User login
For MD-IQ on Family Practice News, but a regular topic for Rheumatology News
What’s hot in knee OA rehab research
TORONTO – Emerging evidence indicates that patients with knee osteoarthritis who engage in high-intensity interval training obtain significantly greater improvement in physical function than with conventionally prescribed moderate-intensity exercise, Monica R. Maly, PhD, said at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This was one of the key conclusions she and her coworkers drew from their analysis of the past year’s published research on diet and exercise interventions to improve outcomes in patients with OA, where obesity and physical inactivity figure prominently as modifiable lifestyle factors.
Another finding: Exercise interventions are where all the action is at present in the field of lifestyle-modification research aimed at achieving better health-related quality of life and other positive outcomes in OA. Dietary interventions are simply not a hot research topic. Indeed, her review of the past year’s literature included 38 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 meta-analyses and systematic reviews – and all 38 RCTs addressed exercise interventions.
“It’s interesting to note that we found no new RCT data on diet to modify obesity in OA in the past year,” Dr. Maly said at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Additionally, 32 of the 38 RCTs devoted to exercise interventions for OA focused specifically on knee OA, noted Dr. Maly of the department of kinesiology at the University of Waterloo (Ont.).
Aerobic exercise dosage and intensity
Australian investigators conducted a pilot randomized trial of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus more conventional moderate-intensity exercise to improve health-related quality of life and physical function in 27 patients with knee OA. The exercise programs involved unsupervised home-based cycling, with participants requested to do four roughly 25-minute sessions per week for 8 weeks.
The two exercise intensity groups showed similar gains in health-related quality of life as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). However, the HIIT group showed significantly greater improvement in physical function as measured on the Timed Up and Go test (PeerJ. 2018 May 9;6:e4738).
Dr. Maly noted that adherence to the home-based exercise programs was a challenge: Only 17 of the 27 patients completed the 8-week Australian study, for a 37% dropout rate. However, most study withdrawals were because of family-related issues, illness, or injuries unrelated to cycling, with no signal that HIIT placed knee OA patients at higher injury risk.
Other investigators performed a systematic review of 45 studies in an effort to generate evidence-based guidance about the optimal exercise dosing in order to improve outcomes in knee OA patients. They concluded that programs comprising 24 therapeutic exercise sessions over the course of 8-12 weeks resulted in the largest improvements in measures of pain and physical function. And, importantly, one exercise session per week conferred no benefits (J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Mar;48[3]:146-61).
“Frequency probably matters,” Dr. Maly observed.
Patients and their physicians often wonder if long-term, land-based exercise might have deleterious impacts on joint structure in patients with knee OA. Reassurance on this score was provided by a recent meta-analysis of RCTs that concluded, on the basis of moderate-strength evidence, that exercise therapy of longer than 6 months duration had no adverse effect on tibiofemoral radiographic disease severity, compared with no exercise. Nor was there evidence of a long-term-exercise–associated deterioration of tibiofemoral cartilage morphology or worsening of synovitis or effusion. Plus, the meta-analysis provided limited evidence to suggest long-term exercise had a protective effect on the composition of patellar cartilage (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Jun;48[6]:941-9).
“While there was a little bit of evidence suggesting that long-term exercise could worsen bone marrow lesions, really there was no other evidence that it could change the structure of a joint,” according to Dr. Maly.
Internet-based exercise training
Using the Internet to deliver an individually tailored exercise-training program for patients with symptomatic knee OA might sound like an efficient strategy, but in fact it proved fruitless in a large randomized trial. The 350 participants were assigned to an 8-visit, 4-month program of physical therapy, a wait-list control group, or an internet-based program that delivered tailored exercises and video demonstrations with no face-to-face contact. The bottom line is that improvement in WOMAC scores didn’t differ significantly between the three groups when evaluated at 4 and 12 months (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Mar;26[3]:383-96).
“When we deliver exercise with the use of technology, it may require some support, including face to face,” Dr. Maly concluded from the study results.
Strength training
High-intensity resistance training such as weight lifting aimed at strengthening the quadriceps and other large muscles is often eschewed in patients with knee OA because of concern about possible damage to their already damaged joints. Intriguingly, Brazilian investigators may have found a workaround. They randomized 48 women with knee OA to 12 weeks of either supervised low-intensity resistance training performed with partial blood-flow restriction using an air cuff, to low-intensity resistance training alone, or to high-intensity resistance training. The low-intensity resistance workouts involved exercises such as leg presses and knee extensions performed at 30% of maximum effort.
The low-intensity resistance training performed with blood-flow restriction and the high-intensity strength training programs proved similarly effective in improving quadriceps muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function to a significantly greater extent than with low-intensity resistance training alone. Moreover, low-intensity resistance training with blood-flow restriction also resulted in a significant improvement in pain scores. That finding, coupled with the fact that 4 of the 16 patients in the high-intensity resistance training group dropped out of the trial because of exercise-induced knee pain, suggests that low-intensity strength training carried out with partial blood-flow restriction may have a bright future (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 May;50[5]:897-905).
Exercise plus diet-induced weight loss
How does the combination of dietary weight loss plus exercise stack up against diet alone in terms of benefits on pain and physical function in obese patients with knee OA? A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs aimed at answering that question concluded that diet-alone strategies are less effective. Both the diet-plus-exercise and diet-only interventions resulted in comparably moderate improvement in physical function. However, diet-only treatments didn’t reduce pain, whereas diet-plus-exercise interventions achieved moderate pain relief (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Apr;48[5]:765-77).
Dr. Maly reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.
TORONTO – Emerging evidence indicates that patients with knee osteoarthritis who engage in high-intensity interval training obtain significantly greater improvement in physical function than with conventionally prescribed moderate-intensity exercise, Monica R. Maly, PhD, said at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This was one of the key conclusions she and her coworkers drew from their analysis of the past year’s published research on diet and exercise interventions to improve outcomes in patients with OA, where obesity and physical inactivity figure prominently as modifiable lifestyle factors.
Another finding: Exercise interventions are where all the action is at present in the field of lifestyle-modification research aimed at achieving better health-related quality of life and other positive outcomes in OA. Dietary interventions are simply not a hot research topic. Indeed, her review of the past year’s literature included 38 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 meta-analyses and systematic reviews – and all 38 RCTs addressed exercise interventions.
“It’s interesting to note that we found no new RCT data on diet to modify obesity in OA in the past year,” Dr. Maly said at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Additionally, 32 of the 38 RCTs devoted to exercise interventions for OA focused specifically on knee OA, noted Dr. Maly of the department of kinesiology at the University of Waterloo (Ont.).
Aerobic exercise dosage and intensity
Australian investigators conducted a pilot randomized trial of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus more conventional moderate-intensity exercise to improve health-related quality of life and physical function in 27 patients with knee OA. The exercise programs involved unsupervised home-based cycling, with participants requested to do four roughly 25-minute sessions per week for 8 weeks.
The two exercise intensity groups showed similar gains in health-related quality of life as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). However, the HIIT group showed significantly greater improvement in physical function as measured on the Timed Up and Go test (PeerJ. 2018 May 9;6:e4738).
Dr. Maly noted that adherence to the home-based exercise programs was a challenge: Only 17 of the 27 patients completed the 8-week Australian study, for a 37% dropout rate. However, most study withdrawals were because of family-related issues, illness, or injuries unrelated to cycling, with no signal that HIIT placed knee OA patients at higher injury risk.
Other investigators performed a systematic review of 45 studies in an effort to generate evidence-based guidance about the optimal exercise dosing in order to improve outcomes in knee OA patients. They concluded that programs comprising 24 therapeutic exercise sessions over the course of 8-12 weeks resulted in the largest improvements in measures of pain and physical function. And, importantly, one exercise session per week conferred no benefits (J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Mar;48[3]:146-61).
“Frequency probably matters,” Dr. Maly observed.
Patients and their physicians often wonder if long-term, land-based exercise might have deleterious impacts on joint structure in patients with knee OA. Reassurance on this score was provided by a recent meta-analysis of RCTs that concluded, on the basis of moderate-strength evidence, that exercise therapy of longer than 6 months duration had no adverse effect on tibiofemoral radiographic disease severity, compared with no exercise. Nor was there evidence of a long-term-exercise–associated deterioration of tibiofemoral cartilage morphology or worsening of synovitis or effusion. Plus, the meta-analysis provided limited evidence to suggest long-term exercise had a protective effect on the composition of patellar cartilage (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Jun;48[6]:941-9).
“While there was a little bit of evidence suggesting that long-term exercise could worsen bone marrow lesions, really there was no other evidence that it could change the structure of a joint,” according to Dr. Maly.
Internet-based exercise training
Using the Internet to deliver an individually tailored exercise-training program for patients with symptomatic knee OA might sound like an efficient strategy, but in fact it proved fruitless in a large randomized trial. The 350 participants were assigned to an 8-visit, 4-month program of physical therapy, a wait-list control group, or an internet-based program that delivered tailored exercises and video demonstrations with no face-to-face contact. The bottom line is that improvement in WOMAC scores didn’t differ significantly between the three groups when evaluated at 4 and 12 months (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Mar;26[3]:383-96).
“When we deliver exercise with the use of technology, it may require some support, including face to face,” Dr. Maly concluded from the study results.
Strength training
High-intensity resistance training such as weight lifting aimed at strengthening the quadriceps and other large muscles is often eschewed in patients with knee OA because of concern about possible damage to their already damaged joints. Intriguingly, Brazilian investigators may have found a workaround. They randomized 48 women with knee OA to 12 weeks of either supervised low-intensity resistance training performed with partial blood-flow restriction using an air cuff, to low-intensity resistance training alone, or to high-intensity resistance training. The low-intensity resistance workouts involved exercises such as leg presses and knee extensions performed at 30% of maximum effort.
The low-intensity resistance training performed with blood-flow restriction and the high-intensity strength training programs proved similarly effective in improving quadriceps muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function to a significantly greater extent than with low-intensity resistance training alone. Moreover, low-intensity resistance training with blood-flow restriction also resulted in a significant improvement in pain scores. That finding, coupled with the fact that 4 of the 16 patients in the high-intensity resistance training group dropped out of the trial because of exercise-induced knee pain, suggests that low-intensity strength training carried out with partial blood-flow restriction may have a bright future (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 May;50[5]:897-905).
Exercise plus diet-induced weight loss
How does the combination of dietary weight loss plus exercise stack up against diet alone in terms of benefits on pain and physical function in obese patients with knee OA? A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs aimed at answering that question concluded that diet-alone strategies are less effective. Both the diet-plus-exercise and diet-only interventions resulted in comparably moderate improvement in physical function. However, diet-only treatments didn’t reduce pain, whereas diet-plus-exercise interventions achieved moderate pain relief (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Apr;48[5]:765-77).
Dr. Maly reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.
TORONTO – Emerging evidence indicates that patients with knee osteoarthritis who engage in high-intensity interval training obtain significantly greater improvement in physical function than with conventionally prescribed moderate-intensity exercise, Monica R. Maly, PhD, said at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This was one of the key conclusions she and her coworkers drew from their analysis of the past year’s published research on diet and exercise interventions to improve outcomes in patients with OA, where obesity and physical inactivity figure prominently as modifiable lifestyle factors.
Another finding: Exercise interventions are where all the action is at present in the field of lifestyle-modification research aimed at achieving better health-related quality of life and other positive outcomes in OA. Dietary interventions are simply not a hot research topic. Indeed, her review of the past year’s literature included 38 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and 15 meta-analyses and systematic reviews – and all 38 RCTs addressed exercise interventions.
