Osteoarthritis

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

People who develop knee pain associated with osteoarthritis often subsequently develop pain in other joints, according to a study of two observational, community-based cohorts that could not discern any pattern of new pain sites.

In the “first investigation of the association of knee pain with pain in multiple other sites,” David T. Felson, MD, of Boston University and his colleagues reported that the regions where pain developed after first appearing in the knee varied from person to person and occurred in both upper and lower extremities, which goes against the hypothesis that adjacent joints are most often affected by knee pain.

The study involved patients from the MOST (Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study) trial, including 281 with knee pain at the index visit (168 unilaterally) and 852 without, as well as patients from OAI (the Osteoarthritis Initiative), including 412 with knee pain at the index visit (241 unilaterally), and 1,941 without. The investigators assessed the patients’ data for 14 total joints outside of the knees: 2 each of feet, ankles, hips, hands, wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Sep 2. doi: 10.1002/art.39848).

Patients with new-onset knee pain at the index visit reported a mean of 2.3 painful joints outside the knee, compared with a significantly lower number of 1.3 reported by those without knee pain. The mean number of nonknee joints with pain was higher among patients with bilateral knee pain, compared with unilateral knee pain. The percentage of patients who reported pain outside the knee rose with the number of painful knees: 80% for two, 64% for one, and 50% for none.

The patients who developed new unilateral knee pain at the index visit also experienced an increase in prevalent joint pain in multiple joints in upper- and lower-extremity sites. In particular, the investigators noted that ipsilateral prevalent hip joint pain, which they characterized as pain in the groin or front of the thigh, was more than twice as likely to occur among those with new unilateral knee pain at the index visit, but the odds for contralateral hip joint pain did not reach statistical significance. The comparisons were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, depression at the index visit, study (MOST or OAI), and count of painful upper and lower limb joints at the index visit (excluding knees).

When examining only patients with new-onset joint pain outside of the knee, the odds of patients with new knee pain to later develop new-onset joint pain outside the knee were 30% higher than for those without knee pain. Patients with new knee pain had a mean 2.6 new painful joints out of 12.1 eligible joints, compared with 2.0 new painful joints in those without knee pain out of 12.7 eligible joints. (Joint regions with prevalent symptoms at the index visit were excluded as incident painful sites.) Patients with knee pain also had a consistently higher rate of new-onset pain in nonknee joints when compared with patients without knee pain in at least half of the follow-up visits over the course of the MOST and OAI studies. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the association between knee pain and subsequent pain in other joints was not driven by the inclusion of patients with widespread pain.

“There was no clear-cut predilection for pain in any specific lower-extremity joint region,” the investigators wrote.

The investigators noted that other researchers have suggested that patients with knee pain may be at higher risk for lower-extremity joint pain because of changes to their gait that gradually cause damage to other joints, but evidence in this study doesn’t “necessarily support the argument that in persons with knee pain, aberrant loading by altered movement patterns induces pain in only nearby joints. Our findings suggest that the sites affected are more than just hip and ankle and that there is no special predilection for pain in these locations.”

While the investigators cannot differentiate underlying mechanisms for their study’s finding of multiple co-occurring sites of joint pain in people with new-onset knee pain, they suggested that it “supports either a predilection for osteoarthritic changes at multiple joint sites and/or raises the possibility that nervous system–driven pain sensitization increases the risk not only of widespread pain but even of regional pain. Since symptomatic OA is unusual in some of these painful sites (e.g., elbow, shoulder, ankle), pain sensitization would seem a more likely explanation.”

Some of the study’s limitations described by the investigators included the uncertainty surrounding whether new-onset knee pain was truly new onset or whether it was a reoccurrence, and also the fact that most of the people in the two cohorts had multiple sites of joint pain at both the baseline and the index visit and there were too few people with no sites of pain outside the knee to carry out subanalyses in that group, which “speaks to the high prevalence of multiple joint pains in older adult cohorts.”

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. The authors had no disclosures to report.

[email protected]

Adults with knee osteoarthritis and at least one comorbid condition significantly improved their physical function after a comorbidity-targeted 20-week exercise program in a randomized, controlled trial of 126 patients.

“Guidelines on knee osteoarthritis do not provide guidance on tailoring exercise therapy to the presence of comorbidity,” wrote Mariëtte de Rooij of the Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center and her colleagues. “In clinical practice, comorbidity is a frequent reason to exclude patients from exercise therapy,” they noted.

©decade3d/Thinkstock

The researchers randomized 126 adults with knee osteoarthritis and at least one of the following comorbidities: coronary disease, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or obesity (body mass index 30 kg/m² or higher). The treatment group participated in a 20-week exercise program adapted to their comorbidities and physical limitations. Each program included aerobic exercise and strength training in two 30- to 60-minute sessions per week, supervised by a physical therapist. The control group received their current medical care for knee osteoarthritis and were placed on a waiting list for exercise therapy. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between the two groups, with mean ages of about 63 years, 81% with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, and a mean duration of symptoms of about 9 years. Patients with absolute contraindications for exercise therapy (such as myocardial infarction within the past 3 months) were excluded (Arthritis Care Res. 2016 Aug 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.23013).

In a follow-up visit 3 months after the end of the exercise program, patients in the treatment group averaged an 11.6-point (33%) improvement on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale and a 59-meter (15%) improvement on the 6-minute walk test, compared with controls.

In addition, patients in the treatment group reported a 1.7-point (27%) improvement on the Numeric Rating Scale for knee pain severity. No serious adverse events related to the exercise therapy were reported.

The exercise programs were adapted to the patients by adjusting the frequency, intensity, timing, and type (FITT) of exercises, educating patients about the impact of exercise on their comorbidities, and by coaching patients to ease fears of exertion or to encourage weight loss.

“This is the first study showing that tailored exercise therapy is efficacious in improving physical functioning and is safe in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe comorbidities,” the researchers said. The findings were limited by several factors including a small sample size that made it impossible to analyze the impact of exercise on any specific comorbidity, and the lack of cost-effectiveness data. However, “the results should encourage clinicians to consider exercise therapy as a treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis, even in the presence of severe comorbidity,” the researchers added.

The trial was supported by the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with knee osteoarthritis and at least one comorbid condition significantly improved their physical function after a comorbidity-targeted 20-week exercise program in a randomized, controlled trial of 126 patients.

“Guidelines on knee osteoarthritis do not provide guidance on tailoring exercise therapy to the presence of comorbidity,” wrote Mariëtte de Rooij of the Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center and her colleagues. “In clinical practice, comorbidity is a frequent reason to exclude patients from exercise therapy,” they noted.

©decade3d/Thinkstock

The researchers randomized 126 adults with knee osteoarthritis and at least one of the following comorbidities: coronary disease, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or obesity (body mass index 30 kg/m² or higher). The treatment group participated in a 20-week exercise program adapted to their comorbidities and physical limitations. Each program included aerobic exercise and strength training in two 30- to 60-minute sessions per week, supervised by a physical therapist. The control group received their current medical care for knee osteoarthritis and were placed on a waiting list for exercise therapy. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between the two groups, with mean ages of about 63 years, 81% with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, and a mean duration of symptoms of about 9 years. Patients with absolute contraindications for exercise therapy (such as myocardial infarction within the past 3 months) were excluded (Arthritis Care Res. 2016 Aug 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.23013).

In a follow-up visit 3 months after the end of the exercise program, patients in the treatment group averaged an 11.6-point (33%) improvement on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale and a 59-meter (15%) improvement on the 6-minute walk test, compared with controls.

In addition, patients in the treatment group reported a 1.7-point (27%) improvement on the Numeric Rating Scale for knee pain severity. No serious adverse events related to the exercise therapy were reported.

The exercise programs were adapted to the patients by adjusting the frequency, intensity, timing, and type (FITT) of exercises, educating patients about the impact of exercise on their comorbidities, and by coaching patients to ease fears of exertion or to encourage weight loss.

“This is the first study showing that tailored exercise therapy is efficacious in improving physical functioning and is safe in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe comorbidities,” the researchers said. The findings were limited by several factors including a small sample size that made it impossible to analyze the impact of exercise on any specific comorbidity, and the lack of cost-effectiveness data. However, “the results should encourage clinicians to consider exercise therapy as a treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis, even in the presence of severe comorbidity,” the researchers added.

The trial was supported by the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Adults with knee osteoarthritis and at least one comorbid condition significantly improved their physical function after a comorbidity-targeted 20-week exercise program in a randomized, controlled trial of 126 patients.

“Guidelines on knee osteoarthritis do not provide guidance on tailoring exercise therapy to the presence of comorbidity,” wrote Mariëtte de Rooij of the Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center and her colleagues. “In clinical practice, comorbidity is a frequent reason to exclude patients from exercise therapy,” they noted.

