss over 2 years. By the end of 2 years, 29% of patients in the prednisolone group had a weight gain of > 2 kg compared with 18% of patients in the placebo group. Only 57 patients in all underwent body composition analysis, and, interestingly, those in the prednisolone group had small increases in lean body mass compared with fat mass, though these patients were not necessarily representative. The authors suggest, though the study does not prove, that low-dose prednisolone can be protective against sarcopenia, which is associated with older age and "rheumatoid cachexia." The study also did not examine the interaction of glucocorticoid use with diet and exercise. While it is reassuring that patients in this study did not experience major weight gain, it does not appear to be a generalizable finding at this point.

With several new biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD now available for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), information regarding their comparative effectiveness would be of interest. Relatively few head-to-head trials have been published, however. Though "real-world" studies have been published to provide some information about comparative effectiveness, Deakin and colleagues used a target trial emulation framework to apply clinical trial methods to real-world data. Using the Australian OPAL registry of bDMARD/tsDMARD-naive patients, they developed a randomized controlled trial protocol of tofacitinib vs adalimumab using an intention-to-treat analysis. Under this framework, there was small reduction of disease activity with tofacitinib vs adalimumab at 3 months and no difference at 9 months. While this framework is conceptually interesting, it may be more meaningful used in side-by-side comparison to a real-world analysis of the same data to evaluate pitfalls and biases in both; otherwise, its utility as a stand-alone analysis of observational data is not fully clear.

Østergaard and colleagues also performed a head-to-head study of several different therapies to address the question of optimal treatment strategies for patients with early RA. Patients with moderate to severe disease activity were randomly assigned to treatment with methotrexate combined with (1) oral glucocorticoid or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular steroid injections, (2) certolizumab, (3) abatacept, or (4) tocilizumab. Disease activity and radiographic changes were evaluated at 48 weeks. In this study of over 800 patients, treatment with abatacept or certolizumab was associated with improved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission rates compared with the active conventional therapy (group 1), but tocilizumab was not. The overall differences between bDMARD treatment groups were small and thus may not reflect significant differences in effectiveness. Instead, this study challenges the notion of initiating conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy in patients with early RA and stepping up to bDMARD, as initial bDMARD therapy may be of benefit in patients with more active early RA.

Alongside the question of the effectiveness of bMARD and tsDMARD in real-world settings, the appropriate role for long-term low-dose prednisone in the treatment of RA remains unknown. A recent study by Güler-Yüksel and colleagues examined the effects of 5 mg prednisolone daily in addition to standard therapy in patients over 65 years of age with active RA. Due to the potential complications of weight gain and glucose intolerance with long-term glucocorticoids, in addition to low-bone-density issues, their use has generally not been viewed favorably. In this multicenter trial, 449 patients were randomly assigned to receive prednisolone vs placebo in addition to their usual medications over 2 years. Notably, patients in the prednisolone group had an average of 0.9 kg weight gain compared with placebo with 0.4 kg weight loss over 2 years. By the end of 2 years, 29% of patients in the prednisolone group had a weight gain of > 2 kg compared with 18% of patients in the placebo group. Only 57 patients in all underwent body composition analysis, and, interestingly, those in the prednisolone group had small increases in lean body mass compared with fat mass, though these patients were not necessarily representative. The authors suggest, though the study does not prove, that low-dose prednisolone can be protective against sarcopenia, which is associated with older age and "rheumatoid cachexia." The study also did not examine the interaction of glucocorticoid use with diet and exercise. While it is reassuring that patients in this study did not experience major weight gain, it does not appear to be a generalizable finding at this point.

With several new biologic (b) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARD now available for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), information regarding their comparative effectiveness would be of interest. Relatively few head-to-head trials have been published, however. Though "real-world" studies have been published to provide some information about comparative effectiveness, Deakin and colleagues used a target trial emulation framework to apply clinical trial methods to real-world data. Using the Australian OPAL registry of bDMARD/tsDMARD-naive patients, they developed a randomized controlled trial protocol of tofacitinib vs adalimumab using an intention-to-treat analysis. Under this framework, there was small reduction of disease activity with tofacitinib vs adalimumab at 3 months and no difference at 9 months. While this framework is conceptually interesting, it may be more meaningful used in side-by-side comparison to a real-world analysis of the same data to evaluate pitfalls and biases in both; otherwise, its utility as a stand-alone analysis of observational data is not fully clear.

Østergaard and colleagues also performed a head-to-head study of several different therapies to address the question of optimal treatment strategies for patients with early RA. Patients with moderate to severe disease activity were randomly assigned to treatment with methotrexate combined with (1) oral glucocorticoid or sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and intra-articular steroid injections, (2) certolizumab, (3) abatacept, or (4) tocilizumab. Disease activity and radiographic changes were evaluated at 48 weeks. In this study of over 800 patients, treatment with abatacept or certolizumab was associated with improved Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) remission rates compared with the active conventional therapy (group 1), but tocilizumab was not. The overall differences between bDMARD treatment groups were small and thus may not reflect significant differences in effectiveness. Instead, this study challenges the notion of initiating conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) therapy in patients with early RA and stepping up to bDMARD, as initial bDMARD therapy may be of benefit in patients with more active early RA.

Alongside the question of the effectiveness of bMARD and tsDMARD in real-world settings, the appropriate role for long-term low-dose prednisone in the treatment of RA remains unknown. A recent study by Güler-Yüksel and colleagues examined the effects of 5 mg prednisolone daily in addition to standard therapy in patients over 65 years of age with active RA. Due to the potential complications of weight gain and glucose intolerance with long-term glucocorticoids, in addition to low-bone-density issues, their use has generally not been viewed favorably. In this multicenter trial, 449 patients were randomly assigned to receive prednisolone vs placebo in addition to their usual medications over 2 years. Notably, patients in the prednisolone group had an average of 0.9 kg weight gain compared with placebo with 0.4 kg weight loss over 2 years. By the end of 2 years, 29% of patients in the prednisolone group had a weight gain of > 2 kg compared with 18% of patients in the placebo group. Only 57 patients in all underwent body composition analysis, and, interestingly, those in the prednisolone group had small increases in lean body mass compared with fat mass, though these patients were not necessarily representative. The authors suggest, though the study does not prove, that low-dose prednisolone can be protective against sarcopenia, which is associated with older age and "rheumatoid cachexia." The study also did not examine the interaction of glucocorticoid use with diet and exercise. While it is reassuring that patients in this study did not experience major weight gain, it does not appear to be a generalizable finding at this point.