“It’s interesting to note that we found no new RCT data on diet to modify obesity in OA in the past year,” Dr. Maly said at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Additionally, 32 of the 38 RCTs devoted to exercise interventions for OA focused specifically on knee OA, noted Dr. Maly of the department of kinesiology at the University of Waterloo (Ont.).
Aerobic exercise dosage and intensity
Australian investigators conducted a pilot randomized trial of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus more conventional moderate-intensity exercise to improve health-related quality of life and physical function in 27 patients with knee OA. The exercise programs involved unsupervised home-based cycling, with participants requested to do four roughly 25-minute sessions per week for 8 weeks.
The two exercise intensity groups showed similar gains in health-related quality of life as assessed by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). However, the HIIT group showed significantly greater improvement in physical function as measured on the Timed Up and Go test (PeerJ. 2018 May 9;6:e4738).
Dr. Maly noted that adherence to the home-based exercise programs was a challenge: Only 17 of the 27 patients completed the 8-week Australian study, for a 37% dropout rate. However, most study withdrawals were because of family-related issues, illness, or injuries unrelated to cycling, with no signal that HIIT placed knee OA patients at higher injury risk.
Other investigators performed a systematic review of 45 studies in an effort to generate evidence-based guidance about the optimal exercise dosing in order to improve outcomes in knee OA patients. They concluded that programs comprising 24 therapeutic exercise sessions over the course of 8-12 weeks resulted in the largest improvements in measures of pain and physical function. And, importantly, one exercise session per week conferred no benefits (J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2018 Mar;48[3]:146-61).
“Frequency probably matters,” Dr. Maly observed.
Patients and their physicians often wonder if long-term, land-based exercise might have deleterious impacts on joint structure in patients with knee OA. Reassurance on this score was provided by a recent meta-analysis of RCTs that concluded, on the basis of moderate-strength evidence, that exercise therapy of longer than 6 months duration had no adverse effect on tibiofemoral radiographic disease severity, compared with no exercise. Nor was there evidence of a long-term-exercise–associated deterioration of tibiofemoral cartilage morphology or worsening of synovitis or effusion. Plus, the meta-analysis provided limited evidence to suggest long-term exercise had a protective effect on the composition of patellar cartilage (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Jun;48[6]:941-9).
“While there was a little bit of evidence suggesting that long-term exercise could worsen bone marrow lesions, really there was no other evidence that it could change the structure of a joint,” according to Dr. Maly.
Internet-based exercise training
Using the Internet to deliver an individually tailored exercise-training program for patients with symptomatic knee OA might sound like an efficient strategy, but in fact it proved fruitless in a large randomized trial. The 350 participants were assigned to an 8-visit, 4-month program of physical therapy, a wait-list control group, or an internet-based program that delivered tailored exercises and video demonstrations with no face-to-face contact. The bottom line is that improvement in WOMAC scores didn’t differ significantly between the three groups when evaluated at 4 and 12 months (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018 Mar;26[3]:383-96).
“When we deliver exercise with the use of technology, it may require some support, including face to face,” Dr. Maly concluded from the study results.
Strength training
High-intensity resistance training such as weight lifting aimed at strengthening the quadriceps and other large muscles is often eschewed in patients with knee OA because of concern about possible damage to their already damaged joints. Intriguingly, Brazilian investigators may have found a workaround. They randomized 48 women with knee OA to 12 weeks of either supervised low-intensity resistance training performed with partial blood-flow restriction using an air cuff, to low-intensity resistance training alone, or to high-intensity resistance training. The low-intensity resistance workouts involved exercises such as leg presses and knee extensions performed at 30% of maximum effort.
The low-intensity resistance training performed with blood-flow restriction and the high-intensity strength training programs proved similarly effective in improving quadriceps muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical function to a significantly greater extent than with low-intensity resistance training alone. Moreover, low-intensity resistance training with blood-flow restriction also resulted in a significant improvement in pain scores. That finding, coupled with the fact that 4 of the 16 patients in the high-intensity resistance training group dropped out of the trial because of exercise-induced knee pain, suggests that low-intensity strength training carried out with partial blood-flow restriction may have a bright future (Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 May;50[5]:897-905).
Exercise plus diet-induced weight loss
How does the combination of dietary weight loss plus exercise stack up against diet alone in terms of benefits on pain and physical function in obese patients with knee OA? A systematic review and meta-analysis of nine RCTs aimed at answering that question concluded that diet-alone strategies are less effective. Both the diet-plus-exercise and diet-only interventions resulted in comparably moderate improvement in physical function. However, diet-only treatments didn’t reduce pain, whereas diet-plus-exercise interventions achieved moderate pain relief (Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019 Apr;48[5]:765-77).
Dr. Maly reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding her presentation.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM OARSI 2019
Occupational therapy program helps thumb OA
TORONTO – A multimodal occupational therapy intervention in patients with thumb base osteoarthritis brought clinically meaningful improvements in pain, grip strength, and function, at least short term, in a Norwegian multicenter randomized clinical trial, Anne Therese Tveter reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
OA of the thumb base – that is, the carpometacarpal joint – causes more pain and dysfunction than disease involvement at many other sites because of the evolutionary importance of the opposable thumb. Current guidelines recommend conservative therapies as first line for hand OA; however, there is a dearth of high-quality evidence for multimodal occupational therapy in the special setting of thumb-base OA. This was the impetus for a randomized trial of 170 consecutive patients with thumb OA who presented to three Norwegian rheumatology departments for surgical consultation, explained Ms. Tveter, a physiotherapist at the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo.
Participants were randomized to a 3-month, multimodal self-management intervention. It included education about OA; ergonomic principles; the importance of using separate orthoses as much as possible both day and night to stabilize the joint, improve performance, and relieve pain; and – at the heart of the program – instruction in hand exercises to enhance joint mobility, strength, and stability, as well as hand-stretching exercises. The exercises were to be done at home three times per week. Also, the active intervention group received five common assistive devices to help them in household tasks, such as opening jars. The control group received usual care, which was basically information about hand OA, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Ms. Tveter presented an interim analysis focused on the 3-month outcomes. At 4 months, participants underwent surgical consultation. The study will continue for 2 years, with endpoints including the impact of the occupational therapy intervention on need for joint surgery, as well as long-term pain and function measures.
At baseline, most patients reported mild pain, with a median score of 3 on a 10-point numeric rating scale, and moderate disability. Baseline grip and pinch strength was 60%-65% of normal. The 3-month outcomes included pain at rest and during pinch- and grip-strength testing, range of motion through palmar abduction and abduction in the carpometacarpal joint, and self-reported function as measured using the validated MAP-Hand and QuickDASH physiotherapy measures. Adherence to the program was assessed by review of patient diaries.
At 3 months of follow-up, the active-intervention group showed significant improvements in all measures of pain and function except for the flexion deficit, which was minimal to begin with. In contrast, the control group showed no improvements and a trend towards deterioration in pain and function.
Specifically, the intervention group averaged a 1.4-point reduction in pain at rest on a self-reported 10-point scale, a 1.1-point improvement in pain following a grip strength test, and a 0.8-point improvement in pain following a pinch test. On the MAP-Hand self-reported test of function, the intervention group showed a 0.18-point improvement from a baseline of 2 on the 1-4 scale, coupled with an 8.1-point improvement on the QuickDASH, which is scored 0-100.
Adherence to the program was deemed acceptable: 82% of patients reported doing their hand exercises at least twice per week for at least 8 of the 12 weeks, 61% used their day orthotic devices at least 4 days per week for 8 weeks, 54% used the night orthoses at least 5 nights per week for 8 weeks, and 69% utilized at least three of the five home-assist devices. In total, 64% of patients adhered to at least three of the four program components.
Asked for the rationale in requesting that patients do their home exercises three times per week instead of daily, Ms. Tveter replied that three times per week is more realistic and is consistent with major guidelines.
“It would be nice to exercise every day. I don’t think it would be possible to get adherence to that,” she said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by scientific research grants from the Norwegian government.
TORONTO – A multimodal occupational therapy intervention in patients with thumb base osteoarthritis brought clinically meaningful improvements in pain, grip strength, and function, at least short term, in a Norwegian multicenter randomized clinical trial, Anne Therese Tveter reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
OA of the thumb base – that is, the carpometacarpal joint – causes more pain and dysfunction than disease involvement at many other sites because of the evolutionary importance of the opposable thumb. Current guidelines recommend conservative therapies as first line for hand OA; however, there is a dearth of high-quality evidence for multimodal occupational therapy in the special setting of thumb-base OA. This was the impetus for a randomized trial of 170 consecutive patients with thumb OA who presented to three Norwegian rheumatology departments for surgical consultation, explained Ms. Tveter, a physiotherapist at the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo.
Participants were randomized to a 3-month, multimodal self-management intervention. It included education about OA; ergonomic principles; the importance of using separate orthoses as much as possible both day and night to stabilize the joint, improve performance, and relieve pain; and – at the heart of the program – instruction in hand exercises to enhance joint mobility, strength, and stability, as well as hand-stretching exercises. The exercises were to be done at home three times per week. Also, the active intervention group received five common assistive devices to help them in household tasks, such as opening jars. The control group received usual care, which was basically information about hand OA, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Ms. Tveter presented an interim analysis focused on the 3-month outcomes. At 4 months, participants underwent surgical consultation. The study will continue for 2 years, with endpoints including the impact of the occupational therapy intervention on need for joint surgery, as well as long-term pain and function measures.
At baseline, most patients reported mild pain, with a median score of 3 on a 10-point numeric rating scale, and moderate disability. Baseline grip and pinch strength was 60%-65% of normal. The 3-month outcomes included pain at rest and during pinch- and grip-strength testing, range of motion through palmar abduction and abduction in the carpometacarpal joint, and self-reported function as measured using the validated MAP-Hand and QuickDASH physiotherapy measures. Adherence to the program was assessed by review of patient diaries.
At 3 months of follow-up, the active-intervention group showed significant improvements in all measures of pain and function except for the flexion deficit, which was minimal to begin with. In contrast, the control group showed no improvements and a trend towards deterioration in pain and function.
Specifically, the intervention group averaged a 1.4-point reduction in pain at rest on a self-reported 10-point scale, a 1.1-point improvement in pain following a grip strength test, and a 0.8-point improvement in pain following a pinch test. On the MAP-Hand self-reported test of function, the intervention group showed a 0.18-point improvement from a baseline of 2 on the 1-4 scale, coupled with an 8.1-point improvement on the QuickDASH, which is scored 0-100.
Adherence to the program was deemed acceptable: 82% of patients reported doing their hand exercises at least twice per week for at least 8 of the 12 weeks, 61% used their day orthotic devices at least 4 days per week for 8 weeks, 54% used the night orthoses at least 5 nights per week for 8 weeks, and 69% utilized at least three of the five home-assist devices. In total, 64% of patients adhered to at least three of the four program components.
Asked for the rationale in requesting that patients do their home exercises three times per week instead of daily, Ms. Tveter replied that three times per week is more realistic and is consistent with major guidelines.
“It would be nice to exercise every day. I don’t think it would be possible to get adherence to that,” she said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by scientific research grants from the Norwegian government.
TORONTO – A multimodal occupational therapy intervention in patients with thumb base osteoarthritis brought clinically meaningful improvements in pain, grip strength, and function, at least short term, in a Norwegian multicenter randomized clinical trial, Anne Therese Tveter reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
OA of the thumb base – that is, the carpometacarpal joint – causes more pain and dysfunction than disease involvement at many other sites because of the evolutionary importance of the opposable thumb. Current guidelines recommend conservative therapies as first line for hand OA; however, there is a dearth of high-quality evidence for multimodal occupational therapy in the special setting of thumb-base OA. This was the impetus for a randomized trial of 170 consecutive patients with thumb OA who presented to three Norwegian rheumatology departments for surgical consultation, explained Ms. Tveter, a physiotherapist at the Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology at Diakonhjemmet Hospital in Oslo.
