User login
For MD-IQ on Family Practice News, but a regular topic for Rheumatology News
Lyme arthritis changes its immune response profile if it persists after antibiotics
The persistence of Lyme arthritis after treatment with antibiotics comes with a shift from an immune response expected for bacterial infection to one characterized by chronic inflammation, synovial proliferation, and breakdown of wound repair processes, according to an analysis of microRNA expression in patients before, during, and after infection.
Based on the findings, investigators led by Robert B. Lochhead, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that they “suspect that, in humans, genetic variables determine whether the response to B. burgdorferi infection elicits an appropriate wound repair response … or a maladaptive inflammatory cellular response and arrest of wound repair processes.”
The investigators studied synovial fluid or tissue from 32 patients with LA who were representative of the spectrum of disease severity and treatment responses seen in this disease. In 18 patients for whom synovial fluid samples were available, 5 illustrated the differences in miRNA expression that occur from the time before any antibiotic treatment to the time after antibiotic treatment that successfully resolves arthritis symptoms, and 13 showed how an incomplete response to antibiotic treatment can affect miRNA expression. The expression profile of miRNA in synovial tissue samples from another 14 patients who underwent arthroscopic synovectomies 4-48 months after oral and intravenous antibiotics demonstrated the change in immune response seen in postinfectious LA.
The group of five patients with synovial fluid samples who were referred prior to antibiotic therapy when they had active B. burgdorferi infection (group 1) had a history of mild to severe knee swelling and pain for a median duration of 1 month prior to evaluation and the start of antibiotic treatment. A 1-month course of oral doxycycline resolved arthritis in three of the patients, and the other two continued to have marked knee swelling that later resolved after 1 month of IV ceftriaxone. Of six different miRNAs that the investigators measured, five were at low levels in these patients. The lone exception was a hematopoietic-specific miRNA, miR-223, which is abundantly expressed in polymorphonuclear lymphocytes (PMNs) and is associated with downregulation of acute inflammation and tissue remodeling.
In the group of 13 who still had joint swelling despite oral or IV antibiotics (group 2), only 2 had resolution of their swelling after IV antibiotics. Most of the remaining 11 had successful treatment with methotrexate. The synovial fluid samples for seven patients were collected after oral antibiotics but before IV antibiotics, and in the other six the samples were collected after both therapies. These 13 patients had significantly lower white blood cell counts in synovial fluid, fewer PMNs, and greater percentages of lymphocytes and monocytes than did group 1 patients. The five miRNAs that were found at low levels among the patients in group 1 were higher in these patients, which “suggested that the nature of the arthritis had changed after spirochetal killing.” The higher miR-223 levels seen in group 1 also occurred in group 2.
A separate analysis of synovial fluid samples from four patients with osteoarthritis and six patients with RA showed that levels of the six miRNAs from RA patients were similar to those of patients from group 2, and the low levels that were observed for most of the miRNAs in group 1 were similar to those seen in OA patients.
The investigators found that the five miRNAs with elevated levels in group 2 patients, but not miR-223, were positively correlated with arthritis duration after start of oral antibiotic therapy. B. burgdorferi IgG antibody titers negatively correlated with some of the elevated miRNAs in group 2.
The investigators analyzed a larger set of miRNAs in the synovial tissue samples obtained from 14 patients who underwent synovectomies for treatment of persistent synovitis a median of 15.5 months after they had undergone 2-3 months of antibiotic therapy (group 3). Some of the miRNAs overexpressed in these postinfectious LA samples, relative to samples from five OA patients, were associated with proliferative, tumor-associated responses and regulation of inflammatory processes. However, miRNAs overexpressed in tissues from OA patients relative to postinfectious LA patients were thought to affect genes that control tissue remodeling and cell proliferation, but not inflammation. The “distinct oncogenic miRNA profile” exhibited by postinfectious synovial tissue, according to the investigators, showed that “in these patients, the transition to the postinfectious phase was blocked by chronic inflammation, which stalled the wound repair process.”
The investigators concluded that “miRNAs hold promise as potential biomarkers to identify LA patients who are developing maladaptive immune responses during the period of infection. In such patients, it will be important to learn whether simultaneous treatment with antibiotics and DMARDs, rather than sequential treatment with these medications, will reduce the period of therapy and improve outcome, creating a new paradigm in treatment of this form of chronic inflammatory arthritis.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation, the Roland Foundation, the Lyme Disease and Arthritis Research Fund at Massachusetts General Hospital, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the English, Bonter, Mitchell Foundation.
The persistence of Lyme arthritis after treatment with antibiotics comes with a shift from an immune response expected for bacterial infection to one characterized by chronic inflammation, synovial proliferation, and breakdown of wound repair processes, according to an analysis of microRNA expression in patients before, during, and after infection.
Based on the findings, investigators led by Robert B. Lochhead, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that they “suspect that, in humans, genetic variables determine whether the response to B. burgdorferi infection elicits an appropriate wound repair response … or a maladaptive inflammatory cellular response and arrest of wound repair processes.”
The investigators studied synovial fluid or tissue from 32 patients with LA who were representative of the spectrum of disease severity and treatment responses seen in this disease. In 18 patients for whom synovial fluid samples were available, 5 illustrated the differences in miRNA expression that occur from the time before any antibiotic treatment to the time after antibiotic treatment that successfully resolves arthritis symptoms, and 13 showed how an incomplete response to antibiotic treatment can affect miRNA expression. The expression profile of miRNA in synovial tissue samples from another 14 patients who underwent arthroscopic synovectomies 4-48 months after oral and intravenous antibiotics demonstrated the change in immune response seen in postinfectious LA.
The group of five patients with synovial fluid samples who were referred prior to antibiotic therapy when they had active B. burgdorferi infection (group 1) had a history of mild to severe knee swelling and pain for a median duration of 1 month prior to evaluation and the start of antibiotic treatment. A 1-month course of oral doxycycline resolved arthritis in three of the patients, and the other two continued to have marked knee swelling that later resolved after 1 month of IV ceftriaxone. Of six different miRNAs that the investigators measured, five were at low levels in these patients. The lone exception was a hematopoietic-specific miRNA, miR-223, which is abundantly expressed in polymorphonuclear lymphocytes (PMNs) and is associated with downregulation of acute inflammation and tissue remodeling.
In the group of 13 who still had joint swelling despite oral or IV antibiotics (group 2), only 2 had resolution of their swelling after IV antibiotics. Most of the remaining 11 had successful treatment with methotrexate. The synovial fluid samples for seven patients were collected after oral antibiotics but before IV antibiotics, and in the other six the samples were collected after both therapies. These 13 patients had significantly lower white blood cell counts in synovial fluid, fewer PMNs, and greater percentages of lymphocytes and monocytes than did group 1 patients. The five miRNAs that were found at low levels among the patients in group 1 were higher in these patients, which “suggested that the nature of the arthritis had changed after spirochetal killing.” The higher miR-223 levels seen in group 1 also occurred in group 2.
A separate analysis of synovial fluid samples from four patients with osteoarthritis and six patients with RA showed that levels of the six miRNAs from RA patients were similar to those of patients from group 2, and the low levels that were observed for most of the miRNAs in group 1 were similar to those seen in OA patients.
The investigators found that the five miRNAs with elevated levels in group 2 patients, but not miR-223, were positively correlated with arthritis duration after start of oral antibiotic therapy. B. burgdorferi IgG antibody titers negatively correlated with some of the elevated miRNAs in group 2.
The investigators analyzed a larger set of miRNAs in the synovial tissue samples obtained from 14 patients who underwent synovectomies for treatment of persistent synovitis a median of 15.5 months after they had undergone 2-3 months of antibiotic therapy (group 3). Some of the miRNAs overexpressed in these postinfectious LA samples, relative to samples from five OA patients, were associated with proliferative, tumor-associated responses and regulation of inflammatory processes. However, miRNAs overexpressed in tissues from OA patients relative to postinfectious LA patients were thought to affect genes that control tissue remodeling and cell proliferation, but not inflammation. The “distinct oncogenic miRNA profile” exhibited by postinfectious synovial tissue, according to the investigators, showed that “in these patients, the transition to the postinfectious phase was blocked by chronic inflammation, which stalled the wound repair process.”
The investigators concluded that “miRNAs hold promise as potential biomarkers to identify LA patients who are developing maladaptive immune responses during the period of infection. In such patients, it will be important to learn whether simultaneous treatment with antibiotics and DMARDs, rather than sequential treatment with these medications, will reduce the period of therapy and improve outcome, creating a new paradigm in treatment of this form of chronic inflammatory arthritis.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation, the Roland Foundation, the Lyme Disease and Arthritis Research Fund at Massachusetts General Hospital, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the English, Bonter, Mitchell Foundation.
The persistence of Lyme arthritis after treatment with antibiotics comes with a shift from an immune response expected for bacterial infection to one characterized by chronic inflammation, synovial proliferation, and breakdown of wound repair processes, according to an analysis of microRNA expression in patients before, during, and after infection.
Based on the findings, investigators led by Robert B. Lochhead, PhD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said that they “suspect that, in humans, genetic variables determine whether the response to B. burgdorferi infection elicits an appropriate wound repair response … or a maladaptive inflammatory cellular response and arrest of wound repair processes.”
The investigators studied synovial fluid or tissue from 32 patients with LA who were representative of the spectrum of disease severity and treatment responses seen in this disease. In 18 patients for whom synovial fluid samples were available, 5 illustrated the differences in miRNA expression that occur from the time before any antibiotic treatment to the time after antibiotic treatment that successfully resolves arthritis symptoms, and 13 showed how an incomplete response to antibiotic treatment can affect miRNA expression. The expression profile of miRNA in synovial tissue samples from another 14 patients who underwent arthroscopic synovectomies 4-48 months after oral and intravenous antibiotics demonstrated the change in immune response seen in postinfectious LA.
The group of five patients with synovial fluid samples who were referred prior to antibiotic therapy when they had active B. burgdorferi infection (group 1) had a history of mild to severe knee swelling and pain for a median duration of 1 month prior to evaluation and the start of antibiotic treatment. A 1-month course of oral doxycycline resolved arthritis in three of the patients, and the other two continued to have marked knee swelling that later resolved after 1 month of IV ceftriaxone. Of six different miRNAs that the investigators measured, five were at low levels in these patients. The lone exception was a hematopoietic-specific miRNA, miR-223, which is abundantly expressed in polymorphonuclear lymphocytes (PMNs) and is associated with downregulation of acute inflammation and tissue remodeling.
In the group of 13 who still had joint swelling despite oral or IV antibiotics (group 2), only 2 had resolution of their swelling after IV antibiotics. Most of the remaining 11 had successful treatment with methotrexate. The synovial fluid samples for seven patients were collected after oral antibiotics but before IV antibiotics, and in the other six the samples were collected after both therapies. These 13 patients had significantly lower white blood cell counts in synovial fluid, fewer PMNs, and greater percentages of lymphocytes and monocytes than did group 1 patients. The five miRNAs that were found at low levels among the patients in group 1 were higher in these patients, which “suggested that the nature of the arthritis had changed after spirochetal killing.” The higher miR-223 levels seen in group 1 also occurred in group 2.
A separate analysis of synovial fluid samples from four patients with osteoarthritis and six patients with RA showed that levels of the six miRNAs from RA patients were similar to those of patients from group 2, and the low levels that were observed for most of the miRNAs in group 1 were similar to those seen in OA patients.
The investigators found that the five miRNAs with elevated levels in group 2 patients, but not miR-223, were positively correlated with arthritis duration after start of oral antibiotic therapy. B. burgdorferi IgG antibody titers negatively correlated with some of the elevated miRNAs in group 2.
The investigators analyzed a larger set of miRNAs in the synovial tissue samples obtained from 14 patients who underwent synovectomies for treatment of persistent synovitis a median of 15.5 months after they had undergone 2-3 months of antibiotic therapy (group 3). Some of the miRNAs overexpressed in these postinfectious LA samples, relative to samples from five OA patients, were associated with proliferative, tumor-associated responses and regulation of inflammatory processes. However, miRNAs overexpressed in tissues from OA patients relative to postinfectious LA patients were thought to affect genes that control tissue remodeling and cell proliferation, but not inflammation. The “distinct oncogenic miRNA profile” exhibited by postinfectious synovial tissue, according to the investigators, showed that “in these patients, the transition to the postinfectious phase was blocked by chronic inflammation, which stalled the wound repair process.”
The investigators concluded that “miRNAs hold promise as potential biomarkers to identify LA patients who are developing maladaptive immune responses during the period of infection. In such patients, it will be important to learn whether simultaneous treatment with antibiotics and DMARDs, rather than sequential treatment with these medications, will reduce the period of therapy and improve outcome, creating a new paradigm in treatment of this form of chronic inflammatory arthritis.”
The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation, the Roland Foundation, the Lyme Disease and Arthritis Research Fund at Massachusetts General Hospital, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the English, Bonter, Mitchell Foundation.
Key clinical point:
Major finding: miRNAs overexpressed in synovial tissue samples from 14 patients with postinfectious Lyme arthritis, relative to samples from five OA patients, were associated with proliferative, tumor-associated responses and regulation of inflammatory processes.
Data source: A retrospective study of synovial fluid or tissue samples from 32 patients with Lyme arthritis.
Disclosures: The study was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Lucius N. Littauer Foundation, the Roland Foundation, the Lyme Disease and Arthritis Research Fund at Massachusetts General Hospital, the Rheumatology Research Foundation, and the English, Bonter, Mitchell Foundation.
OA drug development needs patient-focused approach to biomarkers and outcome measures
Advances in our understanding of the development and treatment of osteoarthritis have led to renewed interest in leveraging these insights to establish more ways to evaluate potential drug candidates in clinical trials, particularly through the use of qualified biomarkers as meaningful outcome measures.
It is with this goal in mind that the Arthritis Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration held the Accelerating Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Workshop in Atlanta in February 2016,1 to discuss ways of enhancing the likelihood of successful OA trials, including possible “qualification” of biomarkers that can be used as endpoints in trials of OA treatments. Clinical trial endpoints would ideally be known to be clinically meaningful to the patient (such as pain, fatigue, functional status, etc.)2 and would reflect treatments that enable patients to feel and function better.