A new model can predict which patients are more likely to experience side effects from long-term methotrexate (MTX) use, research suggests. Patients with a lower risk profile may benefit from less frequent testing, the authors hypothesize.

Most recommendations advise that patients initiating MTX therapy should get blood testing every 2-4 weeks to monitor for full blood count, liver function, urea electrolytes, and creatinine. After 6 months taking MTX, monitoring can be tapered to every 3 months. But Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust and colleagues argue that abnormal results after the initial 6 months of treatment are “infrequent,” and patients may benefit from fewer tests throughout the year.

ftwitty/E+/Getty Images

“Unnecessary blood tests waste patients’ time and health care resources, including the time of general practitioners and phlebotomists,” Dr. Abhishek and associates write. “It would be beneficial to predict the risk of clinically significant abnormal blood test results during long-term methotrexate treatment to inform the frequency of testing for individuals.”
 

Stratifying risk

In the study, published in the BMJ, researchers used the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify the electronic medical records of over 37,000 adult patients with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease who were prescribed MTX during 2007-2019. All included patients were prescribed MTX for at least 6 months. The main outcome was discontinuation of methotrexate because of abnormal blood test results. Around 62% of patients had rheumatoid arthritis and 22% had psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.

Using these anonymized data, the group developed a risk stratification model using 11 clinical predictors. “The factors that went in the model are simple things that most patients can self-report or doctors can get from their patient’s medical records,” Dr. Abhishek told this news organization, including methotrexate dose, age, sex, and comorbidities. Dr. Abhishek emphasized that the model should be used only in patients who have continued taking MTX for at least 6 months and have already undergone more frequent initial testing.

The strongest individual predictors were diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.25), chronic kidney disease stage 3 (HR, 2.01), and previous cytopenia or raised liver enzyme levels during the first 6 months of MTX therapy (HR, 2.97). However, Dr. Abhishek emphasized that the individual factors were less important, noting that the model sums the risks to predict outcomes more accurately. Most patients (68.4%) were sorted into the low-risk cohort, with a less than 10% estimated risk of discontinuing MTX over the next 5 years. About one-fifth (20.9%) were categorized as moderate risk (10%-20% estimated risk over 5 years), and 10.7% were high risk, with a greater than 20% estimated risk of discontinuing the drug over 5 years.

The authors argue that low-risk patients could receive less frequent testing – perhaps every 6 months or annually, while moderate-risk patients would continue to be tested every 3 months. High-risk patients could potentially be tested with even greater frequently.
 

More research needed

The research involved “incredibly sophisticated statistical analysis,” said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study. However, the data do not yet support altering blood testing frequency based on this model.

“The hypothesis that not all patients have to be examined so frequently is a very reasonable hypothesis,” Dr. Furst said in an interview, and additional research is needed to corroborate it. The model also needs to be validated in patient populations outside of the United Kingdom, he added.

Dr. Abhishek agreed that validating the model in other patient populations is an important next step. “When we develop a tool [using] a one-nation data set, we want other researchers to then validate it in other countries’ data sets to make sure there is nothing odd about patients in the U.K. that makes the tool work well here but not in [the] U.S., Europe, or Asia, for example,” he said. Doing so should be relatively easy, he said, as the model is publicly available, and the information required is routinely collected during clinic visits.

To understand if less frequent testing might be appropriate for some patients, researchers would need to look at data registries like the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registry or CorEvitas registries “where the testing is done in a very regular way over the long haul,” Dr. Furst said. Analyzing these datasets, researchers could determine the testing intervals that would be most efficient for low- and high-risk patients.
 

A word of caution

While less frequent testing for long-term MTX therapy could likely have benefits, there is still some risk involved, cautioned Prabha Ranganathan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Although most methotrexate toxicity occurs within the first 6 months of starting treatment, rare idiosyncratic toxicity can occur that does not correlate with the dose, duration, or method of how methotrexate is administered,” she wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most rheumatologists can identify a handful of patients who receive methotrexate in their practice who develop sudden leukopenia or thrombocytopenia or transaminitis that is severe enough to warrant drug discontinuation.” While tools like this prediction model can be useful, clinicians need to consider each patient individually and use shared decision-making when monitoring for MTX toxicity, she advised.

“As in most of areas of medicine, the one-size-fits-all approach does not work for methotrexate users,” she noted.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Abhishek has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Oxford Immunotech and personal fees from UpToDate, Springer, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, NGM Bio, Limbic, and Inflazome. Dr. Furst and Dr. Ranganathan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new model can predict which patients are more likely to experience side effects from long-term methotrexate (MTX) use, research suggests. Patients with a lower risk profile may benefit from less frequent testing, the authors hypothesize.

Most recommendations advise that patients initiating MTX therapy should get blood testing every 2-4 weeks to monitor for full blood count, liver function, urea electrolytes, and creatinine. After 6 months taking MTX, monitoring can be tapered to every 3 months. But Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust and colleagues argue that abnormal results after the initial 6 months of treatment are “infrequent,” and patients may benefit from fewer tests throughout the year.

ftwitty/E+/Getty Images

“Unnecessary blood tests waste patients’ time and health care resources, including the time of general practitioners and phlebotomists,” Dr. Abhishek and associates write. “It would be beneficial to predict the risk of clinically significant abnormal blood test results during long-term methotrexate treatment to inform the frequency of testing for individuals.”
 

Stratifying risk

In the study, published in the BMJ, researchers used the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify the electronic medical records of over 37,000 adult patients with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease who were prescribed MTX during 2007-2019. All included patients were prescribed MTX for at least 6 months. The main outcome was discontinuation of methotrexate because of abnormal blood test results. Around 62% of patients had rheumatoid arthritis and 22% had psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.

