Osteoarthritis

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.

“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.

“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”

That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.

A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
 

In the OA pipeline

“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.

Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.

“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.

“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.

This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)

Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.

“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.

Welcome to the wild, wild West

Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.

“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.

He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.

As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.

These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.

“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.

The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.

Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.

“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”


 

On a brighter note

Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.

Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.

“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”

As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.

“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.

He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.

“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.

“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”

That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.

A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
 

In the OA pipeline

“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.

Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.

“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.

“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.

This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)

Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.

“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.

Welcome to the wild, wild West

Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.

“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.

He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.

As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.

These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.

“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.

The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.

Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.

“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”


 

On a brighter note

Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.

Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.

“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”

As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.

“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.

He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.

“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.

“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”

That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.

A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
 

In the OA pipeline

“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.

Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.

“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.

“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.

This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)

Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.

“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.

Welcome to the wild, wild West

Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.

“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.

He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.

As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.

These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.

“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.

The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.

Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.

“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”


 

On a brighter note

Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.

Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.

“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”

As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.

“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.

He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

MAUI, HAWAII – Outpatient total hip and knee replacement is “the latest craze” in orthopedic surgery, and it’s being driven by the might of Medicare, William Bugbee, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“In 2019, Medicare took total knee replacement off the inpatient-only list, meaning you could do it as an outpatient. And just in January 2020, they took total hips off that list. So I have to designate most of my hip and knee replacements as outpatients, even if I do it in the hospital and keep them for 1 night. And some of the private insurers have already gone to that, so they’ll deny coverage if I say I want a 1-day hospital stay, believe it or not,” according to Dr. Bugbee, chief of joint reconstruction in the department of orthopedics at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif.

He provided a behind-the-scenes look at contemporary trends in joint replacement as well as tips on how rheumatologists can best help their patients get through the experience with excellent outcomes.

Joint replacement remains the best treatment for advanced arthritis of the hips and knees, he said. There is a high degree of confidence about the predictability and durability of the results. But joint replacement has become highly commoditized.

“We’re getting pummeled by Medicare to make this as cheap as possible,” the orthopedic surgeon explained. “An implant costs the hospital $3,000-$6,000. A care episode for a primary total joint replacement should cost a hospital $8,000-$15,000, which is about what Medicare pays for the [Diagnosis Related Group], so the margins are small. That’s why we’re being drilled on about how much we spend on every little thing. We hardly do any labs, x-rays, anything.”

As a result of recent advances in pre-, peri-, and postoperative management, outpatient joint replacement has become a safe and comparatively economical option for generally healthy patients.

“We’ve engineered a much better patient experience, so the assault and battery of 5, 10, 15 years ago isn’t so bad anymore,” Dr. Bugbee said.

Rheumatologists can expect to see a growing number of their patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement at outpatient surgery centers. That’s not a bad thing so long as the procedure is being done there because the outpatient center employs best practices in order to provide a highly efficient episode of care supported by excellent outcome data, he continued.

State-of-the-art perioperative management in 2020 includes accelerated-care pathways that allow ambulation within an hour or 2 after surgery along with same-day discharge, regional anesthesia with motor-sparing nerve blocks, and multimodal pain management with avoidance of intravenous narcotics except in opioid-tolerant patients. Tranexamic acid is now widely used in order to reduce operative blood loss.

“When I started practice 25 years ago, 50% of patients got a blood transfusion. I haven’t given a blood transfusion to a patient in probably 2 years. Tranexamic acid reduces blood loss by 500-700 cc with no discernible adverse effects. It’s truly remarkable,” he said.

Another important technical advance has been the routine use of oral dexamethasone. “Decadron is an antiemetic, it has anti-inflammatory effects, and it makes people happy. It’s a simple, cheap drug that has revolutionized care,” the surgeon continued.

Postoperative management has been streamlined. Dr. Bugbee is among many orthopedic surgeons who no longer routinely prescribe therapist-directed formal physical therapy for total hip arthroplasty patients, relying instead upon online tools and apps for self-administered physical therapy. Pedal exercise devices available online for $30 or so have been shown to be as effective as supervised physical therapy for knee rehabilitation.
 

What patients want to know about joint replacement

The question patients most often ask both their referring physician and the orthopedic surgeon is, “How long will my joint replacement last?” The best available data come from a couple of recent paired meta-analyses. The investigators reported 82% implant survivorship 25 years after primary total knee arthroplasty and 70% after unicondylar knee arthroplasty as well as a 25-year implant survivorship rate of 77% for total hip arthroplasty.

“I expected that hip arthroplasty survivorship rate to be much higher than 77%. The reason it’s not is probably because of the metal-on-metal bearing surface debacle of about 10 years ago. There’ve been lots of revisions because of that. We thought metal-on-metal implants were going to be all that, with microscopically low wear, but they turned out to be a nightmare because of metal ion release,” Dr. Bugbee observed.

The long-term joint survivorship data are based upon older implants. Encouraging albeit still preliminary data suggest contemporary implants may last significantly longer. The “clear winner,” he said, is a 36-mm ceramic head and a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner.

“That’s been a game changer, with a 10- to 20-fold decrease in wear compared to plastics for weight-bearing surfaces,” Dr. Bugbee said.

In terms of functional improvement, by various measures 85%-97% of patients are satisfied with the results of their total hip replacement, and 60% report returning to high-level recreational activities. Patient satisfaction scores are lower – 75%-90% – after total knee arthroplasty.

“The total knee replacement just doesn’t work like a regular joint,” the surgeon observed. “When I think of hip and knee replacements, I think of a hip as a Ferrari – it’s a high-performance joint replacement – and I think of the knee as a Ford – it’s serviceable, it does the job, and it’s okay but not fantastic.”

How referring physicians can optimize preoperative management and long-term follow-up

Orthopedic surgeons would appreciate help from rheumatologists and primary care physicians in preoperatively addressing the known modifiable risk factors for poor outcomes of joint replacement. These include obesity, smoking, depression, a hemoglobin A_1c of 7% or more, and being on opioids. These risk factors are incompatible with outpatient hip or knee replacement.