Participants were randomized to a 3-month, multimodal self-management intervention. It included education about OA; ergonomic principles; the importance of using separate orthoses as much as possible both day and night to stabilize the joint, improve performance, and relieve pain; and – at the heart of the program – instruction in hand exercises to enhance joint mobility, strength, and stability, as well as hand-stretching exercises. The exercises were to be done at home three times per week. Also, the active intervention group received five common assistive devices to help them in household tasks, such as opening jars. The control group received usual care, which was basically information about hand OA, she said at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Ms. Tveter presented an interim analysis focused on the 3-month outcomes. At 4 months, participants underwent surgical consultation. The study will continue for 2 years, with endpoints including the impact of the occupational therapy intervention on need for joint surgery, as well as long-term pain and function measures.
At baseline, most patients reported mild pain, with a median score of 3 on a 10-point numeric rating scale, and moderate disability. Baseline grip and pinch strength was 60%-65% of normal. The 3-month outcomes included pain at rest and during pinch- and grip-strength testing, range of motion through palmar abduction and abduction in the carpometacarpal joint, and self-reported function as measured using the validated MAP-Hand and QuickDASH physiotherapy measures. Adherence to the program was assessed by review of patient diaries.
At 3 months of follow-up, the active-intervention group showed significant improvements in all measures of pain and function except for the flexion deficit, which was minimal to begin with. In contrast, the control group showed no improvements and a trend towards deterioration in pain and function.
Specifically, the intervention group averaged a 1.4-point reduction in pain at rest on a self-reported 10-point scale, a 1.1-point improvement in pain following a grip strength test, and a 0.8-point improvement in pain following a pinch test. On the MAP-Hand self-reported test of function, the intervention group showed a 0.18-point improvement from a baseline of 2 on the 1-4 scale, coupled with an 8.1-point improvement on the QuickDASH, which is scored 0-100.
Adherence to the program was deemed acceptable: 82% of patients reported doing their hand exercises at least twice per week for at least 8 of the 12 weeks, 61% used their day orthotic devices at least 4 days per week for 8 weeks, 54% used the night orthoses at least 5 nights per week for 8 weeks, and 69% utilized at least three of the five home-assist devices. In total, 64% of patients adhered to at least three of the four program components.
Asked for the rationale in requesting that patients do their home exercises three times per week instead of daily, Ms. Tveter replied that three times per week is more realistic and is consistent with major guidelines.
“It would be nice to exercise every day. I don’t think it would be possible to get adherence to that,” she said.
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by scientific research grants from the Norwegian government.
REPORTING FROM OARSI 2019
Key clinical point: A multimodal occupational therapy intervention brought significant improvements in pain and function in patients with thumb-base OA.
Major finding: The intervention resulted in a mean 1.4-point decrease in self-reported pain at rest from a baseline of 3 on a 10-point scale, while most usual care controls showed a modest trend for worsening.
Study details: This was an interim 3-month report from a 2-year, randomized, multicenter trial including 170 consecutive patients who presented for surgical consultation regarding their thumb base OA.
Disclosures: The presenter reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study, funded by Norwegian governmental scientific research grants.
Liposomal steroid brings durable pain relief in knee OA
TORONTO – A single intra-articular injection of a novel, sustained-release liposomal formulation of dexamethasone in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis brought at least 6 months of pain control in a multicenter, phase 2a trial, David Hunter, MD, reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This is a product that could fill a significant unmet medical need. Current therapies for knee OA have modest efficacy, and the injectable ones provide only 2-4 weeks of benefit. The ability to obtain significant pain relief with just a couple of intra-articular injections per year would be an important therapeutic advance, observed Dr. Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney.
He presented a 24-week study of 75 patients with symptomatic knee OA randomized at 13 sites in Australia and Taiwan to a single intra-articular injection of either 12 or 18 mg of the liposomal dexamethasone or to normal saline. One knee per patient was treated.
The primary outcome was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score from baseline to week 12. The 12-mg formulation of steroid significantly outperformed placebo at that time point as well as at all others. From a mean baseline WOMAC pain score of 1.49 on the 0-4 scale, patients in the 12-mg group averaged reductions of 0.83 points at 12 weeks, 0.85 at both weeks 16 and 20, and 0.87 at week 24. A statistically significant between-group difference was seen as early as day 3 after injection.
More than half (52%) of recipients of the 12-mg dose of liposomal dexamethasone, a product known for now simply as TLC599, maintained at least 30% pain relief at all visits through the study close at 24 weeks, as did 22% of controls, the rheumatologist reported at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The 12-mg injection also proved superior to placebo for the secondary endpoint of change in WOMAC function score. From a mean baseline score of 1.53, recipients of the 12-mg dose had improvements ranging from 0.82 points at week 12 to 0.85 points at week 24.
Of note, total acetaminophen intake over the course of the trial in the 12-mg steroid group was less than one-third of that in controls.
The 18-mg dose didn’t result in significantly greater reduction in pain scores than placebo. This is because dexamethasone release in the higher-dose formulation as presently constituted turned out to be less efficient, Dr. Hunter explained.
The safety profile was closely similar in all three study arms.
In phase 3 clinical trials, TLC599 will be compared with standard intra-articular triamcinolone, according to the rheumatologist.
He reported serving as a consultant to the Taiwan Liposome Company, which sponsored the phase 2a study, as well as to a handful of other pharmaceutical companies.
TORONTO – A single intra-articular injection of a novel, sustained-release liposomal formulation of dexamethasone in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis brought at least 6 months of pain control in a multicenter, phase 2a trial, David Hunter, MD, reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This is a product that could fill a significant unmet medical need. Current therapies for knee OA have modest efficacy, and the injectable ones provide only 2-4 weeks of benefit. The ability to obtain significant pain relief with just a couple of intra-articular injections per year would be an important therapeutic advance, observed Dr. Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney.
He presented a 24-week study of 75 patients with symptomatic knee OA randomized at 13 sites in Australia and Taiwan to a single intra-articular injection of either 12 or 18 mg of the liposomal dexamethasone or to normal saline. One knee per patient was treated.
The primary outcome was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score from baseline to week 12. The 12-mg formulation of steroid significantly outperformed placebo at that time point as well as at all others. From a mean baseline WOMAC pain score of 1.49 on the 0-4 scale, patients in the 12-mg group averaged reductions of 0.83 points at 12 weeks, 0.85 at both weeks 16 and 20, and 0.87 at week 24. A statistically significant between-group difference was seen as early as day 3 after injection.
More than half (52%) of recipients of the 12-mg dose of liposomal dexamethasone, a product known for now simply as TLC599, maintained at least 30% pain relief at all visits through the study close at 24 weeks, as did 22% of controls, the rheumatologist reported at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The 12-mg injection also proved superior to placebo for the secondary endpoint of change in WOMAC function score. From a mean baseline score of 1.53, recipients of the 12-mg dose had improvements ranging from 0.82 points at week 12 to 0.85 points at week 24.
Of note, total acetaminophen intake over the course of the trial in the 12-mg steroid group was less than one-third of that in controls.
The 18-mg dose didn’t result in significantly greater reduction in pain scores than placebo. This is because dexamethasone release in the higher-dose formulation as presently constituted turned out to be less efficient, Dr. Hunter explained.
The safety profile was closely similar in all three study arms.
In phase 3 clinical trials, TLC599 will be compared with standard intra-articular triamcinolone, according to the rheumatologist.
He reported serving as a consultant to the Taiwan Liposome Company, which sponsored the phase 2a study, as well as to a handful of other pharmaceutical companies.
TORONTO – A single intra-articular injection of a novel, sustained-release liposomal formulation of dexamethasone in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis brought at least 6 months of pain control in a multicenter, phase 2a trial, David Hunter, MD, reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This is a product that could fill a significant unmet medical need. Current therapies for knee OA have modest efficacy, and the injectable ones provide only 2-4 weeks of benefit. The ability to obtain significant pain relief with just a couple of intra-articular injections per year would be an important therapeutic advance, observed Dr. Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of Sydney.
He presented a 24-week study of 75 patients with symptomatic knee OA randomized at 13 sites in Australia and Taiwan to a single intra-articular injection of either 12 or 18 mg of the liposomal dexamethasone or to normal saline. One knee per patient was treated.
The primary outcome was the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score from baseline to week 12. The 12-mg formulation of steroid significantly outperformed placebo at that time point as well as at all others. From a mean baseline WOMAC pain score of 1.49 on the 0-4 scale, patients in the 12-mg group averaged reductions of 0.83 points at 12 weeks, 0.85 at both weeks 16 and 20, and 0.87 at week 24. A statistically significant between-group difference was seen as early as day 3 after injection.
More than half (52%) of recipients of the 12-mg dose of liposomal dexamethasone, a product known for now simply as TLC599, maintained at least 30% pain relief at all visits through the study close at 24 weeks, as did 22% of controls, the rheumatologist reported at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
The 12-mg injection also proved superior to placebo for the secondary endpoint of change in WOMAC function score. From a mean baseline score of 1.53, recipients of the 12-mg dose had improvements ranging from 0.82 points at week 12 to 0.85 points at week 24.
Of note, total acetaminophen intake over the course of the trial in the 12-mg steroid group was less than one-third of that in controls.
The 18-mg dose didn’t result in significantly greater reduction in pain scores than placebo. This is because dexamethasone release in the higher-dose formulation as presently constituted turned out to be less efficient, Dr. Hunter explained.
The safety profile was closely similar in all three study arms.
In phase 3 clinical trials, TLC599 will be compared with standard intra-articular triamcinolone, according to the rheumatologist.
He reported serving as a consultant to the Taiwan Liposome Company, which sponsored the phase 2a study, as well as to a handful of other pharmaceutical companies.
REPORTING FROM OARSI 2019
What’s up in the osteoarthritis drug pipeline
TORONTO – Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, observed at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
“Not only have things not improved during my time in osteoarthritis-land, they’ve gotten worse. We’ve lost therapies,” said Dr. Conaghan, professor of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England) and director of the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.
Specifically, opioids are now shunned because of the ongoing epidemic of addiction and a belated recognition that opioids are not a good option for pain relief in OA patients who want to have active lives. And acetaminophen has fallen by the wayside in light of recent evidence of lack of effectiveness: “It’s what our patients have been telling us for a long period of time,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
But change is in the air.
“I think we’ve got some things coming that look promising. What do I think will be the fastest to get to market? The peripheral nerve modulators look to me like the ones closest to going forward,” according to the rheumatologist, who provided an overview of the OA drug development pipeline, organized by treatment target.
Nerves
“Nerves as a treatment target in OA is a hot area. We’ve seen quite a slew of products recently looking at this. I think it’s a really fascinating area to play in: looking at how we modulate peripheral nociceptive pain,” Dr. Conaghan continued.
Tanezumab, an inhibitor of nerve growth factor, demonstrated very good pain relief and improvement in physical function in a phase 3 trial, although the occurrence of rapidly progressive OA in a subset of patients has bedeviled the drug development program. The hope is that a new subcutaneous drug delivery system coupled with careful patient pretreatment screening will mitigate the problem.
Tanezumab’s efficacy has contributed to a new understanding of the nature of pain in OA.
“I know I’m going to upset some people, but if you think central sensitization is the biggest driver of pain, I’d have to argue that the tanezumab program is the biggest single argument against that, since tanezumab is a large monoclonal antibody that doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier and yet it has some of the best pain responses that we’ve seen,” Dr. Conaghan said.
