User login
Diacerein, Resveratrol, Botulinum Toxin Disappoint in Knee Osteoarthritis
VIENNA — Data do not back the use of diacerein or resveratrol for managing the pain of knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of two well-performed, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.
During the News in Therapies session at the OARSI 2024 World Congress, the null findings of the DICKENS study and ARTHROL trial were presented alongside a reappraisal of the possible role of botulinum toxin.
DICKENS Study of Diacerein
“The role of diacerein in the treatment of OA is controversial,” acknowledged Dawn Aitken, PhD, associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. “There are only a few acceptable quality trials to date, and the results are inconsistent,” Dr. Aitken added.
Indeed, a Cochrane review performed in 2014 had concluded that there was “low-quality evidence that diacerein had a small beneficial effect on pain,” she said. The reported overall effect size on a 100-mm visual analog scale, based on a meta-analysis of 10 trials, has been just −8.65 mm, equating to just a 9% pain reduction.
At the time the DICKENS study was conceived, diacerein was recommended by a number of international guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA, although further, higher-quality studies were needed.
Diacerein blocks interleukin-1 beta, which is one of the key inflammatory markers of OA, so Dr. Aitken and collaborators postulated that perhaps it would work better if used in patients with an inflammatory phenotype.
They set about to test their hypothesis by recruiting 260 individuals with knee OA and MRI-detected effusion synovitis. The participants were then randomly allocated to treatment with either diacerein or a matching placebo for 24 weeks.
Individuals in the diacerein group were treated with an oral dose of 50 mg once daily for the first 2 weeks. If tolerated, the dose was increased to 50 mg twice daily.
No significant improvement in the primary endpoint of knee pain was seen comparing diacerein with placebo, with mean values of 53.2 mm and 56.4 mm, respectively, at 24 weeks using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale where 0 represented no pain and 100 represented the worst pain. It followed that there was no significant difference in the change from baseline to week 24 (−19.9 mm vs −18.6 mm; P = .77).
There was also no difference in the secondary endpoints, which included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain, function, and stiffness. In fact, placebo-treated patients appeared to do better in terms of resolution of effusion synovitis as measured by a repeat MRI and quality of life, Dr. Aitken reported.
“These findings do not support the use of diacerein in treating patients with knee OA and effusion synovitis,” Dr. Aitken concluded.
ARTHROL Trial of Resveratrol
Similarly, negative results were reported for resveratrol from the ARTHROL trial, with 55% of the resveratrol- and 55% of placebo-treated individuals achieving a 20% reduction in knee pain intensity at 3 months. The actual change in knee pain from baseline to 3 months was −15.7 for resveratrol and −15.2 for placebo on a numerical rating scale that went from 0 (no pain) up to 100 (worst pain).
Resveratrol is found naturally in grapes, peanuts, pine cones, and Chinese knotweed, and there is a growing body of evidence that it may have pleiotropic effects, said investigator Christelle Nguyen, PhD, MD, a professor of physical and rehabilitation medicine at Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
It’s available in a powder form over the counter as a treatment for multiple ailments, but more recently, became available as an oral formulation. Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wanted to know if this would make a difference to OA knee pain when added to usual care.
A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial was therefore conducted that involved 142 people with knee OA who had been experiencing knee pain for at least 1 month. The participants were equally randomly allocated to receive either oral resveratrol given as two caplets of 20 mg twice daily for the first week, then once daily for a total of 6 months, or a matched placebo.
There was also no effect of resveratrol vs placebo on a host of secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 6 months.
The interpretation is that oral resveratrol may not be effective in this indication or have a biologic effect on the pain pathway, Dr. Nguyen said.
“Our findings do not support the use of [trans-resveratrol] supplementation in this patented formulation for reducing knee pain in adults with painful knee OA,” she concluded.
Botulinum Toxin: Over But Not Out?
Dr. Nguyen separately reported data from a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for knee OA pain.
Seven of the 14 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had looked specifically at knee OA outcomes in the short, intermediate, and long term.
Results showed a nonsignificant trend favoring BoNT-A use, with the standard mean difference in pain of 0.35 (−0.82; 0.12), −0.27 (−0.61; 0.08), and −0.43 (−1.12; 0.26) for short-, intermediate-, and long-term use, respectively.
In contrast, pain reductions were seen with BoNT-A in three trials that included people with OA of the shoulder or base of the thumb. This begs the question as to whether botulinum toxin may still have a role to play, Dr. Nguyen said in an interview.
“It seems like there may be a positive effect for the shoulder joint and base of the thumb,” she told this news organization.
“So, basically, we found differences between large and small to intermediate joints,” Dr. Nguyen added. “It questions the dilution of botulinum toxin into the joint. If it’s a big joint, maybe the dilution is too high,” she suggested.
This hypothesis will be tested in the upcoming RHIBOT II trial that will begin recruitment later this year. This is a follow-on from the RHIBOT trial that was published in The Lancet Rheumatology 2 years ago.
Meanwhile, the use of botulinum toxin is off-label, Dr. Nguyen said. “We use it in our clinics only when first-line treatment had failed for base of thumb OA.” It’s not offered as a stand-alone intervention, and the IA injections need to be given by someone with experience, she said.
Methodologically Sound Studies
Commenting on the studies, Nancy E. Lane, MD, said: “There have been small botulinum studies before but not powered enough so that you could confirm or refute hypotheses.”
Dr. Lane, endowed professor of medicine, rheumatology, and aging research and director for the Center for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, added: “Similarly for resveratrol, there have been lots of studies.”
Moreover, Dr. Lane observed that the studies were “really well-designed. They were well-powered. The subjects were selected in such a way that was good rigor in the methodologic design, and there were enough people in the studies so that you could really believe the results.”
The take-home is probably that these approaches do not work, Dr. Lane said, “at least when you apply them to moderate-severe knee OA patients, they don’t seem to make a difference.”
The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The DICKENS study of diacerein was an investigator-initiated trial that was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. TRB Chemedica International S.A. provided diacerein free of charge for the trial but was not involved in the implementation or data analysis. Dr. Aitken had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The ARTHROL trial of oral resveratrol was funded by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity (Ministré des Solidarités et de la Santé). Yvery Laboratory provided the resveratrol caplet and matching placebo free of charge. Dr. Nguyen has financial relationships with Actelion, Grünenthal, Ipsen, Lilly, Meda, Merz, Novartis, Preciphar, Sandoz, Takeda, Thuasne, and UCB.
Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — Data do not back the use of diacerein or resveratrol for managing the pain of knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of two well-performed, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.
During the News in Therapies session at the OARSI 2024 World Congress, the null findings of the DICKENS study and ARTHROL trial were presented alongside a reappraisal of the possible role of botulinum toxin.
DICKENS Study of Diacerein
“The role of diacerein in the treatment of OA is controversial,” acknowledged Dawn Aitken, PhD, associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. “There are only a few acceptable quality trials to date, and the results are inconsistent,” Dr. Aitken added.
Indeed, a Cochrane review performed in 2014 had concluded that there was “low-quality evidence that diacerein had a small beneficial effect on pain,” she said. The reported overall effect size on a 100-mm visual analog scale, based on a meta-analysis of 10 trials, has been just −8.65 mm, equating to just a 9% pain reduction.
At the time the DICKENS study was conceived, diacerein was recommended by a number of international guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA, although further, higher-quality studies were needed.
Diacerein blocks interleukin-1 beta, which is one of the key inflammatory markers of OA, so Dr. Aitken and collaborators postulated that perhaps it would work better if used in patients with an inflammatory phenotype.
They set about to test their hypothesis by recruiting 260 individuals with knee OA and MRI-detected effusion synovitis. The participants were then randomly allocated to treatment with either diacerein or a matching placebo for 24 weeks.
Individuals in the diacerein group were treated with an oral dose of 50 mg once daily for the first 2 weeks. If tolerated, the dose was increased to 50 mg twice daily.
No significant improvement in the primary endpoint of knee pain was seen comparing diacerein with placebo, with mean values of 53.2 mm and 56.4 mm, respectively, at 24 weeks using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale where 0 represented no pain and 100 represented the worst pain. It followed that there was no significant difference in the change from baseline to week 24 (−19.9 mm vs −18.6 mm; P = .77).
There was also no difference in the secondary endpoints, which included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain, function, and stiffness. In fact, placebo-treated patients appeared to do better in terms of resolution of effusion synovitis as measured by a repeat MRI and quality of life, Dr. Aitken reported.
“These findings do not support the use of diacerein in treating patients with knee OA and effusion synovitis,” Dr. Aitken concluded.
ARTHROL Trial of Resveratrol
Similarly, negative results were reported for resveratrol from the ARTHROL trial, with 55% of the resveratrol- and 55% of placebo-treated individuals achieving a 20% reduction in knee pain intensity at 3 months. The actual change in knee pain from baseline to 3 months was −15.7 for resveratrol and −15.2 for placebo on a numerical rating scale that went from 0 (no pain) up to 100 (worst pain).
Resveratrol is found naturally in grapes, peanuts, pine cones, and Chinese knotweed, and there is a growing body of evidence that it may have pleiotropic effects, said investigator Christelle Nguyen, PhD, MD, a professor of physical and rehabilitation medicine at Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
It’s available in a powder form over the counter as a treatment for multiple ailments, but more recently, became available as an oral formulation. Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wanted to know if this would make a difference to OA knee pain when added to usual care.
A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial was therefore conducted that involved 142 people with knee OA who had been experiencing knee pain for at least 1 month. The participants were equally randomly allocated to receive either oral resveratrol given as two caplets of 20 mg twice daily for the first week, then once daily for a total of 6 months, or a matched placebo.
There was also no effect of resveratrol vs placebo on a host of secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 6 months.
The interpretation is that oral resveratrol may not be effective in this indication or have a biologic effect on the pain pathway, Dr. Nguyen said.
“Our findings do not support the use of [trans-resveratrol] supplementation in this patented formulation for reducing knee pain in adults with painful knee OA,” she concluded.
Botulinum Toxin: Over But Not Out?
Dr. Nguyen separately reported data from a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for knee OA pain.
Seven of the 14 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had looked specifically at knee OA outcomes in the short, intermediate, and long term.
Results showed a nonsignificant trend favoring BoNT-A use, with the standard mean difference in pain of 0.35 (−0.82; 0.12), −0.27 (−0.61; 0.08), and −0.43 (−1.12; 0.26) for short-, intermediate-, and long-term use, respectively.
In contrast, pain reductions were seen with BoNT-A in three trials that included people with OA of the shoulder or base of the thumb. This begs the question as to whether botulinum toxin may still have a role to play, Dr. Nguyen said in an interview.
“It seems like there may be a positive effect for the shoulder joint and base of the thumb,” she told this news organization.
“So, basically, we found differences between large and small to intermediate joints,” Dr. Nguyen added. “It questions the dilution of botulinum toxin into the joint. If it’s a big joint, maybe the dilution is too high,” she suggested.
This hypothesis will be tested in the upcoming RHIBOT II trial that will begin recruitment later this year. This is a follow-on from the RHIBOT trial that was published in The Lancet Rheumatology 2 years ago.
Meanwhile, the use of botulinum toxin is off-label, Dr. Nguyen said. “We use it in our clinics only when first-line treatment had failed for base of thumb OA.” It’s not offered as a stand-alone intervention, and the IA injections need to be given by someone with experience, she said.
Methodologically Sound Studies
Commenting on the studies, Nancy E. Lane, MD, said: “There have been small botulinum studies before but not powered enough so that you could confirm or refute hypotheses.”
Dr. Lane, endowed professor of medicine, rheumatology, and aging research and director for the Center for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, added: “Similarly for resveratrol, there have been lots of studies.”
Moreover, Dr. Lane observed that the studies were “really well-designed. They were well-powered. The subjects were selected in such a way that was good rigor in the methodologic design, and there were enough people in the studies so that you could really believe the results.”
The take-home is probably that these approaches do not work, Dr. Lane said, “at least when you apply them to moderate-severe knee OA patients, they don’t seem to make a difference.”
The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The DICKENS study of diacerein was an investigator-initiated trial that was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. TRB Chemedica International S.A. provided diacerein free of charge for the trial but was not involved in the implementation or data analysis. Dr. Aitken had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The ARTHROL trial of oral resveratrol was funded by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity (Ministré des Solidarités et de la Santé). Yvery Laboratory provided the resveratrol caplet and matching placebo free of charge. Dr. Nguyen has financial relationships with Actelion, Grünenthal, Ipsen, Lilly, Meda, Merz, Novartis, Preciphar, Sandoz, Takeda, Thuasne, and UCB.
Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — Data do not back the use of diacerein or resveratrol for managing the pain of knee osteoarthritis (OA), according to the results of two well-performed, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trials.
During the News in Therapies session at the OARSI 2024 World Congress, the null findings of the DICKENS study and ARTHROL trial were presented alongside a reappraisal of the possible role of botulinum toxin.
DICKENS Study of Diacerein
“The role of diacerein in the treatment of OA is controversial,” acknowledged Dawn Aitken, PhD, associate professor at the University of Tasmania in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. “There are only a few acceptable quality trials to date, and the results are inconsistent,” Dr. Aitken added.
Indeed, a Cochrane review performed in 2014 had concluded that there was “low-quality evidence that diacerein had a small beneficial effect on pain,” she said. The reported overall effect size on a 100-mm visual analog scale, based on a meta-analysis of 10 trials, has been just −8.65 mm, equating to just a 9% pain reduction.
At the time the DICKENS study was conceived, diacerein was recommended by a number of international guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA, although further, higher-quality studies were needed.
