Rheumatology

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with gout who underwent an intensive treat-to-target regimen of monthly up-titration of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to reach a target serum urate level were significantly more likely to reach that goal at 1 year than were patients who received conventional gout management in a randomized, controlled trial.

These results came from the TICOG (Tight Control of Gout) trial, one of a handful of recent trials to test a treat-to-target strategy with ULT in the management of gout. Beyond the primary outcome of reaching target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL (< 300 micromol/L), the results also showed that the tight-control strategy significantly lowered urate to a greater extent than conventional management, reduced tophus size in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, and improved gray scale synovitis on ultrasound significantly more than with conventional management, Sarah Black, MBBS, a rheumatology trainee at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, reported at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“Based on these outcomes, we question whether gout is best managed in primary or secondary care. We think there is an argument for establishing specialist gout clinics with more time to focus on patient education to help improve outcomes. These clinics could be led by allied health care professionals, such as specialist nurses and pharmacists,” Dr. Black said at the meeting.

Gout management guidelines issued by the British Society for Rheumatology in 2017 call for a target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL, whereas the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for a serum urate level of < 6 mg/dL.

The single-center, nonblinded trial recruited 110 patients aged 18-85 years over a 3-year period to take ULT with allopurinol as first-line therapy starting at 100 mg/day. Everyone received the same advice regarding ULT up-titration, lifestyle changes, and gout education at baseline. The second-line agent for ULT was febuxostat (Uloric) 80 mg daily, with uricosuric drugs as third-line agents. All patients received colchicine or NSAID prophylaxis for gout flares for the first 6 months, depending on their comorbidities.

The trial excluded patients who had been treated with ULT within the past 6 months or had experienced prior hypersensitivity to ULT, severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate), significant liver impairment, or any other significant medical disease affecting life expectancy shorter than 1 year.

Conventional management consisted of urate level review at 0, 6, and 12 months with up-titration at each visit and primary care management of ULT between reviews until the target serum urate level was reached. In the tight-control group, monthly up-titrations occurred at the Musgrave Park Hospital at visits with the study team that were led by a rheumatologist and a specialist pharmacist.

A total of 48 patients in the conventional arm and 47 in the tight-control arm completed the trial. At baseline, monosodium urate crystals were detected in joint aspirates in 56% of patients receiving tight control and in 58.5% of those receiving conventional management. The mean serum urate level was 490 micromol/L (8.24 mg/dL) for tight-control patients and 470 micromol/L (7.9 mg/dL) for conventionally managed patients.

By 1 year, 89.4% of patients in the tight-control group had achieved the target urate level, compared with 39.6% in the conventional-management group (P < .001). At 6 months, serum urate had declined by 37.6% with tight control vs. 18% with conventional management. By the end of the trial, the median allopurinol dose was 400 mg with tight control (range, 200-900 mg) and 200 mg with conventional management (range, 0-400 mg). A total of 89% of patients were taking allopurinol at the end of the trial.

As expected, tight control led to more flares per month on average (0.35 vs. 0.13) in the 79 patients for whom complete data on flare frequency were available.

On blinded ultrasound evaluations, the median diameter of the first MTP tophus declined significantly more with tight control than with conventional management (–4.65 mm vs. –0.30 mm; P = .003). Gray scale synovitis in the knee improved in 63% of patients undergoing tight control, compared with 14% of conventionally managed patients (P = .043). The researchers observed no difference in resolution of the double-contour sign or in the number of erosions between the groups, although the 1-year time frame may not have been long enough to see resolution and improvement, Dr. Black said.

Dr. Black said that a follow-up study is planned with the same patient cohort at 3 years.

When asked about the feasibility of monthly ULT titration visits for gout management, audience member Tuhina Neogi, MD, professor of epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, told this news organization, “We don’t have a lot of data to guide us in that regard, and I also think it depends on what the increment of the dose titration is, but we generally do recognize that therapeutic inertia is bad – keeping someone on a dose for a long time. For me, I don’t think monthly is unreasonable if you have good prophylaxis [against acute flares].”

Dr. Neogi also noted that such monthly assessments don’t have to take place at a hospital. “I think there are many different practice models in which it could be implemented [that are not physician-driven].”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Black has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neogi has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with gout who underwent an intensive treat-to-target regimen of monthly up-titration of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to reach a target serum urate level were significantly more likely to reach that goal at 1 year than were patients who received conventional gout management in a randomized, controlled trial.

These results came from the TICOG (Tight Control of Gout) trial, one of a handful of recent trials to test a treat-to-target strategy with ULT in the management of gout. Beyond the primary outcome of reaching target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL (< 300 micromol/L), the results also showed that the tight-control strategy significantly lowered urate to a greater extent than conventional management, reduced tophus size in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, and improved gray scale synovitis on ultrasound significantly more than with conventional management, Sarah Black, MBBS, a rheumatology trainee at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, reported at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“Based on these outcomes, we question whether gout is best managed in primary or secondary care. We think there is an argument for establishing specialist gout clinics with more time to focus on patient education to help improve outcomes. These clinics could be led by allied health care professionals, such as specialist nurses and pharmacists,” Dr. Black said at the meeting.

Gout management guidelines issued by the British Society for Rheumatology in 2017 call for a target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL, whereas the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for a serum urate level of < 6 mg/dL.

The single-center, nonblinded trial recruited 110 patients aged 18-85 years over a 3-year period to take ULT with allopurinol as first-line therapy starting at 100 mg/day. Everyone received the same advice regarding ULT up-titration, lifestyle changes, and gout education at baseline. The second-line agent for ULT was febuxostat (Uloric) 80 mg daily, with uricosuric drugs as third-line agents. All patients received colchicine or NSAID prophylaxis for gout flares for the first 6 months, depending on their comorbidities.

The trial excluded patients who had been treated with ULT within the past 6 months or had experienced prior hypersensitivity to ULT, severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate), significant liver impairment, or any other significant medical disease affecting life expectancy shorter than 1 year.

Conventional management consisted of urate level review at 0, 6, and 12 months with up-titration at each visit and primary care management of ULT between reviews until the target serum urate level was reached. In the tight-control group, monthly up-titrations occurred at the Musgrave Park Hospital at visits with the study team that were led by a rheumatologist and a specialist pharmacist.

A total of 48 patients in the conventional arm and 47 in the tight-control arm completed the trial. At baseline, monosodium urate crystals were detected in joint aspirates in 56% of patients receiving tight control and in 58.5% of those receiving conventional management. The mean serum urate level was 490 micromol/L (8.24 mg/dL) for tight-control patients and 470 micromol/L (7.9 mg/dL) for conventionally managed patients.

By 1 year, 89.4% of patients in the tight-control group had achieved the target urate level, compared with 39.6% in the conventional-management group (P < .001). At 6 months, serum urate had declined by 37.6% with tight control vs. 18% with conventional management. By the end of the trial, the median allopurinol dose was 400 mg with tight control (range, 200-900 mg) and 200 mg with conventional management (range, 0-400 mg). A total of 89% of patients were taking allopurinol at the end of the trial.

As expected, tight control led to more flares per month on average (0.35 vs. 0.13) in the 79 patients for whom complete data on flare frequency were available.

On blinded ultrasound evaluations, the median diameter of the first MTP tophus declined significantly more with tight control than with conventional management (–4.65 mm vs. –0.30 mm; P = .003). Gray scale synovitis in the knee improved in 63% of patients undergoing tight control, compared with 14% of conventionally managed patients (P = .043). The researchers observed no difference in resolution of the double-contour sign or in the number of erosions between the groups, although the 1-year time frame may not have been long enough to see resolution and improvement, Dr. Black said.

Dr. Black said that a follow-up study is planned with the same patient cohort at 3 years.

When asked about the feasibility of monthly ULT titration visits for gout management, audience member Tuhina Neogi, MD, professor of epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, told this news organization, “We don’t have a lot of data to guide us in that regard, and I also think it depends on what the increment of the dose titration is, but we generally do recognize that therapeutic inertia is bad – keeping someone on a dose for a long time. For me, I don’t think monthly is unreasonable if you have good prophylaxis [against acute flares].”

Dr. Neogi also noted that such monthly assessments don’t have to take place at a hospital. “I think there are many different practice models in which it could be implemented [that are not physician-driven].”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Black has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neogi has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with gout who underwent an intensive treat-to-target regimen of monthly up-titration of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to reach a target serum urate level were significantly more likely to reach that goal at 1 year than were patients who received conventional gout management in a randomized, controlled trial.

These results came from the TICOG (Tight Control of Gout) trial, one of a handful of recent trials to test a treat-to-target strategy with ULT in the management of gout. Beyond the primary outcome of reaching target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL (< 300 micromol/L), the results also showed that the tight-control strategy significantly lowered urate to a greater extent than conventional management, reduced tophus size in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, and improved gray scale synovitis on ultrasound significantly more than with conventional management, Sarah Black, MBBS, a rheumatology trainee at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, reported at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“Based on these outcomes, we question whether gout is best managed in primary or secondary care. We think there is an argument for establishing specialist gout clinics with more time to focus on patient education to help improve outcomes. These clinics could be led by allied health care professionals, such as specialist nurses and pharmacists,” Dr. Black said at the meeting.

Gout management guidelines issued by the British Society for Rheumatology in 2017 call for a target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL, whereas the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for a serum urate level of < 6 mg/dL.

The single-center, nonblinded trial recruited 110 patients aged 18-85 years over a 3-year period to take ULT with allopurinol as first-line therapy starting at 100 mg/day. Everyone received the same advice regarding ULT up-titration, lifestyle changes, and gout education at baseline. The second-line agent for ULT was febuxostat (Uloric) 80 mg daily, with uricosuric drugs as third-line agents. All patients received colchicine or NSAID prophylaxis for gout flares for the first 6 months, depending on their comorbidities.

The trial excluded patients who had been treated with ULT within the past 6 months or had experienced prior hypersensitivity to ULT, severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate), significant liver impairment, or any other significant medical disease affecting life expectancy shorter than 1 year.

Conventional management consisted of urate level review at 0, 6, and 12 months with up-titration at each visit and primary care management of ULT between reviews until the target serum urate level was reached. In the tight-control group, monthly up-titrations occurred at the Musgrave Park Hospital at visits with the study team that were led by a rheumatologist and a specialist pharmacist.

A total of 48 patients in the conventional arm and 47 in the tight-control arm completed the trial. At baseline, monosodium urate crystals were detected in joint aspirates in 56% of patients receiving tight control and in 58.5% of those receiving conventional management. The mean serum urate level was 490 micromol/L (8.24 mg/dL) for tight-control patients and 470 micromol/L (7.9 mg/dL) for conventionally managed patients.

By 1 year, 89.4% of patients in the tight-control group had achieved the target urate level, compared with 39.6% in the conventional-management group (P < .001). At 6 months, serum urate had declined by 37.6% with tight control vs. 18% with conventional management. By the end of the trial, the median allopurinol dose was 400 mg with tight control (range, 200-900 mg) and 200 mg with conventional management (range, 0-400 mg). A total of 89% of patients were taking allopurinol at the end of the trial.

As expected, tight control led to more flares per month on average (0.35 vs. 0.13) in the 79 patients for whom complete data on flare frequency were available.

On blinded ultrasound evaluations, the median diameter of the first MTP tophus declined significantly more with tight control than with conventional management (–4.65 mm vs. –0.30 mm; P = .003). Gray scale synovitis in the knee improved in 63% of patients undergoing tight control, compared with 14% of conventionally managed patients (P = .043). The researchers observed no difference in resolution of the double-contour sign or in the number of erosions between the groups, although the 1-year time frame may not have been long enough to see resolution and improvement, Dr. Black said.