“Let the surgeon know if you think outpatient joint replacement is a bad idea in your patient for medical reasons,” Dr. Bugbee urged.

Also, orthopedic surgeons can generally benefit from rheumatologist input regarding perioperative management of patients on standard disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, biologics, or Janus kinase inhibitors as recommended in the guidelines published jointly by the American College of Rheumatology and the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

“I can guarantee you that most orthopedic surgeons don’t know about these guidelines. The evidence base for these recommendations is not great, but these are the best guidelines we have,” Dr. Bugbee said.

After joint replacement surgery a patient should get an x-ray of the replacement every 5 years. And if a patient develops a painful hip after arthroplasty, it’s worthwhile to order blood chromium and cobalt levels.

“The implant weight-bearing surface matters. You can’t necessarily tell on x-ray what’s a metal-on-metal hip and what’s metal-on-plastic or ceramic. You already send people for a lot of labs. If you see a patient with a painful total hip replacement, just add a cobalt and chromium. If they’re elevated, talk to the orthopedist,” he advised.

The road ahead

Hip and knee replacement is an $18 billion market today. And it’s a major growth industry: According to a recent projection, there will be 1 million total hip replacements and 4 million total knee replacements annually 10 years from now, figures four times greater than projected for 2030 in an earlier 2005 estimate. The rapid growth is coming from the expanding elderly population combined with a virtual epidemic of posttraumatic arthritis in young people – but decidedly not from patients with joint failure attributable to rheumatoid arthritis.

“Congratulations! You’ve eradicated rheumatoid arthritis from my practice,” Dr. Bugbee declared. “Most of the rheumatoid arthritis patients who come to me come because they have osteoarthritis in their joint, not because of their rheumatoid arthritis.”

He reported serving as a consultant to Orthalign, Insight Medical, and Arthrex, and receiving royalties from Smith and Nephew and Depuy.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved formerly prescription-only Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) for nonprescription use via a process known as a prescription to over-the-counter (Rx-to-OTC) switch, according to a news release from the agency.

“As a result of the Rx-to-OTC switch process, many products sold over the counter today use ingredients or dosage strengths that were available only by prescription 30 years ago,” Karen Mahoney, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

This switch to nonprescription status is usually initiated by the manufacturer, who must provide data that demonstrates the drug in question is both safe and effective as self-medication in accordance with the proposed labeling and that consumers can use it safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional.

This particular therapy is a topical NSAID gel and was first approved by the FDA in 2007 with the indication for relief of osteoarthritis pain. It can take 7 days to have an effect, but if patients find it takes longer than that or they need to use it for more than 21 days, they should seek medical attention. The gel can cause severe allergic reactions, especially in people allergic to aspirin; patients who experience such reactions are advised to stop use and seek immediate medical care. Other concerns include potential for liver damage with extended use; the possibility of severe stomach bleeds; and risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke.

The gel will no longer be available in prescription form.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can the full news release regarding this approval.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved formerly prescription-only Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) for nonprescription use via a process known as a prescription to over-the-counter (Rx-to-OTC) switch, according to a news release from the agency.

“As a result of the Rx-to-OTC switch process, many products sold over the counter today use ingredients or dosage strengths that were available only by prescription 30 years ago,” Karen Mahoney, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

This switch to nonprescription status is usually initiated by the manufacturer, who must provide data that demonstrates the drug in question is both safe and effective as self-medication in accordance with the proposed labeling and that consumers can use it safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional.

This particular therapy is a topical NSAID gel and was first approved by the FDA in 2007 with the indication for relief of osteoarthritis pain. It can take 7 days to have an effect, but if patients find it takes longer than that or they need to use it for more than 21 days, they should seek medical attention. The gel can cause severe allergic reactions, especially in people allergic to aspirin; patients who experience such reactions are advised to stop use and seek immediate medical care. Other concerns include potential for liver damage with extended use; the possibility of severe stomach bleeds; and risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke.

The gel will no longer be available in prescription form.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can the full news release regarding this approval.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved formerly prescription-only Voltaren Arthritis Pain (diclofenac sodium topical gel, 1%) for nonprescription use via a process known as a prescription to over-the-counter (Rx-to-OTC) switch, according to a news release from the agency.

“As a result of the Rx-to-OTC switch process, many products sold over the counter today use ingredients or dosage strengths that were available only by prescription 30 years ago,” Karen Mahoney, MD, acting deputy director of the Office of Nonprescription Drugs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in the release.

This switch to nonprescription status is usually initiated by the manufacturer, who must provide data that demonstrates the drug in question is both safe and effective as self-medication in accordance with the proposed labeling and that consumers can use it safely and effectively without the supervision of a health care professional.

This particular therapy is a topical NSAID gel and was first approved by the FDA in 2007 with the indication for relief of osteoarthritis pain. It can take 7 days to have an effect, but if patients find it takes longer than that or they need to use it for more than 21 days, they should seek medical attention. The gel can cause severe allergic reactions, especially in people allergic to aspirin; patients who experience such reactions are advised to stop use and seek immediate medical care. Other concerns include potential for liver damage with extended use; the possibility of severe stomach bleeds; and risk of heart attack, heart failure, and stroke.

The gel will no longer be available in prescription form.

Full prescribing information can be found on the FDA website, as can the full news release regarding this approval.

[email protected]

ATLANTA – Dutch investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology made a good case for 6 weeks of low-dose prednisolone to help people with hand osteoarthritis get over a particularly bad spell.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

A total of 42 patients randomized to prednisolone 10 mg/day fell a mean of 21.5 mm at 6 weeks from a baseline visual analog hand pain score of 54 mm (out of a possible 100 mm), versus a drop of 5.2 mm from a baseline score of 53 mm among 46 randomized to placebo; the mean group difference was 16.5 mm. Patients taking prednisolone did better on function, quality of life, and physician global assessments, too.