Diacerein blocks interleukin-1 beta, which is one of the key inflammatory markers of OA, so Dr. Aitken and collaborators postulated that perhaps it would work better if used in patients with an inflammatory phenotype.
They set about to test their hypothesis by recruiting 260 individuals with knee OA and MRI-detected effusion synovitis. The participants were then randomly allocated to treatment with either diacerein or a matching placebo for 24 weeks.
Individuals in the diacerein group were treated with an oral dose of 50 mg once daily for the first 2 weeks. If tolerated, the dose was increased to 50 mg twice daily.
No significant improvement in the primary endpoint of knee pain was seen comparing diacerein with placebo, with mean values of 53.2 mm and 56.4 mm, respectively, at 24 weeks using a 0-100 mm visual analog scale where 0 represented no pain and 100 represented the worst pain. It followed that there was no significant difference in the change from baseline to week 24 (−19.9 mm vs −18.6 mm; P = .77).
There was also no difference in the secondary endpoints, which included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain, function, and stiffness. In fact, placebo-treated patients appeared to do better in terms of resolution of effusion synovitis as measured by a repeat MRI and quality of life, Dr. Aitken reported.
“These findings do not support the use of diacerein in treating patients with knee OA and effusion synovitis,” Dr. Aitken concluded.
ARTHROL Trial of Resveratrol
Similarly, negative results were reported for resveratrol from the ARTHROL trial, with 55% of the resveratrol- and 55% of placebo-treated individuals achieving a 20% reduction in knee pain intensity at 3 months. The actual change in knee pain from baseline to 3 months was −15.7 for resveratrol and −15.2 for placebo on a numerical rating scale that went from 0 (no pain) up to 100 (worst pain).
Resveratrol is found naturally in grapes, peanuts, pine cones, and Chinese knotweed, and there is a growing body of evidence that it may have pleiotropic effects, said investigator Christelle Nguyen, PhD, MD, a professor of physical and rehabilitation medicine at Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.
It’s available in a powder form over the counter as a treatment for multiple ailments, but more recently, became available as an oral formulation. Dr. Nguyen and colleagues wanted to know if this would make a difference to OA knee pain when added to usual care.
A double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized trial was therefore conducted that involved 142 people with knee OA who had been experiencing knee pain for at least 1 month. The participants were equally randomly allocated to receive either oral resveratrol given as two caplets of 20 mg twice daily for the first week, then once daily for a total of 6 months, or a matched placebo.
There was also no effect of resveratrol vs placebo on a host of secondary outcomes measured at 3 and 6 months.
The interpretation is that oral resveratrol may not be effective in this indication or have a biologic effect on the pain pathway, Dr. Nguyen said.
“Our findings do not support the use of [trans-resveratrol] supplementation in this patented formulation for reducing knee pain in adults with painful knee OA,” she concluded.
Botulinum Toxin: Over But Not Out?
Dr. Nguyen separately reported data from a new systematic review and meta-analysis on the use of intra-articular (IA) botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) for knee OA pain.
Seven of the 14 randomized controlled trials included in the meta-analysis had looked specifically at knee OA outcomes in the short, intermediate, and long term.
Results showed a nonsignificant trend favoring BoNT-A use, with the standard mean difference in pain of 0.35 (−0.82; 0.12), −0.27 (−0.61; 0.08), and −0.43 (−1.12; 0.26) for short-, intermediate-, and long-term use, respectively.
In contrast, pain reductions were seen with BoNT-A in three trials that included people with OA of the shoulder or base of the thumb. This begs the question as to whether botulinum toxin may still have a role to play, Dr. Nguyen said in an interview.
“It seems like there may be a positive effect for the shoulder joint and base of the thumb,” she told this news organization.
“So, basically, we found differences between large and small to intermediate joints,” Dr. Nguyen added. “It questions the dilution of botulinum toxin into the joint. If it’s a big joint, maybe the dilution is too high,” she suggested.
This hypothesis will be tested in the upcoming RHIBOT II trial that will begin recruitment later this year. This is a follow-on from the RHIBOT trial that was published in The Lancet Rheumatology 2 years ago.
Meanwhile, the use of botulinum toxin is off-label, Dr. Nguyen said. “We use it in our clinics only when first-line treatment had failed for base of thumb OA.” It’s not offered as a stand-alone intervention, and the IA injections need to be given by someone with experience, she said.
Methodologically Sound Studies
Commenting on the studies, Nancy E. Lane, MD, said: “There have been small botulinum studies before but not powered enough so that you could confirm or refute hypotheses.”
Dr. Lane, endowed professor of medicine, rheumatology, and aging research and director for the Center for Musculoskeletal Health at the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, added: “Similarly for resveratrol, there have been lots of studies.”
Moreover, Dr. Lane observed that the studies were “really well-designed. They were well-powered. The subjects were selected in such a way that was good rigor in the methodologic design, and there were enough people in the studies so that you could really believe the results.”
The take-home is probably that these approaches do not work, Dr. Lane said, “at least when you apply them to moderate-severe knee OA patients, they don’t seem to make a difference.”
The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The DICKENS study of diacerein was an investigator-initiated trial that was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. TRB Chemedica International S.A. provided diacerein free of charge for the trial but was not involved in the implementation or data analysis. Dr. Aitken had no conflicts of interest to disclose.
The ARTHROL trial of oral resveratrol was funded by the French Ministry of Health and Solidarity (Ministré des Solidarités et de la Santé). Yvery Laboratory provided the resveratrol caplet and matching placebo free of charge. Dr. Nguyen has financial relationships with Actelion, Grünenthal, Ipsen, Lilly, Meda, Merz, Novartis, Preciphar, Sandoz, Takeda, Thuasne, and UCB.
Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM OARSI 2024
EMA’s JAK Inhibitor Warning Criteria May Affect Up to 80% of Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).
The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”
To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.
Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.
The work suggests that majority of people who are currently being treated with JAK inhibitors would probably not be advised to start treatment with a JAK inhibitor today, the researchers suggested in their abstract.
Considerable Implications
There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.
“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.
“We are going to exclude practically all of our patients if we follow EMA,” Dr. Emery said. “The implications are considerable because if someone has a DVT [deep vein thrombosis] or an MI [myocardial infarction], when we included them with a risk factor, what’s the implication if they choose to sue you?”
Moreover, the bigger question is what to do with all the people who are already established on a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Emery said. Should patients now switch off their medication? Doing so may well leave them with a period of inflammation that may be more harmful than continuing the JAK inhibitor, he suggested.
Were Cautions Warranted?
Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.
Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).
The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.
Dr. Taylor, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in England, was not only involved in some of the major JAK inhibitor clinical trials but also privy to the EMA’s recent deliberations as an observer during the process. He noted that the EMA originally considered restricting the use of the drug class in patients older than 50 years but settled upon age 65 years and older.
Shared Decision
“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.
“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.
It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.
“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.
“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.
“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
Judicious Use
Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”
Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?
“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”
Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.
“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.
“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”
The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).
The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”
To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.
Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.
The work suggests that majority of people who are currently being treated with JAK inhibitors would probably not be advised to start treatment with a JAK inhibitor today, the researchers suggested in their abstract.
Considerable Implications
There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.
“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.
“We are going to exclude practically all of our patients if we follow EMA,” Dr. Emery said. “The implications are considerable because if someone has a DVT [deep vein thrombosis] or an MI [myocardial infarction], when we included them with a risk factor, what’s the implication if they choose to sue you?”
Moreover, the bigger question is what to do with all the people who are already established on a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Emery said. Should patients now switch off their medication? Doing so may well leave them with a period of inflammation that may be more harmful than continuing the JAK inhibitor, he suggested.
Were Cautions Warranted?
Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.
Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).
The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.
Dr. Taylor, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in England, was not only involved in some of the major JAK inhibitor clinical trials but also privy to the EMA’s recent deliberations as an observer during the process. He noted that the EMA originally considered restricting the use of the drug class in patients older than 50 years but settled upon age 65 years and older.
Shared Decision
“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.
“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.
It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.
“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.
“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.
“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
Judicious Use
Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”
Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?
“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”
Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.
“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.
“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”
The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Four in five people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) fall into “at risk” categories for the initiation of Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors set by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to data from the long-running British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) Biologics Register in RA (BSRBR-RA).
The EMA decided in January 2023 to implement measures to reduce the risk for serious side effects with JAK inhibitors in the treatment of chronic inflammatory diseases. The EMA’s recommendations advise that JAK inhibitors “should be used in the following patients only if no suitable treatment alternatives are available: those aged 65 years or above, those at increased risk of major cardiovascular problems (such as heart attack or stroke), those who smoke or have done so for a long time in the past, and those at increased risk of cancer.” The guidance also says to use JAK inhibitors “with caution in patients with risk factors for blood clots in the lungs and in deep veins (venous thromboembolism [VTE]) ... [and that] the doses should be reduced in patient groups who are at risk of VTE, cancer, or major cardiovascular problems, where possible.”
To gauge the potential impact of the EMA’s decision, researchers analyzed BSRBR-RA data from 1341 individuals with RA who had started treatment with a JAK inhibitor before the agency issued its new recommendations. Among these individuals, 1075 (80.2%) met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion. Half (54%) were current or past smokers, 44% had an increased risk for major cardiovascular events such as heart attack or stroke, 39% were 65 years or older, and 10% had an increased risk for cancer.
Nearly half (49%) of the study population who met ≥ 1 EMA risk criterion had received only one (31%) or no (18%) prior biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), Zixing Tian, a PhD student at the University of Manchester in England, reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology. Of the remainder, 23% had received two prior bDMARDs, and 28% had previously received three or more bDMARDs.
The work suggests that majority of people who are currently being treated with JAK inhibitors would probably not be advised to start treatment with a JAK inhibitor today, the researchers suggested in their abstract.
Considerable Implications
There are potentially two ways of interpreting these data, suggested Ken Baker, BMBCh, PhD, senior clinical fellow and honorary consultant rheumatologist at Newcastle University in Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
“One is that rheumatologists starting these treatments are throwing caution to the wind and ignoring all guidance,” Dr. Baker said.
“The second is perhaps that the EMA guidance is difficult to implement in practice when it involves lots of the comorbidities and risk factors that commonly affect patients with rheumatoid arthritis.”
Paul Emery, MD, Versus Arthritis professor of rheumatology and director of the Leeds Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Leeds in England, also commented on the findings.
“We are going to exclude practically all of our patients if we follow EMA,” Dr. Emery said. “The implications are considerable because if someone has a DVT [deep vein thrombosis] or an MI [myocardial infarction], when we included them with a risk factor, what’s the implication if they choose to sue you?”
Moreover, the bigger question is what to do with all the people who are already established on a JAK inhibitor, Dr. Emery said. Should patients now switch off their medication? Doing so may well leave them with a period of inflammation that may be more harmful than continuing the JAK inhibitor, he suggested.
Were Cautions Warranted?
Like the US Food and Drug Administration, the EMA has concerns over the use of JAK inhibitors because of the drugs’ potential to increase the risk for serious side effects such as VTE, major adverse cardiovascular events, cancer, and all-cause mortality relative to tumor necrosis factor–alpha inhibitors.
Initially, the EMA issued cautions that only related to the use of tofacitinib (Xeljanz), which was the first JAK inhibitor to gain approval for RA and other chronic inflammatory diseases in Europe, but this expanded to include baricitinib (Olumiant) and most recently any member of the drug class, including abrocitinib (Cibinqo), filgotinib (Jyseleca), and upadacitinib (Rinvoq).
The EMA has done a responsible job of looking at the available data and issuing cautions to protect the populations of patients who may be exposed to these drugs, Peter C. Taylor, BMBCh, PhD, told this news organization. However, they are also severely restricting the populations of patients who can be treated with them. “It’s a complicated situation,” he said.
Dr. Taylor, the Norman Collisson chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Oxford in England, was not only involved in some of the major JAK inhibitor clinical trials but also privy to the EMA’s recent deliberations as an observer during the process. He noted that the EMA originally considered restricting the use of the drug class in patients older than 50 years but settled upon age 65 years and older.
Shared Decision
“The issue for benefit and risk is there for any drug we use,” said Dr. Taylor, noting that there are over-the-counter drugs that can be “far more dangerous” than JAK inhibitors in terms of cardiovascular risk.
“In my opinion, the really key thing is to be able to communicate the issues with integrity, in a manner that the patient understands, to make sure that the risk is acceptable to them,” Dr. Taylor said.
It is all about optimizing treatment for an individual and proactively managing any other factors that may increase their personal risk for unwanted effects, Maya Buch, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the University of Manchester, said during a debate at the meeting.
“We still have unmet needs for our patient population. Patients aren’t achieving the goals and endpoints that we need,” Dr. Buch said.
“Don’t lose sight of the positive attributes that we’ve seen with JAK inhibitors,” she advised.
“We presume we know what the patient thinks when it comes to a matter of risk assessment, but it is always about tailoring treatment to that individual, and we are sometimes surprised in terms of what the patients want, even in the face of apparent higher risk,” Dr. Buch added.
Judicious Use
Iain McInnes, MBChB, PhD, observed during the same debate that it was “hard to argue that drugs are generally unsafe when they have already been approved. It’s also challenging to suggest they are not useful when they are being used.”
Dr. McInnes, honorary consultant rheumatologist and vice principal and head of the College of Medical Veterinary & Life Sciences at the University of Glasgow in Scotland, pointed out that the EMA warnings assume that all JAK inhibitors are the same, but is that really the case? This is complex biochemistry, and could newer JAK inhibitors have an improved safety profile?
