User login
Use of mHealth technology lags in lupus care, research
Most mobile apps are poor in quality, review finds.
and have limited “The use of mobile technologies to support health (mHealth technologies), specifically mHealth applications (apps), has the potential to improve outcomes in SLE by empowering patients through education, symptom tracking, and peer support,” first author Lucas Ogura Dantas, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and coauthors wrote in Lupus. “These may be particularly powerful tools in SLE which commonly affects young adults, who are typically avid smartphone users familiar with the use of mobile apps.”
The authors’ review of 19 mHealth apps on Google Play and the Apple App Store (and 1 not on either platform) gave an overall average score of 2.3 out of a possible 5.0 from individual mean scores for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality on the 23-item Mobile App Rating Scale, each item of which is rated on a 0-5 point scale. Overall, 10 apps offered educational content, 7 offered tools for tracking patient-reported symptoms, 5 offered interactive online communities, 1 offered emojis to share through text messages or email for the purpose of entertainment, and 1 could not be fully evaluated.
The researchers noted that “most apps scored poorly based on design, user interface, functionality, and credibility,” with mean scores of 2.5 for engagement, 2.9 for functionality, 2.2 for aesthetics, and 1.6 for information. “The majority of the apps provided low-quality information from questionable sources (i.e., sources were not cited or their legitimacy was unknown or unverifiable),” they wrote.
The three highest-rated apps – LupusMinder (overall mean score, 3.3), Lupus Corner Health Manager (3.2), and PatientsLikeMe (3.1) – all focused on tracking patient-reported outcomes, but none used validated outcome measures; offered connectivity with wearable devices; or passively collected data such as step count, walking distances, flights climbed, calories expenditure, or sleep monitoring. However, two did have social network components and interactive support groups. Despite these apps’ interactivity and customizability, none offered “features for patients to create and track goals, directly connect with a physician or expert in the field, or synchronize data with electronic health records. None of the apps provided patients with feedback.”
The authors wrote that the Lupus Corner Health Manager was “the only one that addresses the majority of the preferences of SLE patients identified in our literature review. This app provides educational material, a symptom and medication tracker, and a discussion group for communicating with others living with lupus – all key features of mHealth technologies in the management of chronic diseases.”
However, they noted that the “ideal mHealth app for patients with SLE would incorporate evidence-based educational material, customizable symptom and medication trackers, logs for personalized health goals, and connectivity with external hardware devices to enrich data collection. Additional useful features would include gamification components to engage users, the provision of tailored feedback based on collected data, and secure mechanisms of communication and data access between users and health care providers to facilitate treatment planning and coordination of care.”
In the systematic literature review, the researchers identified a total of 21 original research studies “related to the development or use of mHealth technologies targeting people of all ages with an SLE diagnosis,” including 2 randomized trials, 10 observational studies, 4 qualitative studies, 3 review articles, and 2 study protocols for future randomized trials.
These papers most often focused on developing and using mHealth for providing patient information (11 papers), followed by mHealth interventions (5); study protocols (2); and developing mHealth apps, websites, or mHealth interventions (3).
Seven studies implemented mHealth technologies, including two with wearable devices, two with text-messaging interventions, and three that used web-based systems. These had mixed results and small samples sizes ranging from 9 to 41 patients, making their interpretation difficult, the authors wrote. A total of 11 studies examined the development of mHealth technologies, including 7 that recognized “the need for more interactive educational platforms with high-quality information,” 2 that described a need for “novel methods of disease monitoring,” and 2 that revealed “a need for sources of support such as virtual communities.”
“Though our systematic literature review found that patients seek to use mHealth technologies to aid with disease management, we identified few studies exploring mHealth-based interventions to improve health outcomes, with the limited published literature devoted to the use of mHealth platforms to provide educational information,” Mr. Dantas and associates wrote.
The lack of evidence for mHealth technologies in SLE patients “contrast with the robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in improving outcomes in several chronic conditions,” such as chronic low back and musculoskeletal pain and blood pressure control, they noted.
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. The study authors received funding from the Saõ Paulo Research Foundation, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
SOURCE: Dantas LO et al. Lupus. 2020;29:144-56.
Most mobile apps are poor in quality, review finds.
Most mobile apps are poor in quality, review finds.
and have limited “The use of mobile technologies to support health (mHealth technologies), specifically mHealth applications (apps), has the potential to improve outcomes in SLE by empowering patients through education, symptom tracking, and peer support,” first author Lucas Ogura Dantas, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and coauthors wrote in Lupus. “These may be particularly powerful tools in SLE which commonly affects young adults, who are typically avid smartphone users familiar with the use of mobile apps.”
The authors’ review of 19 mHealth apps on Google Play and the Apple App Store (and 1 not on either platform) gave an overall average score of 2.3 out of a possible 5.0 from individual mean scores for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality on the 23-item Mobile App Rating Scale, each item of which is rated on a 0-5 point scale. Overall, 10 apps offered educational content, 7 offered tools for tracking patient-reported symptoms, 5 offered interactive online communities, 1 offered emojis to share through text messages or email for the purpose of entertainment, and 1 could not be fully evaluated.
The researchers noted that “most apps scored poorly based on design, user interface, functionality, and credibility,” with mean scores of 2.5 for engagement, 2.9 for functionality, 2.2 for aesthetics, and 1.6 for information. “The majority of the apps provided low-quality information from questionable sources (i.e., sources were not cited or their legitimacy was unknown or unverifiable),” they wrote.
The three highest-rated apps – LupusMinder (overall mean score, 3.3), Lupus Corner Health Manager (3.2), and PatientsLikeMe (3.1) – all focused on tracking patient-reported outcomes, but none used validated outcome measures; offered connectivity with wearable devices; or passively collected data such as step count, walking distances, flights climbed, calories expenditure, or sleep monitoring. However, two did have social network components and interactive support groups. Despite these apps’ interactivity and customizability, none offered “features for patients to create and track goals, directly connect with a physician or expert in the field, or synchronize data with electronic health records. None of the apps provided patients with feedback.”
The authors wrote that the Lupus Corner Health Manager was “the only one that addresses the majority of the preferences of SLE patients identified in our literature review. This app provides educational material, a symptom and medication tracker, and a discussion group for communicating with others living with lupus – all key features of mHealth technologies in the management of chronic diseases.”
However, they noted that the “ideal mHealth app for patients with SLE would incorporate evidence-based educational material, customizable symptom and medication trackers, logs for personalized health goals, and connectivity with external hardware devices to enrich data collection. Additional useful features would include gamification components to engage users, the provision of tailored feedback based on collected data, and secure mechanisms of communication and data access between users and health care providers to facilitate treatment planning and coordination of care.”
In the systematic literature review, the researchers identified a total of 21 original research studies “related to the development or use of mHealth technologies targeting people of all ages with an SLE diagnosis,” including 2 randomized trials, 10 observational studies, 4 qualitative studies, 3 review articles, and 2 study protocols for future randomized trials.
These papers most often focused on developing and using mHealth for providing patient information (11 papers), followed by mHealth interventions (5); study protocols (2); and developing mHealth apps, websites, or mHealth interventions (3).
Seven studies implemented mHealth technologies, including two with wearable devices, two with text-messaging interventions, and three that used web-based systems. These had mixed results and small samples sizes ranging from 9 to 41 patients, making their interpretation difficult, the authors wrote. A total of 11 studies examined the development of mHealth technologies, including 7 that recognized “the need for more interactive educational platforms with high-quality information,” 2 that described a need for “novel methods of disease monitoring,” and 2 that revealed “a need for sources of support such as virtual communities.”
“Though our systematic literature review found that patients seek to use mHealth technologies to aid with disease management, we identified few studies exploring mHealth-based interventions to improve health outcomes, with the limited published literature devoted to the use of mHealth platforms to provide educational information,” Mr. Dantas and associates wrote.
The lack of evidence for mHealth technologies in SLE patients “contrast with the robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in improving outcomes in several chronic conditions,” such as chronic low back and musculoskeletal pain and blood pressure control, they noted.
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. The study authors received funding from the Saõ Paulo Research Foundation, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
SOURCE: Dantas LO et al. Lupus. 2020;29:144-56.
and have limited “The use of mobile technologies to support health (mHealth technologies), specifically mHealth applications (apps), has the potential to improve outcomes in SLE by empowering patients through education, symptom tracking, and peer support,” first author Lucas Ogura Dantas, of Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and coauthors wrote in Lupus. “These may be particularly powerful tools in SLE which commonly affects young adults, who are typically avid smartphone users familiar with the use of mobile apps.”