“This trial provides evidence that local inflammation is a suitable target for drug treatment in hand OA. We think this study provides clinicians with a short-term treatment option for patients who have a flare of their disease,” said lead investigator Féline Kroon, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large beneficial effect size exceeded that of all available therapeutic options for hand osteoarthritis,” including NSAIDs, she and her team noted in the study write-up, which was published to coincide with the meeting (Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394[10213]:1993-2001).

Many physicians already use short-course prednisolone for hand OA, but there was no clinical evidence that it helped until now. The study also adds weight to the idea that OA has an inflammatory component – an idea that has been building for a while, Dr. Kroon said.

Leiden investigators and others have previously shown that synovial inflammation is often present in hand OA and a main determinant of pain and radiographic progression.

The 92 patients in the Low-Dose Prednisolone in Patients with Painful Hand Osteoarthritis (HOPE) trial had to have at least four interphalangeal joints (IPJs) with osteoarthritic nodes, at least one IPJ with soft swelling or erythema, and at least one with a positive power Doppler signal or grade 2 or higher synovitis on ultrasound. They also had to have flared at least 20 mm on the pain scale with NSAID washout.

There were more responders in the prednisolone group at 6 weeks (72% versus 33%), and significantly greater improvement in synovial thickening. There was no difference in power Doppler score or synovitis score per joint on MRI, but bone marrow lesions appeared less severe with prednisolone.

All the between-group differences disappeared when prednisolone was tapered after 6 weeks.

Four patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: a myocardial infarction in the prednisolone group, and, in the control arm, a bowel surgery, an infected leg hematoma, and a case of Lyme arthritis of the knee. Adverse events were otherwise mild and similar in both arms.

The mean age in the study was 64 years, and 79% of the subjects were women. Exclusion criteria included chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, use of immune-modulating drugs within 90 days of baseline, and predominantly thumb base pain instead of finger pain.

The approach “is for short course. Long-term steroids can have important side effects, like osteoporosis. We do not think this study should be used to encourage prolonged prescribing of glucocorticoids in patients with hand OA,” Dr. Kroon said.

Two previous trials of glucocorticoids for hand OA were inconclusive. A dose of prednisone 5 mg/day for 4 weeks did not separate from placebo in one, and the second showed pain improvements with a combination of prednisolone and dipyridamole versus placebo, but with more adverse events, particularly dipyridamole headaches.

The work was funded by the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Kroon did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kroon F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1760.

ATLANTA – Dutch investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology made a good case for 6 weeks of low-dose prednisolone to help people with hand osteoarthritis get over a particularly bad spell.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

A total of 42 patients randomized to prednisolone 10 mg/day fell a mean of 21.5 mm at 6 weeks from a baseline visual analog hand pain score of 54 mm (out of a possible 100 mm), versus a drop of 5.2 mm from a baseline score of 53 mm among 46 randomized to placebo; the mean group difference was 16.5 mm. Patients taking prednisolone did better on function, quality of life, and physician global assessments, too.

“This trial provides evidence that local inflammation is a suitable target for drug treatment in hand OA. We think this study provides clinicians with a short-term treatment option for patients who have a flare of their disease,” said lead investigator Féline Kroon, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large beneficial effect size exceeded that of all available therapeutic options for hand osteoarthritis,” including NSAIDs, she and her team noted in the study write-up, which was published to coincide with the meeting (Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394[10213]:1993-2001).

Many physicians already use short-course prednisolone for hand OA, but there was no clinical evidence that it helped until now. The study also adds weight to the idea that OA has an inflammatory component – an idea that has been building for a while, Dr. Kroon said.

Leiden investigators and others have previously shown that synovial inflammation is often present in hand OA and a main determinant of pain and radiographic progression.

The 92 patients in the Low-Dose Prednisolone in Patients with Painful Hand Osteoarthritis (HOPE) trial had to have at least four interphalangeal joints (IPJs) with osteoarthritic nodes, at least one IPJ with soft swelling or erythema, and at least one with a positive power Doppler signal or grade 2 or higher synovitis on ultrasound. They also had to have flared at least 20 mm on the pain scale with NSAID washout.

There were more responders in the prednisolone group at 6 weeks (72% versus 33%), and significantly greater improvement in synovial thickening. There was no difference in power Doppler score or synovitis score per joint on MRI, but bone marrow lesions appeared less severe with prednisolone.

All the between-group differences disappeared when prednisolone was tapered after 6 weeks.

Four patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: a myocardial infarction in the prednisolone group, and, in the control arm, a bowel surgery, an infected leg hematoma, and a case of Lyme arthritis of the knee. Adverse events were otherwise mild and similar in both arms.

The mean age in the study was 64 years, and 79% of the subjects were women. Exclusion criteria included chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, use of immune-modulating drugs within 90 days of baseline, and predominantly thumb base pain instead of finger pain.

The approach “is for short course. Long-term steroids can have important side effects, like osteoporosis. We do not think this study should be used to encourage prolonged prescribing of glucocorticoids in patients with hand OA,” Dr. Kroon said.

Two previous trials of glucocorticoids for hand OA were inconclusive. A dose of prednisone 5 mg/day for 4 weeks did not separate from placebo in one, and the second showed pain improvements with a combination of prednisolone and dipyridamole versus placebo, but with more adverse events, particularly dipyridamole headaches.

The work was funded by the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Kroon did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kroon F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1760.

ATLANTA – Dutch investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology made a good case for 6 weeks of low-dose prednisolone to help people with hand osteoarthritis get over a particularly bad spell.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

A total of 42 patients randomized to prednisolone 10 mg/day fell a mean of 21.5 mm at 6 weeks from a baseline visual analog hand pain score of 54 mm (out of a possible 100 mm), versus a drop of 5.2 mm from a baseline score of 53 mm among 46 randomized to placebo; the mean group difference was 16.5 mm. Patients taking prednisolone did better on function, quality of life, and physician global assessments, too.