Using these anonymized data, the group developed a risk stratification model using 11 clinical predictors. “The factors that went in the model are simple things that most patients can self-report or doctors can get from their patient’s medical records,” Dr. Abhishek told this news organization, including methotrexate dose, age, sex, and comorbidities. Dr. Abhishek emphasized that the model should be used only in patients who have continued taking MTX for at least 6 months and have already undergone more frequent initial testing.

The strongest individual predictors were diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.25), chronic kidney disease stage 3 (HR, 2.01), and previous cytopenia or raised liver enzyme levels during the first 6 months of MTX therapy (HR, 2.97). However, Dr. Abhishek emphasized that the individual factors were less important, noting that the model sums the risks to predict outcomes more accurately. Most patients (68.4%) were sorted into the low-risk cohort, with a less than 10% estimated risk of discontinuing MTX over the next 5 years. About one-fifth (20.9%) were categorized as moderate risk (10%-20% estimated risk over 5 years), and 10.7% were high risk, with a greater than 20% estimated risk of discontinuing the drug over 5 years.

The authors argue that low-risk patients could receive less frequent testing – perhaps every 6 months or annually, while moderate-risk patients would continue to be tested every 3 months. High-risk patients could potentially be tested with even greater frequently.
 

More research needed

The research involved “incredibly sophisticated statistical analysis,” said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study. However, the data do not yet support altering blood testing frequency based on this model.

“The hypothesis that not all patients have to be examined so frequently is a very reasonable hypothesis,” Dr. Furst said in an interview, and additional research is needed to corroborate it. The model also needs to be validated in patient populations outside of the United Kingdom, he added.

Dr. Abhishek agreed that validating the model in other patient populations is an important next step. “When we develop a tool [using] a one-nation data set, we want other researchers to then validate it in other countries’ data sets to make sure there is nothing odd about patients in the U.K. that makes the tool work well here but not in [the] U.S., Europe, or Asia, for example,” he said. Doing so should be relatively easy, he said, as the model is publicly available, and the information required is routinely collected during clinic visits.

To understand if less frequent testing might be appropriate for some patients, researchers would need to look at data registries like the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registry or CorEvitas registries “where the testing is done in a very regular way over the long haul,” Dr. Furst said. Analyzing these datasets, researchers could determine the testing intervals that would be most efficient for low- and high-risk patients.
 

A word of caution

While less frequent testing for long-term MTX therapy could likely have benefits, there is still some risk involved, cautioned Prabha Ranganathan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Although most methotrexate toxicity occurs within the first 6 months of starting treatment, rare idiosyncratic toxicity can occur that does not correlate with the dose, duration, or method of how methotrexate is administered,” she wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most rheumatologists can identify a handful of patients who receive methotrexate in their practice who develop sudden leukopenia or thrombocytopenia or transaminitis that is severe enough to warrant drug discontinuation.” While tools like this prediction model can be useful, clinicians need to consider each patient individually and use shared decision-making when monitoring for MTX toxicity, she advised.

“As in most of areas of medicine, the one-size-fits-all approach does not work for methotrexate users,” she noted.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Abhishek has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Oxford Immunotech and personal fees from UpToDate, Springer, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, NGM Bio, Limbic, and Inflazome. Dr. Furst and Dr. Ranganathan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new model can predict which patients are more likely to experience side effects from long-term methotrexate (MTX) use, research suggests. Patients with a lower risk profile may benefit from less frequent testing, the authors hypothesize.

Most recommendations advise that patients initiating MTX therapy should get blood testing every 2-4 weeks to monitor for full blood count, liver function, urea electrolytes, and creatinine. After 6 months taking MTX, monitoring can be tapered to every 3 months. But Abhishek Abhishek, MD, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Nottingham (England) University Hospitals NHS Trust and colleagues argue that abnormal results after the initial 6 months of treatment are “infrequent,” and patients may benefit from fewer tests throughout the year.

ftwitty/E+/Getty Images

“Unnecessary blood tests waste patients’ time and health care resources, including the time of general practitioners and phlebotomists,” Dr. Abhishek and associates write. “It would be beneficial to predict the risk of clinically significant abnormal blood test results during long-term methotrexate treatment to inform the frequency of testing for individuals.”
 

Stratifying risk

In the study, published in the BMJ, researchers used the UK’s Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) to identify the electronic medical records of over 37,000 adult patients with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease who were prescribed MTX during 2007-2019. All included patients were prescribed MTX for at least 6 months. The main outcome was discontinuation of methotrexate because of abnormal blood test results. Around 62% of patients had rheumatoid arthritis and 22% had psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis.

Using these anonymized data, the group developed a risk stratification model using 11 clinical predictors. “The factors that went in the model are simple things that most patients can self-report or doctors can get from their patient’s medical records,” Dr. Abhishek told this news organization, including methotrexate dose, age, sex, and comorbidities. Dr. Abhishek emphasized that the model should be used only in patients who have continued taking MTX for at least 6 months and have already undergone more frequent initial testing.

The strongest individual predictors were diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.25), chronic kidney disease stage 3 (HR, 2.01), and previous cytopenia or raised liver enzyme levels during the first 6 months of MTX therapy (HR, 2.97). However, Dr. Abhishek emphasized that the individual factors were less important, noting that the model sums the risks to predict outcomes more accurately. Most patients (68.4%) were sorted into the low-risk cohort, with a less than 10% estimated risk of discontinuing MTX over the next 5 years. About one-fifth (20.9%) were categorized as moderate risk (10%-20% estimated risk over 5 years), and 10.7% were high risk, with a greater than 20% estimated risk of discontinuing the drug over 5 years.

The authors argue that low-risk patients could receive less frequent testing – perhaps every 6 months or annually, while moderate-risk patients would continue to be tested every 3 months. High-risk patients could potentially be tested with even greater frequently.
 

More research needed

The research involved “incredibly sophisticated statistical analysis,” said Daniel E. Furst, MD, professor emeritus of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved with the study. However, the data do not yet support altering blood testing frequency based on this model.

“The hypothesis that not all patients have to be examined so frequently is a very reasonable hypothesis,” Dr. Furst said in an interview, and additional research is needed to corroborate it. The model also needs to be validated in patient populations outside of the United Kingdom, he added.