Patient engagement in different steps of the development process might be possible through patient registries, social media communities, smart phones, and wearable devices to be used as tools for capturing patient perceptions and mobility. These means for capturing dynamic data about domains of high interest to OA patients may lead to the development of better outcome measures that can be used as clinical trial endpoints.4 Researchers at the workshop presented new ways in which they are beginning to specialize in these techniques and methods that will be useful for turning the patient experience into usable data to aid in precision medicine.
Imaging outcomes and biomarkers are attractive for their potential to demonstrate an effect on the structural and pathophysiologic elements of OA in the time frame of a clinical trial, but rely on well-characterized relationships between those structural and pathophysiologic elements of OA and the clinical outcomes of OA. A recent advance is data showing that semiquantitative knee joint features, including cartilage thickness and surface area, meniscal morphology, and bone marrow lesions, were associated with clinically relevant OA progression and could be potentially useful as measures of efficacy in clinical trials of disease-modifying interventions.5 Being able to describe the clinical benefit to be expected from such changes is essential to use these outcomes in the benefit-risk assessment. How to include structural outcomes in OA trials will depend on the level of information available to characterize clinical benefit. With less information, structural outcomes may still be useful as adjunct or secondary endpoints. To be used as the primary endpoint to support approval, a high level of characterization would be needed about the relationship of the endpoint to anticipated clinical benefit. The FDA recommends that sponsors proposing such a primary endpoint should engage with the agency early in the development program.
Another option discussed was to study an accelerated OA population, that is, subjects (prior to joint replacement) with a history of trauma to a joint and other injuries predictive of early OA. In that setting, the study duration needed to demonstrate the relationship of structural and clinical outcomes may be more feasible.
A third option discussed was an end-stage OA trial that could enroll subjects who meet criteria for joint replacement. Such a study could possibly have outcomes that include delay in time to surgery, reduction in need for surgery, and clinical outcomes, such as need for concomitant analgesics, patient pain, and patient function. In any OA population, demonstrating a treatment’s effectiveness on clinical outcomes could be the sole basis for approval, in the context of an acceptable safety profile.
Dr. Niskar is national scientific director of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Yim is supervisory associate director of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and rheumatology products in the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Dr. Kraus is professor of medicine, pathology, and orthopedic surgery at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and is a faculty member of the Duke Molecular Physiology Institute. Dr. Tuan is director of the Center for Cellular and Molecular Engineering and Distinguished Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.
Dr. Niskar reports that the Arthritis Foundation received a donation from Samumed and a cosponsorship grant from the FDA to implement the Accelerating OA Clinical Trials Workshop. Dr. Kraus reports an Arthritis Foundation Delivering on Discovery Award that is outside of this editorial. Dr. Yim and Dr. Tuan disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Yim is relaying her personal views in this editorial, and they are not intended to convey official FDA policy, and no official support or endorsement by the FDA is provided or should be inferred. Samumed did not have a role in the writing of this editorial.
References
1. Bioworld. 2016;27:1-4.
2. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 May;23[5]:677-85.
3. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. PG engagement across the research & development continuum. 2015.
4. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:336ps11.
5. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Oct;68[10]:2422-31.
Advances in our understanding of the development and treatment of osteoarthritis have led to renewed interest in leveraging these insights to establish more ways to evaluate potential drug candidates in clinical trials, particularly through the use of qualified biomarkers as meaningful outcome measures.
It is with this goal in mind that the Arthritis Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration held the Accelerating Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Workshop in Atlanta in February 2016,1 to discuss ways of enhancing the likelihood of successful OA trials, including possible “qualification” of biomarkers that can be used as endpoints in trials of OA treatments. Clinical trial endpoints would ideally be known to be clinically meaningful to the patient (such as pain, fatigue, functional status, etc.)2 and would reflect treatments that enable patients to feel and function better.
Patient engagement in different steps of the development process might be possible through patient registries, social media communities, smart phones, and wearable devices to be used as tools for capturing patient perceptions and mobility. These means for capturing dynamic data about domains of high interest to OA patients may lead to the development of better outcome measures that can be used as clinical trial endpoints.4 Researchers at the workshop presented new ways in which they are beginning to specialize in these techniques and methods that will be useful for turning the patient experience into usable data to aid in precision medicine.
Imaging outcomes and biomarkers are attractive for their potential to demonstrate an effect on the structural and pathophysiologic elements of OA in the time frame of a clinical trial, but rely on well-characterized relationships between those structural and pathophysiologic elements of OA and the clinical outcomes of OA. A recent advance is data showing that semiquantitative knee joint features, including cartilage thickness and surface area, meniscal morphology, and bone marrow lesions, were associated with clinically relevant OA progression and could be potentially useful as measures of efficacy in clinical trials of disease-modifying interventions.5 Being able to describe the clinical benefit to be expected from such changes is essential to use these outcomes in the benefit-risk assessment. How to include structural outcomes in OA trials will depend on the level of information available to characterize clinical benefit. With less information, structural outcomes may still be useful as adjunct or secondary endpoints. To be used as the primary endpoint to support approval, a high level of characterization would be needed about the relationship of the endpoint to anticipated clinical benefit. The FDA recommends that sponsors proposing such a primary endpoint should engage with the agency early in the development program.
Another option discussed was to study an accelerated OA population, that is, subjects (prior to joint replacement) with a history of trauma to a joint and other injuries predictive of early OA. In that setting, the study duration needed to demonstrate the relationship of structural and clinical outcomes may be more feasible.
A third option discussed was an end-stage OA trial that could enroll subjects who meet criteria for joint replacement. Such a study could possibly have outcomes that include delay in time to surgery, reduction in need for surgery, and clinical outcomes, such as need for concomitant analgesics, patient pain, and patient function. In any OA population, demonstrating a treatment’s effectiveness on clinical outcomes could be the sole basis for approval, in the context of an acceptable safety profile.
Dr. Niskar is national scientific director of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Yim is supervisory associate director of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and rheumatology products in the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Dr. Kraus is professor of medicine, pathology, and orthopedic surgery at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and is a faculty member of the Duke Molecular Physiology Institute. Dr. Tuan is director of the Center for Cellular and Molecular Engineering and Distinguished Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.
Dr. Niskar reports that the Arthritis Foundation received a donation from Samumed and a cosponsorship grant from the FDA to implement the Accelerating OA Clinical Trials Workshop. Dr. Kraus reports an Arthritis Foundation Delivering on Discovery Award that is outside of this editorial. Dr. Yim and Dr. Tuan disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Yim is relaying her personal views in this editorial, and they are not intended to convey official FDA policy, and no official support or endorsement by the FDA is provided or should be inferred. Samumed did not have a role in the writing of this editorial.
References
1. Bioworld. 2016;27:1-4.
2. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 May;23[5]:677-85.
3. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. PG engagement across the research & development continuum. 2015.
4. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:336ps11.
5. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Oct;68[10]:2422-31.
Advances in our understanding of the development and treatment of osteoarthritis have led to renewed interest in leveraging these insights to establish more ways to evaluate potential drug candidates in clinical trials, particularly through the use of qualified biomarkers as meaningful outcome measures.
It is with this goal in mind that the Arthritis Foundation and the Food and Drug Administration held the Accelerating Osteoarthritis Clinical Trials Workshop in Atlanta in February 2016,1 to discuss ways of enhancing the likelihood of successful OA trials, including possible “qualification” of biomarkers that can be used as endpoints in trials of OA treatments. Clinical trial endpoints would ideally be known to be clinically meaningful to the patient (such as pain, fatigue, functional status, etc.)2 and would reflect treatments that enable patients to feel and function better.
Patient engagement in different steps of the development process might be possible through patient registries, social media communities, smart phones, and wearable devices to be used as tools for capturing patient perceptions and mobility. These means for capturing dynamic data about domains of high interest to OA patients may lead to the development of better outcome measures that can be used as clinical trial endpoints.4 Researchers at the workshop presented new ways in which they are beginning to specialize in these techniques and methods that will be useful for turning the patient experience into usable data to aid in precision medicine.
Imaging outcomes and biomarkers are attractive for their potential to demonstrate an effect on the structural and pathophysiologic elements of OA in the time frame of a clinical trial, but rely on well-characterized relationships between those structural and pathophysiologic elements of OA and the clinical outcomes of OA. A recent advance is data showing that semiquantitative knee joint features, including cartilage thickness and surface area, meniscal morphology, and bone marrow lesions, were associated with clinically relevant OA progression and could be potentially useful as measures of efficacy in clinical trials of disease-modifying interventions.5 Being able to describe the clinical benefit to be expected from such changes is essential to use these outcomes in the benefit-risk assessment. How to include structural outcomes in OA trials will depend on the level of information available to characterize clinical benefit. With less information, structural outcomes may still be useful as adjunct or secondary endpoints. To be used as the primary endpoint to support approval, a high level of characterization would be needed about the relationship of the endpoint to anticipated clinical benefit. The FDA recommends that sponsors proposing such a primary endpoint should engage with the agency early in the development program.
Another option discussed was to study an accelerated OA population, that is, subjects (prior to joint replacement) with a history of trauma to a joint and other injuries predictive of early OA. In that setting, the study duration needed to demonstrate the relationship of structural and clinical outcomes may be more feasible.
A third option discussed was an end-stage OA trial that could enroll subjects who meet criteria for joint replacement. Such a study could possibly have outcomes that include delay in time to surgery, reduction in need for surgery, and clinical outcomes, such as need for concomitant analgesics, patient pain, and patient function. In any OA population, demonstrating a treatment’s effectiveness on clinical outcomes could be the sole basis for approval, in the context of an acceptable safety profile.
Dr. Niskar is national scientific director of the Arthritis Foundation. Dr. Yim is supervisory associate director of the division of pulmonary, allergy, and rheumatology products in the Office of New Drugs at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Dr. Kraus is professor of medicine, pathology, and orthopedic surgery at Duke University, Durham, N.C., and is a faculty member of the Duke Molecular Physiology Institute. Dr. Tuan is director of the Center for Cellular and Molecular Engineering and Distinguished Professor of Orthopedic Surgery at the University of Pittsburgh.
Dr. Niskar reports that the Arthritis Foundation received a donation from Samumed and a cosponsorship grant from the FDA to implement the Accelerating OA Clinical Trials Workshop. Dr. Kraus reports an Arthritis Foundation Delivering on Discovery Award that is outside of this editorial. Dr. Yim and Dr. Tuan disclosed no conflicts. Dr. Yim is relaying her personal views in this editorial, and they are not intended to convey official FDA policy, and no official support or endorsement by the FDA is provided or should be inferred. Samumed did not have a role in the writing of this editorial.
References
1. Bioworld. 2016;27:1-4.
2. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2015 May;23[5]:677-85.
3. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. PG engagement across the research & development continuum. 2015.
4. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:336ps11.
5. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Oct;68[10]:2422-31.
Fiber may play role in lessening knee pain, OA development
Consumption of dietary fiber at the recommended average intake of 25 g per day was associated with lower risks of developing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and moderate or severe knee pain over 4-8 years in two separate analyses of Osteoarthritis Initiative participants conducted by investigators at Boston University.
The studies are the first to describe an association between total dietary fiber and lower risk of symptomatic OA and pain worsening in the knee, as well as a lower risk of moderate and severe pain patterns. The lowered risks were partially mediated by body mass index (BMI) but persisted even after adjustment for the variable.
In both studies, the investigators estimated dietary fiber intake by using a validated food frequency questionnaire at baseline that summed the fibers from grains, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and legumes.
Fiber and symptomatic knee OA
At the end of 4 years of follow-up, Dr. Dai and her colleagues identified 152 knees with incident radiographic OA (defined as a knee newly developing a Kellgren and Lawrence grade of 2 or higher), 869 knees with incident symptomatic OA (defined as new onset of both radiographic OA and a painful knee on most days in past month), and 1,964 knees with pain worsening as defined by an increase of at least 14% of the baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index pain subscale score at each annual exam. This analysis excluded 540 people who were lost to follow-up and 205 who had invalid caloric intake recordings, leaving 4,051 in the study. The outcomes also excluded people with prevalent radiographic or symptomatic knee OA or knee pain worsening at baseline.
There was a significant trend for lower risk of both symptomatic OA (P less than .002) and pain worsening (P = .005) across four quartiles of daily total dietary fiber intake (mean of 9.1 g, 13 g, 16 g, and 21.9 g in quartiles 1-4). Quartile 4 daily intake was associated with a statistically significant 30% reduction (95% confidence interval, 6%-48%) in the odds of symptomatic knee OA and a 19% reduction (95% CI, 6%-29%) in the odds of pain worsening. Both comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, race, total energy intake, education, smoking status, physical activity, intake of other dietary factors (including polyunsaturated fat and other fats, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, dairy products, sweets, and soda), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (for the pain-worsening comparison).
Even though approximately 34% of the association between total fiber intake and symptomatic OA and 22% of the association between total fiber intake and pain worsening were mediated through reduced BMI, further adjustment of the comparisons for baseline BMI yielded similarly significant results.
The investigators found no associations between total dietary fiber intake and radiographic knee OA or for other fiber intake with either symptomatic or radiographic knee OA.
“The strongest protection was suggested at the highest quartile, which is in line with the current dietary guidelines for daily fiber intake. For older people [aged 51 years and older], for women it’s 22 g per day and for men it’s 28 g per day,” Dr. Dai said at the meeting.
Fiber and knee pain trajectories
Dr. Dai and her associates identified distinct, relatively homogeneous clusters of WOMAC pain trajectories over the 8-year study course in patients with and without radiographic knee OA at baseline in the Arthritis Care & Research study, and then examined their relationship to participants’ total dietary fiber intake, divided into quartiles (Arthritis Res Care. 2016; Nov 29. doi: 10.1002/acr.23158). The investigators found four pain trajectory patterns, including no pain (34.5%), mild pain (38.1%), moderate pain (21.2%), and severe pain (6.2%).
