Rheumatology

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Use of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or triple therapy with conventional, synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis have similar beneficial effects in reducing patients’ vascular inflammation and cardiovascular (CV) risk, according to results from a randomized, active comparator trial.

“The good news is, providers can rest assured that aggressive treatment for RA does reduce vascular inflammation and therefore cardiovascular risk,” lead author Daniel H. Solomon, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, told this news organization. “Part of the reason that treating people with potent disease-modifying agents is important is not only because of reductions in pain and improvements in function on the level of arthritis, but also because of the vascular impact.”

The small study, published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, randomly assigned 115 patients with active RA despite methotrexate use to one of two treatment protocols for 24 weeks: addition of a TNFi or triple therapy with the addition of sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine. Participants had 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)–PET/CT scans at baseline and 24 weeks to assess change in arterial inflammation, measured as an arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in the carotid arteries and aorta. The study achieved its outcomes despite a low 56.5% rate of adherence to 80% or more of randomized treatments.

Dr. Solomon said this is the first randomized trial comparing the effects of DMARDs on vascular inflammation in RA. The researchers hypothesized that TNFi would be superior to triple therapy for reducing vascular inflammation. “We found that they both reduced vascular inflammation on PET scanning to the same degree,” Dr. Solomon said.

Study results

In the TNFi group, the mean of the maximum of the TBR in the most diseased segment (MDS) of the index vessel declined from 2.72 to 2.47 for a delta of –0.24. In the triple-therapy patients, MDS declined from 2.62 to 2.43 for a delta of –0.19 (difference in deltas –0.02; 95% confidence interval, –0.19 to 0.15; P = .79).

Dr. Solomon explained the choice of FDG-PET/CT scanning to evaluate vascular inflammation in the study participants. “We know that FDG-PET/CT scanning correlates with CV risk, and we know that treatments like statins that impact CV risk reduce the inflammation as observed on FDG-PET/CT,” he said.

Although the study found no difference between the TNFi and triple therapy in terms of vascular outcomes, the conclusion is “a bit more nuanced,” Dr. Solomon said. “It tells us first that reducing inflammation with different strategies in rheumatoid arthritis can similarly impact vascular inflammation. That’s great news. These are aggressive treatment strategies, so if you can reduce vascular inflammation in a significant manner, that should result in reduced cardiovascular risk over time.” 

Although the choice of TNFi or triple therapy may not matter for reducing CV risk, Dr. Solomon said, “It matters that you choose something that’s aggressive and that you use it in people who have active disease. That’s another part of the story: People who have active disease have worse vascular inflammation, which translates into a reduction in cardiovascular risk – but it’s not differentially reduced.”

Underlying mechanisms of CVD in RA

Commenting on the research for this news organization, Lihi Eder, MD, PhD, codirector of the cardio-rheumatology program at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, said the study findings build on what’s known about some of the underlying mechanisms of cardiovascular diseases in RA and how to optimize treatments to reduce the risk.

“Importantly,” she said, “none of these treatment strategies was superior, suggesting that both treatment options are acceptable when considering cardiovascular risk reduction, in addition to controlling RA activity.”

The strengths of the study are its randomized, controlled design “conducted by a strong team of investigators,” and that it addressed questions relevant to routine practice, said Dr. Eder, who was not involved with the study.

The study’s use of FDG-PET/CT as a surrogate outcome is a limitation, she noted. “Although it would have been very challenging to perform a similar study that will include clinical events as a study outcome.” Another limitation, she said, was the low adherence rate to randomized treatments.

“Additional studies that will compare other modes of action [for example, interleukin-6 inhibitors, Janus kinase inhibitors, anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies] could broaden our understanding regarding the inflammatory pathways driving CV risk in RA,” Dr. Eder added.

The study received funding from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. AbbVie and Amgen supplied drugs used in the study. Dr. Solomon disclosed receiving research support from AbbVie, Amgen, CorEvitas, and Moderna, and royalties from UpToDate. Dr. Eder reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Asking knee osteoarthritis patients a simple question – do you have difficulty climbing stairs? – may predict the risk of future functional limitation, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Finding out that the patient has difficulty also opens avenues for further evaluation and intervention, said Jason Jakiela, a PhD candidate at the University of Delaware, Newark, who led the study. “We like to view it as a kind of yellow flag,” Mr. Jakiela said in an interview.

Another expert agreed. “I think this is useful for clinical rheumatologists,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center. He commented on the study findings but was not involved in the study. Another common question asked of OA patients, about pain, may not be as useful as asking about difficulty climbing stairs, he said. “Their pain level can go up and down and can be quite varied.”

decade3d/Thinkstock

Study details, results

Mr. Jakiela and his team, including Daniel White, PT, ScD, MSC, associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Delaware, Newark, used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). They assessed stair climbing difficulty at baseline with the question: Does your health now limit you in climbing several flights of stairs? Respondents could answer that they were limited a lot, a little, or not at all.

The researchers evaluated functional limitation using two measures: Walking speed and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function (WOMAC-PF) scores. A walking speed of < 1.22 m/s over 20 meters, the speed needed to safely cross a timed intersection, represented poor function. A WOMAC-PF score of 28/68 or more was also used to define low functioning.

The analyses included only people free of functional limitations at baseline. Each measure was conducted at the start and then at 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 months’ follow-up visits.

While 2,952 participants (mean age 60.1, 54% female, mean body mass index 27.9) were in the walking speed sample, 3,983 participants (mean age 61.2, 57% female, mean BMI 28.2) were in the WOMAC-PF sample.

Starting the conversation

The question about stair climbing difficulty is a good “jumping-off point,” Mr. Jakiela said. “It opens up a line of questioning.” With knee OA, stair climbing difficulty is often the first reported limitation. That difficulty could capture a variety of issues, he said. Patients could be struggling with strength issues, cardiovascular problems, or balance deficits, for instance.

It signals there may be a trajectory of slow decline coming in this patient, Mr. Jakiela said.

“It’s a signal that something is not right,” Dr. White said in an interview. “We don’t know what is wrong.” While questions about stairs have routinely been asked of OA patients, the study findings suggest the answer to the question about having difficulty could help predict a patient’s future course, he said.

After patients reported a little or a lot of difficulty with stair climbing, the average time to reach functional limitation status was about 3 years, Mr. Jakiela said. That gives health care providers time to ask more questions about the patient’s condition and potentially intervene, depending on the details of the difficulty. If it’s a balance issue, physical therapy might help, for example.

While gait speed is a tried-and-true indication, collecting answers about stair climbing difficulty is easier and quicker for clinicians than assessing gait speed, which requires more time as well as office space, Mr. Jakiela said. It’s also intuitive for the patients to recall, the researchers said.
 

More practical takeaways

Finding out whether functional limitation is likely, based on the stair question, can help health care providers consider nonpharmacologic interventions, Dr. Kwoh agreed, such as physical therapy or braces. “It doesn’t have to be drugs. We have limited drugs for OA at the moment. We don’t have a so-called DMARD drug [for OA].”

NSAIDs have side effects, and people are very familiar with the issues of opioids, he said. It’s important, he added, for the health care provider, if referring to a physical therapist, to find the right one. To help those dealing with knee OA, a PT in sports medicine might be a good choice, he said.

Mr. Jakiela has no disclosures. Dr. Kwoh and Dr. White have no relevant disclosures.

Asking knee osteoarthritis patients a simple question – do you have difficulty climbing stairs? – may predict the risk of future functional limitation, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Finding out that the patient has difficulty also opens avenues for further evaluation and intervention, said Jason Jakiela, a PhD candidate at the University of Delaware, Newark, who led the study. “We like to view it as a kind of yellow flag,” Mr. Jakiela said in an interview.