Dr. Abhishek agreed that validating the model in other patient populations is an important next step. “When we develop a tool [using] a one-nation data set, we want other researchers to then validate it in other countries’ data sets to make sure there is nothing odd about patients in the U.K. that makes the tool work well here but not in [the] U.S., Europe, or Asia, for example,” he said. Doing so should be relatively easy, he said, as the model is publicly available, and the information required is routinely collected during clinic visits.

To understand if less frequent testing might be appropriate for some patients, researchers would need to look at data registries like the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Rheumatoid Arthritis Sequential Study (BRASS) registry or CorEvitas registries “where the testing is done in a very regular way over the long haul,” Dr. Furst said. Analyzing these datasets, researchers could determine the testing intervals that would be most efficient for low- and high-risk patients.
 

A word of caution

While less frequent testing for long-term MTX therapy could likely have benefits, there is still some risk involved, cautioned Prabha Ranganathan, MD, professor of medicine at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Although most methotrexate toxicity occurs within the first 6 months of starting treatment, rare idiosyncratic toxicity can occur that does not correlate with the dose, duration, or method of how methotrexate is administered,” she wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most rheumatologists can identify a handful of patients who receive methotrexate in their practice who develop sudden leukopenia or thrombocytopenia or transaminitis that is severe enough to warrant drug discontinuation.” While tools like this prediction model can be useful, clinicians need to consider each patient individually and use shared decision-making when monitoring for MTX toxicity, she advised.

“As in most of areas of medicine, the one-size-fits-all approach does not work for methotrexate users,” she noted.

This study was funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Research and Health Technology Assessment. Dr. Abhishek has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca and Oxford Immunotech and personal fees from UpToDate, Springer, Cadila Pharmaceuticals, NGM Bio, Limbic, and Inflazome. Dr. Furst and Dr. Ranganathan report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors who treat patients with long COVID, hampered by a lack of federally approved treatments, are turning to off-label use of drugs designed for addiction, diabetes, and other conditions.

Those with long COVID for years now are engaging in robust online conversations about a range of treatments not formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the condition, reporting good and bad results.

High on the current list: low-dose naltrexone (LDN). A version of drug developed to help addicts has been shown to help some long COVID patients.

But evidence is building for other treatments, many of them targeted to treat brain fog or one of the other long-term symptoms in individuals 3 months or more after acute COVID infection.

Some patients are taking metformin, which studies have found to be effective at lowering long COVID risk. Paxlovid is being tested for long COVID.  Antivirals are also on the list.

Alba Azola, MD, said she has treated long COVID patients with brain fog and dizziness who have postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS).

Dr. Azola said she asked the staff at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, where she is a rehabilitation specialist, to teach her how to treat the condition. Since there is no approved treatment for POTS, that meant using off-label drugs, she said. 

“It was super scary as a provider to start doing that, but my patients were suffering so much,” she  said, noting the wait for patients to get into the POTS clinic at Hopkins was 2 years.

Dr. Azola was the lead author on guidelines published by the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) last September on how to treat autonomic dysfunction, a common symptom of long COVID. 

The guidelines she helped write include drugs designed for blood pressure – such as midodrine – and steroids.

Dr. Azola noted the medications are prescribed on a case-by-case basis because the same drug that works for one patient may have awful side effects for another patient, she said. At the same time, some of these drugs have helped her patients go back to living relatively normal lives.

The first time JD Davids of Brooklyn, N.Y., took LDN, it was for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and he couldn’t tolerate it. He had nightmares. But when he took it for long COVID, he started out at a low dose and worked his way up, at his doctor’s advice. 

“It’s been a game-changer,” said Mr. Davids, cofounder of Long COVID Justice, an activist group. He has ME/CFS and several other chronic conditions, including long COVID. But, since he started taking LDN for long COVID, Mr. Davids said he has more energy and less pain. 

Technically, evidence is required to show off-label drug use could be effective in treating conditions for which the drug is not formally approved. Research suggests that 20%-30% of drugs are prescribed off-label.

No formal data exist on how widespread the use of off-label drugs for long COVID may be. But LDN is a major topic of discussion on public patient groups on Facebook. 

A recent study in The Lancet Infectious Diseases suggested that the diabetes drug metformin could be helpful. (The same study found no benefit from ivermectin, a drug since dismissed as a possible COVID treatment.)

Patients who testified at a virtual FDA hearing on drug development in April reported using vitamins, herbal supplements, over-the-counter medications and off-label drugs such as gabapentin and beta-blockers. Both of those drugs were on a list of potential treatments published in a January Nature Review article, along with LDN and Paxlovid.

Currently, Paxlovid is approved for acute COVID, and is in clinical trials as a treatment for long COVID as part of the federal government’s RECOVER Initiative. While only small studies of LDN have been conducted for long COVID, doctors are already prescribing the treatment. Mr. Davids said his primary care doctor recommended it.

Some doctors, such as Michael Peluso, MD, are comparing the trend to the early days of the AIDS epidemic, when the federal government was slow to recognize the viral disease. Patients banded together to protest and gain access to experimental treatments. 

Dr. Peluso, who treats long COVID patients at the University of California, San Francisco, said that without any approved treatment, patients are turning to one another to find out what works.

“A lot of people experiencing long COVID are looking for ways to feel better now, rather than waiting for the science or the guidelines to catch up,” he said in an interview.

In some cases, the drugs are backed by small studies, he said. 

“While we still need clinical trials to prove what will work, the drugs tested in these trials are also being informed by anecdotes shared by patients,” Dr. Peluso said.

Gail Van Norman, MD, of the University of Washington, Seattle, also said the long COVID situation today is reminiscent of the AIDS movement, which was “one of the times in history where we saw a real response to patient advocacy groups in terms of access to drugs.” Since then, the FDA has set up multiple programs to expand access to experimental drugs, added Dr. Van Norman, author of a recent study on off-label drug use.

But off-label use needs to be supervised by a physician, she and others said. Many patients get their information from social media, which Dr. Van Norman sees as a double-edged sword. Patients can share information, do their own research online, and alert practitioners to new findings, she said. But social media also promotes misinformation.

“People with no expertise have the same level of voice, and they are magnified,” Dr. Van Norman said.