Individuals who consumed the most total fiber also had the highest representation in the no pain pattern (38.1%) and the lowest representation in the severe pain pattern (4.3%). A high total fiber intake was associated with lower risk of having a moderate or severe pain pattern when compared with those in the no pain trajectory (both P for trend less than .01). Intake of fiber in the highest quartile was associated with a 24% lower likelihood (95% CI, 7%-39%) of belonging to the moderate pain pattern and a 44% lower likelihood (95% CI, 2%-59%) of being in the severe pain pattern, compared with individuals in the lowest intake quartile.
The same four pain trajectory patterns existed in individuals with radiographic knee OA at baseline, but the proportions were shifted slightly lower for no pain (26.1%) and higher for severe pain (7.9%). There was an even greater effect magnitude for the association between dietary total fiber and moderate or severe pain pattern among individuals with radiographic knee OA at baseline. Similar results were found for participants without radiographic knee OA at baseline. The relationships between total dietary fiber intake and pain patterns were somewhat attenuated after adjustment for depression scores and BMI at baseline but still remained statistically significant.
In each of the comparisons and sensitivity analyses, the highest quartile of cereal grain fiber intake was also significant on its own in lowering risk for being in the moderate or severe pain trajectory patterns. However, no significant results were found for fiber from fruits and vegetables or from nuts and legumes.
The studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. None of the authors had conflicts of interest to disclose.
Consumption of dietary fiber at the recommended average intake of 25 g per day was associated with lower risks of developing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and moderate or severe knee pain over 4-8 years in two separate analyses of Osteoarthritis Initiative participants conducted by investigators at Boston University.
The studies are the first to describe an association between total dietary fiber and lower risk of symptomatic OA and pain worsening in the knee, as well as a lower risk of moderate and severe pain patterns. The lowered risks were partially mediated by body mass index (BMI) but persisted even after adjustment for the variable.
In both studies, the investigators estimated dietary fiber intake by using a validated food frequency questionnaire at baseline that summed the fibers from grains, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and legumes.
Fiber and symptomatic knee OA
At the end of 4 years of follow-up, Dr. Dai and her colleagues identified 152 knees with incident radiographic OA (defined as a knee newly developing a Kellgren and Lawrence grade of 2 or higher), 869 knees with incident symptomatic OA (defined as new onset of both radiographic OA and a painful knee on most days in past month), and 1,964 knees with pain worsening as defined by an increase of at least 14% of the baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index pain subscale score at each annual exam. This analysis excluded 540 people who were lost to follow-up and 205 who had invalid caloric intake recordings, leaving 4,051 in the study. The outcomes also excluded people with prevalent radiographic or symptomatic knee OA or knee pain worsening at baseline.
There was a significant trend for lower risk of both symptomatic OA (P less than .002) and pain worsening (P = .005) across four quartiles of daily total dietary fiber intake (mean of 9.1 g, 13 g, 16 g, and 21.9 g in quartiles 1-4). Quartile 4 daily intake was associated with a statistically significant 30% reduction (95% confidence interval, 6%-48%) in the odds of symptomatic knee OA and a 19% reduction (95% CI, 6%-29%) in the odds of pain worsening. Both comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, race, total energy intake, education, smoking status, physical activity, intake of other dietary factors (including polyunsaturated fat and other fats, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, dairy products, sweets, and soda), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (for the pain-worsening comparison).
Even though approximately 34% of the association between total fiber intake and symptomatic OA and 22% of the association between total fiber intake and pain worsening were mediated through reduced BMI, further adjustment of the comparisons for baseline BMI yielded similarly significant results.
The investigators found no associations between total dietary fiber intake and radiographic knee OA or for other fiber intake with either symptomatic or radiographic knee OA.
“The strongest protection was suggested at the highest quartile, which is in line with the current dietary guidelines for daily fiber intake. For older people [aged 51 years and older], for women it’s 22 g per day and for men it’s 28 g per day,” Dr. Dai said at the meeting.
Fiber and knee pain trajectories
Dr. Dai and her associates identified distinct, relatively homogeneous clusters of WOMAC pain trajectories over the 8-year study course in patients with and without radiographic knee OA at baseline in the Arthritis Care & Research study, and then examined their relationship to participants’ total dietary fiber intake, divided into quartiles (Arthritis Res Care. 2016; Nov 29. doi: 10.1002/acr.23158). The investigators found four pain trajectory patterns, including no pain (34.5%), mild pain (38.1%), moderate pain (21.2%), and severe pain (6.2%).
Individuals who consumed the most total fiber also had the highest representation in the no pain pattern (38.1%) and the lowest representation in the severe pain pattern (4.3%). A high total fiber intake was associated with lower risk of having a moderate or severe pain pattern when compared with those in the no pain trajectory (both P for trend less than .01). Intake of fiber in the highest quartile was associated with a 24% lower likelihood (95% CI, 7%-39%) of belonging to the moderate pain pattern and a 44% lower likelihood (95% CI, 2%-59%) of being in the severe pain pattern, compared with individuals in the lowest intake quartile.
The same four pain trajectory patterns existed in individuals with radiographic knee OA at baseline, but the proportions were shifted slightly lower for no pain (26.1%) and higher for severe pain (7.9%). There was an even greater effect magnitude for the association between dietary total fiber and moderate or severe pain pattern among individuals with radiographic knee OA at baseline. Similar results were found for participants without radiographic knee OA at baseline. The relationships between total dietary fiber intake and pain patterns were somewhat attenuated after adjustment for depression scores and BMI at baseline but still remained statistically significant.
In each of the comparisons and sensitivity analyses, the highest quartile of cereal grain fiber intake was also significant on its own in lowering risk for being in the moderate or severe pain trajectory patterns. However, no significant results were found for fiber from fruits and vegetables or from nuts and legumes.
The studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. None of the authors had conflicts of interest to disclose.
Consumption of dietary fiber at the recommended average intake of 25 g per day was associated with lower risks of developing symptomatic knee osteoarthritis and moderate or severe knee pain over 4-8 years in two separate analyses of Osteoarthritis Initiative participants conducted by investigators at Boston University.
The studies are the first to describe an association between total dietary fiber and lower risk of symptomatic OA and pain worsening in the knee, as well as a lower risk of moderate and severe pain patterns. The lowered risks were partially mediated by body mass index (BMI) but persisted even after adjustment for the variable.
In both studies, the investigators estimated dietary fiber intake by using a validated food frequency questionnaire at baseline that summed the fibers from grains, fruits and vegetables, and nuts and legumes.
Fiber and symptomatic knee OA
At the end of 4 years of follow-up, Dr. Dai and her colleagues identified 152 knees with incident radiographic OA (defined as a knee newly developing a Kellgren and Lawrence grade of 2 or higher), 869 knees with incident symptomatic OA (defined as new onset of both radiographic OA and a painful knee on most days in past month), and 1,964 knees with pain worsening as defined by an increase of at least 14% of the baseline Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Index pain subscale score at each annual exam. This analysis excluded 540 people who were lost to follow-up and 205 who had invalid caloric intake recordings, leaving 4,051 in the study. The outcomes also excluded people with prevalent radiographic or symptomatic knee OA or knee pain worsening at baseline.
There was a significant trend for lower risk of both symptomatic OA (P less than .002) and pain worsening (P = .005) across four quartiles of daily total dietary fiber intake (mean of 9.1 g, 13 g, 16 g, and 21.9 g in quartiles 1-4). Quartile 4 daily intake was associated with a statistically significant 30% reduction (95% confidence interval, 6%-48%) in the odds of symptomatic knee OA and a 19% reduction (95% CI, 6%-29%) in the odds of pain worsening. Both comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, race, total energy intake, education, smoking status, physical activity, intake of other dietary factors (including polyunsaturated fat and other fats, vitamin C, vitamin D, vitamin E, vitamin K, dairy products, sweets, and soda), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use (for the pain-worsening comparison).
Even though approximately 34% of the association between total fiber intake and symptomatic OA and 22% of the association between total fiber intake and pain worsening were mediated through reduced BMI, further adjustment of the comparisons for baseline BMI yielded similarly significant results.
The investigators found no associations between total dietary fiber intake and radiographic knee OA or for other fiber intake with either symptomatic or radiographic knee OA.
“The strongest protection was suggested at the highest quartile, which is in line with the current dietary guidelines for daily fiber intake. For older people [aged 51 years and older], for women it’s 22 g per day and for men it’s 28 g per day,” Dr. Dai said at the meeting.
Fiber and knee pain trajectories
Dr. Dai and her associates identified distinct, relatively homogeneous clusters of WOMAC pain trajectories over the 8-year study course in patients with and without radiographic knee OA at baseline in the Arthritis Care & Research study, and then examined their relationship to participants’ total dietary fiber intake, divided into quartiles (Arthritis Res Care. 2016; Nov 29. doi: 10.1002/acr.23158). The investigators found four pain trajectory patterns, including no pain (34.5%), mild pain (38.1%), moderate pain (21.2%), and severe pain (6.2%).
Individuals who consumed the most total fiber also had the highest representation in the no pain pattern (38.1%) and the lowest representation in the severe pain pattern (4.3%). A high total fiber intake was associated with lower risk of having a moderate or severe pain pattern when compared with those in the no pain trajectory (both P for trend less than .01). Intake of fiber in the highest quartile was associated with a 24% lower likelihood (95% CI, 7%-39%) of belonging to the moderate pain pattern and a 44% lower likelihood (95% CI, 2%-59%) of being in the severe pain pattern, compared with individuals in the lowest intake quartile.
The same four pain trajectory patterns existed in individuals with radiographic knee OA at baseline, but the proportions were shifted slightly lower for no pain (26.1%) and higher for severe pain (7.9%). There was an even greater effect magnitude for the association between dietary total fiber and moderate or severe pain pattern among individuals with radiographic knee OA at baseline. Similar results were found for participants without radiographic knee OA at baseline. The relationships between total dietary fiber intake and pain patterns were somewhat attenuated after adjustment for depression scores and BMI at baseline but still remained statistically significant.
In each of the comparisons and sensitivity analyses, the highest quartile of cereal grain fiber intake was also significant on its own in lowering risk for being in the moderate or severe pain trajectory patterns. However, no significant results were found for fiber from fruits and vegetables or from nuts and legumes.
The studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. None of the authors had conflicts of interest to disclose.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH AND THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The highest quartile of daily dietary fiber intake was associated with a statistically significant 30% reduction (95% CI, 6%-48%) in the odds of symptomatic knee OA and a 19% reduction (95% CI, 6%-29%) in the odds of pain worsening.
Data source: Two analyses of the prospective, multicenter Osteoarthritis Initiative cohort of 4,796 men and women aged 45-79 years with or at risk for knee osteoarthritis.
Disclosures: The studies were supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. None of the authors had conflicts of interest to disclose.
VIDEO: Celecoxib just as safe as naproxen or ibuprofen in OA and RA
WASHINGTON – Celecoxib conferred a 53% decreased risk of overall mortality upon patients with rheumatoid arthritis when compared with naproxen – a surprise finding in a subanalysis of the newly released PRECISION study of anti-inflammatory drugs in arthritis.
But it’s tough to know what to make of the difference, according to the investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Although statistically significant, the mortality finding was based on just 45 events: 30 among those taking naproxen and 15 among those taking celecoxib.
“While I would say we were surprised to see this, we really can’t say what it means – or if it means anything,” primary investigator Daniel Solomon, MD, said in an interview. “This is a finding we will continue to investigate and look at, but at this point it’s not enough to base any prescribing decisions on.”
PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen) enrolled more than 24,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. They were randomized to celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for a mean of 20 months, with an additional mean follow-up of 34 months.
The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an adverse event from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration criteria (APTC; death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal heart attack, or nonfatal stroke). Secondary outcomes included:
• Major cardiovascular events (heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or transient ischemic attack).
• Renal events (acute kidney injury, including hospitalization for renal failure).
• Gastrointestinal events (hemorrhage, perforation, gastroduodenal ulcer, anemia of gastrointestinal origin, and gastric outlet obstruction.
The main PRECISION findings were released Nov. 13 at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593).
Overall, celecoxib was just as safe as were the other drugs on the APTC endpoint, which occurred in about 2% of each groups. The study found significantly decreased risks of both GI and renal events with celecoxib, compared with either naproxen or ibuprofen. Celecoxib and naproxen were equivalent with regard to GI and renal events.
The subanalysis, released at the ACR meeting, adds important disease-specific context to the overall PRECISION results.
“We wanted to really delve into the subtle differences in how these two patient groups responded to these medications,” said PRECISION coinvestigator Elaine Husni, MD, vice chair of the department of rheumatic and immunologic diseases at the Cleveland Clinic.
“We learned that each of these NSAIDs has a unique safety profile that can be different in different groups. And in general, celecoxib seems less risky than the others.”
The cohort subanalysis broke down these endpoints among 21,600 patients with osteoarthritis and 2,400 with rheumatoid arthritis.
Among patients with osteoarthritis, celecoxib was also associated with a 16% decreased risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, compared with ibuprofen. GI events were also less likely in this group: Celecoxib was associated with a 32% decreased risk, compared with ibuprofen, and a 27% decreased risk, compared with naproxen.
Renal outcomes were almost identical in all of the medications in both groups, Dr. Husni said.
In addition to the adverse event outcomes, the subanalysis examined how well patients responded to their assigned NSAID. There were also some subtle differences seen here, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Husni said.
For patients with RA, ibuprofen was slightly, but significantly, more effective than either celecoxib or ibuprofen at controlling pain as measured by a visual analog pain scale. Patients with osteoarthritis responded equally well to all of the drugs.
RA patients also responded best to ibuprofen as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Again, patients with osteoarthritis responded equally well to all of the medications.
The overall findings, as well as the subanalysis, should be reassuring to both physicians and patients, said Dr. Solomon, chief of the section of clinical sciences in the divisions of rheumatology and pharmacoepidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“I can now stand in front of patients and say with confidence, ‘Each of these drugs is fairly safe, and together we can choose the one that will be best for you, based on your own individual history and your own individual risk factors.’ I feel good about that.”