The authors’ review of 19 mHealth apps on Google Play and the Apple App Store (and 1 not on either platform) gave an overall average score of 2.3 out of a possible 5.0 from individual mean scores for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality on the 23-item Mobile App Rating Scale, each item of which is rated on a 0-5 point scale. Overall, 10 apps offered educational content, 7 offered tools for tracking patient-reported symptoms, 5 offered interactive online communities, 1 offered emojis to share through text messages or email for the purpose of entertainment, and 1 could not be fully evaluated.
The researchers noted that “most apps scored poorly based on design, user interface, functionality, and credibility,” with mean scores of 2.5 for engagement, 2.9 for functionality, 2.2 for aesthetics, and 1.6 for information. “The majority of the apps provided low-quality information from questionable sources (i.e., sources were not cited or their legitimacy was unknown or unverifiable),” they wrote.
The three highest-rated apps – LupusMinder (overall mean score, 3.3), Lupus Corner Health Manager (3.2), and PatientsLikeMe (3.1) – all focused on tracking patient-reported outcomes, but none used validated outcome measures; offered connectivity with wearable devices; or passively collected data such as step count, walking distances, flights climbed, calories expenditure, or sleep monitoring. However, two did have social network components and interactive support groups. Despite these apps’ interactivity and customizability, none offered “features for patients to create and track goals, directly connect with a physician or expert in the field, or synchronize data with electronic health records. None of the apps provided patients with feedback.”
The authors wrote that the Lupus Corner Health Manager was “the only one that addresses the majority of the preferences of SLE patients identified in our literature review. This app provides educational material, a symptom and medication tracker, and a discussion group for communicating with others living with lupus – all key features of mHealth technologies in the management of chronic diseases.”
However, they noted that the “ideal mHealth app for patients with SLE would incorporate evidence-based educational material, customizable symptom and medication trackers, logs for personalized health goals, and connectivity with external hardware devices to enrich data collection. Additional useful features would include gamification components to engage users, the provision of tailored feedback based on collected data, and secure mechanisms of communication and data access between users and health care providers to facilitate treatment planning and coordination of care.”
In the systematic literature review, the researchers identified a total of 21 original research studies “related to the development or use of mHealth technologies targeting people of all ages with an SLE diagnosis,” including 2 randomized trials, 10 observational studies, 4 qualitative studies, 3 review articles, and 2 study protocols for future randomized trials.
These papers most often focused on developing and using mHealth for providing patient information (11 papers), followed by mHealth interventions (5); study protocols (2); and developing mHealth apps, websites, or mHealth interventions (3).
Seven studies implemented mHealth technologies, including two with wearable devices, two with text-messaging interventions, and three that used web-based systems. These had mixed results and small samples sizes ranging from 9 to 41 patients, making their interpretation difficult, the authors wrote. A total of 11 studies examined the development of mHealth technologies, including 7 that recognized “the need for more interactive educational platforms with high-quality information,” 2 that described a need for “novel methods of disease monitoring,” and 2 that revealed “a need for sources of support such as virtual communities.”
“Though our systematic literature review found that patients seek to use mHealth technologies to aid with disease management, we identified few studies exploring mHealth-based interventions to improve health outcomes, with the limited published literature devoted to the use of mHealth platforms to provide educational information,” Mr. Dantas and associates wrote.
The lack of evidence for mHealth technologies in SLE patients “contrast with the robust evidence supporting the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in improving outcomes in several chronic conditions,” such as chronic low back and musculoskeletal pain and blood pressure control, they noted.
The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest. The study authors received funding from the Saõ Paulo Research Foundation, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
SOURCE: Dantas LO et al. Lupus. 2020;29:144-56.
FROM LUPUS
Know the 15% rule in scleroderma
MAUI, HAWAII – The 15% rule in scleroderma is a handy tool that raises awareness of the disease’s associated prevalence of various severe organ complications so clinicians can screen appropriately, Janet Pope, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Pope and colleagues in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group developed the 15% rule because they recognized that scleroderma is rare enough that most physicians practicing outside of a few specialized centers don’t see many affected patients. The systemic autoimmune disease is marked by numerous possible expressions of vascular inflammation and malfunction, fibrosis, and autoimmunity in different organ systems.
“A lot of clinicians do not know how common this stuff is,” according to Dr. Pope, professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario and head of the division of rheumatology at St. Joseph’s Health Center in London, Ont.
Basically, the 15% rule holds that, at any given time, a patient with scleroderma has roughly a 15% chance – or one in six – of having any of an extensive array of severe organ complications. That means a 15% chance of having prevalent clinically significant pulmonary hypertension as defined by a systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 45 mm Hg or more on Doppler echocardiography, a 15% likelihood of interstitial lung disease or clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis as suggested by a forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted, a 15% prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome, a 15% likelihood of having pulmonary artery hypertension upon right heart catheterization, a 15% chance of inflammatory arthritis, and a one-in-six chance of having a myopathy or myositis. Also, diastolic dysfunction, 15%. Ditto symptomatic arrhythmias.
“It’s a good little rule of thumb,” Dr. Pope commented.
The odds of having a current digital ulcer on any given day? Again, about 15%. In addition, scleroderma patients have a 15% lifetime risk of developing a complicated digital ulcer requiring hospitalization and/or amputation, she continued.
And while the prevalence of scleroderma renal crisis in the overall population with scleroderma is low, at 3%, in the subgroup with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, it climbs to 12%-15%.
Every rule has its exceptions. The 15% rule doesn’t apply to Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is present in nearly all patients with scleroderma, nor to gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia, present in roughly 80% of patients.
Dr. Pope and coinvestigators developed the 15% rule pertaining to the prevalence of serious organ complications in scleroderma by conducting a systematic review of 69 published studies, each including a minimum of 50 scleroderma patients. The detailed results of the systematic review have been published.
Dr. Pope reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – The 15% rule in scleroderma is a handy tool that raises awareness of the disease’s associated prevalence of various severe organ complications so clinicians can screen appropriately, Janet Pope, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Pope and colleagues in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group developed the 15% rule because they recognized that scleroderma is rare enough that most physicians practicing outside of a few specialized centers don’t see many affected patients. The systemic autoimmune disease is marked by numerous possible expressions of vascular inflammation and malfunction, fibrosis, and autoimmunity in different organ systems.
“A lot of clinicians do not know how common this stuff is,” according to Dr. Pope, professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario and head of the division of rheumatology at St. Joseph’s Health Center in London, Ont.
Basically, the 15% rule holds that, at any given time, a patient with scleroderma has roughly a 15% chance – or one in six – of having any of an extensive array of severe organ complications. That means a 15% chance of having prevalent clinically significant pulmonary hypertension as defined by a systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 45 mm Hg or more on Doppler echocardiography, a 15% likelihood of interstitial lung disease or clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis as suggested by a forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted, a 15% prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome, a 15% likelihood of having pulmonary artery hypertension upon right heart catheterization, a 15% chance of inflammatory arthritis, and a one-in-six chance of having a myopathy or myositis. Also, diastolic dysfunction, 15%. Ditto symptomatic arrhythmias.
“It’s a good little rule of thumb,” Dr. Pope commented.
The odds of having a current digital ulcer on any given day? Again, about 15%. In addition, scleroderma patients have a 15% lifetime risk of developing a complicated digital ulcer requiring hospitalization and/or amputation, she continued.
And while the prevalence of scleroderma renal crisis in the overall population with scleroderma is low, at 3%, in the subgroup with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, it climbs to 12%-15%.
Every rule has its exceptions. The 15% rule doesn’t apply to Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is present in nearly all patients with scleroderma, nor to gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia, present in roughly 80% of patients.
Dr. Pope and coinvestigators developed the 15% rule pertaining to the prevalence of serious organ complications in scleroderma by conducting a systematic review of 69 published studies, each including a minimum of 50 scleroderma patients. The detailed results of the systematic review have been published.
Dr. Pope reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – The 15% rule in scleroderma is a handy tool that raises awareness of the disease’s associated prevalence of various severe organ complications so clinicians can screen appropriately, Janet Pope, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
Dr. Pope and colleagues in the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group developed the 15% rule because they recognized that scleroderma is rare enough that most physicians practicing outside of a few specialized centers don’t see many affected patients. The systemic autoimmune disease is marked by numerous possible expressions of vascular inflammation and malfunction, fibrosis, and autoimmunity in different organ systems.
“A lot of clinicians do not know how common this stuff is,” according to Dr. Pope, professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario and head of the division of rheumatology at St. Joseph’s Health Center in London, Ont.
Basically, the 15% rule holds that, at any given time, a patient with scleroderma has roughly a 15% chance – or one in six – of having any of an extensive array of severe organ complications. That means a 15% chance of having prevalent clinically significant pulmonary hypertension as defined by a systolic pulmonary artery pressure of 45 mm Hg or more on Doppler echocardiography, a 15% likelihood of interstitial lung disease or clinically significant pulmonary fibrosis as suggested by a forced vital capacity less than 70% of predicted, a 15% prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome, a 15% likelihood of having pulmonary artery hypertension upon right heart catheterization, a 15% chance of inflammatory arthritis, and a one-in-six chance of having a myopathy or myositis. Also, diastolic dysfunction, 15%. Ditto symptomatic arrhythmias.