“There is no free ride in the immune system, and we should bear that in mind,” Dr. McInnes said. “These drugs work ... but we are absolutely flitting along the boundaries of the safety/efficacy window.”
Dr. McInnes told this news organization that clinicians do have to be cautious.
“There’s a paradox in that the very age group that the regulators are now asking us to be cautious about prescribing is pushing JAK inhibitors later and later in the disease course,” he said. This is a time when people would already have other risks for cardiovascular and other events.
“Overall, if used within the regulatory advice, Janus kinase inhibitors are a really useful drug class.”
The BSRBR-RA is funded by a grant from the BSR. The BSR currently receives funding from AbbVie, Amgen, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, and Sandoz and in the past from Hospira, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Roche, SOBI, and UCB. This income finances a wholly separate contract between the BSR and the University of Manchester to host the BSRBR-RA. All decisions concerning study design, data capture, analyses, interpretation, and publication are made autonomously of any industrial contribution. Ms. Tian had no conflicts of interest to report. Dr. Emery disclosed ties to AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Eli Lilly, Pfizer, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sandoz, Samsung, and UCB. Dr. Taylor disclosed ties to AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Nordic Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, Aqtual, and UCB. Dr. Buch disclosed ties to Gilead, AbbVie, Arxx Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, CESAS Medical, Galapagos, Gilead, MediStreams, and Pfizer. Dr. McInnes disclosed ties to AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Compugen, Cabaletta Bio, Causeway, Dexterra, Eli Lilly, Celgene, MoonLake, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Roche, and UCB.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .
FROM BSR 2024
Knee Osteoarthritis Trials Show Promising Results for Several Novel Injectables
VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.
Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.
Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
PTP-001 (MOTYS)
Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.
Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.
Although the changes were only numerically and not statistically different from placebo (n = 71) when looking at the total study population, Ms. Pavesio noted that a key objective of the trial had been to identify populations of patients that may benefit.
When they looked at the effects of PTP-001 solely in those with unilateral knee OA, WOMAC pain scores were decreased to a significantly greater extent with both the high and low doses of PTP-001 vs placebo. Decreases in the least squares mean (LSM) change in WOMAC pain from baseline to week 26 were 26.8 with 100-mg PTP-001, 36.1 with 200-mg PTP-001, and 24.0 with placebo (P = .072). A similarly greater effect for PTP-001 was also seen for LSM change in WOMAC function (26.4, 36.0, and 20.0, respectively; P = .023).
Ms. Pavesio noted that the only real side effect seen during the trial was an initial inflammatory reaction within the first 2 days of IA injection, which resolved within a few days without further problems.
The results are promising enough for Ms. Pavesio and her team to consider a phase 3 trial.
Dr. Lane asked Ms. Pavesio: “So, what’s in the secret sauce? You said it was ground-up placentas?” To which Ms. Pavesio replied that it contained about 300 different molecules which came from amnion, chorion, and umbilical cord tissue obtained from consented placental donation.
Dr. Lane subsequently told this news organization: “It’s probably a bunch of growth factors and cytokines, but if it’s not toxic, and they can standardize it, then it might be good. We remain open minded because we haven’t figured it out.”
Novel Fluticasone Delivery
In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.
Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.
The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.
The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).
These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.
It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.
“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
PPS
Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.
“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”
There are currently two approved formulations: Oral capsules used for the treatment of interstitial cystitis in the European Union, United States, and Australia and an injectable form used in Italy for thromboprophylaxis.
Dr. Ahuja presented data from a phase 2 trial that looked at the effect of once- or twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of PPS vs placebo in 61 people with knee OA pain. Assessments were made after 56, 168, and 365 days of treatment.
Results showed PPS injections resulted in significant improvements in total WOMAC score, WOMAC pain, and WOMAC function, with more PPS- than placebo-treated individuals achieving and then maintaining at least a 30% or greater improvement in pain and a 56% improvement in function.
Rescue medication use was lower in the PPS-treated patients, and Patient Global Impression of Change were significantly higher, Dr. Ahuja said.
Exploratory analyses of synovial fluid biomarkers showed PPS could be having a direct inflammatory effect, with reductions in several proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha.
An assessment of OA disease progression using MRI analysis suggested that there may be an effect on cartilage thickness and volume, as well as bone marrow lesions and overall joint inflammation.
Gene Therapy
Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.
Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.
Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.
However, it was noted that 17% of the patients in the trial had a baseline WOMAC pain score of less than 8, so the new analysis focused on a modified intention-to-treat population of 210 patients who had baseline WOMAC pain scores of 9 or higher.
Two injections of XT-150 at a dose of 0.45 mg were found to produce the best effect on WOMAC pain, with a LSM change from baseline of −4.09 vs −2.74 for a single 0.45-mg injection (P = .044).
Dr. Rutman reported that the 0.45-mg dose would be the one moving forward into future studies as this had the best effect when they looked at various patient demographics, including baseline age, gender, body mass index, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and use of concomitant medications.
XT-150 acts locally, does not integrate into the host genome, and “has a very favorable safety profile,” Dr. Rutman said. As it is not a protein, there is no antibody response, and this gives it the possibility for repeat dosing, with no drug-drug serious adverse events so far reported.
The Best Is Yet to Come?
“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.
“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”
Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.
“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.
The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.
Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.
Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
PTP-001 (MOTYS)
Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.
Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.
Although the changes were only numerically and not statistically different from placebo (n = 71) when looking at the total study population, Ms. Pavesio noted that a key objective of the trial had been to identify populations of patients that may benefit.
When they looked at the effects of PTP-001 solely in those with unilateral knee OA, WOMAC pain scores were decreased to a significantly greater extent with both the high and low doses of PTP-001 vs placebo. Decreases in the least squares mean (LSM) change in WOMAC pain from baseline to week 26 were 26.8 with 100-mg PTP-001, 36.1 with 200-mg PTP-001, and 24.0 with placebo (P = .072). A similarly greater effect for PTP-001 was also seen for LSM change in WOMAC function (26.4, 36.0, and 20.0, respectively; P = .023).
Ms. Pavesio noted that the only real side effect seen during the trial was an initial inflammatory reaction within the first 2 days of IA injection, which resolved within a few days without further problems.
The results are promising enough for Ms. Pavesio and her team to consider a phase 3 trial.
Dr. Lane asked Ms. Pavesio: “So, what’s in the secret sauce? You said it was ground-up placentas?” To which Ms. Pavesio replied that it contained about 300 different molecules which came from amnion, chorion, and umbilical cord tissue obtained from consented placental donation.
Dr. Lane subsequently told this news organization: “It’s probably a bunch of growth factors and cytokines, but if it’s not toxic, and they can standardize it, then it might be good. We remain open minded because we haven’t figured it out.”
Novel Fluticasone Delivery
In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.
Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.
The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.
The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).
These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.
It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.
“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
PPS
Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.
“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”
There are currently two approved formulations: Oral capsules used for the treatment of interstitial cystitis in the European Union, United States, and Australia and an injectable form used in Italy for thromboprophylaxis.
Dr. Ahuja presented data from a phase 2 trial that looked at the effect of once- or twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of PPS vs placebo in 61 people with knee OA pain. Assessments were made after 56, 168, and 365 days of treatment.
Results showed PPS injections resulted in significant improvements in total WOMAC score, WOMAC pain, and WOMAC function, with more PPS- than placebo-treated individuals achieving and then maintaining at least a 30% or greater improvement in pain and a 56% improvement in function.
Rescue medication use was lower in the PPS-treated patients, and Patient Global Impression of Change were significantly higher, Dr. Ahuja said.
Exploratory analyses of synovial fluid biomarkers showed PPS could be having a direct inflammatory effect, with reductions in several proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha.
An assessment of OA disease progression using MRI analysis suggested that there may be an effect on cartilage thickness and volume, as well as bone marrow lesions and overall joint inflammation.
Gene Therapy
Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.
Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.
Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.
However, it was noted that 17% of the patients in the trial had a baseline WOMAC pain score of less than 8, so the new analysis focused on a modified intention-to-treat population of 210 patients who had baseline WOMAC pain scores of 9 or higher.
Two injections of XT-150 at a dose of 0.45 mg were found to produce the best effect on WOMAC pain, with a LSM change from baseline of −4.09 vs −2.74 for a single 0.45-mg injection (P = .044).
Dr. Rutman reported that the 0.45-mg dose would be the one moving forward into future studies as this had the best effect when they looked at various patient demographics, including baseline age, gender, body mass index, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and use of concomitant medications.
XT-150 acts locally, does not integrate into the host genome, and “has a very favorable safety profile,” Dr. Rutman said. As it is not a protein, there is no antibody response, and this gives it the possibility for repeat dosing, with no drug-drug serious adverse events so far reported.
The Best Is Yet to Come?
“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.
“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”
Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.
“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.
The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
VIENNA — Encouraging primary or secondary analyses of trial data for the use of several novel injectables and gene therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA) were reported at the OARSI 2024 World Congress.
Of all the approaches discussed during the News in Therapies session at OARSI 2024, the most intriguing was the use of the placental extract PTP-001 (MOTYS, Bioventus), session chair Nancy E. Lane, MD, of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, California, told this news organization.
Other notable presentations of data from trials of investigational agents for knee OA included an update from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate; a phase 2 trial of pentosan polysulfate sodium (PPS), a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide; and an update on phase 2 study results for XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant of interleukin 10 (IL-10).
PTP-001 (MOTYS)
Indeed, promising results were seen in a phase 2 trial testing a single intra-articular (IA) injection of PTP-001 vs an IA saline placebo in just over 200 individuals with symptomatic knee OA. Results of this dose-finding study were presented by Alessandra Pavesio, senior vice president and the chief science officer of Bioventus/Doron Therapeutics, Durham, North Carolina.
Ms. Pavesio reported there were decreases in knee pain and improvements in knee function, as measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC). These changes were seen after 26 weeks of treatment with PTP-001 given at either a low (100 mg, n = 74) or high (200 mg, n = 40) dose.
Although the changes were only numerically and not statistically different from placebo (n = 71) when looking at the total study population, Ms. Pavesio noted that a key objective of the trial had been to identify populations of patients that may benefit.
When they looked at the effects of PTP-001 solely in those with unilateral knee OA, WOMAC pain scores were decreased to a significantly greater extent with both the high and low doses of PTP-001 vs placebo. Decreases in the least squares mean (LSM) change in WOMAC pain from baseline to week 26 were 26.8 with 100-mg PTP-001, 36.1 with 200-mg PTP-001, and 24.0 with placebo (P = .072). A similarly greater effect for PTP-001 was also seen for LSM change in WOMAC function (26.4, 36.0, and 20.0, respectively; P = .023).
Ms. Pavesio noted that the only real side effect seen during the trial was an initial inflammatory reaction within the first 2 days of IA injection, which resolved within a few days without further problems.
The results are promising enough for Ms. Pavesio and her team to consider a phase 3 trial.
Dr. Lane asked Ms. Pavesio: “So, what’s in the secret sauce? You said it was ground-up placentas?” To which Ms. Pavesio replied that it contained about 300 different molecules which came from amnion, chorion, and umbilical cord tissue obtained from consented placental donation.
Dr. Lane subsequently told this news organization: “It’s probably a bunch of growth factors and cytokines, but if it’s not toxic, and they can standardize it, then it might be good. We remain open minded because we haven’t figured it out.”
Novel Fluticasone Delivery
In the same session, James A. Helliwell, MD, cofounder, director, and chief executive officer of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, presented updated data from the SPRINGBOARD phase 2B trial of EP-104IAR, a novel long-acting formulation of the corticosteroid fluticasone propionate.
Dr. Helliwell, a cardiothoracic anesthesiologist, explained that EP-104IAR uses proprietary technology to form fluticasone into a crystal that can then be injected directly into the joint. This then slowly diffuses out to provide a highly localized treatment.
The SPRINGBOARD trial recruited just over 300 individuals with moderate knee OA and moderate to severe WOMAC pain and randomly allocated 164 to a single IA injection of EP-104IAR and 164 to a matching vehicle injection as a placebo. The latter was a slightly viscous substance that behaved like hyaluronic acid, Dr. Helliwell said.
The LSM change in total WOMAC score from baseline to week 12 showed a greater improvement with EP-104IAR than with placebo in a per protocol analysis (−2.79 vs −2.07; P = .002). Similar results were seen for the WOMAC subscales of pain (−2.97 vs −2.24; P = .003), function (−2.64 vs −1.99; P = .005), and stiffness (−2.85 vs −2.05; P = .001).
These differences persisted, Dr. Helliwell reported, out to a 20-week assessment for total WOMAC score, function, and stiffness and out to a 15-week assessment for WOMAC pain.
It’s probably no surprise that a steroid works, Dr. Helliwell said, noting that the safety profile of EP-104IAR may be better than that of regular IA steroid injection because it has “few off-target” effects. He reported that there were “minimal, clinically insignificant, and transient effects” of EP-104IAR on serum cortisol. There was no effect on glucose metabolism, even in patients with diabetes, he said.
“There is a group of our patients that we give long-acting steroids to in the joint, so it looked like [the EP-104IAR] safety profile was really good,” Dr. Lane told this news organization. However, she added: “I’m worried about the price tag associated with it.”
PPS
Although it perhaps can’t be described as a novel injectable per se, Mukesh Ahuja, MBBS, global clinical head of osteoarthritis at Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals, presented results of the novel use of PPS.
“PPS is a non-opioid, semi-synthetic xylose-based polysaccharide that is derived from beechwood trees,” Dr. Ahuja said. “It has a long-track record for treating pain, inflammation, and thrombosis in humans.”