Another peripheral nerve modulator, known for now as CNTX-4975, exhibited dose-dependent improvement in knee OA pain in the 175-patient, phase 2b TRIUMPH trial (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Mar 19. doi: 10.1002/art.40894). CNTX-4975, which is delivered by intra-articular injection, is a synthetic form of capsaicin specific to pain nociceptors within the joint. Other sensory fibers remain unaffected.
Cartilage
Sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18 given by intra-articular injection, stimulates chondrocyte growth and decreases type 1 collagen expression. At year 2 in the ongoing 549-patient, 5-year, phase 2 FORWARD study, a dose-dependent increase in cartilage thickness at the tibiofemoral joint became apparent in sprifermin-treated patients, compared with those on placebo. This cartilage rebuilding effect was maintained at year 3, Dr. Conaghan said.
Bone
At the OARSI meeting, Dr. Conaghan and coinvestigators presented the results of a 6-month, open-label extension of their previously reported 6-month, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of MIV-711, a potent selective reversible inhibitor of cathepsin K. The disease-modifying effects of MIV-711 seen in the first 6 months of the study, based on MRI-based measurements of changes in three-dimensional bone shape and cartilage thickness, were maintained in the second 6 months. Notably, MIV-711 slowed the rate of increase in bone area in the medial femur region and reduced loss of cartilage thickness relative to placebo. MIV-711 has also been shown to achieve a rapid and sustained reduction in the bone turnover biomarkers CTX-1 and -2, providing a rational mechanism to explain the drug’s observed structural benefits.
“So we’ve now got two agents – sprifermin for cartilage and MIV-711 for bone – showing that it’s possible to get some structural change, but no symptomatic benefit within the period of those trials,” the rheumatologist noted.
Wnt pathway inhibition
Samumed has launched a phase 3 clinical trials program, known as STRIDES, for lorecivivint, the company’s investigational small molecule inhibitor of the Wnt pathway. In phase 2 studies, including one led by Dr. Conaghan, intra-articular injection of lorecivivint, previously known as SMO4690, improved pain and physical function as well as medial joint space width. The drug’s potential effects on multiple tissues offers the promise of providing both symptomatic improvement and modification of the course of structural disease progression.
Inflammation
Lutikizumab, an anti–interleukin-1 alpha/beta immunoglobulin, proved to be a disappointment in a recent phase 2, placebo-controlled trial carried out in 350 patients with knee OA and synovitis. The IL-1 inhibitor had no benefit on synovitis, joint space narrowing, or cartilage thickness. Nor was it significantly better than placebo for pain reduction (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul;71[7]:1056-69).
Anti–tumor necrosis factor agents haven’t exactly set the OA world on fire, either.
“In rheumatoid arthritis we know they’re stupendously effective, but the data from a number of trials in OA show they’re not so effective on symptoms and signs,” Dr. Conaghan said.
Colchicine and hydroxychloroquine are other anti-inflammatory agents which, while in theory might be helpful, have in actuality shown no benefit for OA symptoms in controlled clinical trials and are now considered dead ends.
On the other hand, the sustained delivery of intra-articular corticosteroids through the use of microsphere technology is advancing smartly through the developmental pipeline. Dr. Conaghan was first author of a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial of FX006, a sustained-release formulation of triamcinolone acetonide, which showed that a single intra-articular injection provided at least 3 months of pain relief in knee OA patients, along with reduced systemic drug exposure, compared with standard intra-articular corticosteroids (J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Apr 18;100[8]:666-77).
FX006 also performed well in another phase 3 trial, this one featuring repeated dosing on a flexible schedule based upon patient response (Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Mar;6[1]:109-24).
Reassuringly, this slow-release corticosteroid doesn’t appear to worsen glycemic control in knee OA patients with type 2 diabetes (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2018 Dec 1;57[12]:2235-41).
“This is the start of a revolution in nanotechnology and the ability to slowly deliver a variety of drugs within the joint,” Dr. Conaghan predicted.
Although he was tasked at OARSI 2019 with providing an overview of the OA pharmacologic pipeline, he stressed that in his clinical practice, as opposed to his work as a clinical trialist, he functions more like a physical therapist.
“I actually spend my whole time in the OA clinic being a physical therapist and trying to get people strong, because that does work and it has no side effects. It’s just that nobody does it. We have a real adherence problem,” he said. “My favorite thought is this: keep people strong. If a patient can’t get out of a chair easily or can’t undo a jar, then they’ve got a problem.”
Dr. Conaghan reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to many of the companies developing novel drug treatments for OA.
TORONTO – Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, observed at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
“Not only have things not improved during my time in osteoarthritis-land, they’ve gotten worse. We’ve lost therapies,” said Dr. Conaghan, professor of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England) and director of the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.
Specifically, opioids are now shunned because of the ongoing epidemic of addiction and a belated recognition that opioids are not a good option for pain relief in OA patients who want to have active lives. And acetaminophen has fallen by the wayside in light of recent evidence of lack of effectiveness: “It’s what our patients have been telling us for a long period of time,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
But change is in the air.
“I think we’ve got some things coming that look promising. What do I think will be the fastest to get to market? The peripheral nerve modulators look to me like the ones closest to going forward,” according to the rheumatologist, who provided an overview of the OA drug development pipeline, organized by treatment target.
Nerves
“Nerves as a treatment target in OA is a hot area. We’ve seen quite a slew of products recently looking at this. I think it’s a really fascinating area to play in: looking at how we modulate peripheral nociceptive pain,” Dr. Conaghan continued.
Tanezumab, an inhibitor of nerve growth factor, demonstrated very good pain relief and improvement in physical function in a phase 3 trial, although the occurrence of rapidly progressive OA in a subset of patients has bedeviled the drug development program. The hope is that a new subcutaneous drug delivery system coupled with careful patient pretreatment screening will mitigate the problem.
Tanezumab’s efficacy has contributed to a new understanding of the nature of pain in OA.
“I know I’m going to upset some people, but if you think central sensitization is the biggest driver of pain, I’d have to argue that the tanezumab program is the biggest single argument against that, since tanezumab is a large monoclonal antibody that doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier and yet it has some of the best pain responses that we’ve seen,” Dr. Conaghan said.
Another peripheral nerve modulator, known for now as CNTX-4975, exhibited dose-dependent improvement in knee OA pain in the 175-patient, phase 2b TRIUMPH trial (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Mar 19. doi: 10.1002/art.40894). CNTX-4975, which is delivered by intra-articular injection, is a synthetic form of capsaicin specific to pain nociceptors within the joint. Other sensory fibers remain unaffected.
Cartilage
Sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18 given by intra-articular injection, stimulates chondrocyte growth and decreases type 1 collagen expression. At year 2 in the ongoing 549-patient, 5-year, phase 2 FORWARD study, a dose-dependent increase in cartilage thickness at the tibiofemoral joint became apparent in sprifermin-treated patients, compared with those on placebo. This cartilage rebuilding effect was maintained at year 3, Dr. Conaghan said.
Bone
At the OARSI meeting, Dr. Conaghan and coinvestigators presented the results of a 6-month, open-label extension of their previously reported 6-month, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of MIV-711, a potent selective reversible inhibitor of cathepsin K. The disease-modifying effects of MIV-711 seen in the first 6 months of the study, based on MRI-based measurements of changes in three-dimensional bone shape and cartilage thickness, were maintained in the second 6 months. Notably, MIV-711 slowed the rate of increase in bone area in the medial femur region and reduced loss of cartilage thickness relative to placebo. MIV-711 has also been shown to achieve a rapid and sustained reduction in the bone turnover biomarkers CTX-1 and -2, providing a rational mechanism to explain the drug’s observed structural benefits.
“So we’ve now got two agents – sprifermin for cartilage and MIV-711 for bone – showing that it’s possible to get some structural change, but no symptomatic benefit within the period of those trials,” the rheumatologist noted.
Wnt pathway inhibition
Samumed has launched a phase 3 clinical trials program, known as STRIDES, for lorecivivint, the company’s investigational small molecule inhibitor of the Wnt pathway. In phase 2 studies, including one led by Dr. Conaghan, intra-articular injection of lorecivivint, previously known as SMO4690, improved pain and physical function as well as medial joint space width. The drug’s potential effects on multiple tissues offers the promise of providing both symptomatic improvement and modification of the course of structural disease progression.
Inflammation
Lutikizumab, an anti–interleukin-1 alpha/beta immunoglobulin, proved to be a disappointment in a recent phase 2, placebo-controlled trial carried out in 350 patients with knee OA and synovitis. The IL-1 inhibitor had no benefit on synovitis, joint space narrowing, or cartilage thickness. Nor was it significantly better than placebo for pain reduction (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul;71[7]:1056-69).
Anti–tumor necrosis factor agents haven’t exactly set the OA world on fire, either.
“In rheumatoid arthritis we know they’re stupendously effective, but the data from a number of trials in OA show they’re not so effective on symptoms and signs,” Dr. Conaghan said.
Colchicine and hydroxychloroquine are other anti-inflammatory agents which, while in theory might be helpful, have in actuality shown no benefit for OA symptoms in controlled clinical trials and are now considered dead ends.
On the other hand, the sustained delivery of intra-articular corticosteroids through the use of microsphere technology is advancing smartly through the developmental pipeline. Dr. Conaghan was first author of a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial of FX006, a sustained-release formulation of triamcinolone acetonide, which showed that a single intra-articular injection provided at least 3 months of pain relief in knee OA patients, along with reduced systemic drug exposure, compared with standard intra-articular corticosteroids (J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Apr 18;100[8]:666-77).
FX006 also performed well in another phase 3 trial, this one featuring repeated dosing on a flexible schedule based upon patient response (Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Mar;6[1]:109-24).
Reassuringly, this slow-release corticosteroid doesn’t appear to worsen glycemic control in knee OA patients with type 2 diabetes (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2018 Dec 1;57[12]:2235-41).
“This is the start of a revolution in nanotechnology and the ability to slowly deliver a variety of drugs within the joint,” Dr. Conaghan predicted.
Although he was tasked at OARSI 2019 with providing an overview of the OA pharmacologic pipeline, he stressed that in his clinical practice, as opposed to his work as a clinical trialist, he functions more like a physical therapist.
“I actually spend my whole time in the OA clinic being a physical therapist and trying to get people strong, because that does work and it has no side effects. It’s just that nobody does it. We have a real adherence problem,” he said. “My favorite thought is this: keep people strong. If a patient can’t get out of a chair easily or can’t undo a jar, then they’ve got a problem.”
Dr. Conaghan reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to many of the companies developing novel drug treatments for OA.
TORONTO – Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, observed at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
“Not only have things not improved during my time in osteoarthritis-land, they’ve gotten worse. We’ve lost therapies,” said Dr. Conaghan, professor of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England) and director of the Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.
Specifically, opioids are now shunned because of the ongoing epidemic of addiction and a belated recognition that opioids are not a good option for pain relief in OA patients who want to have active lives. And acetaminophen has fallen by the wayside in light of recent evidence of lack of effectiveness: “It’s what our patients have been telling us for a long period of time,” he noted at the meeting sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
But change is in the air.
“I think we’ve got some things coming that look promising. What do I think will be the fastest to get to market? The peripheral nerve modulators look to me like the ones closest to going forward,” according to the rheumatologist, who provided an overview of the OA drug development pipeline, organized by treatment target.
Nerves
“Nerves as a treatment target in OA is a hot area. We’ve seen quite a slew of products recently looking at this. I think it’s a really fascinating area to play in: looking at how we modulate peripheral nociceptive pain,” Dr. Conaghan continued.