Pfizer funded the trial. Dr. Husni has research grants from Genzyme/Sanofi on a knee osteoarthritis trial related to hyaluronic acid injections. Dr. Solomon has research grants from Pfizer on non-NSAID related topics. He also receives royalties from UpToDate on chapters related to NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
WASHINGTON – Celecoxib conferred a 53% decreased risk of overall mortality upon patients with rheumatoid arthritis when compared with naproxen – a surprise finding in a subanalysis of the newly released PRECISION study of anti-inflammatory drugs in arthritis.
But it’s tough to know what to make of the difference, according to the investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Although statistically significant, the mortality finding was based on just 45 events: 30 among those taking naproxen and 15 among those taking celecoxib.
“While I would say we were surprised to see this, we really can’t say what it means – or if it means anything,” primary investigator Daniel Solomon, MD, said in an interview. “This is a finding we will continue to investigate and look at, but at this point it’s not enough to base any prescribing decisions on.”
PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen) enrolled more than 24,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. They were randomized to celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for a mean of 20 months, with an additional mean follow-up of 34 months.
The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an adverse event from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration criteria (APTC; death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal heart attack, or nonfatal stroke). Secondary outcomes included:
• Major cardiovascular events (heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or transient ischemic attack).
• Renal events (acute kidney injury, including hospitalization for renal failure).
• Gastrointestinal events (hemorrhage, perforation, gastroduodenal ulcer, anemia of gastrointestinal origin, and gastric outlet obstruction.
The main PRECISION findings were released Nov. 13 at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593).
Overall, celecoxib was just as safe as were the other drugs on the APTC endpoint, which occurred in about 2% of each groups. The study found significantly decreased risks of both GI and renal events with celecoxib, compared with either naproxen or ibuprofen. Celecoxib and naproxen were equivalent with regard to GI and renal events.
The subanalysis, released at the ACR meeting, adds important disease-specific context to the overall PRECISION results.
“We wanted to really delve into the subtle differences in how these two patient groups responded to these medications,” said PRECISION coinvestigator Elaine Husni, MD, vice chair of the department of rheumatic and immunologic diseases at the Cleveland Clinic.
“We learned that each of these NSAIDs has a unique safety profile that can be different in different groups. And in general, celecoxib seems less risky than the others.”
The cohort subanalysis broke down these endpoints among 21,600 patients with osteoarthritis and 2,400 with rheumatoid arthritis.
Among patients with osteoarthritis, celecoxib was also associated with a 16% decreased risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, compared with ibuprofen. GI events were also less likely in this group: Celecoxib was associated with a 32% decreased risk, compared with ibuprofen, and a 27% decreased risk, compared with naproxen.
Renal outcomes were almost identical in all of the medications in both groups, Dr. Husni said.
In addition to the adverse event outcomes, the subanalysis examined how well patients responded to their assigned NSAID. There were also some subtle differences seen here, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Husni said.
For patients with RA, ibuprofen was slightly, but significantly, more effective than either celecoxib or ibuprofen at controlling pain as measured by a visual analog pain scale. Patients with osteoarthritis responded equally well to all of the drugs.
RA patients also responded best to ibuprofen as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Again, patients with osteoarthritis responded equally well to all of the medications.
The overall findings, as well as the subanalysis, should be reassuring to both physicians and patients, said Dr. Solomon, chief of the section of clinical sciences in the divisions of rheumatology and pharmacoepidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“I can now stand in front of patients and say with confidence, ‘Each of these drugs is fairly safe, and together we can choose the one that will be best for you, based on your own individual history and your own individual risk factors.’ I feel good about that.”
Pfizer funded the trial. Dr. Husni has research grants from Genzyme/Sanofi on a knee osteoarthritis trial related to hyaluronic acid injections. Dr. Solomon has research grants from Pfizer on non-NSAID related topics. He also receives royalties from UpToDate on chapters related to NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
WASHINGTON – Celecoxib conferred a 53% decreased risk of overall mortality upon patients with rheumatoid arthritis when compared with naproxen – a surprise finding in a subanalysis of the newly released PRECISION study of anti-inflammatory drugs in arthritis.
But it’s tough to know what to make of the difference, according to the investigators at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Although statistically significant, the mortality finding was based on just 45 events: 30 among those taking naproxen and 15 among those taking celecoxib.
“While I would say we were surprised to see this, we really can’t say what it means – or if it means anything,” primary investigator Daniel Solomon, MD, said in an interview. “This is a finding we will continue to investigate and look at, but at this point it’s not enough to base any prescribing decisions on.”
PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen) enrolled more than 24,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis. They were randomized to celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen for a mean of 20 months, with an additional mean follow-up of 34 months.
The primary outcome was the first occurrence of an adverse event from the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration criteria (APTC; death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal heart attack, or nonfatal stroke). Secondary outcomes included:
• Major cardiovascular events (heart attack, stroke, cardiovascular death, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina or transient ischemic attack).
• Renal events (acute kidney injury, including hospitalization for renal failure).
• Gastrointestinal events (hemorrhage, perforation, gastroduodenal ulcer, anemia of gastrointestinal origin, and gastric outlet obstruction.
The main PRECISION findings were released Nov. 13 at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association and simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593).
Overall, celecoxib was just as safe as were the other drugs on the APTC endpoint, which occurred in about 2% of each groups. The study found significantly decreased risks of both GI and renal events with celecoxib, compared with either naproxen or ibuprofen. Celecoxib and naproxen were equivalent with regard to GI and renal events.
The subanalysis, released at the ACR meeting, adds important disease-specific context to the overall PRECISION results.
“We wanted to really delve into the subtle differences in how these two patient groups responded to these medications,” said PRECISION coinvestigator Elaine Husni, MD, vice chair of the department of rheumatic and immunologic diseases at the Cleveland Clinic.
“We learned that each of these NSAIDs has a unique safety profile that can be different in different groups. And in general, celecoxib seems less risky than the others.”
The cohort subanalysis broke down these endpoints among 21,600 patients with osteoarthritis and 2,400 with rheumatoid arthritis.
Among patients with osteoarthritis, celecoxib was also associated with a 16% decreased risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, compared with ibuprofen. GI events were also less likely in this group: Celecoxib was associated with a 32% decreased risk, compared with ibuprofen, and a 27% decreased risk, compared with naproxen.
Renal outcomes were almost identical in all of the medications in both groups, Dr. Husni said.
In addition to the adverse event outcomes, the subanalysis examined how well patients responded to their assigned NSAID. There were also some subtle differences seen here, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Husni said.
For patients with RA, ibuprofen was slightly, but significantly, more effective than either celecoxib or ibuprofen at controlling pain as measured by a visual analog pain scale. Patients with osteoarthritis responded equally well to all of the drugs.
RA patients also responded best to ibuprofen as measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI). Again, patients with osteoarthritis responded equally well to all of the medications.
The overall findings, as well as the subanalysis, should be reassuring to both physicians and patients, said Dr. Solomon, chief of the section of clinical sciences in the divisions of rheumatology and pharmacoepidemiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.
“I can now stand in front of patients and say with confidence, ‘Each of these drugs is fairly safe, and together we can choose the one that will be best for you, based on your own individual history and your own individual risk factors.’ I feel good about that.”
Pfizer funded the trial. Dr. Husni has research grants from Genzyme/Sanofi on a knee osteoarthritis trial related to hyaluronic acid injections. Dr. Solomon has research grants from Pfizer on non-NSAID related topics. He also receives royalties from UpToDate on chapters related to NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
AT THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Compared with naproxen, celecoxib was associated with a 53% lower risk of overall mortality, although the clinical impact of that finding remains unknown.
Data source: PRECISION, which randomized more than 24,000 patients to celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen.
Disclosures: Pfizer funded the trial. Dr. Husni has research grants from Genzyme/Sanofi on a knee osteoarthritis trial related to hyaluronic acid injections. Dr. Solomon has research grants from Pfizer on non-NSAID related topics. He also receives royalties from UpToDate on chapters related to NSAIDs and selective COX-2 inhibitors.
VIDEO: PRECISION exonerates celecoxib: cardiovascular risk is no worse than that of nonselective NSAIDs
NEW ORLEANS – The cardiovascular safety profile of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, is no worse than those of the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen, according to a trial reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The trial, known as PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) was undertaken after another selective COX-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib (Vioxx), was withdrawn from the market because of associated cardiovascular events. It compared the three drugs among more than 24,000 patients with painful arthritis and elevated cardiovascular risk.
Main results showed that 2%-3% of patients experienced a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during a follow-up approaching 3 years, regardless of which drug they were assigned to take, with the slight differences falling within predefined margins for noninferiority of celecoxib, investigators reported in a session and related press conference.
Additionally, celecoxib yielded a lower rate of gastrointestinal events when compared with each of the other drugs and a lower rate of renal events when compared with ibuprofen.
“After the withdrawal of rofecoxib, everybody thought they knew the answer, that COX-2 inhibitors had an unfavorable cardiovascular profile,” commented first author Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “We didn’t find that. And this is the type of study that once again teaches us that if we jump to conclusions about this based on mechanistic considerations, we often make very bad decisions.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Efforts are under way to disseminate the PRECISION findings to rheumatologists and other groups who do much of the NSAID prescribing.
“Any time you have something that has findings like the findings we have, it takes some time to trickle down to the prescribers. It’s going to be our job to communicate both the value and the important limitations of the trial so that people can make informed decisions about which of these drugs to use and in whom,” Dr. Nissen said.
A cautionary view
“The investigators addressed an extremely important question, which is what is the cardiovascular safety of agents that we administer for a general medical condition over the long term,” commented invited discussant Elliott M. Antman, MD, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate dean for Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “We don’t see a lot of trials like that, but we do need this information.”
“This is not a comparison of drugs; this is a comparison of drug regimens because the investigators were able to increase the dose to control the subjects’ pain,” Dr. Antman elaborated. “And they were able to increase the dose of naproxen and ibuprofen comparatively more than they could for celecoxib,” which was capped at 200 mg per day at most study sites.
Furthermore, only about one-fifth of the patients studied had known heart disease. “We know that the more likely a person is to have atherosclerosis, the more likely they are to experience harm from COX-2 inhibition,” he said. “So given the profile of the patients in this trial, it’s unlikely that we would have been able to detect that signal of harm from COX-2 inhibition, particularly at this dose.”
Dr. Antman also had concerns about the impact on concomitant aspirin therapy (the benefit of which can be affected by nonselective NSAIDs) and about possible differences in the reasons for dropouts that may have biased findings toward celecoxib. “I believe we need more information in order to more completely interpret this trial,” he summarized.
For now, he advised physicians to follow guidance put forth by the American Heart Association: Avoid NSAIDs in patients with known heart disease, and if one must use them, try to use the lowest-risk drug in the lowest dose needed for the shortest period of time.
In the future, “we should actually break out of the mold of assigning everybody in the trial a common phenotype and reporting the average result, but instead take a precision medicine approach, where we look at the polymorphisms in the COX enzyme, look at the polymorphisms in the ability to metabolize these drugs, and actually see if we can be more precise,” Dr. Antman maintained. “Finally, there is an urgent clinical need for the development of novel analgesics and other therapeutics to avoid the cardiovascular risk from all NSAIDs.”
Trial details
Patients were eligible for PRECISION, a Pfizer-funded trial, if they had osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk.
In all, 24,081 patients from 926 centers globally were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen, all of which are now available as generics in the United States.
“Patients were randomized to the FDA-approved doses of these drugs, and they could have their dose increased if they had unrelieved pain up to the maximum allowed by regulatory authorities in the local jurisdictions where the study was done,” Dr. Nissen noted, pointing out that studies initially generating some concern about celecoxib used a supratherapeutic dose of 800 mg daily.
As COX-2 inhibitors are less likely than nonselective NSAIDs to cause ulcers, which might affect compliance and outcomes, all patients additionally received esomeprazole for gastroprotection “to try to level the playing field,” he explained.
The mean treatment duration was 20.3 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 34.1 months, according to data reported at the meeting and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593). On average, the daily dose of drug received was 209 mg for celecoxib, 852 mg for naproxen, and 2,045 mg for ibuprofen.
In intention-to-treat analyses, the rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% in the celecoxib group, 2.5% in the naproxen group, and 2.7% in the ibuprofen group. The hazard ratio was 0.93 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.85 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Differences were more marked in the on-treatment population. Here, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.7% in the celecoxib group, 1.8% in the naproxen group, and 1.9% in the ibuprofen group. The HR was 0.90 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.81 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Secondary outcomes, which tested for superiority, showed that the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 15% higher in the ibuprofen group as compared with the celecoxib group in the intent-to-treat population. The difference translated to a near-significant reduction in risk with the latter (HR, 0.87; P = .06) that appeared greater in the on-treatment population.
However, Dr. Nissen cautioned that he could not state that celecoxib was superior. “Secondary and tertiary endpoints in a clinical trial are hypothesis generating, and they are not considered definitive evidence,” he commented. At the same time, “the FDA is going to have to deal with that because what do they do with labeling? What do they do with over-the-counter access to these various drugs?”
The rate of all-cause mortality was 25% higher with naproxen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.80; P = .052).
The rate of gastrointestinal events was 54% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.65; P = .002) and 41% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.71; P = .01) as compared with celecoxib. And the rate of renal events was 64% higher with ibuprofen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.61; P = .004).
In a post hoc analysis of global safety, the rate of serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal events was 28% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.78; P less than .001) and 15% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.87; P = .03) than with celecoxib.
Of note, the findings for the primary endpoint were similar regardless of whether patients were taking low-dose aspirin or not. “There was no interaction with aspirin use,” Dr. Nissen stated. “This was not about the interference of ibuprofen or naproxen with aspirin use.”
Analyses of pain relief using a visual analogue scale showed no clinically meaningful differences, suggesting that the drug doses used were equally analgesic, he said. Stopping of study drug because of lack of efficacy was slightly more common in the celecoxib group.
“We didn’t study the low-dose, intermittent use of these drugs that most of the public engages in, and it’s really important that we crisply communicate that to the public because somebody who takes occasionally ibuprofen or naproxen for a headache should not look at these comparative data in a way that should necessarily influence their behavior. We just don’t know the answer,” cautioned Dr. Nissen, who disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial.