Dr. Black said that a follow-up study is planned with the same patient cohort at 3 years.

When asked about the feasibility of monthly ULT titration visits for gout management, audience member Tuhina Neogi, MD, professor of epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, told this news organization, “We don’t have a lot of data to guide us in that regard, and I also think it depends on what the increment of the dose titration is, but we generally do recognize that therapeutic inertia is bad – keeping someone on a dose for a long time. For me, I don’t think monthly is unreasonable if you have good prophylaxis [against acute flares].”

Dr. Neogi also noted that such monthly assessments don’t have to take place at a hospital. “I think there are many different practice models in which it could be implemented [that are not physician-driven].”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Black has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neogi has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – A double dose of the antiosteoporosis biologic denosumab (Prolia) slowed progression and repaired joints in erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) but showed no impact on pain levels until 2 years after patients received the first dose, the lead investigator of a Belgium-based randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial showing the efficacy of denosumab double-dosing regimen in structural modification of erosive hand osteoarthritis,” Ruth Wittoek, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Ghent (Belgium) University, said in presenting the results.

“Our primary endpoint was confirmed by a more robust secondary endpoint, both showing that denosumab stopped erosive progression and induced remodeling in patients with erosive hand OA,” she added. “Moreover, the double-dosing regimen was well-tolerated.”

However, during the question-and-answer period after her presentation, Dr. Wittoek acknowledged the study didn’t evaluate the impact denosumab had on cartilage and didn’t detect a signal for pain resolution until 96 weeks during the open-label extension phase. “I’m not quite sure if denosumab is sufficient to treat symptoms in osteoarthritis,” she said. “There were positive signals but, of course, having to wait 2 years for an effect is kind of hard for our patients.”

The trial randomized 100 adult patients 1:1 to denosumab 60 mg every 12 weeks – double the normal dose for osteoporosis – or placebo. The primary endpoint was changes in erosive progression and signs of repair based on x-ray at 48 weeks, after which all patients were switched to denosumab for the open-label study. To quantify changes, the investigators used the Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS), which uses a scale of 0-300 to quantify radiographic changes in erosive hand OA.

Dr. Wittoek said that the average change in GUSS at week 24 was +6 vs. –2.8 (P = .024) in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, widening at week 48 to +10.1 and –7.9 (P = .003). By week 96, the variation was +18.8 for denosumab and +17 for placebo with switch to denosumab (P = .03).

“During the open-label extension the denosumab treatment group continued to increase to show remodeling while the former placebo treatment group, now also receiving denosumab, also  showed signs of remodeling,” she said. “So, there was no more erosive progression.”

The secondary endpoint was the percentage of new erosive joint development at week 48: 1.8% in the denosumab group and 7% in placebo group (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.50; P < .001). “Meaning the odds of erosive progression is 77% lower in the denosumab treatment group,” Dr. Wittoek said.

By week 96, those percentages were 0% and 0.7% in the respective treatment groups. “During the open-label extension, it was clear that denosumab blocked all new development of erosive joints,” she said.

Pain was one of the study’s exploratory endpoints, and the mean numeric rating scale showed no difference between treatment arms until the 96-week results, with a reduction by almost half in the denosumab group (from 4.2 at week 48 to 2.4) and a lesser reduction in the placebo-switched-to-denosumab arm (from 4.2 to 3.5; P = .028) between arms.

The placebo group was more susceptible to adverse events, namely musculoskeletal complaints and nervous system disorders, Dr. Wittoek noted. Infection rates, the most common adverse event, were similar between the two groups: 41 and 39 in the respective arms. Despite the double dose of denosumab, safety and tolerability in this trial was comparable to other trials, she said.

In comments submitted by e-mail, Dr. Wittoek noted that the extension study results will go out to 144 weeks. She also addressed the issues surrounding pain as an outcome.

“Besides disability, pain is also important from the patient’s perspective,” Dr. Wittoek said in the e-mailed comments. “However, pain and radiographic progression are undeniably coupled, but it’s unclear how.”

In erosive hand OA, structural progression and pain may not be related on a molecular level, she said. “Therefore, we don’t deny that pain levels should also be covered by treatment, but they should not be confused with structural modification; it is just another domain, not more nor less important.

The second year of the open-label extension study should clarify the pain outcomes, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

In an interview, David T. Felson, MD, MPH, professor and director of clinical epidemiology research at Boston University, questioned the delayed pain effect the study suggested. “It didn’t make any sense to me that there would be because both groups at that point got denosumab, so if there was going to be a pain effect that would’ve happened,” he said.

The pain effect is “really important,” he said. “We don’t use denosumab in rheumatoid arthritis to treat erosions because it doesn’t necessarily affect the pain and dysfunction of rheumatoid arthritis, and I’m not sure that isn’t going to be true in erosive hand osteoarthritis, but it’s possible.”

To clarify the pain outcomes, he said, “They’re going to have to work on the data.”

Amgen sponsored the trial but had no role in the design. Dr. Wittoek and Dr. Felson reported no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – A double dose of the antiosteoporosis biologic denosumab (Prolia) slowed progression and repaired joints in erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) but showed no impact on pain levels until 2 years after patients received the first dose, the lead investigator of a Belgium-based randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial showing the efficacy of denosumab double-dosing regimen in structural modification of erosive hand osteoarthritis,” Ruth Wittoek, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Ghent (Belgium) University, said in presenting the results.

“Our primary endpoint was confirmed by a more robust secondary endpoint, both showing that denosumab stopped erosive progression and induced remodeling in patients with erosive hand OA,” she added. “Moreover, the double-dosing regimen was well-tolerated.”

However, during the question-and-answer period after her presentation, Dr. Wittoek acknowledged the study didn’t evaluate the impact denosumab had on cartilage and didn’t detect a signal for pain resolution until 96 weeks during the open-label extension phase. “I’m not quite sure if denosumab is sufficient to treat symptoms in osteoarthritis,” she said. “There were positive signals but, of course, having to wait 2 years for an effect is kind of hard for our patients.”

The trial randomized 100 adult patients 1:1 to denosumab 60 mg every 12 weeks – double the normal dose for osteoporosis – or placebo. The primary endpoint was changes in erosive progression and signs of repair based on x-ray at 48 weeks, after which all patients were switched to denosumab for the open-label study. To quantify changes, the investigators used the Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS), which uses a scale of 0-300 to quantify radiographic changes in erosive hand OA.

Dr. Wittoek said that the average change in GUSS at week 24 was +6 vs. –2.8 (P = .024) in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, widening at week 48 to +10.1 and –7.9 (P = .003). By week 96, the variation was +18.8 for denosumab and +17 for placebo with switch to denosumab (P = .03).

“During the open-label extension the denosumab treatment group continued to increase to show remodeling while the former placebo treatment group, now also receiving denosumab, also  showed signs of remodeling,” she said. “So, there was no more erosive progression.”

The secondary endpoint was the percentage of new erosive joint development at week 48: 1.8% in the denosumab group and 7% in placebo group (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.50; P < .001). “Meaning the odds of erosive progression is 77% lower in the denosumab treatment group,” Dr. Wittoek said.

By week 96, those percentages were 0% and 0.7% in the respective treatment groups. “During the open-label extension, it was clear that denosumab blocked all new development of erosive joints,” she said.

Pain was one of the study’s exploratory endpoints, and the mean numeric rating scale showed no difference between treatment arms until the 96-week results, with a reduction by almost half in the denosumab group (from 4.2 at week 48 to 2.4) and a lesser reduction in the placebo-switched-to-denosumab arm (from 4.2 to 3.5; P = .028) between arms.

The placebo group was more susceptible to adverse events, namely musculoskeletal complaints and nervous system disorders, Dr. Wittoek noted. Infection rates, the most common adverse event, were similar between the two groups: 41 and 39 in the respective arms. Despite the double dose of denosumab, safety and tolerability in this trial was comparable to other trials, she said.

In comments submitted by e-mail, Dr. Wittoek noted that the extension study results will go out to 144 weeks. She also addressed the issues surrounding pain as an outcome.

“Besides disability, pain is also important from the patient’s perspective,” Dr. Wittoek said in the e-mailed comments. “However, pain and radiographic progression are undeniably coupled, but it’s unclear how.”

In erosive hand OA, structural progression and pain may not be related on a molecular level, she said. “Therefore, we don’t deny that pain levels should also be covered by treatment, but they should not be confused with structural modification; it is just another domain, not more nor less important.

The second year of the open-label extension study should clarify the pain outcomes, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

In an interview, David T. Felson, MD, MPH, professor and director of clinical epidemiology research at Boston University, questioned the delayed pain effect the study suggested. “It didn’t make any sense to me that there would be because both groups at that point got denosumab, so if there was going to be a pain effect that would’ve happened,” he said.

The pain effect is “really important,” he said. “We don’t use denosumab in rheumatoid arthritis to treat erosions because it doesn’t necessarily affect the pain and dysfunction of rheumatoid arthritis, and I’m not sure that isn’t going to be true in erosive hand osteoarthritis, but it’s possible.”

To clarify the pain outcomes, he said, “They’re going to have to work on the data.”

Amgen sponsored the trial but had no role in the design. Dr. Wittoek and Dr. Felson reported no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – A double dose of the antiosteoporosis biologic denosumab (Prolia) slowed progression and repaired joints in erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) but showed no impact on pain levels until 2 years after patients received the first dose, the lead investigator of a Belgium-based randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial showing the efficacy of denosumab double-dosing regimen in structural modification of erosive hand osteoarthritis,” Ruth Wittoek, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Ghent (Belgium) University, said in presenting the results.

“Our primary endpoint was confirmed by a more robust secondary endpoint, both showing that denosumab stopped erosive progression and induced remodeling in patients with erosive hand OA,” she added. “Moreover, the double-dosing regimen was well-tolerated.”

However, during the question-and-answer period after her presentation, Dr. Wittoek acknowledged the study didn’t evaluate the impact denosumab had on cartilage and didn’t detect a signal for pain resolution until 96 weeks during the open-label extension phase. “I’m not quite sure if denosumab is sufficient to treat symptoms in osteoarthritis,” she said. “There were positive signals but, of course, having to wait 2 years for an effect is kind of hard for our patients.”

The trial randomized 100 adult patients 1:1 to denosumab 60 mg every 12 weeks – double the normal dose for osteoporosis – or placebo. The primary endpoint was changes in erosive progression and signs of repair based on x-ray at 48 weeks, after which all patients were switched to denosumab for the open-label study. To quantify changes, the investigators used the Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS), which uses a scale of 0-300 to quantify radiographic changes in erosive hand OA.

Dr. Wittoek said that the average change in GUSS at week 24 was +6 vs. –2.8 (P = .024) in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, widening at week 48 to +10.1 and –7.9 (P = .003). By week 96, the variation was +18.8 for denosumab and +17 for placebo with switch to denosumab (P = .03).

“During the open-label extension the denosumab treatment group continued to increase to show remodeling while the former placebo treatment group, now also receiving denosumab, also  showed signs of remodeling,” she said. “So, there was no more erosive progression.”

The secondary endpoint was the percentage of new erosive joint development at week 48: 1.8% in the denosumab group and 7% in placebo group (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.50; P < .001). “Meaning the odds of erosive progression is 77% lower in the denosumab treatment group,” Dr. Wittoek said.

By week 96, those percentages were 0% and 0.7% in the respective treatment groups. “During the open-label extension, it was clear that denosumab blocked all new development of erosive joints,” she said.

Pain was one of the study’s exploratory endpoints, and the mean numeric rating scale showed no difference between treatment arms until the 96-week results, with a reduction by almost half in the denosumab group (from 4.2 at week 48 to 2.4) and a lesser reduction in the placebo-switched-to-denosumab arm (from 4.2 to 3.5; P = .028) between arms.