“This trial provides evidence that local inflammation is a suitable target for drug treatment in hand OA. We think this study provides clinicians with a short-term treatment option for patients who have a flare of their disease,” said lead investigator Féline Kroon, MD, a rheumatologist at Leiden (the Netherlands) University Medical Center.

“The large beneficial effect size exceeded that of all available therapeutic options for hand osteoarthritis,” including NSAIDs, she and her team noted in the study write-up, which was published to coincide with the meeting (Lancet. 2019 Nov 30;394[10213]:1993-2001).

Many physicians already use short-course prednisolone for hand OA, but there was no clinical evidence that it helped until now. The study also adds weight to the idea that OA has an inflammatory component – an idea that has been building for a while, Dr. Kroon said.

Leiden investigators and others have previously shown that synovial inflammation is often present in hand OA and a main determinant of pain and radiographic progression.

The 92 patients in the Low-Dose Prednisolone in Patients with Painful Hand Osteoarthritis (HOPE) trial had to have at least four interphalangeal joints (IPJs) with osteoarthritic nodes, at least one IPJ with soft swelling or erythema, and at least one with a positive power Doppler signal or grade 2 or higher synovitis on ultrasound. They also had to have flared at least 20 mm on the pain scale with NSAID washout.

There were more responders in the prednisolone group at 6 weeks (72% versus 33%), and significantly greater improvement in synovial thickening. There was no difference in power Doppler score or synovitis score per joint on MRI, but bone marrow lesions appeared less severe with prednisolone.

All the between-group differences disappeared when prednisolone was tapered after 6 weeks.

Four patients discontinued the study because of an adverse event: a myocardial infarction in the prednisolone group, and, in the control arm, a bowel surgery, an infected leg hematoma, and a case of Lyme arthritis of the knee. Adverse events were otherwise mild and similar in both arms.

The mean age in the study was 64 years, and 79% of the subjects were women. Exclusion criteria included chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases, psoriasis, use of immune-modulating drugs within 90 days of baseline, and predominantly thumb base pain instead of finger pain.

The approach “is for short course. Long-term steroids can have important side effects, like osteoporosis. We do not think this study should be used to encourage prolonged prescribing of glucocorticoids in patients with hand OA,” Dr. Kroon said.

Two previous trials of glucocorticoids for hand OA were inconclusive. A dose of prednisone 5 mg/day for 4 weeks did not separate from placebo in one, and the second showed pain improvements with a combination of prednisolone and dipyridamole versus placebo, but with more adverse events, particularly dipyridamole headaches.

The work was funded by the Dutch Arthritis Society. Dr. Kroon did not have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Kroon F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1760.

ATLANTA – Use of high-concentration topical capsaicin was associated with reduced pain, a longer duration of clinical response, and was well tolerated in patients with knee osteoarthritis, compared with lower concentrations of capsaicin and placebo, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

While the ACR has recommended topical capsaicin for the relief of hand and knee OA pain, there are issues with using low-dose capsaicin, including the need for multiple applications and burning, stinging sensations at applications sites. As repeat exposure to capsaicin results in depletion of pain neurotransmitters and a reduction in nerve fibers in a dose-dependent fashion, higher doses of topical capsaicin are a potential topical treatment for OA pain relief, but their tolerability is low, Tim Warneke, vice president of clinical operations at Vizuri Health Sciences in Columbia, Md., said in his presentation.

“[P]oor tolerability has limited the ability to maximize the analgesic effect of capsaicin,” Mr. Warneke said. “While [over-the-counter] preparations of capsaicin provide some pain relief, poor tolerability with higher doses has really left us wondering if we haven’t maximized capsaicin’s ability to provide pain relief.”

Mr. Warneke and colleagues conducted a phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trial where 120 patients with knee OA were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 5% capsaicin topical liquid (CGS-200-5), 1% capsaicin topical liquid (CGS-200-1), or vehicle (CGS-200-0) and then followed up to 90 days. “The CGS-200 vehicle was developed to mitigate the burning, stinging pain of capsaicin,” Mr. Warneke said. “It allows the 5% concentration to be well tolerated, which opens the door for increased efficacy, including durability of response.”

Inclusion criteria were radiographically confirmed knee OA using 1986 ACR classification criteria, a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score of 250 mm or greater, and more than 3 months of chronic knee pain. While patients were excluded for use of topical, oral, or injectable corticosteroids in the month prior to enrollment, they were allowed to continue using analgesics such as NSAIDs if they maintained their daily dose throughout the trial. Mr. Warneke noted the study population was typical of an OA population with a mostly female, mostly Caucasian cohort who had a median age of 60 years and a body mass index of 30 kg/m². Patients had moderate to severe OA and were refractory to previous pain treatments.

The interventions consisted of a single 60-minute application of capsaicin or vehicle to both knees once per day for 4 consecutive days, and patients performed the applications in the clinic. The investigators compared change in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 31 days, 60 days, and 90 days post dose.

The results at 31 days showed a 46.2% reduction in WOMAC pain scores from baseline for patients using CGS-200-5, compared with a 28.3% reduction in the vehicle group (P = .02). At 60 days, there was a 49.1% reduction in WOMAC pain scores in the CGS-200-5 group, compared with 21.5% in patients using vehicle (P = .0001), and a 42.8% reduction for patients in the CGS-200-5 group at 90 days, compared with 22.8% in the vehicle group (P = .01). The CGS-200-1 group did not reach the primary efficacy WOMAC pain endpoint, compared with vehicle.

A post hoc analysis showed that there was a significantly greater mean reduction in WOMAC total score for patients using CGS-200-5, compared with vehicle at 31 days (P = .02), 60 days (P = .0005), and 90 days post dose (P = .005). “This durability of clinical response for single applications seems to be a promising feature of CGS-200-5,” Mr. Warneke said.

Concerning safety and tolerability, there were no serious adverse events, and one patient discontinued treatment in the CGS-200-5 group. When assessing tolerability at predose, 15-minute, 30-minute, 60-minute, and 90-minute postdose time intervals, the investigators found patients experienced mild or moderate adverse events such as erythema, edema, scaling, and pruritus, with symptoms decreasing by the fourth consecutive day of application.