But the findings are relevant for individuals who take over-the-counter NSAIDs at doses exceeding the label, a phenomenon known as dose creep. “We need to reemphasize to the public that the labeled over-the-counter dose is what you should take. You shouldn’t double up or triple up on the drugs because the issue of high-dose therapy, which is what we studied, suggests that there are really potentially important gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular risks,” he said.
NEW ORLEANS – The cardiovascular safety profile of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, is no worse than those of the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen, according to a trial reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The trial, known as PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) was undertaken after another selective COX-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib (Vioxx), was withdrawn from the market because of associated cardiovascular events. It compared the three drugs among more than 24,000 patients with painful arthritis and elevated cardiovascular risk.
Main results showed that 2%-3% of patients experienced a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during a follow-up approaching 3 years, regardless of which drug they were assigned to take, with the slight differences falling within predefined margins for noninferiority of celecoxib, investigators reported in a session and related press conference.
Additionally, celecoxib yielded a lower rate of gastrointestinal events when compared with each of the other drugs and a lower rate of renal events when compared with ibuprofen.
“After the withdrawal of rofecoxib, everybody thought they knew the answer, that COX-2 inhibitors had an unfavorable cardiovascular profile,” commented first author Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “We didn’t find that. And this is the type of study that once again teaches us that if we jump to conclusions about this based on mechanistic considerations, we often make very bad decisions.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Efforts are under way to disseminate the PRECISION findings to rheumatologists and other groups who do much of the NSAID prescribing.
“Any time you have something that has findings like the findings we have, it takes some time to trickle down to the prescribers. It’s going to be our job to communicate both the value and the important limitations of the trial so that people can make informed decisions about which of these drugs to use and in whom,” Dr. Nissen said.
A cautionary view
“The investigators addressed an extremely important question, which is what is the cardiovascular safety of agents that we administer for a general medical condition over the long term,” commented invited discussant Elliott M. Antman, MD, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate dean for Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “We don’t see a lot of trials like that, but we do need this information.”
“This is not a comparison of drugs; this is a comparison of drug regimens because the investigators were able to increase the dose to control the subjects’ pain,” Dr. Antman elaborated. “And they were able to increase the dose of naproxen and ibuprofen comparatively more than they could for celecoxib,” which was capped at 200 mg per day at most study sites.
Furthermore, only about one-fifth of the patients studied had known heart disease. “We know that the more likely a person is to have atherosclerosis, the more likely they are to experience harm from COX-2 inhibition,” he said. “So given the profile of the patients in this trial, it’s unlikely that we would have been able to detect that signal of harm from COX-2 inhibition, particularly at this dose.”
Dr. Antman also had concerns about the impact on concomitant aspirin therapy (the benefit of which can be affected by nonselective NSAIDs) and about possible differences in the reasons for dropouts that may have biased findings toward celecoxib. “I believe we need more information in order to more completely interpret this trial,” he summarized.
For now, he advised physicians to follow guidance put forth by the American Heart Association: Avoid NSAIDs in patients with known heart disease, and if one must use them, try to use the lowest-risk drug in the lowest dose needed for the shortest period of time.
In the future, “we should actually break out of the mold of assigning everybody in the trial a common phenotype and reporting the average result, but instead take a precision medicine approach, where we look at the polymorphisms in the COX enzyme, look at the polymorphisms in the ability to metabolize these drugs, and actually see if we can be more precise,” Dr. Antman maintained. “Finally, there is an urgent clinical need for the development of novel analgesics and other therapeutics to avoid the cardiovascular risk from all NSAIDs.”
Trial details
Patients were eligible for PRECISION, a Pfizer-funded trial, if they had osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk.
In all, 24,081 patients from 926 centers globally were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen, all of which are now available as generics in the United States.
“Patients were randomized to the FDA-approved doses of these drugs, and they could have their dose increased if they had unrelieved pain up to the maximum allowed by regulatory authorities in the local jurisdictions where the study was done,” Dr. Nissen noted, pointing out that studies initially generating some concern about celecoxib used a supratherapeutic dose of 800 mg daily.
As COX-2 inhibitors are less likely than nonselective NSAIDs to cause ulcers, which might affect compliance and outcomes, all patients additionally received esomeprazole for gastroprotection “to try to level the playing field,” he explained.
The mean treatment duration was 20.3 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 34.1 months, according to data reported at the meeting and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593). On average, the daily dose of drug received was 209 mg for celecoxib, 852 mg for naproxen, and 2,045 mg for ibuprofen.
In intention-to-treat analyses, the rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% in the celecoxib group, 2.5% in the naproxen group, and 2.7% in the ibuprofen group. The hazard ratio was 0.93 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.85 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Differences were more marked in the on-treatment population. Here, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.7% in the celecoxib group, 1.8% in the naproxen group, and 1.9% in the ibuprofen group. The HR was 0.90 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.81 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Secondary outcomes, which tested for superiority, showed that the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 15% higher in the ibuprofen group as compared with the celecoxib group in the intent-to-treat population. The difference translated to a near-significant reduction in risk with the latter (HR, 0.87; P = .06) that appeared greater in the on-treatment population.
However, Dr. Nissen cautioned that he could not state that celecoxib was superior. “Secondary and tertiary endpoints in a clinical trial are hypothesis generating, and they are not considered definitive evidence,” he commented. At the same time, “the FDA is going to have to deal with that because what do they do with labeling? What do they do with over-the-counter access to these various drugs?”
The rate of all-cause mortality was 25% higher with naproxen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.80; P = .052).
The rate of gastrointestinal events was 54% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.65; P = .002) and 41% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.71; P = .01) as compared with celecoxib. And the rate of renal events was 64% higher with ibuprofen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.61; P = .004).
In a post hoc analysis of global safety, the rate of serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal events was 28% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.78; P less than .001) and 15% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.87; P = .03) than with celecoxib.
Of note, the findings for the primary endpoint were similar regardless of whether patients were taking low-dose aspirin or not. “There was no interaction with aspirin use,” Dr. Nissen stated. “This was not about the interference of ibuprofen or naproxen with aspirin use.”
Analyses of pain relief using a visual analogue scale showed no clinically meaningful differences, suggesting that the drug doses used were equally analgesic, he said. Stopping of study drug because of lack of efficacy was slightly more common in the celecoxib group.
“We didn’t study the low-dose, intermittent use of these drugs that most of the public engages in, and it’s really important that we crisply communicate that to the public because somebody who takes occasionally ibuprofen or naproxen for a headache should not look at these comparative data in a way that should necessarily influence their behavior. We just don’t know the answer,” cautioned Dr. Nissen, who disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial.
But the findings are relevant for individuals who take over-the-counter NSAIDs at doses exceeding the label, a phenomenon known as dose creep. “We need to reemphasize to the public that the labeled over-the-counter dose is what you should take. You shouldn’t double up or triple up on the drugs because the issue of high-dose therapy, which is what we studied, suggests that there are really potentially important gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular risks,” he said.
NEW ORLEANS – The cardiovascular safety profile of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) celecoxib, a selective inhibitor of COX-2, is no worse than those of the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen, according to a trial reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
The trial, known as PRECISION (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety vs Ibuprofen Or Naproxen) was undertaken after another selective COX-2 inhibitor, rofecoxib (Vioxx), was withdrawn from the market because of associated cardiovascular events. It compared the three drugs among more than 24,000 patients with painful arthritis and elevated cardiovascular risk.
Main results showed that 2%-3% of patients experienced a cardiovascular event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during a follow-up approaching 3 years, regardless of which drug they were assigned to take, with the slight differences falling within predefined margins for noninferiority of celecoxib, investigators reported in a session and related press conference.
Additionally, celecoxib yielded a lower rate of gastrointestinal events when compared with each of the other drugs and a lower rate of renal events when compared with ibuprofen.
“After the withdrawal of rofecoxib, everybody thought they knew the answer, that COX-2 inhibitors had an unfavorable cardiovascular profile,” commented first author Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. “We didn’t find that. And this is the type of study that once again teaches us that if we jump to conclusions about this based on mechanistic considerations, we often make very bad decisions.”
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
Efforts are under way to disseminate the PRECISION findings to rheumatologists and other groups who do much of the NSAID prescribing.
“Any time you have something that has findings like the findings we have, it takes some time to trickle down to the prescribers. It’s going to be our job to communicate both the value and the important limitations of the trial so that people can make informed decisions about which of these drugs to use and in whom,” Dr. Nissen said.
A cautionary view
“The investigators addressed an extremely important question, which is what is the cardiovascular safety of agents that we administer for a general medical condition over the long term,” commented invited discussant Elliott M. Antman, MD, a senior physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and associate dean for Clinical and Translational Research at Harvard Medical School in Boston. “We don’t see a lot of trials like that, but we do need this information.”
“This is not a comparison of drugs; this is a comparison of drug regimens because the investigators were able to increase the dose to control the subjects’ pain,” Dr. Antman elaborated. “And they were able to increase the dose of naproxen and ibuprofen comparatively more than they could for celecoxib,” which was capped at 200 mg per day at most study sites.
Furthermore, only about one-fifth of the patients studied had known heart disease. “We know that the more likely a person is to have atherosclerosis, the more likely they are to experience harm from COX-2 inhibition,” he said. “So given the profile of the patients in this trial, it’s unlikely that we would have been able to detect that signal of harm from COX-2 inhibition, particularly at this dose.”
Dr. Antman also had concerns about the impact on concomitant aspirin therapy (the benefit of which can be affected by nonselective NSAIDs) and about possible differences in the reasons for dropouts that may have biased findings toward celecoxib. “I believe we need more information in order to more completely interpret this trial,” he summarized.
For now, he advised physicians to follow guidance put forth by the American Heart Association: Avoid NSAIDs in patients with known heart disease, and if one must use them, try to use the lowest-risk drug in the lowest dose needed for the shortest period of time.
In the future, “we should actually break out of the mold of assigning everybody in the trial a common phenotype and reporting the average result, but instead take a precision medicine approach, where we look at the polymorphisms in the COX enzyme, look at the polymorphisms in the ability to metabolize these drugs, and actually see if we can be more precise,” Dr. Antman maintained. “Finally, there is an urgent clinical need for the development of novel analgesics and other therapeutics to avoid the cardiovascular risk from all NSAIDs.”
Trial details
Patients were eligible for PRECISION, a Pfizer-funded trial, if they had osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk.
In all, 24,081 patients from 926 centers globally were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with celecoxib, naproxen, or ibuprofen, all of which are now available as generics in the United States.
“Patients were randomized to the FDA-approved doses of these drugs, and they could have their dose increased if they had unrelieved pain up to the maximum allowed by regulatory authorities in the local jurisdictions where the study was done,” Dr. Nissen noted, pointing out that studies initially generating some concern about celecoxib used a supratherapeutic dose of 800 mg daily.
As COX-2 inhibitors are less likely than nonselective NSAIDs to cause ulcers, which might affect compliance and outcomes, all patients additionally received esomeprazole for gastroprotection “to try to level the playing field,” he explained.
The mean treatment duration was 20.3 months, and the mean follow-up duration was 34.1 months, according to data reported at the meeting and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1611593). On average, the daily dose of drug received was 209 mg for celecoxib, 852 mg for naproxen, and 2,045 mg for ibuprofen.
In intention-to-treat analyses, the rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% in the celecoxib group, 2.5% in the naproxen group, and 2.7% in the ibuprofen group. The hazard ratio was 0.93 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.85 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Differences were more marked in the on-treatment population. Here, the rate of the primary outcome was 1.7% in the celecoxib group, 1.8% in the naproxen group, and 1.9% in the ibuprofen group. The HR was 0.90 for celecoxib versus naproxen (P less than .001 for noninferiority) and 0.81 for celecoxib versus ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Secondary outcomes, which tested for superiority, showed that the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 15% higher in the ibuprofen group as compared with the celecoxib group in the intent-to-treat population. The difference translated to a near-significant reduction in risk with the latter (HR, 0.87; P = .06) that appeared greater in the on-treatment population.
However, Dr. Nissen cautioned that he could not state that celecoxib was superior. “Secondary and tertiary endpoints in a clinical trial are hypothesis generating, and they are not considered definitive evidence,” he commented. At the same time, “the FDA is going to have to deal with that because what do they do with labeling? What do they do with over-the-counter access to these various drugs?”
The rate of all-cause mortality was 25% higher with naproxen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.80; P = .052).
The rate of gastrointestinal events was 54% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.65; P = .002) and 41% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.71; P = .01) as compared with celecoxib. And the rate of renal events was 64% higher with ibuprofen than with celecoxib (HR, 0.61; P = .004).
In a post hoc analysis of global safety, the rate of serious cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and renal events was 28% higher with ibuprofen (HR, 0.78; P less than .001) and 15% higher with naproxen (HR, 0.87; P = .03) than with celecoxib.
Of note, the findings for the primary endpoint were similar regardless of whether patients were taking low-dose aspirin or not. “There was no interaction with aspirin use,” Dr. Nissen stated. “This was not about the interference of ibuprofen or naproxen with aspirin use.”
Analyses of pain relief using a visual analogue scale showed no clinically meaningful differences, suggesting that the drug doses used were equally analgesic, he said. Stopping of study drug because of lack of efficacy was slightly more common in the celecoxib group.
“We didn’t study the low-dose, intermittent use of these drugs that most of the public engages in, and it’s really important that we crisply communicate that to the public because somebody who takes occasionally ibuprofen or naproxen for a headache should not look at these comparative data in a way that should necessarily influence their behavior. We just don’t know the answer,” cautioned Dr. Nissen, who disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial.
But the findings are relevant for individuals who take over-the-counter NSAIDs at doses exceeding the label, a phenomenon known as dose creep. “We need to reemphasize to the public that the labeled over-the-counter dose is what you should take. You shouldn’t double up or triple up on the drugs because the issue of high-dose therapy, which is what we studied, suggests that there are really potentially important gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular risks,” he said.
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The rate of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 2.3% with celecoxib, 2.5% with naproxen, and 2.7% with ibuprofen (P less than .001 for noninferiority).