The FDA requires doctors to have some evidence to support off-label use, she said. Doctors should talk to patients who want to try-off label drugs about what has been studied and what has not been studied.

“If I had [long COVID], I would be asking questions about all these drugs,” Dr. Van Norman said.

Mr. Davids has been asking questions like this for years. Diagnosed in 2019 with ME/CFS, he developed long COVID during the pandemic. Once he began started taking LDN, he started feeling better.

As someone with multiple chronic illnesses, Mr. Davids has tried a lot of treatments – he’s currently on two intravenous drugs and two compounded drugs, including LDN. But when his doctor first suggested it, he was wary. 

“I’ve worked with her to help increase the dosage slowly over time,” he said. “It’s very important for many people to start low and slow and work their way up.”

He hears stories of people who can’t get it from their physicians. Some, he said, think it may be because of the association of the drug with opioid abuse. 

Mr. Davids said long COVID patients have no other choice but to turn to alternative treatments. 
 

“I think we’ve been ill-served by our research establishment,” he said. “It is not set up for complex chronic conditions.”

Mr. Davids said he doesn’t know if LDN helps with underlying conditions or treats the symptoms – such as pain and fatigue – that keep him from doing things such as typing. 

“My understanding is that it may be doing both,” he said. “I sure am happy that it allows me to do things like keep my job.”

Dr. Azola and others said patients need to be monitored closely if they are taking an off-label drug. She recommends primary care doctors become familiar with them so they can offer patients some relief.

“It’s about the relationship between the patient and the provider and the provider being comfortable,” she said. “l was very transparent with my patients.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Investigators have found a correlation between vitamin D deficiency and psoriasis severity, suggesting that some people who increase their intake of the vitamin could better control this skin condition that affects up to 8 million people in the United States alone. 

Brown University researchers studied almost 500 psoriasis cases taken from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the scientists told attendees at the conference of the American Society for Nutrition. They compared the peoples’ reports on how much of their body surface was affected by psoriasis to vitamin D levels collected in blood samples.

“After adjusting for lifestyle factors such as smoking, the analysis showed that lower vitamin D levels and vitamin D deficiency were significantly associated with greater psoriasis severity,” the ASN said in a news release. “The researchers also found that patients with the least amount of body surface affected by psoriasis had the highest average vitamin D levels while those with the greatest affected area had the lowest average levels of vitamin D.”

The researchers said that people with psoriasis might improve their condition by getting more vitamin D in their diet and through supplements.

“Topical synthetic vitamin D creams are emerging as new therapies for psoriasis, but these usually require a doctor’s prescription,” said researcher Rachel K. Lim, an MD candidate at Brown University, Providence, R.I. “Our results suggest that a vitamin D–rich diet or oral vitamin D supplementation may also provide some benefit to psoriasis patients.”

The researchers said that vitamin D toxicity is rare but that people should consult with their medical caregivers before they start taking supplements.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.

Three recently published studies investigated this:

• The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
• A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
• A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.

The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.

This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
 

The big picture, as seen by two experts

The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.

ljubaphoto/E+/Getty Images

Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.

Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.

“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”

Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.  

Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.

Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.

“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.

They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.

He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
 

Three published studies

LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA

Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.

All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.

Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.

From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.

“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.

“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”

The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.

“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.

Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.

The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.

Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”

Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.

In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
 

Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA

Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.

They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.

The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m², and a mean A1c of 7.3%.

“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).

Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.

“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.

They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”

They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.

Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m² and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
 

Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA

Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.

In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.

The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).

They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”

Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
 

Two trials near completion, one is upcoming

Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004

“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.  

The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.

The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
 

Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA

Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.

Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m² and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.

The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.

Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.

Three recently published studies investigated this:

• The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
• A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
• A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.

The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.

This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
 

The big picture, as seen by two experts

The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.

ljubaphoto/E+/Getty Images

Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.

Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.

“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”

Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.  

Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.

Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.

“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.

They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.

He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
 

Three published studies

LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA

Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.

All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.

Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.

From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.

“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.

“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”

The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.

“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.

Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.

The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.

Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”

Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.

In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
 

Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA

Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.

They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.

The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m², and a mean A1c of 7.3%.

“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).

Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.

“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.

They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”

They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.

Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m² and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
 

Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA

Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.

In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.

The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).

They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”

Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
 

Two trials near completion, one is upcoming

Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004

“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.  

The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.

The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
 

Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA

Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.

Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m² and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.

The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.

Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Could glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, such as liraglutide and semaglutide, also be potential disease-modifying treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA)?

Weight loss is recommended for patients with KOA, and GLP-1 receptor agonists are approved for weight loss. New early research suggests these drugs might have a disease-modifying effect for KOA.

Three recently published studies investigated this:

• The LOSEIT phase 4, randomized controlled trial of liraglutide vs. placebo in patients with obesity/overweight and KOA.
• A large observational study out of China in patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes.
• A preclinical trial of liraglutide in mouse models of KOA.

The preclinical trial and the observational study report promising results, and the lack of KOA pain relief in patients in the phase 4 trial may be explained by the trial design. Three other trials are in the works.

This news organization invited two researchers and two outside experts to discuss these studies and potential future treatment of KOA with GLP-1 receptor agonists.
 

The big picture, as seen by two experts

The GLP-1 receptor agonists liraglutide (Victoza) and semaglutide (Ozempic) are approved for type 2 diabetes, and, in higher doses, liraglutide (Saxenda) and semaglutide (Wegovy) are approved for weight loss in patients with obesity (or overweight with comorbidities), and given as weekly injections.

ljubaphoto/E+/Getty Images

Victoza and Saxenda are expected to come off patent in December 2023, and in 2026, respectively.

Lauren King, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist and clinician scientist who was not involved with the recent investigational studies of GLP-1 receptor agonists for KOA, noted that obesity is the most important, guideline-recommended, modifiable risk factor for KOA.

“In people with overweight and obesity, losing weight can improve knee osteoarthritis symptoms, and some evidence supports that it may also slow joint structural changes,” Dr. King, of the department of medicine at the University of Toronto, said in an interview.

Large trials of GLP-1 receptor agonists in people with overweight and obesity, such as the STEP trials of semaglutide, she noted, “provide evidence that these medications are safe and effective, facilitating clinically relevant and sustained weight loss.”