©decade3d/Thinkstock

The researchers randomized 126 adults with knee osteoarthritis and at least one of the following comorbidities: coronary disease, heart failure, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or obesity (body mass index 30 kg/m² or higher). The treatment group participated in a 20-week exercise program adapted to their comorbidities and physical limitations. Each program included aerobic exercise and strength training in two 30- to 60-minute sessions per week, supervised by a physical therapist. The control group received their current medical care for knee osteoarthritis and were placed on a waiting list for exercise therapy. Baseline characteristics and demographics were similar between the two groups, with mean ages of about 63 years, 81% with bilateral knee osteoarthritis, and a mean duration of symptoms of about 9 years. Patients with absolute contraindications for exercise therapy (such as myocardial infarction within the past 3 months) were excluded (Arthritis Care Res. 2016 Aug 26. doi: 10.1002/acr.23013).

In a follow-up visit 3 months after the end of the exercise program, patients in the treatment group averaged an 11.6-point (33%) improvement on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function subscale and a 59-meter (15%) improvement on the 6-minute walk test, compared with controls.

In addition, patients in the treatment group reported a 1.7-point (27%) improvement on the Numeric Rating Scale for knee pain severity. No serious adverse events related to the exercise therapy were reported.

The exercise programs were adapted to the patients by adjusting the frequency, intensity, timing, and type (FITT) of exercises, educating patients about the impact of exercise on their comorbidities, and by coaching patients to ease fears of exertion or to encourage weight loss.

“This is the first study showing that tailored exercise therapy is efficacious in improving physical functioning and is safe in patients with knee osteoarthritis and severe comorbidities,” the researchers said. The findings were limited by several factors including a small sample size that made it impossible to analyze the impact of exercise on any specific comorbidity, and the lack of cost-effectiveness data. However, “the results should encourage clinicians to consider exercise therapy as a treatment option for patients with knee osteoarthritis, even in the presence of severe comorbidity,” the researchers added.

The trial was supported by the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy and Merck Sharp & Dohme. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Labeling for prescription opioid pain or cough medicines and benzodiazepines will now carry the strongest available warning regarding serious side effects and death associated with their combined use, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new boxed warnings urge health care professionals to limit prescribing opioid pain medicines with benzodiazepines or other central nervous system depressants only to patients for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate, and to limit dosages and treatment duration to the minimum possible while achieving the desired clinical effect.

“First, the FDA is requiring companies to update their product labeling for ... benzodiazepines and opioids to include possible harms when they are used together. Second, we are requiring new or updated medication guides for these drugs reflecting those same warnings,” said Doug Throckmorton, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during a telebriefing.

Opioids will include a warning regarding prescribing with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants, including alcohol. Benzodiazepines will include a warning regarding prescribing with opioids.

In addition, the FDA has issued a safety communication to “warn the public about the serious risk of taking these products together to help make doctors more cautious and patients better informed,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

The action comes amid ongoing efforts to address an epidemic of opioid addiction across the United States, and in response to a first-of-its-kind “citizen petition” calling for the boxed warnings.

A coalition of health officials from multiple cities, states, and U.S. territories initiated that petition in February, and thousands of concerned community members started an additional online petition. Those petitions were in response to both the increasing combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines and a concomitant increase in the risk of serious side effects and deaths associated with their combined use, according to Baltimore City Health Commissioner Leana Wen, MD.

As an emergency physician, Dr. Wen said that she has seen firsthand the alarming trends; one in three unintentional overdose deaths from prescribed opioids also involve benzodiazepines, she noted.

“In my state of Maryland in 2014, benzodiazepines were associated with 19% of prescription opioid deaths, and 59% of benzodiazepine-associated deaths involved prescription opioids. We also noted the growing biological evidence that combining these medications caused sleepiness and slowed breathing, increasing the likelihood of a fatal overdose,” she said.

Dr. Throckmorton further noted that emergency department visits and deaths involving patients prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines have increased significantly over time. From 2004 to 2011, the rate of nonmedical use–related emergency department visits increased significantly each year, and overdose deaths involving both drug classes during that period nearly tripled on an annual basis.

“Communities have been seeing this trend for some time, but ultimately we needed data in order to act today,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said during the telebriefing.

The current action is just “one part of a larger effort to address this epidemic.

“We remain focused and deeply committed to contributing to the comprehensive effort to address the opioid epidemic,” Dr. Califf said. The FDA “will continue to monitor these products carefully and take additional actions as needed, and will share updates with the public as necessary as we work to address this public health crisis.”

Dr. Califf noted that the current action is part of the FDA’s Opioids Action Plan, which is “importantly not meant just to cover illicit or abusive use of opioids.”

“So, you’ll be hearing a lot more from us, because this is a national crisis that is not going away. We’re making progress on the prescribing, and we’re seeing a reduction in the use of opioids now,” he noted. “But we’re still seeing many overdoses.

“This is a continuum, and we’ll continue to try to do everything we can to address the epidemic,” Dr. Califf concluded.

[email protected]

Labeling for prescription opioid pain or cough medicines and benzodiazepines will now carry the strongest available warning regarding serious side effects and death associated with their combined use, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new boxed warnings urge health care professionals to limit prescribing opioid pain medicines with benzodiazepines or other central nervous system depressants only to patients for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate, and to limit dosages and treatment duration to the minimum possible while achieving the desired clinical effect.

“First, the FDA is requiring companies to update their product labeling for ... benzodiazepines and opioids to include possible harms when they are used together. Second, we are requiring new or updated medication guides for these drugs reflecting those same warnings,” said Doug Throckmorton, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during a telebriefing.

Opioids will include a warning regarding prescribing with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants, including alcohol. Benzodiazepines will include a warning regarding prescribing with opioids.

In addition, the FDA has issued a safety communication to “warn the public about the serious risk of taking these products together to help make doctors more cautious and patients better informed,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

The action comes amid ongoing efforts to address an epidemic of opioid addiction across the United States, and in response to a first-of-its-kind “citizen petition” calling for the boxed warnings.

A coalition of health officials from multiple cities, states, and U.S. territories initiated that petition in February, and thousands of concerned community members started an additional online petition. Those petitions were in response to both the increasing combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines and a concomitant increase in the risk of serious side effects and deaths associated with their combined use, according to Baltimore City Health Commissioner Leana Wen, MD.

As an emergency physician, Dr. Wen said that she has seen firsthand the alarming trends; one in three unintentional overdose deaths from prescribed opioids also involve benzodiazepines, she noted.

“In my state of Maryland in 2014, benzodiazepines were associated with 19% of prescription opioid deaths, and 59% of benzodiazepine-associated deaths involved prescription opioids. We also noted the growing biological evidence that combining these medications caused sleepiness and slowed breathing, increasing the likelihood of a fatal overdose,” she said.

Dr. Throckmorton further noted that emergency department visits and deaths involving patients prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines have increased significantly over time. From 2004 to 2011, the rate of nonmedical use–related emergency department visits increased significantly each year, and overdose deaths involving both drug classes during that period nearly tripled on an annual basis.

“Communities have been seeing this trend for some time, but ultimately we needed data in order to act today,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said during the telebriefing.

The current action is just “one part of a larger effort to address this epidemic.

“We remain focused and deeply committed to contributing to the comprehensive effort to address the opioid epidemic,” Dr. Califf said. The FDA “will continue to monitor these products carefully and take additional actions as needed, and will share updates with the public as necessary as we work to address this public health crisis.”

Dr. Califf noted that the current action is part of the FDA’s Opioids Action Plan, which is “importantly not meant just to cover illicit or abusive use of opioids.”

“So, you’ll be hearing a lot more from us, because this is a national crisis that is not going away. We’re making progress on the prescribing, and we’re seeing a reduction in the use of opioids now,” he noted. “But we’re still seeing many overdoses.

“This is a continuum, and we’ll continue to try to do everything we can to address the epidemic,” Dr. Califf concluded.

[email protected]

Labeling for prescription opioid pain or cough medicines and benzodiazepines will now carry the strongest available warning regarding serious side effects and death associated with their combined use, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The new boxed warnings urge health care professionals to limit prescribing opioid pain medicines with benzodiazepines or other central nervous system depressants only to patients for whom alternative treatment options are inadequate, and to limit dosages and treatment duration to the minimum possible while achieving the desired clinical effect.

“First, the FDA is requiring companies to update their product labeling for ... benzodiazepines and opioids to include possible harms when they are used together. Second, we are requiring new or updated medication guides for these drugs reflecting those same warnings,” said Doug Throckmorton, MD, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during a telebriefing.

Opioids will include a warning regarding prescribing with benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants, including alcohol. Benzodiazepines will include a warning regarding prescribing with opioids.

In addition, the FDA has issued a safety communication to “warn the public about the serious risk of taking these products together to help make doctors more cautious and patients better informed,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

The action comes amid ongoing efforts to address an epidemic of opioid addiction across the United States, and in response to a first-of-its-kind “citizen petition” calling for the boxed warnings.