Data source: A randomized, controlled trial among 24,081 patients who required NSAIDs for painful arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk (PRECISION trial).
Disclosures: Dr. Nissen disclosed that he received grant support from Pfizer during the conduct of the trial. The trial was funded by Pfizer.
OA progresses equally with new focal partial- or full-thickness cartilage damage
A small, partial-thickness focal cartilage defect in the tibiofemoral joint compartment has the same impact on osteoarthritis disease progression – defined as new cartilage damage – as does a full-thickness lesion, according to an analysis of data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study.
Ali Guermazi, MD, PhD, of Boston University, and his associates used MRI to show that both full- and partial-thickness small focal defects (less than 1 cm) in the tibiofemoral compartment contributed significantly to the risk of incident cartilage damage 30 months later in other tibiofemoral compartment subregions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.47, for partial-thickness defects and aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.00-3.66, for full-thickness defects) when compared with subregions with no baseline cartilage damage, defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 0-1.
The results indicate that “partial-thickness and full-thickness defects are similarly relevant in regard to cartilage damage development in knee osteoarthritis,” the investigators wrote.
They studied 374 compartments (359 knees), of which 140 knees (39%) had radiographic osteoarthritis defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2 or higher).
“It is potentially important to detect focal cartilage defects early as there are various options for repair of focal cartilage defects ... [and it could be possible to use MRI] to screen persons with early-stage osteoarthritis or those at high risk of osteoarthritis and initiate treatment for focal cartilage defects,” they wrote.
Read the full study in Arthritis & Rheumatology (2016 Oct 27. doi: 10.1002/art.39970).
A small, partial-thickness focal cartilage defect in the tibiofemoral joint compartment has the same impact on osteoarthritis disease progression – defined as new cartilage damage – as does a full-thickness lesion, according to an analysis of data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study.
Ali Guermazi, MD, PhD, of Boston University, and his associates used MRI to show that both full- and partial-thickness small focal defects (less than 1 cm) in the tibiofemoral compartment contributed significantly to the risk of incident cartilage damage 30 months later in other tibiofemoral compartment subregions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.47, for partial-thickness defects and aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.00-3.66, for full-thickness defects) when compared with subregions with no baseline cartilage damage, defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 0-1.
The results indicate that “partial-thickness and full-thickness defects are similarly relevant in regard to cartilage damage development in knee osteoarthritis,” the investigators wrote.
They studied 374 compartments (359 knees), of which 140 knees (39%) had radiographic osteoarthritis defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2 or higher).
“It is potentially important to detect focal cartilage defects early as there are various options for repair of focal cartilage defects ... [and it could be possible to use MRI] to screen persons with early-stage osteoarthritis or those at high risk of osteoarthritis and initiate treatment for focal cartilage defects,” they wrote.
Read the full study in Arthritis & Rheumatology (2016 Oct 27. doi: 10.1002/art.39970).
A small, partial-thickness focal cartilage defect in the tibiofemoral joint compartment has the same impact on osteoarthritis disease progression – defined as new cartilage damage – as does a full-thickness lesion, according to an analysis of data from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study.
Ali Guermazi, MD, PhD, of Boston University, and his associates used MRI to show that both full- and partial-thickness small focal defects (less than 1 cm) in the tibiofemoral compartment contributed significantly to the risk of incident cartilage damage 30 months later in other tibiofemoral compartment subregions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-2.47, for partial-thickness defects and aOR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.00-3.66, for full-thickness defects) when compared with subregions with no baseline cartilage damage, defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 0-1.
The results indicate that “partial-thickness and full-thickness defects are similarly relevant in regard to cartilage damage development in knee osteoarthritis,” the investigators wrote.
They studied 374 compartments (359 knees), of which 140 knees (39%) had radiographic osteoarthritis defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade of 2 or higher).
“It is potentially important to detect focal cartilage defects early as there are various options for repair of focal cartilage defects ... [and it could be possible to use MRI] to screen persons with early-stage osteoarthritis or those at high risk of osteoarthritis and initiate treatment for focal cartilage defects,” they wrote.
Read the full study in Arthritis & Rheumatology (2016 Oct 27. doi: 10.1002/art.39970).
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
ACR 2016 continues big buffet of basic and clinical science sessions
This year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology will feature cutting-edge research and results of studies that directly affect how attendees will manage patients once they are back in the clinical setting, according to both Richard Loeser, MD, program chair of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC), and Gregory Gardner, MD, clinical subchair of the AMPC, who suggested special sessions of interest culled from the more than 450 sessions to be presented.
“It is an exciting time in rheumatology. Basic research is being translated into new therapies before our very eyes. Areas on the program this year that have translational potential include immunometabolism, blocking interleukin-1 (IL-1), T-cell receptor signaling, and meta-analysis of gene expression data. The meeting will also feature trials that refine and advance the management of rheumatologic diseases, including results on studies of new biologics,” Dr. Loeser said.
Hot sessions
Luke O’Neill, MD, will talk about immunometabolism Monday at 7:30 a.m. This session will explore a newly described connection between energy metabolism and the immune system and the link with inflammation.
Charles Dinarello, MD, will give the Philip Hensch Memorial Lecture Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on blocking IL-1 in inflammatory diseases. He will cover a host of diseases from gout to cancer, Dr. Loeser noted.
Another hot topic, T-cell receptor signaling in autoimmune diseases and the development of new therapies, will be discussed by Arthur Weiss, MD, Tuesday morning at 7:30 a.m.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., Peter Lipsky, MD, will tackle big data mining, presenting a meta-analysis of gene expression datasets to identify novel pathways and targets in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“SLE lags behind rheumatoid arthritis in therapeutic advances. A number of trials of biologics have failed in SLE, whereas they have been found effective in rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Clinical slant
Sunday’s Plenary session at 11:00 a.m. will feature several top-rated abstracts, among them results of a phase III study on tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis to be presented by John Stone, MD. “Tocilizumab is a major breakthrough as a steroid-sparing treatment for the most common form of vasculitis that affects older adults,” Dr. Loeser said.
At 2:30 p.m. on Sunday at The Great Debate, Paul Emery, MD, and Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, will tackle the very important clinical topic of “To Taper or Not to Taper? – Biologic DMARDs in Low Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.”
“People aren’t sure what to do. The fear with tapering is rebound, with the disease coming back even more forcefully. There is new evidence to suggest that tapering may be safe under certain circumstances. This session should inform attendees on how to make the decision to taper and on the best way to do it,” Dr. Loeser commented.
The Late-Breaking Abstract session on Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. will feature six clinical trials. Dr. Loeser singled out a study to be presented by Elaine Husni, MD, on “Vascular Safety of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen” in more than 20,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
“The fear is that COX-2 inhibitors have increased cardiovascular risk. The data from this study that will be presented at the meeting should answer the question of whether or not this is true in patients with arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. Candida Fratazzi, MD, will talk about “Emerging Biosimilars in Therapeutic Management,” a subject of great interest since they have the potential to be equally effective and less expensive than current biologics.
Two “bookends” of the meeting will frame the opening and closing. Sunday at 7:30 a.m., the “Year in Review” session will feature the best published studies on rheumatologic diseases from the past year, based on the judgment of two experts. Ingrid Lundberg, MD, will present the best clinical studies and Bruce Cronstein, MD, will present the best basic science studies. Wednesday at 7:30 a.m., John Cush, MD, and Dr. Kavanaugh will present the “Rheumatology Roundup” of the best abstracts and put them into context. “This session is usually quite entertaining,” Dr. Loeser said.
More sessions of clinical import
“In keeping with our meeting theme of fine-tuning our care of patients with rheumatic disease, I want to point out several sessions,” Dr. Gardner said.
Attendees interested in sessions on clinical applicability will have to choose between two different sessions Monday at 4:30 p.m.: one on dermatomyositis, a relatively rare but difficult-to-treat entity, and the other about treatment of the patient with rheumatoid arthritis when the patient is not well and suffering from comorbidities.
Monday at 8:30 a.m., an “Osteoporosis Update” will give listeners perspective on current and future therapies.
Sunday at 2:30 p.m., new guidelines for steroid-induced osteoporosis will be presented.
“Four or five sessions on the Tech Track will show rheumatologists how they can improve their practice by using technology,” Dr. Gardner said. “Several high-quality sessions are important to educators, including ‘Flipped Classroom, Technology, and Reflection’ [Monday at 12:30 p.m.] and ‘Year in Review’ [Sunday at 1:00 p.m.].”
Monday at 11:00 a.m., the Plenary session will feature Workforce Study results on how many rheumatologists will be needed in the year 2030, and in which geographic locations. This session will also include a discussion of the impact of part-time rheumatologists.
“Two sessions I am excited about are ‘Treat to Target in 2016,’ Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., and ‘Rheumatic Diseases in Native Americans,’ Sunday at 11:00 a.m.,” Dr. Gardner noted. “Concurrent abstract sessions throughout the meeting will feature discussions on new biologics, small molecules, and gene therapy.”
This year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology will feature cutting-edge research and results of studies that directly affect how attendees will manage patients once they are back in the clinical setting, according to both Richard Loeser, MD, program chair of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC), and Gregory Gardner, MD, clinical subchair of the AMPC, who suggested special sessions of interest culled from the more than 450 sessions to be presented.
“It is an exciting time in rheumatology. Basic research is being translated into new therapies before our very eyes. Areas on the program this year that have translational potential include immunometabolism, blocking interleukin-1 (IL-1), T-cell receptor signaling, and meta-analysis of gene expression data. The meeting will also feature trials that refine and advance the management of rheumatologic diseases, including results on studies of new biologics,” Dr. Loeser said.
Hot sessions
Luke O’Neill, MD, will talk about immunometabolism Monday at 7:30 a.m. This session will explore a newly described connection between energy metabolism and the immune system and the link with inflammation.
Charles Dinarello, MD, will give the Philip Hensch Memorial Lecture Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on blocking IL-1 in inflammatory diseases. He will cover a host of diseases from gout to cancer, Dr. Loeser noted.
Another hot topic, T-cell receptor signaling in autoimmune diseases and the development of new therapies, will be discussed by Arthur Weiss, MD, Tuesday morning at 7:30 a.m.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., Peter Lipsky, MD, will tackle big data mining, presenting a meta-analysis of gene expression datasets to identify novel pathways and targets in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“SLE lags behind rheumatoid arthritis in therapeutic advances. A number of trials of biologics have failed in SLE, whereas they have been found effective in rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Clinical slant
Sunday’s Plenary session at 11:00 a.m. will feature several top-rated abstracts, among them results of a phase III study on tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis to be presented by John Stone, MD. “Tocilizumab is a major breakthrough as a steroid-sparing treatment for the most common form of vasculitis that affects older adults,” Dr. Loeser said.
At 2:30 p.m. on Sunday at The Great Debate, Paul Emery, MD, and Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, will tackle the very important clinical topic of “To Taper or Not to Taper? – Biologic DMARDs in Low Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.”
“People aren’t sure what to do. The fear with tapering is rebound, with the disease coming back even more forcefully. There is new evidence to suggest that tapering may be safe under certain circumstances. This session should inform attendees on how to make the decision to taper and on the best way to do it,” Dr. Loeser commented.
The Late-Breaking Abstract session on Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. will feature six clinical trials. Dr. Loeser singled out a study to be presented by Elaine Husni, MD, on “Vascular Safety of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen” in more than 20,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
“The fear is that COX-2 inhibitors have increased cardiovascular risk. The data from this study that will be presented at the meeting should answer the question of whether or not this is true in patients with arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. Candida Fratazzi, MD, will talk about “Emerging Biosimilars in Therapeutic Management,” a subject of great interest since they have the potential to be equally effective and less expensive than current biologics.
Two “bookends” of the meeting will frame the opening and closing. Sunday at 7:30 a.m., the “Year in Review” session will feature the best published studies on rheumatologic diseases from the past year, based on the judgment of two experts. Ingrid Lundberg, MD, will present the best clinical studies and Bruce Cronstein, MD, will present the best basic science studies. Wednesday at 7:30 a.m., John Cush, MD, and Dr. Kavanaugh will present the “Rheumatology Roundup” of the best abstracts and put them into context. “This session is usually quite entertaining,” Dr. Loeser said.
More sessions of clinical import
“In keeping with our meeting theme of fine-tuning our care of patients with rheumatic disease, I want to point out several sessions,” Dr. Gardner said.
Attendees interested in sessions on clinical applicability will have to choose between two different sessions Monday at 4:30 p.m.: one on dermatomyositis, a relatively rare but difficult-to-treat entity, and the other about treatment of the patient with rheumatoid arthritis when the patient is not well and suffering from comorbidities.
Monday at 8:30 a.m., an “Osteoporosis Update” will give listeners perspective on current and future therapies.
Sunday at 2:30 p.m., new guidelines for steroid-induced osteoporosis will be presented.
“Four or five sessions on the Tech Track will show rheumatologists how they can improve their practice by using technology,” Dr. Gardner said. “Several high-quality sessions are important to educators, including ‘Flipped Classroom, Technology, and Reflection’ [Monday at 12:30 p.m.] and ‘Year in Review’ [Sunday at 1:00 p.m.].”
Monday at 11:00 a.m., the Plenary session will feature Workforce Study results on how many rheumatologists will be needed in the year 2030, and in which geographic locations. This session will also include a discussion of the impact of part-time rheumatologists.
“Two sessions I am excited about are ‘Treat to Target in 2016,’ Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., and ‘Rheumatic Diseases in Native Americans,’ Sunday at 11:00 a.m.,” Dr. Gardner noted. “Concurrent abstract sessions throughout the meeting will feature discussions on new biologics, small molecules, and gene therapy.”
This year’s annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology will feature cutting-edge research and results of studies that directly affect how attendees will manage patients once they are back in the clinical setting, according to both Richard Loeser, MD, program chair of the Annual Meeting Planning Committee (AMPC), and Gregory Gardner, MD, clinical subchair of the AMPC, who suggested special sessions of interest culled from the more than 450 sessions to be presented.