“It’s a good little rule of thumb,” Dr. Pope commented.
The odds of having a current digital ulcer on any given day? Again, about 15%. In addition, scleroderma patients have a 15% lifetime risk of developing a complicated digital ulcer requiring hospitalization and/or amputation, she continued.
And while the prevalence of scleroderma renal crisis in the overall population with scleroderma is low, at 3%, in the subgroup with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis, it climbs to 12%-15%.
Every rule has its exceptions. The 15% rule doesn’t apply to Raynaud’s phenomenon, which is present in nearly all patients with scleroderma, nor to gastroesophageal reflux disease or dysphagia, present in roughly 80% of patients.
Dr. Pope and coinvestigators developed the 15% rule pertaining to the prevalence of serious organ complications in scleroderma by conducting a systematic review of 69 published studies, each including a minimum of 50 scleroderma patients. The detailed results of the systematic review have been published.
Dr. Pope reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020
Advances in ankylosing spondylitis hailed as rheumatology’s story of the year
MAUI, HAWAII – Arguably the most important development in the field of rheumatology during the past year was the emergence of persuasive clinical trials data predictive of a bright future for the oral Janus kinase inhibitors as major new drugs for treating ankylosing spondylitis, two experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“These drugs are the first oral DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], if you will, in AS [ankylosing spondylitis] ... I think obviously they are going to move forward to regulatory approval,” commented Arthur F. Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and the RWCS program director.
“I think they’re going to hit the ground running,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Upon approval, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors will quickly change the treatment paradigm in AS, the rheumatologists forecast.
“I think this is a way forward to go with strictly oral therapy without necessarily going first with parenteral therapy in these patients. It gives you an alternative, and my guess is, by the time these drugs are approved in this space, there’ll be more and more of their preferential use over biologics in rheumatoid arthritis and potentially in psoriatic arthritis, so people will be more familiar with them. A lot of patients are much happier taking a pill once a day with none of the tolerability issues that we have with shots,” Dr. Ruderman said.
“And they act fast,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh. “You can make a case for trying a JAK inhibitor for a month or 2, and then if you’re not better, then we go to the other option.”
Dr. Ruderman cautioned that the increased need for laboratory monitoring with the oral JAK inhibitors as compared with the annual monitoring with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors could be an issue, especially since AS patients tend to be on the younger side and often dislike coming in regularly for office visits and laboratory tests.
“There may be more of a headache in having to tell patients, ‘You’re not getting your JAK inhibitor refilled until you get your labs done,’ ” he said.
In December 2019, rheumatologists received a holiday present in the form of publication of the results of SELECT-AXIS 1, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial in which 187 patients with active AS were randomized to placebo or to the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at the same 15-mg dose approved by the FDA earlier in the year for rheumatoid arthritis. In SELECT-AXIS 1, upadacitinib not only demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a week-14 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society-40 (ASAS 40) response rate of 52% – twice that for placebo – but the active treatment arm also experienced significantly reduced inflammatory disease activity as measured by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores of the spine and sacroiliac joint. In contrast, MRI scores remained unchanged from baseline in the placebo arm.
“This suggests a biologic effect, a hook beyond clinical disease. And the time of onset was pretty impressive, much like with our experience with JAK inhibitors in RA. Within 2 weeks, there was significant separation from placebo on the ASDAS [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score],” Dr. Ruderman noted.
Positive clinical trials in AS have also been reported for the oral JAK inhibitors filgotinib and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
Dr. Ruderman and Dr. Kavanaugh also touched on other major developments in AS within the past year, including the landmark FDA approval of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) as the first-ever drug for treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Also, Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman gave two thumbs down to the 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.
More biologics coming for nr-AxSpA
In order to gain an indication for treatment of nr-axSpA, the FDA requires completion of a 52-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. That’s what UCB did with the company’s TNF inhibitor, certolizumab. Similarly, Eli Lilly sprang for the mandated 52-week trial in 303 nr-axSpA patients for its interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz), with positive findings (Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395[10217]:53-64). And Novartis has done so with its IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) in the 555-patient PREVENT trial, again with positive outcomes. So the two IL-17 inhibitors, which are already approved for AS, are seemingly a lock for approval in nr-axSpA as well.
Will the makers of other TNF inhibitors already approved for AS fork over the considerable money entailed in a 52-week randomized trial, or will they ride on certolizumab’s coattails? Dr. Ruderman said he doesn’t know the answer, but it’s certain that, if they don’t complete the trial, they can’t market their biologic for nr-axSpA in the United States, even though there might well be a drug class effect at work.
ACR/SAA/SPARTAN guidelines critiqued
The two panelists had plenty to say about the 2019 update of the guidelines, none of it favorable. Among their criticisms: The guidelines are already out of date several months after their release, they are based heavily on opinion rather than on evidence, they appear to take medication cost into consideration when they’re not supposed to, they are complicated, and they are just not practical or useful.
“I don’t know when these guidelines would potentially be used,” Dr. Kavanaugh commented in response to an audience question.
Specifically, the guidelines strongly recommend a TNF inhibitor over the IL-17 inhibitors secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first-line biologic in AS patients with active disease while on NSAIDs, guidance that is already out of date.
“You’d almost think it would have been better just to wait a few months to see the published literature, which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on practice,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
He also said he was troubled by the strong recommendation against switching to a TNF inhibitor–biosimilar after receiving treatment with an originator TNF inhibitor. That’s something rheumatologists all across Europe are routinely doing now for economic reasons without known harm, with the caveat that patients must be switched to a biosimilar of a different TNF inhibitor than the originator.
“There’s absolutely no data to support a recommendation against switching. I think they’re going out on a limb a little bit,” he added.
Dr. Ruderman said he struggles with the guideline development methodology, which involves posing a series of key questions at the outset, with a strict charge to provide answers.
“They always have to have an answer to the question. And in the event that there’s no data to support an answer, then it becomes a matter of the expert opinion of the people on the committee. I think many rheumatologists would say, ‘Why are they any more expert than a clinical rheumatologist who’s been seeing AS patients for 20 years?’ And the answer is they’re probably not. The fact that most of these are conditional recommendations, meaning they’re not supported by strong evidence, makes them less useful,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
Both he and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – Arguably the most important development in the field of rheumatology during the past year was the emergence of persuasive clinical trials data predictive of a bright future for the oral Janus kinase inhibitors as major new drugs for treating ankylosing spondylitis, two experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“These drugs are the first oral DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], if you will, in AS [ankylosing spondylitis] ... I think obviously they are going to move forward to regulatory approval,” commented Arthur F. Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and the RWCS program director.
“I think they’re going to hit the ground running,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Upon approval, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors will quickly change the treatment paradigm in AS, the rheumatologists forecast.
“I think this is a way forward to go with strictly oral therapy without necessarily going first with parenteral therapy in these patients. It gives you an alternative, and my guess is, by the time these drugs are approved in this space, there’ll be more and more of their preferential use over biologics in rheumatoid arthritis and potentially in psoriatic arthritis, so people will be more familiar with them. A lot of patients are much happier taking a pill once a day with none of the tolerability issues that we have with shots,” Dr. Ruderman said.
“And they act fast,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh. “You can make a case for trying a JAK inhibitor for a month or 2, and then if you’re not better, then we go to the other option.”
Dr. Ruderman cautioned that the increased need for laboratory monitoring with the oral JAK inhibitors as compared with the annual monitoring with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors could be an issue, especially since AS patients tend to be on the younger side and often dislike coming in regularly for office visits and laboratory tests.
“There may be more of a headache in having to tell patients, ‘You’re not getting your JAK inhibitor refilled until you get your labs done,’ ” he said.
In December 2019, rheumatologists received a holiday present in the form of publication of the results of SELECT-AXIS 1, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial in which 187 patients with active AS were randomized to placebo or to the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at the same 15-mg dose approved by the FDA earlier in the year for rheumatoid arthritis. In SELECT-AXIS 1, upadacitinib not only demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a week-14 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society-40 (ASAS 40) response rate of 52% – twice that for placebo – but the active treatment arm also experienced significantly reduced inflammatory disease activity as measured by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores of the spine and sacroiliac joint. In contrast, MRI scores remained unchanged from baseline in the placebo arm.
“This suggests a biologic effect, a hook beyond clinical disease. And the time of onset was pretty impressive, much like with our experience with JAK inhibitors in RA. Within 2 weeks, there was significant separation from placebo on the ASDAS [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score],” Dr. Ruderman noted.