There are currently two approved formulations: Oral capsules used for the treatment of interstitial cystitis in the European Union, United States, and Australia and an injectable form used in Italy for thromboprophylaxis.
Dr. Ahuja presented data from a phase 2 trial that looked at the effect of once- or twice-weekly subcutaneous injections of PPS vs placebo in 61 people with knee OA pain. Assessments were made after 56, 168, and 365 days of treatment.
Results showed PPS injections resulted in significant improvements in total WOMAC score, WOMAC pain, and WOMAC function, with more PPS- than placebo-treated individuals achieving and then maintaining at least a 30% or greater improvement in pain and a 56% improvement in function.
Rescue medication use was lower in the PPS-treated patients, and Patient Global Impression of Change were significantly higher, Dr. Ahuja said.
Exploratory analyses of synovial fluid biomarkers showed PPS could be having a direct inflammatory effect, with reductions in several proinflammatory cytokines, such as IL-6 and tumor necrosis factor alpha.
An assessment of OA disease progression using MRI analysis suggested that there may be an effect on cartilage thickness and volume, as well as bone marrow lesions and overall joint inflammation.
Gene Therapy
Elsewhere at OARSI 2024, updated data were reported on XT-150, a non-viral, plasmid-based gene therapy designed to express a proprietary variant (v) of IL-10.
Howard Rutman, MD, MBA, chief medical officer of Xalud Therapeutics, reported data from a patient subgroup analysis of a phase 2 trial, which evaluated the effects of single and repeat IA injections of XT-150.
Previously, it was found that a single dose of XT-150 (0.15 mg/mL or 0.45 mg/mL) given as a 1-mL IA injection did not meet its primary endpoint of a greater proportion of patients achieving a 30% or more improvement in WOMAC pain at 180 days vs a matching placebo.
However, it was noted that 17% of the patients in the trial had a baseline WOMAC pain score of less than 8, so the new analysis focused on a modified intention-to-treat population of 210 patients who had baseline WOMAC pain scores of 9 or higher.
Two injections of XT-150 at a dose of 0.45 mg were found to produce the best effect on WOMAC pain, with a LSM change from baseline of −4.09 vs −2.74 for a single 0.45-mg injection (P = .044).
Dr. Rutman reported that the 0.45-mg dose would be the one moving forward into future studies as this had the best effect when they looked at various patient demographics, including baseline age, gender, body mass index, Kellgren-Lawrence grade, and use of concomitant medications.
XT-150 acts locally, does not integrate into the host genome, and “has a very favorable safety profile,” Dr. Rutman said. As it is not a protein, there is no antibody response, and this gives it the possibility for repeat dosing, with no drug-drug serious adverse events so far reported.
The Best Is Yet to Come?
“There’s a lot of things cooking that haven’t been presented here [at OARSI],” Dr. Lane observed.
“We are figuring out how to regenerate cartilage, and it’s a little different than throwing some stem cells in there. There’s some ground-breaking stuff [coming], it just takes us a while.”
Dr. Lane also noted that researchers were “really figuring out” how joints become painful, which will be a major step in figuring out how to make them less painful for patients.
“We’re making a lot of progress in ways that I don’t think we previously thought of, for example, the weight loss drugs. They probably have a central pain reduction effect, I think there’s a little overlap with the opioid receptors, so that’s pretty exciting. So, we’re getting there,” Dr. Lane said.
The congress was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Dr. Lane had no relevant conflicts to declare. The trial of PTP-001 (MOTYS) was funded by Bioventus. Ms. Pavesio is an employee of Doron Therapeutics, a subsidiary of Bioventus. The SPRINGBOARD trial with EP-104IAR was funded by Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Helliwell is an employee and stockholder of Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals. The trial of PPS was funded by Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals. Dr. Ahuja is an employee and stockholder of Paradigm Biopharmaceuticals and holds stock in ChitogenX. The trial of XT-150 was funded by Xalud Therapeutics. Dr. Rutman is an employee and equity holder of the company.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM OARSI 2024
Risk of Knee OA From Weight-Bearing Exercise Seen Only With Low Muscle Mass
Weight-bearing recreational activity was associated with a 22% increased odds of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a large prospective cohort study in the Netherlands, but notably, the increased risk was seen only in those with low levels of lower-limb muscle mass.
The findings point toward the value of “tailored advice” for physical activity, and suggest that “caution is needed when engaging in weight-bearing activity, especially for individuals with low levels of lower-limb muscle mass,” Yahong Wu, MD, and coinvestigators, of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Investigators used data from sequential cohorts of the longitudinal Rotterdam Study, which enrolled people aged 45 and older starting in 1990. The 5003 participants in this new analysis of physical activity and knee OA had complete records of baseline recreational physical activity, baseline knee pain, and knee radiographs from both baseline and at least one follow-up exam. Those with radiographically defined knee OA at baseline were excluded.
The incident rate of radiographically defined (x-ray) knee OA among all participants was 8.4%, with a mean follow-up time of 6.33 years. Among 3492 individuals without baseline knee pain, the researchers found no increased odds of incident radiographic OA with non–weight-bearing activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-1.15; P = .37) but a significant association of weight-bearing activity with OA incidence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.35; P < .001).
A stratification analysis of a subset of participants whose lower-limb mass had been measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) showed, however, that the association of weight-bearing activity with incident OA was limited to patients in the lowest third of lower-limb muscle mass index (LMI), who had a 53% increased likelihood of developing knee OA (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.15-2.04; P = .003).
For patients in the middle and upper tertiles, there was no significant association between weight-bearing activity and the odds of incident OA (OR, 0.93; P = .73, and OR, 1.15; P = .40, respectively).
The findings are reassuring overall, said Kelli D. Allen, PhD, research professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was asked to comment on the study. “The study corroborates prior research showing that for most people, weight-bearing recreational activity does not increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. This should be encouraging for people who want to increase their physical activity,” she said.
The study also suggests that “for people with low lower-limb muscle mass, there may be some considerations to make regarding the best type of physical activity to prevent future knee osteoarthritis,” she said in an e-mail. “The best approach may include non–weight-bearing activities, which could include biking, swimming, or other water exercises, along with strengthening exercises that help to increase muscle mass.”
Other studies, Dr. Allen said, have shown that low muscle mass itself is a risk factor for knee OA.
Physical Activity Types, Other Analyses
The researchers assessed total, weight-bearing, and non–weight-bearing physical activity using two validated questionnaires (an adapted version of the Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire and the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam physical activity questionnaire) that asked participants about the frequency and duration of various types of physical activity. Activity was quantified as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) hours per week, and weight-bearing activities were defined as those in which the knee joint bears the body’s weight.
Walking, gardening, golf, dancing, and ball sports were among the activities qualifying as weight-bearing activities. Non–weight-bearing activities included cycling, rowing, and swimming.
Sex, body mass index, and follow-up time were among the covariates adjusted for in the primary analysis. Similar results were found when adjustments were also made for educational level, alcohol intake, lipid levels, and diabetes.
While incident radiographic knee OA (measured using the Kellgren & Lawrence grading system) was the primary outcome, the researchers also looked at symptomatic knee OA, as defined by x-ray and a knee pain questionnaire, and found no significant association of its incidence with any of the exercise categories (total, weight-bearing, or non-weight-bearing).
Coauthor Joyce B. J. van Meurs, PhD, of the departments of internal medicine and orthopedics & sports medicine at Erasmus Medical Center, told this news organization that “pain as a subjective, recurrent symptom is more difficult to study … [and] a larger sample size or more precise measurements [of pain] in future studies would help to better understand the true association” of symptomatic knee OA and physical activity.
Similarly, analyses of the 1511 patients (out of 5003) who had knee pain at baseline found no significant association of weight-bearing or non–weight-bearing physical activity with incident radiographic knee OA. The trends were similar to those found in the population without knee pain, however, which suggests the analysis was underpowered, the researchers wrote, noting too that patients with baseline pain had lower activity levels than those without pain. (Low case numbers precluded a stratification analysis on LMI for incident symptomatic OA.)
Thigh Circumference as an Indicator of Muscle Mass
The findings build upon an international meta-analysis published in 2021 that found no association between total physical activity and knee OA and align with other studies suggesting a link between greater mechanical stress/strain and greater OA risk, the researchers wrote. (The meta-analysis couldn’t investigate different types of activity.)
“Although we cannot establish a causal relationship … we hypothesize that the mechanical loading on joints and cartilage could explain the association of weight-bearing activity with osteoarthritis in the low LMI tertile group,” they said.
It is possible that thigh muscle-specific strength or mass may temper the risk of knee OA, they wrote, but the lack of thigh strength data in the Rotterdam Study precluded such evaluation. Still, in everyday practice, the researchers noted, lower limb muscle function could be assessed using thigh circumference.
Dr. Allen agreed. “ ‘Gold standard’ assessment of muscle mass is not common in routine practice, but clinicians can evaluate muscle mass in other ways, such as thigh circumference,” she told this news organization, noting that measurement should align with procedures described by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in its anthropometry procedures manual.
“If low lower-limb muscle mass is suspected, a referral to a physical therapist can be helpful for more formally assessing muscle mass and muscle strength,” she added, “and for instructions for a safe and appropriate exercise program for building muscle and protecting joints.”
Among other limitations of the study, according to the researchers, are an ethnically nondiverse population, the unavailability of knee injury data, and the assessment of physical activity only at baseline.
Moving forward, Dr. van Meurs told this news organization, “the main question regarding physical activity and OA is still, if people already have pain or early OA complaints, what kinds of sports they can do without hurting their joints?” This “should be tested,” she said, “in a real-life, ideally trial-like intervention study.”
The study was funded by the Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University as well as through various government grants. Dr. Wu also had study support from the China Scholarship Council. Two of the authors reported relationships with arthritis-related organizations. Dr. Allen reported having no disclosures relevant to her comments.
Weight-bearing recreational activity was associated with a 22% increased odds of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a large prospective cohort study in the Netherlands, but notably, the increased risk was seen only in those with low levels of lower-limb muscle mass.
The findings point toward the value of “tailored advice” for physical activity, and suggest that “caution is needed when engaging in weight-bearing activity, especially for individuals with low levels of lower-limb muscle mass,” Yahong Wu, MD, and coinvestigators, of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Investigators used data from sequential cohorts of the longitudinal Rotterdam Study, which enrolled people aged 45 and older starting in 1990. The 5003 participants in this new analysis of physical activity and knee OA had complete records of baseline recreational physical activity, baseline knee pain, and knee radiographs from both baseline and at least one follow-up exam. Those with radiographically defined knee OA at baseline were excluded.
The incident rate of radiographically defined (x-ray) knee OA among all participants was 8.4%, with a mean follow-up time of 6.33 years. Among 3492 individuals without baseline knee pain, the researchers found no increased odds of incident radiographic OA with non–weight-bearing activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-1.15; P = .37) but a significant association of weight-bearing activity with OA incidence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.35; P < .001).
A stratification analysis of a subset of participants whose lower-limb mass had been measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) showed, however, that the association of weight-bearing activity with incident OA was limited to patients in the lowest third of lower-limb muscle mass index (LMI), who had a 53% increased likelihood of developing knee OA (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.15-2.04; P = .003).
For patients in the middle and upper tertiles, there was no significant association between weight-bearing activity and the odds of incident OA (OR, 0.93; P = .73, and OR, 1.15; P = .40, respectively).
The findings are reassuring overall, said Kelli D. Allen, PhD, research professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was asked to comment on the study. “The study corroborates prior research showing that for most people, weight-bearing recreational activity does not increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. This should be encouraging for people who want to increase their physical activity,” she said.
The study also suggests that “for people with low lower-limb muscle mass, there may be some considerations to make regarding the best type of physical activity to prevent future knee osteoarthritis,” she said in an e-mail. “The best approach may include non–weight-bearing activities, which could include biking, swimming, or other water exercises, along with strengthening exercises that help to increase muscle mass.”
Other studies, Dr. Allen said, have shown that low muscle mass itself is a risk factor for knee OA.
Physical Activity Types, Other Analyses
The researchers assessed total, weight-bearing, and non–weight-bearing physical activity using two validated questionnaires (an adapted version of the Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire and the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam physical activity questionnaire) that asked participants about the frequency and duration of various types of physical activity. Activity was quantified as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) hours per week, and weight-bearing activities were defined as those in which the knee joint bears the body’s weight.
Walking, gardening, golf, dancing, and ball sports were among the activities qualifying as weight-bearing activities. Non–weight-bearing activities included cycling, rowing, and swimming.
Sex, body mass index, and follow-up time were among the covariates adjusted for in the primary analysis. Similar results were found when adjustments were also made for educational level, alcohol intake, lipid levels, and diabetes.
While incident radiographic knee OA (measured using the Kellgren & Lawrence grading system) was the primary outcome, the researchers also looked at symptomatic knee OA, as defined by x-ray and a knee pain questionnaire, and found no significant association of its incidence with any of the exercise categories (total, weight-bearing, or non-weight-bearing).
Coauthor Joyce B. J. van Meurs, PhD, of the departments of internal medicine and orthopedics & sports medicine at Erasmus Medical Center, told this news organization that “pain as a subjective, recurrent symptom is more difficult to study … [and] a larger sample size or more precise measurements [of pain] in future studies would help to better understand the true association” of symptomatic knee OA and physical activity.
Similarly, analyses of the 1511 patients (out of 5003) who had knee pain at baseline found no significant association of weight-bearing or non–weight-bearing physical activity with incident radiographic knee OA. The trends were similar to those found in the population without knee pain, however, which suggests the analysis was underpowered, the researchers wrote, noting too that patients with baseline pain had lower activity levels than those without pain. (Low case numbers precluded a stratification analysis on LMI for incident symptomatic OA.)