“It is an exciting time in rheumatology. Basic research is being translated into new therapies before our very eyes. Areas on the program this year that have translational potential include immunometabolism, blocking interleukin-1 (IL-1), T-cell receptor signaling, and meta-analysis of gene expression data. The meeting will also feature trials that refine and advance the management of rheumatologic diseases, including results on studies of new biologics,” Dr. Loeser said.
Hot sessions
Luke O’Neill, MD, will talk about immunometabolism Monday at 7:30 a.m. This session will explore a newly described connection between energy metabolism and the immune system and the link with inflammation.
Charles Dinarello, MD, will give the Philip Hensch Memorial Lecture Sunday at 8:30 a.m. on blocking IL-1 in inflammatory diseases. He will cover a host of diseases from gout to cancer, Dr. Loeser noted.
Another hot topic, T-cell receptor signaling in autoimmune diseases and the development of new therapies, will be discussed by Arthur Weiss, MD, Tuesday morning at 7:30 a.m.
Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., Peter Lipsky, MD, will tackle big data mining, presenting a meta-analysis of gene expression datasets to identify novel pathways and targets in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
“SLE lags behind rheumatoid arthritis in therapeutic advances. A number of trials of biologics have failed in SLE, whereas they have been found effective in rheumatoid arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Clinical slant
Sunday’s Plenary session at 11:00 a.m. will feature several top-rated abstracts, among them results of a phase III study on tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis to be presented by John Stone, MD. “Tocilizumab is a major breakthrough as a steroid-sparing treatment for the most common form of vasculitis that affects older adults,” Dr. Loeser said.
At 2:30 p.m. on Sunday at The Great Debate, Paul Emery, MD, and Arthur Kavanaugh, MD, will tackle the very important clinical topic of “To Taper or Not to Taper? – Biologic DMARDs in Low Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity.”
“People aren’t sure what to do. The fear with tapering is rebound, with the disease coming back even more forcefully. There is new evidence to suggest that tapering may be safe under certain circumstances. This session should inform attendees on how to make the decision to taper and on the best way to do it,” Dr. Loeser commented.
The Late-Breaking Abstract session on Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. will feature six clinical trials. Dr. Loeser singled out a study to be presented by Elaine Husni, MD, on “Vascular Safety of Celecoxib versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen” in more than 20,000 patients with osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis.
“The fear is that COX-2 inhibitors have increased cardiovascular risk. The data from this study that will be presented at the meeting should answer the question of whether or not this is true in patients with arthritis,” Dr. Loeser explained.
Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. Candida Fratazzi, MD, will talk about “Emerging Biosimilars in Therapeutic Management,” a subject of great interest since they have the potential to be equally effective and less expensive than current biologics.
Two “bookends” of the meeting will frame the opening and closing. Sunday at 7:30 a.m., the “Year in Review” session will feature the best published studies on rheumatologic diseases from the past year, based on the judgment of two experts. Ingrid Lundberg, MD, will present the best clinical studies and Bruce Cronstein, MD, will present the best basic science studies. Wednesday at 7:30 a.m., John Cush, MD, and Dr. Kavanaugh will present the “Rheumatology Roundup” of the best abstracts and put them into context. “This session is usually quite entertaining,” Dr. Loeser said.
More sessions of clinical import
“In keeping with our meeting theme of fine-tuning our care of patients with rheumatic disease, I want to point out several sessions,” Dr. Gardner said.
Attendees interested in sessions on clinical applicability will have to choose between two different sessions Monday at 4:30 p.m.: one on dermatomyositis, a relatively rare but difficult-to-treat entity, and the other about treatment of the patient with rheumatoid arthritis when the patient is not well and suffering from comorbidities.
Monday at 8:30 a.m., an “Osteoporosis Update” will give listeners perspective on current and future therapies.
Sunday at 2:30 p.m., new guidelines for steroid-induced osteoporosis will be presented.
“Four or five sessions on the Tech Track will show rheumatologists how they can improve their practice by using technology,” Dr. Gardner said. “Several high-quality sessions are important to educators, including ‘Flipped Classroom, Technology, and Reflection’ [Monday at 12:30 p.m.] and ‘Year in Review’ [Sunday at 1:00 p.m.].”
Monday at 11:00 a.m., the Plenary session will feature Workforce Study results on how many rheumatologists will be needed in the year 2030, and in which geographic locations. This session will also include a discussion of the impact of part-time rheumatologists.
“Two sessions I am excited about are ‘Treat to Target in 2016,’ Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., and ‘Rheumatic Diseases in Native Americans,’ Sunday at 11:00 a.m.,” Dr. Gardner noted. “Concurrent abstract sessions throughout the meeting will feature discussions on new biologics, small molecules, and gene therapy.”
FROM THE ACR ANNUAL MEETING
Anti–nerve growth factor drug has long-term OA pain benefit, but unclear safety
Treatment for a year with the human anti–nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody fulranumab provided pain relief and functional benefits to patients with moderate to severe chronic osteoarthritis knee or hip pain but continued to show signs that the biologic may contribute to rapid progression of disease in a proportion of patients who came to need joint replacement, especially when used concurrently with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
The findings come from the double-blind extension phase of a 12-week, phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study that found significant reduction in the average pain intensity score (P less than or equal to .030) for patients who took fulranumab (Pain. 2013 Oct;154[10]:1910-9). The investigators wanted to determine the long-term safety of the biologic in light of the Food and Drug Administration’s 2010 “clinical hold” on studies of anti–nerve growth factor (anti-NGF) drugs such as fulranumab after concerns emerged that the class of anti-NGF antibodies may be associated with potential treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to joint destruction.
The long-term safety and efficacy results in the extension phase of the study when fulranumab was given as an adjunctive therapy to standard pain therapy revealed higher rates of serious TEAEs, including joint replacement, that were associated with fulranumab. While most of those TEAEs were independently adjudicated to stem from normal progression of OA, one-fifth of the patients on fulranumab who needed joint replacement had rapid progression of OA (RPOA).
Investigators led by Panna Sanga, MD, director of clinical research at Janssen, sought to determine the effects of the anti-NGF biologic as an adjunctive therapy to standard pain therapy over a 92-week period in 401 patients who had completed the 12-week efficacy study, as well as over a 26-week posttreatment follow-up. In the current extension phase of the trial, patients continued on their randomized dose in the original trial of placebo or subcutaneous fulranumab 1 mg or 3 mg every 4 weeks or fulranumab 3 mg, 6 mg, or 10 mg every 8 weeks, but they were permitted to change their concurrent pain medications as clinically needed.
Although the study intended for patients to receive 2 years of treatment (104 weeks), the FDA’s clinical hold meant that the median duration of exposure to fulranumab in the extension study was only 365-393 days across the dosing regimens, the authors explained (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Oct 16 doi: 10.1002/art.39943).
Overall, 421 (90%) of 466 intent-to-treat patients experienced at least one TEAE during both study phases, with similar incidence between those randomized to placebo (n = 69, 88%) and the fulranumab groups (n = 352, 91%).
TEAEs that occurred with a frequency of 10% or more among all fulranumab-treated patients were arthralgia (21%), OA (18%), paresthesia, and upper respiratory tract infection (13% each), while these were arthralgia (15%), OA (14%), and sinusitis (12%) among patients randomized to placebo.
A total of 109 patients (23%) reported serious TEAEs, including 13 (17%) taking placebo and 96 (25%) taking fulranumab. Serious TEAEs that were reported in 5% or more of patients in the fulranumab groups were knee arthroplasty (n = 38, 10%) and hip arthroplasty (n = 26, 7%). Overall, 81 joint replacements occurred in 71 patients (placebo: n = , 11%; fulranumab: n = 63, 89%).
An independent adjudication committee that the study sponsor, Janssen, established after the study was put on hold ruled that the majority of these joint replacements resulted from the normal progression of OA (n = 56, 79%). However, the adjudication committee determined that 15 (21%) patients in the fulranumab treatment groups had RPOA.
The study authors pointed out that the patients with RPOA regularly used NSAIDs and had a prior history of OA in the affected joint. Nevertheless, because of the small number of RPOA cases per treatment group, a drug or dose effect for RPOA could not be evaluated, they said.
“Future studies are warranted to demonstrate whether limiting the use of concomitant chronic NSAIDs and using only lower doses of fulranumab may reduce the risk of RPOA,” they wrote.
The extension study also looked at the longer-term efficacy of fulranumab. Efficacy endpoints on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) scores that looked at changes from baseline showed that in comparison with placebo, dosing regimens of fulranumab 3 mg every 4 weeks and 10 mg every 8 weeks gave “continued effective relief of the pain associated with knee and hip OA as early as week 4 and was maintained up to week 53,” the researchers reported.
These results were further corroborated by improvements in physical function on the WOMAC physical function subscale and PGA scale scores, which suggested “sustained efficacy of long-term fulranumab treatment,” they said.
All authors except one were employees of Janssen.
Treatment for a year with the human anti–nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody fulranumab provided pain relief and functional benefits to patients with moderate to severe chronic osteoarthritis knee or hip pain but continued to show signs that the biologic may contribute to rapid progression of disease in a proportion of patients who came to need joint replacement, especially when used concurrently with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
The findings come from the double-blind extension phase of a 12-week, phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study that found significant reduction in the average pain intensity score (P less than or equal to .030) for patients who took fulranumab (Pain. 2013 Oct;154[10]:1910-9). The investigators wanted to determine the long-term safety of the biologic in light of the Food and Drug Administration’s 2010 “clinical hold” on studies of anti–nerve growth factor (anti-NGF) drugs such as fulranumab after concerns emerged that the class of anti-NGF antibodies may be associated with potential treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to joint destruction.
The long-term safety and efficacy results in the extension phase of the study when fulranumab was given as an adjunctive therapy to standard pain therapy revealed higher rates of serious TEAEs, including joint replacement, that were associated with fulranumab. While most of those TEAEs were independently adjudicated to stem from normal progression of OA, one-fifth of the patients on fulranumab who needed joint replacement had rapid progression of OA (RPOA).
Investigators led by Panna Sanga, MD, director of clinical research at Janssen, sought to determine the effects of the anti-NGF biologic as an adjunctive therapy to standard pain therapy over a 92-week period in 401 patients who had completed the 12-week efficacy study, as well as over a 26-week posttreatment follow-up. In the current extension phase of the trial, patients continued on their randomized dose in the original trial of placebo or subcutaneous fulranumab 1 mg or 3 mg every 4 weeks or fulranumab 3 mg, 6 mg, or 10 mg every 8 weeks, but they were permitted to change their concurrent pain medications as clinically needed.
Although the study intended for patients to receive 2 years of treatment (104 weeks), the FDA’s clinical hold meant that the median duration of exposure to fulranumab in the extension study was only 365-393 days across the dosing regimens, the authors explained (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Oct 16 doi: 10.1002/art.39943).
Overall, 421 (90%) of 466 intent-to-treat patients experienced at least one TEAE during both study phases, with similar incidence between those randomized to placebo (n = 69, 88%) and the fulranumab groups (n = 352, 91%).
TEAEs that occurred with a frequency of 10% or more among all fulranumab-treated patients were arthralgia (21%), OA (18%), paresthesia, and upper respiratory tract infection (13% each), while these were arthralgia (15%), OA (14%), and sinusitis (12%) among patients randomized to placebo.
A total of 109 patients (23%) reported serious TEAEs, including 13 (17%) taking placebo and 96 (25%) taking fulranumab. Serious TEAEs that were reported in 5% or more of patients in the fulranumab groups were knee arthroplasty (n = 38, 10%) and hip arthroplasty (n = 26, 7%). Overall, 81 joint replacements occurred in 71 patients (placebo: n = , 11%; fulranumab: n = 63, 89%).
An independent adjudication committee that the study sponsor, Janssen, established after the study was put on hold ruled that the majority of these joint replacements resulted from the normal progression of OA (n = 56, 79%). However, the adjudication committee determined that 15 (21%) patients in the fulranumab treatment groups had RPOA.
The study authors pointed out that the patients with RPOA regularly used NSAIDs and had a prior history of OA in the affected joint. Nevertheless, because of the small number of RPOA cases per treatment group, a drug or dose effect for RPOA could not be evaluated, they said.
“Future studies are warranted to demonstrate whether limiting the use of concomitant chronic NSAIDs and using only lower doses of fulranumab may reduce the risk of RPOA,” they wrote.
The extension study also looked at the longer-term efficacy of fulranumab. Efficacy endpoints on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) scores that looked at changes from baseline showed that in comparison with placebo, dosing regimens of fulranumab 3 mg every 4 weeks and 10 mg every 8 weeks gave “continued effective relief of the pain associated with knee and hip OA as early as week 4 and was maintained up to week 53,” the researchers reported.
These results were further corroborated by improvements in physical function on the WOMAC physical function subscale and PGA scale scores, which suggested “sustained efficacy of long-term fulranumab treatment,” they said.
All authors except one were employees of Janssen.
Treatment for a year with the human anti–nerve growth factor monoclonal antibody fulranumab provided pain relief and functional benefits to patients with moderate to severe chronic osteoarthritis knee or hip pain but continued to show signs that the biologic may contribute to rapid progression of disease in a proportion of patients who came to need joint replacement, especially when used concurrently with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
The findings come from the double-blind extension phase of a 12-week, phase II, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized study that found significant reduction in the average pain intensity score (P less than or equal to .030) for patients who took fulranumab (Pain. 2013 Oct;154[10]:1910-9). The investigators wanted to determine the long-term safety of the biologic in light of the Food and Drug Administration’s 2010 “clinical hold” on studies of anti–nerve growth factor (anti-NGF) drugs such as fulranumab after concerns emerged that the class of anti-NGF antibodies may be associated with potential treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to joint destruction.
The long-term safety and efficacy results in the extension phase of the study when fulranumab was given as an adjunctive therapy to standard pain therapy revealed higher rates of serious TEAEs, including joint replacement, that were associated with fulranumab. While most of those TEAEs were independently adjudicated to stem from normal progression of OA, one-fifth of the patients on fulranumab who needed joint replacement had rapid progression of OA (RPOA).