Another expert agreed. “I think this is useful for clinical rheumatologists,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center. He commented on the study findings but was not involved in the study. Another common question asked of OA patients, about pain, may not be as useful as asking about difficulty climbing stairs, he said. “Their pain level can go up and down and can be quite varied.”

decade3d/Thinkstock

Study details, results

Mr. Jakiela and his team, including Daniel White, PT, ScD, MSC, associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Delaware, Newark, used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). They assessed stair climbing difficulty at baseline with the question: Does your health now limit you in climbing several flights of stairs? Respondents could answer that they were limited a lot, a little, or not at all.

The researchers evaluated functional limitation using two measures: Walking speed and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function (WOMAC-PF) scores. A walking speed of < 1.22 m/s over 20 meters, the speed needed to safely cross a timed intersection, represented poor function. A WOMAC-PF score of 28/68 or more was also used to define low functioning.

The analyses included only people free of functional limitations at baseline. Each measure was conducted at the start and then at 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 months’ follow-up visits.

While 2,952 participants (mean age 60.1, 54% female, mean body mass index 27.9) were in the walking speed sample, 3,983 participants (mean age 61.2, 57% female, mean BMI 28.2) were in the WOMAC-PF sample.

Starting the conversation

The question about stair climbing difficulty is a good “jumping-off point,” Mr. Jakiela said. “It opens up a line of questioning.” With knee OA, stair climbing difficulty is often the first reported limitation. That difficulty could capture a variety of issues, he said. Patients could be struggling with strength issues, cardiovascular problems, or balance deficits, for instance.

It signals there may be a trajectory of slow decline coming in this patient, Mr. Jakiela said.

“It’s a signal that something is not right,” Dr. White said in an interview. “We don’t know what is wrong.” While questions about stairs have routinely been asked of OA patients, the study findings suggest the answer to the question about having difficulty could help predict a patient’s future course, he said.

After patients reported a little or a lot of difficulty with stair climbing, the average time to reach functional limitation status was about 3 years, Mr. Jakiela said. That gives health care providers time to ask more questions about the patient’s condition and potentially intervene, depending on the details of the difficulty. If it’s a balance issue, physical therapy might help, for example.

While gait speed is a tried-and-true indication, collecting answers about stair climbing difficulty is easier and quicker for clinicians than assessing gait speed, which requires more time as well as office space, Mr. Jakiela said. It’s also intuitive for the patients to recall, the researchers said.
 

More practical takeaways

Finding out whether functional limitation is likely, based on the stair question, can help health care providers consider nonpharmacologic interventions, Dr. Kwoh agreed, such as physical therapy or braces. “It doesn’t have to be drugs. We have limited drugs for OA at the moment. We don’t have a so-called DMARD drug [for OA].”

NSAIDs have side effects, and people are very familiar with the issues of opioids, he said. It’s important, he added, for the health care provider, if referring to a physical therapist, to find the right one. To help those dealing with knee OA, a PT in sports medicine might be a good choice, he said.

Mr. Jakiela has no disclosures. Dr. Kwoh and Dr. White have no relevant disclosures.

Asking knee osteoarthritis patients a simple question – do you have difficulty climbing stairs? – may predict the risk of future functional limitation, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology. Finding out that the patient has difficulty also opens avenues for further evaluation and intervention, said Jason Jakiela, a PhD candidate at the University of Delaware, Newark, who led the study. “We like to view it as a kind of yellow flag,” Mr. Jakiela said in an interview.

Another expert agreed. “I think this is useful for clinical rheumatologists,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, professor of medicine and medical imaging at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center. He commented on the study findings but was not involved in the study. Another common question asked of OA patients, about pain, may not be as useful as asking about difficulty climbing stairs, he said. “Their pain level can go up and down and can be quite varied.”

decade3d/Thinkstock

Study details, results

Mr. Jakiela and his team, including Daniel White, PT, ScD, MSC, associate professor of physical therapy at the University of Delaware, Newark, used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI). They assessed stair climbing difficulty at baseline with the question: Does your health now limit you in climbing several flights of stairs? Respondents could answer that they were limited a lot, a little, or not at all.

The researchers evaluated functional limitation using two measures: Walking speed and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index physical function (WOMAC-PF) scores. A walking speed of < 1.22 m/s over 20 meters, the speed needed to safely cross a timed intersection, represented poor function. A WOMAC-PF score of 28/68 or more was also used to define low functioning.

The analyses included only people free of functional limitations at baseline. Each measure was conducted at the start and then at 12, 24, 36, 48, 72, and 96 months’ follow-up visits.

While 2,952 participants (mean age 60.1, 54% female, mean body mass index 27.9) were in the walking speed sample, 3,983 participants (mean age 61.2, 57% female, mean BMI 28.2) were in the WOMAC-PF sample.

Starting the conversation

The question about stair climbing difficulty is a good “jumping-off point,” Mr. Jakiela said. “It opens up a line of questioning.” With knee OA, stair climbing difficulty is often the first reported limitation. That difficulty could capture a variety of issues, he said. Patients could be struggling with strength issues, cardiovascular problems, or balance deficits, for instance.

It signals there may be a trajectory of slow decline coming in this patient, Mr. Jakiela said.

“It’s a signal that something is not right,” Dr. White said in an interview. “We don’t know what is wrong.” While questions about stairs have routinely been asked of OA patients, the study findings suggest the answer to the question about having difficulty could help predict a patient’s future course, he said.

After patients reported a little or a lot of difficulty with stair climbing, the average time to reach functional limitation status was about 3 years, Mr. Jakiela said. That gives health care providers time to ask more questions about the patient’s condition and potentially intervene, depending on the details of the difficulty. If it’s a balance issue, physical therapy might help, for example.

While gait speed is a tried-and-true indication, collecting answers about stair climbing difficulty is easier and quicker for clinicians than assessing gait speed, which requires more time as well as office space, Mr. Jakiela said. It’s also intuitive for the patients to recall, the researchers said.
 

More practical takeaways

Finding out whether functional limitation is likely, based on the stair question, can help health care providers consider nonpharmacologic interventions, Dr. Kwoh agreed, such as physical therapy or braces. “It doesn’t have to be drugs. We have limited drugs for OA at the moment. We don’t have a so-called DMARD drug [for OA].”

NSAIDs have side effects, and people are very familiar with the issues of opioids, he said. It’s important, he added, for the health care provider, if referring to a physical therapist, to find the right one. To help those dealing with knee OA, a PT in sports medicine might be a good choice, he said.

Mr. Jakiela has no disclosures. Dr. Kwoh and Dr. White have no relevant disclosures.

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

Patients with rheumatic disease are at least half as likely to develop long COVID after a SARS-CoV-2 infection if they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, according to research published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2022 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223439).

“Moreover, those who were vaccinated prior to getting COVID-19 had less pain and fatigue after their infection,” Zachary S. Wallace, MD, MSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and a study author, said in an interview. “These findings reinforce the importance of vaccination in this population.”

Messaging around the value of COVID vaccination has been confusing for some with rheumatic disease “because our concern regarding a blunted response to vaccination has led many patients to think that they do not provide much benefit if they are on immunosuppression,” Dr. Wallace said. “In our cohort, which included many patients on immunosuppression of varying degrees, being vaccinated was quite beneficial.”

Leonard H. Calabrese, DO, director of the R.J. Fasenmyer Center for Clinical Immunology and a professor of medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that the study is an “extremely important contribution to our understanding of COVID-19 and its pattern of recovery in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [IMIDs].” Remaining unanswered questions are “whether patients with IMIDs develop more frequent PASC [post–acute sequelae of COVID-19] from COVID-19 and, if so, is it milder or more severe, and does it differ in its clinical phenotype?”
 

Long COVID risk assessed at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection

The researchers prospectively tracked 280 adult patients in the Mass General Brigham health care system in the greater Boston area who had systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases and had an acute COVID-19 infection between March 2020 and July 2022. Patients were an average 53 years old, and most were White (82%) and female (80%). More than half (59%) had inflammatory arthritis, a quarter (24%) had connective tissue disease, and most others had a vasculitis condition or multiple conditions.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

A total of 11% of patients were unvaccinated, 28% were partially vaccinated with one mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose, and 41% were fully vaccinated with two mRNA vaccine doses or one Johnson & Johnson dose. The 116 fully vaccinated patients were considered to have a breakthrough infection while the other 164 were considered to have a nonbreakthrough infection. The breakthrough and nonbreakthrough groups were similar in terms of age, sex, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and type of rheumatic disease. Comorbidities were also similar, except obesity, which was more common in the non–breakthrough infection group (25%) than the breakthrough infection group (10%).

The researchers queried patients on their COVID-19 symptoms, how long symptoms lasted, treatments they received, and hospitalization details. COVID-19 symptoms assessed included fever, sore throat, new cough, nasal congestion/rhinorrhea, dyspnea, chest pain, rash, myalgia, fatigue/malaise, headache, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, anosmia, dysgeusia, and joint pain.

Patients completed surveys about symptoms at 4 weeks and 3 months after infection. Long COVID, or PASC, was defined as any persistent symptom at the times assessed.
 

Vaccinated patients fared better across outcomes

At 4 weeks after infection, 41% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 54% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P = .04). At 3 months after infection, 21% of fully vaccinated patients had at least one persistent symptom, compared with 41% of unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (P < .0001).

Vaccinated patients were half as likely to have long COVID at 4 weeks after infection (adjusted odds ratio, 0.49) and 90% less likely to have long COVID 3 months after infection (aOR, 0.1), after adjustment for age, sex, race, comorbidities, and use of any of four immune-suppressing medications (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies, methotrexate, mycophenolate, or glucocorticoids).

Fully vaccinated patients with breakthrough infections had an average 21 additional days without symptoms during follow-up, compared with unvaccinated and partially vaccinated patients (P = .04).

Reduced risk of long COVID did not change for vaccinated patients after sensitivity analyses for those who did not receive nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid) or monoclonal antibodies, those who didn’t receive any COVID-19-related treatment, those who completed their questionnaires within 6 months after infection, and those who were not hospitalized.

“One important message is that among those who did get PASC, the severity appears similar among those with and without a breakthrough infection,” Dr. Wallace said. “This highlights the need for ongoing research to improve recognition, diagnosis, and treatment of PASC.”

Many more breakthrough infections (72%) than nonbreakthrough infections (2%) occurred during Omicron. The authors acknowledged that different variants might play a role in different long COVID risks but said such potential confounding is unlikely to fully explain the results.

“Even with data suggesting that the Omicron variants may be intrinsically less severe, vaccination still has an impact on severity of infection, rates of hospitalization, and other outcomes and thus may play a role in the risk of PASC,” lead author Naomi Patel, MD, an instructor at Harvard Medical School and a rheumatologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, said in an interview. “A study evaluating the proportions with PASC by vaccination status during the time in which a single variant is predominant, such as the early Omicron era, could help to better assess the more isolated impact of vaccination on PASC.”

Dr. Calabrese said he is convinced that Omicron infections are less likely to result in more severe forms of acute COVID than pre-Omicron infections, and he suspects Omicron infections are also less likely to result in long COVID, although less evidence currently supports this hypothesis.

Hospitalization was more common in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients than in vaccinated patients (27% vs. 5%; P = .001). Although pain and fatigue were lower in those with breakthrough infections, functional scores and health-related quality of life were similar in both groups.

Some symptoms significantly differed between vaccinated and unvaccinated/partly vaccinated groups, possibly caused partly by different variants. Nasal congestion was more common (73%) in those with breakthrough infections than in those with nonbreakthrough infections (46%; P < .0001). Those who were unvaccinated/partly vaccinated were significantly more likely to have loss of smell (46% vs. 22%) or taste (45% vs. 28%) or to have joint pain (11% vs. 4%).

Treatment with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was also more common in vaccinated patients (12%) than in unvaccinated/partly vaccinated patients (1%; P < .0001), as was treatment with monoclonal antibodies (34% vs. 8%; P < .0001).

The study was limited by its low diversity and being at a single health care system, the authors said. Study coauthor Jeffrey A. Sparks, MD, MMSc, an assistant professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, said in an interview that the group is planning additional studies as their cohort grows, including “investigating the relationships between COVID-19 and specific rheumatic diseases and immunomodulating medications, expansion of autoimmunity and systemic inflammation, and lung damage among specific patient populations.”

Dr. Calabrese said it will be important for follow-up study of the symptomatic patients to “determine how many of these patients will fit the clinical picture of long COVID or long-haul phenotypes over the months and years ahead, including documenting exertional malaise and quality of life.

This study only assessed patients who received zero, one, or two doses of a vaccine, but many patients with rheumatic disease today will likely have received booster doses. However, Dr. Calabrese said it would be difficult to quantify whether a third, fourth, or fifth dose offers additional protection from long-term COVID complications after full vaccination or hybrid vaccination.

The research was funded by the Rheumatology Research Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the R. Bruce and Joan M. Mickey Research Scholar Fund, and the Llura Gund Award for Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Care. Dr. Wallace has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/Sanofi and consulting fees from Zenas BioPharma, Horizon, Sanofi, Shionogi, Viela Bio, and Medpace. Dr. Sparks has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Janssen, Optum, and Pfizer. Dr. Patel has received consulting fees from FVC Health. Calabrese has consulted for Genentech, Sanofi-Regeneron, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

For patients with severe arthritis, joint replacement is considered when more conservative treatments have failed. Because patients with obesity have a higher risk of complications during and after surgery, some surgeons, hospitals, and insurance companies have adopted body mass index cutoffs as a basis for deciding whether to offer patients these elective surgeries. But some experts argue that these cutoffs are arbitrary, exclude patients who can still benefit from the surgery, and can increase disparities in care.

“By enforcing cutoffs in general, you’re losing the ability for each surgeon to determine who they want to operate on,” said Daniel Wiznia, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is on the leadership committee of the Movement Is Life Caucus, a nonprofit group focused on eliminating disparities in musculoskeletal health. “For every surgeon, it’s up to them to decide if they feel comfortable doing the surgery,” he noted in an interview. “My guidance for that would be, don’t just say no because of the number – look at the patient’s entire medical profile.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 42% of adults in the United States have a BMI over 30, and 9.2% of adults have a BMI over 40. This excess weight puts additional stress on joints: When a person is walking, experts estimate that the force on the knees can be two to three times someone’s body weight. Over time, this pressure can wear down the cartilage on joints.

As a result, people who are overweight or obese are more likely to develop osteoarthritis and to need joint replacements. According to a Canadian study, patients with a BMI of 30-35 are 3.4 times as likely to require a hip replacement and are 8.5 times as likely to require a knee replacement compared to individuals with a BMI in the “healthy weight” range. With a BMI above 40, individuals were 8.5 times more likely to need a hip replacement and were 32.7 times as likely to need a knee replacement.
 

More complications, greater expense

While there are no universally recommended BMI cutoffs for joint replacement surgery, it is not uncommon for institutions to require that patients have a BMI below a certain value (usually 35-40) to proceed with surgery. A 2013 survey of physicians from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons found that 52% of surgeons required a BMI below 40 to qualify for surgery.

One of the main reasons for these cutoffs is the elevated risk of complications during and after surgery. Research suggests that obesity is associated with higher rates of wound dehiscence, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and revision total joint arthroplasty. One 2016 study suggests that patients with a BMI of 35-39.9 are twice as likely to experience PJI compared to patients with a BMI below 35. For patients with a BMI of 40 or higher, PJI is four times as likely.

Another study found that patients whose BMI is 35-40 and who undergo total joint arthroplasty have a 6.4-fold greater risk of deep incision infection. For those with a BMI over 40, that rises to a 12.9-fold increased risk compared to patients with a BMI of 18.5-25. Patients with obesity tend to have other comorbidities that can increase the risk of complications during surgery, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease.

Because of the increased risk of complications, health care costs tend to be higher for patients with obesity. The growing popularity of bundled health payments can discourage operating on patients who are more likely to experience complications, such as patients with high BMIs, noted Dr. Wiznia.

Research suggests that minorities and people with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by these cutoffs. According to the CDC, among non-Hispanic Black Americans and Hispanic Americans, rates of obesity are higher than among their White counterparts, and these patients are less likely to undergo joint replacement. Strictly enforcing this eligibility criterion can worsen those disparities. A study involving 21,294 adults over age 50 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that requiring a BMI of under 35 for total joint arthroplasty resulted in Black patients being 39% less likely to be eligible for surgery than White patients. And individuals with an annual household income under $45,000 were 19% less likely to qualify for surgery than those with a household income above $45,000.
 

BMI no better than other risk factors

Although high BMI is independently associated with a higher risk of complications, the increased risk of complications conferred by a BMI at or above 40 is similar to or lower than those of other comorbidities that surgeons generally accept, said Nicholas Giori, MD, PhD, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, and chief of orthopedic surgery at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. These other comorbidities include age older than 75, hypertension that requires medication, and insulin-controlled diabetes. “The independent risk of just having the diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes is actually comparable to the independent risk of having obesity by itself,” he told this news organization, “and all of us operate on [patients with] diabetes.”

Also, there is no BMI at which the risk of complications suddenly increases, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. “It’s a rising complication rate as you go into higher BMIs,” Dr. Giori said. “If you operate on someone with a BMI of 39 vs. 41, you’re not going to find that much of a difference [in risk].” But if a medical system enforced a hard BMI cutoff of 40, one patient would qualify for surgery while the other would be barred.
 

Weight not as “modifiable” as previously thought

Weight is often considered a “modifiable factor” for a person considering undergoing total joint arthroplasty, but research suggests that the issue is more complicated. “Obesity is tricky, because some people are successful [in weight loss],” said Dr. Giori. Those tend to be the more memorable stories. “But a large majority have a really hard time losing substantial weight – enough to make a difference in risk,” he continued.

A study conducted in North Carolina found that restricting patients with a BMI over 40 from having elective total joint arthroplasty procedures until their weight was optimized did not result in successful weight loss. Only 20% of patients who originally presented with a BMI above this limit eventually underwent surgery after 2 years, and fewer than half of these patients had achieved a BMI of less than 40 at the time of their surgery. A third of all patients in the study did not return to the orthopedic office after their first visit.

“To hold a hard cutoff when it’s very, very hard to modify ... is essentially telling people that they are not going to ever have surgery,” Dr. Giori said; “I think that can be unfair to some patients.”

Bariatric surgery is often suggested for patients with obesity who have not experienced successful weight loss with diet and lifestyle changes alone, but bariatric surgery comes with its own complications. Research on outcomes from total joint arthroplasty among patients with who have lost weight with bariatric surgery has yielded mixed results. “I rarely push anyone hard to go that route but present it as an option for certain patients,” said Benjamin M. Stronach, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock. He usually brings up bariatric surgery with patients with a BMI in the high 40s or higher to gauge their interest. If patients are already considering weight loss surgery, his office provides referrals.

But even bariatric surgery does not result in successful long-term weight loss for every patient, Dr. Stronach said. He’s seeing more and more patients who come for consultations after having undergone bariatric surgery 10 to 15 years ago. These patients lost a significant amount of weight, but then gained the weight back. He noted that bariatric surgery can be very successful for some patients who adhere to their postbariatric regimen. “We typically see fairly impressive results in the short term,” he said.
 

Patients with obesity benefit from joint replacement

Although patients with obesity are at higher risk for complications from joint replacement surgery, research suggests that these patients can still benefit greatly from these surgeries and that these surgeries remain cost-effective. Some studies have found that patients with obesity tend to have worse outcomes after surgery than patients who are not obese, but often, patients with high BMIs are starting from a lower point, with greater joint pain and limited mobility, Dr. Giori said. But the improvements – that is, net change in measured outcomes – can be greater for obese patients.

“Several studies have shown equal or greater improvements in validated outcome scores, function, and satisfaction compared with nonobese patients after surgery,” authors wrote in a recent review article in which they discuss how to optimize joint replacement surgery for patients with obesity. The article, published in the November 2022 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon (JAAOS), is part of a collection of review articles by the Movement Is Life Caucus.

Encourage weight loss, but look beyond the number

Rather than adhering to strict BMI cutoffs, some experts urge surgeons to consider the patient as a whole and to evaluate each individual’s overall health and potential risk. Dr. Giori generally considers high BMI as just another comorbidity when assessing a patient’s overall risk. “For a person who only has a high BMI but is otherwise healthy, I see no reason not to go ahead and schedule that person for surgery, because reducing the patient’s BMI will not substantially reduce the patient’s complication risk, and a delay in surgery may adversely affect the patient’s quality of life and ability to earn a living,” he said.

“If someone is between a BMI of 40 and 45, we are definitely going to have a discussion about weight,” Dr. Stronach said. He generally counsels against surgery for any patient with a BMI at 45 or above. He wants patients to have a BMI below 40 before surgery but considers individual cases for exceptions. “We will still move forward at times with someone with a BMI of 41, as an example, who is otherwise healthy,” he said. Similarly, if a patient has lost a significant amount of weight (e.g., the patient’s BMI was reduced from 50 to 41), the patient is actively engaged in improving their health, and surgeons believe the patient has significantly reduced their risk, “a lot of time, we’re not going to draw a line in the sand right at [a BMI of] 40,” he said.

While using a BMI of under 35 or 40 as a guideline when starting to work with patients is reasonable, working toward a weight loss of 5%-10% of total body weight is another goal to consider, authors advise in the JAAOS obesity review article. Research suggests that even a 5% reduction in overall body weight can reduce surgical complications and can improve a patient’s glucose and lipid levels and cardiac profile. Referrals to dietitians and weight loss programs, as well as behavioral counseling, can also be useful in initiating weight loss and keeping patients engaged in the process, the authors wrote.
 

Consider a patient’s comorbidities

Many patients with obesity have comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension, that can also be optimized for surgery so as to lower a patient’s overall risk profile. For patients with diabetes, achieving an A1c of 8% or lower can be a reasonable goal and can reduce risk. “We’ve found that an HbA1c level of 8% or less is something that virtually all diabetics (though not everybody) can reach, and it’s something that can be reached in a reasonable amount of time,” Dr. Giori said. Preoperative use of beta-blockers, continued use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and behavioral modifications can improve a patient’s cardiac health before surgery.

Malnutrition can be a correctable problem for patients, regardless of BMI. In the Movement Is Life collection of optimization articles, experts recommend that orthopedists screen for malnutrition with blood tests for albumin, vitamin D, transferrin, and total lymphocyte count. Patients with malnutrition should be screened for food insecurity, experts advise, and surgical candidates with deficiencies can be given supplements of omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, and protein shakes.

Surgeon comfort and shared decision-making

Dr. Wiznia emphasized that the patient and surgeon need to discuss the risks of surgery, concerns about potential complications, and how a complication could affect the patient’s life moving forward. “Ultimately, the surgeon needs to make the decision [of whether or not to proceed [with surgery] with the patient,” he said, “but not every surgeon is going to feel comfortable operating on these patients, and not every medical institution is going to have the equipment and the investments to support surgeons doing it.”

Dr. Giori agreed that surgeons should proceed only with surgical cases they feel comfortable with. Certain surgeons may decide not to operate on individuals with higher BMIs because of the potential complications and can refer these patients to more specialized care centers. Operating on larger patients is more difficult and requires surgical skills and expertise that the surgeon may not have, he noted. “What I do object to is a system-wide BMI cutoff – for example, if an insurance company won’t pay for you to have a joint replacement, regardless of where you go or who your surgeon is,” Dr. Giori added. “I think that’s wrong, because it’s not patient centered and it’s basically excluding people from having a life-altering operation.”

Dr. Giori and Dr. Wiznia report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stronach is a consultant for DJ Orthopaedics, Johnson & Johnson, and MiCare Path.

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

For patients with severe arthritis, joint replacement is considered when more conservative treatments have failed. Because patients with obesity have a higher risk of complications during and after surgery, some surgeons, hospitals, and insurance companies have adopted body mass index cutoffs as a basis for deciding whether to offer patients these elective surgeries. But some experts argue that these cutoffs are arbitrary, exclude patients who can still benefit from the surgery, and can increase disparities in care.

“By enforcing cutoffs in general, you’re losing the ability for each surgeon to determine who they want to operate on,” said Daniel Wiznia, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is on the leadership committee of the Movement Is Life Caucus, a nonprofit group focused on eliminating disparities in musculoskeletal health. “For every surgeon, it’s up to them to decide if they feel comfortable doing the surgery,” he noted in an interview. “My guidance for that would be, don’t just say no because of the number – look at the patient’s entire medical profile.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 42% of adults in the United States have a BMI over 30, and 9.2% of adults have a BMI over 40. This excess weight puts additional stress on joints: When a person is walking, experts estimate that the force on the knees can be two to three times someone’s body weight. Over time, this pressure can wear down the cartilage on joints.

As a result, people who are overweight or obese are more likely to develop osteoarthritis and to need joint replacements. According to a Canadian study, patients with a BMI of 30-35 are 3.4 times as likely to require a hip replacement and are 8.5 times as likely to require a knee replacement compared to individuals with a BMI in the “healthy weight” range. With a BMI above 40, individuals were 8.5 times more likely to need a hip replacement and were 32.7 times as likely to need a knee replacement.
 

More complications, greater expense

While there are no universally recommended BMI cutoffs for joint replacement surgery, it is not uncommon for institutions to require that patients have a BMI below a certain value (usually 35-40) to proceed with surgery. A 2013 survey of physicians from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons found that 52% of surgeons required a BMI below 40 to qualify for surgery.

One of the main reasons for these cutoffs is the elevated risk of complications during and after surgery. Research suggests that obesity is associated with higher rates of wound dehiscence, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and revision total joint arthroplasty. One 2016 study suggests that patients with a BMI of 35-39.9 are twice as likely to experience PJI compared to patients with a BMI below 35. For patients with a BMI of 40 or higher, PJI is four times as likely.

Another study found that patients whose BMI is 35-40 and who undergo total joint arthroplasty have a 6.4-fold greater risk of deep incision infection. For those with a BMI over 40, that rises to a 12.9-fold increased risk compared to patients with a BMI of 18.5-25. Patients with obesity tend to have other comorbidities that can increase the risk of complications during surgery, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease.

Because of the increased risk of complications, health care costs tend to be higher for patients with obesity. The growing popularity of bundled health payments can discourage operating on patients who are more likely to experience complications, such as patients with high BMIs, noted Dr. Wiznia.

Research suggests that minorities and people with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by these cutoffs. According to the CDC, among non-Hispanic Black Americans and Hispanic Americans, rates of obesity are higher than among their White counterparts, and these patients are less likely to undergo joint replacement. Strictly enforcing this eligibility criterion can worsen those disparities. A study involving 21,294 adults over age 50 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that requiring a BMI of under 35 for total joint arthroplasty resulted in Black patients being 39% less likely to be eligible for surgery than White patients. And individuals with an annual household income under $45,000 were 19% less likely to qualify for surgery than those with a household income above $45,000.
 

BMI no better than other risk factors

Although high BMI is independently associated with a higher risk of complications, the increased risk of complications conferred by a BMI at or above 40 is similar to or lower than those of other comorbidities that surgeons generally accept, said Nicholas Giori, MD, PhD, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, and chief of orthopedic surgery at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. These other comorbidities include age older than 75, hypertension that requires medication, and insulin-controlled diabetes. “The independent risk of just having the diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes is actually comparable to the independent risk of having obesity by itself,” he told this news organization, “and all of us operate on [patients with] diabetes.”

Also, there is no BMI at which the risk of complications suddenly increases, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. “It’s a rising complication rate as you go into higher BMIs,” Dr. Giori said. “If you operate on someone with a BMI of 39 vs. 41, you’re not going to find that much of a difference [in risk].” But if a medical system enforced a hard BMI cutoff of 40, one patient would qualify for surgery while the other would be barred.
 

Weight not as “modifiable” as previously thought

Weight is often considered a “modifiable factor” for a person considering undergoing total joint arthroplasty, but research suggests that the issue is more complicated. “Obesity is tricky, because some people are successful [in weight loss],” said Dr. Giori. Those tend to be the more memorable stories. “But a large majority have a really hard time losing substantial weight – enough to make a difference in risk,” he continued.

A study conducted in North Carolina found that restricting patients with a BMI over 40 from having elective total joint arthroplasty procedures until their weight was optimized did not result in successful weight loss. Only 20% of patients who originally presented with a BMI above this limit eventually underwent surgery after 2 years, and fewer than half of these patients had achieved a BMI of less than 40 at the time of their surgery. A third of all patients in the study did not return to the orthopedic office after their first visit.

“To hold a hard cutoff when it’s very, very hard to modify ... is essentially telling people that they are not going to ever have surgery,” Dr. Giori said; “I think that can be unfair to some patients.”

Bariatric surgery is often suggested for patients with obesity who have not experienced successful weight loss with diet and lifestyle changes alone, but bariatric surgery comes with its own complications. Research on outcomes from total joint arthroplasty among patients with who have lost weight with bariatric surgery has yielded mixed results. “I rarely push anyone hard to go that route but present it as an option for certain patients,” said Benjamin M. Stronach, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock. He usually brings up bariatric surgery with patients with a BMI in the high 40s or higher to gauge their interest. If patients are already considering weight loss surgery, his office provides referrals.

But even bariatric surgery does not result in successful long-term weight loss for every patient, Dr. Stronach said. He’s seeing more and more patients who come for consultations after having undergone bariatric surgery 10 to 15 years ago. These patients lost a significant amount of weight, but then gained the weight back. He noted that bariatric surgery can be very successful for some patients who adhere to their postbariatric regimen. “We typically see fairly impressive results in the short term,” he said.
 

Patients with obesity benefit from joint replacement

Although patients with obesity are at higher risk for complications from joint replacement surgery, research suggests that these patients can still benefit greatly from these surgeries and that these surgeries remain cost-effective. Some studies have found that patients with obesity tend to have worse outcomes after surgery than patients who are not obese, but often, patients with high BMIs are starting from a lower point, with greater joint pain and limited mobility, Dr. Giori said. But the improvements – that is, net change in measured outcomes – can be greater for obese patients.

“Several studies have shown equal or greater improvements in validated outcome scores, function, and satisfaction compared with nonobese patients after surgery,” authors wrote in a recent review article in which they discuss how to optimize joint replacement surgery for patients with obesity. The article, published in the November 2022 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon (JAAOS), is part of a collection of review articles by the Movement Is Life Caucus.

Encourage weight loss, but look beyond the number

Rather than adhering to strict BMI cutoffs, some experts urge surgeons to consider the patient as a whole and to evaluate each individual’s overall health and potential risk. Dr. Giori generally considers high BMI as just another comorbidity when assessing a patient’s overall risk. “For a person who only has a high BMI but is otherwise healthy, I see no reason not to go ahead and schedule that person for surgery, because reducing the patient’s BMI will not substantially reduce the patient’s complication risk, and a delay in surgery may adversely affect the patient’s quality of life and ability to earn a living,” he said.

“If someone is between a BMI of 40 and 45, we are definitely going to have a discussion about weight,” Dr. Stronach said. He generally counsels against surgery for any patient with a BMI at 45 or above. He wants patients to have a BMI below 40 before surgery but considers individual cases for exceptions. “We will still move forward at times with someone with a BMI of 41, as an example, who is otherwise healthy,” he said. Similarly, if a patient has lost a significant amount of weight (e.g., the patient’s BMI was reduced from 50 to 41), the patient is actively engaged in improving their health, and surgeons believe the patient has significantly reduced their risk, “a lot of time, we’re not going to draw a line in the sand right at [a BMI of] 40,” he said.

While using a BMI of under 35 or 40 as a guideline when starting to work with patients is reasonable, working toward a weight loss of 5%-10% of total body weight is another goal to consider, authors advise in the JAAOS obesity review article. Research suggests that even a 5% reduction in overall body weight can reduce surgical complications and can improve a patient’s glucose and lipid levels and cardiac profile. Referrals to dietitians and weight loss programs, as well as behavioral counseling, can also be useful in initiating weight loss and keeping patients engaged in the process, the authors wrote.
 

Consider a patient’s comorbidities

Many patients with obesity have comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension, that can also be optimized for surgery so as to lower a patient’s overall risk profile. For patients with diabetes, achieving an A1c of 8% or lower can be a reasonable goal and can reduce risk. “We’ve found that an HbA1c level of 8% or less is something that virtually all diabetics (though not everybody) can reach, and it’s something that can be reached in a reasonable amount of time,” Dr. Giori said. Preoperative use of beta-blockers, continued use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and behavioral modifications can improve a patient’s cardiac health before surgery.

Malnutrition can be a correctable problem for patients, regardless of BMI. In the Movement Is Life collection of optimization articles, experts recommend that orthopedists screen for malnutrition with blood tests for albumin, vitamin D, transferrin, and total lymphocyte count. Patients with malnutrition should be screened for food insecurity, experts advise, and surgical candidates with deficiencies can be given supplements of omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, and protein shakes.

Surgeon comfort and shared decision-making

Dr. Wiznia emphasized that the patient and surgeon need to discuss the risks of surgery, concerns about potential complications, and how a complication could affect the patient’s life moving forward. “Ultimately, the surgeon needs to make the decision [of whether or not to proceed [with surgery] with the patient,” he said, “but not every surgeon is going to feel comfortable operating on these patients, and not every medical institution is going to have the equipment and the investments to support surgeons doing it.”

Dr. Giori agreed that surgeons should proceed only with surgical cases they feel comfortable with. Certain surgeons may decide not to operate on individuals with higher BMIs because of the potential complications and can refer these patients to more specialized care centers. Operating on larger patients is more difficult and requires surgical skills and expertise that the surgeon may not have, he noted. “What I do object to is a system-wide BMI cutoff – for example, if an insurance company won’t pay for you to have a joint replacement, regardless of where you go or who your surgeon is,” Dr. Giori added. “I think that’s wrong, because it’s not patient centered and it’s basically excluding people from having a life-altering operation.”

Dr. Giori and Dr. Wiznia report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stronach is a consultant for DJ Orthopaedics, Johnson & Johnson, and MiCare Path.

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

For patients with severe arthritis, joint replacement is considered when more conservative treatments have failed. Because patients with obesity have a higher risk of complications during and after surgery, some surgeons, hospitals, and insurance companies have adopted body mass index cutoffs as a basis for deciding whether to offer patients these elective surgeries. But some experts argue that these cutoffs are arbitrary, exclude patients who can still benefit from the surgery, and can increase disparities in care.

“By enforcing cutoffs in general, you’re losing the ability for each surgeon to determine who they want to operate on,” said Daniel Wiznia, MD, assistant professor of orthopedic surgery at Yale University, New Haven, Conn. He is on the leadership committee of the Movement Is Life Caucus, a nonprofit group focused on eliminating disparities in musculoskeletal health. “For every surgeon, it’s up to them to decide if they feel comfortable doing the surgery,” he noted in an interview. “My guidance for that would be, don’t just say no because of the number – look at the patient’s entire medical profile.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 42% of adults in the United States have a BMI over 30, and 9.2% of adults have a BMI over 40. This excess weight puts additional stress on joints: When a person is walking, experts estimate that the force on the knees can be two to three times someone’s body weight. Over time, this pressure can wear down the cartilage on joints.

As a result, people who are overweight or obese are more likely to develop osteoarthritis and to need joint replacements. According to a Canadian study, patients with a BMI of 30-35 are 3.4 times as likely to require a hip replacement and are 8.5 times as likely to require a knee replacement compared to individuals with a BMI in the “healthy weight” range. With a BMI above 40, individuals were 8.5 times more likely to need a hip replacement and were 32.7 times as likely to need a knee replacement.
 

More complications, greater expense

While there are no universally recommended BMI cutoffs for joint replacement surgery, it is not uncommon for institutions to require that patients have a BMI below a certain value (usually 35-40) to proceed with surgery. A 2013 survey of physicians from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons found that 52% of surgeons required a BMI below 40 to qualify for surgery.

One of the main reasons for these cutoffs is the elevated risk of complications during and after surgery. Research suggests that obesity is associated with higher rates of wound dehiscence, prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and revision total joint arthroplasty. One 2016 study suggests that patients with a BMI of 35-39.9 are twice as likely to experience PJI compared to patients with a BMI below 35. For patients with a BMI of 40 or higher, PJI is four times as likely.

Another study found that patients whose BMI is 35-40 and who undergo total joint arthroplasty have a 6.4-fold greater risk of deep incision infection. For those with a BMI over 40, that rises to a 12.9-fold increased risk compared to patients with a BMI of 18.5-25. Patients with obesity tend to have other comorbidities that can increase the risk of complications during surgery, such as type 2 diabetes, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease.

Because of the increased risk of complications, health care costs tend to be higher for patients with obesity. The growing popularity of bundled health payments can discourage operating on patients who are more likely to experience complications, such as patients with high BMIs, noted Dr. Wiznia.

Research suggests that minorities and people with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by these cutoffs. According to the CDC, among non-Hispanic Black Americans and Hispanic Americans, rates of obesity are higher than among their White counterparts, and these patients are less likely to undergo joint replacement. Strictly enforcing this eligibility criterion can worsen those disparities. A study involving 21,294 adults over age 50 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that requiring a BMI of under 35 for total joint arthroplasty resulted in Black patients being 39% less likely to be eligible for surgery than White patients. And individuals with an annual household income under $45,000 were 19% less likely to qualify for surgery than those with a household income above $45,000.
 

BMI no better than other risk factors

Although high BMI is independently associated with a higher risk of complications, the increased risk of complications conferred by a BMI at or above 40 is similar to or lower than those of other comorbidities that surgeons generally accept, said Nicholas Giori, MD, PhD, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University, and chief of orthopedic surgery at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. These other comorbidities include age older than 75, hypertension that requires medication, and insulin-controlled diabetes. “The independent risk of just having the diagnosis of insulin-dependent diabetes is actually comparable to the independent risk of having obesity by itself,” he told this news organization, “and all of us operate on [patients with] diabetes.”

Also, there is no BMI at which the risk of complications suddenly increases, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. “It’s a rising complication rate as you go into higher BMIs,” Dr. Giori said. “If you operate on someone with a BMI of 39 vs. 41, you’re not going to find that much of a difference [in risk].” But if a medical system enforced a hard BMI cutoff of 40, one patient would qualify for surgery while the other would be barred.
 

Weight not as “modifiable” as previously thought

Weight is often considered a “modifiable factor” for a person considering undergoing total joint arthroplasty, but research suggests that the issue is more complicated. “Obesity is tricky, because some people are successful [in weight loss],” said Dr. Giori. Those tend to be the more memorable stories. “But a large majority have a really hard time losing substantial weight – enough to make a difference in risk,” he continued.

A study conducted in North Carolina found that restricting patients with a BMI over 40 from having elective total joint arthroplasty procedures until their weight was optimized did not result in successful weight loss. Only 20% of patients who originally presented with a BMI above this limit eventually underwent surgery after 2 years, and fewer than half of these patients had achieved a BMI of less than 40 at the time of their surgery. A third of all patients in the study did not return to the orthopedic office after their first visit.

“To hold a hard cutoff when it’s very, very hard to modify ... is essentially telling people that they are not going to ever have surgery,” Dr. Giori said; “I think that can be unfair to some patients.”

Bariatric surgery is often suggested for patients with obesity who have not experienced successful weight loss with diet and lifestyle changes alone, but bariatric surgery comes with its own complications. Research on outcomes from total joint arthroplasty among patients with who have lost weight with bariatric surgery has yielded mixed results. “I rarely push anyone hard to go that route but present it as an option for certain patients,” said Benjamin M. Stronach, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, in Little Rock. He usually brings up bariatric surgery with patients with a BMI in the high 40s or higher to gauge their interest. If patients are already considering weight loss surgery, his office provides referrals.

But even bariatric surgery does not result in successful long-term weight loss for every patient, Dr. Stronach said. He’s seeing more and more patients who come for consultations after having undergone bariatric surgery 10 to 15 years ago. These patients lost a significant amount of weight, but then gained the weight back. He noted that bariatric surgery can be very successful for some patients who adhere to their postbariatric regimen. “We typically see fairly impressive results in the short term,” he said.
 

Patients with obesity benefit from joint replacement

Although patients with obesity are at higher risk for complications from joint replacement surgery, research suggests that these patients can still benefit greatly from these surgeries and that these surgeries remain cost-effective. Some studies have found that patients with obesity tend to have worse outcomes after surgery than patients who are not obese, but often, patients with high BMIs are starting from a lower point, with greater joint pain and limited mobility, Dr. Giori said. But the improvements – that is, net change in measured outcomes – can be greater for obese patients.

“Several studies have shown equal or greater improvements in validated outcome scores, function, and satisfaction compared with nonobese patients after surgery,” authors wrote in a recent review article in which they discuss how to optimize joint replacement surgery for patients with obesity. The article, published in the November 2022 issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon (JAAOS), is part of a collection of review articles by the Movement Is Life Caucus.

Encourage weight loss, but look beyond the number

Rather than adhering to strict BMI cutoffs, some experts urge surgeons to consider the patient as a whole and to evaluate each individual’s overall health and potential risk. Dr. Giori generally considers high BMI as just another comorbidity when assessing a patient’s overall risk. “For a person who only has a high BMI but is otherwise healthy, I see no reason not to go ahead and schedule that person for surgery, because reducing the patient’s BMI will not substantially reduce the patient’s complication risk, and a delay in surgery may adversely affect the patient’s quality of life and ability to earn a living,” he said.

“If someone is between a BMI of 40 and 45, we are definitely going to have a discussion about weight,” Dr. Stronach said. He generally counsels against surgery for any patient with a BMI at 45 or above. He wants patients to have a BMI below 40 before surgery but considers individual cases for exceptions. “We will still move forward at times with someone with a BMI of 41, as an example, who is otherwise healthy,” he said. Similarly, if a patient has lost a significant amount of weight (e.g., the patient’s BMI was reduced from 50 to 41), the patient is actively engaged in improving their health, and surgeons believe the patient has significantly reduced their risk, “a lot of time, we’re not going to draw a line in the sand right at [a BMI of] 40,” he said.

While using a BMI of under 35 or 40 as a guideline when starting to work with patients is reasonable, working toward a weight loss of 5%-10% of total body weight is another goal to consider, authors advise in the JAAOS obesity review article. Research suggests that even a 5% reduction in overall body weight can reduce surgical complications and can improve a patient’s glucose and lipid levels and cardiac profile. Referrals to dietitians and weight loss programs, as well as behavioral counseling, can also be useful in initiating weight loss and keeping patients engaged in the process, the authors wrote.
 

Consider a patient’s comorbidities

Many patients with obesity have comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes and hypertension, that can also be optimized for surgery so as to lower a patient’s overall risk profile. For patients with diabetes, achieving an A1c of 8% or lower can be a reasonable goal and can reduce risk. “We’ve found that an HbA1c level of 8% or less is something that virtually all diabetics (though not everybody) can reach, and it’s something that can be reached in a reasonable amount of time,” Dr. Giori said. Preoperative use of beta-blockers, continued use of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and behavioral modifications can improve a patient’s cardiac health before surgery.

Malnutrition can be a correctable problem for patients, regardless of BMI. In the Movement Is Life collection of optimization articles, experts recommend that orthopedists screen for malnutrition with blood tests for albumin, vitamin D, transferrin, and total lymphocyte count. Patients with malnutrition should be screened for food insecurity, experts advise, and surgical candidates with deficiencies can be given supplements of omega-3 fatty acids, arginine, and protein shakes.

Surgeon comfort and shared decision-making

Dr. Wiznia emphasized that the patient and surgeon need to discuss the risks of surgery, concerns about potential complications, and how a complication could affect the patient’s life moving forward. “Ultimately, the surgeon needs to make the decision [of whether or not to proceed [with surgery] with the patient,” he said, “but not every surgeon is going to feel comfortable operating on these patients, and not every medical institution is going to have the equipment and the investments to support surgeons doing it.”

Dr. Giori agreed that surgeons should proceed only with surgical cases they feel comfortable with. Certain surgeons may decide not to operate on individuals with higher BMIs because of the potential complications and can refer these patients to more specialized care centers. Operating on larger patients is more difficult and requires surgical skills and expertise that the surgeon may not have, he noted. “What I do object to is a system-wide BMI cutoff – for example, if an insurance company won’t pay for you to have a joint replacement, regardless of where you go or who your surgeon is,” Dr. Giori added. “I think that’s wrong, because it’s not patient centered and it’s basically excluding people from having a life-altering operation.”

Dr. Giori and Dr. Wiznia report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Stronach is a consultant for DJ Orthopaedics, Johnson & Johnson, and MiCare Path.

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

CHICAGO – Taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis may worsen inflammation and pain over time, suggest new data revealed at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Johanna Luitjens, MD, a postdoctoral scholar in the department of radiology and biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization that NSAIDs are frequently used to treat OA pain because inflammation is one of the main drivers of OA, but whether they actually help outcomes has been unclear. Her study suggests that they don’t help – and may actually worsen – outcomes.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

In particular, this study looked at the impact of NSAIDs on synovitis – the inflammation of the membrane lining the knee joint – by using MRI-based structural biomarkers.

OA, the most common form of arthritis, affects more than 32 million adults in the United States and more than 500 million people worldwide.
 

No approved therapy to reduce OA progression

Little is known of the long-term effects of NSAIDs on OA progression. Currently, there’s no approved therapy to cure OA or to reduce its advance.

Dr. Luitjens noted, however, that the synovial membrane mediates development and progression of OA and may be a good therapeutic target.

Researchers studied participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort with moderate to severe OA who used NSAIDs regularly for at least 1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up. All participants had high-quality 3T MRI of the knee at baseline and after 4 years. Images were scored for biomarkers of inflammation, including cartilage thickness and composition.

Dr. Luitjens and associates studied 721 participants who matched the inclusion criteria (129 with and 592 participants without regular NSAID use). The available data did not further specify amounts of NSAIDs used.

At baseline, significantly higher signal intensity in the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) was seen in patients who used NSAID, compared with controls (adjusted difference in score, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, –0.5 to –0.129; P = .039).

In addition, at the end of the study period, there was a significantly greater increase in signal intensity of IFP (adjusted difference in score, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.2-0.72; P < .001) and higher increase in effusion synovitis (adjusted difference in score, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-0.47;  P = .01) in NSAID users, compared with controls.