Thigh Circumference as an Indicator of Muscle Mass
The findings build upon an international meta-analysis published in 2021 that found no association between total physical activity and knee OA and align with other studies suggesting a link between greater mechanical stress/strain and greater OA risk, the researchers wrote. (The meta-analysis couldn’t investigate different types of activity.)
“Although we cannot establish a causal relationship … we hypothesize that the mechanical loading on joints and cartilage could explain the association of weight-bearing activity with osteoarthritis in the low LMI tertile group,” they said.
It is possible that thigh muscle-specific strength or mass may temper the risk of knee OA, they wrote, but the lack of thigh strength data in the Rotterdam Study precluded such evaluation. Still, in everyday practice, the researchers noted, lower limb muscle function could be assessed using thigh circumference.
Dr. Allen agreed. “ ‘Gold standard’ assessment of muscle mass is not common in routine practice, but clinicians can evaluate muscle mass in other ways, such as thigh circumference,” she told this news organization, noting that measurement should align with procedures described by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in its anthropometry procedures manual.
“If low lower-limb muscle mass is suspected, a referral to a physical therapist can be helpful for more formally assessing muscle mass and muscle strength,” she added, “and for instructions for a safe and appropriate exercise program for building muscle and protecting joints.”
Among other limitations of the study, according to the researchers, are an ethnically nondiverse population, the unavailability of knee injury data, and the assessment of physical activity only at baseline.
Moving forward, Dr. van Meurs told this news organization, “the main question regarding physical activity and OA is still, if people already have pain or early OA complaints, what kinds of sports they can do without hurting their joints?” This “should be tested,” she said, “in a real-life, ideally trial-like intervention study.”
The study was funded by the Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University as well as through various government grants. Dr. Wu also had study support from the China Scholarship Council. Two of the authors reported relationships with arthritis-related organizations. Dr. Allen reported having no disclosures relevant to her comments.
Weight-bearing recreational activity was associated with a 22% increased odds of developing knee osteoarthritis (OA) in a large prospective cohort study in the Netherlands, but notably, the increased risk was seen only in those with low levels of lower-limb muscle mass.
The findings point toward the value of “tailored advice” for physical activity, and suggest that “caution is needed when engaging in weight-bearing activity, especially for individuals with low levels of lower-limb muscle mass,” Yahong Wu, MD, and coinvestigators, of the Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, wrote in JAMA Network Open.
Investigators used data from sequential cohorts of the longitudinal Rotterdam Study, which enrolled people aged 45 and older starting in 1990. The 5003 participants in this new analysis of physical activity and knee OA had complete records of baseline recreational physical activity, baseline knee pain, and knee radiographs from both baseline and at least one follow-up exam. Those with radiographically defined knee OA at baseline were excluded.
The incident rate of radiographically defined (x-ray) knee OA among all participants was 8.4%, with a mean follow-up time of 6.33 years. Among 3492 individuals without baseline knee pain, the researchers found no increased odds of incident radiographic OA with non–weight-bearing activity (odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-1.15; P = .37) but a significant association of weight-bearing activity with OA incidence (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.35; P < .001).
A stratification analysis of a subset of participants whose lower-limb mass had been measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) showed, however, that the association of weight-bearing activity with incident OA was limited to patients in the lowest third of lower-limb muscle mass index (LMI), who had a 53% increased likelihood of developing knee OA (OR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.15-2.04; P = .003).
For patients in the middle and upper tertiles, there was no significant association between weight-bearing activity and the odds of incident OA (OR, 0.93; P = .73, and OR, 1.15; P = .40, respectively).
The findings are reassuring overall, said Kelli D. Allen, PhD, research professor of medicine and exercise physiologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who was asked to comment on the study. “The study corroborates prior research showing that for most people, weight-bearing recreational activity does not increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis. This should be encouraging for people who want to increase their physical activity,” she said.
The study also suggests that “for people with low lower-limb muscle mass, there may be some considerations to make regarding the best type of physical activity to prevent future knee osteoarthritis,” she said in an e-mail. “The best approach may include non–weight-bearing activities, which could include biking, swimming, or other water exercises, along with strengthening exercises that help to increase muscle mass.”
Other studies, Dr. Allen said, have shown that low muscle mass itself is a risk factor for knee OA.
Physical Activity Types, Other Analyses
The researchers assessed total, weight-bearing, and non–weight-bearing physical activity using two validated questionnaires (an adapted version of the Zutphen Physical Activity Questionnaire and the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam physical activity questionnaire) that asked participants about the frequency and duration of various types of physical activity. Activity was quantified as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) hours per week, and weight-bearing activities were defined as those in which the knee joint bears the body’s weight.
Walking, gardening, golf, dancing, and ball sports were among the activities qualifying as weight-bearing activities. Non–weight-bearing activities included cycling, rowing, and swimming.
Sex, body mass index, and follow-up time were among the covariates adjusted for in the primary analysis. Similar results were found when adjustments were also made for educational level, alcohol intake, lipid levels, and diabetes.
While incident radiographic knee OA (measured using the Kellgren & Lawrence grading system) was the primary outcome, the researchers also looked at symptomatic knee OA, as defined by x-ray and a knee pain questionnaire, and found no significant association of its incidence with any of the exercise categories (total, weight-bearing, or non-weight-bearing).
Coauthor Joyce B. J. van Meurs, PhD, of the departments of internal medicine and orthopedics & sports medicine at Erasmus Medical Center, told this news organization that “pain as a subjective, recurrent symptom is more difficult to study … [and] a larger sample size or more precise measurements [of pain] in future studies would help to better understand the true association” of symptomatic knee OA and physical activity.
Similarly, analyses of the 1511 patients (out of 5003) who had knee pain at baseline found no significant association of weight-bearing or non–weight-bearing physical activity with incident radiographic knee OA. The trends were similar to those found in the population without knee pain, however, which suggests the analysis was underpowered, the researchers wrote, noting too that patients with baseline pain had lower activity levels than those without pain. (Low case numbers precluded a stratification analysis on LMI for incident symptomatic OA.)
Thigh Circumference as an Indicator of Muscle Mass
The findings build upon an international meta-analysis published in 2021 that found no association between total physical activity and knee OA and align with other studies suggesting a link between greater mechanical stress/strain and greater OA risk, the researchers wrote. (The meta-analysis couldn’t investigate different types of activity.)
“Although we cannot establish a causal relationship … we hypothesize that the mechanical loading on joints and cartilage could explain the association of weight-bearing activity with osteoarthritis in the low LMI tertile group,” they said.
It is possible that thigh muscle-specific strength or mass may temper the risk of knee OA, they wrote, but the lack of thigh strength data in the Rotterdam Study precluded such evaluation. Still, in everyday practice, the researchers noted, lower limb muscle function could be assessed using thigh circumference.
Dr. Allen agreed. “ ‘Gold standard’ assessment of muscle mass is not common in routine practice, but clinicians can evaluate muscle mass in other ways, such as thigh circumference,” she told this news organization, noting that measurement should align with procedures described by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in its anthropometry procedures manual.
“If low lower-limb muscle mass is suspected, a referral to a physical therapist can be helpful for more formally assessing muscle mass and muscle strength,” she added, “and for instructions for a safe and appropriate exercise program for building muscle and protecting joints.”
Among other limitations of the study, according to the researchers, are an ethnically nondiverse population, the unavailability of knee injury data, and the assessment of physical activity only at baseline.
Moving forward, Dr. van Meurs told this news organization, “the main question regarding physical activity and OA is still, if people already have pain or early OA complaints, what kinds of sports they can do without hurting their joints?” This “should be tested,” she said, “in a real-life, ideally trial-like intervention study.”
The study was funded by the Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University as well as through various government grants. Dr. Wu also had study support from the China Scholarship Council. Two of the authors reported relationships with arthritis-related organizations. Dr. Allen reported having no disclosures relevant to her comments.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Updated Sjögren Disease Guideline Advises Doing ‘the Little Things Well’
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents.
“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“We approached the update in a slightly different way,” said Dr. Price, who works at Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon, England. She was the chair of the new guideline’s working group and convenes the BSR’s Special Interest Group for Sjögren disease.
Previously, the approach was to look at the management of Sjögren disease affecting the eyes, mouth, salivary glands, and, in turn, systemic disease. “This time we posed questions that we felt needed to be asked, interrogated the literature, and then used that to come up with our recommendations,” Dr. Price said.
The answers to those questions were used to form the 19 recommendations that now make up the guideline. These cover four key areas on the management of Sjögren disease: confirming the diagnosis, treating the symptoms, managing systemic disease, and considering special situations such as planned pregnancy and comorbidities. There is also lifestyle advice and information about where to get good patient education.
What’s in a Name?
The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet.
The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained.
Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.
A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
Confirming the Diagnosis
The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies?
The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion.
In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
Lymphoma Worries
The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”
The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score.
All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”
The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
‘Do the Little Things Well’
“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”
Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.
Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.
“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available.
In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness.
“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness.
Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice.
“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
Watch Out for Comorbidities
Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected.
“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population.
The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
Treatment Recommendations
As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data.
The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms.
Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely.
Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.
In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
View on Updates
Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR.
“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said.
Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.”
No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents.
“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“We approached the update in a slightly different way,” said Dr. Price, who works at Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon, England. She was the chair of the new guideline’s working group and convenes the BSR’s Special Interest Group for Sjögren disease.
Previously, the approach was to look at the management of Sjögren disease affecting the eyes, mouth, salivary glands, and, in turn, systemic disease. “This time we posed questions that we felt needed to be asked, interrogated the literature, and then used that to come up with our recommendations,” Dr. Price said.
The answers to those questions were used to form the 19 recommendations that now make up the guideline. These cover four key areas on the management of Sjögren disease: confirming the diagnosis, treating the symptoms, managing systemic disease, and considering special situations such as planned pregnancy and comorbidities. There is also lifestyle advice and information about where to get good patient education.
What’s in a Name?
The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet.
The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained.
Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.
A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
Confirming the Diagnosis
The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies?
The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion.
In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
Lymphoma Worries
The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”
The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score.
All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”
The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
‘Do the Little Things Well’
“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”
Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.
Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.
“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available.
In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness.
“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness.
Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice.
“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
Watch Out for Comorbidities
Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected.
“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population.
The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
Treatment Recommendations
As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data.
The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms.
Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely.
Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.
In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
View on Updates
Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR.
“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said.
Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.”
No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — An updated guideline from the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) on the management of Sjögren disease asks rheumatologists and other clinicians caring for patients with the condition to “do the little things well” rather than overly focusing on rheumatologic treatments. The guideline’s new format provides recommendations for specific clinical questions and now also includes recommendations for managing the disease in children and adolescents.
“The original guideline was published in 2017, and things move on very rapidly,” consultant rheumatologist Elizabeth Price, MBBCh, PhD, said ahead of her presentation of the updated guideline at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
“We approached the update in a slightly different way,” said Dr. Price, who works at Great Western Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon, England. She was the chair of the new guideline’s working group and convenes the BSR’s Special Interest Group for Sjögren disease.
Previously, the approach was to look at the management of Sjögren disease affecting the eyes, mouth, salivary glands, and, in turn, systemic disease. “This time we posed questions that we felt needed to be asked, interrogated the literature, and then used that to come up with our recommendations,” Dr. Price said.
The answers to those questions were used to form the 19 recommendations that now make up the guideline. These cover four key areas on the management of Sjögren disease: confirming the diagnosis, treating the symptoms, managing systemic disease, and considering special situations such as planned pregnancy and comorbidities. There is also lifestyle advice and information about where to get good patient education.
What’s in a Name?
The BSR guideline on the management of adult and juvenile onset Sjögren disease is published in Rheumatology and is available via the BSR website, where it is accompanied by a short summary sheet.
The most notable change perhaps is the name the guideline now uses, Dr. Price said at BSR 2024. “We have been bold and called it Sjögren disease.” Previously, the guideline used the term primary Sjögren’s syndrome, but there has been a “move away from using eponymous syndromes and dropping s’s and apostrophes,” she explained.
Another significant change is that advice on managing Sjögren disease in children and adolescents is now included where appropriate, meaning that the British guideline is now the first to cover Sjögren disease “across the ages,” Dr. Price said.
A pediatric/adolescent rheumatologist joined the guideline working group, which already consisted of several adult rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and a dentistry consultant. The group now comprises 22 members total, including a general practitioner, an oncologist, a renal physician, an occupational therapist, two patients with Sjögren disease, and a librarian.
Confirming the Diagnosis
The first questions asked to help form the new recommendations were around confirming a diagnosis of Sjögren disease, such as what is the diagnostic accuracy of antinuclear antibodies (ANAs), extractable nuclear antigens (ENAs), and other novel antigens in Sjögren disease? And what is the diagnostic accuracy of salivary gland ultrasound, imaging in general, and salivary gland or lacrimal gland biopsies?
The resulting recommendations advised not to measure ANAs in the absence of clinical indicators of Sjögren disease or any other connective tissue disease but to use it to screen if there was a clinical suspicion. And ENAs should be measured even if the ANAs were negative and there is a high index of suspicion.
In terms of imaging, ultrasound of the salivary glands was thought to be useful, but other imaging was not recommended for routine practice at the current time. Minor lip but not lacrimal gland biopsies were recommended if clinical and serologic features were not enough to make a diagnosis.
Lymphoma Worries
The 2017 version of the guideline did not include information about lymphoma, but this is the thing that most patients with Sjögren disease will worry about, Dr. Price said. “They all look it up on YouTube, they all come back and tell me that they are really worried they’ll develop it.”