Tanezumab, an inhibitor of nerve growth factor, demonstrated very good pain relief and improvement in physical function in a phase 3 trial, although the occurrence of rapidly progressive OA in a subset of patients has bedeviled the drug development program. The hope is that a new subcutaneous drug delivery system coupled with careful patient pretreatment screening will mitigate the problem.
Tanezumab’s efficacy has contributed to a new understanding of the nature of pain in OA.
“I know I’m going to upset some people, but if you think central sensitization is the biggest driver of pain, I’d have to argue that the tanezumab program is the biggest single argument against that, since tanezumab is a large monoclonal antibody that doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier and yet it has some of the best pain responses that we’ve seen,” Dr. Conaghan said.
Another peripheral nerve modulator, known for now as CNTX-4975, exhibited dose-dependent improvement in knee OA pain in the 175-patient, phase 2b TRIUMPH trial (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Mar 19. doi: 10.1002/art.40894). CNTX-4975, which is delivered by intra-articular injection, is a synthetic form of capsaicin specific to pain nociceptors within the joint. Other sensory fibers remain unaffected.
Cartilage
Sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18 given by intra-articular injection, stimulates chondrocyte growth and decreases type 1 collagen expression. At year 2 in the ongoing 549-patient, 5-year, phase 2 FORWARD study, a dose-dependent increase in cartilage thickness at the tibiofemoral joint became apparent in sprifermin-treated patients, compared with those on placebo. This cartilage rebuilding effect was maintained at year 3, Dr. Conaghan said.
Bone
At the OARSI meeting, Dr. Conaghan and coinvestigators presented the results of a 6-month, open-label extension of their previously reported 6-month, placebo-controlled, phase 2 study of MIV-711, a potent selective reversible inhibitor of cathepsin K. The disease-modifying effects of MIV-711 seen in the first 6 months of the study, based on MRI-based measurements of changes in three-dimensional bone shape and cartilage thickness, were maintained in the second 6 months. Notably, MIV-711 slowed the rate of increase in bone area in the medial femur region and reduced loss of cartilage thickness relative to placebo. MIV-711 has also been shown to achieve a rapid and sustained reduction in the bone turnover biomarkers CTX-1 and -2, providing a rational mechanism to explain the drug’s observed structural benefits.
“So we’ve now got two agents – sprifermin for cartilage and MIV-711 for bone – showing that it’s possible to get some structural change, but no symptomatic benefit within the period of those trials,” the rheumatologist noted.
Wnt pathway inhibition
Samumed has launched a phase 3 clinical trials program, known as STRIDES, for lorecivivint, the company’s investigational small molecule inhibitor of the Wnt pathway. In phase 2 studies, including one led by Dr. Conaghan, intra-articular injection of lorecivivint, previously known as SMO4690, improved pain and physical function as well as medial joint space width. The drug’s potential effects on multiple tissues offers the promise of providing both symptomatic improvement and modification of the course of structural disease progression.
Inflammation
Lutikizumab, an anti–interleukin-1 alpha/beta immunoglobulin, proved to be a disappointment in a recent phase 2, placebo-controlled trial carried out in 350 patients with knee OA and synovitis. The IL-1 inhibitor had no benefit on synovitis, joint space narrowing, or cartilage thickness. Nor was it significantly better than placebo for pain reduction (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jul;71[7]:1056-69).
Anti–tumor necrosis factor agents haven’t exactly set the OA world on fire, either.
“In rheumatoid arthritis we know they’re stupendously effective, but the data from a number of trials in OA show they’re not so effective on symptoms and signs,” Dr. Conaghan said.
Colchicine and hydroxychloroquine are other anti-inflammatory agents which, while in theory might be helpful, have in actuality shown no benefit for OA symptoms in controlled clinical trials and are now considered dead ends.
On the other hand, the sustained delivery of intra-articular corticosteroids through the use of microsphere technology is advancing smartly through the developmental pipeline. Dr. Conaghan was first author of a multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial of FX006, a sustained-release formulation of triamcinolone acetonide, which showed that a single intra-articular injection provided at least 3 months of pain relief in knee OA patients, along with reduced systemic drug exposure, compared with standard intra-articular corticosteroids (J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Apr 18;100[8]:666-77).
FX006 also performed well in another phase 3 trial, this one featuring repeated dosing on a flexible schedule based upon patient response (Rheumatol Ther. 2019 Mar;6[1]:109-24).
Reassuringly, this slow-release corticosteroid doesn’t appear to worsen glycemic control in knee OA patients with type 2 diabetes (Rheumatology [Oxford]. 2018 Dec 1;57[12]:2235-41).
“This is the start of a revolution in nanotechnology and the ability to slowly deliver a variety of drugs within the joint,” Dr. Conaghan predicted.
Although he was tasked at OARSI 2019 with providing an overview of the OA pharmacologic pipeline, he stressed that in his clinical practice, as opposed to his work as a clinical trialist, he functions more like a physical therapist.
“I actually spend my whole time in the OA clinic being a physical therapist and trying to get people strong, because that does work and it has no side effects. It’s just that nobody does it. We have a real adherence problem,” he said. “My favorite thought is this: keep people strong. If a patient can’t get out of a chair easily or can’t undo a jar, then they’ve got a problem.”
Dr. Conaghan reported receiving research funding from and serving as a consultant to many of the companies developing novel drug treatments for OA.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM OARSI 2019
How common is accelerated knee OA?
TORONTO – Accelerated knee osteoarthritis – a particularly noxious form of the joint disease – occurred in more than one in seven women who developed knee osteoarthritis in the prospective, long-term Chingford Cohort Study, Jeffrey B. Driban, PhD, reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This finding from a unique prospective study of 1,003 middle-aged U.K. women who were followed for the development of knee osteoarthritis (OA) for 15 years is important because the participants represented a typical community-based population sample. And yet the Chingford results are consistent with and confirmatory of those found earlier in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a U.S. cohort study of nearly 4,800 individuals, even though the Osteoarthritis Initiative featured a population enriched with established risk factors for knee OA, Dr. Driban explained at the meeting, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
In Chingford, accelerated knee OA accounted for 15% of all incident cases of knee OA during follow-up, and for 17% of all newly affected knees, whereas 20% of incident knee OA in the Osteoarthritis Initiative was accelerated knee OA, noted Dr. Driban of Tufts University, Boston.
Accelerated knee OA is defined by rapidly progressive structural damage. Affected individuals streak from no radiographic evidence of knee OA to advanced-stage disease marked by a Kellgren-Lawrence score of 3 or more within 4 years, whereas the typical form of knee OA follows a more gradual course. Also, accelerated knee OA features greater pain and disability.
In the Chingford study, the cumulative incidence of accelerated knee OA was 3.9%, while typical knee OA occurred in 21.7% of women. During years 6-15 of follow-up, 21% of women with accelerated knee OA underwent total knee replacement, compared with 2% of those with typical knee OA and 0.9% of women without knee OA.
Dr. Driban reported having no financial conflicts regarding his analysis of the Chingford Cohort Study and the Osteoarthritis Initiative, supported by Arthritis Research UK and the National Institutes of Health, respectively.
SOURCE: Driban JB et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S250-S251, Abstract 352.
TORONTO – Accelerated knee osteoarthritis – a particularly noxious form of the joint disease – occurred in more than one in seven women who developed knee osteoarthritis in the prospective, long-term Chingford Cohort Study, Jeffrey B. Driban, PhD, reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This finding from a unique prospective study of 1,003 middle-aged U.K. women who were followed for the development of knee osteoarthritis (OA) for 15 years is important because the participants represented a typical community-based population sample. And yet the Chingford results are consistent with and confirmatory of those found earlier in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a U.S. cohort study of nearly 4,800 individuals, even though the Osteoarthritis Initiative featured a population enriched with established risk factors for knee OA, Dr. Driban explained at the meeting, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
In Chingford, accelerated knee OA accounted for 15% of all incident cases of knee OA during follow-up, and for 17% of all newly affected knees, whereas 20% of incident knee OA in the Osteoarthritis Initiative was accelerated knee OA, noted Dr. Driban of Tufts University, Boston.
Accelerated knee OA is defined by rapidly progressive structural damage. Affected individuals streak from no radiographic evidence of knee OA to advanced-stage disease marked by a Kellgren-Lawrence score of 3 or more within 4 years, whereas the typical form of knee OA follows a more gradual course. Also, accelerated knee OA features greater pain and disability.
In the Chingford study, the cumulative incidence of accelerated knee OA was 3.9%, while typical knee OA occurred in 21.7% of women. During years 6-15 of follow-up, 21% of women with accelerated knee OA underwent total knee replacement, compared with 2% of those with typical knee OA and 0.9% of women without knee OA.
Dr. Driban reported having no financial conflicts regarding his analysis of the Chingford Cohort Study and the Osteoarthritis Initiative, supported by Arthritis Research UK and the National Institutes of Health, respectively.
SOURCE: Driban JB et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S250-S251, Abstract 352.
TORONTO – Accelerated knee osteoarthritis – a particularly noxious form of the joint disease – occurred in more than one in seven women who developed knee osteoarthritis in the prospective, long-term Chingford Cohort Study, Jeffrey B. Driban, PhD, reported at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
This finding from a unique prospective study of 1,003 middle-aged U.K. women who were followed for the development of knee osteoarthritis (OA) for 15 years is important because the participants represented a typical community-based population sample. And yet the Chingford results are consistent with and confirmatory of those found earlier in the Osteoarthritis Initiative, a U.S. cohort study of nearly 4,800 individuals, even though the Osteoarthritis Initiative featured a population enriched with established risk factors for knee OA, Dr. Driban explained at the meeting, sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
In Chingford, accelerated knee OA accounted for 15% of all incident cases of knee OA during follow-up, and for 17% of all newly affected knees, whereas 20% of incident knee OA in the Osteoarthritis Initiative was accelerated knee OA, noted Dr. Driban of Tufts University, Boston.
Accelerated knee OA is defined by rapidly progressive structural damage. Affected individuals streak from no radiographic evidence of knee OA to advanced-stage disease marked by a Kellgren-Lawrence score of 3 or more within 4 years, whereas the typical form of knee OA follows a more gradual course. Also, accelerated knee OA features greater pain and disability.
In the Chingford study, the cumulative incidence of accelerated knee OA was 3.9%, while typical knee OA occurred in 21.7% of women. During years 6-15 of follow-up, 21% of women with accelerated knee OA underwent total knee replacement, compared with 2% of those with typical knee OA and 0.9% of women without knee OA.
Dr. Driban reported having no financial conflicts regarding his analysis of the Chingford Cohort Study and the Osteoarthritis Initiative, supported by Arthritis Research UK and the National Institutes of Health, respectively.
SOURCE: Driban JB et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S250-S251, Abstract 352.
REPORTING FROM OARSI 2019
Osteoporosis, osteoarthritis risk high among cerebral palsy patients
compared with adults without the disorder, according to a study published in Bone.
Neil E. O’Connell, PhD, of Brunel University London, and colleagues assessed the risks of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases in a population-based cohort study that used data collected by the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 1987-2015. The study included 1,705 patients with CP and 5,115 patients matched for age, sex, and general practices; data on smoking status and alcohol consumption for many of the patients also were gathered.
After adjustment for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and mean yearly general practice visits, investigators found evidence of significantly increased risk for osteoarthritis (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.02; P = .002) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.19; 95% CI, 3.37-11.39; P less than .001); they did not see increased risk for inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .731).
One limitation of the study is the risk for residual confounding given the investigators could not account for mobility status or physical activity. Other limitations include potential incompleteness of diagnostic code lists, how identification of cases is depending on quality of original recording in the database, and that data regarding smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for a substantial proportion of patients.