A coalition of health officials from multiple cities, states, and U.S. territories initiated that petition in February, and thousands of concerned community members started an additional online petition. Those petitions were in response to both the increasing combined use of opioids and benzodiazepines and a concomitant increase in the risk of serious side effects and deaths associated with their combined use, according to Baltimore City Health Commissioner Leana Wen, MD.

As an emergency physician, Dr. Wen said that she has seen firsthand the alarming trends; one in three unintentional overdose deaths from prescribed opioids also involve benzodiazepines, she noted.

“In my state of Maryland in 2014, benzodiazepines were associated with 19% of prescription opioid deaths, and 59% of benzodiazepine-associated deaths involved prescription opioids. We also noted the growing biological evidence that combining these medications caused sleepiness and slowed breathing, increasing the likelihood of a fatal overdose,” she said.

Dr. Throckmorton further noted that emergency department visits and deaths involving patients prescribed both opioids and benzodiazepines have increased significantly over time. From 2004 to 2011, the rate of nonmedical use–related emergency department visits increased significantly each year, and overdose deaths involving both drug classes during that period nearly tripled on an annual basis.

“Communities have been seeing this trend for some time, but ultimately we needed data in order to act today,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, MD, said during the telebriefing.

The current action is just “one part of a larger effort to address this epidemic.

“We remain focused and deeply committed to contributing to the comprehensive effort to address the opioid epidemic,” Dr. Califf said. The FDA “will continue to monitor these products carefully and take additional actions as needed, and will share updates with the public as necessary as we work to address this public health crisis.”

Dr. Califf noted that the current action is part of the FDA’s Opioids Action Plan, which is “importantly not meant just to cover illicit or abusive use of opioids.”

“So, you’ll be hearing a lot more from us, because this is a national crisis that is not going away. We’re making progress on the prescribing, and we’re seeing a reduction in the use of opioids now,” he noted. “But we’re still seeing many overdoses.

“This is a continuum, and we’ll continue to try to do everything we can to address the epidemic,” Dr. Califf concluded.

[email protected]

Combination therapy involving chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine sulfate proved no better than placebo for the management of pain and functional impairment brought on by knee osteoarthritis, in a double-blind, randomized trial.

“This is the first RCT sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of CS [chondroitin sulfate] plus GS [glucosamine sulfate] and including a [Data and Safety Monitoring Board] composed of independent experts charged with ensuring participant safety and accurate, bias-free data,” wrote the authors, led by Jorge A. Roman-Blas, MD, of Fundación Jiménez Díaz in Madrid (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jul 31. doi: 10.1002/art.39819).

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/ Thinkstock.com

Dr. Roman-Blas and his coinvestigators recruited patients with Kellgren-Lawrence stages II-III knee osteoarthritis from one orthopedic surgery and nine rheumatology centers across Spain. The study was split into two parts; the first part would have half of the patients complete the study in 6 months, followed by an interim analysis and evaluation of the data. If deemed okay by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, the second part of the study would proceed, in which half of the patients would again complete the study in 6 months.

Ultimately, the study comprised 164 patients. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into cohorts receiving either a placebo or a regimen of 1,200 mg CS derived from bovine tracheal cartilage plus 1,500 mg of crystalline GS derived from crustaceans. The primary endpoint was reduction in pain from baseline evaluation, which was based on the visual analog scale (VAS) of 1-100 mm.

Patients in the combination therapy cohort had a lower average reduction in pain at 6 months than did those taking the placebo. In the modified intention-to-treat population, those taking CS+GS therapy had an average reduction of 11.8 ± 2.4 mm, or 19%, compared with baseline. On the other hand, those in the placebo cohort recorded a 20.5 ± 2.4 mm, or 33%, reduction in pain (P = .029). Based on this analysis, the trial was stopped early at 6 months to prevent “overexposure of additional patients to placebo treatment,” the investigators said.

However, pain measured by VAS did not differ between the groups in a per-protocol analysis. Furthermore, when taking Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores into account, there was no significant difference in improvement between CS+GS therapy and placebo in pain and function, for both intention-to-treat and per-protocol subjects.

Although placebo was more effective in pain reduction in the modified intent-to-treat analysis than was CS plus GS combination treatment, the effect size of placebo was small and the effect size of CS plus GS in this study was smaller than in previous studies, the investigators noted. “These findings may be related to the fact that GS may interfere with the absorption of CS and therefore reduce its local effect. Eventually, our patients may have had less severe pain than those in other studies, which would justify a lesser effect after the pharmacological intervention,” the authors wrote. “Furthermore, when the main outcome studied is particularly subjective, the placebo effect can overcome the effect of the active drug.”

Tedec Meiji Farma SA of Madrid funded the study. Dr. Roman-Blas and his coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Combination therapy involving chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine sulfate proved no better than placebo for the management of pain and functional impairment brought on by knee osteoarthritis, in a double-blind, randomized trial.

“This is the first RCT sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of CS [chondroitin sulfate] plus GS [glucosamine sulfate] and including a [Data and Safety Monitoring Board] composed of independent experts charged with ensuring participant safety and accurate, bias-free data,” wrote the authors, led by Jorge A. Roman-Blas, MD, of Fundación Jiménez Díaz in Madrid (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jul 31. doi: 10.1002/art.39819).

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/ Thinkstock.com

Dr. Roman-Blas and his coinvestigators recruited patients with Kellgren-Lawrence stages II-III knee osteoarthritis from one orthopedic surgery and nine rheumatology centers across Spain. The study was split into two parts; the first part would have half of the patients complete the study in 6 months, followed by an interim analysis and evaluation of the data. If deemed okay by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, the second part of the study would proceed, in which half of the patients would again complete the study in 6 months.

Ultimately, the study comprised 164 patients. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into cohorts receiving either a placebo or a regimen of 1,200 mg CS derived from bovine tracheal cartilage plus 1,500 mg of crystalline GS derived from crustaceans. The primary endpoint was reduction in pain from baseline evaluation, which was based on the visual analog scale (VAS) of 1-100 mm.

Patients in the combination therapy cohort had a lower average reduction in pain at 6 months than did those taking the placebo. In the modified intention-to-treat population, those taking CS+GS therapy had an average reduction of 11.8 ± 2.4 mm, or 19%, compared with baseline. On the other hand, those in the placebo cohort recorded a 20.5 ± 2.4 mm, or 33%, reduction in pain (P = .029). Based on this analysis, the trial was stopped early at 6 months to prevent “overexposure of additional patients to placebo treatment,” the investigators said.

However, pain measured by VAS did not differ between the groups in a per-protocol analysis. Furthermore, when taking Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores into account, there was no significant difference in improvement between CS+GS therapy and placebo in pain and function, for both intention-to-treat and per-protocol subjects.

Although placebo was more effective in pain reduction in the modified intent-to-treat analysis than was CS plus GS combination treatment, the effect size of placebo was small and the effect size of CS plus GS in this study was smaller than in previous studies, the investigators noted. “These findings may be related to the fact that GS may interfere with the absorption of CS and therefore reduce its local effect. Eventually, our patients may have had less severe pain than those in other studies, which would justify a lesser effect after the pharmacological intervention,” the authors wrote. “Furthermore, when the main outcome studied is particularly subjective, the placebo effect can overcome the effect of the active drug.”

Tedec Meiji Farma SA of Madrid funded the study. Dr. Roman-Blas and his coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Combination therapy involving chondroitin sulfate and glucosamine sulfate proved no better than placebo for the management of pain and functional impairment brought on by knee osteoarthritis, in a double-blind, randomized trial.

“This is the first RCT sponsored by a pharmaceutical company to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of CS [chondroitin sulfate] plus GS [glucosamine sulfate] and including a [Data and Safety Monitoring Board] composed of independent experts charged with ensuring participant safety and accurate, bias-free data,” wrote the authors, led by Jorge A. Roman-Blas, MD, of Fundación Jiménez Díaz in Madrid (Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016 Jul 31. doi: 10.1002/art.39819).

©KatarzynaBialasiewicz/ Thinkstock.com

Dr. Roman-Blas and his coinvestigators recruited patients with Kellgren-Lawrence stages II-III knee osteoarthritis from one orthopedic surgery and nine rheumatology centers across Spain. The study was split into two parts; the first part would have half of the patients complete the study in 6 months, followed by an interim analysis and evaluation of the data. If deemed okay by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board, the second part of the study would proceed, in which half of the patients would again complete the study in 6 months.

Ultimately, the study comprised 164 patients. They were randomized in a 1:1 ratio into cohorts receiving either a placebo or a regimen of 1,200 mg CS derived from bovine tracheal cartilage plus 1,500 mg of crystalline GS derived from crustaceans. The primary endpoint was reduction in pain from baseline evaluation, which was based on the visual analog scale (VAS) of 1-100 mm.

Patients in the combination therapy cohort had a lower average reduction in pain at 6 months than did those taking the placebo. In the modified intention-to-treat population, those taking CS+GS therapy had an average reduction of 11.8 ± 2.4 mm, or 19%, compared with baseline. On the other hand, those in the placebo cohort recorded a 20.5 ± 2.4 mm, or 33%, reduction in pain (P = .029). Based on this analysis, the trial was stopped early at 6 months to prevent “overexposure of additional patients to placebo treatment,” the investigators said.

However, pain measured by VAS did not differ between the groups in a per-protocol analysis. Furthermore, when taking Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores into account, there was no significant difference in improvement between CS+GS therapy and placebo in pain and function, for both intention-to-treat and per-protocol subjects.

Although placebo was more effective in pain reduction in the modified intent-to-treat analysis than was CS plus GS combination treatment, the effect size of placebo was small and the effect size of CS plus GS in this study was smaller than in previous studies, the investigators noted. “These findings may be related to the fact that GS may interfere with the absorption of CS and therefore reduce its local effect. Eventually, our patients may have had less severe pain than those in other studies, which would justify a lesser effect after the pharmacological intervention,” the authors wrote. “Furthermore, when the main outcome studied is particularly subjective, the placebo effect can overcome the effect of the active drug.”

Tedec Meiji Farma SA of Madrid funded the study. Dr. Roman-Blas and his coauthors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is currently accepting public comments on the agency’s proposed plans to implement a law that will restrict compounding of human drug products.

A statement issued by the FDA provides links to two draft guidances that describe how the agency “would implement provisions of federal law that restrict compounding human drug products that are essentially copies of commercially available or approved drug products.” One draft guidance and the legal restrictions referenced therein are relevant to physicians and pharmacists, as well as state-licensed pharmacies or federal facilities that compound drugs, according to the FDA. The other guidance applies to outsourcing facilities.

Although compounded drug products, such as a medication made without a dye for a patient allergic to that dye, or a medication made into liquid form for a patient who cannot swallow a pill, “may benefit certain patients whose medical needs cannot be met by a commercially available or an FDA-approved drug product,” the FDA statement said. “Taking compounded drug products that are essentially copies of a commercially available or approved drug needlessly exposes patients to drug products that FDA has not evaluated for safety, effectiveness, and quality. In addition, the compounded drugs may not have been produced according to appropriate quality standards. Such compounding would also undermine the new drug approval and over-the-counter drug monograph systems in the United States.”

The statement refers to serious adverse events, including infections and deaths that have resulted from “poor-quality” compounded drugs.

Written or electronic comments can be submitted until Oct. 11, and information on submitting comments is available at regulations.gov.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is currently accepting public comments on the agency’s proposed plans to implement a law that will restrict compounding of human drug products.

A statement issued by the FDA provides links to two draft guidances that describe how the agency “would implement provisions of federal law that restrict compounding human drug products that are essentially copies of commercially available or approved drug products.” One draft guidance and the legal restrictions referenced therein are relevant to physicians and pharmacists, as well as state-licensed pharmacies or federal facilities that compound drugs, according to the FDA. The other guidance applies to outsourcing facilities.

Although compounded drug products, such as a medication made without a dye for a patient allergic to that dye, or a medication made into liquid form for a patient who cannot swallow a pill, “may benefit certain patients whose medical needs cannot be met by a commercially available or an FDA-approved drug product,” the FDA statement said. “Taking compounded drug products that are essentially copies of a commercially available or approved drug needlessly exposes patients to drug products that FDA has not evaluated for safety, effectiveness, and quality. In addition, the compounded drugs may not have been produced according to appropriate quality standards. Such compounding would also undermine the new drug approval and over-the-counter drug monograph systems in the United States.”

The statement refers to serious adverse events, including infections and deaths that have resulted from “poor-quality” compounded drugs.

Written or electronic comments can be submitted until Oct. 11, and information on submitting comments is available at regulations.gov.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration is currently accepting public comments on the agency’s proposed plans to implement a law that will restrict compounding of human drug products.

A statement issued by the FDA provides links to two draft guidances that describe how the agency “would implement provisions of federal law that restrict compounding human drug products that are essentially copies of commercially available or approved drug products.” One draft guidance and the legal restrictions referenced therein are relevant to physicians and pharmacists, as well as state-licensed pharmacies or federal facilities that compound drugs, according to the FDA. The other guidance applies to outsourcing facilities.

Although compounded drug products, such as a medication made without a dye for a patient allergic to that dye, or a medication made into liquid form for a patient who cannot swallow a pill, “may benefit certain patients whose medical needs cannot be met by a commercially available or an FDA-approved drug product,” the FDA statement said. “Taking compounded drug products that are essentially copies of a commercially available or approved drug needlessly exposes patients to drug products that FDA has not evaluated for safety, effectiveness, and quality. In addition, the compounded drugs may not have been produced according to appropriate quality standards. Such compounding would also undermine the new drug approval and over-the-counter drug monograph systems in the United States.”

The statement refers to serious adverse events, including infections and deaths that have resulted from “poor-quality” compounded drugs.

Written or electronic comments can be submitted until Oct. 11, and information on submitting comments is available at regulations.gov.

[email protected]

A new study has identified three distinct trajectories of fatigue levels in patients with early symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee and hip, report Jadran Botterman, MSc, and coauthors from the department of psychology, health, and technology at the University of Twente (the Netherlands).

Six years of data were collected from the CHECK (Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee) participants and then separated into distinct trajectories using growth mixture modeling. Three distinct fatigue trajectories were found: low fatigue, low to high fatigue, and high fatigue.

The authors found a significant association between trajectory and patient characteristics. Women, patients with comorbid disease, and patients using medications were more likely to have a high fatigue trajectory, Dr. Botterman and his colleagues reported.

“Identification of these trajectories with differing patient characteristics may warrant tailored psychosocial interventions for patients with elevated levels of fatigue,” the authors concluded.

Read the full article in the Journal of Rheumatology.

A new study has identified three distinct trajectories of fatigue levels in patients with early symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee and hip, report Jadran Botterman, MSc, and coauthors from the department of psychology, health, and technology at the University of Twente (the Netherlands).

Six years of data were collected from the CHECK (Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee) participants and then separated into distinct trajectories using growth mixture modeling. Three distinct fatigue trajectories were found: low fatigue, low to high fatigue, and high fatigue.

The authors found a significant association between trajectory and patient characteristics. Women, patients with comorbid disease, and patients using medications were more likely to have a high fatigue trajectory, Dr. Botterman and his colleagues reported.

“Identification of these trajectories with differing patient characteristics may warrant tailored psychosocial interventions for patients with elevated levels of fatigue,” the authors concluded.

Read the full article in the Journal of Rheumatology.

A new study has identified three distinct trajectories of fatigue levels in patients with early symptomatic osteoarthritis (OA) in the knee and hip, report Jadran Botterman, MSc, and coauthors from the department of psychology, health, and technology at the University of Twente (the Netherlands).

Six years of data were collected from the CHECK (Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee) participants and then separated into distinct trajectories using growth mixture modeling. Three distinct fatigue trajectories were found: low fatigue, low to high fatigue, and high fatigue.

The authors found a significant association between trajectory and patient characteristics. Women, patients with comorbid disease, and patients using medications were more likely to have a high fatigue trajectory, Dr. Botterman and his colleagues reported.

“Identification of these trajectories with differing patient characteristics may warrant tailored psychosocial interventions for patients with elevated levels of fatigue,” the authors concluded.

Read the full article in the Journal of Rheumatology.

Many commonly used prescription drugs, many OTC agents, and also several complimentary or alternative medications, can either trigger heart failure or exacerbate the disease in patients with existing heart failure according to a Scientific Statement written by a committee of the American Heart Association and released on July 11.

This first-ever authoritative U.S. overview of what is known about drugs that can affect heart failure was compiled to address an important practice issue for the large and growing number of U.S. patients with heart failure, estimated to be nearly 6 million Americans, and “provide some guidance to health care providers in how to minimize polypharmacy, improve medication safety, as well as identify the medications that could exacerbate or cause heart failure,” said Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the committee and a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Although the comprehensive statement lists 88 distinct prescription drugs or drug classes as agents that pose major or moderate threats for causing or worsening heart failure, “from the American public’s perspective, importance should be placed on educating patients regarding the impact that OTC medications can have on their heart failure,” Dr. Page said in an interview. “For example, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen or naproxen can cause sodium and water retention and antagonize the effects of evidence-based heart failure pharmacotherapies. Additionally, OTC medications like pseudoephedrine, which many cough and cold products contain, can increase blood pressure and afterload,” he noted. The risks these drugs pose becomes even greater when they are taken at higher doses.

NSAIDs

The statement cites already existing guidance from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that for patients with existing heart failure, use of NSAIDs should either be avoided or withdrawn when possible. The statement advises educating patients to communicate with their health care provider before taking any OTC medication or complimentary or alternative medication, avoid these agents when their efficacy and safety is uncertain, and evaluate the labels of these products for their sodium content (although the sodium content from inactive ingredients may be difficult to find in labeling).

“Currently, we teach patients to read food labels for sodium content, but we also need to educate patients on how to read OTC medication labels for both ingredients and sodium content. Many OTC antacids may have a large sodium load,” Dr. Page said. The statement includes a list of 14 prescription drugs and also highlights several OTC formulations that have an especially high sodium content.

Metformin

Among the many prescription drugs listed, one notable entry is for the oral hypoglycemic agent metformin that today is among the most widely used drugs for treating type 2 diabetes and is especially relevant for heart failure patients because, as the statement notes, 38% also have diabetes. The statement details the long history of metformin and heart failure, noting that until a decade ago, the drug had a contraindication for patients with heart failure, that metformin’s label still carries a black box warning for cautious use in heart failure patients, and that earlier in 2016, the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that metformin should not be used in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/minute per 1.73 m². The statement also endorsed a recommendation from the American Diabetes Association that metformin not be used in patients with unstable heart failure or those hospitalized for heart failure.

Antihypertensives, biologics, and more

Other notable prescription drugs listed as potentially having a major impact on causing or worsening heart failure include the antihypertensive drugs diltiazem, verapamil, and moxonidine, the tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors that are widely used to treat rheumatologic and gastroenterologic diseases, the antipsychotic clozapine, and a long list of anticancer medications, including several anthracyclines and many types of newer biologic agents.

The statement also lists several specific recommendations to health care providers for improving oversight of the drugs taken by patients with heart failure or those at risk for heart failure. These include a comprehensive medication review during each clinical encounter. The statement also suggests a “medication flow sheet” for each patient that contains the basic information regarding the regimen for each medication taken by a patient: the brand and generic name, the purpose of the medication, and its dosage. “These medication flow sheets should be used by patients as a tool to enhance safety and adherence, and they should show their flow sheets at each provider visit,” Dr. Page said.

Managing myriad meds

The statement also calls for stopping medications without a well defined indication for a patient, avoid prescribing new drugs to address side effects of other drugs, and suggests establishing a “captain” among the health care providers seen by each patient who would be particularly responsible for overseeing and keeping track of the medications the patient takes.

“Ideally, this ‘captain’ would be the patient’s primary care provider, who should be in contact with the other specialists that the patient may be seeing. However, this does not always happen,” said Dr. Page. “Therefore, I encourage each patient with heart failure to contact both their primary care provider and their health care provider who is managing their heart failure before taking or stopping any new medication including prescription, OTC, herbal, complimentary or alternative medication or supplement. Health care providers need to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their medication management.”

Dr. Page had no disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Many commonly used prescription drugs, many OTC agents, and also several complimentary or alternative medications, can either trigger heart failure or exacerbate the disease in patients with existing heart failure according to a Scientific Statement written by a committee of the American Heart Association and released on July 11.

This first-ever authoritative U.S. overview of what is known about drugs that can affect heart failure was compiled to address an important practice issue for the large and growing number of U.S. patients with heart failure, estimated to be nearly 6 million Americans, and “provide some guidance to health care providers in how to minimize polypharmacy, improve medication safety, as well as identify the medications that could exacerbate or cause heart failure,” said Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the committee and a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Although the comprehensive statement lists 88 distinct prescription drugs or drug classes as agents that pose major or moderate threats for causing or worsening heart failure, “from the American public’s perspective, importance should be placed on educating patients regarding the impact that OTC medications can have on their heart failure,” Dr. Page said in an interview. “For example, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen or naproxen can cause sodium and water retention and antagonize the effects of evidence-based heart failure pharmacotherapies. Additionally, OTC medications like pseudoephedrine, which many cough and cold products contain, can increase blood pressure and afterload,” he noted. The risks these drugs pose becomes even greater when they are taken at higher doses.

NSAIDs

The statement cites already existing guidance from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that for patients with existing heart failure, use of NSAIDs should either be avoided or withdrawn when possible. The statement advises educating patients to communicate with their health care provider before taking any OTC medication or complimentary or alternative medication, avoid these agents when their efficacy and safety is uncertain, and evaluate the labels of these products for their sodium content (although the sodium content from inactive ingredients may be difficult to find in labeling).

“Currently, we teach patients to read food labels for sodium content, but we also need to educate patients on how to read OTC medication labels for both ingredients and sodium content. Many OTC antacids may have a large sodium load,” Dr. Page said. The statement includes a list of 14 prescription drugs and also highlights several OTC formulations that have an especially high sodium content.

Metformin

Among the many prescription drugs listed, one notable entry is for the oral hypoglycemic agent metformin that today is among the most widely used drugs for treating type 2 diabetes and is especially relevant for heart failure patients because, as the statement notes, 38% also have diabetes. The statement details the long history of metformin and heart failure, noting that until a decade ago, the drug had a contraindication for patients with heart failure, that metformin’s label still carries a black box warning for cautious use in heart failure patients, and that earlier in 2016, the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that metformin should not be used in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/minute per 1.73 m². The statement also endorsed a recommendation from the American Diabetes Association that metformin not be used in patients with unstable heart failure or those hospitalized for heart failure.

Antihypertensives, biologics, and more

Other notable prescription drugs listed as potentially having a major impact on causing or worsening heart failure include the antihypertensive drugs diltiazem, verapamil, and moxonidine, the tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors that are widely used to treat rheumatologic and gastroenterologic diseases, the antipsychotic clozapine, and a long list of anticancer medications, including several anthracyclines and many types of newer biologic agents.

The statement also lists several specific recommendations to health care providers for improving oversight of the drugs taken by patients with heart failure or those at risk for heart failure. These include a comprehensive medication review during each clinical encounter. The statement also suggests a “medication flow sheet” for each patient that contains the basic information regarding the regimen for each medication taken by a patient: the brand and generic name, the purpose of the medication, and its dosage. “These medication flow sheets should be used by patients as a tool to enhance safety and adherence, and they should show their flow sheets at each provider visit,” Dr. Page said.

Managing myriad meds

The statement also calls for stopping medications without a well defined indication for a patient, avoid prescribing new drugs to address side effects of other drugs, and suggests establishing a “captain” among the health care providers seen by each patient who would be particularly responsible for overseeing and keeping track of the medications the patient takes.

“Ideally, this ‘captain’ would be the patient’s primary care provider, who should be in contact with the other specialists that the patient may be seeing. However, this does not always happen,” said Dr. Page. “Therefore, I encourage each patient with heart failure to contact both their primary care provider and their health care provider who is managing their heart failure before taking or stopping any new medication including prescription, OTC, herbal, complimentary or alternative medication or supplement. Health care providers need to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their medication management.”

Dr. Page had no disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Many commonly used prescription drugs, many OTC agents, and also several complimentary or alternative medications, can either trigger heart failure or exacerbate the disease in patients with existing heart failure according to a Scientific Statement written by a committee of the American Heart Association and released on July 11.

This first-ever authoritative U.S. overview of what is known about drugs that can affect heart failure was compiled to address an important practice issue for the large and growing number of U.S. patients with heart failure, estimated to be nearly 6 million Americans, and “provide some guidance to health care providers in how to minimize polypharmacy, improve medication safety, as well as identify the medications that could exacerbate or cause heart failure,” said Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the committee and a professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

Although the comprehensive statement lists 88 distinct prescription drugs or drug classes as agents that pose major or moderate threats for causing or worsening heart failure, “from the American public’s perspective, importance should be placed on educating patients regarding the impact that OTC medications can have on their heart failure,” Dr. Page said in an interview. “For example, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs like ibuprofen or naproxen can cause sodium and water retention and antagonize the effects of evidence-based heart failure pharmacotherapies. Additionally, OTC medications like pseudoephedrine, which many cough and cold products contain, can increase blood pressure and afterload,” he noted. The risks these drugs pose becomes even greater when they are taken at higher doses.

NSAIDs

The statement cites already existing guidance from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that for patients with existing heart failure, use of NSAIDs should either be avoided or withdrawn when possible. The statement advises educating patients to communicate with their health care provider before taking any OTC medication or complimentary or alternative medication, avoid these agents when their efficacy and safety is uncertain, and evaluate the labels of these products for their sodium content (although the sodium content from inactive ingredients may be difficult to find in labeling).

“Currently, we teach patients to read food labels for sodium content, but we also need to educate patients on how to read OTC medication labels for both ingredients and sodium content. Many OTC antacids may have a large sodium load,” Dr. Page said. The statement includes a list of 14 prescription drugs and also highlights several OTC formulations that have an especially high sodium content.

Metformin

Among the many prescription drugs listed, one notable entry is for the oral hypoglycemic agent metformin that today is among the most widely used drugs for treating type 2 diabetes and is especially relevant for heart failure patients because, as the statement notes, 38% also have diabetes. The statement details the long history of metformin and heart failure, noting that until a decade ago, the drug had a contraindication for patients with heart failure, that metformin’s label still carries a black box warning for cautious use in heart failure patients, and that earlier in 2016, the Food and Drug Administration cautioned that metformin should not be used in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of less than 30 mL/minute per 1.73 m². The statement also endorsed a recommendation from the American Diabetes Association that metformin not be used in patients with unstable heart failure or those hospitalized for heart failure.

Antihypertensives, biologics, and more

Other notable prescription drugs listed as potentially having a major impact on causing or worsening heart failure include the antihypertensive drugs diltiazem, verapamil, and moxonidine, the tumor necrosis factor–inhibitors that are widely used to treat rheumatologic and gastroenterologic diseases, the antipsychotic clozapine, and a long list of anticancer medications, including several anthracyclines and many types of newer biologic agents.

The statement also lists several specific recommendations to health care providers for improving oversight of the drugs taken by patients with heart failure or those at risk for heart failure. These include a comprehensive medication review during each clinical encounter. The statement also suggests a “medication flow sheet” for each patient that contains the basic information regarding the regimen for each medication taken by a patient: the brand and generic name, the purpose of the medication, and its dosage. “These medication flow sheets should be used by patients as a tool to enhance safety and adherence, and they should show their flow sheets at each provider visit,” Dr. Page said.

Managing myriad meds

The statement also calls for stopping medications without a well defined indication for a patient, avoid prescribing new drugs to address side effects of other drugs, and suggests establishing a “captain” among the health care providers seen by each patient who would be particularly responsible for overseeing and keeping track of the medications the patient takes.

“Ideally, this ‘captain’ would be the patient’s primary care provider, who should be in contact with the other specialists that the patient may be seeing. However, this does not always happen,” said Dr. Page. “Therefore, I encourage each patient with heart failure to contact both their primary care provider and their health care provider who is managing their heart failure before taking or stopping any new medication including prescription, OTC, herbal, complimentary or alternative medication or supplement. Health care providers need to encourage patients to be actively engaged in their medication management.”

Dr. Page had no disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LONDON – Early clinical data show that a novel injectable drug holds promise for becoming the first disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug.

The results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase I trial involving 61 patients showed that a single intra-articular injection of SM04690 was associated with improved Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function and pain scores. The investigational drug also seemed to slow joint-space narrowing, compared with baseline values, with the suggestion that it may even increase joint space width.

However, those were exploratory efficacy analyses because the primary objective of the trial was to examine the safety of SM04690, a small molecule that inhibits the Wnt signaling pathway.

“The Wnt pathway has been implicated in the development of osteoarthritis [OA],” said Dr. Yusuf Yazici during a poster presentation at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Overactivity of Wnt signaling leads to stem cells constantly differentiating into osteoblasts, leading to osteophyte formation,” he explained, noting that Wnt signaling also stimulates the secretion of cartilage-destroying metalloproteases (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:162-71). “It has been very well established in the literature that if you could somehow turn that off you, could maybe improve some of the things that are happening in osteoarthritis.”

SM04690 works by “pushing the lineage fate of progenitor stem cells in the knee towards chondrocyte formation and away from osteoblast formation,” said Dr. Yazici of New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, and the chief medical officer of Samumed, the San Diego–based company developing the novel Wnt inhibitor.

He noted preclinical data had been presented orally at the EULAR congress showing that there was cartilage growth, suppressed protease production, and reduced proinflammatory cytokine (interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha) production.

The phase I data represent the first in-human results, with three doses of SM04690 evaluated (0.03 mg, 0.07 mg, and 0.23 mg) versus placebo in patients with moderate to severe symptomatic OA. For inclusion, patients had to have a WOMAC total score of between 36 and 72 and Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 knee OA, and be willing to forgo pain medication for 24 hours prior to pain assessments being performed.

At baseline, the mean age of patients ranged from 60 to 64 years, their body mass index ranged from 28.7 kg/m² to 31.4 kg/m², and 41%-69% had KL grade 3 knee OA.

In terms of safety, the primary objective of the trial, there were no reports of serious adverse events related to the study drug. One patient who had reported increased knee pain and paroxysmal tachycardia 2 months after the injection was found to have a history of the condition, and after unblinding, none of the patients had detectable drug levels outside of the knee.

Overall, the number of adverse events was low and no different from placebo, Dr. Yazici said. The percentage of patients reporting an adverse event with the three rising doses of SM04690 were 53%, 35%, and 44%, respectively, compared with 55% of those given placebo.

WOMAC function scores for the 0.03-mg dose declined by a mean of –18.4 at week 12 and by –20.1 at week 24 from a baseline of 39.1; for 0.07 mg, by –19.5 at week 12 and by –18.9 at 24 weeks from 37.5; for 0.23 mg, by –17.8 at week 12 and by –12.4 at week 24 from 40.4; and for placebo, by –14.9 at week 12 and by –16.0 at week 24 from 34.4.

WOMAC pain scores at baseline were a respective 10.8, 10.8, 11.4, and 9.9, and the mean changes at week 12 were –4.4, –5.8, –5.7, and –4.2. At week 24, the mean declines were –5.6, –5.3, –4.3, and –4.8.

Medial joint space width was a mean of 4.5, 3.72, 3.62, and 3.74 mm at baseline in the four treatment groups, with mean changes from baseline to 24 weeks of 0.00, 0.49, –0.15, and –0.33 for the 0.03-mg, 0.07-mg, and 0.23-mg SM04690 and placebo groups, respectively.

Although the trial was not powered to detect any statistically significant differences between the active treatment dose and placebo, there was an indication that more patients treated with SM04690 than with placebo were likely to achieve an OMERACT-OARSI strict response.

These data support the ongoing phase II trial that is being conducted in 455 patients, Dr. Yazici said. The results of that trial are expected around October 2016, which should be in time for their presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

LONDON – Early clinical data show that a novel injectable drug holds promise for becoming the first disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug.

The results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase I trial involving 61 patients showed that a single intra-articular injection of SM04690 was associated with improved Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function and pain scores. The investigational drug also seemed to slow joint-space narrowing, compared with baseline values, with the suggestion that it may even increase joint space width.

However, those were exploratory efficacy analyses because the primary objective of the trial was to examine the safety of SM04690, a small molecule that inhibits the Wnt signaling pathway.

“The Wnt pathway has been implicated in the development of osteoarthritis [OA],” said Dr. Yusuf Yazici during a poster presentation at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Overactivity of Wnt signaling leads to stem cells constantly differentiating into osteoblasts, leading to osteophyte formation,” he explained, noting that Wnt signaling also stimulates the secretion of cartilage-destroying metalloproteases (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:162-71). “It has been very well established in the literature that if you could somehow turn that off you, could maybe improve some of the things that are happening in osteoarthritis.”

SM04690 works by “pushing the lineage fate of progenitor stem cells in the knee towards chondrocyte formation and away from osteoblast formation,” said Dr. Yazici of New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, and the chief medical officer of Samumed, the San Diego–based company developing the novel Wnt inhibitor.

He noted preclinical data had been presented orally at the EULAR congress showing that there was cartilage growth, suppressed protease production, and reduced proinflammatory cytokine (interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha) production.

The phase I data represent the first in-human results, with three doses of SM04690 evaluated (0.03 mg, 0.07 mg, and 0.23 mg) versus placebo in patients with moderate to severe symptomatic OA. For inclusion, patients had to have a WOMAC total score of between 36 and 72 and Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 knee OA, and be willing to forgo pain medication for 24 hours prior to pain assessments being performed.

At baseline, the mean age of patients ranged from 60 to 64 years, their body mass index ranged from 28.7 kg/m² to 31.4 kg/m², and 41%-69% had KL grade 3 knee OA.

In terms of safety, the primary objective of the trial, there were no reports of serious adverse events related to the study drug. One patient who had reported increased knee pain and paroxysmal tachycardia 2 months after the injection was found to have a history of the condition, and after unblinding, none of the patients had detectable drug levels outside of the knee.

Overall, the number of adverse events was low and no different from placebo, Dr. Yazici said. The percentage of patients reporting an adverse event with the three rising doses of SM04690 were 53%, 35%, and 44%, respectively, compared with 55% of those given placebo.

WOMAC function scores for the 0.03-mg dose declined by a mean of –18.4 at week 12 and by –20.1 at week 24 from a baseline of 39.1; for 0.07 mg, by –19.5 at week 12 and by –18.9 at 24 weeks from 37.5; for 0.23 mg, by –17.8 at week 12 and by –12.4 at week 24 from 40.4; and for placebo, by –14.9 at week 12 and by –16.0 at week 24 from 34.4.

WOMAC pain scores at baseline were a respective 10.8, 10.8, 11.4, and 9.9, and the mean changes at week 12 were –4.4, –5.8, –5.7, and –4.2. At week 24, the mean declines were –5.6, –5.3, –4.3, and –4.8.

Medial joint space width was a mean of 4.5, 3.72, 3.62, and 3.74 mm at baseline in the four treatment groups, with mean changes from baseline to 24 weeks of 0.00, 0.49, –0.15, and –0.33 for the 0.03-mg, 0.07-mg, and 0.23-mg SM04690 and placebo groups, respectively.

Although the trial was not powered to detect any statistically significant differences between the active treatment dose and placebo, there was an indication that more patients treated with SM04690 than with placebo were likely to achieve an OMERACT-OARSI strict response.

These data support the ongoing phase II trial that is being conducted in 455 patients, Dr. Yazici said. The results of that trial are expected around October 2016, which should be in time for their presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

LONDON – Early clinical data show that a novel injectable drug holds promise for becoming the first disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug.

The results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase I trial involving 61 patients showed that a single intra-articular injection of SM04690 was associated with improved Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) function and pain scores. The investigational drug also seemed to slow joint-space narrowing, compared with baseline values, with the suggestion that it may even increase joint space width.

However, those were exploratory efficacy analyses because the primary objective of the trial was to examine the safety of SM04690, a small molecule that inhibits the Wnt signaling pathway.

“The Wnt pathway has been implicated in the development of osteoarthritis [OA],” said Dr. Yusuf Yazici during a poster presentation at the European Congress of Rheumatology.

“Overactivity of Wnt signaling leads to stem cells constantly differentiating into osteoblasts, leading to osteophyte formation,” he explained, noting that Wnt signaling also stimulates the secretion of cartilage-destroying metalloproteases (Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:162-71). “It has been very well established in the literature that if you could somehow turn that off you, could maybe improve some of the things that are happening in osteoarthritis.”

SM04690 works by “pushing the lineage fate of progenitor stem cells in the knee towards chondrocyte formation and away from osteoblast formation,” said Dr. Yazici of New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, and the chief medical officer of Samumed, the San Diego–based company developing the novel Wnt inhibitor.

He noted preclinical data had been presented orally at the EULAR congress showing that there was cartilage growth, suppressed protease production, and reduced proinflammatory cytokine (interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor–alpha) production.

The phase I data represent the first in-human results, with three doses of SM04690 evaluated (0.03 mg, 0.07 mg, and 0.23 mg) versus placebo in patients with moderate to severe symptomatic OA. For inclusion, patients had to have a WOMAC total score of between 36 and 72 and Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) grade 2 or 3 knee OA, and be willing to forgo pain medication for 24 hours prior to pain assessments being performed.

At baseline, the mean age of patients ranged from 60 to 64 years, their body mass index ranged from 28.7 kg/m² to 31.4 kg/m², and 41%-69% had KL grade 3 knee OA.

In terms of safety, the primary objective of the trial, there were no reports of serious adverse events related to the study drug. One patient who had reported increased knee pain and paroxysmal tachycardia 2 months after the injection was found to have a history of the condition, and after unblinding, none of the patients had detectable drug levels outside of the knee.

Overall, the number of adverse events was low and no different from placebo, Dr. Yazici said. The percentage of patients reporting an adverse event with the three rising doses of SM04690 were 53%, 35%, and 44%, respectively, compared with 55% of those given placebo.

WOMAC function scores for the 0.03-mg dose declined by a mean of –18.4 at week 12 and by –20.1 at week 24 from a baseline of 39.1; for 0.07 mg, by –19.5 at week 12 and by –18.9 at 24 weeks from 37.5; for 0.23 mg, by –17.8 at week 12 and by –12.4 at week 24 from 40.4; and for placebo, by –14.9 at week 12 and by –16.0 at week 24 from 34.4.

WOMAC pain scores at baseline were a respective 10.8, 10.8, 11.4, and 9.9, and the mean changes at week 12 were –4.4, –5.8, –5.7, and –4.2. At week 24, the mean declines were –5.6, –5.3, –4.3, and –4.8.

Medial joint space width was a mean of 4.5, 3.72, 3.62, and 3.74 mm at baseline in the four treatment groups, with mean changes from baseline to 24 weeks of 0.00, 0.49, –0.15, and –0.33 for the 0.03-mg, 0.07-mg, and 0.23-mg SM04690 and placebo groups, respectively.

Although the trial was not powered to detect any statistically significant differences between the active treatment dose and placebo, there was an indication that more patients treated with SM04690 than with placebo were likely to achieve an OMERACT-OARSI strict response.

These data support the ongoing phase II trial that is being conducted in 455 patients, Dr. Yazici said. The results of that trial are expected around October 2016, which should be in time for their presentation at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Use of systemic glucocorticoids significantly increased risk for community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (CA-SAB) in a dose-dependent fashion, based on data from a large Danish registry.

On average, current users of systemic glucocorticoids had an adjusted 2.5-fold increased risk of CA-SAB, compared with nonusers. The risk was most pronounced in long-term users of glucocorticoids, including patients with connective tissue disease and patients with chronic pulmonary disease. Among new users of glucocorticoids, the risk of CA-SAB was highest for patients with cancer, in the retrospective, case-control study published by Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Dr. Jesper Smit of Aalborg (Denmark) University and his colleagues, looked at all 2,638 patients admitted with first-time CA-SAB and 26,379 matched population controls in Northern Denmark medical databases between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011.

New glucocorticoid users had an odds ratio for CA-SAB of 2.7, slightly higher than the OR of 2.3 for long-term users. Former glucocorticoid users had a considerably lower OR for CA-SAB of 1.3.

Risk of CA-SAB rose in a dose-dependent fashion as 90-day cumulative doses increased. For subjects taking a cumulative dose of 150 mg or less, the adjusted OR for CA-SAB was 1.3. At a cumulative dose of 500-1000 mg, OR rose to 2.4. At a cumulative dose greater than 1000 mg, OR was 6.2.

Risk did not differ based on individuals’ sex, age group, or the severity of any comorbidity.

“This is the first study to specifically investigate whether the use of glucocorticoids is associated with increased risk of CA-SAB,” the authors concluded, adding that “these results extend the current knowledge of risk factors for CA-SAB and may serve as a reminder for clinicians to carefully weigh the elevated risk against the potential beneficial effect of glucocorticoid therapy, particularly in patients with concomitant CA-SAB risk factors.”

This study was supported by grants from Heinrich Kopp, Hertha Christensen, and North Denmark Health Sciences Research foundation. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Use of systemic glucocorticoids significantly increased risk for community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (CA-SAB) in a dose-dependent fashion, based on data from a large Danish registry.

On average, current users of systemic glucocorticoids had an adjusted 2.5-fold increased risk of CA-SAB, compared with nonusers. The risk was most pronounced in long-term users of glucocorticoids, including patients with connective tissue disease and patients with chronic pulmonary disease. Among new users of glucocorticoids, the risk of CA-SAB was highest for patients with cancer, in the retrospective, case-control study published by Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Dr. Jesper Smit of Aalborg (Denmark) University and his colleagues, looked at all 2,638 patients admitted with first-time CA-SAB and 26,379 matched population controls in Northern Denmark medical databases between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011.

New glucocorticoid users had an odds ratio for CA-SAB of 2.7, slightly higher than the OR of 2.3 for long-term users. Former glucocorticoid users had a considerably lower OR for CA-SAB of 1.3.

Risk of CA-SAB rose in a dose-dependent fashion as 90-day cumulative doses increased. For subjects taking a cumulative dose of 150 mg or less, the adjusted OR for CA-SAB was 1.3. At a cumulative dose of 500-1000 mg, OR rose to 2.4. At a cumulative dose greater than 1000 mg, OR was 6.2.

Risk did not differ based on individuals’ sex, age group, or the severity of any comorbidity.

“This is the first study to specifically investigate whether the use of glucocorticoids is associated with increased risk of CA-SAB,” the authors concluded, adding that “these results extend the current knowledge of risk factors for CA-SAB and may serve as a reminder for clinicians to carefully weigh the elevated risk against the potential beneficial effect of glucocorticoid therapy, particularly in patients with concomitant CA-SAB risk factors.”

This study was supported by grants from Heinrich Kopp, Hertha Christensen, and North Denmark Health Sciences Research foundation. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Use of systemic glucocorticoids significantly increased risk for community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (CA-SAB) in a dose-dependent fashion, based on data from a large Danish registry.

On average, current users of systemic glucocorticoids had an adjusted 2.5-fold increased risk of CA-SAB, compared with nonusers. The risk was most pronounced in long-term users of glucocorticoids, including patients with connective tissue disease and patients with chronic pulmonary disease. Among new users of glucocorticoids, the risk of CA-SAB was highest for patients with cancer, in the retrospective, case-control study published by Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

CDC/Janice Haney Carr

Dr. Jesper Smit of Aalborg (Denmark) University and his colleagues, looked at all 2,638 patients admitted with first-time CA-SAB and 26,379 matched population controls in Northern Denmark medical databases between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011.