Further research is needed, she said, to better understand disease-modifying effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists in patients with KOA.  

Similarly, W. Timothy Garvey, MD, professor in the department of nutrition sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham and director of the UAB Diabetes Research Center, who was not involved with this research, noted that weight loss improves KOA symptoms.

Dr. Garvey was lead investigator in the STEP 5 trial of semaglutide and lead author of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists 2016 Obesity Management guidelines.

“The question is whether these GLP-1 receptor agonists have anything to offer over and above weight loss per se, and we don’t know for sure,” he said.

They “do have anti-inflammatory actions,” and “there are GLP-1 receptors in locations where you think GLP-1 receptor agonism may help inflammation in the knee, in joints, and in other tissues,” he noted.

He looks forward to results of the phase 3 trial of semaglutide in patients with KOA, expected this fall.
 

Three published studies

LOSEIT: RCT of liraglutide for pain and weight control in KOA

Henrik Rindel Gudbergsen, MD, PhD, and colleagues published results of the only randomized controlled trial of a GLP-1 receptor agonist (liraglutide, Saxenda) vs. placebo in patients with overweight/obesity and KOA, the LOSEIT trial.

All patients first entered an 8-week, pre-randomization phase where they had strict caloric restriction (and ate meal replacements) and lost at least 5% of their initial weight. They also had less knee pain at the end of this phase.

Then they were randomly assigned to receive 3 mg liraglutide or placebo daily injections for 1 year.

From randomization until week 52, the liraglutide group had greater mean weight loss than the placebo group (but this was < 5% of their weight). They did not have greater reduction in knee pain than patients in the placebo group.

“Our interpretation was that dieting results in weight loss and diminishes knee pain (which we knew), and that the impact of liraglutide following severe calorie restriction and weight loss and improvement of pain was limited,” Dr. Gudbergsen, a physician and associate professor at The Parker Institute, University of Copenhagen, told this news organization.

“That was the surprise for us as investigators,” he said, “and, I assume, why Novo Nordisk is now pursuing the investigation of semaglutide for KOA, as this is expected to create a larger effect on body weight and knee symptoms.”

The weight loss was about 12.5 kg (27.5 pounds) prior to randomization, and the subsequent weight loss with liraglutide was about 2.8 kg (6 pounds; about 4% of their weight). “Thus, it could seem that the participants’ potential for weight loss as well as symptom reduction was fully exploited in the pre–random assignment dietary intervention period,” according to the researchers.

“It seems highly relevant to use liraglutide or semaglutide for patients impacted by obesity and KOA, as it is in line with guidelines suggesting weight loss for this group,” Dr. Gudbergsen said. “However, whether liraglutide and/or semaglutide, acting via an anti-inflammatory effect, for example, has an added positive impact on cartilage quality remains to be clarified,” he said.

Others who were not involved in this study suggest that the lack of pain-reduction benefit with liraglutide vs. placebo can be explained by the short-term use of liraglutide (1 year), small weight loss (< 5%), and systemic rather than intraarticular injection.

The LOSEIT trial design “is problematic and could not provide a confirmative conclusion,” Hongyi Zhu, MD, PhD, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, China, and colleagues wrote in their observational study. The small weight loss of < 5% in the liraglutide group may explain why the pain relief was not better than with placebo. A longer study duration with significant weight loss/maintenance may be needed, they noted.

Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, senior author of a preclinical study of liraglutide, said that in the LOSEIT trial, “daily systemic injections of liraglutide did not ameliorate OA-related pain, probably because of poor access and hence poor local concentrations of liraglutide in the knee joint.”

Dr. Berenbaum is professor of rheumatology at Sorbonne University and director of the department of rheumatology at AP-HP Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris. He is cofounder and CEO of 4Moving Biotech (a subsidiary of 4P Pharma, an innovator accelerator biotech company), which is testing liraglutide for KOA.

In experiments in mice, systemic injections of liraglutide did not lead to high enough concentration in synovial fluid to show efficacy for pain relief, he told this news organization. “In order to get the direct effect of liraglutide, it should be injected intraarticularly,” he said.
 

Observational study of patients with diabetes and KOA

Dr. Zhu and colleagues recently published results of the first clinical investigation of long-term effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on KOA in patients with comorbid type 2 diabetes.

They analyzed data from a subset of patients with KOA and type 2 diabetes from the Shanghai Osteoarthritis Cohort, including 233 patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist (semaglutide, liraglutide, or dulaglutide [Trulicity]) for at least 2 years and 1,574 patients who did not receive this therapy.

The patients had a mean weight of 66 kg (145 pounds), a mean body mass index of 27 kg/m², and a mean A1c of 7.3%.

“According to conventional wisdom, a weight change greater than 5% is considered clinically relevant for KOA,” the researchers wrote. They found that patients had substantial weight loss after GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy.

The primary outcome, the incidence of knee surgery, was lower in the patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist than in the other patients (1.7% vs. 5.9%; adjusted P = .014).

Patients who received a GLP-1 receptor agonist also had greater improvements in secondary outcomes than did other patients, including pain subscale scores and cartilage-loss velocity of the medial femorotibial joint in patients with predominantly lateral OA.

“The effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on arthritic knees were largely mediated by weight loss instead of glycemic control,” Dr. Zhu and colleagues reported.

They concluded that with long-enough treatment, “GLP-1 receptor agonist therapies might be disease-modifying for KOA patients with comorbid [type 2 diabetes mellitus].”

They called for further research to elucidate the effects of GLP-1 receptor agonists on the disease process, joint structure, and patient-reported outcomes of OA.

Dr. Garvey noted that “whether your BMI is 30 or 40, if there are complications, that tells you that degree of adiposity is sufficient to impair health.” So, if a patient in southeast China has a BMI of 27 kg/m² and has osteoarthritis, he or she could still benefit from weight loss, he said.
 

Liraglutide and pain-related behavior in mouse models of OA

Dr. Berenbaum and colleagues reported that liraglutide alleviated pain-related behavior in sodium monoiodoacetate mouse models of KOA.