“Despite previous studies identifying a high prevalence of joint pain and functional deterioration among people with CP, there is a dearth of literature on the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in this population,” they wrote. “Further research is required into effective management of these conditions in adults with CP.”
This study was supported by an interdisciplinary award from Brunel University London’s Research Catalyst Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.
SOURCE: O’Connell NE et al. Bone. 2019 Aug;125:30-5.
compared with adults without the disorder, according to a study published in Bone.
Neil E. O’Connell, PhD, of Brunel University London, and colleagues assessed the risks of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases in a population-based cohort study that used data collected by the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 1987-2015. The study included 1,705 patients with CP and 5,115 patients matched for age, sex, and general practices; data on smoking status and alcohol consumption for many of the patients also were gathered.
After adjustment for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and mean yearly general practice visits, investigators found evidence of significantly increased risk for osteoarthritis (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.02; P = .002) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.19; 95% CI, 3.37-11.39; P less than .001); they did not see increased risk for inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .731).
One limitation of the study is the risk for residual confounding given the investigators could not account for mobility status or physical activity. Other limitations include potential incompleteness of diagnostic code lists, how identification of cases is depending on quality of original recording in the database, and that data regarding smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for a substantial proportion of patients.
“Despite previous studies identifying a high prevalence of joint pain and functional deterioration among people with CP, there is a dearth of literature on the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in this population,” they wrote. “Further research is required into effective management of these conditions in adults with CP.”
This study was supported by an interdisciplinary award from Brunel University London’s Research Catalyst Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.
SOURCE: O’Connell NE et al. Bone. 2019 Aug;125:30-5.
compared with adults without the disorder, according to a study published in Bone.
Neil E. O’Connell, PhD, of Brunel University London, and colleagues assessed the risks of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, and inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases in a population-based cohort study that used data collected by the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink during 1987-2015. The study included 1,705 patients with CP and 5,115 patients matched for age, sex, and general practices; data on smoking status and alcohol consumption for many of the patients also were gathered.
After adjustment for smoking status, alcohol consumption, and mean yearly general practice visits, investigators found evidence of significantly increased risk for osteoarthritis (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.02; P = .002) and osteoporosis (HR, 6.19; 95% CI, 3.37-11.39; P less than .001); they did not see increased risk for inflammatory musculoskeletal diseases (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.45-1.75; P = .731).
One limitation of the study is the risk for residual confounding given the investigators could not account for mobility status or physical activity. Other limitations include potential incompleteness of diagnostic code lists, how identification of cases is depending on quality of original recording in the database, and that data regarding smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for a substantial proportion of patients.
“Despite previous studies identifying a high prevalence of joint pain and functional deterioration among people with CP, there is a dearth of literature on the burden of musculoskeletal disorders in this population,” they wrote. “Further research is required into effective management of these conditions in adults with CP.”
This study was supported by an interdisciplinary award from Brunel University London’s Research Catalyst Fund. The authors declared no competing interests.
SOURCE: O’Connell NE et al. Bone. 2019 Aug;125:30-5.
FROM BONE
Tanezumab improves osteoarthritis pain, function in phase 3 trial
MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.
The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).
The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).
The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).
As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).
“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.
A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.
However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.
“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.
The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.
Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.
Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”
He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”
Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”
The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.
SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660
MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.
The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).
The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).
The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).
As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).
“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.
A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.
However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.
“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.
The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.
Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.
Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”
He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”
Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”
The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.
SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660
MADRID – Tanezumab, an investigational monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor that is under development to treat osteoarthritis pain, met most of the coprimary efficacy endpoints set for the drug in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 study.
At the end of a 24-week, double-blind treatment period, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and WOMAC physical function subscale scores were significantly improved, compared with placebo in the two tanezumab (2.5 mg and 5 mg) dose groups.
The least squares (ls) mean change from baseline in WOMAC pain scores were –2.24 for placebo, –2.70 for tanezumab 2.5 mg, and –2.85 for tanezumab 5 mg (P less than or equal to .01 and P less than or equal to .001 vs. placebo).
The ls mean change from baseline in WOMAC physical function scores were a respective –2.11, –2.70, and –2.82 (P less than or equal to .001 for both vs. placebo).
The coprimary endpoint of patients’ global assessment of OA (PGA-OA) was also significantly improved with tanezumab 5 mg (–0.90; P less than or equal to .05) but not 2.5 mg (–0.82) versus placebo (–0.72).
As the 2.5-mg dose of tanezumab didn’t meet one of the three coprimary endpoints, further hypothesis testing was not possible, but exploratory findings suggested that tanezumab at 2.5 mg or 5 mg yielded higher proportions of patients with reductions from baseline in WOMAC pain scores when compared against placebo. This was the case for reductions of at least 30% (65.6%, 68.7%, 56.6%, respectively), 50% (45.4%, 47.9%, 33.8%), or 70% (21.3%, 23.2%, 17.8%).
“I think that we have now a lot of studies with tanezumab showing a significant effect on hip and knee OA pain and function, so we have the studies in order to have the drug on the market,” study first author Francis Berenbaum, MD, PhD, of Saint-Antoine Hospital, Sorbonne Université in Paris, said in an interview at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
“Of course, because of the safety issue with rapid progressive osteoarthritis (RPOA), what we are discussing now is: ‘For which patients will there be an optimal benefit-to-risk?’ So, it’s now more a discussion around the population of patients who can benefit the most with the drug,” Dr. Berenbaum added.
A possible link between the use of tanezumab and a risk for developing RPOA was first suggested by preclinical and early clinical trial data, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to place partial holds on its clinical development in 2010, and again in 2012.
However, Dr. Berenbaum noted that a “mitigation plan” had been put in place for the phase 3 program to try to lower the likelihood of RPOA. This included: lowering the dose of the drug used and delivering it subcutaneously rather than intravenously; not prescribing it with NSAIDs and testing its possible effects and safety in a difficult-to-treat population of patients with no known risk factors for the potentially very serious adverse event.
“Based on this mitigation plan, the risk of rapid progressive osteoarthritis has considerably decreased,” Dr. Berenbaum observed. Indeed, in the phase 3 study he presented at the meeting, he said that around 2% of patients developed RPOA, which is “exactly in line with what has already been shown.” RPOA was reported in none of the placebo-treated patients, in 1.4% of those treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg, and in 2.8% in those treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
However, a “striking” finding of the current study was that despite the small increase in RPOA seen, there was no difference between the tanezumab and placebo groups in the number of patients needing total joint replacement (TJR). The percentages of patients undergoing at least one TJR was 6.7% in the placebo group, 7.8% in the tanezumab 2.5-mg group, and 7.0% in the tanezumab 5-mg group.
The joint safety events seen in the study, including TJRs, were adjudicated as being part of the normal progression of OA in the majority (73.4%) of cases. Other joint events of note were one case of subchondral insufficiency fracture occurring in a patient treated with tanezumab 2.5 mg and one case of primary osteonecrosis in a patient treated with tanezumab 5 mg.
During his presentation of the findings in a late-breaking oral abstract session, Dr. Berenbaum noted that this was a difficult-to-treat population of patients. All 849 patients who had been recruited had moderate to severe OA pain of the knee or hip and had a history of insufficient pain relief or intolerance to treatment with acetaminophen, oral NSAIDs, and tramadol and were also not responding to, or unwilling to take, opioid painkillers. Patients had to have no radiographic evidence of specified bone conditions, including RPOA.
Patients had been treated with subcutaneous tanezumab 2.5 mg (n = 283) or 5 mg (n = 284) or placebo (n = 282) at baseline, week 8, and week 16, with the three coprimary efficacy endpoints assessed at week 24.
Discussing the risk-to-benefit ratio of the drug after his presentation, Dr. Berenbaum said: “You have to keep in mind that, first, it was in very difficult-to-treat patients, compared to the other trials in the field of OA symptoms.”
He added: “Second, is that compared to the other trials, this one was able to include patients with Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4, meaning that this is a more serious population,” and third, “when you look at the responders – WOMAC 30%, 50%, 70% – there is a strong difference in terms of responders.”
Dr. Berenbaum and his coauthors noted on the poster that accompanied the late-breaking oral presentation that “an active-controlled study will provide data to further characterize the risk-benefit of tanezumab in patients with OA.”
The study was sponsored by Pfizer and Eli Lilly. Dr. Berenbaum disclosed receiving research funding through his institution from Pfizer and acting as a consultant to, and speaker for, the company as well as multiple other pharmaceutical companies. Coauthors of the study also disclosed research funding or consultancy agreements with Pfizer or Eli Lilly or were employees of the companies.
SOURCE: Berenbaum F et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):262-4. Abstract LB0007, doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.8660
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Foot OA: Forgotten no longer
TORONTO – Foot osteoarthritis has been a relatively neglected topic by researchers – but that’s finally changing, Michelle Marshall, PhD, observed at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
She was a coinvestigator in the groundbreaking Clinical Assessment of the Foot (CASF), a large prospective study that has brought new insights into the prevalence of foot osteoarthritis (OA), its risk factors, the sizable disease burden, and foot OA’s diverse phenotypes. She shared study highlights at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Elsewhere at OARSI 2019, Lucy S. Gates, PhD, presented the eagerly awaited results of the Chingford 1000 Women Study of the progression pattern of symptomatic radiographic OA of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ). With 19 years of follow-up, Chingford is far and away the largest and longest longitudinal study of first MTP joint OA.
The prospective, population-based, observational cohort CASF study was carried out by Dr. Marshall and her coinvestigators at Keele University in Staffordshire, England. They surveyed Staffordshire residents aged 50 and older regarding whether they had experienced foot pain within the last 12 months. Those who answered affirmatively were invited to come in for a more detailed assessment and get weight-bearing x-rays of both feet. Among the 557 symptomatic participants with foot x-rays, the prevalence of radiographic OA of the foot was 16.7%, or roughly one in six – underscoring that it’s a common condition. The first MTP joint was the most commonly affected site, with a prevalence of 7.8%, followed by the second cuneometatarsal joint (CMJ) at 6.8%, the talonavicular joint (TNJ) at 5.2%, the navicular first cuneiform joint (NCJ) at 5.2%, and the first CMJ at 3.9%. Three-quarters of those who had symptomatic radiographic foot OA reported disabling symptoms, an established risk factor for falls (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jan;74[1]:156-63).
With an eye toward identification of potential distinct phenotypes of foot OA, the CASF investigators conducted a separate analysis of those study participants with symptomatic radiographic midfoot OA – that is, OA of the TNJ, NCJ, and/or first or second CMJs, but not the first MTP joint. The prevalence in the Staffordshire population over age 50 with a history of foot pain was 12%. Independent risk factors for midfoot OA included obesity, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.0; pain in other weight-bearing lower limb joints, with an adjusted odds ratio of 8.5; diabetes, odds ratio of 1.9; and previous foot injury, with an associated 1.6-fold increased risk. Midfoot OA was most prevalent in women older than 75 years; however, contrary to the conventional wisdom, a history of frequently wearing high-heeled shoes posed no increased risk.
The burden associated with midfoot OA was reflected in affected individuals’ frequent use of health care resources: During the past year, 46% of them had consulted their primary care physicians about their foot pain, 48% had been to a podiatrist, and 19% had seen a physical therapist (Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Jul 13;17:178. doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0693-3).
In a separate analysis, the investigators compiled additional evidence from CASF pointing to the existence of two phenotypes of foot OA: isolated first MTP OA and polyarticular foot OA, with distinct risk factors and symptom profiles (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 Feb;68[2]:217-27).