The question that was therefore posed was whether there were any measurable biomarkers that could predict the development of lymphoma in adults and children. Seven predictors were found, the strongest being a low level of complement C4 alone or together with low levels of C3. Other predictors were salivary gland enlargement, lymphadenopathy, anti-Ro/La and rheumatoid factor autoantibodies, cryoglobulinemia, monoclonal gammopathy, and a high focus score.
All of these predictors put someone in a higher risk category for lymphoma. If two or fewer of those features are present, the lifetime risk is “probably below 2%,” Dr. Price said. However, if all seven are present, the lifetime risk is “approaching 100%.”
The recommendation made on the basis of these findings is that people with Sjögren disease need to be offered early further investigation if they present with any new salivary gland swelling or other symptoms that might suggest the development of lymphoma. In this regard, a labial salivary gland biopsy might provide additional prognostic information.
‘Do the Little Things Well’
“You have to do the little things well,” Dr. Price said. “Many of the patients [who] come to see me for a second opinion have not been prescribed the right eye drops, have not been given advice on dental care,” with their management taking “too much on the rheumatological treatments.”
Rheumatologists are of course not trained or expected to be experts in ophthalmology or dentistry, but “you need to look at their mouth and you do need to examine their eyes, and you do need to give them some advice,” Dr. Price advised.
Thankfully, that is where the updated guidelines should help, with a recommendation that people with Sjögren disease should use preservative-free eye drops every 2-3 hours.
“It’s vital you avoid preservatives, because preservatives flatten the corneal surface and reduce the surface area and can cause inflammation in their own right,” Dr. Price cautioned, adding that there are plenty of suitable eye drop formulations available.
In regard to helping with dry mouth symptoms, the recommendation is to use a saliva substitute for symptomatic relief. For vaginal dryness, the recommendation is to consider advising topical nonhormonal vaginal moisturizers plus estrogen creams or pessaries in peri- or postmenopausal women with significant vaginal dryness.
“Very important, however, is to maintain a neutral pH, an alkaline environment in the mouth because acid damages dental enamel,” Dr. Price said. Conversely, an acidic vaginal moisturizer is needed to treat vaginal dryness.
Dental hygiene is important. Regular brushing with a fluoride-based toothpaste is advised. The use of xylitol-containing products has been shown to reduce bacteria known to increase the risk for dental decay. Telling patients not to eat between meals is also simple but important advice.
“We do recommend that patients are assessed holistically,” Dr. Price said, noting that they should be offered access to cognitive-behavioral therapy and exercise therapies to help with the symptoms of fatigue and joint pain.
Watch Out for Comorbidities
Sjögren disease is associated with many comorbidities, some of which might be predicted from the age and demographics of the people who are normally affected.
“This is on the whole an older, female population, so you see a lot of osteoarthritis, gastroesophageal reflux, and hypertension,” Dr. Price said. “However, you may not be aware that 1 in 5 of these patients develop thyroid disease,” and there is a higher rate of celiac disease and primary biliary cholangitis than is seen in the general background population.
The recommendation, therefore, is to “be aware of and consider screening for commonly associated conditions, as guided by age and/or clinical presentation.” As such, it’s recommended that baseline and repeated investigations that look for signs of comorbidity are performed, such as thyroid function assessment and liver function tests, to name two.
Treatment Recommendations
As in the original guideline, the treatment of systemic disease is discussed, but the advice has been overhauled with the availability of new data.
The updated guidance notes that a trial of hydroxychloroquine for 6-12 months is the recommended treatment approach for people with fatigue and systemic symptoms.
Systemic steroids may be used in the short-term for specific indications but should not be offered routinely.
Conventional immunosuppressive or biologic drugs and immunoglobulins are not currently recommended outside of managing specific systemic complications.
In juvenile cases, the treatment of recurrent swollen parotid glands that are not due to infection or stone disease should include a short course of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug or a short course of oral steroids. This should be combined with massage followed by washouts with saline or steroids. In refractory cases, escalation to anti–B-cell–targeted therapies may be considered in select situations.
View on Updates
Patient advocate Bridget Crampton, who leads the helpline team at Sjögren’s UK (formerly the British Sjögren’s Syndrome Association), commented on the importance of the guidelines during a roundtable held by the BSR.
“I think it will help [patients] make better use of their own appointments. So, they’ll know what treatments might be offered. They’ll know what they want to talk about at their appointments,” she said.
Ms. Crampton, who has lived with Sjögren disease herself for the past 20 years, added: “I think it’s important for patients that we have guidelines like this. It means that all clinicians can easily access information. My hope is that it might standardize care across the UK a little bit more.”
No specific funding was received to create the guidelines, be that from any bodies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. No conflicts of interests were expressed by any of the experts quoted in this article.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BSR 2024
Excess Thrombotic Risk in RA Has No Clear Driving Factor
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.
Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.
However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.
In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
RA and VTE Risk
The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.
“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.
“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.
He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”
To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.
One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.
For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
Observational Data Challenged
“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.
Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.
Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.
“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.
“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
Age, Sex, and Bodyweight
Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.
“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”
Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
Duration of RA
As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.
The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.
“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”
Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
Oral Contraceptives and HRT
Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.
“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.
The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.
Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
Assess and Monitor
Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.
“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.
The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.
The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.
Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.
However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.
In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
RA and VTE Risk
The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.
“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.
“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.
He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”
To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.
One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.
For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
Observational Data Challenged
“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.
Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.
Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.
“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.
“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
Age, Sex, and Bodyweight
Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.
“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”
Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
Duration of RA
As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.
The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.
“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”
Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
Oral Contraceptives and HRT
Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.
“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.
The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.
Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
Assess and Monitor
Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.
“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.
The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.
The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — People with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a consistently higher risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) than the general population, but the reasons for this remain unclear, research presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) reaffirmed.
Regardless of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), duration of disease, use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives, or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), people with RA are more likely to experience a pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis than those without RA.
However, “these are rare events,” James Galloway, MBChB, PhD, professor of rheumatology and deputy head of the Centre for Rheumatic Diseases at King’s College London in England, said at the meeting.
In one analysis of data from 117,050 individuals living in England and Wales that are held within a large primary care practice database, Dr. Galloway and colleagues found that the unadjusted incidence of VTE in people diagnosed with RA (n = 23,410) was 0.44% vs 0.26% for matched controls within the general population (n = 93,640).
RA and VTE Risk
The overall risk for VTE was 46% higher among people with RA than among those without, although the absolute difference was small, Dr. Galloway reported.
“RA is associated with an increased risk of VTE; that’s been well described over the years,” Dr. Galloway told this news organization. Past research into why there is an elevated risk for VTE in patients with RA has often focused on the role of disease activity and inflammation.
“In the last few years, a new class of drugs, the JAK [Janus kinase] inhibitors, have emerged in which we have seen a signal of increased VTE risk from a number of studies. And I think that puts a spotlight on our understanding of VTE risk,” Dr. Galloway said.
He added “JAK inhibitors are very powerful at controlling inflammation, but if you take away inflammation, there is still an excess risk. What else could be driving that?”
To examine the excess risk for VTE seen in people with RA, Dr. Galloway and colleagues performed three separate analyses using data collected between January 1999 and December 2018 by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Center.
One analysis looked at VTE risk according to age, sex, and BMI; another looked at the effect of the duration of RA; and a third analysis focused on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT.
For all three analyses, those with RA were matched in a 4:1 ratio to people from the general population without RA on the basis of current age, sex, calendar time, and years since registration at the primary care practice.
Observational Data Challenged
“These are observational data, so it’s important to weigh up the strengths and limitations,” Dr. Galloway acknowledged. Strengths are the large sample size and long follow-up provided by the database, which assesses and monitors more than 2000 primary care practices in England and Wales.
Confounding is still possible, despite adjusting for multiple factors that included sociodemographic factors; clinical features; and VTE risk factors such as smoking status, alcohol use, thrombophilia, reduced mobility, lower limb fracture, and a family history of VTE if data had been available. There wasn’t information on disease activity, for example, and disease duration was used as a surrogate marker for this.
Sitting in the audience, Marwan Bukhari, MBBS, PhD, challenged the population-matching process.
“Do you think maybe it was the matching that was the problem?” asked Dr. Bukhari, who is consultant rheumatologist at University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust and an honorary senior lecturer at the University of Manchester, both in England.
“They’re not entirely matched completely, correctly. Even if it is 4:1, there’s a difference between the populations,” he said.
Age, Sex, and Bodyweight
Over an average of 8.2 years’ follow-up, the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) comparing VTE risk in women and men with and without RA were a respective 1.62 and 1.52. The corresponding aHRs for VTE according to different age groups were 2.13 for age 18-49 years, 1.57 for age 50-69 years, and 1.34 for age 70 years and older.
“The highest excess risk was in the youngest age group,” Dr. Galloway pointed out, “but all age groups showing a significant increased risk of venous thromboembolism.”
Similar findings were seen across different BMI categories, with the highest risk occurring in those in the lowest BMI group. The aHRs were 1.66, 1.60, and 1.41 for the BMI categories of less than 25 kg/m2, 25-30 kg/m2, and more than 30 kg/m2, respectively.
Duration of RA
As for disease duration, nearly two thirds (63.9%) of the 23,410 adults with RA included in this analysis were included at or within 2 years of a diagnosis of RA, 7.8% within 2-5 years of diagnosis, 9.8% within 5-10 years of diagnosis, and 18.5% at 10 or more years after diagnosis.
The aHR for an increased relative risk for VTE in people with RA vs the control group ranged from 1.49 for 0-2 years of diagnosis up to 1.63 for more than 10 years since diagnosis.
“We could see no evidence that the VTE excess risk in rheumatoid arthritis was with a specific time since diagnosis,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. “It appears that the risk is increased in people with established RA, whether you’ve had the disease for 2 years or 10 years.”
Similar findings were also seen when they looked at aHRs for pulmonary embolism (1.46-2.02) and deep vein thrombosis (1.43-1.89) separately.
Oral Contraceptives and HRT
Data on the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or HRT were detailed in a virtual poster presentation. In this analysis, there were 16,664 women with and 65,448 without RA, and the average follow-up was 8.3 years.
“The number of people available for this analysis was small, and bigger studies are needed,” Dr. Galloway said in the interview. Indeed, in the RA group, just 3.3% had used an estrogen-based oral contraceptive and 4.5% had used HRT compared with 3.9% and 3.8% in the control group, respectively.
The overall VTE risk was 52% higher in women with RA than in those without RA.
Risk for VTE was higher among women with RA regardless of the use of estrogen-based oral contraceptives or not (aHRs, 1.43 and 1.52, respectively) and regardless of the use of HRT or not (aHRs, 2.32 and 1.51).
Assess and Monitor
Together these data increase understanding of how age, gender, obesity, duration of disease, and estrogen-based contraception and HRT may make a difference to someone’s VTE risk.
“In all people with RA, we observe an increased risk of venous thromboembolism, and that is both relevant in a contemporary era when we think about prescribing and the different risks of drugs we use for therapeutic strategies,” Dr. Galloway said.
The overall take-home message, he said, is that VTE risk should be considered in everyone with RA and assessed and monitored accordingly. This includes those who may have traditionally been thought of as having a lower risk than others, such as men vs women, younger vs older individuals, and those who may have had RA for a few years.
The research was funded by Pfizer. Dr. Galloway reported receiving honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie, Biovitrum, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Chugai, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi, Sobi, and UCB. Two coauthors of the work were employees of Pfizer. Dr. Bukhari had no conflicts of interest and was not involved in the research.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BSR 2024
Optimized Hospital Care for Gout Improves Uptake of Urate-Lowering Therapy
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).
In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame.
Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment.
“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation.
“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.”
Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway
“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained.
The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.
The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
Related Work on Gout Incidence
Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England.
“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.
“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.
Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care.
COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases
“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”
While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested.
Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
ULT Treatment Rates Low
“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L.
“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.
There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels.
As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”
The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).
In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame.
Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment.
“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation.
“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.”
Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway
“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained.
The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.
The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
Related Work on Gout Incidence
Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England.
“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.
“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.
Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care.
COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases
“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”
While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested.
Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
ULT Treatment Rates Low
“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L.
“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.
There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels.
As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”
The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — Optimizing how people experiencing a gout flare are managed in hospital and then followed-up afterwards can substantially increase the uptake of guideline-recommended urate-lowering therapy (ULT), researchers reported at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology (BSR).
In a prospective study, 92% of 97 people admitted to hospital for gout flares were using ULT within 6 months of discharge after a multifaceted intervention was introduced. By comparison, 49% of 94 people admitted for gout flares before the introduction of the intervention were taking ULT within the same postdischarge time frame.
Moreover, a higher proportion of individuals had urate blood tests done at least once within the 6-month postdischarge period after the intervention’s introduction (58% vs 32%) and fewer (9% vs 15%) needed repeated hospital treatment.
“Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis affecting one in 30 adults in the United Kingdom, yet it’s one of the most poorly managed,” study investigator Mark D. Russell, MB, BChir, pointed out during a poster presentation.
“There are very effective treatments,” added Dr. Russell, a rheumatology registrar and postdoctoral research fellow at King’s College London in London, England. “Urate-lowering therapies such as allopurinol, which when taken at the correct dose, in the long term, effectively cures patients of their symptoms and prevents complications.”
Dr. Russell said in an interview that there was still work to be done as the rate of people achieving urate levels below the recommended threshold of 360 micromol/L (6 mg/dL) within 6 months was still low, at 27%, even it if was still better than the 11% seen before the intervention was introduced.