Investigators led by Panna Sanga, MD, director of clinical research at Janssen, sought to determine the effects of the anti-NGF biologic as an adjunctive therapy to standard pain therapy over a 92-week period in 401 patients who had completed the 12-week efficacy study, as well as over a 26-week posttreatment follow-up. In the current extension phase of the trial, patients continued on their randomized dose in the original trial of placebo or subcutaneous fulranumab 1 mg or 3 mg every 4 weeks or fulranumab 3 mg, 6 mg, or 10 mg every 8 weeks, but they were permitted to change their concurrent pain medications as clinically needed.
Although the study intended for patients to receive 2 years of treatment (104 weeks), the FDA’s clinical hold meant that the median duration of exposure to fulranumab in the extension study was only 365-393 days across the dosing regimens, the authors explained (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Oct 16 doi: 10.1002/art.39943).
Overall, 421 (90%) of 466 intent-to-treat patients experienced at least one TEAE during both study phases, with similar incidence between those randomized to placebo (n = 69, 88%) and the fulranumab groups (n = 352, 91%).
TEAEs that occurred with a frequency of 10% or more among all fulranumab-treated patients were arthralgia (21%), OA (18%), paresthesia, and upper respiratory tract infection (13% each), while these were arthralgia (15%), OA (14%), and sinusitis (12%) among patients randomized to placebo.
A total of 109 patients (23%) reported serious TEAEs, including 13 (17%) taking placebo and 96 (25%) taking fulranumab. Serious TEAEs that were reported in 5% or more of patients in the fulranumab groups were knee arthroplasty (n = 38, 10%) and hip arthroplasty (n = 26, 7%). Overall, 81 joint replacements occurred in 71 patients (placebo: n = , 11%; fulranumab: n = 63, 89%).
An independent adjudication committee that the study sponsor, Janssen, established after the study was put on hold ruled that the majority of these joint replacements resulted from the normal progression of OA (n = 56, 79%). However, the adjudication committee determined that 15 (21%) patients in the fulranumab treatment groups had RPOA.
The study authors pointed out that the patients with RPOA regularly used NSAIDs and had a prior history of OA in the affected joint. Nevertheless, because of the small number of RPOA cases per treatment group, a drug or dose effect for RPOA could not be evaluated, they said.
“Future studies are warranted to demonstrate whether limiting the use of concomitant chronic NSAIDs and using only lower doses of fulranumab may reduce the risk of RPOA,” they wrote.
The extension study also looked at the longer-term efficacy of fulranumab. Efficacy endpoints on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain and physical function subscales and the Patient Global Assessment (PGA) scores that looked at changes from baseline showed that in comparison with placebo, dosing regimens of fulranumab 3 mg every 4 weeks and 10 mg every 8 weeks gave “continued effective relief of the pain associated with knee and hip OA as early as week 4 and was maintained up to week 53,” the researchers reported.
These results were further corroborated by improvements in physical function on the WOMAC physical function subscale and PGA scale scores, which suggested “sustained efficacy of long-term fulranumab treatment,” they said.
All authors except one were employees of Janssen.
FROM ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY
Key clinical point:
Major finding: A total of 81 joint replacements occurred in 71 patients (placebo: n = 8, 11%; fulranumab: n = 63, 89%).
Data source: Phase II randomized double-blind extension study of 401 patients with moderate to severe chronic OA knee or hip pain.
Disclosures: All authors except one were employees of Janssen, which funded the study.
Beta-blockers reduce pain, opioid use in osteoarthritis
Beta-blockers were associated with less pain and lower opioid consumption in a case-control study of nearly 900 patients with osteoarthritis, Ana Valdes, PhD, and her colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.
There is some mechanistic support for the association, which has been observed in other pain disorders, noted Dr. Valdes of the University of Nottingham (England) and her coauthors (Arthritis Care Res. 2016 Oct 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.23091).
The cohort was drawn from the Genetics of Osteoarthritis and Lifestyle (GOAL) study. Dr. Valdes and her associates examined the effect of beta-blocker use on pain as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score in 873 patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. All were already taking at least one antihypertensive drug. The presence of “joint pain” was defined as a WOMAC score of less than 75. The multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, knee or hip OA, history of other joint replacement, anxiety, and depression. Patients were a mean of about 69 years old; 347 were taking a beta-blocker.
After adjusting for the confounders, those taking the drugs were 32% less likely to report joint pain (odds ratio, 0.68). The effect seemed time bound: For every year on a beta-blocker, patients had a 4% decline in the risk of joint pain. The benefit was of similar magnitude regardless of whether patients had joint replacement. Beta-blockers also reduced the rate of opioid prescription by 27% (OR, 0.73), the authors noted.
They also found a similar benefit to the use of adrenergic blockers in general, but not with alpha-blockers. No other class of antihypertensive drugs showed any association with joint pain or with prescription of analgesics.
“These results might raise some future research questions for the treatment of hypertension in individuals with joint pain. Current guidance [in both the United Kingdom and United States] state that beta-blockers should no longer be preferred as an initial therapy for routine hypertension and should be used only when there is a compelling indication other than blood pressure control (for example, angina or chronic heart failure). If confirmed in randomized controlled trials, the data presented here could suggest that, in people with chronic joint pain beta-blockers may be considered as part of their antihypertensive regimen.”
The study was funded by the Arthritis Research UK Pain Centre, the European League Against Rheumatism, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Valdes had no financial disclosure, but one coauthor reported owning AstraZeneca stock.
Beta-blockers were associated with less pain and lower opioid consumption in a case-control study of nearly 900 patients with osteoarthritis, Ana Valdes, PhD, and her colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.
There is some mechanistic support for the association, which has been observed in other pain disorders, noted Dr. Valdes of the University of Nottingham (England) and her coauthors (Arthritis Care Res. 2016 Oct 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.23091).
The cohort was drawn from the Genetics of Osteoarthritis and Lifestyle (GOAL) study. Dr. Valdes and her associates examined the effect of beta-blocker use on pain as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score in 873 patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. All were already taking at least one antihypertensive drug. The presence of “joint pain” was defined as a WOMAC score of less than 75. The multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, knee or hip OA, history of other joint replacement, anxiety, and depression. Patients were a mean of about 69 years old; 347 were taking a beta-blocker.
After adjusting for the confounders, those taking the drugs were 32% less likely to report joint pain (odds ratio, 0.68). The effect seemed time bound: For every year on a beta-blocker, patients had a 4% decline in the risk of joint pain. The benefit was of similar magnitude regardless of whether patients had joint replacement. Beta-blockers also reduced the rate of opioid prescription by 27% (OR, 0.73), the authors noted.
They also found a similar benefit to the use of adrenergic blockers in general, but not with alpha-blockers. No other class of antihypertensive drugs showed any association with joint pain or with prescription of analgesics.
“These results might raise some future research questions for the treatment of hypertension in individuals with joint pain. Current guidance [in both the United Kingdom and United States] state that beta-blockers should no longer be preferred as an initial therapy for routine hypertension and should be used only when there is a compelling indication other than blood pressure control (for example, angina or chronic heart failure). If confirmed in randomized controlled trials, the data presented here could suggest that, in people with chronic joint pain beta-blockers may be considered as part of their antihypertensive regimen.”
The study was funded by the Arthritis Research UK Pain Centre, the European League Against Rheumatism, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Valdes had no financial disclosure, but one coauthor reported owning AstraZeneca stock.
Beta-blockers were associated with less pain and lower opioid consumption in a case-control study of nearly 900 patients with osteoarthritis, Ana Valdes, PhD, and her colleagues reported in Arthritis Care & Research.
There is some mechanistic support for the association, which has been observed in other pain disorders, noted Dr. Valdes of the University of Nottingham (England) and her coauthors (Arthritis Care Res. 2016 Oct 1. doi: 10.1002/acr.23091).
The cohort was drawn from the Genetics of Osteoarthritis and Lifestyle (GOAL) study. Dr. Valdes and her associates examined the effect of beta-blocker use on pain as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score in 873 patients with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. All were already taking at least one antihypertensive drug. The presence of “joint pain” was defined as a WOMAC score of less than 75. The multivariate analysis adjusted for age, gender, body mass index, knee or hip OA, history of other joint replacement, anxiety, and depression. Patients were a mean of about 69 years old; 347 were taking a beta-blocker.
After adjusting for the confounders, those taking the drugs were 32% less likely to report joint pain (odds ratio, 0.68). The effect seemed time bound: For every year on a beta-blocker, patients had a 4% decline in the risk of joint pain. The benefit was of similar magnitude regardless of whether patients had joint replacement. Beta-blockers also reduced the rate of opioid prescription by 27% (OR, 0.73), the authors noted.
They also found a similar benefit to the use of adrenergic blockers in general, but not with alpha-blockers. No other class of antihypertensive drugs showed any association with joint pain or with prescription of analgesics.
“These results might raise some future research questions for the treatment of hypertension in individuals with joint pain. Current guidance [in both the United Kingdom and United States] state that beta-blockers should no longer be preferred as an initial therapy for routine hypertension and should be used only when there is a compelling indication other than blood pressure control (for example, angina or chronic heart failure). If confirmed in randomized controlled trials, the data presented here could suggest that, in people with chronic joint pain beta-blockers may be considered as part of their antihypertensive regimen.”
The study was funded by the Arthritis Research UK Pain Centre, the European League Against Rheumatism, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Valdes had no financial disclosure, but one coauthor reported owning AstraZeneca stock.
FROM ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The likelihood of joint pain was 32% and opioid use 27% lower in patients taking beta-blockers, compared with those not taking them.
Data source: The case-control study comprised 873 patients.
Disclosures: The study was funded by the Arthritis Research UK Pain Centre, the European League Against Rheumatism, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Valdes had no financial disclosure, but one coauthor reported owning AstraZeneca stock.
Severe joint pain in adults with arthritis continues to rise
The prevalence of severe joint pain among adults with diagnosed arthritis continues to increase, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in the Oct. 7 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In 2014, more than one-fourth of adults with arthritis had severe joint pain. That is about 14.6 million Americans with severe joint pain, a significant increase from 2002 when there were an estimated 10.5 million adults with severe joint pain, according to Kamil E. Barbour, PhD, and his associates from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (MMWR. 2016 Oct 7;65[39]:1052-6).
Severe joint pain was also more prevalent among patients with overall fair or poor health who were obese or had heart disease, diabetes, or serious psychological distress, the investigators reported.
The investigators defined people with arthritis as those who had “been told by a doctor or other health professional” that they have some form of arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. Severe joint pain was defined as a response of 7 or higher on a scale of 0-10 for rating joint pain on average over the past 30 days.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services released its National Pain Strategy, the nation’s first broad, federal effort aimed at developing strategies to reduce the burden of pain among Americans. The initiatives major objectives are to take steps to reduce barriers to pain care, and to increase patient knowledge of treatment options and risks, Dr. Barbour and his associates wrote.
“Health care providers and public health practitioners can begin to implement the recommendations [from the National Pain Strategy] and improve pain care among adults with arthritis and [severe joint pain] by prioritizing self-management education and appropriate physical activity interventions as effective nonpharmacologic ways to reduce pain and improve health outcomes,” the researchers added.
[email protected]
On Twitter @jessnicolecraig
The prevalence of severe joint pain among adults with diagnosed arthritis continues to increase, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in the Oct. 7 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In 2014, more than one-fourth of adults with arthritis had severe joint pain. That is about 14.6 million Americans with severe joint pain, a significant increase from 2002 when there were an estimated 10.5 million adults with severe joint pain, according to Kamil E. Barbour, PhD, and his associates from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (MMWR. 2016 Oct 7;65[39]:1052-6).
Severe joint pain was also more prevalent among patients with overall fair or poor health who were obese or had heart disease, diabetes, or serious psychological distress, the investigators reported.
The investigators defined people with arthritis as those who had “been told by a doctor or other health professional” that they have some form of arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. Severe joint pain was defined as a response of 7 or higher on a scale of 0-10 for rating joint pain on average over the past 30 days.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services released its National Pain Strategy, the nation’s first broad, federal effort aimed at developing strategies to reduce the burden of pain among Americans. The initiatives major objectives are to take steps to reduce barriers to pain care, and to increase patient knowledge of treatment options and risks, Dr. Barbour and his associates wrote.
“Health care providers and public health practitioners can begin to implement the recommendations [from the National Pain Strategy] and improve pain care among adults with arthritis and [severe joint pain] by prioritizing self-management education and appropriate physical activity interventions as effective nonpharmacologic ways to reduce pain and improve health outcomes,” the researchers added.
[email protected]
On Twitter @jessnicolecraig
The prevalence of severe joint pain among adults with diagnosed arthritis continues to increase, researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported in the Oct. 7 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
In 2014, more than one-fourth of adults with arthritis had severe joint pain. That is about 14.6 million Americans with severe joint pain, a significant increase from 2002 when there were an estimated 10.5 million adults with severe joint pain, according to Kamil E. Barbour, PhD, and his associates from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (MMWR. 2016 Oct 7;65[39]:1052-6).
Severe joint pain was also more prevalent among patients with overall fair or poor health who were obese or had heart disease, diabetes, or serious psychological distress, the investigators reported.
The investigators defined people with arthritis as those who had “been told by a doctor or other health professional” that they have some form of arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, or fibromyalgia. Severe joint pain was defined as a response of 7 or higher on a scale of 0-10 for rating joint pain on average over the past 30 days.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services released its National Pain Strategy, the nation’s first broad, federal effort aimed at developing strategies to reduce the burden of pain among Americans. The initiatives major objectives are to take steps to reduce barriers to pain care, and to increase patient knowledge of treatment options and risks, Dr. Barbour and his associates wrote.
“Health care providers and public health practitioners can begin to implement the recommendations [from the National Pain Strategy] and improve pain care among adults with arthritis and [severe joint pain] by prioritizing self-management education and appropriate physical activity interventions as effective nonpharmacologic ways to reduce pain and improve health outcomes,” the researchers added.
[email protected]
On Twitter @jessnicolecraig
FROM MMWR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The estimated number of U.S. adults with severe joint pain rose from 10.5 million in 2002 to 14.6 million in 2014.
Data source: Analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey in 2002, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2014.
Disclosures: The authors are federal government employees and have no financial disclosures.