“We found that OA affected both feet significantly more than was expected by chance, and we identified strong symmetrical patterns. This mirrors findings in hand OA and implies involvement of systemic components within a foot,” Dr. Marshall said.
The course of foot OA
During 18 months of prospective follow-up in CASF, subjects with isolated first MTP joint or polyarticular foot OA showed no clinically meaningful change in symptoms (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2018 Jul;70[7]:1107-12).
But that finding may have been a function of the relatively brief follow-up, as the Chingford 1000 Women Study, with its 19 years of prospective follow-up, told a different story. Dr. Gates, of the University of Southampton (England), reported that among the 193 patients with foot x-rays at both baseline and follow-up, by which point they averaged nearly 76 years in age, 33.2% had OA of the first MTP joint of either foot at baseline as defined by at least a grade 2 score on the LaTrobe foot atlas, and 13% had prevalent involvement of both feet. During 19 years of follow-up of the women from Chingford, an area in northeast London, the incidence of new-onset radiographic first MTP joint OA was 7% in the left foot and 17% in the right. Meanwhile, progression to grade 3 radiographic OA occurred in the left foot of 28% of those with grade 2 disease at baseline and in 35% of those with baseline first MTP joint OA of the right foot. Twenty-eight percent of patients with unilateral first MTP joint OA at baseline progressed to bilateral involvement within 19 years.
Dr. Gates reported having no financial conflicts regarding the Chingford study, funded primarily by Arthritis Research UK, which merged with Arthritis Care in 2018 to form Versus Arthritis.
Similarly, Dr. Marshall reported no financial conflicts regarding CASF, also funded by Arthritis Research UK.
SOURCES: Marshall M. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S16, Abstract I-8 and Magnusson K et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S260-S261, Abstract 367.
TORONTO – Foot osteoarthritis has been a relatively neglected topic by researchers – but that’s finally changing, Michelle Marshall, PhD, observed at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
She was a coinvestigator in the groundbreaking Clinical Assessment of the Foot (CASF), a large prospective study that has brought new insights into the prevalence of foot osteoarthritis (OA), its risk factors, the sizable disease burden, and foot OA’s diverse phenotypes. She shared study highlights at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Elsewhere at OARSI 2019, Lucy S. Gates, PhD, presented the eagerly awaited results of the Chingford 1000 Women Study of the progression pattern of symptomatic radiographic OA of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ). With 19 years of follow-up, Chingford is far and away the largest and longest longitudinal study of first MTP joint OA.
The prospective, population-based, observational cohort CASF study was carried out by Dr. Marshall and her coinvestigators at Keele University in Staffordshire, England. They surveyed Staffordshire residents aged 50 and older regarding whether they had experienced foot pain within the last 12 months. Those who answered affirmatively were invited to come in for a more detailed assessment and get weight-bearing x-rays of both feet. Among the 557 symptomatic participants with foot x-rays, the prevalence of radiographic OA of the foot was 16.7%, or roughly one in six – underscoring that it’s a common condition. The first MTP joint was the most commonly affected site, with a prevalence of 7.8%, followed by the second cuneometatarsal joint (CMJ) at 6.8%, the talonavicular joint (TNJ) at 5.2%, the navicular first cuneiform joint (NCJ) at 5.2%, and the first CMJ at 3.9%. Three-quarters of those who had symptomatic radiographic foot OA reported disabling symptoms, an established risk factor for falls (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jan;74[1]:156-63).
With an eye toward identification of potential distinct phenotypes of foot OA, the CASF investigators conducted a separate analysis of those study participants with symptomatic radiographic midfoot OA – that is, OA of the TNJ, NCJ, and/or first or second CMJs, but not the first MTP joint. The prevalence in the Staffordshire population over age 50 with a history of foot pain was 12%. Independent risk factors for midfoot OA included obesity, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.0; pain in other weight-bearing lower limb joints, with an adjusted odds ratio of 8.5; diabetes, odds ratio of 1.9; and previous foot injury, with an associated 1.6-fold increased risk. Midfoot OA was most prevalent in women older than 75 years; however, contrary to the conventional wisdom, a history of frequently wearing high-heeled shoes posed no increased risk.
The burden associated with midfoot OA was reflected in affected individuals’ frequent use of health care resources: During the past year, 46% of them had consulted their primary care physicians about their foot pain, 48% had been to a podiatrist, and 19% had seen a physical therapist (Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Jul 13;17:178. doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0693-3).
In a separate analysis, the investigators compiled additional evidence from CASF pointing to the existence of two phenotypes of foot OA: isolated first MTP OA and polyarticular foot OA, with distinct risk factors and symptom profiles (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 Feb;68[2]:217-27).
“We found that OA affected both feet significantly more than was expected by chance, and we identified strong symmetrical patterns. This mirrors findings in hand OA and implies involvement of systemic components within a foot,” Dr. Marshall said.
The course of foot OA
During 18 months of prospective follow-up in CASF, subjects with isolated first MTP joint or polyarticular foot OA showed no clinically meaningful change in symptoms (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2018 Jul;70[7]:1107-12).
But that finding may have been a function of the relatively brief follow-up, as the Chingford 1000 Women Study, with its 19 years of prospective follow-up, told a different story. Dr. Gates, of the University of Southampton (England), reported that among the 193 patients with foot x-rays at both baseline and follow-up, by which point they averaged nearly 76 years in age, 33.2% had OA of the first MTP joint of either foot at baseline as defined by at least a grade 2 score on the LaTrobe foot atlas, and 13% had prevalent involvement of both feet. During 19 years of follow-up of the women from Chingford, an area in northeast London, the incidence of new-onset radiographic first MTP joint OA was 7% in the left foot and 17% in the right. Meanwhile, progression to grade 3 radiographic OA occurred in the left foot of 28% of those with grade 2 disease at baseline and in 35% of those with baseline first MTP joint OA of the right foot. Twenty-eight percent of patients with unilateral first MTP joint OA at baseline progressed to bilateral involvement within 19 years.
Dr. Gates reported having no financial conflicts regarding the Chingford study, funded primarily by Arthritis Research UK, which merged with Arthritis Care in 2018 to form Versus Arthritis.
Similarly, Dr. Marshall reported no financial conflicts regarding CASF, also funded by Arthritis Research UK.
SOURCES: Marshall M. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S16, Abstract I-8 and Magnusson K et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S260-S261, Abstract 367.
TORONTO – Foot osteoarthritis has been a relatively neglected topic by researchers – but that’s finally changing, Michelle Marshall, PhD, observed at the OARSI 2019 World Congress.
She was a coinvestigator in the groundbreaking Clinical Assessment of the Foot (CASF), a large prospective study that has brought new insights into the prevalence of foot osteoarthritis (OA), its risk factors, the sizable disease burden, and foot OA’s diverse phenotypes. She shared study highlights at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.
Elsewhere at OARSI 2019, Lucy S. Gates, PhD, presented the eagerly awaited results of the Chingford 1000 Women Study of the progression pattern of symptomatic radiographic OA of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ). With 19 years of follow-up, Chingford is far and away the largest and longest longitudinal study of first MTP joint OA.
The prospective, population-based, observational cohort CASF study was carried out by Dr. Marshall and her coinvestigators at Keele University in Staffordshire, England. They surveyed Staffordshire residents aged 50 and older regarding whether they had experienced foot pain within the last 12 months. Those who answered affirmatively were invited to come in for a more detailed assessment and get weight-bearing x-rays of both feet. Among the 557 symptomatic participants with foot x-rays, the prevalence of radiographic OA of the foot was 16.7%, or roughly one in six – underscoring that it’s a common condition. The first MTP joint was the most commonly affected site, with a prevalence of 7.8%, followed by the second cuneometatarsal joint (CMJ) at 6.8%, the talonavicular joint (TNJ) at 5.2%, the navicular first cuneiform joint (NCJ) at 5.2%, and the first CMJ at 3.9%. Three-quarters of those who had symptomatic radiographic foot OA reported disabling symptoms, an established risk factor for falls (Ann Rheum Dis. 2015 Jan;74[1]:156-63).
With an eye toward identification of potential distinct phenotypes of foot OA, the CASF investigators conducted a separate analysis of those study participants with symptomatic radiographic midfoot OA – that is, OA of the TNJ, NCJ, and/or first or second CMJs, but not the first MTP joint. The prevalence in the Staffordshire population over age 50 with a history of foot pain was 12%. Independent risk factors for midfoot OA included obesity, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.0; pain in other weight-bearing lower limb joints, with an adjusted odds ratio of 8.5; diabetes, odds ratio of 1.9; and previous foot injury, with an associated 1.6-fold increased risk. Midfoot OA was most prevalent in women older than 75 years; however, contrary to the conventional wisdom, a history of frequently wearing high-heeled shoes posed no increased risk.
The burden associated with midfoot OA was reflected in affected individuals’ frequent use of health care resources: During the past year, 46% of them had consulted their primary care physicians about their foot pain, 48% had been to a podiatrist, and 19% had seen a physical therapist (Arthritis Res Ther. 2015 Jul 13;17:178. doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0693-3).
In a separate analysis, the investigators compiled additional evidence from CASF pointing to the existence of two phenotypes of foot OA: isolated first MTP OA and polyarticular foot OA, with distinct risk factors and symptom profiles (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2016 Feb;68[2]:217-27).
“We found that OA affected both feet significantly more than was expected by chance, and we identified strong symmetrical patterns. This mirrors findings in hand OA and implies involvement of systemic components within a foot,” Dr. Marshall said.
The course of foot OA
During 18 months of prospective follow-up in CASF, subjects with isolated first MTP joint or polyarticular foot OA showed no clinically meaningful change in symptoms (Arthritis Care Res [Hoboken]. 2018 Jul;70[7]:1107-12).
But that finding may have been a function of the relatively brief follow-up, as the Chingford 1000 Women Study, with its 19 years of prospective follow-up, told a different story. Dr. Gates, of the University of Southampton (England), reported that among the 193 patients with foot x-rays at both baseline and follow-up, by which point they averaged nearly 76 years in age, 33.2% had OA of the first MTP joint of either foot at baseline as defined by at least a grade 2 score on the LaTrobe foot atlas, and 13% had prevalent involvement of both feet. During 19 years of follow-up of the women from Chingford, an area in northeast London, the incidence of new-onset radiographic first MTP joint OA was 7% in the left foot and 17% in the right. Meanwhile, progression to grade 3 radiographic OA occurred in the left foot of 28% of those with grade 2 disease at baseline and in 35% of those with baseline first MTP joint OA of the right foot. Twenty-eight percent of patients with unilateral first MTP joint OA at baseline progressed to bilateral involvement within 19 years.
Dr. Gates reported having no financial conflicts regarding the Chingford study, funded primarily by Arthritis Research UK, which merged with Arthritis Care in 2018 to form Versus Arthritis.
Similarly, Dr. Marshall reported no financial conflicts regarding CASF, also funded by Arthritis Research UK.
SOURCES: Marshall M. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S16, Abstract I-8 and Magnusson K et al. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019 Apr;27[suppl 1]:S260-S261, Abstract 367.
REPORTING FROM OARSI 2019
Weight loss in knee OA patients sustained with liraglutide over 1 year
MADRID – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide appears to be effective for keeping weight off following an intensive weight-loss program in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
However, even though the 8-week intensive dietary program led to substantial weight loss and significant improvement in pain, additional weight loss of nearly 2.5 kg over 52 weeks of daily liraglutide treatment did not translate into more pain control.
According to study author Lars Erik Kristensen, MD, PhD, this is the first randomized trial to test the ability of liraglutide to provide a sustained weight loss in OA patients. The Food and Drug Administration indication for liraglutide is as an adjunct to diet and exercise for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
The study compared liraglutide against placebo in patients who had completed an intensive weight-control program in which the median loss was 12.46 kg. They were followed for 52 weeks.