Improving the In- and Post-Hospital Pathway
“We developed and implemented an in-hospital management pathway which encouraged urate-lowering therapy initiation prior to discharge, followed by a post-discharge nurse-led review,” Dr. Russell explained.
The in-hospital pathway was based upon BSR, European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology, and American College of Rheumatology guidelines and involved diagnosing and managing the gout flare appropriately. This may have been via early joint aspiration, medication, or both, as directed by the rheumatology team. Affected individuals also received education and were directed where to obtain further information on the use of ULT. Outpatient follow-up was considered if an individual had severe or tophaceous gout, recurrent episodes, or contraindications or intolerances to ULT. Otherwise, a rheumatology nurse telephoned the individual 2 weeks later to review symptoms and discuss next steps.
The researchers recorded improvements in in-hospital outcomes. The frequency of in-hospital serum urate level measurements rose from 66% in the 12-month preimplementation period to 93% in the 12-month period after the intervention’s introduction. Almost two thirds (62%) of patients were discharged on ULT compared with 18% preimplementation. And gout-specific recommendations were given 86% of the time compared with 59% before the intervention.
Related Work on Gout Incidence
Separately, Dr. Russell also presented data from a nationwide, population-level cohort study that used data from OpenSAFELY, the secure data analytics platform used by the National Health Service in England.
“We did an analysis previously using the CPRD [Clinical Research Practice Datalink], which is another good primary care database, showing that only a third of people with gout in the UK get urate-lowering drugs, when really it should be the vast majority,” he said in the interview.
“And then we wanted to look at, on top of that, what was the impact of the [COVID-19] pandemic,” Russell added. Specifically, the aim was to look at how the pandemic had affected the incidence, management, and prevalence of gout.
Between March 2015 and February 2023, 246,695 new cases of gout were identified among 17.9 million adults, seen in primary and secondary care.
COVID-19 Pandemic Affected Cases
“The number of new cases of gout dropped by about one third in the first year of the pandemic,” Dr. Russell said. Incidence declined from 1.78 to 1.23 per 1000 adults. “Whether that was through people not feeling comfortable going to their GP [general practitioner] or not being able to get an appointment, we don’t know.”
While there was a subsequent increase in new cases of gout since this time, the rates still haven’t reached what they were before the pandemic. This implies that there could be a substantial number of people who may be undiagnosed because of the pandemic, Dr. Russell suggested.
Moreover, he reported that in 2022-2023, the prevalence of gout was 3.21%, up slightly from the 3.07% recorded 7 years earlier in 2015-2016.
ULT Treatment Rates Low
“If you did see a GP, however, so as long as you saw someone, the treatment wasn’t any worse,” Dr. Russell said. Just under 30% of people with incident gout for whom follow-up data were available had initiated ULT within 6 months of their diagnosis. And, of these new starters, around a quarter had a serum urate level below a target of 360 micromol/L.
“This doesn’t detract from the fact that this is pretty low. Despite guidelines, we’re still not getting the majority of people on these very effective urate-lowering drugs,” Dr. Russell said.
There is perhaps too much reliance on modifying diet and lifestyle, he added, which are important for many reasons but will not do much to lower blood urate levels.
As a final word, Dr. Russell said, “It’s not just a case of preventing a bit of joint pain. People get lots of complications when they’re undertreated — erosive joint damage, work disability, impaired quality of life — and yet we’ve got very cheap, well-tolerated drugs.”
The work was independently funded. Dr. Russell acknowledged grant or research support from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and UCB and receipt of honoraria from AbbVie, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and Menarini.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BSR 2024
Blood Biomarkers Predict Knee Osteoarthritis Years in Advance
A small number of blood biomarkers can identify patients who will develop knee osteoarthritis (OA) up to 8 years before signs of the disease are detectable via X-ray, according to new research.
The study “provides more evidence for a pre-radiographic phase of disease,” wrote Virginia Byers Dr. Kraus, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine, pathology, and orthopedic surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues. The results also “provide valuable information for understanding the molecular events of early disease that could inform strategies to develop disease-modifying drugs for preclinical OA,” they continued.
In the study, published in Science Advances, researchers analyzed blood samples from a population-based, longitudinal study of women in London that assessed participants annually for osteoporosis and OA. They selected individuals at low risk for radiographic knee OA, who did not have traditional risk factors for knee OA such as a history of major knee injury, knee surgery, or OA of the hand or opposite knee.
The researchers analyzed serum of 100 women who went on to develop radiographic knee OA and 100 controls who were matched by age and body mass index (BMI). Participants were, on average, aged 54 years with a BMI of 26 and all were White. They analyzed serum peptides via mass spectrometry and used machine learning to select which out of the 115 identified peptides were most predictive of OA.
Ultimately, the team zeroed in on six peptides, corresponding to six proteins, that could most accurately distinguish women who went on to develop radiographic signs of OA from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77) up to 8 years before x-rays detected these changes.
“The value of our study is a panel that, in the absence of clinical factors indicative of high-risk knee OA, has the potential to discriminate individuals at risk for incident radiographic knee OA from those not at risk,” the authors wrote.
In earlier work, a similar group of biomarkers could accurately diagnose knee OA as well as predict the progression of the disease. More than half (58%) of biomarkers that predicted incident OA also predicted OA progression.
“Even for the ones that didn’t overlap with OA progression, they all pointed to the same sort of disease process, which is an unresolved acute phase response type of biological process,” Dr. Kraus told this news organization.
Commenting on the study, Andrew Grose, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, noted that the methods and conclusions seemed sound but cautioned that the study only looked for radiographic evidence of OA, and not symptomatic OA.
“Clinically relevant OA is correlated with what you see on an x-ray, but the x-ray is definitely not the whole story,” he said in an interview with this news organization.
To be clinically relevant, patients must also have symptoms, such as pain and stiffness, and interfere with daily life. But what shows up on an x-ray is not necessarily indicative of what patients are experiencing, he said. Solely focusing on radiographic findings could lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of OA, he said.
The study population was also small, and only included White women, he added, so further validation is necessary. Dr. Kraus and colleagues also acknowledged these limitations.
“Further validation will be needed in independent and larger cohorts, preferability prospectively collected and including male participants and the combination of incident radiographic and symptomatic OA,” they wrote. They noted that while this current study included only women, the biomarkers were not associated with sex in previous studies that used larger and mixed-sex cohorts.
“If they did more studies showing that this [test] was able to predict clinically relevant OA, then I think you could have a meaningful conversation with a patient in a primary care doctor’s office,” Dr. Grose added. “Until that time, just the fact that it predicts an x-ray finding is a little bit of a red herring.”
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kraus is an inventor on a patent related to OA progression biomarkers. Dr. Grose had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A small number of blood biomarkers can identify patients who will develop knee osteoarthritis (OA) up to 8 years before signs of the disease are detectable via X-ray, according to new research.
The study “provides more evidence for a pre-radiographic phase of disease,” wrote Virginia Byers Dr. Kraus, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine, pathology, and orthopedic surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues. The results also “provide valuable information for understanding the molecular events of early disease that could inform strategies to develop disease-modifying drugs for preclinical OA,” they continued.
In the study, published in Science Advances, researchers analyzed blood samples from a population-based, longitudinal study of women in London that assessed participants annually for osteoporosis and OA. They selected individuals at low risk for radiographic knee OA, who did not have traditional risk factors for knee OA such as a history of major knee injury, knee surgery, or OA of the hand or opposite knee.
The researchers analyzed serum of 100 women who went on to develop radiographic knee OA and 100 controls who were matched by age and body mass index (BMI). Participants were, on average, aged 54 years with a BMI of 26 and all were White. They analyzed serum peptides via mass spectrometry and used machine learning to select which out of the 115 identified peptides were most predictive of OA.
Ultimately, the team zeroed in on six peptides, corresponding to six proteins, that could most accurately distinguish women who went on to develop radiographic signs of OA from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77) up to 8 years before x-rays detected these changes.
“The value of our study is a panel that, in the absence of clinical factors indicative of high-risk knee OA, has the potential to discriminate individuals at risk for incident radiographic knee OA from those not at risk,” the authors wrote.
In earlier work, a similar group of biomarkers could accurately diagnose knee OA as well as predict the progression of the disease. More than half (58%) of biomarkers that predicted incident OA also predicted OA progression.
“Even for the ones that didn’t overlap with OA progression, they all pointed to the same sort of disease process, which is an unresolved acute phase response type of biological process,” Dr. Kraus told this news organization.
Commenting on the study, Andrew Grose, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, noted that the methods and conclusions seemed sound but cautioned that the study only looked for radiographic evidence of OA, and not symptomatic OA.
“Clinically relevant OA is correlated with what you see on an x-ray, but the x-ray is definitely not the whole story,” he said in an interview with this news organization.
To be clinically relevant, patients must also have symptoms, such as pain and stiffness, and interfere with daily life. But what shows up on an x-ray is not necessarily indicative of what patients are experiencing, he said. Solely focusing on radiographic findings could lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of OA, he said.
The study population was also small, and only included White women, he added, so further validation is necessary. Dr. Kraus and colleagues also acknowledged these limitations.
“Further validation will be needed in independent and larger cohorts, preferability prospectively collected and including male participants and the combination of incident radiographic and symptomatic OA,” they wrote. They noted that while this current study included only women, the biomarkers were not associated with sex in previous studies that used larger and mixed-sex cohorts.
“If they did more studies showing that this [test] was able to predict clinically relevant OA, then I think you could have a meaningful conversation with a patient in a primary care doctor’s office,” Dr. Grose added. “Until that time, just the fact that it predicts an x-ray finding is a little bit of a red herring.”
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kraus is an inventor on a patent related to OA progression biomarkers. Dr. Grose had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
A small number of blood biomarkers can identify patients who will develop knee osteoarthritis (OA) up to 8 years before signs of the disease are detectable via X-ray, according to new research.
The study “provides more evidence for a pre-radiographic phase of disease,” wrote Virginia Byers Dr. Kraus, MD, PhD, a professor of medicine, pathology, and orthopedic surgery at Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues. The results also “provide valuable information for understanding the molecular events of early disease that could inform strategies to develop disease-modifying drugs for preclinical OA,” they continued.
In the study, published in Science Advances, researchers analyzed blood samples from a population-based, longitudinal study of women in London that assessed participants annually for osteoporosis and OA. They selected individuals at low risk for radiographic knee OA, who did not have traditional risk factors for knee OA such as a history of major knee injury, knee surgery, or OA of the hand or opposite knee.
The researchers analyzed serum of 100 women who went on to develop radiographic knee OA and 100 controls who were matched by age and body mass index (BMI). Participants were, on average, aged 54 years with a BMI of 26 and all were White. They analyzed serum peptides via mass spectrometry and used machine learning to select which out of the 115 identified peptides were most predictive of OA.
Ultimately, the team zeroed in on six peptides, corresponding to six proteins, that could most accurately distinguish women who went on to develop radiographic signs of OA from controls (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.77) up to 8 years before x-rays detected these changes.
“The value of our study is a panel that, in the absence of clinical factors indicative of high-risk knee OA, has the potential to discriminate individuals at risk for incident radiographic knee OA from those not at risk,” the authors wrote.
In earlier work, a similar group of biomarkers could accurately diagnose knee OA as well as predict the progression of the disease. More than half (58%) of biomarkers that predicted incident OA also predicted OA progression.
“Even for the ones that didn’t overlap with OA progression, they all pointed to the same sort of disease process, which is an unresolved acute phase response type of biological process,” Dr. Kraus told this news organization.
Commenting on the study, Andrew Grose, MD, an orthopedic trauma surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City, noted that the methods and conclusions seemed sound but cautioned that the study only looked for radiographic evidence of OA, and not symptomatic OA.
“Clinically relevant OA is correlated with what you see on an x-ray, but the x-ray is definitely not the whole story,” he said in an interview with this news organization.
To be clinically relevant, patients must also have symptoms, such as pain and stiffness, and interfere with daily life. But what shows up on an x-ray is not necessarily indicative of what patients are experiencing, he said. Solely focusing on radiographic findings could lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of OA, he said.
The study population was also small, and only included White women, he added, so further validation is necessary. Dr. Kraus and colleagues also acknowledged these limitations.
“Further validation will be needed in independent and larger cohorts, preferability prospectively collected and including male participants and the combination of incident radiographic and symptomatic OA,” they wrote. They noted that while this current study included only women, the biomarkers were not associated with sex in previous studies that used larger and mixed-sex cohorts.
“If they did more studies showing that this [test] was able to predict clinically relevant OA, then I think you could have a meaningful conversation with a patient in a primary care doctor’s office,” Dr. Grose added. “Until that time, just the fact that it predicts an x-ray finding is a little bit of a red herring.”
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Kraus is an inventor on a patent related to OA progression biomarkers. Dr. Grose had no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SCIENCE ADVANCES
New British Behçet’s Disease Guidelines Emphasize Multidisciplinary Management
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.
The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.
With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.
The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.
Importance of Raising Awareness
“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”
Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.
“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.
“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
Patient Perspective
Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.
“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”
Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management
Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.
“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.
“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
Management of Manifestations
One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.
“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”
The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.
With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.
To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
Future Work and Revision
“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.
More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.
“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.
“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.
The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.
The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.
With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.
The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.
Importance of Raising Awareness
“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”
Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.
“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.
“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
Patient Perspective
Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.
“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”
Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management
Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.
“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.
“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
Management of Manifestations
One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.
“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”
The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.
With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.
To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
Future Work and Revision
“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.
More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.
“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.
“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.
The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
LIVERPOOL, ENGLAND — The British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) and the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) have joined forces for the first time to develop the first British guidelines for the management of people living with Behçet’s disease.