In addition, liraglutide had anti-inflammatory and anticatabolic effects in synovial fluid from the knees of six patients with OA of varying severity.

The researchers analyzed generic liraglutide (from Hybio Pharmaceuticals, Shenzhen, China) and nongeneric liraglutide (from Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark).

They found that “when injected intra-articularly, liraglutide blunts the inflammatory process that is present in OA synovial tissue, explaining the acute analgesic effect,” Dr. Berenbaum said.

“Liraglutide could be a game-changer,” he said, “by demonstrating not only an effect on joint structures like synovial tissue and cartilage, but also on symptoms in a short-term period.”

Dr. Garvey said the symptom improvements after intrasynovial infusion of liraglutide in this trial were “impressive.” This study “adds credence to the hypothesis that these GLP-1 receptor agonists could have effects above and beyond weight loss,” he said.
 

Two trials near completion, one is upcoming

Phase 1 and 2 trials of 4P-004

“We are now in a phase 1 clinical trial [of 4P-004/liraglutide] in patients suffering from knee OA and should start a large phase 2 trial next year,” said Dr. Berenbaum.  

The phase 1 LASARE trial, sponsored by 4Moving Biotech, planned to enroll 32 patients with KOA.

The primary outcome is safety and tolerability of single IA administration of 4P-004 at escalating doses in patients with KOA. Secondary outcomes include plasma concentration of liraglutide when administered this way.
 

Phase 3 trial of semaglutide for KOA

Novo Nordisk is performing a phase 3 study, “Effect of Subcutaneous Semaglutide 2.4 mg Once-weekly Compared to Placebo in Subjects With Obesity and Knee Osteoarthritis,” with an expected enrollment of 407 patients with KOA and estimated trial completion in September.

Eligible patients were aged 18 and older, with BMI > 30 kg/m² and KOA with Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3. The co-primary outcomes are change in body weight and change in WOMAC pain score, from baseline to 68 weeks.

The LOSEIT trial was supported by Novo Nordisk and the Cambridge Weight Plan. The observational study in China was supported by the Shanghai Shenkang Hospital Development Centre, the Clinical Research Plan of SHDC, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The preclinical trial was supported by 4P Pharma/4Moving Biotech.

Dr. Berenbaum is CEO of 4Moving Biotech and chair of the scientific advisory board of 4P Pharma. He has received personal fees from 4P Pharma as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Garvey has reported being a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Merck, Fractyl Health, and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, and reported being an investigator for studies sponsored by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, and Epitomee. Dr. Gudbergsen, Dr. King, and Dr. Zhu report no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

One has to be living off the grid to not be bombarded with direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising. Since 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration eased restrictions on this prohibition and allowed pharmaceutical companies to promote prescription-only medications to the public, there has been a deluge of ads in magazines, on the Internet, and, most annoying, on commercial television.

These television ads are quite formulaic:

We are initially introduced to a number of highly functioning patients (typically actors) who are engaged in rewarding pursuits. A voiceover narration then presents the pharmaceutical to be promoted, suggesting (not so subtly) to consumers that taking the advertised drug will improve one’s disease outlook or quality of life such that they too, just like the actors in the minidrama, can lead such highly productive lives.

The potential best-case scenarios of these new treatments may be stated. There then follows a litany of side effects – some of them life threatening – warnings, and contraindications. We’re again treated to another 5 or 10 seconds of patients leading “the good life,” and almost all of the ads end with the narrator concluding: “Ask your doctor (sometimes ‘provider’) if _____ is right for you.”

Big pharma spends nearly $10 billion on DTC advertising, with television ads accounting for the vast majority of these dollars. Is this type of advertising appropriate? Or even ethical?

Americans spend more money on their prescriptions than do citizens of any other highly developed nation. I have personally heard from patients who get their prescriptions from other countries, where they are more affordable. These patients will also cut their pills in half or take a medication every other day instead of every day, to economize on drug costs.

Another “trick” they use to save money – and I have heard pharmacists and pharmaceutical reps themselves recommend this – is to ask for a higher dose of a medication, usually double, and then use a pill cutter to divide a tablet in half, thus making their prescription last twice as long. Why do Americans have to resort to such “workarounds”?

Many of the medications advertised are for relatively rare conditions, such as thyroid eye disease or myasthenia gravis (which affects up to about 60,000 patients in the United States). Why not spend these advertising dollars on programs to make drugs taken by the millions of Americans with common conditions (for example, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure) more affordable?

Very often the television ads contain medical jargon, such as: “If you have the EGFR mutation, or if your cancer is HER2 negative ...”

Do most patients truly understand what these terms mean? And what happens when a patient’s physician doesn’t prescribe a medication that a patient has seen on TV and asks for, or when the physician believes that a generic (nonadvertised) medication might work just as well? This creates conflict and potential discord, adversely affecting the doctor-patient relationship.

An oncologist colleague related to me that he often has to spend time correcting patients’ misperceptions of potential miracle cures offered by these ads, and that several patients have left his practice because he would not prescribe a drug they saw advertised.

Further, while these ads urge patients to try expensive “newest and latest” treatments, pharmacy benefit plans are working with health care insurance conglomerates to reduce costs of pharmaceuticals.

How does this juxtaposition of opposing forces make any sense?

It is time for us to put an end to DTC advertising, at least on television. It will require legislative action by our federal government to end this practice (legal, by the way, only in the United States and New Zealand), and hence the willingness of our politicians to get behind legislation to do so.

Just as a law was passed to prohibit tobacco advertising on television, so should a law be passed to regulate DTC pharmaceutical advertising.

The time to end DTC advertising has come!
 