Mr. Warneke acknowledged the “robust placebo response” in the trial and noted it is not unusual to see in pain studies. “It’s something that is a challenge for all of us who are in this space to overcome, but we still have significant differences here and they are statistically significant as well,” he said. “You have to be pretty good these days to beat the wonder drug placebo, it appears.”

Four authors in addition to Mr. Warneke reported being employees of Vizuri Health Sciences, the company developing CGS-200-5. One author reported being a former consultant for Vizuri. Three authors reported they were current or former employees of CT Clinical Trial & Consulting, a contract research organization employed by Vizuri to execute and manage the study, perform data analysis, and create reports.

SOURCE: Warneke T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2760.

ATLANTA – Use of high-concentration topical capsaicin was associated with reduced pain, a longer duration of clinical response, and was well tolerated in patients with knee osteoarthritis, compared with lower concentrations of capsaicin and placebo, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

While the ACR has recommended topical capsaicin for the relief of hand and knee OA pain, there are issues with using low-dose capsaicin, including the need for multiple applications and burning, stinging sensations at applications sites. As repeat exposure to capsaicin results in depletion of pain neurotransmitters and a reduction in nerve fibers in a dose-dependent fashion, higher doses of topical capsaicin are a potential topical treatment for OA pain relief, but their tolerability is low, Tim Warneke, vice president of clinical operations at Vizuri Health Sciences in Columbia, Md., said in his presentation.

“[P]oor tolerability has limited the ability to maximize the analgesic effect of capsaicin,” Mr. Warneke said. “While [over-the-counter] preparations of capsaicin provide some pain relief, poor tolerability with higher doses has really left us wondering if we haven’t maximized capsaicin’s ability to provide pain relief.”

Mr. Warneke and colleagues conducted a phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trial where 120 patients with knee OA were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 5% capsaicin topical liquid (CGS-200-5), 1% capsaicin topical liquid (CGS-200-1), or vehicle (CGS-200-0) and then followed up to 90 days. “The CGS-200 vehicle was developed to mitigate the burning, stinging pain of capsaicin,” Mr. Warneke said. “It allows the 5% concentration to be well tolerated, which opens the door for increased efficacy, including durability of response.”

Inclusion criteria were radiographically confirmed knee OA using 1986 ACR classification criteria, a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score of 250 mm or greater, and more than 3 months of chronic knee pain. While patients were excluded for use of topical, oral, or injectable corticosteroids in the month prior to enrollment, they were allowed to continue using analgesics such as NSAIDs if they maintained their daily dose throughout the trial. Mr. Warneke noted the study population was typical of an OA population with a mostly female, mostly Caucasian cohort who had a median age of 60 years and a body mass index of 30 kg/m². Patients had moderate to severe OA and were refractory to previous pain treatments.

The interventions consisted of a single 60-minute application of capsaicin or vehicle to both knees once per day for 4 consecutive days, and patients performed the applications in the clinic. The investigators compared change in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 31 days, 60 days, and 90 days post dose.

The results at 31 days showed a 46.2% reduction in WOMAC pain scores from baseline for patients using CGS-200-5, compared with a 28.3% reduction in the vehicle group (P = .02). At 60 days, there was a 49.1% reduction in WOMAC pain scores in the CGS-200-5 group, compared with 21.5% in patients using vehicle (P = .0001), and a 42.8% reduction for patients in the CGS-200-5 group at 90 days, compared with 22.8% in the vehicle group (P = .01). The CGS-200-1 group did not reach the primary efficacy WOMAC pain endpoint, compared with vehicle.

A post hoc analysis showed that there was a significantly greater mean reduction in WOMAC total score for patients using CGS-200-5, compared with vehicle at 31 days (P = .02), 60 days (P = .0005), and 90 days post dose (P = .005). “This durability of clinical response for single applications seems to be a promising feature of CGS-200-5,” Mr. Warneke said.

Concerning safety and tolerability, there were no serious adverse events, and one patient discontinued treatment in the CGS-200-5 group. When assessing tolerability at predose, 15-minute, 30-minute, 60-minute, and 90-minute postdose time intervals, the investigators found patients experienced mild or moderate adverse events such as erythema, edema, scaling, and pruritus, with symptoms decreasing by the fourth consecutive day of application.

Mr. Warneke acknowledged the “robust placebo response” in the trial and noted it is not unusual to see in pain studies. “It’s something that is a challenge for all of us who are in this space to overcome, but we still have significant differences here and they are statistically significant as well,” he said. “You have to be pretty good these days to beat the wonder drug placebo, it appears.”

Four authors in addition to Mr. Warneke reported being employees of Vizuri Health Sciences, the company developing CGS-200-5. One author reported being a former consultant for Vizuri. Three authors reported they were current or former employees of CT Clinical Trial & Consulting, a contract research organization employed by Vizuri to execute and manage the study, perform data analysis, and create reports.

SOURCE: Warneke T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2760.

ATLANTA – Use of high-concentration topical capsaicin was associated with reduced pain, a longer duration of clinical response, and was well tolerated in patients with knee osteoarthritis, compared with lower concentrations of capsaicin and placebo, according to recent research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

While the ACR has recommended topical capsaicin for the relief of hand and knee OA pain, there are issues with using low-dose capsaicin, including the need for multiple applications and burning, stinging sensations at applications sites. As repeat exposure to capsaicin results in depletion of pain neurotransmitters and a reduction in nerve fibers in a dose-dependent fashion, higher doses of topical capsaicin are a potential topical treatment for OA pain relief, but their tolerability is low, Tim Warneke, vice president of clinical operations at Vizuri Health Sciences in Columbia, Md., said in his presentation.

“[P]oor tolerability has limited the ability to maximize the analgesic effect of capsaicin,” Mr. Warneke said. “While [over-the-counter] preparations of capsaicin provide some pain relief, poor tolerability with higher doses has really left us wondering if we haven’t maximized capsaicin’s ability to provide pain relief.”

Mr. Warneke and colleagues conducted a phase 2, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, vehicle-controlled trial where 120 patients with knee OA were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 5% capsaicin topical liquid (CGS-200-5), 1% capsaicin topical liquid (CGS-200-1), or vehicle (CGS-200-0) and then followed up to 90 days. “The CGS-200 vehicle was developed to mitigate the burning, stinging pain of capsaicin,” Mr. Warneke said. “It allows the 5% concentration to be well tolerated, which opens the door for increased efficacy, including durability of response.”

Inclusion criteria were radiographically confirmed knee OA using 1986 ACR classification criteria, a Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score of 250 mm or greater, and more than 3 months of chronic knee pain. While patients were excluded for use of topical, oral, or injectable corticosteroids in the month prior to enrollment, they were allowed to continue using analgesics such as NSAIDs if they maintained their daily dose throughout the trial. Mr. Warneke noted the study population was typical of an OA population with a mostly female, mostly Caucasian cohort who had a median age of 60 years and a body mass index of 30 kg/m². Patients had moderate to severe OA and were refractory to previous pain treatments.

The interventions consisted of a single 60-minute application of capsaicin or vehicle to both knees once per day for 4 consecutive days, and patients performed the applications in the clinic. The investigators compared change in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 31 days, 60 days, and 90 days post dose.

The results at 31 days showed a 46.2% reduction in WOMAC pain scores from baseline for patients using CGS-200-5, compared with a 28.3% reduction in the vehicle group (P = .02). At 60 days, there was a 49.1% reduction in WOMAC pain scores in the CGS-200-5 group, compared with 21.5% in patients using vehicle (P = .0001), and a 42.8% reduction for patients in the CGS-200-5 group at 90 days, compared with 22.8% in the vehicle group (P = .01). The CGS-200-1 group did not reach the primary efficacy WOMAC pain endpoint, compared with vehicle.

A post hoc analysis showed that there was a significantly greater mean reduction in WOMAC total score for patients using CGS-200-5, compared with vehicle at 31 days (P = .02), 60 days (P = .0005), and 90 days post dose (P = .005). “This durability of clinical response for single applications seems to be a promising feature of CGS-200-5,” Mr. Warneke said.

Concerning safety and tolerability, there were no serious adverse events, and one patient discontinued treatment in the CGS-200-5 group. When assessing tolerability at predose, 15-minute, 30-minute, 60-minute, and 90-minute postdose time intervals, the investigators found patients experienced mild or moderate adverse events such as erythema, edema, scaling, and pruritus, with symptoms decreasing by the fourth consecutive day of application.

Mr. Warneke acknowledged the “robust placebo response” in the trial and noted it is not unusual to see in pain studies. “It’s something that is a challenge for all of us who are in this space to overcome, but we still have significant differences here and they are statistically significant as well,” he said. “You have to be pretty good these days to beat the wonder drug placebo, it appears.”

Four authors in addition to Mr. Warneke reported being employees of Vizuri Health Sciences, the company developing CGS-200-5. One author reported being a former consultant for Vizuri. Three authors reported they were current or former employees of CT Clinical Trial & Consulting, a contract research organization employed by Vizuri to execute and manage the study, perform data analysis, and create reports.

SOURCE: Warneke T et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 2760.

ATLANTA – Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the hip and knee who took the investigational anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody tanezumab experienced a significantly higher rate of joint safety events than that of patients who received NSAIDs as part of a recent randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Although patients who switched from NSAIDs to 5 mg subcutaneous tanezumab every 8 weeks reported significantly improved Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index pain and function scores at 16 weeks, the difference was no longer statistically significant at 56 weeks; there was an increase in the number of joint safety events in both low- and high-dose tanezumab groups when compared with patients who continued on NSAIDs, Marc C. Hochberg, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Despite prior stable doses of NSAIDs, tanezumab subcutaneously administered every 8 weeks was associated with significantly more joint safety events than NSAIDs in a dose-dependent fashion,” he said.

Dr. Hochberg and colleagues conducted a phase 3 study of tanezumab in response to a Food and Drug Administration hold on the drug in 2010 in response to reports of osteonecrosis in patients taking tanezumab. “An adjudication committee was set up at that time to review all the records of individuals who participated in those studies who had been reported to have adverse joint related events, including osteonecrosis, as well as all the elected total joint replacements,” Dr. Hochberg explained. Only 4-month safety and efficacy data for tanezumab had been reported prior to these new data with at least 1 year of follow-up.

The study comprised 2,996 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) from 446 centers in 18 countries, where patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg of subcutaneous tanezumab (1,002 patients), tanezumab at 5 mg (998 patients) or NSAIDs (996 patients) for up to 80 weeks. Approximately two-thirds of the patients were women, and about 70% were white. About 85% of all patients had knee OA. The most common NSAIDs were celecoxib, diclofenac, and naproxen.

Less than 1% had Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0-1 at baseline, while about 30% had grade 2, 47% grade 3, and 22% grade 4. Patients had a mean 7.0 or 7.1 score on the WOMAC pain and function subscales, and a mean Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA) score of 7.4 or 7.5. Baseline radiographs were taken, as well as at safety follow-ups at 24 weeks, 56 weeks, and 80 weeks.

The researchers examined rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) type 1, classified as loss of 2 mm or more of joint space width within 1 year, and type 2, which was defined as abnormal bone loss or destruction, including limited or total collapse of at least one subchondral surface. Other primary joint safety endpoints examined were primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathologic fracture. Each of these was reported individually in addition to the rate of total joint replacement. If an event was discovered, it was sent to an adjudication committee, Dr. Hochberg said. “You have either investigator-reported joint safety events, possible joint safety events or identified from the central raters’ assessment of imaging, or the reported total joint replacement reviewed blindly by the adjudication committee, blinded to treatment allocation, and then the adjudication results are those that are used for the analysis,” he said.