New glucocorticoid users had an odds ratio for CA-SAB of 2.7, slightly higher than the OR of 2.3 for long-term users. Former glucocorticoid users had a considerably lower OR for CA-SAB of 1.3.

Risk of CA-SAB rose in a dose-dependent fashion as 90-day cumulative doses increased. For subjects taking a cumulative dose of 150 mg or less, the adjusted OR for CA-SAB was 1.3. At a cumulative dose of 500-1000 mg, OR rose to 2.4. At a cumulative dose greater than 1000 mg, OR was 6.2.

Risk did not differ based on individuals’ sex, age group, or the severity of any comorbidity.

“This is the first study to specifically investigate whether the use of glucocorticoids is associated with increased risk of CA-SAB,” the authors concluded, adding that “these results extend the current knowledge of risk factors for CA-SAB and may serve as a reminder for clinicians to carefully weigh the elevated risk against the potential beneficial effect of glucocorticoid therapy, particularly in patients with concomitant CA-SAB risk factors.”

This study was supported by grants from Heinrich Kopp, Hertha Christensen, and North Denmark Health Sciences Research foundation. The authors did not report any relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors improved the extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among more than half of affected patients, according to a national cohort study.

“The best response rates were for psoriasis, aphthous stomatitis, uveitis, and peripheral arthritis,” said Dr. Thomas Greuter of University Hospital in Zürich. Patients responded similarly whether they received oral infliximab or subcutaneous adalimumab or certolizumab, he noted.

IBD often is associated with debilitating disorders of the skin, joints, eyes, and hepatobiliary tract, but “due to the lack of randomized, controlled trials, the therapy of extraintestinal manifestations remains rather empirical,” Dr. Greuter said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

To study the role of anti-TNF agents in treating these disorders, he and his associates analyzed data for 1,249 patients from the national Swiss IBD Cohort Study between 2006 and 2010. Patients were typically in their mid-30s and had lived with IBD for about 9 years, he said.

A total of 366 patients (29%) had at least one extraintestinal manifestation of IBD – most commonly peripheral arthritis (75%), followed by aphthous stomatitis (24%), and ankylosing spondylitis (22%). In all, 213 (58%) patients received at least one anti-TNF agent, and 40% received the prescription specifically for extraintestinal manifestations. Nearly two-thirds of the patients received infliximab, while 22% received adalimumab and 15% received certolizumab.

About 55% of patients improved on anti-TNF therapy over an average of 7 years of follow-up, Dr. Greuter and his associates reported. Among all three anti-TNF agents, response rates ranged from 100% for psoriasis, to 80% for erythema nodosum and stomatitis, to 73% for arthritis and uveitis, to 50% for pyoderma granulosum. Overall rates of improvement were slightly higher for infliximab than for the other two drugs, but “adalimumab and certolizumab were used mostly as a second or a third-line anti-TNF agent, and the response rate to a second or third-line treatment was lower than for the first one,” Dr. Greuter said. Some patients also received corticosteroids and immunomodulators, but excluding this subgroup had little effect on rates of response to anti-TNF therapy, he added.

Dr. Greuter also reported that 11 patients (about 5% of the cohort) developed 14 new extraintestinal manifestations after starting anti-TNF agents – usually peripheral arthritis, but also pyoderma granulosum, aphthous stomatitis, psoriasis, and uveitis. “We cannot say if this was primary, or a side effect of treatment,” he said. These disorders usually improved if patients stayed on their anti-TNF agent, he added.

About two-thirds of patients in the cohort were female, more than three-quarters had Crohn’s disease, 19% had ulcerative colitis, and 3% had indeterminate colitis, he noted.

A research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation funded the study. Dr. Greuter had no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors improved the extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among more than half of affected patients, according to a national cohort study.

“The best response rates were for psoriasis, aphthous stomatitis, uveitis, and peripheral arthritis,” said Dr. Thomas Greuter of University Hospital in Zürich. Patients responded similarly whether they received oral infliximab or subcutaneous adalimumab or certolizumab, he noted.

IBD often is associated with debilitating disorders of the skin, joints, eyes, and hepatobiliary tract, but “due to the lack of randomized, controlled trials, the therapy of extraintestinal manifestations remains rather empirical,” Dr. Greuter said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

To study the role of anti-TNF agents in treating these disorders, he and his associates analyzed data for 1,249 patients from the national Swiss IBD Cohort Study between 2006 and 2010. Patients were typically in their mid-30s and had lived with IBD for about 9 years, he said.

A total of 366 patients (29%) had at least one extraintestinal manifestation of IBD – most commonly peripheral arthritis (75%), followed by aphthous stomatitis (24%), and ankylosing spondylitis (22%). In all, 213 (58%) patients received at least one anti-TNF agent, and 40% received the prescription specifically for extraintestinal manifestations. Nearly two-thirds of the patients received infliximab, while 22% received adalimumab and 15% received certolizumab.

About 55% of patients improved on anti-TNF therapy over an average of 7 years of follow-up, Dr. Greuter and his associates reported. Among all three anti-TNF agents, response rates ranged from 100% for psoriasis, to 80% for erythema nodosum and stomatitis, to 73% for arthritis and uveitis, to 50% for pyoderma granulosum. Overall rates of improvement were slightly higher for infliximab than for the other two drugs, but “adalimumab and certolizumab were used mostly as a second or a third-line anti-TNF agent, and the response rate to a second or third-line treatment was lower than for the first one,” Dr. Greuter said. Some patients also received corticosteroids and immunomodulators, but excluding this subgroup had little effect on rates of response to anti-TNF therapy, he added.

Dr. Greuter also reported that 11 patients (about 5% of the cohort) developed 14 new extraintestinal manifestations after starting anti-TNF agents – usually peripheral arthritis, but also pyoderma granulosum, aphthous stomatitis, psoriasis, and uveitis. “We cannot say if this was primary, or a side effect of treatment,” he said. These disorders usually improved if patients stayed on their anti-TNF agent, he added.

About two-thirds of patients in the cohort were female, more than three-quarters had Crohn’s disease, 19% had ulcerative colitis, and 3% had indeterminate colitis, he noted.

A research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation funded the study. Dr. Greuter had no disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Tumor necrosis factor inhibitors improved the extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) among more than half of affected patients, according to a national cohort study.

“The best response rates were for psoriasis, aphthous stomatitis, uveitis, and peripheral arthritis,” said Dr. Thomas Greuter of University Hospital in Zürich. Patients responded similarly whether they received oral infliximab or subcutaneous adalimumab or certolizumab, he noted.

IBD often is associated with debilitating disorders of the skin, joints, eyes, and hepatobiliary tract, but “due to the lack of randomized, controlled trials, the therapy of extraintestinal manifestations remains rather empirical,” Dr. Greuter said at the annual Digestive Disease Week.

To study the role of anti-TNF agents in treating these disorders, he and his associates analyzed data for 1,249 patients from the national Swiss IBD Cohort Study between 2006 and 2010. Patients were typically in their mid-30s and had lived with IBD for about 9 years, he said.

A total of 366 patients (29%) had at least one extraintestinal manifestation of IBD – most commonly peripheral arthritis (75%), followed by aphthous stomatitis (24%), and ankylosing spondylitis (22%). In all, 213 (58%) patients received at least one anti-TNF agent, and 40% received the prescription specifically for extraintestinal manifestations. Nearly two-thirds of the patients received infliximab, while 22% received adalimumab and 15% received certolizumab.

About 55% of patients improved on anti-TNF therapy over an average of 7 years of follow-up, Dr. Greuter and his associates reported. Among all three anti-TNF agents, response rates ranged from 100% for psoriasis, to 80% for erythema nodosum and stomatitis, to 73% for arthritis and uveitis, to 50% for pyoderma granulosum. Overall rates of improvement were slightly higher for infliximab than for the other two drugs, but “adalimumab and certolizumab were used mostly as a second or a third-line anti-TNF agent, and the response rate to a second or third-line treatment was lower than for the first one,” Dr. Greuter said. Some patients also received corticosteroids and immunomodulators, but excluding this subgroup had little effect on rates of response to anti-TNF therapy, he added.

Dr. Greuter also reported that 11 patients (about 5% of the cohort) developed 14 new extraintestinal manifestations after starting anti-TNF agents – usually peripheral arthritis, but also pyoderma granulosum, aphthous stomatitis, psoriasis, and uveitis. “We cannot say if this was primary, or a side effect of treatment,” he said. These disorders usually improved if patients stayed on their anti-TNF agent, he added.

About two-thirds of patients in the cohort were female, more than three-quarters had Crohn’s disease, 19% had ulcerative colitis, and 3% had indeterminate colitis, he noted.

A research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation funded the study. Dr. Greuter had no disclosures.