The placebo group was more susceptible to adverse events, namely musculoskeletal complaints and nervous system disorders, Dr. Wittoek noted. Infection rates, the most common adverse event, were similar between the two groups: 41 and 39 in the respective arms. Despite the double dose of denosumab, safety and tolerability in this trial was comparable to other trials, she said.

In comments submitted by e-mail, Dr. Wittoek noted that the extension study results will go out to 144 weeks. She also addressed the issues surrounding pain as an outcome.

“Besides disability, pain is also important from the patient’s perspective,” Dr. Wittoek said in the e-mailed comments. “However, pain and radiographic progression are undeniably coupled, but it’s unclear how.”

In erosive hand OA, structural progression and pain may not be related on a molecular level, she said. “Therefore, we don’t deny that pain levels should also be covered by treatment, but they should not be confused with structural modification; it is just another domain, not more nor less important.

The second year of the open-label extension study should clarify the pain outcomes, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

In an interview, David T. Felson, MD, MPH, professor and director of clinical epidemiology research at Boston University, questioned the delayed pain effect the study suggested. “It didn’t make any sense to me that there would be because both groups at that point got denosumab, so if there was going to be a pain effect that would’ve happened,” he said.

The pain effect is “really important,” he said. “We don’t use denosumab in rheumatoid arthritis to treat erosions because it doesn’t necessarily affect the pain and dysfunction of rheumatoid arthritis, and I’m not sure that isn’t going to be true in erosive hand osteoarthritis, but it’s possible.”

To clarify the pain outcomes, he said, “They’re going to have to work on the data.”

Amgen sponsored the trial but had no role in the design. Dr. Wittoek and Dr. Felson reported no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – What works in the clinic can also work in community settings: Patients who are overweight or obese with knee osteoarthritis can find relief from pain through diet and exercise programs conducted in recreation centers, local gyms, fitness centers, and other places close to home, according to investigators in a pragmatic randomized trial.

The Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities With Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study was modeled after the successful Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis trial, which showed that adults randomized to 18 months of either a diet and exercise program or diet alone had more weight loss and larger reductions in levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 than patients randomized to exercise alone, and that diet alone was associated with greater reductions in knee compressive force than exercise alone.

That study was conducted by Stephen P. Messier, PhD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.. As previously reported, the investigators also saw continued benefits for participants years after the original trial.

With the WE-CAN trial, results of which were reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Messier and colleagues took the intervention one step further, randomizing 823 community-dwelling adults who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 27 kg/m2) with knee OA to either an 18-month diet and exercise intervention or attention control group consisting of five 1-hour face-to-face meetings over 18 months, plus information packets and phone sessions during alternate months.

“Compared to the control group, diet plus exercise had a statistically significant but modest reduction in pain. Diet plus exercise was 20% more likely to attain a clinically important 2-point improvement in pain,” Dr. Messier said in an oral abstract session at ACR.
 

Real-world setting

The primary goal of WE-CAN was to “determine whether adaptation of a diet and exercise academic center–based efficacy trial to community settings results in a statistically significant reduction in pain relative to an attention control.”

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

A total of 3,751 potential candidates were screened, and 823 were randomized and assigned to either a diet and exercise arm (414) or attention control arm (409). Of the patients randomized, 336 in the diet/exercise arm and 322 in the control arm attended the final 18-month follow-up visit.

The exercise component consisted of a 15-minute walking period, followed by a 20-minute weight-training period, and ending with a second 15-minute walking period. The diet goal was 10% or greater weight loss, aided by a distribution of low-calorie recipes to produce a reduced-calorie diet of the patient’s choice, with the option to include nutritional powder to make low-calories shakes as meal replacements, one or two per day for the first 6 months, with the option of one per day for the remaining months.

The pragmatic components included the use of established community facilities in both urban and rural counties in North Carolina, broad inclusion criteria, patient-centered outcomes, use of community-based staff to deliver the treatment, nonphysicians trained by study physicians to perform knee exams, and various means of communication, Dr. Messier said.

Participants in each arm were closely matched by demographic and clinical characteristics, with a mean age of 64.5 years in the diet/exercise group and 64.7 years in the attention control group, respective mean weight of 100.7 kg and 101.1 kg, and respective BMI of 36.7 and 36.9. Women comprised about 77% of participants in each group.
 

Endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of a significantly greater reduction in pain at 18 months in the diet and exercise group as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 20 (worst pain).

In an analysis adjusted for sex, BMI, and baseline values, there was a 32% reduction in pain scores from baseline in the active intervention arm versus 24% in the control arm (P = .02).

In all, 60.2% of participants assigned to diet and exercise had a minimum reduction in pain scores of at least 2 points at 18 months, compared with 49.7% of participants assigned to the attention control group. This translated into a relative risk for achieving at least a 2-point improvement with diet and exercise was 1.20 (P = .01).

Among participants who remained in the study for the entire 18 months, there were significant improvements in the diet and exercise group compared with controls in the prespecified secondary endpoints of weight change (–8 kg vs. –2 kg), waist circumference, WOMAC function, 6-minute walk distance, and mean Short Form–36 health-related quality of life subscale (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Dr. Messier acknowledged that the diagnosis of knee OA was based only on ACR clinical criteria and was not confirmed with imaging. In addition, offering patients the option of free meal replacement limited the pragmatic nature of the intervention.

He also noted that the 24% reduction in pain seen in the control group suggests that interacting with patients can improve clinical outcomes.
 

‘Tour de force’

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Messier’s presentation, David T. Felson, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center, called in and said the study was “a tour de force” and congratulated Dr. Messier and colleagues on “a lovely study.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Dr. Felson asked whether the investigators had conducted a mediation analysis to determine what proportion of the improvement was attributable to weight loss, and whether patients assigned to exercise were sticking with it throughout the study.

Dr. Messier replied that they had not yet done a mediation analysis but were continuing to examine the data. Regarding the exercise question, he noted that “the adherence was over 80% for 6 months and over 70% for the whole 18 months, so they did a really nice job.”

In an interview, session moderator Anne Davidson, MBBS, director of the rheumatology program at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., commented that the investigators managed to accomplish a very challenging task.

“In terms of recruitment of patients with engagement of community facilities and quality of data, I would say that, as far as an osteoarthritis study goes, this was really a tremendous effort on the part of all people involved,” she said.

She noted that, while the WE-CAN program may work in North Carolina, there may be barriers to implementing it elsewhere, such as large suburban areas where some patients experience food insecurity and others have difficulty with transportation and access to treatment facilities.

“The question here that remains is, as Dr. Felson asked, what is the contribution of weight loss and what is the contribution of exercise? Because if it’s just weight loss, we have a whole lot of new things coming to help with that,” she said.

The WE-CAN study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Messier disclosed that GNC, a health food and nutrition chain, donated the meal replacements used by patients. Dr. Davidson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – What works in the clinic can also work in community settings: Patients who are overweight or obese with knee osteoarthritis can find relief from pain through diet and exercise programs conducted in recreation centers, local gyms, fitness centers, and other places close to home, according to investigators in a pragmatic randomized trial.

The Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities With Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study was modeled after the successful Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis trial, which showed that adults randomized to 18 months of either a diet and exercise program or diet alone had more weight loss and larger reductions in levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 than patients randomized to exercise alone, and that diet alone was associated with greater reductions in knee compressive force than exercise alone.

That study was conducted by Stephen P. Messier, PhD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.. As previously reported, the investigators also saw continued benefits for participants years after the original trial.

With the WE-CAN trial, results of which were reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Messier and colleagues took the intervention one step further, randomizing 823 community-dwelling adults who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 27 kg/m2) with knee OA to either an 18-month diet and exercise intervention or attention control group consisting of five 1-hour face-to-face meetings over 18 months, plus information packets and phone sessions during alternate months.

“Compared to the control group, diet plus exercise had a statistically significant but modest reduction in pain. Diet plus exercise was 20% more likely to attain a clinically important 2-point improvement in pain,” Dr. Messier said in an oral abstract session at ACR.
 

Real-world setting

The primary goal of WE-CAN was to “determine whether adaptation of a diet and exercise academic center–based efficacy trial to community settings results in a statistically significant reduction in pain relative to an attention control.”

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

A total of 3,751 potential candidates were screened, and 823 were randomized and assigned to either a diet and exercise arm (414) or attention control arm (409). Of the patients randomized, 336 in the diet/exercise arm and 322 in the control arm attended the final 18-month follow-up visit.

The exercise component consisted of a 15-minute walking period, followed by a 20-minute weight-training period, and ending with a second 15-minute walking period. The diet goal was 10% or greater weight loss, aided by a distribution of low-calorie recipes to produce a reduced-calorie diet of the patient’s choice, with the option to include nutritional powder to make low-calories shakes as meal replacements, one or two per day for the first 6 months, with the option of one per day for the remaining months.

The pragmatic components included the use of established community facilities in both urban and rural counties in North Carolina, broad inclusion criteria, patient-centered outcomes, use of community-based staff to deliver the treatment, nonphysicians trained by study physicians to perform knee exams, and various means of communication, Dr. Messier said.

Participants in each arm were closely matched by demographic and clinical characteristics, with a mean age of 64.5 years in the diet/exercise group and 64.7 years in the attention control group, respective mean weight of 100.7 kg and 101.1 kg, and respective BMI of 36.7 and 36.9. Women comprised about 77% of participants in each group.
 

Endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of a significantly greater reduction in pain at 18 months in the diet and exercise group as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 20 (worst pain).

In an analysis adjusted for sex, BMI, and baseline values, there was a 32% reduction in pain scores from baseline in the active intervention arm versus 24% in the control arm (P = .02).

In all, 60.2% of participants assigned to diet and exercise had a minimum reduction in pain scores of at least 2 points at 18 months, compared with 49.7% of participants assigned to the attention control group. This translated into a relative risk for achieving at least a 2-point improvement with diet and exercise was 1.20 (P = .01).

Among participants who remained in the study for the entire 18 months, there were significant improvements in the diet and exercise group compared with controls in the prespecified secondary endpoints of weight change (–8 kg vs. –2 kg), waist circumference, WOMAC function, 6-minute walk distance, and mean Short Form–36 health-related quality of life subscale (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Dr. Messier acknowledged that the diagnosis of knee OA was based only on ACR clinical criteria and was not confirmed with imaging. In addition, offering patients the option of free meal replacement limited the pragmatic nature of the intervention.

He also noted that the 24% reduction in pain seen in the control group suggests that interacting with patients can improve clinical outcomes.
 

‘Tour de force’

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Messier’s presentation, David T. Felson, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center, called in and said the study was “a tour de force” and congratulated Dr. Messier and colleagues on “a lovely study.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Dr. Felson asked whether the investigators had conducted a mediation analysis to determine what proportion of the improvement was attributable to weight loss, and whether patients assigned to exercise were sticking with it throughout the study.

Dr. Messier replied that they had not yet done a mediation analysis but were continuing to examine the data. Regarding the exercise question, he noted that “the adherence was over 80% for 6 months and over 70% for the whole 18 months, so they did a really nice job.”

In an interview, session moderator Anne Davidson, MBBS, director of the rheumatology program at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., commented that the investigators managed to accomplish a very challenging task.

“In terms of recruitment of patients with engagement of community facilities and quality of data, I would say that, as far as an osteoarthritis study goes, this was really a tremendous effort on the part of all people involved,” she said.

She noted that, while the WE-CAN program may work in North Carolina, there may be barriers to implementing it elsewhere, such as large suburban areas where some patients experience food insecurity and others have difficulty with transportation and access to treatment facilities.