Overall, 447 patients who received tanezumab at 2.5 mg, 419 patients who received tanezumab at 5 mg, and 446 patients who continued receive NSAIDs completed treatment. There were 71 joint safety events in the tanezumab 5-mg group (7.1%) per 1,000 person-years, compared with 39 events per 1,000 person-years in the 2.5-mg group (3.9%), and 15 events per 1,000 person-years in the NSAIDs group (1.5%). The rate of joint safety events was significantly higher in both tanezumab groups, compared with the NSAIDs group (both P less than or equal to .001). Among patients with RPOA type 1, 4.9% of patients in the 5-mg group and 2.9% of patients in the 2.5-mg tanezumab group experienced joint safety events, compared with 1.1% of patients in the NSAIDs group. While RPOA type 2, primary osteonecrosis, and subchondral insufficiency fractures were uncommon in the study, Dr. Hochberg noted there was a statistically significant difference in joint safety events between the 5-mg tanezumab group and the NSAID group for patients with RPOA type 2 (1.4% vs. 0.1%; P less than or equal to .001).

The relationship between total joint replacement and tanezumab was dose-dependent: In the 5-mg group, 8.0% of patients underwent total joint replacement, while 5.3% of patients underwent total joint replacement in the 2.5-mg group, compared with 2.6% of patients in the NSAID group. “Most of the total joint replacements were due to normal progression of osteoarthritis,” Dr. Hochberg said.

When asked if he believed there is a role for tanezumab in the management of patients with OA, Dr. Hochberg said moderate to severe symptomatic hip or knee OA, including polyarticular OA, are potential areas where tanezumab and other nerve growth factor inhibitors could be beneficial.

“There is a tremendous unmet need in this population, and these are patients who have either had an inadequate response to, are intolerant of, or have contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, have not responded well to intra-articular therapy, or have multiple joint involvement,” he said. There is also a role for tanezumab in OA patients who don’t want to take weaker opioid analgesics such as tramadol, he added.

This study was funded by Pfizer and Lilly, and the companies sponsored the summarization of the study. The authors reported various ties with these and other companies.

SOURCE: Hochberg MC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1302 and Abstract 2756.

ATLANTA – Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the hip and knee who took the investigational anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody tanezumab experienced a significantly higher rate of joint safety events than that of patients who received NSAIDs as part of a recent randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Although patients who switched from NSAIDs to 5 mg subcutaneous tanezumab every 8 weeks reported significantly improved Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index pain and function scores at 16 weeks, the difference was no longer statistically significant at 56 weeks; there was an increase in the number of joint safety events in both low- and high-dose tanezumab groups when compared with patients who continued on NSAIDs, Marc C. Hochberg, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Despite prior stable doses of NSAIDs, tanezumab subcutaneously administered every 8 weeks was associated with significantly more joint safety events than NSAIDs in a dose-dependent fashion,” he said.

Dr. Hochberg and colleagues conducted a phase 3 study of tanezumab in response to a Food and Drug Administration hold on the drug in 2010 in response to reports of osteonecrosis in patients taking tanezumab. “An adjudication committee was set up at that time to review all the records of individuals who participated in those studies who had been reported to have adverse joint related events, including osteonecrosis, as well as all the elected total joint replacements,” Dr. Hochberg explained. Only 4-month safety and efficacy data for tanezumab had been reported prior to these new data with at least 1 year of follow-up.

The study comprised 2,996 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) from 446 centers in 18 countries, where patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg of subcutaneous tanezumab (1,002 patients), tanezumab at 5 mg (998 patients) or NSAIDs (996 patients) for up to 80 weeks. Approximately two-thirds of the patients were women, and about 70% were white. About 85% of all patients had knee OA. The most common NSAIDs were celecoxib, diclofenac, and naproxen.

Less than 1% had Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0-1 at baseline, while about 30% had grade 2, 47% grade 3, and 22% grade 4. Patients had a mean 7.0 or 7.1 score on the WOMAC pain and function subscales, and a mean Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA) score of 7.4 or 7.5. Baseline radiographs were taken, as well as at safety follow-ups at 24 weeks, 56 weeks, and 80 weeks.

The researchers examined rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) type 1, classified as loss of 2 mm or more of joint space width within 1 year, and type 2, which was defined as abnormal bone loss or destruction, including limited or total collapse of at least one subchondral surface. Other primary joint safety endpoints examined were primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathologic fracture. Each of these was reported individually in addition to the rate of total joint replacement. If an event was discovered, it was sent to an adjudication committee, Dr. Hochberg said. “You have either investigator-reported joint safety events, possible joint safety events or identified from the central raters’ assessment of imaging, or the reported total joint replacement reviewed blindly by the adjudication committee, blinded to treatment allocation, and then the adjudication results are those that are used for the analysis,” he said.

Overall, 447 patients who received tanezumab at 2.5 mg, 419 patients who received tanezumab at 5 mg, and 446 patients who continued receive NSAIDs completed treatment. There were 71 joint safety events in the tanezumab 5-mg group (7.1%) per 1,000 person-years, compared with 39 events per 1,000 person-years in the 2.5-mg group (3.9%), and 15 events per 1,000 person-years in the NSAIDs group (1.5%). The rate of joint safety events was significantly higher in both tanezumab groups, compared with the NSAIDs group (both P less than or equal to .001). Among patients with RPOA type 1, 4.9% of patients in the 5-mg group and 2.9% of patients in the 2.5-mg tanezumab group experienced joint safety events, compared with 1.1% of patients in the NSAIDs group. While RPOA type 2, primary osteonecrosis, and subchondral insufficiency fractures were uncommon in the study, Dr. Hochberg noted there was a statistically significant difference in joint safety events between the 5-mg tanezumab group and the NSAID group for patients with RPOA type 2 (1.4% vs. 0.1%; P less than or equal to .001).

The relationship between total joint replacement and tanezumab was dose-dependent: In the 5-mg group, 8.0% of patients underwent total joint replacement, while 5.3% of patients underwent total joint replacement in the 2.5-mg group, compared with 2.6% of patients in the NSAID group. “Most of the total joint replacements were due to normal progression of osteoarthritis,” Dr. Hochberg said.

When asked if he believed there is a role for tanezumab in the management of patients with OA, Dr. Hochberg said moderate to severe symptomatic hip or knee OA, including polyarticular OA, are potential areas where tanezumab and other nerve growth factor inhibitors could be beneficial.

“There is a tremendous unmet need in this population, and these are patients who have either had an inadequate response to, are intolerant of, or have contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, have not responded well to intra-articular therapy, or have multiple joint involvement,” he said. There is also a role for tanezumab in OA patients who don’t want to take weaker opioid analgesics such as tramadol, he added.

This study was funded by Pfizer and Lilly, and the companies sponsored the summarization of the study. The authors reported various ties with these and other companies.

SOURCE: Hochberg MC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1302 and Abstract 2756.

ATLANTA – Patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis of the hip and knee who took the investigational anti-nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody tanezumab experienced a significantly higher rate of joint safety events than that of patients who received NSAIDs as part of a recent randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 study.

Jeff Craven/MDedge News

Although patients who switched from NSAIDs to 5 mg subcutaneous tanezumab every 8 weeks reported significantly improved Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) index pain and function scores at 16 weeks, the difference was no longer statistically significant at 56 weeks; there was an increase in the number of joint safety events in both low- and high-dose tanezumab groups when compared with patients who continued on NSAIDs, Marc C. Hochberg, MD, of the University of Maryland, Baltimore, said in his presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Despite prior stable doses of NSAIDs, tanezumab subcutaneously administered every 8 weeks was associated with significantly more joint safety events than NSAIDs in a dose-dependent fashion,” he said.

Dr. Hochberg and colleagues conducted a phase 3 study of tanezumab in response to a Food and Drug Administration hold on the drug in 2010 in response to reports of osteonecrosis in patients taking tanezumab. “An adjudication committee was set up at that time to review all the records of individuals who participated in those studies who had been reported to have adverse joint related events, including osteonecrosis, as well as all the elected total joint replacements,” Dr. Hochberg explained. Only 4-month safety and efficacy data for tanezumab had been reported prior to these new data with at least 1 year of follow-up.

The study comprised 2,996 patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis (OA) from 446 centers in 18 countries, where patients were randomized to receive 2.5 mg of subcutaneous tanezumab (1,002 patients), tanezumab at 5 mg (998 patients) or NSAIDs (996 patients) for up to 80 weeks. Approximately two-thirds of the patients were women, and about 70% were white. About 85% of all patients had knee OA. The most common NSAIDs were celecoxib, diclofenac, and naproxen.

Less than 1% had Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0-1 at baseline, while about 30% had grade 2, 47% grade 3, and 22% grade 4. Patients had a mean 7.0 or 7.1 score on the WOMAC pain and function subscales, and a mean Patient’s Global Assessment of OA (PGA-OA) score of 7.4 or 7.5. Baseline radiographs were taken, as well as at safety follow-ups at 24 weeks, 56 weeks, and 80 weeks.

The researchers examined rapidly progressive OA (RPOA) type 1, classified as loss of 2 mm or more of joint space width within 1 year, and type 2, which was defined as abnormal bone loss or destruction, including limited or total collapse of at least one subchondral surface. Other primary joint safety endpoints examined were primary osteonecrosis, subchondral insufficiency fracture, and pathologic fracture. Each of these was reported individually in addition to the rate of total joint replacement. If an event was discovered, it was sent to an adjudication committee, Dr. Hochberg said. “You have either investigator-reported joint safety events, possible joint safety events or identified from the central raters’ assessment of imaging, or the reported total joint replacement reviewed blindly by the adjudication committee, blinded to treatment allocation, and then the adjudication results are those that are used for the analysis,” he said.

Overall, 447 patients who received tanezumab at 2.5 mg, 419 patients who received tanezumab at 5 mg, and 446 patients who continued receive NSAIDs completed treatment. There were 71 joint safety events in the tanezumab 5-mg group (7.1%) per 1,000 person-years, compared with 39 events per 1,000 person-years in the 2.5-mg group (3.9%), and 15 events per 1,000 person-years in the NSAIDs group (1.5%). The rate of joint safety events was significantly higher in both tanezumab groups, compared with the NSAIDs group (both P less than or equal to .001). Among patients with RPOA type 1, 4.9% of patients in the 5-mg group and 2.9% of patients in the 2.5-mg tanezumab group experienced joint safety events, compared with 1.1% of patients in the NSAIDs group. While RPOA type 2, primary osteonecrosis, and subchondral insufficiency fractures were uncommon in the study, Dr. Hochberg noted there was a statistically significant difference in joint safety events between the 5-mg tanezumab group and the NSAID group for patients with RPOA type 2 (1.4% vs. 0.1%; P less than or equal to .001).

The relationship between total joint replacement and tanezumab was dose-dependent: In the 5-mg group, 8.0% of patients underwent total joint replacement, while 5.3% of patients underwent total joint replacement in the 2.5-mg group, compared with 2.6% of patients in the NSAID group. “Most of the total joint replacements were due to normal progression of osteoarthritis,” Dr. Hochberg said.

When asked if he believed there is a role for tanezumab in the management of patients with OA, Dr. Hochberg said moderate to severe symptomatic hip or knee OA, including polyarticular OA, are potential areas where tanezumab and other nerve growth factor inhibitors could be beneficial.

“There is a tremendous unmet need in this population, and these are patients who have either had an inadequate response to, are intolerant of, or have contraindications to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, have not responded well to intra-articular therapy, or have multiple joint involvement,” he said. There is also a role for tanezumab in OA patients who don’t want to take weaker opioid analgesics such as tramadol, he added.

This study was funded by Pfizer and Lilly, and the companies sponsored the summarization of the study. The authors reported various ties with these and other companies.

SOURCE: Hochberg MC et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(suppl 10), Abstract 1302 and Abstract 2756.