Positive clinical trials in AS have also been reported for the oral JAK inhibitors filgotinib and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
Dr. Ruderman and Dr. Kavanaugh also touched on other major developments in AS within the past year, including the landmark FDA approval of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) as the first-ever drug for treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Also, Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman gave two thumbs down to the 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.
More biologics coming for nr-AxSpA
In order to gain an indication for treatment of nr-axSpA, the FDA requires completion of a 52-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. That’s what UCB did with the company’s TNF inhibitor, certolizumab. Similarly, Eli Lilly sprang for the mandated 52-week trial in 303 nr-axSpA patients for its interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz), with positive findings (Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395[10217]:53-64). And Novartis has done so with its IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) in the 555-patient PREVENT trial, again with positive outcomes. So the two IL-17 inhibitors, which are already approved for AS, are seemingly a lock for approval in nr-axSpA as well.
Will the makers of other TNF inhibitors already approved for AS fork over the considerable money entailed in a 52-week randomized trial, or will they ride on certolizumab’s coattails? Dr. Ruderman said he doesn’t know the answer, but it’s certain that, if they don’t complete the trial, they can’t market their biologic for nr-axSpA in the United States, even though there might well be a drug class effect at work.
ACR/SAA/SPARTAN guidelines critiqued
The two panelists had plenty to say about the 2019 update of the guidelines, none of it favorable. Among their criticisms: The guidelines are already out of date several months after their release, they are based heavily on opinion rather than on evidence, they appear to take medication cost into consideration when they’re not supposed to, they are complicated, and they are just not practical or useful.
“I don’t know when these guidelines would potentially be used,” Dr. Kavanaugh commented in response to an audience question.
Specifically, the guidelines strongly recommend a TNF inhibitor over the IL-17 inhibitors secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first-line biologic in AS patients with active disease while on NSAIDs, guidance that is already out of date.
“You’d almost think it would have been better just to wait a few months to see the published literature, which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on practice,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
He also said he was troubled by the strong recommendation against switching to a TNF inhibitor–biosimilar after receiving treatment with an originator TNF inhibitor. That’s something rheumatologists all across Europe are routinely doing now for economic reasons without known harm, with the caveat that patients must be switched to a biosimilar of a different TNF inhibitor than the originator.
“There’s absolutely no data to support a recommendation against switching. I think they’re going out on a limb a little bit,” he added.
Dr. Ruderman said he struggles with the guideline development methodology, which involves posing a series of key questions at the outset, with a strict charge to provide answers.
“They always have to have an answer to the question. And in the event that there’s no data to support an answer, then it becomes a matter of the expert opinion of the people on the committee. I think many rheumatologists would say, ‘Why are they any more expert than a clinical rheumatologist who’s been seeing AS patients for 20 years?’ And the answer is they’re probably not. The fact that most of these are conditional recommendations, meaning they’re not supported by strong evidence, makes them less useful,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
Both he and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – Arguably the most important development in the field of rheumatology during the past year was the emergence of persuasive clinical trials data predictive of a bright future for the oral Janus kinase inhibitors as major new drugs for treating ankylosing spondylitis, two experts agreed at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“These drugs are the first oral DMARDs [disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs], if you will, in AS [ankylosing spondylitis] ... I think obviously they are going to move forward to regulatory approval,” commented Arthur F. Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego, and the RWCS program director.
“I think they’re going to hit the ground running,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Upon approval, the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors will quickly change the treatment paradigm in AS, the rheumatologists forecast.
“I think this is a way forward to go with strictly oral therapy without necessarily going first with parenteral therapy in these patients. It gives you an alternative, and my guess is, by the time these drugs are approved in this space, there’ll be more and more of their preferential use over biologics in rheumatoid arthritis and potentially in psoriatic arthritis, so people will be more familiar with them. A lot of patients are much happier taking a pill once a day with none of the tolerability issues that we have with shots,” Dr. Ruderman said.
“And they act fast,” noted Dr. Kavanaugh. “You can make a case for trying a JAK inhibitor for a month or 2, and then if you’re not better, then we go to the other option.”
Dr. Ruderman cautioned that the increased need for laboratory monitoring with the oral JAK inhibitors as compared with the annual monitoring with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors could be an issue, especially since AS patients tend to be on the younger side and often dislike coming in regularly for office visits and laboratory tests.
“There may be more of a headache in having to tell patients, ‘You’re not getting your JAK inhibitor refilled until you get your labs done,’ ” he said.
In December 2019, rheumatologists received a holiday present in the form of publication of the results of SELECT-AXIS 1, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial in which 187 patients with active AS were randomized to placebo or to the JAK inhibitor upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at the same 15-mg dose approved by the FDA earlier in the year for rheumatoid arthritis. In SELECT-AXIS 1, upadacitinib not only demonstrated clinical efficacy, with a week-14 Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society-40 (ASAS 40) response rate of 52% – twice that for placebo – but the active treatment arm also experienced significantly reduced inflammatory disease activity as measured by Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) MRI scores of the spine and sacroiliac joint. In contrast, MRI scores remained unchanged from baseline in the placebo arm.
“This suggests a biologic effect, a hook beyond clinical disease. And the time of onset was pretty impressive, much like with our experience with JAK inhibitors in RA. Within 2 weeks, there was significant separation from placebo on the ASDAS [Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score],” Dr. Ruderman noted.
Positive clinical trials in AS have also been reported for the oral JAK inhibitors filgotinib and tofacitinib (Xeljanz).
Dr. Ruderman and Dr. Kavanaugh also touched on other major developments in AS within the past year, including the landmark FDA approval of certolizumab pegol (Cimzia) as the first-ever drug for treatment of nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Also, Dr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Ruderman gave two thumbs down to the 2019 Update of the American College of Rheumatology/Spondylitis Association of America/Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network Recommendations for the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis.
More biologics coming for nr-AxSpA
In order to gain an indication for treatment of nr-axSpA, the FDA requires completion of a 52-week, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. That’s what UCB did with the company’s TNF inhibitor, certolizumab. Similarly, Eli Lilly sprang for the mandated 52-week trial in 303 nr-axSpA patients for its interleukin-17 inhibitor ixekizumab (Taltz), with positive findings (Lancet. 2020 Jan 4;395[10217]:53-64). And Novartis has done so with its IL-17 inhibitor secukinumab (Cosentyx) in the 555-patient PREVENT trial, again with positive outcomes. So the two IL-17 inhibitors, which are already approved for AS, are seemingly a lock for approval in nr-axSpA as well.
Will the makers of other TNF inhibitors already approved for AS fork over the considerable money entailed in a 52-week randomized trial, or will they ride on certolizumab’s coattails? Dr. Ruderman said he doesn’t know the answer, but it’s certain that, if they don’t complete the trial, they can’t market their biologic for nr-axSpA in the United States, even though there might well be a drug class effect at work.
ACR/SAA/SPARTAN guidelines critiqued
The two panelists had plenty to say about the 2019 update of the guidelines, none of it favorable. Among their criticisms: The guidelines are already out of date several months after their release, they are based heavily on opinion rather than on evidence, they appear to take medication cost into consideration when they’re not supposed to, they are complicated, and they are just not practical or useful.
“I don’t know when these guidelines would potentially be used,” Dr. Kavanaugh commented in response to an audience question.
Specifically, the guidelines strongly recommend a TNF inhibitor over the IL-17 inhibitors secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first-line biologic in AS patients with active disease while on NSAIDs, guidance that is already out of date.
“You’d almost think it would have been better just to wait a few months to see the published literature, which I think is going to have a tremendous impact on practice,” Dr. Kavanaugh said.
He also said he was troubled by the strong recommendation against switching to a TNF inhibitor–biosimilar after receiving treatment with an originator TNF inhibitor. That’s something rheumatologists all across Europe are routinely doing now for economic reasons without known harm, with the caveat that patients must be switched to a biosimilar of a different TNF inhibitor than the originator.
“There’s absolutely no data to support a recommendation against switching. I think they’re going out on a limb a little bit,” he added.
Dr. Ruderman said he struggles with the guideline development methodology, which involves posing a series of key questions at the outset, with a strict charge to provide answers.
“They always have to have an answer to the question. And in the event that there’s no data to support an answer, then it becomes a matter of the expert opinion of the people on the committee. I think many rheumatologists would say, ‘Why are they any more expert than a clinical rheumatologist who’s been seeing AS patients for 20 years?’ And the answer is they’re probably not. The fact that most of these are conditional recommendations, meaning they’re not supported by strong evidence, makes them less useful,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
Both he and Dr. Kavanaugh reported receiving research funding from and/or serving as a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020
New RA diagnosis prompts patients to quit smoking
Health care factors, such as type of health system and being newly diagnosed, rather than patient socioeconomic factors, were significant predictors of smoking cessation in patients with RA, according to findings published in Arthritis Care & Research.
Smoking is a known risk factor for poor outcomes in RA, but data on factors that predict smoking cessation in these patients are limited, wrote Maria Schletzbaum, a student in the MD-PhD program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues. “Further, most patients with RA are not aware of the associations between smoking and RA development and complications, although such knowledge could influence cessation attempts.”
To identify predictors of smoking cessation, the investigators reviewed the 2005-2016 electronic medical records for 3,577 adults aged 18 years or older and with at least two RA diagnosis codes. The records were from two health systems, one urban and one rural.
Overall, patients who were baseline smokers and who were new to rheumatology care were 60% more likely to quit smoking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60). However, patients who were seropositive and baseline smokers were 43% less likely to quit (aOR, 0.57). Demographic factors, including age, race, and sex, were not significantly associated with smoking cessation.
“The observed increased likelihood of quitting in patients new to rheumatology care may partially be due to cessation following a new RA diagnosis, a phenomenon previously reported in RA and other chronic diseases,” the researchers noted. Notably, the significance of being new to rheumatology disappeared in an analysis controlling for health system, “potentially suggesting greater importance of system-level factors versus individual patient factors.”
In addition, patients in the rural community health system were 66% more likely to quit smoking, possibly because about half of the patients in that system were covered by the systems’ insurance, and therefore qualified for various smoking cessation interventions, they wrote.
The study population included 915 former smokers and 507 current smokers. Seropositivity was most common in current smokers (71%), followed by former smokers (64%) and never smokers (59%). The disinclination of seropositive patients to quit smoking may reflect greater smoking intensity, and these patients may need greater support, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors; for example, some differences in patient populations, such as education and income levels, were not measured, and there was a lack of complete information on cumulative smoking exposure. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and use of data from two centers and support national guidelines for health system interventions in smoking cessation for RA patients, they noted.
The study was funded in part by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the University of Wisconsin Medical Scientist Training Program, and the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award. The authors did not report any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Schletzbaum M et al. Arthritis Car Res. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24154.
Health care factors, such as type of health system and being newly diagnosed, rather than patient socioeconomic factors, were significant predictors of smoking cessation in patients with RA, according to findings published in Arthritis Care & Research.
Smoking is a known risk factor for poor outcomes in RA, but data on factors that predict smoking cessation in these patients are limited, wrote Maria Schletzbaum, a student in the MD-PhD program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues. “Further, most patients with RA are not aware of the associations between smoking and RA development and complications, although such knowledge could influence cessation attempts.”
To identify predictors of smoking cessation, the investigators reviewed the 2005-2016 electronic medical records for 3,577 adults aged 18 years or older and with at least two RA diagnosis codes. The records were from two health systems, one urban and one rural.
Overall, patients who were baseline smokers and who were new to rheumatology care were 60% more likely to quit smoking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60). However, patients who were seropositive and baseline smokers were 43% less likely to quit (aOR, 0.57). Demographic factors, including age, race, and sex, were not significantly associated with smoking cessation.
“The observed increased likelihood of quitting in patients new to rheumatology care may partially be due to cessation following a new RA diagnosis, a phenomenon previously reported in RA and other chronic diseases,” the researchers noted. Notably, the significance of being new to rheumatology disappeared in an analysis controlling for health system, “potentially suggesting greater importance of system-level factors versus individual patient factors.”
In addition, patients in the rural community health system were 66% more likely to quit smoking, possibly because about half of the patients in that system were covered by the systems’ insurance, and therefore qualified for various smoking cessation interventions, they wrote.
The study population included 915 former smokers and 507 current smokers. Seropositivity was most common in current smokers (71%), followed by former smokers (64%) and never smokers (59%). The disinclination of seropositive patients to quit smoking may reflect greater smoking intensity, and these patients may need greater support, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors; for example, some differences in patient populations, such as education and income levels, were not measured, and there was a lack of complete information on cumulative smoking exposure. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and use of data from two centers and support national guidelines for health system interventions in smoking cessation for RA patients, they noted.
The study was funded in part by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the University of Wisconsin Medical Scientist Training Program, and the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award. The authors did not report any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Schletzbaum M et al. Arthritis Car Res. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24154.
Health care factors, such as type of health system and being newly diagnosed, rather than patient socioeconomic factors, were significant predictors of smoking cessation in patients with RA, according to findings published in Arthritis Care & Research.
Smoking is a known risk factor for poor outcomes in RA, but data on factors that predict smoking cessation in these patients are limited, wrote Maria Schletzbaum, a student in the MD-PhD program at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and colleagues. “Further, most patients with RA are not aware of the associations between smoking and RA development and complications, although such knowledge could influence cessation attempts.”
To identify predictors of smoking cessation, the investigators reviewed the 2005-2016 electronic medical records for 3,577 adults aged 18 years or older and with at least two RA diagnosis codes. The records were from two health systems, one urban and one rural.
Overall, patients who were baseline smokers and who were new to rheumatology care were 60% more likely to quit smoking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60). However, patients who were seropositive and baseline smokers were 43% less likely to quit (aOR, 0.57). Demographic factors, including age, race, and sex, were not significantly associated with smoking cessation.
“The observed increased likelihood of quitting in patients new to rheumatology care may partially be due to cessation following a new RA diagnosis, a phenomenon previously reported in RA and other chronic diseases,” the researchers noted. Notably, the significance of being new to rheumatology disappeared in an analysis controlling for health system, “potentially suggesting greater importance of system-level factors versus individual patient factors.”
In addition, patients in the rural community health system were 66% more likely to quit smoking, possibly because about half of the patients in that system were covered by the systems’ insurance, and therefore qualified for various smoking cessation interventions, they wrote.
The study population included 915 former smokers and 507 current smokers. Seropositivity was most common in current smokers (71%), followed by former smokers (64%) and never smokers (59%). The disinclination of seropositive patients to quit smoking may reflect greater smoking intensity, and these patients may need greater support, the researchers wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors; for example, some differences in patient populations, such as education and income levels, were not measured, and there was a lack of complete information on cumulative smoking exposure. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and use of data from two centers and support national guidelines for health system interventions in smoking cessation for RA patients, they noted.
The study was funded in part by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the University of Wisconsin Medical Scientist Training Program, and the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award. The authors did not report any financial conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Schletzbaum M et al. Arthritis Car Res. 2020 Mar 3. doi: 10.1002/ACR.24154.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Implantable stimulator shows promise for chronic knee pain
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.
In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.
Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.
“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.
“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.
The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.
Patient Controlled
For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).
The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.
“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.
The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.
“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.
Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.
Durable Effect
Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.
To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.
Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).
“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.
Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”
“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.
“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.
Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.
In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.
Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.
“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.
“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.
The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.
Patient Controlled
For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).
The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.
“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.
The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.
“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.
Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.
Durable Effect
Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.
To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.
Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).
“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.
Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”
“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.
“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.
Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.
In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.
Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.
“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.
“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.
The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.
Patient Controlled
For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).
The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.
“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.
The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.
“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.
Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.
Durable Effect
Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.
To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.
Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).
“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.
Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”
“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.
“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.
Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Effective osteoarthritis therapy remains elusive
MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.
“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.
“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.
“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.
Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”
That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.
Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.
A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
In the OA pipeline
“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.
Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.
“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.
Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.
“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.
This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.
Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)
Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.
“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.
Welcome to the wild, wild West
Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.
“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.
He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.
As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.
These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.
“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.
The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.
Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.
“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”
On a brighter note
Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.
Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.
“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”
As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.
“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.
He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.
Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.
Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.
“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.
“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.
“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.
Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”
That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.
Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.
A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
In the OA pipeline
“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.
Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.
“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.
Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.
“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.
This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.
Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)
Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.
“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.
Welcome to the wild, wild West
Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.
“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.
He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.
As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.
These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.
“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.
The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.
Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.
“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”
On a brighter note
Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.
Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.
“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”
As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.
“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.
He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.
Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.
Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.
“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.
Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.
“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.
“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.
Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”
That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.
Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.
A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
In the OA pipeline
“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.
Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.
“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.
Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.
“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.
This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.
Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)
Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.
“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.
Welcome to the wild, wild West
Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.
“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.
He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.
As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.
These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.
“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.
The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.
Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.
“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”
On a brighter note
Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.
Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.
“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”
As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.
“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.
He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.
Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.
Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM RWCS 2020
RA magnifies fragility fracture risk in ESRD
MAUI, HAWAII – Comorbid rheumatoid arthritis is a force multiplier for fragility fracture risk in patients with end-stage renal disease, Renée Peterkin-McCalman, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“Patients with RA and ESRD are at substantially increased risk of osteoporotic fragility fractures compared to the overall population of ESRD patients. So fracture prevention prior to initiation of dialysis should be a focus of care in patients with RA,” said Dr. Peterkin-McCalman, a rheumatology fellow at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
She presented a retrospective cohort study of 10,706 adults who initiated hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ESRD during 2005-2008, including 1,040 who also had RA. All subjects were drawn from the United States Renal Data System. The impetus for the study, Dr. Peterkin-McCalman explained in an interview, was that although prior studies have established that RA and ESRD are independent risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, the interplay between the two was previously unknown.