“The question here that remains is, as Dr. Felson asked, what is the contribution of weight loss and what is the contribution of exercise? Because if it’s just weight loss, we have a whole lot of new things coming to help with that,” she said.

The WE-CAN study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Messier disclosed that GNC, a health food and nutrition chain, donated the meal replacements used by patients. Dr. Davidson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – What works in the clinic can also work in community settings: Patients who are overweight or obese with knee osteoarthritis can find relief from pain through diet and exercise programs conducted in recreation centers, local gyms, fitness centers, and other places close to home, according to investigators in a pragmatic randomized trial.

The Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities With Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study was modeled after the successful Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis trial, which showed that adults randomized to 18 months of either a diet and exercise program or diet alone had more weight loss and larger reductions in levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 than patients randomized to exercise alone, and that diet alone was associated with greater reductions in knee compressive force than exercise alone.

That study was conducted by Stephen P. Messier, PhD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.. As previously reported, the investigators also saw continued benefits for participants years after the original trial.

With the WE-CAN trial, results of which were reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Messier and colleagues took the intervention one step further, randomizing 823 community-dwelling adults who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 27 kg/m2) with knee OA to either an 18-month diet and exercise intervention or attention control group consisting of five 1-hour face-to-face meetings over 18 months, plus information packets and phone sessions during alternate months.

“Compared to the control group, diet plus exercise had a statistically significant but modest reduction in pain. Diet plus exercise was 20% more likely to attain a clinically important 2-point improvement in pain,” Dr. Messier said in an oral abstract session at ACR.
 

Real-world setting

The primary goal of WE-CAN was to “determine whether adaptation of a diet and exercise academic center–based efficacy trial to community settings results in a statistically significant reduction in pain relative to an attention control.”

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

A total of 3,751 potential candidates were screened, and 823 were randomized and assigned to either a diet and exercise arm (414) or attention control arm (409). Of the patients randomized, 336 in the diet/exercise arm and 322 in the control arm attended the final 18-month follow-up visit.

The exercise component consisted of a 15-minute walking period, followed by a 20-minute weight-training period, and ending with a second 15-minute walking period. The diet goal was 10% or greater weight loss, aided by a distribution of low-calorie recipes to produce a reduced-calorie diet of the patient’s choice, with the option to include nutritional powder to make low-calories shakes as meal replacements, one or two per day for the first 6 months, with the option of one per day for the remaining months.

The pragmatic components included the use of established community facilities in both urban and rural counties in North Carolina, broad inclusion criteria, patient-centered outcomes, use of community-based staff to deliver the treatment, nonphysicians trained by study physicians to perform knee exams, and various means of communication, Dr. Messier said.

Participants in each arm were closely matched by demographic and clinical characteristics, with a mean age of 64.5 years in the diet/exercise group and 64.7 years in the attention control group, respective mean weight of 100.7 kg and 101.1 kg, and respective BMI of 36.7 and 36.9. Women comprised about 77% of participants in each group.
 

Endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of a significantly greater reduction in pain at 18 months in the diet and exercise group as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 20 (worst pain).

In an analysis adjusted for sex, BMI, and baseline values, there was a 32% reduction in pain scores from baseline in the active intervention arm versus 24% in the control arm (P = .02).

In all, 60.2% of participants assigned to diet and exercise had a minimum reduction in pain scores of at least 2 points at 18 months, compared with 49.7% of participants assigned to the attention control group. This translated into a relative risk for achieving at least a 2-point improvement with diet and exercise was 1.20 (P = .01).

Among participants who remained in the study for the entire 18 months, there were significant improvements in the diet and exercise group compared with controls in the prespecified secondary endpoints of weight change (–8 kg vs. –2 kg), waist circumference, WOMAC function, 6-minute walk distance, and mean Short Form–36 health-related quality of life subscale (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Dr. Messier acknowledged that the diagnosis of knee OA was based only on ACR clinical criteria and was not confirmed with imaging. In addition, offering patients the option of free meal replacement limited the pragmatic nature of the intervention.

He also noted that the 24% reduction in pain seen in the control group suggests that interacting with patients can improve clinical outcomes.
 

‘Tour de force’

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Messier’s presentation, David T. Felson, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center, called in and said the study was “a tour de force” and congratulated Dr. Messier and colleagues on “a lovely study.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Dr. Felson asked whether the investigators had conducted a mediation analysis to determine what proportion of the improvement was attributable to weight loss, and whether patients assigned to exercise were sticking with it throughout the study.

Dr. Messier replied that they had not yet done a mediation analysis but were continuing to examine the data. Regarding the exercise question, he noted that “the adherence was over 80% for 6 months and over 70% for the whole 18 months, so they did a really nice job.”

In an interview, session moderator Anne Davidson, MBBS, director of the rheumatology program at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., commented that the investigators managed to accomplish a very challenging task.

“In terms of recruitment of patients with engagement of community facilities and quality of data, I would say that, as far as an osteoarthritis study goes, this was really a tremendous effort on the part of all people involved,” she said.

She noted that, while the WE-CAN program may work in North Carolina, there may be barriers to implementing it elsewhere, such as large suburban areas where some patients experience food insecurity and others have difficulty with transportation and access to treatment facilities.

“The question here that remains is, as Dr. Felson asked, what is the contribution of weight loss and what is the contribution of exercise? Because if it’s just weight loss, we have a whole lot of new things coming to help with that,” she said.

The WE-CAN study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Messier disclosed that GNC, a health food and nutrition chain, donated the meal replacements used by patients. Dr. Davidson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) isn’t any more effective at preventing or delaying the onset of rheumatoid arthritis than placebo, based on interim results of a randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Despite that futility, the percentage of patients who actually went on to develop clinical RA was lower than investigators expected, and the trial supports the use of a key biomarker for identifying RA.

While the StopRA trial was halted early because of futility of the treatment, investigators are continuing to mine the gathered data to deepen their understanding of disease progression and the potential of HCQ to improve symptoms in RA patients, said lead study author Kevin D. Deane, MD, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Overall, around 35% of the study participants on average developed RA, Dr. Deane said. “We were expecting somewhat more,” he said. “Teasing out who’s really going to progress to RA during a study and who’s not is going to be incredibly important.”

StopRA enrolled 144 adults who had elevated anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (CCP3) levels of at least 40 units (about twice the normal level) but no history if inflammatory arthritis, randomizing them on a 1:1 basis to either HCQ (200-400 mg a day based on weight) or placebo for a 1-year treatment regimen.

The study identified participants through rheumatology clinics, testing of first-degree relatives with established RA, health fairs, blood donors, and biobanks. The interim findings are based on 2 years of follow-up after the last dose.

The study focused on HCQ because it has a relatively low risk profile with good safety and tolerability, is easy to administer, and is relatively low cost, Dr. Deane said.

StopRA study failed to meet its primary endpoint: to determine if 1 year of treatment with HCQ reduced the risk of developing inflammatory arthritis and classifiable RA at the end of 3 years in the study population. At the time of the interim analysis, 34% of patients in the HCQ arm and 36% in the placebo arm had developed RA (P = .844), Dr. Deane said. Baseline characteristics were balanced in both treatment arms.

The findings also support the use of CCP3 as a biomarker for RA, Dr. Deane said.

Now that the trial has been terminated, Dr. Deane said investigators are going to review the final data and perform secondary analyses for further clarity on the impact HCQ may have on RA.

“The future analysis should hopefully say if this treatment actually changes symptoms,” he said in an interview. “Because, if somebody felt better on the drug or had a milder form of rheumatoid arthritis once they developed it, that could potentially be a benefit.”

Dr. Deane noted the TREAT EARLIER trial similarly found that a 1-year course of methotrexate didn’t prevent the onset of clinical arthritis, but it did alter the disease course as measured in MRI-detected inflammation, related symptoms, and impairment.

“We’re hoping to look at those things and hopefully look at biologic changes over time,” Dr. Deane said of the extended analysis. “We’re not sure if the drug was associated with changes in biomarkers yet still didn’t halt progression to RA. That might be interesting, because those biomarkers might not be fundamentally related to the disease, but other mechanisms may be. That could give us some insights.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Session moderator Ted Mikuls, MD, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said further mining of the study data is warranted.

“It’s common in a study like that, which took a lot of time and investment, to really take a deep dive into the data to make sure there aren’t signals that we’re missing,” he said in an interview.

One of the challenges with the study may have been patient enrollment, Dr. Mikuls noted. “I wonder about the study population in terms of where they recruit patients from. Who’s more likely to get RA? Is it patients who already have symptoms? Is it asymptomatic patients from biobanks? If it’s arthralgia joint pain patients, maybe by the time you have joint and autoantibody positivity it’s too late to have an intervention.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored the study. Dr. Deane disclosed a relationship with Werfen. Dr. Mikuls has no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) isn’t any more effective at preventing or delaying the onset of rheumatoid arthritis than placebo, based on interim results of a randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Despite that futility, the percentage of patients who actually went on to develop clinical RA was lower than investigators expected, and the trial supports the use of a key biomarker for identifying RA.

While the StopRA trial was halted early because of futility of the treatment, investigators are continuing to mine the gathered data to deepen their understanding of disease progression and the potential of HCQ to improve symptoms in RA patients, said lead study author Kevin D. Deane, MD, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Overall, around 35% of the study participants on average developed RA, Dr. Deane said. “We were expecting somewhat more,” he said. “Teasing out who’s really going to progress to RA during a study and who’s not is going to be incredibly important.”

StopRA enrolled 144 adults who had elevated anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (CCP3) levels of at least 40 units (about twice the normal level) but no history if inflammatory arthritis, randomizing them on a 1:1 basis to either HCQ (200-400 mg a day based on weight) or placebo for a 1-year treatment regimen.

The study identified participants through rheumatology clinics, testing of first-degree relatives with established RA, health fairs, blood donors, and biobanks. The interim findings are based on 2 years of follow-up after the last dose.

The study focused on HCQ because it has a relatively low risk profile with good safety and tolerability, is easy to administer, and is relatively low cost, Dr. Deane said.

StopRA study failed to meet its primary endpoint: to determine if 1 year of treatment with HCQ reduced the risk of developing inflammatory arthritis and classifiable RA at the end of 3 years in the study population. At the time of the interim analysis, 34% of patients in the HCQ arm and 36% in the placebo arm had developed RA (P = .844), Dr. Deane said. Baseline characteristics were balanced in both treatment arms.

The findings also support the use of CCP3 as a biomarker for RA, Dr. Deane said.

Now that the trial has been terminated, Dr. Deane said investigators are going to review the final data and perform secondary analyses for further clarity on the impact HCQ may have on RA.

“The future analysis should hopefully say if this treatment actually changes symptoms,” he said in an interview. “Because, if somebody felt better on the drug or had a milder form of rheumatoid arthritis once they developed it, that could potentially be a benefit.”

Dr. Deane noted the TREAT EARLIER trial similarly found that a 1-year course of methotrexate didn’t prevent the onset of clinical arthritis, but it did alter the disease course as measured in MRI-detected inflammation, related symptoms, and impairment.

“We’re hoping to look at those things and hopefully look at biologic changes over time,” Dr. Deane said of the extended analysis. “We’re not sure if the drug was associated with changes in biomarkers yet still didn’t halt progression to RA. That might be interesting, because those biomarkers might not be fundamentally related to the disease, but other mechanisms may be. That could give us some insights.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Session moderator Ted Mikuls, MD, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said further mining of the study data is warranted.

“It’s common in a study like that, which took a lot of time and investment, to really take a deep dive into the data to make sure there aren’t signals that we’re missing,” he said in an interview.