The guidelines will also be the first “living guidelines” produced by either society, which means they will be regularly revised and updated when new evidence emerges that warrants inclusion.
With more than 90 recommendations being made, the new guidelines promise to be the most comprehensive and most up-to-date yet for what is regarded as a rare disease. Robert Moots, MBBS, PhD, provided a “sneak peek” of the guidelines at the annual meeting of the British Society for Rheumatology.
Dr. Moots, professor of rheumatology at the University of Liverpool and a consultant rheumatologist for Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in England, noted that while the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology has produced a guideline for Behçet’s disease, this was last updated in 2018 and is not specific for the population for patients that is seen in the United Kingdom.
The British recommendations will cover all possible manifestations of Behçet’s disease and give practical advice on how to manage everything from the most common presentations such as skin lesions, mouth ulcers, and genital ulcers, as well as the potentially more serious eye, neurological, and vascular involvement.
Importance of Raising Awareness
“Joint and musculoskeletal problems are actually one of the least complained of symptoms in people with Behçet’s, and they often can’t understand why a rheumatologist is seeing them,” Dr. Moot said. “But of course, people do get joint problems, they can get enthesitis and arthralgia.”
Dr. Moots has been leading one of the three National Health Service (NHS) Centres of Excellence for Behçet’s Syndrome in England for more than a decade and told this news organization that diagnosing patients could be challenging. It can take up to 10 years from the first symptoms appearing to getting a diagnosis, so part of the job of the NHS Centres of Excellence is to raise awareness among both the healthcare profession and the general public.
“It’s a condition that people learn about at medical school. Most doctors will have come across it, but because it was thought to be really rare in the UK, nobody perhaps really expects to see it,” Dr. Moot said.
“But we all have these patients,” he added. “In Liverpool, we’re commissioned to be looking after an anticipated 150 people with Behçet’s — we’ve got 700. With more awareness, there’s more diagnoses being made, and people are being looked after better.”
Patient Perspective
Tony Thornburn, OBE, chair of the patient advocacy group Behçet’s UK, agreed in a separate interview that raising awareness of the syndrome was key to improving its management.
“Patients have said that it is a bit like having arthritis, lupus, MS [multiple sclerosis], and Crohn’s [disease] all at once,” Mr. Thorburn said. “So what we need is a guideline to ensure that people know what they’re looking at.”
Mr. Thorburn added, “Guidelines are important for raising awareness but also providing the detailed information that clinicians and GPs [general practitioners] need to have to treat a patient when they come in with this multifaceted condition.”
Multifaceted Means Multidisciplinary Management
Because there can be so many different aspects to managing someone with Behçet’s disease, a multispecialty team that was convened to develop the guidelines agreed that multidisciplinary management should be an overarching theme.
“The guideline development group consisted of all the specialties that you would need for a complex multisystem disease like Behçet’s,” Dr. Moot said. He highlighted that working alongside the consultants in adult and pediatric rheumatology were specialists in dermatology, gastroenterology, neurology, ophthalmology, obstetrics and gynecology, and psychology.
“We’re actually looking at psychological interactions and their impact for the first time,” Dr. Moot said, noting that clinicians needed to “take it seriously, and ask about it.”
Management of Manifestations
One of the general principles of the guidelines is to assess the involvement of each organ system and target treatment accordingly.
“One of the problems is that the evidence base to tell us what to do is pretty low,” Dr. Moots acknowledged. There have been few good quality randomized trials, so “treatment tends to be eminence-based rather than evidence-based.”
The recommendation wording bears this in mind, stating whether a treatment should or should not be offered, or just considered if there is no strong evidence to back up its use.
With regard to musculoskeletal manifestations, the recommendations say that colchicine should be offered, perhaps as a first-line option, or an intraarticular steroid injection in the case of monoarthritis. An intramuscular depot steroid may also be appropriate to offer, and there was good evidence to offer azathioprine or, as an alternative in refractory cases, a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, methotrexate, apremilast, secukinumab, and referral to a physiotherapist could only be considered, however, based on weaker levels of evidence for their use.
To treat mucocutaneous disease, the guidelines advise offering topical steroids in the form of ointment for genital ulcers or mouthwash or ointment for oral ulcers. For skin lesions, it is recommended to offer colchicine, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, or TNF inhibitor and to consider the use of apremilast, secukinumab, or dapsone.
Future Work and Revision
“One of the key things we would like to see developing is a national registry,” Dr. Moots said. This would include biobanking samples for future research and possible genomic and phenotyping studies.
More work needs to be done in conducting clinical trials in children and young people with Behçet’s disease, studies to find prognostic factors for neurological disease, and clinical trials of potential new drug approaches such as Janus kinase inhibitors. Importantly, an auditing process needs to be set up to see what effect, if any, the guidelines will actually have onpatient management.
“It’s taken 5 years to today” to develop the guidelines, Dr. Moot said. What form the process of updating them will take still has to be decided, he said in the interview. It is likely that the necessary literature searches will be performed every 6 months or so, but it will be a compromise between the ideal situation and having the staffing time to do it.
“It’s a big ask,” Dr. Moot acknowledged, adding that even if updates were only once a year, it would still be much faster than the 5- or 6-year cycle that it traditionally takes for most guidelines to be updated.
The BSR and BAD’s processes for developing guidelines are accredited by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Dr. Moots is the chief investigator for the Secukinumab in Behçet’s trial, which is sponsored by the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust via grant funding from Novartis.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM BSR 2024
Poor Use of ICD-10 Rheumatology Codes Suggests New Approach Needed for ICD-11 Adoption
Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.
Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.
“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”
The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.
ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.
To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.
The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.
For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.
The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.
“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities
Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.
“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.
Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.
And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.
“Although ICD-11 retains some precoordinated codes that convey multifaceted compound concepts, its structure and syntax also provide for post-coordination, a new feature to the ICD that supports the customized combination of concepts and modifier codes to capture previously inaccessible clinical nuance,” he wrote in a coauthored invited commentary.
This added clinical nuance, however, will potentially make coding more complex, he said. One solution is to automate coding, such that clinicians could input information in a natural clinical format that makes sense to them, which would then be translated into ICD-11 code by a program. (This would then be translated back to the user in the natural clinical format to ensure accuracy.)
This type of process would limit how much any one person would need to know about ICD-11 to code diagnoses effectively, while also taking full advantage of the increasing specificity of the new coding system, he said.
Such a program does not yet exist but could be possible with intensive investment in the transition to ICD-11.
The findings of this study serve as a cautionary tale for future transitions to new systems without considering the importance of user experience and usability, Dr. Pine noted. If the United States takes an approach for the adoption of ICD-11 that is similar to that used for ICD-10, it is likely to be “just another overhyped transition” that will make users unwilling to adopt any new system moving forward out of frustration.
But if the United States takes a different, innovative approach, the opposite could be true.
“In short, the US must decide whether it is time to invest considerable resources and effort into a 21st-century information system that could overcome such hindrances as asymmetric information for decision-making, faulty risk adjustment in performance evaluations and payment formulas, and burdens imposed by current coding and documentation practices,” the commentary reads.
“It will allow us to make the best of what computers do and the best of what clinicians do,” Dr. Pine added, “and get them to work together in ways which would not have been conceivable 50 years ago.”
No information on study funding was provided. Mr. Zhu and Dr. Pine did not disclose any competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.
Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.
“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”
The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.
ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.
To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.
The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.
For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.
The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.
“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities
Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.
“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.
Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.
And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.
“Although ICD-11 retains some precoordinated codes that convey multifaceted compound concepts, its structure and syntax also provide for post-coordination, a new feature to the ICD that supports the customized combination of concepts and modifier codes to capture previously inaccessible clinical nuance,” he wrote in a coauthored invited commentary.
This added clinical nuance, however, will potentially make coding more complex, he said. One solution is to automate coding, such that clinicians could input information in a natural clinical format that makes sense to them, which would then be translated into ICD-11 code by a program. (This would then be translated back to the user in the natural clinical format to ensure accuracy.)
This type of process would limit how much any one person would need to know about ICD-11 to code diagnoses effectively, while also taking full advantage of the increasing specificity of the new coding system, he said.
Such a program does not yet exist but could be possible with intensive investment in the transition to ICD-11.
The findings of this study serve as a cautionary tale for future transitions to new systems without considering the importance of user experience and usability, Dr. Pine noted. If the United States takes an approach for the adoption of ICD-11 that is similar to that used for ICD-10, it is likely to be “just another overhyped transition” that will make users unwilling to adopt any new system moving forward out of frustration.
But if the United States takes a different, innovative approach, the opposite could be true.
“In short, the US must decide whether it is time to invest considerable resources and effort into a 21st-century information system that could overcome such hindrances as asymmetric information for decision-making, faulty risk adjustment in performance evaluations and payment formulas, and burdens imposed by current coding and documentation practices,” the commentary reads.
“It will allow us to make the best of what computers do and the best of what clinicians do,” Dr. Pine added, “and get them to work together in ways which would not have been conceivable 50 years ago.”
No information on study funding was provided. Mr. Zhu and Dr. Pine did not disclose any competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
Inflammatory arthritis codes increased 30-fold in the transition from the ninth to the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9 and -10), yet few were used in clinical practice, according to new research.
Most of the new codes for inflammatory arthritis in ICD-10 were rarely used, if at all, from 2015 to 2021.
“About 10-20 codes were comprising the majority of usage for inflammatory arthritis patients in ICD-10,” first author Justin Zhu, a researcher and medical student at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, told this news organization. “The other 380 or 400 codes just weren’t seeing a lot of use.”
The findings show the difficulties of transitioning to a new system, he added, and emphasize the need for additional training to improve adoption of ICD-11. The new coding system launched globally in January 2022, but it is not clear when it will be implemented in the United States.
ICD-10 was launched in the United States in 2015, with the goal of enabling greater specificity in identifying health conditions. For example, the new coding system allowed users to include information on laterality and anatomic location for the first time. The total number of codes increased from 14,500 with ICD-9 to 70,000 with ICD-10, with the number of inflammatory arthritis diagnosis codes growing from 14 to 425.
To see how these ICD-10 codes were utilized compared with ICD-9, Zhu and colleagues used national multi-insurance administrative claims data to find inflammatory arthritis diagnostic codes for over 5.1 million patients. About half were coded in ICD-9, while the remaining half were coded in ICD-10. Mr. Zhu and colleagues defined “higher-usage codes” as those that were used more than 1% of the time.
The findings were published in a research letter in JAMA Network Open on April 18.
For ICD-9, four of the available 14 codes (28.6%) were higher-usage codes. In contrast, only nine of the 425 ICD-10 codes (2.1%) were frequently used. Though ICD-10 allowed for increased granularity in diagnosis, data showed that nonspecific codes were most popular. Of the 20 most used ICD-10 arthritis codes, 65% contained “unspecified or other specified” in its wording.
The researchers also found that there was no significant change in these higher-usage codes throughout the study period from 2015 to 2021, suggesting there was not a detectable learning curve in ICD-10 usage among physicians and coders. They also found that clinician specialty did not change code usage patterns.
“The percentage of codes used was not better for rheumatologists (who might be expected to be more refined users of such codes) than primary care clinicians,” Mr. Zhu and colleagues wrote.
Moving to ICD-11 Brings Challenges as Well as Opportunities
Mr. Zhu noted that the study highlights the challenges of adopting new technological systems into daily practice, which can inform the eventual transition to ICD-11.
“There is this need to emphasize training as well as just invest more in improving adoption of ICD-11,” he said.
Michael Pine, MD, MBA, of MJP Healthcare Innovations, LLC in Evanston, Illinois, added that ICD-11 needs to be more user-friendly to be useful in practice. While ICD-10 allowed for greater granularity in coding, it did not result in “usable granularity, in terms of the things doctors really want to communicate,” he told this news organization.
And the transition to ICD-11 could pose greater challenges; rather than ICD-10’s taxonomy system, ICD-11 is formatted as an ontology.
“Although ICD-11 retains some precoordinated codes that convey multifaceted compound concepts, its structure and syntax also provide for post-coordination, a new feature to the ICD that supports the customized combination of concepts and modifier codes to capture previously inaccessible clinical nuance,” he wrote in a coauthored invited commentary.
This added clinical nuance, however, will potentially make coding more complex, he said. One solution is to automate coding, such that clinicians could input information in a natural clinical format that makes sense to them, which would then be translated into ICD-11 code by a program. (This would then be translated back to the user in the natural clinical format to ensure accuracy.)
This type of process would limit how much any one person would need to know about ICD-11 to code diagnoses effectively, while also taking full advantage of the increasing specificity of the new coding system, he said.
Such a program does not yet exist but could be possible with intensive investment in the transition to ICD-11.
The findings of this study serve as a cautionary tale for future transitions to new systems without considering the importance of user experience and usability, Dr. Pine noted. If the United States takes an approach for the adoption of ICD-11 that is similar to that used for ICD-10, it is likely to be “just another overhyped transition” that will make users unwilling to adopt any new system moving forward out of frustration.
But if the United States takes a different, innovative approach, the opposite could be true.
“In short, the US must decide whether it is time to invest considerable resources and effort into a 21st-century information system that could overcome such hindrances as asymmetric information for decision-making, faulty risk adjustment in performance evaluations and payment formulas, and burdens imposed by current coding and documentation practices,” the commentary reads.
“It will allow us to make the best of what computers do and the best of what clinicians do,” Dr. Pine added, “and get them to work together in ways which would not have been conceivable 50 years ago.”
No information on study funding was provided. Mr. Zhu and Dr. Pine did not disclose any competing interests.
A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN