MDedge Rheumatology

Hydroxychloroquine can be used safely and effectively with attention to dosing, risk factors, and screening, but communication among physicians, patients, and eye care specialists is key to optimizing outcomes and preventing complications, according to a joint statement from four medical societies.

The American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Rheumatologic Dermatology Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have produced a statement, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, “to emphasize points of agreement that should be recognized by practitioners in all specialties,” lead author James T. Rosenbaum, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

The statement was developed by a working group that included rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists with records of published studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its toxicity. The statement updated elements of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for monitoring patients for retinal toxicity when using HCQ.

“The need for collaborative management has triggered this joint statement, which applies only to managing the risk of HCQ retinopathy and does not include consideration of cardiac, muscle, dermatologic, or other toxicities,” the authors noted.

The authors emphasized that HCQ plays a valuable role in controlling many rheumatic diseases, and should not be abandoned out of fear of retinopathy. However, proper dosing, recognition of risk factors, and screening strategies are essential.
 

Dosing data

Data on HCQ dosing and retinopathy are limited, but the authors cited a study of 2,361 rheumatic disease patients with an average HCQ dosing regimen of 5.0 mg/kg per day or less in which the toxicity risk was less than 2% for up to 10 years of use. Although data show some increase in risk with duration of use, “for a patient with a normal screening exam in a given year, the risk of developing retinopathy in the ensuing year is low (e.g., less than 5%), even after 20 years of use,” the authors said.

Risk factor recognition

“High daily [HCQ] dosage relative to body weight and cumulative dose are the primary risk factors for retinopathy,” the authors noted. Reduced renal function is an additional risk factor, and patients with renal insufficiency should be monitored and may need lower doses.

In addition, patients with a phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity may be at increased risk for advanced disease evidenced by damage to the foveal center. “The phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity is not universal, and in many patients (East Asians particularly) the retinal changes may appear initially along the pericentral vascular arcades,” so these patients should be screened with additional tests beyond the central macula, they emphasized.

Screening strategies

Patients should receive a baseline retinal exam within a few months of starting HCQ to rule out underlying retinal disease, according to the statement. The goal of screening is “to detect early retinopathy before a bullseye becomes visible on ophthalmoscopy, since at that severe stage the damage tends to progress even after discontinuing the medication and may eventually threaten central vision,” the authors said.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

In the absence of risk factors, patients can defer screening for 5 years, but should be screened annually from 5 years and forward, they said. Examples of underlying retinal disease include “significant macular degeneration, severe diabetic retinopathy, or hereditary disorders of retinal function, but these are judgments best made by the ophthalmologist since mild and stable abnormalities that do not interfere with interpretation of critical diagnostic tests may not be a contraindication” to use of HCQ.

The consensus opinion statement has limitations, notably the shortage of data on optimum HCQ dosage and the lack of prospective studies of toxicity, including the need for studies of the impact of blood levels on toxicity and studies of pharmacogenomics to stratify risk, the authors noted.

“It is important that the drug is not stopped prematurely, but also that it is not continued in the face of definitive evidence of retinal toxicity except in some situations with unusual medical need,” they said.

“Suggestive or uncertain findings should be discussed with the patient and prescribing physician to justify further examinations, but the drug need not be stopped until evidence for retinopathy is definitive, in particular for patients with active rheumatic or cutaneous disease,” and the overall risk of retinopathy remains low if the principles described in the statement are followed, they concluded.

First author Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Novartis, Horizon, Roche, Eyevensys, Santen, Corvus, Affibody, Kyverna, Pfizer, Horizon, and UpToDate. Another 5 of the study’s 11 authors also disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

Hydroxychloroquine can be used safely and effectively with attention to dosing, risk factors, and screening, but communication among physicians, patients, and eye care specialists is key to optimizing outcomes and preventing complications, according to a joint statement from four medical societies.

The American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Rheumatologic Dermatology Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have produced a statement, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, “to emphasize points of agreement that should be recognized by practitioners in all specialties,” lead author James T. Rosenbaum, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

The statement was developed by a working group that included rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists with records of published studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its toxicity. The statement updated elements of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for monitoring patients for retinal toxicity when using HCQ.

“The need for collaborative management has triggered this joint statement, which applies only to managing the risk of HCQ retinopathy and does not include consideration of cardiac, muscle, dermatologic, or other toxicities,” the authors noted.

The authors emphasized that HCQ plays a valuable role in controlling many rheumatic diseases, and should not be abandoned out of fear of retinopathy. However, proper dosing, recognition of risk factors, and screening strategies are essential.
 

Dosing data

Data on HCQ dosing and retinopathy are limited, but the authors cited a study of 2,361 rheumatic disease patients with an average HCQ dosing regimen of 5.0 mg/kg per day or less in which the toxicity risk was less than 2% for up to 10 years of use. Although data show some increase in risk with duration of use, “for a patient with a normal screening exam in a given year, the risk of developing retinopathy in the ensuing year is low (e.g., less than 5%), even after 20 years of use,” the authors said.

Risk factor recognition

“High daily [HCQ] dosage relative to body weight and cumulative dose are the primary risk factors for retinopathy,” the authors noted. Reduced renal function is an additional risk factor, and patients with renal insufficiency should be monitored and may need lower doses.

In addition, patients with a phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity may be at increased risk for advanced disease evidenced by damage to the foveal center. “The phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity is not universal, and in many patients (East Asians particularly) the retinal changes may appear initially along the pericentral vascular arcades,” so these patients should be screened with additional tests beyond the central macula, they emphasized.

Screening strategies

Patients should receive a baseline retinal exam within a few months of starting HCQ to rule out underlying retinal disease, according to the statement. The goal of screening is “to detect early retinopathy before a bullseye becomes visible on ophthalmoscopy, since at that severe stage the damage tends to progress even after discontinuing the medication and may eventually threaten central vision,” the authors said.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

In the absence of risk factors, patients can defer screening for 5 years, but should be screened annually from 5 years and forward, they said. Examples of underlying retinal disease include “significant macular degeneration, severe diabetic retinopathy, or hereditary disorders of retinal function, but these are judgments best made by the ophthalmologist since mild and stable abnormalities that do not interfere with interpretation of critical diagnostic tests may not be a contraindication” to use of HCQ.

The consensus opinion statement has limitations, notably the shortage of data on optimum HCQ dosage and the lack of prospective studies of toxicity, including the need for studies of the impact of blood levels on toxicity and studies of pharmacogenomics to stratify risk, the authors noted.

“It is important that the drug is not stopped prematurely, but also that it is not continued in the face of definitive evidence of retinal toxicity except in some situations with unusual medical need,” they said.

“Suggestive or uncertain findings should be discussed with the patient and prescribing physician to justify further examinations, but the drug need not be stopped until evidence for retinopathy is definitive, in particular for patients with active rheumatic or cutaneous disease,” and the overall risk of retinopathy remains low if the principles described in the statement are followed, they concluded.

First author Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Novartis, Horizon, Roche, Eyevensys, Santen, Corvus, Affibody, Kyverna, Pfizer, Horizon, and UpToDate. Another 5 of the study’s 11 authors also disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

Hydroxychloroquine can be used safely and effectively with attention to dosing, risk factors, and screening, but communication among physicians, patients, and eye care specialists is key to optimizing outcomes and preventing complications, according to a joint statement from four medical societies.

The American College of Rheumatology, American Academy of Dermatology, Rheumatologic Dermatology Society, and the American Academy of Ophthalmology have produced a statement, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, “to emphasize points of agreement that should be recognized by practitioners in all specialties,” lead author James T. Rosenbaum, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues wrote.

The statement was developed by a working group that included rheumatologists, ophthalmologists, and dermatologists with records of published studies on the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its toxicity. The statement updated elements of the 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology guidelines for monitoring patients for retinal toxicity when using HCQ.

“The need for collaborative management has triggered this joint statement, which applies only to managing the risk of HCQ retinopathy and does not include consideration of cardiac, muscle, dermatologic, or other toxicities,” the authors noted.

The authors emphasized that HCQ plays a valuable role in controlling many rheumatic diseases, and should not be abandoned out of fear of retinopathy. However, proper dosing, recognition of risk factors, and screening strategies are essential.
 

Dosing data

Data on HCQ dosing and retinopathy are limited, but the authors cited a study of 2,361 rheumatic disease patients with an average HCQ dosing regimen of 5.0 mg/kg per day or less in which the toxicity risk was less than 2% for up to 10 years of use. Although data show some increase in risk with duration of use, “for a patient with a normal screening exam in a given year, the risk of developing retinopathy in the ensuing year is low (e.g., less than 5%), even after 20 years of use,” the authors said.

Risk factor recognition

“High daily [HCQ] dosage relative to body weight and cumulative dose are the primary risk factors for retinopathy,” the authors noted. Reduced renal function is an additional risk factor, and patients with renal insufficiency should be monitored and may need lower doses.

In addition, patients with a phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity may be at increased risk for advanced disease evidenced by damage to the foveal center. “The phenotype of initial parafoveal toxicity is not universal, and in many patients (East Asians particularly) the retinal changes may appear initially along the pericentral vascular arcades,” so these patients should be screened with additional tests beyond the central macula, they emphasized.

Screening strategies

Patients should receive a baseline retinal exam within a few months of starting HCQ to rule out underlying retinal disease, according to the statement. The goal of screening is “to detect early retinopathy before a bullseye becomes visible on ophthalmoscopy, since at that severe stage the damage tends to progress even after discontinuing the medication and may eventually threaten central vision,” the authors said.

Marc Bruxelle/Getty Images

In the absence of risk factors, patients can defer screening for 5 years, but should be screened annually from 5 years and forward, they said. Examples of underlying retinal disease include “significant macular degeneration, severe diabetic retinopathy, or hereditary disorders of retinal function, but these are judgments best made by the ophthalmologist since mild and stable abnormalities that do not interfere with interpretation of critical diagnostic tests may not be a contraindication” to use of HCQ.

The consensus opinion statement has limitations, notably the shortage of data on optimum HCQ dosage and the lack of prospective studies of toxicity, including the need for studies of the impact of blood levels on toxicity and studies of pharmacogenomics to stratify risk, the authors noted.

“It is important that the drug is not stopped prematurely, but also that it is not continued in the face of definitive evidence of retinal toxicity except in some situations with unusual medical need,” they said.

“Suggestive or uncertain findings should be discussed with the patient and prescribing physician to justify further examinations, but the drug need not be stopped until evidence for retinopathy is definitive, in particular for patients with active rheumatic or cutaneous disease,” and the overall risk of retinopathy remains low if the principles described in the statement are followed, they concluded.

First author Dr. Rosenbaum disclosed financial relationships with AbbVie, UCB, Gilead, Novartis, Horizon, Roche, Eyevensys, Santen, Corvus, Affibody, Kyverna, Pfizer, Horizon, and UpToDate. Another 5 of the study’s 11 authors also disclosed relationships with multiple companies.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Systemic sclerosis, also known as scleroderma, is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by thickening of the skin, which often causes significant disability or physical distress. Early on in the disease course, it is commonly misdiagnosed as other diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.  

Patients are classified as having either limited or diffuse cutaneous disease depending on where it presents on the body. All patients with systemic sclerosis are susceptible to internal organ involvement regardless of whether they have limited or diffuse disease. 

Dr. Elizabeth Volkmann, Director of the UCLA Scleroderma Program, discusses key defining symptoms that can signal early presentation of systemic sclerosis. She also reviews how to properly screen patients with a high resolution chest CT scan, as interstitial lung disease is the leading cause of death among these patients. 
 

Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, MS, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Director, UCLA Scleroderma Program, Co-Director, CTD-ILD Program, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Volkmann has disclosed the following financial relationships: 
Grants: Corbus, Forbius. Consulting: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis, also known as scleroderma, is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by thickening of the skin, which often causes significant disability or physical distress. Early on in the disease course, it is commonly misdiagnosed as other diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.  

Patients are classified as having either limited or diffuse cutaneous disease depending on where it presents on the body. All patients with systemic sclerosis are susceptible to internal organ involvement regardless of whether they have limited or diffuse disease. 

Dr. Elizabeth Volkmann, Director of the UCLA Scleroderma Program, discusses key defining symptoms that can signal early presentation of systemic sclerosis. She also reviews how to properly screen patients with a high resolution chest CT scan, as interstitial lung disease is the leading cause of death among these patients. 
 

Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, MS, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Director, UCLA Scleroderma Program, Co-Director, CTD-ILD Program, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Volkmann has disclosed the following financial relationships: 
Grants: Corbus, Forbius. Consulting: Boehringer Ingelheim.

Systemic sclerosis, also known as scleroderma, is a rare autoimmune disease characterized by thickening of the skin, which often causes significant disability or physical distress. Early on in the disease course, it is commonly misdiagnosed as other diseases such as lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.  

Patients are classified as having either limited or diffuse cutaneous disease depending on where it presents on the body. All patients with systemic sclerosis are susceptible to internal organ involvement regardless of whether they have limited or diffuse disease. 

Dr. Elizabeth Volkmann, Director of the UCLA Scleroderma Program, discusses key defining symptoms that can signal early presentation of systemic sclerosis. She also reviews how to properly screen patients with a high resolution chest CT scan, as interstitial lung disease is the leading cause of death among these patients. 
 

Elizabeth Volkmann, MD, MS, Assistant Professor of Medicine, Director, UCLA Scleroderma Program, Co-Director, CTD-ILD Program, Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles

Dr. Volkmann has disclosed the following financial relationships: 
Grants: Corbus, Forbius. Consulting: Boehringer Ingelheim.

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

And then there were three. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Feb. 27 granted emergency use authorization (EUA) to the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine from Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (J&J) for people 18 and older after reviewing its safety and efficacy data.

More vaccine availability at a time of high demand and limited supply could help officials vaccinate more Americans, more quickly. In addition, the J&J vaccine offers one-dose convenience and storage at conventional refrigeration temperatures.

Initial reactions to the EUA for the J&J vaccine have been positive.

“The advantages of having a third vaccine, especially one that is a single shot and can be stored without special refrigeration requirements, will be a major contribution in getting the general public vaccinated sooner, both in the U.S. and around the world,” Phyllis Tien, MD, professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the University of California, San Francisco, told Medscape Medical News.

“It’s great news. We have yet a third vaccine that is highly effective at preventing COVID, and even more effective at preventing severe COVID,” said Paul Goepfert, MD. It’s a “tremendous boon for our country and other countries as well.”

“This vaccine has also been shown to be effective against the B.1.351 strain that was first described in South Africa,” added Dr. Goepfert, director of the Alabama Vaccine Research Clinic and infectious disease specialist at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The EUA “is indeed exciting news,” Colleen Kraft, MD, associate chief medical officer at Emory University Hospital and associate professor at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, said during a February 25 media briefing.

One recent concern centers on people aged 60 years and older. Documents the FDA released earlier this week suggest a lower efficacy, 42%, for the J&J immunization among people in this age group with certain relevant comorbidities. In contrast, without underlying conditions like heart disease or diabetes, efficacy in this cohort was 72%.

The more the merrier

The scope and urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates as many protective measures as possible, said Raj Shah, MD, geriatrician, and associate professor of family medicine and codirector of the Center for Community Health Equity at Rush University in Chicago.

“Trying to vaccinate as many individuals living in the United States to prevent the spread of COVID is such a big project that no one company or one vaccine was going to be able to ramp up fast enough on its own,” Dr. Shah told Medscape Medical News.“This has been the hope for us,” he added, “to get to multiple vaccines with slightly different properties that will provide more options.”

Experience with the J&J vaccine so far suggests reactions are less severe. “The nice thing about the Johnson and Johnson [vaccine] is that it definitely has less side effects,” Dr. Kraft said.

On the other hand, low-grade fever, chills, or fatigue after vaccination can be considered a positive because they can reflect how well the immune system is responding, she added.

One and done?

Single-dose administration could be more than a convenience — it could also help clinicians vaccinate members of underserved communities and rural locations, where returning for a second dose could be more difficult for some people.

“In a controlled setting, in a clinical trial, we do a lot to make sure people get all the treatment they need,” Dr. Shah said. “We’re not seeing it right now, but we’re always worried when we have more than one dose that has to be administered, that some people will drop off and not come back for the second vaccine.”

This group could include the needle-phobic, he added. “For them, having it done once alleviates a lot of the anxiety.”

Looking beyond the numbers

The phase 3 ENSEMBLE study of the J&J vaccine revealed a 72% efficacy for preventing moderate-to-severe COVID-19 among U.S. participants. In contrast, researchers reported 94% to 95% efficacy for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines.

However, experts agreed that focusing solely on these numbers can miss more important points. For example, no participants who received the J&J vaccine in the phase 3 trial died from COVID-19-related illness. There were five such deaths in the placebo cohort.

“One of the things that these vaccines do very well is they minimize severe disease,” Dr. Kraft said. “As somebody that has spent an inordinate time in the hospital taking care of patients with severe disease from COVID, this is very much a welcome addition to our armamentarium to fight this virus.”

“If you can give something that prevents people from dying, that is a true path to normalcy,” Dr. Goepfert added.

More work to do

“The demand is strong from all groups right now. We just have to work on getting more vaccines out there,” Dr. Shah said.

“We are at a point in this country where we are getting better with the distribution of the vaccine,” he added, “but we are nowhere close to achieving that distribution of vaccines to get to everybody.”

Dr. Goepfert, Dr. Shah, and Dr. Kraft disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tien received support from Johnson & Johnson to conduct the J&J COVID-19 vaccine trial in the San Francisco VA Health Care System.

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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

An FDA advisory panel lent their support Feb. 26 to a rapid clearance for Janssen/Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is expected to quickly provide an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the vaccine following the recommendation by the panel. The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee voted 22-0 on this question: Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, do the benefits of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 Vaccine outweigh its risks for use in individuals 18 years of age and older?

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine is expected to offer more convenient dosing and be easier to distribute than the two rival products already available in the United States. Janssen’s vaccine is intended to be given in a single dose. In December, the FDA granted EUAs for the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, which are each two-dose regimens.

Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine can be stored for at least 3 months at normal refrigerator temperatures of 2°C to 8°C (36°F to 46°F). Its shipping and storage fits into the existing medical supply infrastructure, the company said in its briefing materials for the FDA advisory committee meeting. In contrast, Pfizer’s vaccine is stored in ultracold freezers at temperatures between -80°C and -60°C (-112°F and -76°F), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moderna’s vaccine may be stored in a freezer between -25°C and -15°C (-13°F and 5°F).

But FDA advisers focused more in their deliberations on concerns about Janssen’s vaccine, including emerging reports of allergic reactions.

The advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Johnson & Johnson’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. The company’s initial unveiling last month of key results for its vaccine caused an initial wave of disappointment, with its overall efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 28 days postvaccination first reported at about 66% globally. By contrast, results for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines suggest they have efficacy rates of 95% and 94%.

But in concluding, the advisers spoke of the Janssen vaccine as a much-needed tool to address the COVID-19 pandemic. The death toll in the United States attributed to the virus has reached 501,414, according to the World Health Organization.

“Despite the concerns that were raised during the discussion. I think what we have to keep in mind is that we’re still in the midst of this deadly pandemic,” said FDA adviser Archana Chatterjee, MD, PhD, from Rosalind Franklin University. “There is a shortage of vaccines that are currently authorized, and I think authorization of this vaccine will help meet the needs at the moment.”

The FDA is not bound to accept the recommendations of its advisers, but it often does so.

Anaphylaxis case

FDA advisers raised only a few questions for Johnson & Johnson and FDA staff ahead of their vote. The committee’s deliberations were less contentious and heated than had been during its December reviews of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. In those meetings, the panel voted 17-4, with one abstention, in favor of Pfizer’s vaccine and  20-0, with one abstention, on the Moderna vaccine.

“We are very comfortable now with the procedure, as well as the vaccines,” said Arnold Monto, MD, after the Feb. 26 vote on the Janssen vaccine. Dr. Monto, from the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, has served as the chairman of the FDA panel through its review of all three COVID-19 vaccines.

Among the issues noted in the deliberations was the emergence of a concern about anaphylaxis with the vaccine.

This serious allergic reaction has been seen in people who have taken the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Before the week of the panel meeting, though, there had not been reports of anaphylaxis with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, said Macaya Douoguih, MD, MPH, head of clinical development and medical affairs for Janssen/ Johnson & Johnson’s vaccines division.

However, on February 24, Johnson & Johnson received preliminary reports about two cases of severe allergic reaction from an open-label study in South Africa, with one of these being anaphylaxis, Dr. Douoguih said. The company will continue to closely monitor for these events as outlined in their pharmacovigilance plan, Dr. Douoguih said.

Federal health officials have sought to make clinicians aware of the rare risk for anaphylaxis with COVID vaccines, while reminding the public that this reaction can be managed.

The FDA had Tom Shimabukuro, MD, MPH, MBA, from the CDC, give an update on postmarketing surveillance for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines as part of the review of the Johnson & Johnson application. Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues published a report in JAMA on February 14 that looked at an anaphylaxis case reported connected with COVID vaccines between December 14, 2020, and January 18, 2021.

The CDC identified 66 case reports received that met Brighton Collaboration case definition criteria for anaphylaxis (levels 1, 2, or 3): 47 following Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, for a reporting rate of 4.7 cases/million doses administered, and 19 following Moderna vaccine, for a reporting rate of 2.5 cases/million doses administered, Dr. Shimabukuro and CDC colleagues wrote.

The CDC has published materials to help clinicians prepare for the possibility of this rare event, Dr. Shimabukuro told the FDA advisers.

“The take-home message here is that these are rare events and anaphylaxis, although clinically serious, is treatable,” Dr. Shimabukuro said.

At the conclusion of the meeting, FDA panelist Patrick Moore, MD, MPH, from the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, stressed the need to convey to the public that the COVID vaccines appear so far to be safe. Many people earlier had doubts about how the FDA could both safely and quickly review the applications for EUAs for these products.

“As of February 26, things are looking good. That could change tomorrow,” Dr. Moore said. But “this whole EUA process does seem to have worked, despite my own personal concerns about it.”

No second-class vaccines

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, known as Ad26.COV2.S, is composed of a recombinant, replication-incompetent human adenovirus type 26 (Ad26) vector. It’s intended to encode a stabilized form of SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a different mechanism. They rely on mRNA.

The FDA advisers also discussed how patients might respond to the widely reported gap between Janssen’s topline efficacy rates compared with rivals. They urged against people parsing study details too finely and seeking to pick and choose their shots.

“It’s important that people do not think that one vaccine is better than another,” said FDA adviser H. Cody Meissner, MD, from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Dr. Monto agreed, noting that many people in the United States are still waiting for their turn to get COVID vaccines because of the limited early supply.

Trying to game the system to get one vaccine instead of another would not be wise. “In this environment, whatever you can get, get,” Dr. Monto said.

During an open public hearing, Sarah Christopherson, policy advocacy director of the National Women’s Health Network, said that press reports are fueling a damaging impression in the public that there are “first and second-class” vaccines.

“That has the potential to exacerbate existing mistrust” in vaccines, she said. “Public health authorities must address these perceptions head on.”

She urged against attempts to compare the Janssen vaccine to others, noting the potential effects of emerging variants of the virus.

“It’s difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between vaccines,” she said.

Johnson & Johnson’s efficacy results, which are lower than those of the mRNA vaccines, may be a reflection of the ways in which SARS-Co-V-2 is mutating and thus becoming more of a threat, according to the company. A key study of the new vaccine, involving about 44,000 people, coincided with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, which were emerging in some of the countries where the pivotal COV3001 study was being conducted, the company said.

At least 14 days after vaccination, the Johnson & Johnson COVID vaccine efficacy (95% confidence interval) was 72.0% (58.2, 81.7) in the United States, 68.1% (48.8, 80.7) in Brazil, and 64.0% (41.2, 78.7) in South Africa.

Weakened standards?

Several researchers called on the FDA to maintain a critical attitude when assessing Johnson & Johnson’s application for the EUA, warning of a potential for a permanent erosion of agency rules due to hasty action on COVID vaccines.

They raised concerns about the FDA demanding too little in terms of follow-up studies on COVID vaccines and with persisting murkiness resulting in attempts to determine how well these treatments work beyond the initial study period.

“I worry about FDA lowering its approval standards,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, from The BMJ and a faculty member at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, during an open public hearing at the meeting.

“There’s a real urgency to stand back right now and look at the forest here, as well as the trees, and I urge the committee to consider the effects FDA decisions may have on the entire regulatory approval process,” Dr. Doshi said.

Dr. Doshi asked why Johnson & Johnson did not seek a standard full approval — a biologics license application (BLA) — instead of aiming for the lower bar of an EUA. The FDA already has allowed wide distribution of the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines through EUAs. That removes the sense of urgency that FDA faced last year in his view.

The FDA’s June 2020 guidance on the development of COVID vaccines had asked drugmakers to plan on following participants in COVID vaccine trials for “ideally at least one to two years.” Yet people who got placebo in Moderna and Pfizer trials already are being vaccinated, Dr. Doshi said. And Johnson & Johnson said in its presentation to the FDA that if the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine were granted an EUA, the COV3001 study design would be amended to “facilitate cross-over of placebo participants in all participating countries to receive one dose of active study vaccine as fast as operationally feasible.”

“I’m nervous about the prospect of there never being a COVID vaccine that meets the FDA’s approval standard” for a BLA instead of the more limited EUA, Dr. Doshi said.

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the nonprofit National Center for Health Research, noted that the FDA’s subsequent guidance tailored for EUAs for COVID vaccines “drastically shortened” the follow-up time to a median of 2 months. Dr. Zuckerman said that a crossover design would be “a reasonable compromise, but only if the placebo group has at least 6 months of data.” Dr. Zuckerman opened her remarks in the open public hearing by saying she had inherited Johnson & Johnson stock, so was speaking at the meeting against her own financial interest.

“As soon as a vaccine is authorized, we start losing the placebo group. If FDA lets that happen, that’s a huge loss for public health and a huge loss of information about how we can all stay safe,” Dr. Zuckerman said.



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

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

New onset atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF/AFL) is uncommon in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and occurs at a rate similar to that seen in patients hospitalized with influenza.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Among 3,970 patients treated during the early months of the pandemic, new onset AF/AFL was seen in 4%, matching the 4% incidence found in a historic cohort of patients hospitalized with influenza.

On the other hand, mortality was similarly high in both groups of patients studied with AF/AFL, showing a 77% increased risk of death in COVID-19 and a 78% increased risk in influenza, a team from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York reported.

“We saw new onset Afib and flutter in a minority of patients and it was associated with much higher mortality, but the point is that this increase is basically the same as what you see in influenza, which we feel is an indication that this is more of a generalized response to the inflammatory milieu of such a severe viral illness, as opposed to something specific to COVID,” Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, said in the report, published online Feb. 25 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.

“Here we see, with a similar respiratory virus used as controls, that the results are exactly what I would have expected to see, which is that where there is a lot of inflammation, we see Afib,” said John Mandrola, MD, of Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky., who was not involved with the study.

“We need more studies like this one because we know SARS-CoV-2 is a bad virus that may have important effects on the heart, but all the of research done so far has been problematic because it didn’t include controls.”
 

Atrial arrhythmias in COVID and flu

Dr. Reddy and coinvestigators performed a retrospective analysis of a large cohort of patients admitted with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 during Feb. 4-April 22, 2020, to one of five hospitals within the Mount Sinai Health System.

Their comparator arm included 1,420 patients with confirmed influenza A or B hospitalized between Jan. 1, 2017, and Jan. 1, 2020. For both cohorts, automated electronic record abstraction was used and all patient data were de-identified prior to analysis. In the COVID-19 cohort, a manual review of 1,110 charts was also performed.

Compared with those who did not develop AF/AFL, COVID-19 patients with newly detected AF/AFL and COVID-19 were older (74 vs. 66 years; P < .01) and had higher levels of inflammatory markers, including C-reactive protein and interleukin-6, and higher troponin and D-dimer levels (all P < .01).

Overall, including those with a history of atrial arrhythmias, 10% of patients with hospitalized COVID-19 (13% in the manual review) and 12% of those with influenza had AF/AFL detected during their hospitalization.

Mortality at 30 days was higher in COVID-19 patients with AF/AFL compared to those without (46% vs. 26%; P < .01), as were the rates of intubation (27% vs. 15%; relative risk, 1.8; P < .01), and stroke (1.6% vs. 0.6%, RR, 2.7; P = .05).

Despite having more comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the influenza cohort overall, compared to the COVID-19 cohort (9% vs. 29%; P < .01), reflecting the higher case fatality rate in COVID-19, Dr. Reddy, director of cardiac arrhythmia services at Mount Sinai Hospital, said in an interview.

But as with COVID-19, those influenza patients who had in-hospital AF/AFL were more likely to require intubation (14% vs. 7%; P = .004) or die (16% vs. 10%; P = .003).

“The data are not perfect and there are always limitations when doing an observational study using historic controls, but my guess would be that if we looked at other databases and other populations hospitalized for severe illness, we’d likely see something similar because when the body is inflamed, you’re more likely to see Afib,” said Dr. Mandrola.

Dr. Reddy concurred, noting that they considered comparing other populations to COVID-19 patients, including those with “just generalized severe illness,” but in the end felt there were many similarities between influenza and COVID-19, even though mortality in the latter is higher.

“It would be interesting for people to look at other illnesses and see if they find the same thing,” he said.

Dr. Reddy reported having no disclosures relevant to COVID-19. Dr. Mandrola is chief cardiology correspondent for Medscape.com. He reported having no relevant disclosures. MDedge is a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

Another randomized trial, on the heels of the recently published SAMSON, has concluded – many would say confirmed – that statin therapy is no more likely than placebo to “cause” muscle pain in most patients who report such symptoms while taking the drugs.

Affected patients who sorely doubt that conclusion might possibly embrace statins, researchers say, if the new trial’s creative methodology could somehow be applied to them in clinical practice.

The recent SAMSON trial made waves in November 2020 by concluding, with some caveats, that about 90% of the burden of muscle symptoms reported by patients on statins may be attributable to a nocebo effect; that is, they are attributed to the drugs – perhaps because of negative expectations – but not actually caused by them.

The new trial, StatinWISE (Statin Web-based Investigation of Side Effects), triple the size but similar in design and conducted parallel to SAMSON, similarly saw no important differences in patient-reported muscle symptom prevalence or severity during administration of atorvastatin 20 mg/day or placebo, in withdrawal from the study because of such symptoms, or in patient quality of life.

The findings also support years of observational evidence that argues against a statin effect on muscle symptoms except in rare cases of confirmed myopathy, as well as results from randomized trials like ODYSSEY ALTERNATIVE and GAUSS-3, in which significant muscle symptoms in “statin-intolerant” patients were unusual, note StatinWISE investigators in their report, published online Feb. 24 in BMJ, with lead author Emily Herrett, MSc, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“I’m hoping it can change minds a bit and reassure people. That was part of the reason we did it, to inform this debate about harms and benefits of statins,” principal investigator Liam Smeeth, MBChB, MSc, PhD, from the same institution, said during a virtual press conference on the trial conducted by the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“In thinking through whether to take a statin or not, people can be reassured that these muscle symptoms are rare; they aren’t common. Aches and pains are common, but are not caused by statins,” said Dr. Smeeth, who is senior author on the trial publication.

Another goal of the 200-patient study, he said, was to explore whether patients who had experienced muscle symptoms on a statin but were willing to explore whether the statin was to blame could be convinced – depending on what they learned in the trial – to stay on the drugs.

It seemed to work; two-thirds of the participants who finished the study “decided that they would actually want to try starting statins again, which was quite amazing.”

But there was a “slight caveat,” Dr. Smeeth observed. “To join our trial, yes, you had to have had a bad experience with statins, but you probably had to be a little bit open to the idea of trying them again. So, I can’t claim that that two-thirds would apply to everybody in the population.”

Because StatinWISE entered only patients who had reported severe muscle symptoms on a statin but hadn’t showed significant enzymatic evidence of myopathy, all had either taken themselves off the statin or were “considering” it. And the study had excluded anyone with “persistent, generalized, unexplained muscle pain” regardless of any statin therapy.

“This was very deliberately a select group of people who had serious problems taking statins. This was not a random sample by any means,” Dr. Smeeth said.

“The patients in the study were willing to participate and take statins again,” suggesting they “may not be completely representative of all those who believe they experience side effects with statins, as anyone who refused to take statins ever again would not have been recruited,” observed Tim Chico, MBChB, MD, University of Sheffield (England) in a Science Media Centre press release on StatinWISE.

Still, even among this “supersaturated group of people” selected for having had muscle symptoms on statins, Dr. Smeeth said at the briefing, “in almost all cases, their pains and aches were no worse on statins than they were on placebo. We’re not saying that anyone is making up their aches and pains. These are real aches and pains. What we’re showing very clearly is that those aches and pains are no worse on statins than they are on placebo.”
 

Rechallenge is possible

Some people are more likely than others to experience adverse reactions to any drug, “and that’s true of statins,” Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization. But StatinWISE underscores that many patients with muscle symptoms on the drugs can be convinced to continue with them rather than stop them entirely.

“The study didn’t say that everybody who has symptoms on a statin is having a nocebo effect,” said Dr. Stone, vice chair for the multisociety 2018 Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol, who was not involved with StatinWISE.

“It simply said,” allowing for some caveats, “that a significant number of patients may have symptoms that don’t preclude them from being rechallenged with a statin again, once they understand what this nocebo effect is.”

And, Dr. Stone said, “it amplifies the 2018 guidelines, with their emphasis on the clinician-patient discussion before starting therapy,” by showing that statin-associated muscle pain isn’t necessarily caused by the drugs and isn’t a reason to stop them.

“That there is a second study confirming SAMSON is helpful, and the results are helpful because they say many of these patients, once they are shown the results, can be rechallenged and will then tolerate statins,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“They were able to get two-thirds of those completing the trial into long-term treatment, which I think is obviously very admirable and very important,” said Dr. Nissen, who was GAUSS-3 principal investigator but not associated with StatinWISE.

“I think it is important, however, that we not completely dismiss patients who complain of adverse effects. Because, in fact, there probably are some people who do have muscle-related symptoms,” he said. “But you know, to really call somebody statin intolerant, they really should fail three statins, which would be a very good standard.”

In his experience, said Patrick M. Moriarty, MD, who directs the Atherosclerosis & Lipoprotein-Apheresis Center at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, perhaps 80%-90% of patients who believe they are statin intolerant because of muscle symptoms are actually not statin intolerant at all.

“I think a massive amount of it is supratentorial,” Dr. Moriarty, who was not part of StatinWISE, told this news organization. It comes directly from “what they heard, what they read, or what they were told – and at their age, they’re going to have aches and pains.”
 

Value of the n-of-1 trial

Dr. Smeeth and colleagues framed StatinWISE in part as a test of a strategy for overcoming nocebo-based aversion to statins. One goal was to see whether these methods might be helpful in practice for convincing patients who want to reject statins because of muscle symptoms to give the drugs another chance.

In StatinWISE, patients were individually assigned to take atorvastatin or placebo in randomized order with multiple blinding during each of six successive 2-month periods, so that they were on one or the other agent half the time. They rated their symptoms at the end of each period.

So the trial in composite was, as the publication states, “a series of randomized, placebo-controlled n-of-1 trials.” SAMSON followed a similar scheme, except – as previously reported – it had specified 4 months of atorvastatin, 4 months of placebo, and 4 months with patients on neither statin nor placebo.

StatinWISE “provides a useful approach (the n = 1 study) that could be used in real life to help patients understand the cause of their own possible side effects, which could also be applied to medications other than statins,” Dr. Chico added in the Science Media Centre release.

“I often encounter people who have a firmly held view that statins cause muscle pains, even when they haven’t taken these medications themselves, and I hope that this study may help change this view and make them willing to try such an ‘experiment,’ ” he said.

Others aren’t sure an experiment resembling an n-of-1 trial would be practical or effective when conducted in routine practice.

More efficient and useful, Dr. Moriarty noted, would be for physicians to nurture a close relationship with patients, one that could help transform their negative feelings about statins into a willingness to accept the drugs. “This is a trust you have to build; these are human beings.”

He said getting the patient’s confidence is critical. “You have to explain the pluses and minuses of getting treatment, of the 30% reduction in cardiovascular events that occur with the statin. You don’t go ‘testing this and that.’ I think it’s more about getting them on board.”
 

No statin effect on muscle symptoms

Patients in StatinWISE were recruited from 50 primary care practices in England and Wales from December 2016 to April 2018, the report notes; their mean age was 69 years, and 58% were men. Of the 200 patients, 151 recorded muscle-symptom scores for at least one statin period and one placebo period, and so were included in the primary-endpoint assessment.

The mean muscle symptom score was lower on statin therapy than on placebo (1.68 vs. 2.57), but there was no significant difference in adjusted analysis (mean difference, –0.11 (95% confidence interval, –0.36 to 0.14; P = .40).

Statins showed no significant effect on development of muscle symptoms overall, it was reported, with an odds ratio of 1.11 (99% confidence interval, 0.62-1.99). Nor was there an effect on “muscle symptoms that could not be attributed to another cause,” (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.94).

Of the 80 withdrawals during the study for any reason, 43% occurred when the patient was on the statin, 49% when the patient was on placebo, and 9% after randomization but before either statin or placebo had been initiated. Of those, 33 were because of “intolerable muscle symptoms,” says the report. But withdrawal occurred about as often on statin therapy as off the drug – 9% and 7%, respectively – throughout the 1-year study.

“This study provides further evidence through the lived experience of individuals that muscle pains often attributed to statins are not due to the drug,” said Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director for the British Heart Foundation, as quoted in the Science Media Centre press release.

“The use of each patient as their own control in the trial provides a powerful way of distinguishing the effect of a statin from that of taking a pill,” he said. “The findings should give confidence to patients who may be concerned about taking statins.”

StatinWISE was funded by the National Institute for Health Research-Health Technology Program and sponsored by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The authors declare that they have “no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.” Dr. Smeeth reports receiving grants from GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Stone reports no industry relationships or other disclosures. Dr. Nissen reports that his center has received funding for clinical trials from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cerenis, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novartis, Orexigen, Pfizer, Takeda, The Medicines Company, and Silence Therapeutics; that he is involved in these trials but receives no personal remuneration; and that he consults for many pharmaceutical companies but requires them to donate all honoraria or fees directly to charity so that he receives neither income nor a tax deduction. Dr. Chico had no conflicts. Dr. Moriarty declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Samani had no disclosures.

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

Another randomized trial, on the heels of the recently published SAMSON, has concluded – many would say confirmed – that statin therapy is no more likely than placebo to “cause” muscle pain in most patients who report such symptoms while taking the drugs.

Affected patients who sorely doubt that conclusion might possibly embrace statins, researchers say, if the new trial’s creative methodology could somehow be applied to them in clinical practice.

The recent SAMSON trial made waves in November 2020 by concluding, with some caveats, that about 90% of the burden of muscle symptoms reported by patients on statins may be attributable to a nocebo effect; that is, they are attributed to the drugs – perhaps because of negative expectations – but not actually caused by them.

The new trial, StatinWISE (Statin Web-based Investigation of Side Effects), triple the size but similar in design and conducted parallel to SAMSON, similarly saw no important differences in patient-reported muscle symptom prevalence or severity during administration of atorvastatin 20 mg/day or placebo, in withdrawal from the study because of such symptoms, or in patient quality of life.

The findings also support years of observational evidence that argues against a statin effect on muscle symptoms except in rare cases of confirmed myopathy, as well as results from randomized trials like ODYSSEY ALTERNATIVE and GAUSS-3, in which significant muscle symptoms in “statin-intolerant” patients were unusual, note StatinWISE investigators in their report, published online Feb. 24 in BMJ, with lead author Emily Herrett, MSc, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“I’m hoping it can change minds a bit and reassure people. That was part of the reason we did it, to inform this debate about harms and benefits of statins,” principal investigator Liam Smeeth, MBChB, MSc, PhD, from the same institution, said during a virtual press conference on the trial conducted by the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“In thinking through whether to take a statin or not, people can be reassured that these muscle symptoms are rare; they aren’t common. Aches and pains are common, but are not caused by statins,” said Dr. Smeeth, who is senior author on the trial publication.

Another goal of the 200-patient study, he said, was to explore whether patients who had experienced muscle symptoms on a statin but were willing to explore whether the statin was to blame could be convinced – depending on what they learned in the trial – to stay on the drugs.

It seemed to work; two-thirds of the participants who finished the study “decided that they would actually want to try starting statins again, which was quite amazing.”

But there was a “slight caveat,” Dr. Smeeth observed. “To join our trial, yes, you had to have had a bad experience with statins, but you probably had to be a little bit open to the idea of trying them again. So, I can’t claim that that two-thirds would apply to everybody in the population.”

Because StatinWISE entered only patients who had reported severe muscle symptoms on a statin but hadn’t showed significant enzymatic evidence of myopathy, all had either taken themselves off the statin or were “considering” it. And the study had excluded anyone with “persistent, generalized, unexplained muscle pain” regardless of any statin therapy.

“This was very deliberately a select group of people who had serious problems taking statins. This was not a random sample by any means,” Dr. Smeeth said.

“The patients in the study were willing to participate and take statins again,” suggesting they “may not be completely representative of all those who believe they experience side effects with statins, as anyone who refused to take statins ever again would not have been recruited,” observed Tim Chico, MBChB, MD, University of Sheffield (England) in a Science Media Centre press release on StatinWISE.

Still, even among this “supersaturated group of people” selected for having had muscle symptoms on statins, Dr. Smeeth said at the briefing, “in almost all cases, their pains and aches were no worse on statins than they were on placebo. We’re not saying that anyone is making up their aches and pains. These are real aches and pains. What we’re showing very clearly is that those aches and pains are no worse on statins than they are on placebo.”
 

Rechallenge is possible

Some people are more likely than others to experience adverse reactions to any drug, “and that’s true of statins,” Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization. But StatinWISE underscores that many patients with muscle symptoms on the drugs can be convinced to continue with them rather than stop them entirely.

“The study didn’t say that everybody who has symptoms on a statin is having a nocebo effect,” said Dr. Stone, vice chair for the multisociety 2018 Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol, who was not involved with StatinWISE.

“It simply said,” allowing for some caveats, “that a significant number of patients may have symptoms that don’t preclude them from being rechallenged with a statin again, once they understand what this nocebo effect is.”

And, Dr. Stone said, “it amplifies the 2018 guidelines, with their emphasis on the clinician-patient discussion before starting therapy,” by showing that statin-associated muscle pain isn’t necessarily caused by the drugs and isn’t a reason to stop them.