One of the challenges with the study may have been patient enrollment, Dr. Mikuls noted. “I wonder about the study population in terms of where they recruit patients from. Who’s more likely to get RA? Is it patients who already have symptoms? Is it asymptomatic patients from biobanks? If it’s arthralgia joint pain patients, maybe by the time you have joint and autoantibody positivity it’s too late to have an intervention.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored the study. Dr. Deane disclosed a relationship with Werfen. Dr. Mikuls has no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) isn’t any more effective at preventing or delaying the onset of rheumatoid arthritis than placebo, based on interim results of a randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Despite that futility, the percentage of patients who actually went on to develop clinical RA was lower than investigators expected, and the trial supports the use of a key biomarker for identifying RA.

While the StopRA trial was halted early because of futility of the treatment, investigators are continuing to mine the gathered data to deepen their understanding of disease progression and the potential of HCQ to improve symptoms in RA patients, said lead study author Kevin D. Deane, MD, PhD, of the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Overall, around 35% of the study participants on average developed RA, Dr. Deane said. “We were expecting somewhat more,” he said. “Teasing out who’s really going to progress to RA during a study and who’s not is going to be incredibly important.”

StopRA enrolled 144 adults who had elevated anti–cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (CCP3) levels of at least 40 units (about twice the normal level) but no history if inflammatory arthritis, randomizing them on a 1:1 basis to either HCQ (200-400 mg a day based on weight) or placebo for a 1-year treatment regimen.

The study identified participants through rheumatology clinics, testing of first-degree relatives with established RA, health fairs, blood donors, and biobanks. The interim findings are based on 2 years of follow-up after the last dose.

The study focused on HCQ because it has a relatively low risk profile with good safety and tolerability, is easy to administer, and is relatively low cost, Dr. Deane said.

StopRA study failed to meet its primary endpoint: to determine if 1 year of treatment with HCQ reduced the risk of developing inflammatory arthritis and classifiable RA at the end of 3 years in the study population. At the time of the interim analysis, 34% of patients in the HCQ arm and 36% in the placebo arm had developed RA (P = .844), Dr. Deane said. Baseline characteristics were balanced in both treatment arms.

The findings also support the use of CCP3 as a biomarker for RA, Dr. Deane said.

Now that the trial has been terminated, Dr. Deane said investigators are going to review the final data and perform secondary analyses for further clarity on the impact HCQ may have on RA.

“The future analysis should hopefully say if this treatment actually changes symptoms,” he said in an interview. “Because, if somebody felt better on the drug or had a milder form of rheumatoid arthritis once they developed it, that could potentially be a benefit.”

Dr. Deane noted the TREAT EARLIER trial similarly found that a 1-year course of methotrexate didn’t prevent the onset of clinical arthritis, but it did alter the disease course as measured in MRI-detected inflammation, related symptoms, and impairment.

“We’re hoping to look at those things and hopefully look at biologic changes over time,” Dr. Deane said of the extended analysis. “We’re not sure if the drug was associated with changes in biomarkers yet still didn’t halt progression to RA. That might be interesting, because those biomarkers might not be fundamentally related to the disease, but other mechanisms may be. That could give us some insights.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Session moderator Ted Mikuls, MD, a professor of rheumatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, said further mining of the study data is warranted.

“It’s common in a study like that, which took a lot of time and investment, to really take a deep dive into the data to make sure there aren’t signals that we’re missing,” he said in an interview.

One of the challenges with the study may have been patient enrollment, Dr. Mikuls noted. “I wonder about the study population in terms of where they recruit patients from. Who’s more likely to get RA? Is it patients who already have symptoms? Is it asymptomatic patients from biobanks? If it’s arthralgia joint pain patients, maybe by the time you have joint and autoantibody positivity it’s too late to have an intervention.”

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases sponsored the study. Dr. Deane disclosed a relationship with Werfen. Dr. Mikuls has no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – For patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are already at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), NSAIDs may be safer than opioids, results of a new-user active comparator study suggest.

Among 6,866 patients with RA who started on opioids and 13,698 patients who started on NSAIDs for pain, the use of both weak and strong opioids was associated with a 33% increase in risk for all-cause mortality and a trend toward higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with NSAID use, reported Gulsen Ozen, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Pain in RA is a very complex process, and we know that it’s not solely dependent on the disease activity, but there is no evidence that opioids have any benefit in long-term pain management, and it can even cause hyperalgesia. And as we show, it’s not safer than NSAIDs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

She stressed that patients should be assessed for non-RA causes of pain and should use nonpharmacologic methods when possible.

“If a pharmacological treatment is needed and NSAIDs are contraindicated, the lowest possible dose of weak opioids can be used for a very limited time for acute pain only,” she said.
 

Pain despite disease control

Even when their disease is well controlled, approximately 60% of patients with RA still report pain. NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain in patients with RA, but they are associated with modest increases in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension.

Some providers are leery of NSAIDs and will instead prescribe either regular or intermittent opioids for pain control in their patients.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have only minimal pain-relieving benefits, “and even worse, opioids can delay initiation of DMARDs in RA,” Dr. Ozen said.

Opioids have been shown to increase oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and myocardial fibrosis, as well as hypogonadism, weight gain, and CVD risk factors.

There is little evidence, however, on whether opioids are associated with cardiovascular events in patients with RA. This dearth of data prompted Dr. Ozen and colleagues to study the relative risks for MACE in patients with RA starting on opioids or NSAIDs for pain.

Matched cohorts

They used data from FORWARD, a joint Canadian and U.S. databank for rheumatic diseases, to conduct a new-user active comparator cohort study. The cohort included adults with RA without cancer who participated in FORWARD for a minimum of 1 year between 1998 and 2021.

The patients were followed either from drug initiation until 3 months after the end of treatment, defined as either discontinuation or a switch to a different analgesic, end of study follow-up, or the development of a MACE outcome.

The investigators used propensity score matching to compare each opioid initiator with two NSAID initiators. The participants were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, RA duration, disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, joint surgeries, prior CVD and VTE, hypertension, diabetes, rheumatic diseases comorbidity index, osteoporosis/fractures, thyroid, chronic liver, kidney, lung and mental health diseases, hospitalizations, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores, and sleep scores.

The two groups were well matched, except for a slightly higher incidence of VTE in opioid initiators, although incidence rates were low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.6% of NSAID initiators).
 

Higher death rate in opioid users

The incidence rate of MACE among opioid initiators was 20.6% versus18.9% among NSAID initiators, a difference that was not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in incidence rates of the individual components of the MACE composite outcome: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, CVD death, or VTE.

There were, however, significantly more deaths from any cause among patients in the opioid group, with an incidence rate of 13.5% versus 10.8% in the NSAID group.

An analysis of the associaion of drug type with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score weight and prior VTE showed that patients on opioids had a statistically significant hazard ratio for death from any cause of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.67).

The increased risk for all-cause mortality occurred both in patients starting on weak opioids (hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, pentazocine, and propoxyphene) and on strong opioids (hydromorphone, dihydromorphinone, oxymorphone, butorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, meperidine, and fentanyl).

As noted before, there was a trend toward an increased risk for VTE among opioid initiators, but this was not statistically significant.

The increase in risk was higher among patients on strong versus weak opioids, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Ozen said.

A comparison of opioid-associated risk for all-cause mortality vs. NSAIDs according to type (nonselective or selective) showed that most of the increase in risk was relative to selective cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors.

‘Beautiful’ analysis

“This is a beautiful piece of analysis on a really difficult question to address because the confounding is really hard to unpick,” commented James Galloway, MBBS, deputy head of the center for rheumatic diseases at King’s College London and consulting rheumatologist at King’s College Hospital, also in London.

“The headline message is that there didn’t appear to be a clear signal that NSAIDs were worse, which is what I thought the preexisting view might have been. And so, people may have paradoxically prescribed opioids in favor of NSAIDs in a person with cardiovascular risk,” he said in an interview. Dr. Galloway attended the oral abstract session but was not involved in the study.

The study was supported by a grant to Dr. Ozen from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Galloway reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – For patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are already at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), NSAIDs may be safer than opioids, results of a new-user active comparator study suggest.

Among 6,866 patients with RA who started on opioids and 13,698 patients who started on NSAIDs for pain, the use of both weak and strong opioids was associated with a 33% increase in risk for all-cause mortality and a trend toward higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with NSAID use, reported Gulsen Ozen, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Pain in RA is a very complex process, and we know that it’s not solely dependent on the disease activity, but there is no evidence that opioids have any benefit in long-term pain management, and it can even cause hyperalgesia. And as we show, it’s not safer than NSAIDs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

She stressed that patients should be assessed for non-RA causes of pain and should use nonpharmacologic methods when possible.

“If a pharmacological treatment is needed and NSAIDs are contraindicated, the lowest possible dose of weak opioids can be used for a very limited time for acute pain only,” she said.
 

Pain despite disease control

Even when their disease is well controlled, approximately 60% of patients with RA still report pain. NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain in patients with RA, but they are associated with modest increases in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension.

Some providers are leery of NSAIDs and will instead prescribe either regular or intermittent opioids for pain control in their patients.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have only minimal pain-relieving benefits, “and even worse, opioids can delay initiation of DMARDs in RA,” Dr. Ozen said.

Opioids have been shown to increase oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and myocardial fibrosis, as well as hypogonadism, weight gain, and CVD risk factors.

There is little evidence, however, on whether opioids are associated with cardiovascular events in patients with RA. This dearth of data prompted Dr. Ozen and colleagues to study the relative risks for MACE in patients with RA starting on opioids or NSAIDs for pain.

Matched cohorts

They used data from FORWARD, a joint Canadian and U.S. databank for rheumatic diseases, to conduct a new-user active comparator cohort study. The cohort included adults with RA without cancer who participated in FORWARD for a minimum of 1 year between 1998 and 2021.

The patients were followed either from drug initiation until 3 months after the end of treatment, defined as either discontinuation or a switch to a different analgesic, end of study follow-up, or the development of a MACE outcome.

The investigators used propensity score matching to compare each opioid initiator with two NSAID initiators. The participants were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, RA duration, disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, joint surgeries, prior CVD and VTE, hypertension, diabetes, rheumatic diseases comorbidity index, osteoporosis/fractures, thyroid, chronic liver, kidney, lung and mental health diseases, hospitalizations, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores, and sleep scores.

The two groups were well matched, except for a slightly higher incidence of VTE in opioid initiators, although incidence rates were low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.6% of NSAID initiators).
 

Higher death rate in opioid users

The incidence rate of MACE among opioid initiators was 20.6% versus18.9% among NSAID initiators, a difference that was not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in incidence rates of the individual components of the MACE composite outcome: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, CVD death, or VTE.

There were, however, significantly more deaths from any cause among patients in the opioid group, with an incidence rate of 13.5% versus 10.8% in the NSAID group.

An analysis of the associaion of drug type with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score weight and prior VTE showed that patients on opioids had a statistically significant hazard ratio for death from any cause of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.67).

The increased risk for all-cause mortality occurred both in patients starting on weak opioids (hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, pentazocine, and propoxyphene) and on strong opioids (hydromorphone, dihydromorphinone, oxymorphone, butorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, meperidine, and fentanyl).

As noted before, there was a trend toward an increased risk for VTE among opioid initiators, but this was not statistically significant.

The increase in risk was higher among patients on strong versus weak opioids, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Ozen said.

A comparison of opioid-associated risk for all-cause mortality vs. NSAIDs according to type (nonselective or selective) showed that most of the increase in risk was relative to selective cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors.

‘Beautiful’ analysis

“This is a beautiful piece of analysis on a really difficult question to address because the confounding is really hard to unpick,” commented James Galloway, MBBS, deputy head of the center for rheumatic diseases at King’s College London and consulting rheumatologist at King’s College Hospital, also in London.

“The headline message is that there didn’t appear to be a clear signal that NSAIDs were worse, which is what I thought the preexisting view might have been. And so, people may have paradoxically prescribed opioids in favor of NSAIDs in a person with cardiovascular risk,” he said in an interview. Dr. Galloway attended the oral abstract session but was not involved in the study.

The study was supported by a grant to Dr. Ozen from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Galloway reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – For patients with rheumatoid arthritis who are already at increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), NSAIDs may be safer than opioids, results of a new-user active comparator study suggest.

Among 6,866 patients with RA who started on opioids and 13,698 patients who started on NSAIDs for pain, the use of both weak and strong opioids was associated with a 33% increase in risk for all-cause mortality and a trend toward higher rates of venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with NSAID use, reported Gulsen Ozen, MD, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Pain in RA is a very complex process, and we know that it’s not solely dependent on the disease activity, but there is no evidence that opioids have any benefit in long-term pain management, and it can even cause hyperalgesia. And as we show, it’s not safer than NSAIDs,” she said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

She stressed that patients should be assessed for non-RA causes of pain and should use nonpharmacologic methods when possible.

“If a pharmacological treatment is needed and NSAIDs are contraindicated, the lowest possible dose of weak opioids can be used for a very limited time for acute pain only,” she said.
 

Pain despite disease control

Even when their disease is well controlled, approximately 60% of patients with RA still report pain. NSAIDs are commonly used to treat pain in patients with RA, but they are associated with modest increases in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), gastrointestinal bleeding, renal injury, and hypertension.

Some providers are leery of NSAIDs and will instead prescribe either regular or intermittent opioids for pain control in their patients.

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs have only minimal pain-relieving benefits, “and even worse, opioids can delay initiation of DMARDs in RA,” Dr. Ozen said.

Opioids have been shown to increase oxidative stress, platelet aggregation, and myocardial fibrosis, as well as hypogonadism, weight gain, and CVD risk factors.

There is little evidence, however, on whether opioids are associated with cardiovascular events in patients with RA. This dearth of data prompted Dr. Ozen and colleagues to study the relative risks for MACE in patients with RA starting on opioids or NSAIDs for pain.

Matched cohorts

They used data from FORWARD, a joint Canadian and U.S. databank for rheumatic diseases, to conduct a new-user active comparator cohort study. The cohort included adults with RA without cancer who participated in FORWARD for a minimum of 1 year between 1998 and 2021.

The patients were followed either from drug initiation until 3 months after the end of treatment, defined as either discontinuation or a switch to a different analgesic, end of study follow-up, or the development of a MACE outcome.

The investigators used propensity score matching to compare each opioid initiator with two NSAID initiators. The participants were matched by age, sex, body mass index, smoking, alcohol, RA duration, disease activity, Health Assessment Questionnaire, visual analog scale for pain, joint surgeries, prior CVD and VTE, hypertension, diabetes, rheumatic diseases comorbidity index, osteoporosis/fractures, thyroid, chronic liver, kidney, lung and mental health diseases, hospitalizations, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores, and sleep scores.

The two groups were well matched, except for a slightly higher incidence of VTE in opioid initiators, although incidence rates were low in both groups (0.9% vs. 0.6% of NSAID initiators).
 

Higher death rate in opioid users

The incidence rate of MACE among opioid initiators was 20.6% versus18.9% among NSAID initiators, a difference that was not statistically significant. There were also no significant differences in incidence rates of the individual components of the MACE composite outcome: myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, CVD death, or VTE.

There were, however, significantly more deaths from any cause among patients in the opioid group, with an incidence rate of 13.5% versus 10.8% in the NSAID group.

An analysis of the associaion of drug type with outcomes, adjusted for propensity score weight and prior VTE showed that patients on opioids had a statistically significant hazard ratio for death from any cause of 1.33 (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.67).

The increased risk for all-cause mortality occurred both in patients starting on weak opioids (hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, pentazocine, and propoxyphene) and on strong opioids (hydromorphone, dihydromorphinone, oxymorphone, butorphanol, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, meperidine, and fentanyl).

As noted before, there was a trend toward an increased risk for VTE among opioid initiators, but this was not statistically significant.

The increase in risk was higher among patients on strong versus weak opioids, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship, Dr. Ozen said.

A comparison of opioid-associated risk for all-cause mortality vs. NSAIDs according to type (nonselective or selective) showed that most of the increase in risk was relative to selective cycloxygenase-2 inhibitors.

‘Beautiful’ analysis

“This is a beautiful piece of analysis on a really difficult question to address because the confounding is really hard to unpick,” commented James Galloway, MBBS, deputy head of the center for rheumatic diseases at King’s College London and consulting rheumatologist at King’s College Hospital, also in London.

“The headline message is that there didn’t appear to be a clear signal that NSAIDs were worse, which is what I thought the preexisting view might have been. And so, people may have paradoxically prescribed opioids in favor of NSAIDs in a person with cardiovascular risk,” he said in an interview. Dr. Galloway attended the oral abstract session but was not involved in the study.

The study was supported by a grant to Dr. Ozen from the Rheumatology Research Foundation. Dr. Galloway reported having no relevant disclosures.

PHILADELPHIA – Prednisone appears to have the edge over colchicine for control of pain in patients with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, an intensely painful rheumatic disease primarily affecting older patients.

Among 111 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis randomized to receive either prednisone or colchicine for control of acute pain in a multicenter study, 2 days of therapy with the oral agents provided equivalent pain relief on the second day, and patients generally tolerated each agent well, reported Tristan Pascart, MD, from the Groupement Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille (France).

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Almost three-fourths of patients are considered to be good responders to both drugs on day 3, and, maybe, safety is the key issue distinguishing the two treatments: Colchicine was generally well tolerated, but even with this very short time frame of treatment, one patient out of five had diarrhea, which is more of a concern in this elderly population at risk of dehydration,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In contrast, only about 6% of patients assigned to prednisone had diarrhea, and other adverse events that occurred more frequently with the corticosteroid, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, and insomnia all resolved after the therapy was stopped.
 

Common and acutely painful

Acute CPP crystal arthritis is a common complication that often occurs during hospitalization for primarily nonrheumatologic causes, Dr. Pascart said, and “in the absence of clinical trials, the management relies on expert opinion, which stems from extrapolated data from gap studies” primarily with prednisone or colchicine, Dr. Pascart said.

To fill in the knowledge gap, Dr. Pascart and colleagues conducted the COLCHICORT study to evaluate whether the two drugs were comparable in efficacy and safety for control of acute pain in a vulnerable population.

The multicenter, open-label trial included patients older than age 65 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² who presented with acute CPP deposition arthritis with symptoms occurring within the previous 36 hours. CPP arthritis was defined by the identification of CPP crystals on synovial fluid analysis or typical clinical presentation with evidence of chondrocalcinosis on x-rays or ultrasound.

Patients with a history of gout, cognitive decline that could impair pain assessment, or contraindications to either of the study drugs were excluded.

The participants were randomized to receive either colchicine 1.5 mg (1 mg to start, then 0.5 mg one hour later) at baseline and then 1 mg on day 1, or oral prednisone 30 mg at baseline and on day 1. The patients also received 1 g of systemic acetaminophen, and three 50-mg doses of tramadol during the first 24 hours.

Of the 111 patients randomized, 54 were assigned to receive prednisone, and 57 were assigned to receive colchicine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, with a mean age of about 86 years, body mass index of around 25 kg/m², and blood pressure in the range of 130/69 mm Hg.

For nearly half of all patients in study each arm the most painful joint was the knee, followed by wrists and ankles.

There was no difference between the groups in the primary efficacy outcome of a change at 24 hours over baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) scores, either in a per-protocol analysis or modified intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change in VAS at 24 hours in the colchicine group was –36.6 mm, compared with –37.7 mm in the prednisone group. The investigators had previously determined that any difference between the two drugs of less than 13 mm on pain VAS at 24 hours would meet the definition for equivalent efficacy.

In both groups, a majority of patients had either an improvement greater than 50% in pain VAS scores and/or a pain VAS score less than 40 mm at both 24 and 48 hours.

At 7 days of follow-up, 21.8% of patients assigned to colchicine had diarrhea, compared with 5.6% of those assigned to prednisone. Adverse events occurring more frequently with prednisone included hyperglycemia, hypertension, and insomnia.

Patients who received colchicine and were also on statins had a trend toward a higher risk for diarrhea, but the study was not adequately powered to detect an association, and the trend was not statistically significant, Dr. Pascart said.

“Taken together, safety issues suggest that prednisone should be considered as the first-line therapy in acute CPP crystal arthritis. Future research is warranted to determine factors increasing the risk of colchicine-induced diarrhea,” he concluded.
 

Both drugs are used

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who attended the session where the data were presented, has a special clinical interest in CPP deposition disease. She applauded Dr. Pascart and colleagues for conducting a rare clinical trial in CPP crystal arthritis.

In an interview, she said that the study suggests “we can keep in mind shorter courses of treatment for acute CPP crystal arthritis; I think that’s one big takeaway from this study.”

Asked whether she would change her practice based on the findings, Dr. Tedeschi replied: “I personally am not sure that I would be moved to use prednisone more than colchicine; I actually take away from this that colchicine is equivalent to prednisone for short-term use for CPP arthritis, but I think it’s also really important to note that this is in the context of quite a lot of acetaminophen and quite a lot of tramadol, and frankly I don’t usually use tramadol with my patients, but I might consider doing that, especially as there were no delirium events in this population.”

Dr. Tedeschi was not involved in the study.

Asked the same question, Michael Toprover, MD, from New York University Langone Medical Center, a moderator of the session who was not involved in the study, said: “I usually use a combination of medications. I generally, in someone who is hospitalized in particular and is in such severe pain, use a combination of colchicine and prednisone, unless I’m worried about infection, in which case I’ll start colchicine until we’ve proven that it’s CPPD, and then I’ll add prednisone.”

The study was funded by PHRC-1 GIRCI Nord Ouest, a clinical research program funded by the Ministry of Health in France. Dr. Pascart, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Toprover all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – Prednisone appears to have the edge over colchicine for control of pain in patients with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, an intensely painful rheumatic disease primarily affecting older patients.

Among 111 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis randomized to receive either prednisone or colchicine for control of acute pain in a multicenter study, 2 days of therapy with the oral agents provided equivalent pain relief on the second day, and patients generally tolerated each agent well, reported Tristan Pascart, MD, from the Groupement Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille (France).

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Almost three-fourths of patients are considered to be good responders to both drugs on day 3, and, maybe, safety is the key issue distinguishing the two treatments: Colchicine was generally well tolerated, but even with this very short time frame of treatment, one patient out of five had diarrhea, which is more of a concern in this elderly population at risk of dehydration,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In contrast, only about 6% of patients assigned to prednisone had diarrhea, and other adverse events that occurred more frequently with the corticosteroid, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, and insomnia all resolved after the therapy was stopped.
 

Common and acutely painful

Acute CPP crystal arthritis is a common complication that often occurs during hospitalization for primarily nonrheumatologic causes, Dr. Pascart said, and “in the absence of clinical trials, the management relies on expert opinion, which stems from extrapolated data from gap studies” primarily with prednisone or colchicine, Dr. Pascart said.

To fill in the knowledge gap, Dr. Pascart and colleagues conducted the COLCHICORT study to evaluate whether the two drugs were comparable in efficacy and safety for control of acute pain in a vulnerable population.

The multicenter, open-label trial included patients older than age 65 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² who presented with acute CPP deposition arthritis with symptoms occurring within the previous 36 hours. CPP arthritis was defined by the identification of CPP crystals on synovial fluid analysis or typical clinical presentation with evidence of chondrocalcinosis on x-rays or ultrasound.

Patients with a history of gout, cognitive decline that could impair pain assessment, or contraindications to either of the study drugs were excluded.

The participants were randomized to receive either colchicine 1.5 mg (1 mg to start, then 0.5 mg one hour later) at baseline and then 1 mg on day 1, or oral prednisone 30 mg at baseline and on day 1. The patients also received 1 g of systemic acetaminophen, and three 50-mg doses of tramadol during the first 24 hours.

Of the 111 patients randomized, 54 were assigned to receive prednisone, and 57 were assigned to receive colchicine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, with a mean age of about 86 years, body mass index of around 25 kg/m², and blood pressure in the range of 130/69 mm Hg.

For nearly half of all patients in study each arm the most painful joint was the knee, followed by wrists and ankles.

There was no difference between the groups in the primary efficacy outcome of a change at 24 hours over baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) scores, either in a per-protocol analysis or modified intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change in VAS at 24 hours in the colchicine group was –36.6 mm, compared with –37.7 mm in the prednisone group. The investigators had previously determined that any difference between the two drugs of less than 13 mm on pain VAS at 24 hours would meet the definition for equivalent efficacy.

In both groups, a majority of patients had either an improvement greater than 50% in pain VAS scores and/or a pain VAS score less than 40 mm at both 24 and 48 hours.

At 7 days of follow-up, 21.8% of patients assigned to colchicine had diarrhea, compared with 5.6% of those assigned to prednisone. Adverse events occurring more frequently with prednisone included hyperglycemia, hypertension, and insomnia.

Patients who received colchicine and were also on statins had a trend toward a higher risk for diarrhea, but the study was not adequately powered to detect an association, and the trend was not statistically significant, Dr. Pascart said.

“Taken together, safety issues suggest that prednisone should be considered as the first-line therapy in acute CPP crystal arthritis. Future research is warranted to determine factors increasing the risk of colchicine-induced diarrhea,” he concluded.
 

Both drugs are used

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who attended the session where the data were presented, has a special clinical interest in CPP deposition disease. She applauded Dr. Pascart and colleagues for conducting a rare clinical trial in CPP crystal arthritis.

In an interview, she said that the study suggests “we can keep in mind shorter courses of treatment for acute CPP crystal arthritis; I think that’s one big takeaway from this study.”

Asked whether she would change her practice based on the findings, Dr. Tedeschi replied: “I personally am not sure that I would be moved to use prednisone more than colchicine; I actually take away from this that colchicine is equivalent to prednisone for short-term use for CPP arthritis, but I think it’s also really important to note that this is in the context of quite a lot of acetaminophen and quite a lot of tramadol, and frankly I don’t usually use tramadol with my patients, but I might consider doing that, especially as there were no delirium events in this population.”

Dr. Tedeschi was not involved in the study.

Asked the same question, Michael Toprover, MD, from New York University Langone Medical Center, a moderator of the session who was not involved in the study, said: “I usually use a combination of medications. I generally, in someone who is hospitalized in particular and is in such severe pain, use a combination of colchicine and prednisone, unless I’m worried about infection, in which case I’ll start colchicine until we’ve proven that it’s CPPD, and then I’ll add prednisone.”

The study was funded by PHRC-1 GIRCI Nord Ouest, a clinical research program funded by the Ministry of Health in France. Dr. Pascart, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Toprover all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – Prednisone appears to have the edge over colchicine for control of pain in patients with acute calcium pyrophosphate (CPP) crystal arthritis, an intensely painful rheumatic disease primarily affecting older patients.

Among 111 patients with acute CPP crystal arthritis randomized to receive either prednisone or colchicine for control of acute pain in a multicenter study, 2 days of therapy with the oral agents provided equivalent pain relief on the second day, and patients generally tolerated each agent well, reported Tristan Pascart, MD, from the Groupement Hospitalier de l’Institut Catholique de Lille (France).

Neil Osterweil/MDedge News

“Almost three-fourths of patients are considered to be good responders to both drugs on day 3, and, maybe, safety is the key issue distinguishing the two treatments: Colchicine was generally well tolerated, but even with this very short time frame of treatment, one patient out of five had diarrhea, which is more of a concern in this elderly population at risk of dehydration,” he said in an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

In contrast, only about 6% of patients assigned to prednisone had diarrhea, and other adverse events that occurred more frequently with the corticosteroid, including hypertension, hyperglycemia, and insomnia all resolved after the therapy was stopped.
 

Common and acutely painful

Acute CPP crystal arthritis is a common complication that often occurs during hospitalization for primarily nonrheumatologic causes, Dr. Pascart said, and “in the absence of clinical trials, the management relies on expert opinion, which stems from extrapolated data from gap studies” primarily with prednisone or colchicine, Dr. Pascart said.

To fill in the knowledge gap, Dr. Pascart and colleagues conducted the COLCHICORT study to evaluate whether the two drugs were comparable in efficacy and safety for control of acute pain in a vulnerable population.

The multicenter, open-label trial included patients older than age 65 years with an estimated glomerular filtration rate above 30 mL/min per 1.73 m² who presented with acute CPP deposition arthritis with symptoms occurring within the previous 36 hours. CPP arthritis was defined by the identification of CPP crystals on synovial fluid analysis or typical clinical presentation with evidence of chondrocalcinosis on x-rays or ultrasound.

Patients with a history of gout, cognitive decline that could impair pain assessment, or contraindications to either of the study drugs were excluded.

The participants were randomized to receive either colchicine 1.5 mg (1 mg to start, then 0.5 mg one hour later) at baseline and then 1 mg on day 1, or oral prednisone 30 mg at baseline and on day 1. The patients also received 1 g of systemic acetaminophen, and three 50-mg doses of tramadol during the first 24 hours.

Of the 111 patients randomized, 54 were assigned to receive prednisone, and 57 were assigned to receive colchicine. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups, with a mean age of about 86 years, body mass index of around 25 kg/m², and blood pressure in the range of 130/69 mm Hg.

For nearly half of all patients in study each arm the most painful joint was the knee, followed by wrists and ankles.

There was no difference between the groups in the primary efficacy outcome of a change at 24 hours over baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) (0-100 mm) scores, either in a per-protocol analysis or modified intention-to-treat analysis. The mean change in VAS at 24 hours in the colchicine group was –36.6 mm, compared with –37.7 mm in the prednisone group. The investigators had previously determined that any difference between the two drugs of less than 13 mm on pain VAS at 24 hours would meet the definition for equivalent efficacy.

In both groups, a majority of patients had either an improvement greater than 50% in pain VAS scores and/or a pain VAS score less than 40 mm at both 24 and 48 hours.

At 7 days of follow-up, 21.8% of patients assigned to colchicine had diarrhea, compared with 5.6% of those assigned to prednisone. Adverse events occurring more frequently with prednisone included hyperglycemia, hypertension, and insomnia.

Patients who received colchicine and were also on statins had a trend toward a higher risk for diarrhea, but the study was not adequately powered to detect an association, and the trend was not statistically significant, Dr. Pascart said.

“Taken together, safety issues suggest that prednisone should be considered as the first-line therapy in acute CPP crystal arthritis. Future research is warranted to determine factors increasing the risk of colchicine-induced diarrhea,” he concluded.
 

Both drugs are used

Sara K. Tedeschi, MD, from Brigham & Women’s Hospital in Boston, who attended the session where the data were presented, has a special clinical interest in CPP deposition disease. She applauded Dr. Pascart and colleagues for conducting a rare clinical trial in CPP crystal arthritis.

In an interview, she said that the study suggests “we can keep in mind shorter courses of treatment for acute CPP crystal arthritis; I think that’s one big takeaway from this study.”

Asked whether she would change her practice based on the findings, Dr. Tedeschi replied: “I personally am not sure that I would be moved to use prednisone more than colchicine; I actually take away from this that colchicine is equivalent to prednisone for short-term use for CPP arthritis, but I think it’s also really important to note that this is in the context of quite a lot of acetaminophen and quite a lot of tramadol, and frankly I don’t usually use tramadol with my patients, but I might consider doing that, especially as there were no delirium events in this population.”

Dr. Tedeschi was not involved in the study.

Asked the same question, Michael Toprover, MD, from New York University Langone Medical Center, a moderator of the session who was not involved in the study, said: “I usually use a combination of medications. I generally, in someone who is hospitalized in particular and is in such severe pain, use a combination of colchicine and prednisone, unless I’m worried about infection, in which case I’ll start colchicine until we’ve proven that it’s CPPD, and then I’ll add prednisone.”

The study was funded by PHRC-1 GIRCI Nord Ouest, a clinical research program funded by the Ministry of Health in France. Dr. Pascart, Dr. Tedeschi, and Dr. Toprover all reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – Women with spondyloarthritis (SpA) who are desiring pregnancy may want to consider decreasing use or discontinuing use (with supervision) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before conception, new data suggest.

Researchers have found a connection between NSAID use and age and a significantly longer time to conception among women with spondyloarthritis. Sabrina Hamroun, MMed, with the rheumatology department at the University Hospital Cochin, Paris, presented the findings during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Subfertility group took an average of 16 months to get pregnant

Subfertility was observed in 40 (45.4%) of the women, with an average time to conception of 16.1 months. A woman was considered subfertile if her time to conception was more than 12 months or if she did not become pregnant.

The average preconception Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 2.9 (+/- 2.1), the authors noted. The average age of the participants was 32 years.

Twenty-three patients were treated with NSAIDs, eight with corticosteroids, 12 with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and 61 with biologics.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, body mass index, disease duration and severity, smoking, form of SpA (axial, peripheral, or both), and medication in the preconception period.

They found significant associations between longer time to conception and age (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.40; P < .001), and a much higher hazard ratio with the use of NSAIDs during preconception (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.15-3.85; P = .01).

Some data unavailable

Ms. Hamroun acknowledged that no data were available on the frequency of sexual intercourse or quality of life, factors that could affect time to conception. Women were asked when they discontinued contraceptive use and actively began trying to become pregnant.

She stated that information on the dose of NSAIDs used by the patients was incomplete, noting, “We were therefore unable to adjust the results of our statistical analyses on the dose used by patients.”

Additionally, because the study participants were patients at tertiary centers in France and had more severe disease, the results may not be generalizable to all women of childbearing age. Patients with less severe SpA are often managed in outpatient settings in France, she said.

When asked about alternatives to NSAIDs, Ms. Hamroun said that anti–tumor necrosis factor agents with low placental passage may be a good alternative “if a woman with long-standing difficulties to conceive needs a regular use of NSAIDs to control disease activity, in the absence of any other cause of subfertility.”

The patient’s age must also be considered, she noted.

“A therapeutic switch may be favored in a woman over 35 years of age, for example, whose fertility is already impaired by age,” Ms. Hamroun said.

As for the mechanism that might explain the effects of NSAIDs on conception, Ms. Hamroun said that prostaglandins are essential to ovulation and embryo implantation and explained that NSAIDs may work against ovulation and result in poor implantation (miscarriage) by blocking prostaglandins.

She pointed out that her results are in line with the ACR’s recommendation to discontinue NSAID use during the preconception period in women with SpA who are having difficulty conceiving.
 

Control before conception is important

Sinead Maguire, MD, a clinical and research fellow in the Spondylitis Program at Toronto (Ont.) Western Hospital who was not part of the study, said the study highlights the importance of optimizing disease control before conception.

“There are a number of things rheumatologists can do to support our SpA patients when they are trying to conceive,” she told this news organization. “One of the most important issues to address is ensuring their SpA is in remission and continues to remain so. For that reason, if a woman is requiring regular NSAIDs for symptom control, the results of this study might encourage me to consider a biologic agent sooner to ensure remission.”