The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures during the first 3 years after going on renal dialysis was 14.7% in patients with ESRD only, vaulting to 25.6% in those with comorbid RA. Individuals with both RA and ESRD were at an adjusted 1.83-fold increased overall risk for new fragility fractures and at 1.85-fold increased risk for hip fracture, compared to those without RA.
Far and away the strongest risk factor for incident osteoporotic fractures in the group with RA plus ESRD was a history of a fracture sustained within 5 years prior to initiation of dialysis, with an associated 11.5-fold increased fracture risk overall and an 8.2-fold increased risk of hip fracture.
“The reason that’s important is we don’t really have any medications to reduce fracture risk once you get to ESRD. Of course, we have bisphosphonates and Prolia (denosumab) and things like that, but that’s in patients with milder CKD [chronic kidney disease] or no renal disease at all. So the goal is to identify the patients early who are at higher risk so that we can protect those bones before they get to ESRD and we have nothing left to treat them with,” she said.
In addition to a history of prevalent fracture prior to starting ESRD, the other risk factors for fracture in patients with ESRD and comorbid RA Dr. Peterkin-McCalman identified in her study included age greater than 50 years at the start of dialysis and female gender, which was associated with a twofold greater fracture risk than in men. Black patients with ESRD and RA were 64% less likely than whites to experience an incident fragility fracture. And the fracture risk was higher in patients on hemodialysis than with peritoneal dialysis.
Her study was supported by the Medical College of Georgia and a research grant from Dialysis Clinic Inc.
SOURCE: Peterkin-McCalman R et al. RWCS 2020.
MAUI, HAWAII – Comorbid rheumatoid arthritis is a force multiplier for fragility fracture risk in patients with end-stage renal disease, Renée Peterkin-McCalman, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“Patients with RA and ESRD are at substantially increased risk of osteoporotic fragility fractures compared to the overall population of ESRD patients. So fracture prevention prior to initiation of dialysis should be a focus of care in patients with RA,” said Dr. Peterkin-McCalman, a rheumatology fellow at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
She presented a retrospective cohort study of 10,706 adults who initiated hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ESRD during 2005-2008, including 1,040 who also had RA. All subjects were drawn from the United States Renal Data System. The impetus for the study, Dr. Peterkin-McCalman explained in an interview, was that although prior studies have established that RA and ESRD are independent risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, the interplay between the two was previously unknown.
The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures during the first 3 years after going on renal dialysis was 14.7% in patients with ESRD only, vaulting to 25.6% in those with comorbid RA. Individuals with both RA and ESRD were at an adjusted 1.83-fold increased overall risk for new fragility fractures and at 1.85-fold increased risk for hip fracture, compared to those without RA.
Far and away the strongest risk factor for incident osteoporotic fractures in the group with RA plus ESRD was a history of a fracture sustained within 5 years prior to initiation of dialysis, with an associated 11.5-fold increased fracture risk overall and an 8.2-fold increased risk of hip fracture.
“The reason that’s important is we don’t really have any medications to reduce fracture risk once you get to ESRD. Of course, we have bisphosphonates and Prolia (denosumab) and things like that, but that’s in patients with milder CKD [chronic kidney disease] or no renal disease at all. So the goal is to identify the patients early who are at higher risk so that we can protect those bones before they get to ESRD and we have nothing left to treat them with,” she said.
In addition to a history of prevalent fracture prior to starting ESRD, the other risk factors for fracture in patients with ESRD and comorbid RA Dr. Peterkin-McCalman identified in her study included age greater than 50 years at the start of dialysis and female gender, which was associated with a twofold greater fracture risk than in men. Black patients with ESRD and RA were 64% less likely than whites to experience an incident fragility fracture. And the fracture risk was higher in patients on hemodialysis than with peritoneal dialysis.
Her study was supported by the Medical College of Georgia and a research grant from Dialysis Clinic Inc.
SOURCE: Peterkin-McCalman R et al. RWCS 2020.
MAUI, HAWAII – Comorbid rheumatoid arthritis is a force multiplier for fragility fracture risk in patients with end-stage renal disease, Renée Peterkin-McCalman, MD, reported at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
“Patients with RA and ESRD are at substantially increased risk of osteoporotic fragility fractures compared to the overall population of ESRD patients. So fracture prevention prior to initiation of dialysis should be a focus of care in patients with RA,” said Dr. Peterkin-McCalman, a rheumatology fellow at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta.
She presented a retrospective cohort study of 10,706 adults who initiated hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis for ESRD during 2005-2008, including 1,040 who also had RA. All subjects were drawn from the United States Renal Data System. The impetus for the study, Dr. Peterkin-McCalman explained in an interview, was that although prior studies have established that RA and ESRD are independent risk factors for osteoporotic fractures, the interplay between the two was previously unknown.
The risk of incident osteoporotic fractures during the first 3 years after going on renal dialysis was 14.7% in patients with ESRD only, vaulting to 25.6% in those with comorbid RA. Individuals with both RA and ESRD were at an adjusted 1.83-fold increased overall risk for new fragility fractures and at 1.85-fold increased risk for hip fracture, compared to those without RA.
Far and away the strongest risk factor for incident osteoporotic fractures in the group with RA plus ESRD was a history of a fracture sustained within 5 years prior to initiation of dialysis, with an associated 11.5-fold increased fracture risk overall and an 8.2-fold increased risk of hip fracture.
“The reason that’s important is we don’t really have any medications to reduce fracture risk once you get to ESRD. Of course, we have bisphosphonates and Prolia (denosumab) and things like that, but that’s in patients with milder CKD [chronic kidney disease] or no renal disease at all. So the goal is to identify the patients early who are at higher risk so that we can protect those bones before they get to ESRD and we have nothing left to treat them with,” she said.
In addition to a history of prevalent fracture prior to starting ESRD, the other risk factors for fracture in patients with ESRD and comorbid RA Dr. Peterkin-McCalman identified in her study included age greater than 50 years at the start of dialysis and female gender, which was associated with a twofold greater fracture risk than in men. Black patients with ESRD and RA were 64% less likely than whites to experience an incident fragility fracture. And the fracture risk was higher in patients on hemodialysis than with peritoneal dialysis.
Her study was supported by the Medical College of Georgia and a research grant from Dialysis Clinic Inc.
SOURCE: Peterkin-McCalman R et al. RWCS 2020.
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020
HLA-B27 status predicts radiographic phenotype of axSpA
The presence of HLA-B27 may predict the radiographic phenotype of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to recent research.
The findings suggest HLA-B27-positive patients have worse radiographic damage, more typical marginal syndesmophytes, and a greater number of bilateral fused sacroiliac joints in the spine, reported Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues. Their report was published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“In order to achieve phenotypic diversity, we studied patients with PsA [psoriatic arthritis] and axial involvement (a group of patients recognized to have less frequent carriage of HLA-B27), and AS [ankylosing spondylitis],” they wrote.
The researchers conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional cohort study involving 198 patients with AS and 244 with PsA. Various clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were collected from databases in Ireland, Spain, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Italy.
HLA-B27-positive patients were older (mean 49.1 years vs. 53.8 years), were more often male (73% vs. 59%), and had longer disease duration (mean 13.6 years vs. 11.0 years).
The team compared HLA-B27 carriers and noncarriers on syndesmophyte morphology, the symmetry of the sacroiliac joints and syndesmophytes, in addition to radiographic damage, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS) and PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI).
After analysis, the researchers found that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with higher median mSASSS (6 vs. 2; P = .04) and PASRI scores (12 vs. 6; P less than .0001), marginal syndesmophytes (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.36), and syndesmophyte symmetry (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.38-6.61).
“[Our] study [showed] no difference in sacroiliac symmetry, and no difference in nonmarginal syndesmophytes, according to HLA-B27 status,” they reported.
In addition, they reported that male sex (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.66) and age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were positive predictors of marginal syndesmophytes.
In contrast, only male sex (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.46-4.64) and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07) predicted the presence of nonmarginal syndesmophytes.
The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the absence of disease-group matching and lack of independent central reading of radiographs.
“This analysis suggests less difference in radiographic phenotype between AS and axial PsA than previously found but emphasizes the importance of HLA-B27 status in severity and the phenotypic expression of disease radiographically,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.24174.
The presence of HLA-B27 may predict the radiographic phenotype of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to recent research.
The findings suggest HLA-B27-positive patients have worse radiographic damage, more typical marginal syndesmophytes, and a greater number of bilateral fused sacroiliac joints in the spine, reported Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues. Their report was published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“In order to achieve phenotypic diversity, we studied patients with PsA [psoriatic arthritis] and axial involvement (a group of patients recognized to have less frequent carriage of HLA-B27), and AS [ankylosing spondylitis],” they wrote.
The researchers conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional cohort study involving 198 patients with AS and 244 with PsA. Various clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were collected from databases in Ireland, Spain, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Italy.
HLA-B27-positive patients were older (mean 49.1 years vs. 53.8 years), were more often male (73% vs. 59%), and had longer disease duration (mean 13.6 years vs. 11.0 years).
The team compared HLA-B27 carriers and noncarriers on syndesmophyte morphology, the symmetry of the sacroiliac joints and syndesmophytes, in addition to radiographic damage, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS) and PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI).
After analysis, the researchers found that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with higher median mSASSS (6 vs. 2; P = .04) and PASRI scores (12 vs. 6; P less than .0001), marginal syndesmophytes (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.36), and syndesmophyte symmetry (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.38-6.61).
“[Our] study [showed] no difference in sacroiliac symmetry, and no difference in nonmarginal syndesmophytes, according to HLA-B27 status,” they reported.
In addition, they reported that male sex (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.66) and age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were positive predictors of marginal syndesmophytes.
In contrast, only male sex (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.46-4.64) and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07) predicted the presence of nonmarginal syndesmophytes.
The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the absence of disease-group matching and lack of independent central reading of radiographs.
“This analysis suggests less difference in radiographic phenotype between AS and axial PsA than previously found but emphasizes the importance of HLA-B27 status in severity and the phenotypic expression of disease radiographically,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.24174.
The presence of HLA-B27 may predict the radiographic phenotype of patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), according to recent research.
The findings suggest HLA-B27-positive patients have worse radiographic damage, more typical marginal syndesmophytes, and a greater number of bilateral fused sacroiliac joints in the spine, reported Laura C. Coates, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Oxford (England) and colleagues. Their report was published in Arthritis Care & Research.
“In order to achieve phenotypic diversity, we studied patients with PsA [psoriatic arthritis] and axial involvement (a group of patients recognized to have less frequent carriage of HLA-B27), and AS [ankylosing spondylitis],” they wrote.
The researchers conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional cohort study involving 198 patients with AS and 244 with PsA. Various clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were collected from databases in Ireland, Spain, Germany, Russia, Canada, and Italy.
HLA-B27-positive patients were older (mean 49.1 years vs. 53.8 years), were more often male (73% vs. 59%), and had longer disease duration (mean 13.6 years vs. 11.0 years).
The team compared HLA-B27 carriers and noncarriers on syndesmophyte morphology, the symmetry of the sacroiliac joints and syndesmophytes, in addition to radiographic damage, as measured by the modified Stoke Ankylosing spondylitis spinal score (mSASSS) and PsA Spondylitis Radiology Index (PASRI).
After analysis, the researchers found that HLA-B27 positivity was associated with higher median mSASSS (6 vs. 2; P = .04) and PASRI scores (12 vs. 6; P less than .0001), marginal syndesmophytes (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.36), and syndesmophyte symmetry (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.38-6.61).
“[Our] study [showed] no difference in sacroiliac symmetry, and no difference in nonmarginal syndesmophytes, according to HLA-B27 status,” they reported.
In addition, they reported that male sex (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.04-2.66) and age (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.10) were positive predictors of marginal syndesmophytes.
In contrast, only male sex (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.46-4.64) and age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.07) predicted the presence of nonmarginal syndesmophytes.
The researchers acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the absence of disease-group matching and lack of independent central reading of radiographs.
“This analysis suggests less difference in radiographic phenotype between AS and axial PsA than previously found but emphasizes the importance of HLA-B27 status in severity and the phenotypic expression of disease radiographically,” they concluded.
The study was funded by the Academy of Medical Sciences (U.K.). The authors reported having no conflicts of interest.
SOURCE: Coates LC et al. Arthritis Care Res. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.24174.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Meta-analysis highlights safety concerns with interleukin inhibition
MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.
“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.
The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.
Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.
He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”
The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.
“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.
A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.
Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).
MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.
“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.
The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.
Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.
He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”
The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.
“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.
A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.
Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).
MAUI, HAWAII – The use of interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatologic diseases doubles a patient’s risk of serious infections, according to a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of 74 randomized, placebo-controlled trials presented by Jawad Bilal, MBBS, at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.
The meta-analysis, which incorporated 29,214 patients with a variety of rheumatic diseases, demonstrated that patients receiving interleukin (IL) inhibitors had a 1.97-fold increased risk of serious infections, a finding accompanied by a high degree of statistical certainty. The number-needed-to-harm was 67 patients treated for a median of 24 weeks in order to generate one additional serious infection.
“That number-needed-to-harm is a significant finding because having a serious infection means by definition you’re getting admitted to the hospital and receiving IV antibiotics,” Dr. Bilal observed in an interview.
The meta-analysis also found that IL inhibition was associated with a 2.35-fold increased risk of opportunistic infections and a 1.52-fold higher risk of developing cancer, both findings with statistical significance (P =.03) but only moderate certainty because fewer of those events were captured in the trials compared to the numbers of serious infections, explained Dr. Bilal of the University of Arizona, Tucson.
For opportunistic infections, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 patients treated with an IL inhibitor for a median of 54 weeks in order to result in one additional opportunistic infection. For cancer, the number-needed-to-harm was 250 for a median of 24 weeks.
Dr. Bilal noted that while the IL inhibitors are drugs of established efficacy in rheumatologic diseases, their safety has not previously undergone anything approaching the comprehensive scrutiny carried out in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis, which included all published placebo-controlled randomized trials and their extension studies, employed rigorous methodology in accord with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) statement and the GRADE approach to data analysis. Studies of IL inhibitors in patients with dermatologic and GI diseases were excluded from the meta-analysis.
He offered a caveat regarding the cancer risk findings: “Our analysis showed that the cancer risk is increased, but the results are not conclusive because we only had a few years of data. With cancer, you really need at least 8-10 years of data. So the real-world experience with the interleukin inhibitors in the large registries is what’s going to tell if the cancer risk is really increased or not. In the meantime, we all have to be cautious.”
The number of serious infections collected in the meta-analysis afforded sufficient statistical power for the investigators to break down differential risks based on individual drugs and indications. Among the drugs associated with significantly increased risk of serious infections were anakinra, with an odds ratio of 2.67, compared with placebo; secukinumab with an OR of 2.43; and tocilizumab with an OR or 1.76. Ustekinumab and ixekizumab were associated with 2.57- and 3.89-fold increased risks, respectively, but the number of rheumatology patients treated with those two biologics wasn’t large enough for those findings to achieve statistical significance.
Rheumatoid arthritis patients who received an IL inhibitor rather than placebo had a 1.98-fold increased risk of serious infection, while those with psoriatic arthritis had a 2.21-fold increased risk. Patients treated for SLE had a 6.44-fold increased risk, and those with juvenile idiopathic arthritis had a 5.37-fold higher risk, but the margins for error were such that those results weren’t statistically significant.
“I think this study is going to help clinicians and patients when they’re trying to weigh the risks and benefits of IL inhibitors, especially if they already have risk factors, like a recent history of serious infection or a history of cancer or of opportunistic infection,” Dr. Bilal commented.
A study limitation was that he and his coinvestigators had to lump together the various IL inhibitors in order to gain statistical power, even though the drugs work differently, he noted.
Dr. Bilal reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, the full details of which have been published (JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.13102).
REPORTING FROM RWCS 2020
Glucocorticoid use linked to mortality in RA with diabetes
Glucocorticoid use is associated with greater mortality and cardiovascular risk in RA patients, and the associated risk is greater still in patients with RA and comorbid diabetes. The findings come from a new retrospective analysis derived from U.K. primary care records.
Although patients with diabetes actually had a lower relative risk for mortality than the nondiabetes cohort, they had a greater mortality difference because of a greater baseline risk. Ultimately, glucocorticoid (GC) use was associated with an additional 44.9 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the diabetes group, compared with 34.4 per 1,000 person-years in the RA-only group.
The study, led by Ruth Costello and William Dixon, MBBS, PhD of the University of Manchester (England), was published in BMC Rheumatology.
The findings aren’t particularly surprising, given that steroid use and diabetes have associated cardiovascular risks, and physicians generally try to reduce or eliminate their use. “There’s a group [of physicians] saying that we don’t need to use steroids at all in rheumatoid arthritis, except maybe for [a] short time at diagnosis to bridge to other therapies, or during flares,” Gordon Starkebaum, MD, professor emeritus of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He recounted a session at last year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that advocated for only injectable steroid use during flare-ups. “That was provocative,” Dr. Starkebaum said.
“It’s a retrospective study, so it has some limitations, but it provides good insight, and some substantiation to what we already think,” added Brett Smith, DO, a rheumatologist practicing in Knoxville, Tenn.
Dr. Smith suggested that the study further underscores the need to follow treat-to-target protocols in RA. He emphasized that lifetime exposure to steroids is likely the greatest concern, and that steady accumulating doses are a sign of trouble. “If you need that much steroids, you need to go up on your medication – your methotrexate, or sulfasalazine, or your biologic,” said Dr. Smith. “At least 50% of people will need a biologic to [achieve] disease control, and if you get them on it, they’re going to have better disease control, compliance is typically better, and they’re going to have less steroid exposure.”
Dr. Smith also noted that comorbid diabetes shouldn’t affect treat-to-target strategies. In fact, in such patients “you should probably be following it more tightly to reduce the cardiovascular outcomes,” he said.
The retrospective analysis included 9,085 patients with RA and with or without type 2 diabetes, with a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. They were recruited to the study between 1998 and 2011. Among patients with comorbid diabetes, those exposed to GC had a mortality of 67.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 22.5 among those not exposed to GC. Among those with RA alone, mortality was 44.6 versus 10.2 with and without GC exposure, respectively. Those with diabetes had a lower risk ratio for mortality (2.99 vs. 4.37), but a higher mortality difference (44.9 vs. 34.4 per 1,000 person-years).
“The increased absolute hazard for all-cause mortality indicates the greater public health impact of people with RA using GCs if they have [diabetes],” the researchers wrote. “Rheumatologists should consider [diabetes] status when prescribing GCs to patients with RA given this potential impact of GC therapy on glucose control and mortality.”
The study was limited by a lack of information on GC dose and cumulative exposure. Given its retrospective nature, the study could have been affected by confounding by indication, as well as unknown confounders.
The study was funded by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Starkebaum has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie and serves on the company’s advisory board. He is also on the advisory boards of Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme.
SOURCE: Costello R et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0105-4.
Glucocorticoid use is associated with greater mortality and cardiovascular risk in RA patients, and the associated risk is greater still in patients with RA and comorbid diabetes. The findings come from a new retrospective analysis derived from U.K. primary care records.
Although patients with diabetes actually had a lower relative risk for mortality than the nondiabetes cohort, they had a greater mortality difference because of a greater baseline risk. Ultimately, glucocorticoid (GC) use was associated with an additional 44.9 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the diabetes group, compared with 34.4 per 1,000 person-years in the RA-only group.
The study, led by Ruth Costello and William Dixon, MBBS, PhD of the University of Manchester (England), was published in BMC Rheumatology.
The findings aren’t particularly surprising, given that steroid use and diabetes have associated cardiovascular risks, and physicians generally try to reduce or eliminate their use. “There’s a group [of physicians] saying that we don’t need to use steroids at all in rheumatoid arthritis, except maybe for [a] short time at diagnosis to bridge to other therapies, or during flares,” Gordon Starkebaum, MD, professor emeritus of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He recounted a session at last year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that advocated for only injectable steroid use during flare-ups. “That was provocative,” Dr. Starkebaum said.
“It’s a retrospective study, so it has some limitations, but it provides good insight, and some substantiation to what we already think,” added Brett Smith, DO, a rheumatologist practicing in Knoxville, Tenn.
Dr. Smith suggested that the study further underscores the need to follow treat-to-target protocols in RA. He emphasized that lifetime exposure to steroids is likely the greatest concern, and that steady accumulating doses are a sign of trouble. “If you need that much steroids, you need to go up on your medication – your methotrexate, or sulfasalazine, or your biologic,” said Dr. Smith. “At least 50% of people will need a biologic to [achieve] disease control, and if you get them on it, they’re going to have better disease control, compliance is typically better, and they’re going to have less steroid exposure.”
Dr. Smith also noted that comorbid diabetes shouldn’t affect treat-to-target strategies. In fact, in such patients “you should probably be following it more tightly to reduce the cardiovascular outcomes,” he said.
The retrospective analysis included 9,085 patients with RA and with or without type 2 diabetes, with a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. They were recruited to the study between 1998 and 2011. Among patients with comorbid diabetes, those exposed to GC had a mortality of 67.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 22.5 among those not exposed to GC. Among those with RA alone, mortality was 44.6 versus 10.2 with and without GC exposure, respectively. Those with diabetes had a lower risk ratio for mortality (2.99 vs. 4.37), but a higher mortality difference (44.9 vs. 34.4 per 1,000 person-years).
“The increased absolute hazard for all-cause mortality indicates the greater public health impact of people with RA using GCs if they have [diabetes],” the researchers wrote. “Rheumatologists should consider [diabetes] status when prescribing GCs to patients with RA given this potential impact of GC therapy on glucose control and mortality.”
The study was limited by a lack of information on GC dose and cumulative exposure. Given its retrospective nature, the study could have been affected by confounding by indication, as well as unknown confounders.
The study was funded by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Starkebaum has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie and serves on the company’s advisory board. He is also on the advisory boards of Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme.
SOURCE: Costello R et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0105-4.
Glucocorticoid use is associated with greater mortality and cardiovascular risk in RA patients, and the associated risk is greater still in patients with RA and comorbid diabetes. The findings come from a new retrospective analysis derived from U.K. primary care records.
Although patients with diabetes actually had a lower relative risk for mortality than the nondiabetes cohort, they had a greater mortality difference because of a greater baseline risk. Ultimately, glucocorticoid (GC) use was associated with an additional 44.9 deaths per 1,000 person-years in the diabetes group, compared with 34.4 per 1,000 person-years in the RA-only group.
The study, led by Ruth Costello and William Dixon, MBBS, PhD of the University of Manchester (England), was published in BMC Rheumatology.
The findings aren’t particularly surprising, given that steroid use and diabetes have associated cardiovascular risks, and physicians generally try to reduce or eliminate their use. “There’s a group [of physicians] saying that we don’t need to use steroids at all in rheumatoid arthritis, except maybe for [a] short time at diagnosis to bridge to other therapies, or during flares,” Gordon Starkebaum, MD, professor emeritus of rheumatology at the University of Washington, Seattle, said in an interview. He recounted a session at last year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology that advocated for only injectable steroid use during flare-ups. “That was provocative,” Dr. Starkebaum said.
“It’s a retrospective study, so it has some limitations, but it provides good insight, and some substantiation to what we already think,” added Brett Smith, DO, a rheumatologist practicing in Knoxville, Tenn.
Dr. Smith suggested that the study further underscores the need to follow treat-to-target protocols in RA. He emphasized that lifetime exposure to steroids is likely the greatest concern, and that steady accumulating doses are a sign of trouble. “If you need that much steroids, you need to go up on your medication – your methotrexate, or sulfasalazine, or your biologic,” said Dr. Smith. “At least 50% of people will need a biologic to [achieve] disease control, and if you get them on it, they’re going to have better disease control, compliance is typically better, and they’re going to have less steroid exposure.”
Dr. Smith also noted that comorbid diabetes shouldn’t affect treat-to-target strategies. In fact, in such patients “you should probably be following it more tightly to reduce the cardiovascular outcomes,” he said.
The retrospective analysis included 9,085 patients with RA and with or without type 2 diabetes, with a mean follow-up of 5.2 years. They were recruited to the study between 1998 and 2011. Among patients with comorbid diabetes, those exposed to GC had a mortality of 67.4 per 1,000 person-years, compared with 22.5 among those not exposed to GC. Among those with RA alone, mortality was 44.6 versus 10.2 with and without GC exposure, respectively. Those with diabetes had a lower risk ratio for mortality (2.99 vs. 4.37), but a higher mortality difference (44.9 vs. 34.4 per 1,000 person-years).
“The increased absolute hazard for all-cause mortality indicates the greater public health impact of people with RA using GCs if they have [diabetes],” the researchers wrote. “Rheumatologists should consider [diabetes] status when prescribing GCs to patients with RA given this potential impact of GC therapy on glucose control and mortality.”
The study was limited by a lack of information on GC dose and cumulative exposure. Given its retrospective nature, the study could have been affected by confounding by indication, as well as unknown confounders.
The study was funded by the Centre for Epidemiology Versus Arthritis and the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Starkebaum has no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Smith is on the speaker’s bureau for AbbVie and serves on the company’s advisory board. He is also on the advisory boards of Regeneron and Sanofi Genzyme.
SOURCE: Costello R et al. BMC Rheumatol. 2020 Feb 19. doi: 10.1186/s41927-019-0105-4.
REPORTING FROM BMC RHEUMATOLOGY