At the end of follow-up, patients in the placebo group had gained a mean of 1.17 kg while those randomized to liraglutide lost an additional 2.76 kg. The between-group difference of 3.93 kg was statistically significant (P = .008).
“We believe that liraglutide is a promising agent for sustained weight loss in OA patients,” concluded Dr. Kristensen, a clinical researcher in rheumatology in the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen.
In the single-center study, 156 patients were enrolled and randomized. In an initial 8-week diet intervention undertaken by both groups, an intensive program for weight loss included average daily calorie intakes of less than 800 kcal along with dietetic counseling. Patients were monitored for daily activities.
The majority of patients achieved a 10% or greater loss of total body weight during the intensive program before initiating 3 mg of once-daily liraglutide or a placebo.
Over the course of 52 weeks, the attrition from the study was relatively low. Among the 80 patients randomized to liraglutide, only 2 were lost because of noncompliance. Another 12 participants left the study before completion, 10 of whom did so for treatment-associated adverse effects. In the placebo arm, four patients were noncompliant, four left for treatment-associated adverse effects, and five left for other reasons.
Following the 8-week intensive dietary program, there was 11.86-point improvement in the pain subscale of the Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, confirming a substantial symptomatic benefit from this degree of weight loss. While this improvement in pain score was sustained at 52 weeks in both groups, the additional weight loss in the liraglutide arm did not lead to additional pain control.
The lack of additional pain control in the liraglutide group was disappointing, and the reason is unclear, but Dr. Kristensen emphasized that the persistent improvement in pain control was a positive result. In patients who are overweight or obese, regardless of whether they have concomitant OA, weight loss is not only difficult to achieve but difficult to sustain even after a successful intervention.
Dr. Kristensen reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The trial received funding from Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Kristensen LE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):71-2. Abstract OP0011. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1375.
MADRID – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide appears to be effective for keeping weight off following an intensive weight-loss program in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
However, even though the 8-week intensive dietary program led to substantial weight loss and significant improvement in pain, additional weight loss of nearly 2.5 kg over 52 weeks of daily liraglutide treatment did not translate into more pain control.
According to study author Lars Erik Kristensen, MD, PhD, this is the first randomized trial to test the ability of liraglutide to provide a sustained weight loss in OA patients. The Food and Drug Administration indication for liraglutide is as an adjunct to diet and exercise for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
The study compared liraglutide against placebo in patients who had completed an intensive weight-control program in which the median loss was 12.46 kg. They were followed for 52 weeks.
At the end of follow-up, patients in the placebo group had gained a mean of 1.17 kg while those randomized to liraglutide lost an additional 2.76 kg. The between-group difference of 3.93 kg was statistically significant (P = .008).
“We believe that liraglutide is a promising agent for sustained weight loss in OA patients,” concluded Dr. Kristensen, a clinical researcher in rheumatology in the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen.
In the single-center study, 156 patients were enrolled and randomized. In an initial 8-week diet intervention undertaken by both groups, an intensive program for weight loss included average daily calorie intakes of less than 800 kcal along with dietetic counseling. Patients were monitored for daily activities.
The majority of patients achieved a 10% or greater loss of total body weight during the intensive program before initiating 3 mg of once-daily liraglutide or a placebo.
Over the course of 52 weeks, the attrition from the study was relatively low. Among the 80 patients randomized to liraglutide, only 2 were lost because of noncompliance. Another 12 participants left the study before completion, 10 of whom did so for treatment-associated adverse effects. In the placebo arm, four patients were noncompliant, four left for treatment-associated adverse effects, and five left for other reasons.
Following the 8-week intensive dietary program, there was 11.86-point improvement in the pain subscale of the Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, confirming a substantial symptomatic benefit from this degree of weight loss. While this improvement in pain score was sustained at 52 weeks in both groups, the additional weight loss in the liraglutide arm did not lead to additional pain control.
The lack of additional pain control in the liraglutide group was disappointing, and the reason is unclear, but Dr. Kristensen emphasized that the persistent improvement in pain control was a positive result. In patients who are overweight or obese, regardless of whether they have concomitant OA, weight loss is not only difficult to achieve but difficult to sustain even after a successful intervention.
Dr. Kristensen reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The trial received funding from Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Kristensen LE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):71-2. Abstract OP0011. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1375.
MADRID – The glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist liraglutide appears to be effective for keeping weight off following an intensive weight-loss program in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presented at the European Congress of Rheumatology.
However, even though the 8-week intensive dietary program led to substantial weight loss and significant improvement in pain, additional weight loss of nearly 2.5 kg over 52 weeks of daily liraglutide treatment did not translate into more pain control.
According to study author Lars Erik Kristensen, MD, PhD, this is the first randomized trial to test the ability of liraglutide to provide a sustained weight loss in OA patients. The Food and Drug Administration indication for liraglutide is as an adjunct to diet and exercise for glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
The study compared liraglutide against placebo in patients who had completed an intensive weight-control program in which the median loss was 12.46 kg. They were followed for 52 weeks.
At the end of follow-up, patients in the placebo group had gained a mean of 1.17 kg while those randomized to liraglutide lost an additional 2.76 kg. The between-group difference of 3.93 kg was statistically significant (P = .008).
“We believe that liraglutide is a promising agent for sustained weight loss in OA patients,” concluded Dr. Kristensen, a clinical researcher in rheumatology in the Parker Institute at Bispebjerg-Frederiksberg Hospital in Copenhagen.
In the single-center study, 156 patients were enrolled and randomized. In an initial 8-week diet intervention undertaken by both groups, an intensive program for weight loss included average daily calorie intakes of less than 800 kcal along with dietetic counseling. Patients were monitored for daily activities.
The majority of patients achieved a 10% or greater loss of total body weight during the intensive program before initiating 3 mg of once-daily liraglutide or a placebo.
Over the course of 52 weeks, the attrition from the study was relatively low. Among the 80 patients randomized to liraglutide, only 2 were lost because of noncompliance. Another 12 participants left the study before completion, 10 of whom did so for treatment-associated adverse effects. In the placebo arm, four patients were noncompliant, four left for treatment-associated adverse effects, and five left for other reasons.
Following the 8-week intensive dietary program, there was 11.86-point improvement in the pain subscale of the Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, confirming a substantial symptomatic benefit from this degree of weight loss. While this improvement in pain score was sustained at 52 weeks in both groups, the additional weight loss in the liraglutide arm did not lead to additional pain control.
The lack of additional pain control in the liraglutide group was disappointing, and the reason is unclear, but Dr. Kristensen emphasized that the persistent improvement in pain control was a positive result. In patients who are overweight or obese, regardless of whether they have concomitant OA, weight loss is not only difficult to achieve but difficult to sustain even after a successful intervention.
Dr. Kristensen reported financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical companies. The trial received funding from Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Kristensen LE et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):71-2. Abstract OP0011. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1375.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
Patient selection important for osteoarthritis structural and symptom endpoints
MADRID – To achieve positive trials with new agents in osteoarthritis, patient selection should be considered in the context of the primary endpoints, according to Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England).
In an interview, Dr. Conaghan explained that the issue has arisen with emerging agents that are designed for structural improvements with the expectation that symptom improvements will follow. Recapping a presentation he made at the European Congress of Rheumatology, he cautioned that the key aspects of trial design for these novel agents, including patient and endpoint selection, are particularly challenging.
As an example, Dr. Conaghan referred to the experience so far with the ongoing phase 2 FORWARD trial with sprifermin, a recombinant form of human fibroblast growth factor. In this study, sprifermin has already shown promise for growing cartilage, but the benefit accrues slowly, and there is no symptomatic improvement early in the course of treatment.
Based on the experience with FORWARD, much has been learned about a potential tension between structural and symptomatic endpoints in osteoarthritis, according to Dr. Conaghan. For one, it appears to be important to select patients most likely to achieve measurable structural improvements quickly to achieve a positive result in a reasonable period of time.
For another, it may be necessary to select symptom endpoints that reflect structural change while cautioning patients about the potential for a long delay before a clinical benefit is experienced.
In osteoarthritis, clinical benefit has been traditionally captured with relief of pain. Although an improvement in joint structure might be the best way to produce this result, this has to be proved. Reasonable and achievable endpoints are needed for emerging drugs with the potential to rebuild the joint not just to control pain, he said.
SOURCE: Gühring H et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):70-1. Abstract OP0010. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1216.
MADRID – To achieve positive trials with new agents in osteoarthritis, patient selection should be considered in the context of the primary endpoints, according to Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England).
In an interview, Dr. Conaghan explained that the issue has arisen with emerging agents that are designed for structural improvements with the expectation that symptom improvements will follow. Recapping a presentation he made at the European Congress of Rheumatology, he cautioned that the key aspects of trial design for these novel agents, including patient and endpoint selection, are particularly challenging.
As an example, Dr. Conaghan referred to the experience so far with the ongoing phase 2 FORWARD trial with sprifermin, a recombinant form of human fibroblast growth factor. In this study, sprifermin has already shown promise for growing cartilage, but the benefit accrues slowly, and there is no symptomatic improvement early in the course of treatment.
Based on the experience with FORWARD, much has been learned about a potential tension between structural and symptomatic endpoints in osteoarthritis, according to Dr. Conaghan. For one, it appears to be important to select patients most likely to achieve measurable structural improvements quickly to achieve a positive result in a reasonable period of time.
For another, it may be necessary to select symptom endpoints that reflect structural change while cautioning patients about the potential for a long delay before a clinical benefit is experienced.
In osteoarthritis, clinical benefit has been traditionally captured with relief of pain. Although an improvement in joint structure might be the best way to produce this result, this has to be proved. Reasonable and achievable endpoints are needed for emerging drugs with the potential to rebuild the joint not just to control pain, he said.
SOURCE: Gühring H et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):70-1. Abstract OP0010. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1216.
MADRID – To achieve positive trials with new agents in osteoarthritis, patient selection should be considered in the context of the primary endpoints, according to Philip G. Conaghan, MBBS, PhD, chair of musculoskeletal medicine at the University of Leeds (England).
In an interview, Dr. Conaghan explained that the issue has arisen with emerging agents that are designed for structural improvements with the expectation that symptom improvements will follow. Recapping a presentation he made at the European Congress of Rheumatology, he cautioned that the key aspects of trial design for these novel agents, including patient and endpoint selection, are particularly challenging.
As an example, Dr. Conaghan referred to the experience so far with the ongoing phase 2 FORWARD trial with sprifermin, a recombinant form of human fibroblast growth factor. In this study, sprifermin has already shown promise for growing cartilage, but the benefit accrues slowly, and there is no symptomatic improvement early in the course of treatment.
Based on the experience with FORWARD, much has been learned about a potential tension between structural and symptomatic endpoints in osteoarthritis, according to Dr. Conaghan. For one, it appears to be important to select patients most likely to achieve measurable structural improvements quickly to achieve a positive result in a reasonable period of time.
For another, it may be necessary to select symptom endpoints that reflect structural change while cautioning patients about the potential for a long delay before a clinical benefit is experienced.
In osteoarthritis, clinical benefit has been traditionally captured with relief of pain. Although an improvement in joint structure might be the best way to produce this result, this has to be proved. Reasonable and achievable endpoints are needed for emerging drugs with the potential to rebuild the joint not just to control pain, he said.
SOURCE: Gühring H et al. Ann Rheum Dis. Jun 2019;78(Suppl 2):70-1. Abstract OP0010. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.1216.
REPORTING FROM EULAR 2019 CONGRESS