She urged women who want to become pregnant to discuss medications with their rheumatologist before trying to conceive.

“It is very exciting to see studies such as this so that rheumatologists can provide answers to our patients’ questions with evidence-based advice,” she said.

Ms. Hamroun and several coauthors had no disclosures. Other coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Merck/MSD, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and/or UCB. Dr. Maguire reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Women with spondyloarthritis (SpA) who are desiring pregnancy may want to consider decreasing use or discontinuing use (with supervision) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before conception, new data suggest.

Researchers have found a connection between NSAID use and age and a significantly longer time to conception among women with spondyloarthritis. Sabrina Hamroun, MMed, with the rheumatology department at the University Hospital Cochin, Paris, presented the findings during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Subfertility group took an average of 16 months to get pregnant

Subfertility was observed in 40 (45.4%) of the women, with an average time to conception of 16.1 months. A woman was considered subfertile if her time to conception was more than 12 months or if she did not become pregnant.

The average preconception Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 2.9 (+/- 2.1), the authors noted. The average age of the participants was 32 years.

Twenty-three patients were treated with NSAIDs, eight with corticosteroids, 12 with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and 61 with biologics.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, body mass index, disease duration and severity, smoking, form of SpA (axial, peripheral, or both), and medication in the preconception period.

They found significant associations between longer time to conception and age (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.40; P < .001), and a much higher hazard ratio with the use of NSAIDs during preconception (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.15-3.85; P = .01).

Some data unavailable

Ms. Hamroun acknowledged that no data were available on the frequency of sexual intercourse or quality of life, factors that could affect time to conception. Women were asked when they discontinued contraceptive use and actively began trying to become pregnant.

She stated that information on the dose of NSAIDs used by the patients was incomplete, noting, “We were therefore unable to adjust the results of our statistical analyses on the dose used by patients.”

Additionally, because the study participants were patients at tertiary centers in France and had more severe disease, the results may not be generalizable to all women of childbearing age. Patients with less severe SpA are often managed in outpatient settings in France, she said.

When asked about alternatives to NSAIDs, Ms. Hamroun said that anti–tumor necrosis factor agents with low placental passage may be a good alternative “if a woman with long-standing difficulties to conceive needs a regular use of NSAIDs to control disease activity, in the absence of any other cause of subfertility.”

The patient’s age must also be considered, she noted.

“A therapeutic switch may be favored in a woman over 35 years of age, for example, whose fertility is already impaired by age,” Ms. Hamroun said.

As for the mechanism that might explain the effects of NSAIDs on conception, Ms. Hamroun said that prostaglandins are essential to ovulation and embryo implantation and explained that NSAIDs may work against ovulation and result in poor implantation (miscarriage) by blocking prostaglandins.

She pointed out that her results are in line with the ACR’s recommendation to discontinue NSAID use during the preconception period in women with SpA who are having difficulty conceiving.
 

Control before conception is important

Sinead Maguire, MD, a clinical and research fellow in the Spondylitis Program at Toronto (Ont.) Western Hospital who was not part of the study, said the study highlights the importance of optimizing disease control before conception.

“There are a number of things rheumatologists can do to support our SpA patients when they are trying to conceive,” she told this news organization. “One of the most important issues to address is ensuring their SpA is in remission and continues to remain so. For that reason, if a woman is requiring regular NSAIDs for symptom control, the results of this study might encourage me to consider a biologic agent sooner to ensure remission.”

She urged women who want to become pregnant to discuss medications with their rheumatologist before trying to conceive.

“It is very exciting to see studies such as this so that rheumatologists can provide answers to our patients’ questions with evidence-based advice,” she said.

Ms. Hamroun and several coauthors had no disclosures. Other coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Merck/MSD, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and/or UCB. Dr. Maguire reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Women with spondyloarthritis (SpA) who are desiring pregnancy may want to consider decreasing use or discontinuing use (with supervision) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs before conception, new data suggest.

Researchers have found a connection between NSAID use and age and a significantly longer time to conception among women with spondyloarthritis. Sabrina Hamroun, MMed, with the rheumatology department at the University Hospital Cochin, Paris, presented the findings during a press conference at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Subfertility group took an average of 16 months to get pregnant

Subfertility was observed in 40 (45.4%) of the women, with an average time to conception of 16.1 months. A woman was considered subfertile if her time to conception was more than 12 months or if she did not become pregnant.

The average preconception Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index score was 2.9 (+/- 2.1), the authors noted. The average age of the participants was 32 years.

Twenty-three patients were treated with NSAIDs, eight with corticosteroids, 12 with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and 61 with biologics.

Researchers adjusted for factors including age, body mass index, disease duration and severity, smoking, form of SpA (axial, peripheral, or both), and medication in the preconception period.

They found significant associations between longer time to conception and age (hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.40; P < .001), and a much higher hazard ratio with the use of NSAIDs during preconception (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.15-3.85; P = .01).

Some data unavailable

Ms. Hamroun acknowledged that no data were available on the frequency of sexual intercourse or quality of life, factors that could affect time to conception. Women were asked when they discontinued contraceptive use and actively began trying to become pregnant.

She stated that information on the dose of NSAIDs used by the patients was incomplete, noting, “We were therefore unable to adjust the results of our statistical analyses on the dose used by patients.”

Additionally, because the study participants were patients at tertiary centers in France and had more severe disease, the results may not be generalizable to all women of childbearing age. Patients with less severe SpA are often managed in outpatient settings in France, she said.

When asked about alternatives to NSAIDs, Ms. Hamroun said that anti–tumor necrosis factor agents with low placental passage may be a good alternative “if a woman with long-standing difficulties to conceive needs a regular use of NSAIDs to control disease activity, in the absence of any other cause of subfertility.”

The patient’s age must also be considered, she noted.

“A therapeutic switch may be favored in a woman over 35 years of age, for example, whose fertility is already impaired by age,” Ms. Hamroun said.

As for the mechanism that might explain the effects of NSAIDs on conception, Ms. Hamroun said that prostaglandins are essential to ovulation and embryo implantation and explained that NSAIDs may work against ovulation and result in poor implantation (miscarriage) by blocking prostaglandins.

She pointed out that her results are in line with the ACR’s recommendation to discontinue NSAID use during the preconception period in women with SpA who are having difficulty conceiving.
 

Control before conception is important

Sinead Maguire, MD, a clinical and research fellow in the Spondylitis Program at Toronto (Ont.) Western Hospital who was not part of the study, said the study highlights the importance of optimizing disease control before conception.

“There are a number of things rheumatologists can do to support our SpA patients when they are trying to conceive,” she told this news organization. “One of the most important issues to address is ensuring their SpA is in remission and continues to remain so. For that reason, if a woman is requiring regular NSAIDs for symptom control, the results of this study might encourage me to consider a biologic agent sooner to ensure remission.”

She urged women who want to become pregnant to discuss medications with their rheumatologist before trying to conceive.

“It is very exciting to see studies such as this so that rheumatologists can provide answers to our patients’ questions with evidence-based advice,” she said.

Ms. Hamroun and several coauthors had no disclosures. Other coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Merck/MSD, Novartis, Janssen, AbbVie/Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Eli Lilly, Novartis, and/or UCB. Dr. Maguire reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.

PHILADELPHIA – Combining the immunomodulatory agent mycophenolate with the antifibrotic pirfenidone led to more rapid improvement and showed a trend to be more effective than mycophenolate mofetil alone for treating the signs and symptoms of scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease, but the combination therapy came with an increase in side effects, according to results from the Scleroderma Lung Study III.

Dinesh Khanna, MBBS, MSc, of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, presented the results at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. He noted some problems with the study – namely its small size, enrolling only 51 patients, about one-third of its original goal. But he also said it showed a potential signal for efficacy and that the study itself could serve as a “template” for future studies of combination mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) plus pirfenidone therapy for scleroderma-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD).

“The pirfenidone patients had quite a bit more GI side effects and photosensitivity, and those are known side effects,” Dr. Khanna said in an interview. “So the combination therapy had more side effects but trends to higher efficacy.”

The design of SLS-III, a phase 2 clinical trial, was a challenge, Dr. Khanna explained. The goal was to enroll 150 SSc-ILD patients who hadn’t had any previous treatment for their disease. Finding those patients proved difficult. “In fact, if you look at the recent history, 70% of the patients with early diffuse scleroderma are on MMF,” he said in his presentation. Compounding low study enrollment was the intervening COVID-19 pandemic, he added.
 

Testing a faster-acting combination

Nonetheless, the trial managed to enroll 27 patients in the combination therapy group and 24 in the MMF-plus-placebo group and compared their outcomes over 18 months. Study dosing was 1,500 mg MMF twice daily and pirfenidone 801 mg three times daily, titrated to the tolerable dose.

Despite the study’s being underpowered, Dr. Khanna said, it still reported some notable outcomes that merit further investigation. “I think what was intriguing in the study was the long-term benefit in the patient-reported outcomes and the structural changes,” he said in the interview.

Among those notable outcomes was a clinically significant change in forced vital capacity (FVC) percentage for the combination vs. the placebo groups: 2.24% vs. 2.09%. He also noted that the combination group saw a somewhat more robust improvement in FVC at six months: 2.59% (± 0.98%) vs. 0.92% (± 1.1%) in the placebo group.

The combination group showed greater improvements in high-resolution computed tomography-evaluated lung involvement and lung fibrosis and patient-reported outcomes, including a statistically significant 3.67-point greater improvement in PROMIS-29 physical function score (4.42 vs. 0.75).

The patients on combination therapy had higher rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), and seven discontinued one or both study drugs early, all in the combined arm. Four combination therapy patients had six SAEs, compared to two placebo patients with three SAEs. In the combination group, SAEs included chest pain, herpes zoster ophthalmicus, nodular basal cell cancer, marginal zone B cell lymphoma, renal crisis, and dyspnea. SAEs in the placebo group were colitis, COVID-19 and hypoxic respiratory failure.

Study design challenges

Nonetheless, Dr. Khanna said the SLS-III data are consistent with the SLS-II findings, with mean improvements in FVC of 2.24% and 2.1%, respectively.

“The next study may be able to replicate what we tried to do, keeping in mind that there are really no MMF-naive patients who are walking around,” Dr. Khanna said. “So the challenge is about the feasibility of recruiting within a trial vs. trying to show a statistical difference between the drug and placebo.”

This study could serve as a foundation for future studies of MMF in patients with SSc-ILD, Robert Spiera, MD, of the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “There are lessons to be learned both from the study but also from prior studies looking at MMF use in the background in patients treated with other drugs in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Spiera noted that the study had other challenges besides the difficulty in recruiting patients who hadn’t been on MMF therapy. “A great challenge is that the benefit with regard to the impact on the lungs from MMF seems most prominent in the first 6 months to a year to even 2 years that somebody is on the drug,” he said.

The other challenge with this study is that a large proportion of patients had limited systemic disease and relatively lower levels of skin disease compared with other studies of patients on MMF, Dr. Spiera said.

“The optimal treatment of scleroderma-associated lung disease remains a very important and not-adequately met need,” he said. “Particularly, we’re looking for drugs that are tolerable in a patient population that are very prone to GI side effects in general. This study and others have taught us a lot about trial design, and I think more globally this will allow us to move this field forward.”

Dr. Khanna disclosed relationships with Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Horizon Therapeutics USA, Janssen Global Services, Prometheus Biosciences, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., Genentech/Roche, Theraly, and Pfizer. Genentech provided funding for the study and pirfenidone and placebo drugs at no cost.

Dr. Spiera disclosed relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Corbus Pharmaceutical, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Sanofi, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche and Vera.