Lloyd Alterman, MD, is a retired physician and chairman of the New Jersey Universal Healthcare Coalition. He disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and gout with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was significantly linked with fewer gout flares, compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
• The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
• Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
• Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
• Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
• For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
• The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
• SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and gout with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was significantly linked with fewer gout flares, compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
• The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
• Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
• Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
• Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
• For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
• The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
• SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Treatment of adults with type 2 diabetes and gout with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor was significantly linked with fewer gout flares, compared with matched patients treated with a dipeptidyl peptidase–4 (DPP-4) inhibitor.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study used observational data collected from the entire population of British Columbia that included 15,067 adults with both gout and type 2 diabetes in 2014-2020.
• The group included 8,318 patients who initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and 6,749 patients who initiated a DPP-4 inhibitor during the study period after at least 1 year of continuous enrollment.
• Using propensity-score matching, 4,075 matched pairs were identified, where one person initiated an SGLT2 inhibitor and the other started a DPP-4 inhibitor.
• Primary outcome was recurrent gout flare counts during follow-up that required an ED visit, hospital admission, or an outpatient visit for a gout flare coupled with appropriate treatment, tallied from the first day of drug receipt until June 30, 2022, with an average follow-up of 1.6 years.
• Secondary endpoints included the incidence of myocardial infarction and stroke.

TAKEAWAY:

• Total gout-flare rates after SGLT2 inhibitor initiation were 52.4/1000 person-years and after DPP-4 inhibitor initiation were 79.7/1,000 person-years, an adjusted rate ratio of 0.66, a reduction significantly linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use.
• For flares that required an ED visit or hospitalization, initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor was linked with a significant, reduced aRR of 0.52, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation.
• The flare-rate reduction linked with SGLT2 inhibitor use was consistent regardless of sex, age, baseline diuretic use, prior treatment with a urate-lowering agent, and baseline gout intensity.
• SGLT2 inhibitor initiation was also significantly linked with an adjusted reduced hazard ratio of 0.69 in the incidence of myocardial infarction, compared with DPP-4 inhibitor initiation, but stroke incidence was not significantly different between the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

These findings suggest that SGLT2 inhibitors could have a much-needed ability to simultaneously reduce the burden of recurrent gout flares and coronary sequelae in patients with gout and type 2 diabetes, indicating that “SGLT2 inhibitors may offer distinct benefits,” making the drug class “a particularly attractive addition to current urate-lowering therapies,” the researchers write.

SOURCE:

The study was primarily conducted by researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. The study was published online July 24 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The data used in the study did not include gout flares that did not require medical attention and did not include laboratory findings for study participants. Because the data were observational the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no commercial funding. One author has reported receiving consulting fees from ANI and LG Chem.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical research in lupus has a mammoth diversity problem: Black individuals are most likely to develop the disease, but they’re the least likely to take part in studies. By the numbers, a 2018 analysis of randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus from the years 1997 to 2017 found that 51% of trial participants were White and 14% were Black, even though an estimated 33% of patients with lupus were White and 43% were Black.

Are there ways to fix this disparity? The topic is getting plenty of attention, and speakers at a July 21 online conference touted research projects that aim to boost the numbers of non-White participants in lupus trials.

So far there doesn’t seem to be anything like a magic bullet. Still, the stakes are high. “While race is a social construct, genetic polymorphisms as well as environmental and social differences may influence drugs, safety, and efficacy,” Joy Buie, PhD, MSCR, research director for the Lupus Foundation of America, said at the “Engaging Diverse Participants in Lupus Clinical Trials: The Path Forward” summit held by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR).

As African American patients explained, minority populations often don’t trust the medical system and feel burned by their lengthy struggles to get diagnosed. In some cases, they don’t have full faith in their clinicians and feel unheard.

In a video presentation developed as part of a federal education campaign, Shanelle Gabriel, a poet and musician diagnosed with lupus, described her first reaction when her physician suggested she join a clinical trial. “My first reaction was no. I know my history,” she said, apparently referring to the infamous Tuskegee study that withheld proper treatment from Black men with syphilis for decades. “As an African American woman, I was scared. I didn’t want to be a guinea pig.”

Stacey Kennedy-Conner, a Chicago-area patient and advocate, told the summit audience about how patients can feel that clinical trial information can add “an extra layer of confusion” to their experience. “There’s also the mentality of, ‘If it’s not broke, don’t fix it’: If this medication regimen is working, I don’t want anybody to touch me.”

Monique Gore-Massy, a New York City patient and advocate, added that there can be a perception that patients with lupus “are stuck at home in bed.” In reality, she said, “we have jobs, we have families. Think about that, and consider everything that you’re asking from us: Is this taking me away from my family? Am I going to have to take off work? There may be incentives, but is that worth me taking time off work that I may not get paid for? These are some of the realities that we have to look at in terms of the whole entire clinical trial process.”

It’s also important to keep patients informed of progress being made in trials, she said. “You don’t want to say you just felt like a number and then not get any kind of follow-up.”

In the big picture, “there has to be something that builds up the confidence of individuals so that they are more mindful to participate in these clinical trials,” said Aleta McLean, an Atlanta patient who was diagnosed with lupus 14 years ago.

Several researchers highlighted ongoing projects at the summit. The ACR, for example, has launched a $500,000 initiative called Training to Increase Minority Enrollment in Lupus Clinical Trials with Community Engagement (TIMELY). The federally funded project aims to evaluate whether training of health care professionals can boost clinical trial participation among Black and Hispanic patients.

“We hope to disseminate the results of our project to the scientific community through abstracts, manuscripts, presentations at national meetings,” said rheumatologist Saira Z. Sheikh, MD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Overall, our goal is to establish new partnerships to support the TIMELY model and advance the education and engagement of providers and community health workers.”

Pamela Payne-Foster, MD, MPH, preventive medicine/public health physician at the University of Alabama College of Community Health Sciences, Tuscaloosa, spoke about the federally funded Deep South Health Equity Project, which is paying patients to take part in an online education program and attend an online regional conference.

Other efforts are underway. The Lupus Research Alliance and its clinical affiliate Lupus Therapeutics have launched two initiatives. One is a program called Project Change (Community-based Health Action Network to Generate Trial Participation and Eliminate Disparities), and the Diversity in Lupus Research Program aims to fund scientists’ work.

Will any of this work boost diversity in clinical trials? As one audience member noted in a Q&A session, health care disparities – and knowledge about them – are nothing new: “Why are we not able to narrow the gap?”

Rear Admiral Richardae Araojo, PharmD, MS, director of the FDA’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity and associate commissioner for minority health, replied that waves of interest in disparities come and go. “That contributes to why we may not see solutions. But ultimately, there are a lot of people doing a lot of work trying to solve the issues.”

The summit was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, and RemeGen.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.