“That there is a second study confirming SAMSON is helpful, and the results are helpful because they say many of these patients, once they are shown the results, can be rechallenged and will then tolerate statins,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“They were able to get two-thirds of those completing the trial into long-term treatment, which I think is obviously very admirable and very important,” said Dr. Nissen, who was GAUSS-3 principal investigator but not associated with StatinWISE.

“I think it is important, however, that we not completely dismiss patients who complain of adverse effects. Because, in fact, there probably are some people who do have muscle-related symptoms,” he said. “But you know, to really call somebody statin intolerant, they really should fail three statins, which would be a very good standard.”

In his experience, said Patrick M. Moriarty, MD, who directs the Atherosclerosis & Lipoprotein-Apheresis Center at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, perhaps 80%-90% of patients who believe they are statin intolerant because of muscle symptoms are actually not statin intolerant at all.

“I think a massive amount of it is supratentorial,” Dr. Moriarty, who was not part of StatinWISE, told this news organization. It comes directly from “what they heard, what they read, or what they were told – and at their age, they’re going to have aches and pains.”
 

Value of the n-of-1 trial

Dr. Smeeth and colleagues framed StatinWISE in part as a test of a strategy for overcoming nocebo-based aversion to statins. One goal was to see whether these methods might be helpful in practice for convincing patients who want to reject statins because of muscle symptoms to give the drugs another chance.

In StatinWISE, patients were individually assigned to take atorvastatin or placebo in randomized order with multiple blinding during each of six successive 2-month periods, so that they were on one or the other agent half the time. They rated their symptoms at the end of each period.

So the trial in composite was, as the publication states, “a series of randomized, placebo-controlled n-of-1 trials.” SAMSON followed a similar scheme, except – as previously reported – it had specified 4 months of atorvastatin, 4 months of placebo, and 4 months with patients on neither statin nor placebo.

StatinWISE “provides a useful approach (the n = 1 study) that could be used in real life to help patients understand the cause of their own possible side effects, which could also be applied to medications other than statins,” Dr. Chico added in the Science Media Centre release.

“I often encounter people who have a firmly held view that statins cause muscle pains, even when they haven’t taken these medications themselves, and I hope that this study may help change this view and make them willing to try such an ‘experiment,’ ” he said.

Others aren’t sure an experiment resembling an n-of-1 trial would be practical or effective when conducted in routine practice.

More efficient and useful, Dr. Moriarty noted, would be for physicians to nurture a close relationship with patients, one that could help transform their negative feelings about statins into a willingness to accept the drugs. “This is a trust you have to build; these are human beings.”

He said getting the patient’s confidence is critical. “You have to explain the pluses and minuses of getting treatment, of the 30% reduction in cardiovascular events that occur with the statin. You don’t go ‘testing this and that.’ I think it’s more about getting them on board.”
 

No statin effect on muscle symptoms

Patients in StatinWISE were recruited from 50 primary care practices in England and Wales from December 2016 to April 2018, the report notes; their mean age was 69 years, and 58% were men. Of the 200 patients, 151 recorded muscle-symptom scores for at least one statin period and one placebo period, and so were included in the primary-endpoint assessment.

The mean muscle symptom score was lower on statin therapy than on placebo (1.68 vs. 2.57), but there was no significant difference in adjusted analysis (mean difference, –0.11 (95% confidence interval, –0.36 to 0.14; P = .40).

Statins showed no significant effect on development of muscle symptoms overall, it was reported, with an odds ratio of 1.11 (99% confidence interval, 0.62-1.99). Nor was there an effect on “muscle symptoms that could not be attributed to another cause,” (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.94).

Of the 80 withdrawals during the study for any reason, 43% occurred when the patient was on the statin, 49% when the patient was on placebo, and 9% after randomization but before either statin or placebo had been initiated. Of those, 33 were because of “intolerable muscle symptoms,” says the report. But withdrawal occurred about as often on statin therapy as off the drug – 9% and 7%, respectively – throughout the 1-year study.

“This study provides further evidence through the lived experience of individuals that muscle pains often attributed to statins are not due to the drug,” said Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director for the British Heart Foundation, as quoted in the Science Media Centre press release.

“The use of each patient as their own control in the trial provides a powerful way of distinguishing the effect of a statin from that of taking a pill,” he said. “The findings should give confidence to patients who may be concerned about taking statins.”

StatinWISE was funded by the National Institute for Health Research-Health Technology Program and sponsored by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The authors declare that they have “no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.” Dr. Smeeth reports receiving grants from GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Stone reports no industry relationships or other disclosures. Dr. Nissen reports that his center has received funding for clinical trials from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cerenis, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novartis, Orexigen, Pfizer, Takeda, The Medicines Company, and Silence Therapeutics; that he is involved in these trials but receives no personal remuneration; and that he consults for many pharmaceutical companies but requires them to donate all honoraria or fees directly to charity so that he receives neither income nor a tax deduction. Dr. Chico had no conflicts. Dr. Moriarty declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Samani had no disclosures.

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

Another randomized trial, on the heels of the recently published SAMSON, has concluded – many would say confirmed – that statin therapy is no more likely than placebo to “cause” muscle pain in most patients who report such symptoms while taking the drugs.

Affected patients who sorely doubt that conclusion might possibly embrace statins, researchers say, if the new trial’s creative methodology could somehow be applied to them in clinical practice.

The recent SAMSON trial made waves in November 2020 by concluding, with some caveats, that about 90% of the burden of muscle symptoms reported by patients on statins may be attributable to a nocebo effect; that is, they are attributed to the drugs – perhaps because of negative expectations – but not actually caused by them.

The new trial, StatinWISE (Statin Web-based Investigation of Side Effects), triple the size but similar in design and conducted parallel to SAMSON, similarly saw no important differences in patient-reported muscle symptom prevalence or severity during administration of atorvastatin 20 mg/day or placebo, in withdrawal from the study because of such symptoms, or in patient quality of life.

The findings also support years of observational evidence that argues against a statin effect on muscle symptoms except in rare cases of confirmed myopathy, as well as results from randomized trials like ODYSSEY ALTERNATIVE and GAUSS-3, in which significant muscle symptoms in “statin-intolerant” patients were unusual, note StatinWISE investigators in their report, published online Feb. 24 in BMJ, with lead author Emily Herrett, MSc, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

“I’m hoping it can change minds a bit and reassure people. That was part of the reason we did it, to inform this debate about harms and benefits of statins,” principal investigator Liam Smeeth, MBChB, MSc, PhD, from the same institution, said during a virtual press conference on the trial conducted by the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“In thinking through whether to take a statin or not, people can be reassured that these muscle symptoms are rare; they aren’t common. Aches and pains are common, but are not caused by statins,” said Dr. Smeeth, who is senior author on the trial publication.

Another goal of the 200-patient study, he said, was to explore whether patients who had experienced muscle symptoms on a statin but were willing to explore whether the statin was to blame could be convinced – depending on what they learned in the trial – to stay on the drugs.

It seemed to work; two-thirds of the participants who finished the study “decided that they would actually want to try starting statins again, which was quite amazing.”

But there was a “slight caveat,” Dr. Smeeth observed. “To join our trial, yes, you had to have had a bad experience with statins, but you probably had to be a little bit open to the idea of trying them again. So, I can’t claim that that two-thirds would apply to everybody in the population.”

Because StatinWISE entered only patients who had reported severe muscle symptoms on a statin but hadn’t showed significant enzymatic evidence of myopathy, all had either taken themselves off the statin or were “considering” it. And the study had excluded anyone with “persistent, generalized, unexplained muscle pain” regardless of any statin therapy.

“This was very deliberately a select group of people who had serious problems taking statins. This was not a random sample by any means,” Dr. Smeeth said.

“The patients in the study were willing to participate and take statins again,” suggesting they “may not be completely representative of all those who believe they experience side effects with statins, as anyone who refused to take statins ever again would not have been recruited,” observed Tim Chico, MBChB, MD, University of Sheffield (England) in a Science Media Centre press release on StatinWISE.

Still, even among this “supersaturated group of people” selected for having had muscle symptoms on statins, Dr. Smeeth said at the briefing, “in almost all cases, their pains and aches were no worse on statins than they were on placebo. We’re not saying that anyone is making up their aches and pains. These are real aches and pains. What we’re showing very clearly is that those aches and pains are no worse on statins than they are on placebo.”
 

Rechallenge is possible

Some people are more likely than others to experience adverse reactions to any drug, “and that’s true of statins,” Neil J. Stone, MD, Northwestern University, Chicago, told this news organization. But StatinWISE underscores that many patients with muscle symptoms on the drugs can be convinced to continue with them rather than stop them entirely.

“The study didn’t say that everybody who has symptoms on a statin is having a nocebo effect,” said Dr. Stone, vice chair for the multisociety 2018 Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol, who was not involved with StatinWISE.

“It simply said,” allowing for some caveats, “that a significant number of patients may have symptoms that don’t preclude them from being rechallenged with a statin again, once they understand what this nocebo effect is.”

And, Dr. Stone said, “it amplifies the 2018 guidelines, with their emphasis on the clinician-patient discussion before starting therapy,” by showing that statin-associated muscle pain isn’t necessarily caused by the drugs and isn’t a reason to stop them.

“That there is a second study confirming SAMSON is helpful, and the results are helpful because they say many of these patients, once they are shown the results, can be rechallenged and will then tolerate statins,” Steven E. Nissen, MD, Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview.

“They were able to get two-thirds of those completing the trial into long-term treatment, which I think is obviously very admirable and very important,” said Dr. Nissen, who was GAUSS-3 principal investigator but not associated with StatinWISE.

“I think it is important, however, that we not completely dismiss patients who complain of adverse effects. Because, in fact, there probably are some people who do have muscle-related symptoms,” he said. “But you know, to really call somebody statin intolerant, they really should fail three statins, which would be a very good standard.”

In his experience, said Patrick M. Moriarty, MD, who directs the Atherosclerosis & Lipoprotein-Apheresis Center at the University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, perhaps 80%-90% of patients who believe they are statin intolerant because of muscle symptoms are actually not statin intolerant at all.

“I think a massive amount of it is supratentorial,” Dr. Moriarty, who was not part of StatinWISE, told this news organization. It comes directly from “what they heard, what they read, or what they were told – and at their age, they’re going to have aches and pains.”
 

Value of the n-of-1 trial

Dr. Smeeth and colleagues framed StatinWISE in part as a test of a strategy for overcoming nocebo-based aversion to statins. One goal was to see whether these methods might be helpful in practice for convincing patients who want to reject statins because of muscle symptoms to give the drugs another chance.

In StatinWISE, patients were individually assigned to take atorvastatin or placebo in randomized order with multiple blinding during each of six successive 2-month periods, so that they were on one or the other agent half the time. They rated their symptoms at the end of each period.

So the trial in composite was, as the publication states, “a series of randomized, placebo-controlled n-of-1 trials.” SAMSON followed a similar scheme, except – as previously reported – it had specified 4 months of atorvastatin, 4 months of placebo, and 4 months with patients on neither statin nor placebo.

StatinWISE “provides a useful approach (the n = 1 study) that could be used in real life to help patients understand the cause of their own possible side effects, which could also be applied to medications other than statins,” Dr. Chico added in the Science Media Centre release.

“I often encounter people who have a firmly held view that statins cause muscle pains, even when they haven’t taken these medications themselves, and I hope that this study may help change this view and make them willing to try such an ‘experiment,’ ” he said.

Others aren’t sure an experiment resembling an n-of-1 trial would be practical or effective when conducted in routine practice.

More efficient and useful, Dr. Moriarty noted, would be for physicians to nurture a close relationship with patients, one that could help transform their negative feelings about statins into a willingness to accept the drugs. “This is a trust you have to build; these are human beings.”

He said getting the patient’s confidence is critical. “You have to explain the pluses and minuses of getting treatment, of the 30% reduction in cardiovascular events that occur with the statin. You don’t go ‘testing this and that.’ I think it’s more about getting them on board.”
 

No statin effect on muscle symptoms

Patients in StatinWISE were recruited from 50 primary care practices in England and Wales from December 2016 to April 2018, the report notes; their mean age was 69 years, and 58% were men. Of the 200 patients, 151 recorded muscle-symptom scores for at least one statin period and one placebo period, and so were included in the primary-endpoint assessment.

The mean muscle symptom score was lower on statin therapy than on placebo (1.68 vs. 2.57), but there was no significant difference in adjusted analysis (mean difference, –0.11 (95% confidence interval, –0.36 to 0.14; P = .40).

Statins showed no significant effect on development of muscle symptoms overall, it was reported, with an odds ratio of 1.11 (99% confidence interval, 0.62-1.99). Nor was there an effect on “muscle symptoms that could not be attributed to another cause,” (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.77-1.94).

Of the 80 withdrawals during the study for any reason, 43% occurred when the patient was on the statin, 49% when the patient was on placebo, and 9% after randomization but before either statin or placebo had been initiated. Of those, 33 were because of “intolerable muscle symptoms,” says the report. But withdrawal occurred about as often on statin therapy as off the drug – 9% and 7%, respectively – throughout the 1-year study.

“This study provides further evidence through the lived experience of individuals that muscle pains often attributed to statins are not due to the drug,” said Sir Nilesh J. Samani, MBChB, MD, medical director for the British Heart Foundation, as quoted in the Science Media Centre press release.

“The use of each patient as their own control in the trial provides a powerful way of distinguishing the effect of a statin from that of taking a pill,” he said. “The findings should give confidence to patients who may be concerned about taking statins.”

StatinWISE was funded by the National Institute for Health Research-Health Technology Program and sponsored by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The authors declare that they have “no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.” Dr. Smeeth reports receiving grants from GlaxoSmithKline, and personal fees for advisory work from AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline. Dr. Stone reports no industry relationships or other disclosures. Dr. Nissen reports that his center has received funding for clinical trials from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Cerenis, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Medtronic, MyoKardia, Novartis, Orexigen, Pfizer, Takeda, The Medicines Company, and Silence Therapeutics; that he is involved in these trials but receives no personal remuneration; and that he consults for many pharmaceutical companies but requires them to donate all honoraria or fees directly to charity so that he receives neither income nor a tax deduction. Dr. Chico had no conflicts. Dr. Moriarty declared no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Samani had no disclosures.

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

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Patients taking methotrexate for psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were at a higher risk of developing liver disease than were patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on methotrexate, in a large population-based study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/ThinkStockPhotos.com

“These findings suggest that conservative liver monitoring is warranted in patients receiving methotrexate for psoriatic disease,” particularly psoriasis, the investigators concluded.

• Mild liver disease: The IR per 1,000 person-years for patients with psoriasis was 4.22 per 1,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 3.61-4.91), compared with 2.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.95-2.91) for patients with PsA, and 1.39 per 1,000 person-years (95% CI, 1.25-1.55) for patients with RA.
• Moderate to severe liver disease: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 0.98 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 0.70-1.33), compared with 0.51 (95% CI, 0.32-0.77) for patients with PsA, and 0.46 (95% CI, 0.37-0.55) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis: The IR for patients with psoriasis was 1.89 per 1,000 person years (95% CI, 1.49-2.37), compared with 0.84 (95% CI, 0.59-1.16) for patients with PsA, and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34-0.51) for patients with RA.
• Cirrhosis-related hospitalization: This was the least common outcome, with an IR per 1,000 person years of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.49-1.05) for patients with psoriasis, 0.32 (95% CI, 0.18-0.54) for patients with PsA, and 0.22 (95% CI, 0.17-0.29) for patients with RA.

When results were adjusted with Cox regression analyses, the psoriasis group had a significantly increased risk compared with the RA group with regard to mild liver disease (hazard ratio, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.81-2.72), moderate to-severe liver disease (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.05-2.31), cirrhosis (HR, 3.38; 95% CI, 2.44-4.68), and cirrhosis-related hospitalization (HR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.37-3.69). Compared with patients with RA, patients with PsA had a significantly increased risk of mild liver disease (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01-1.60) and cirrhosis (HR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.10-2.42), but not moderate to severe liver disease or hospitalizations related to cirrhosis.

The researchers noted it is unclear why there was a difference in risk between the three groups of patients.

“While such differences in hepatotoxicity risk were previously attributed to differences in rates of alcoholism, obesity, diabetes, and other comorbidities between the disease populations, our study finds that the underlying disease influences liver disease risk independent of age, sex, smoking, alcohol use, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, overall comorbidity, and weekly methotrexate dose,” wrote Dr. Gelfand and colleagues.

As far as they know, their study “ is one of the first and largest population-based studies to directly compare” liver disease in these three groups of patients on methotrexate, they wrote, noting that earlier studies were smaller and frequently used indirect hepatic injury measures.

Limitations of the study included the inability to account for disease severity as well as the potential for disease misclassification, surveillance bias, and confounding by unmeasured variables such as body mass index. Further, the results do not show whether “liver disease is attributed to methotrexate use, the underlying disease, or a combination of both,” the researchers noted.

Four authors report relationships in the form of consultancies, continuing medical information payments, deputy editor positions, fellowship support, individual or spousal honoraria, patents, research grants, and/or speaker positions with various pharmaceutical companies, medical journals, societies, and other organizations; two authors had no disclosures. There was no funding source.

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

Rheumatologists can look forward to the likely regulatory approval of the oral Janus kinase inhibitors tofacitinib and upadacitinib for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis in the first half of 2021, speakers predicted at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

This will be a major advance in the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and promises to be one of the overall highlights of the coming year in rheumatology, according to the speakers. Both medications are now under Food and Drug Administration review for the proposed new indication.

“My sense is within the next 6 months we’re going to have two different oral JAK inhibitors that offer a new option for our ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients,” predicted Eric M. Ruderman, MD, professor of medicine (rheumatology) at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Alexis R. Ogdie, MD, MSCE, noted that, at present, only two classes of potent medications are available for treatment of axial spondyloarthritis: tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors and anti–interleukin-17 biologics.

“I think it would be so exciting to have more treatment options. To have only two classes of drugs you can use for this disease is not enough,” said Dr. Ogdie, a rheumatologist and epidemiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

She and her fellow panelists also highlighted other recent key developments in axSpA, including epidemiologic evidence that case numbers are climbing sharply, identification of two previously unrecognized common comorbidities, a successful biologic remission induction and maintenance dose–reduction strategy, data on the best and worst biologics for patients with anterior uveitis, and evidence regarding next-step therapy in axSpA patients who’ve had an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor.
 

The JAK inhibitors are coming

Oral tofacitinib (Xeljanz) at 5 mg twice daily was the focus of a pivotal phase 3, double-blind, 16-week, placebo-controlled clinical trial including 269 patients with axSpA. The results were presented at the 2020 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. The primary endpoint was at least a 20% improvement in Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society response criteria (ASAS 20). This was accomplished in 56.4% of patients on tofacitinib and 29.4% of placebo-treated controls. The ASAS 40 response rate was even more impressive: 40.6% with the JAK inhibitor, compared with 12.5% with placebo. There was one serious infection in the tofacitinib group, but no cases of venous thromboembolism, interstitial lung disease, opportunistic infection, major adverse cardiovascular events, or malignancy in this brief 4-month study.

Also now under FDA review are data from SELECT-AXIS 1, a phase 2/3, double-blind trial in which 187 biologic-naive patients with ankylosing spondylitis were randomized to 14 weeks of upadacitinib (Rinvoq) at 15 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint, an ASAS 40 response, occurred in 51.6% of patients on the JAK inhibitor and half as many controls.

“They saw improvement in MRI scores with upadacitinib, so there’s biologic plausibility to this,” Dr. Ruderman noted.

He predicted the JAK inhibitors are going to have a big impact in clinical practice, especially in men.

“I have a lot of ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis patients on NSAIDs who I’m not convinced are doing as well as they could, but they push back every time I raise the possibility of going on a biologic,” the rheumatologist said. “I suspect that, given the rapid response with JAK inhibitors here, as in rheumatoid arthritis, it might be a little bit easier to persuade these people to give this a try for 4-6 weeks and then see how much better they are. It’s a pill. You don’t have to give yourself a shot.”

Dr. Ogdie predicted the new oral agents will bring more axSpA patients into rheumatologists’ offices.

“I think it’ll be kind of like the apremilast effect in psoriasis, where the drug got a lot more people into the market,” she said.

U.S. ankylosing spondylitis prevalence rising

The diagnostic prevalence of axSpA in the United States increased by 86% between 2006 and 2014 in a retrospective analysis based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data. A separate analysis using IBM MarketScan data for the same years was confirmatory, showing a 56% increase, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MS, MPH, of the University of Alabama at Birmingham reported at the 2020 annual meeting of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR), now known as the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology.

“I think the take home is we’re seeing more of this. Some of this is likely due to increased awareness and inclusion of nonradiographic disease,” according to Dr. Ruderman.
 

Two previously overlooked comorbidities

It’s well recognized that 5%-10% of patients with axSpA have concurrent inflammatory bowel disease. But how about irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)?

A study of 186 Swedish patients with axSpA in the population-based SPARTAKUS registry, none with inflammatory bowel disease, concluded that 30% of them met ROME III diagnostic criteria for IBS, compared with 16% of healthy controls. Of note, the axSpA patients with comorbid IBS had significantly worse axSpA disease outcomes, compared with those without IBS as measured by pain, fatigue, and quality-of-life scores, as well as significantly greater disease activity on the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index.

New-onset inflammatory back pain occurred in a hefty 24% of 513 Saudi patients placed on isotretinoin for acne. About 42% of those with inflammatory back pain displayed evidence of sacroiliitis on MRI. Moreover, 52% of patients with MRI-proven sacroiliitis fulfilled ASAS criteria for axSpA. In this longitudinal study, the MRI abnormalities and back pain symptoms completely resolved after isotretinoin discontinuation, but it took a long time: up to 9 months.

“When you see these people with inflammatory back pain on isotretinoin, I think it’s important that before you saddle them with a diagnosis that they have axSpA – a diagnosis that will go with them forever – give them time off drug, because this can look like the real thing. It’s something to think about as these pretty young kids come in to see you with back pain: Always ask about their medication history because it could be important,” Dr. Ruderman said.

A successful biologic remission induction-and-maintenance strategy

The phase 3b, multicenter C-OPTIMISE study sought to determine the best strategy for avoiding axSpA flares once sustained clinical remission has been achieved with a TNF inhibitor, in this case certolizumab pegol (Cimzia). The first part of the trial involved 736 patients with early axSpA, including 329 with nonradiographic disease. During the 48-week open-label induction period, 43.9% of patients achieved sustained clinical remission at the approved dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, with similar success rates in radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA.

Those in sustained remission were then randomized double blind to one of three groups: an additional 48 weeks of certolizumab pegol at the full maintenance dose of 200 mg every 2 weeks, reduced maintenance dosing at 200 mg every 4 weeks, or placebo. During this period, 83.7% of the group who continued on full-dose certolizumab remained flare free, as did 79% of those on the reduced maintenance dose. In contrast, only 20.2% of patients in whom the biologic was completely withdrawn remained flare free. The investigators concluded that certolizumab dose reduction is a winning strategy for maintenance of clinical remission, as it reduces costs and limits long-term exposure to immunosuppressive therapy while maintaining clinical benefits.
 

All biologics aren’t equal when it comes to anterior uveitis risk

An analysis of Swedish Rheumatology Quality Register data presented at the 2020 EULAR meeting concluded that, among 3,568 patients started on one of four biologics for treatment of spondyloarthritis, the incidence of anterior uveitis was 2.9 per 100 patient-years in those on infliximab (Remicade), 4.0 per 100 patient-years with adalimumab (Humira), 6.8 per 100 patient-years with secukinumab (Cosentyx), and 7.5 per 100 patient-years with etanercept (Enbrel).

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“This is important information for us in the clinic. The big question has been, do we see a reduced risk of anterior uveitis with secukinumab, an interleukin-17 inhibitor,” observed RWCS director Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Innovative Therapy in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of California, San Diego.

“When I’ve switched people with uveitis to secukinumab or ixekizumab [Taltz], I do see it come back. So I think it’s important to have these data out there,” Dr. Ogdie said.

Certolizumab pegol markedly reduced the incidence of anterior uveitis flares in patients with radiographic and nonradiographic axSpA and a history of recurrent uveitis flares in the ongoing phase 4 C-VIEW study. In the 48 weeks prior to going on certolizumab pegol, the 89 participants included in this analysis had an acute anterior uveitis incidence of 1.5 episodes per patient; during their first 48 weeks on the TNF inhibitor, the rate plunged to 0.2 episodes, representing an 87% reduction.
 

Secukinumab ‘not the obvious choice’ after inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor

While it might seem logical to turn to an IL-17 inhibitor in patients with an inadequate response to one or more TNF inhibitors, two recently published studies suggest that starting secukinumab is not more effective than trying yet another TNF inhibitor.

A retrospective analysis of Swiss registry data on next-step therapy in 390 axSpA patients who had withdrawn from one or more TNF inhibitors concluded that efficacy at 1 year in the 106 who switched to secukinumab wasn’t significantly different than in the 284 who moved on to another TNF inhibitor.

Similarly, an analysis of 10,583 courses of biologic therapy in 8,050 axSpA patients in five Nordic registries concluded that secukinumab and adalimumab as second-line therapy in patients with inadequate response to an initial TNF inhibitor performed similarly through 1 year of follow-up. However, in patients who’d previously failed to respond to two or three different biologic agents, adalimumab proved superior to the interleukin-17 inhibitor.

“These are two studies that don’t support the intuitive notion of trying a drug with a different mechanism of action when a patient has an inadequate response to a TNF inhibitor. It’s not clear that’s going to make a difference. It doesn’t mean secukinumab can’t work, but it means secukinumab is not the obvious choice,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

All three speakers reported financial relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]