IFP size and synovial proliferation score did not different significantly between groups at the start of the study and showed no significant change over time.

The results showed no long-term benefit of NSAID use. Joint inflammation and cartilage quality were worse at baseline in the participants taking NSAIDs, compared with the control group, and worsened at 4-year follow-up.

Design limits strength

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cautioned against assuming causality, pointing out that the OAI is an observational cohort study. (Dr. Nelson was not involved in the OAI or Dr. Luitjens’ analysis.)

“[The OAI is] large and well known, but it wasn’t designed to compare these groups, and this was a small subset,” she said in an interview. Without randomization, it’s hard to judge the results.

“It may be that people on NSAIDs for the duration of the study had more pain and had more disease to begin with, or had more symptoms or had failed other treatments,” she said, adding that the effect sizes were small.

Measures such as the IFP are ranked 0-3, so “the clinical difference of a 0.26 difference on a 0-3 scale is a bit uncertain,” she said.

Dr. Luitjens said that the researchers tried to adjust for potential confounders but agreed that randomized controlled trials are needed to better advise physicians and patients on the benefits or harms of using NSAIDs for OA.

Weighing the risks in older adults

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that NSAIDs are “not always the safest option.”

“We are still in desperate need of disease-modifying drugs in OA with rigorous randomized trials to show efficacy for outcomes that are most meaningful to patients,” Dr. Makris, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“OA is most common in older adults, those often with multiple comorbidities, so we must always weigh the risks – including known adverse effects which can be amplified in older adults – and benefits with the goal of improved function and less pain,” Dr. Makris said.

NSAID use also should be considered in the context of body mass index, cardiovascular risk, prior trauma or injury, other medication use, and behavioral factors, including physical activity, she said.

Dr. Luitjens, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis may worsen inflammation and pain over time, suggest new data revealed at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Johanna Luitjens, MD, a postdoctoral scholar in the department of radiology and biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization that NSAIDs are frequently used to treat OA pain because inflammation is one of the main drivers of OA, but whether they actually help outcomes has been unclear. Her study suggests that they don’t help – and may actually worsen – outcomes.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

In particular, this study looked at the impact of NSAIDs on synovitis – the inflammation of the membrane lining the knee joint – by using MRI-based structural biomarkers.

OA, the most common form of arthritis, affects more than 32 million adults in the United States and more than 500 million people worldwide.
 

No approved therapy to reduce OA progression

Little is known of the long-term effects of NSAIDs on OA progression. Currently, there’s no approved therapy to cure OA or to reduce its advance.

Dr. Luitjens noted, however, that the synovial membrane mediates development and progression of OA and may be a good therapeutic target.

Researchers studied participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort with moderate to severe OA who used NSAIDs regularly for at least 1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up. All participants had high-quality 3T MRI of the knee at baseline and after 4 years. Images were scored for biomarkers of inflammation, including cartilage thickness and composition.

Dr. Luitjens and associates studied 721 participants who matched the inclusion criteria (129 with and 592 participants without regular NSAID use). The available data did not further specify amounts of NSAIDs used.

At baseline, significantly higher signal intensity in the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) was seen in patients who used NSAID, compared with controls (adjusted difference in score, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, –0.5 to –0.129; P = .039).

In addition, at the end of the study period, there was a significantly greater increase in signal intensity of IFP (adjusted difference in score, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.2-0.72; P < .001) and higher increase in effusion synovitis (adjusted difference in score, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-0.47;  P = .01) in NSAID users, compared with controls.

IFP size and synovial proliferation score did not different significantly between groups at the start of the study and showed no significant change over time.

The results showed no long-term benefit of NSAID use. Joint inflammation and cartilage quality were worse at baseline in the participants taking NSAIDs, compared with the control group, and worsened at 4-year follow-up.

Design limits strength

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cautioned against assuming causality, pointing out that the OAI is an observational cohort study. (Dr. Nelson was not involved in the OAI or Dr. Luitjens’ analysis.)

“[The OAI is] large and well known, but it wasn’t designed to compare these groups, and this was a small subset,” she said in an interview. Without randomization, it’s hard to judge the results.

“It may be that people on NSAIDs for the duration of the study had more pain and had more disease to begin with, or had more symptoms or had failed other treatments,” she said, adding that the effect sizes were small.

Measures such as the IFP are ranked 0-3, so “the clinical difference of a 0.26 difference on a 0-3 scale is a bit uncertain,” she said.

Dr. Luitjens said that the researchers tried to adjust for potential confounders but agreed that randomized controlled trials are needed to better advise physicians and patients on the benefits or harms of using NSAIDs for OA.

Weighing the risks in older adults

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that NSAIDs are “not always the safest option.”

“We are still in desperate need of disease-modifying drugs in OA with rigorous randomized trials to show efficacy for outcomes that are most meaningful to patients,” Dr. Makris, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“OA is most common in older adults, those often with multiple comorbidities, so we must always weigh the risks – including known adverse effects which can be amplified in older adults – and benefits with the goal of improved function and less pain,” Dr. Makris said.

NSAID use also should be considered in the context of body mass index, cardiovascular risk, prior trauma or injury, other medication use, and behavioral factors, including physical activity, she said.

Dr. Luitjens, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

CHICAGO – Taking NSAIDs for knee osteoarthritis may worsen inflammation and pain over time, suggest new data revealed at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America.

Johanna Luitjens, MD, a postdoctoral scholar in the department of radiology and biomedical Imaging at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization that NSAIDs are frequently used to treat OA pain because inflammation is one of the main drivers of OA, but whether they actually help outcomes has been unclear. Her study suggests that they don’t help – and may actually worsen – outcomes.

Denise Fulton/MDedge News

In particular, this study looked at the impact of NSAIDs on synovitis – the inflammation of the membrane lining the knee joint – by using MRI-based structural biomarkers.

OA, the most common form of arthritis, affects more than 32 million adults in the United States and more than 500 million people worldwide.
 

No approved therapy to reduce OA progression

Little is known of the long-term effects of NSAIDs on OA progression. Currently, there’s no approved therapy to cure OA or to reduce its advance.

Dr. Luitjens noted, however, that the synovial membrane mediates development and progression of OA and may be a good therapeutic target.

Researchers studied participants from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) cohort with moderate to severe OA who used NSAIDs regularly for at least 1 year between baseline and 4-year follow-up. All participants had high-quality 3T MRI of the knee at baseline and after 4 years. Images were scored for biomarkers of inflammation, including cartilage thickness and composition.

Dr. Luitjens and associates studied 721 participants who matched the inclusion criteria (129 with and 592 participants without regular NSAID use). The available data did not further specify amounts of NSAIDs used.

At baseline, significantly higher signal intensity in the infrapatellar fat pad (IFP) was seen in patients who used NSAID, compared with controls (adjusted difference in score, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, –0.5 to –0.129; P = .039).

In addition, at the end of the study period, there was a significantly greater increase in signal intensity of IFP (adjusted difference in score, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.2-0.72; P < .001) and higher increase in effusion synovitis (adjusted difference in score, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.06-0.47;  P = .01) in NSAID users, compared with controls.

IFP size and synovial proliferation score did not different significantly between groups at the start of the study and showed no significant change over time.

The results showed no long-term benefit of NSAID use. Joint inflammation and cartilage quality were worse at baseline in the participants taking NSAIDs, compared with the control group, and worsened at 4-year follow-up.

Design limits strength

Amanda E. Nelson, MD, associate professor of medicine, division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, cautioned against assuming causality, pointing out that the OAI is an observational cohort study. (Dr. Nelson was not involved in the OAI or Dr. Luitjens’ analysis.)

“[The OAI is] large and well known, but it wasn’t designed to compare these groups, and this was a small subset,” she said in an interview. Without randomization, it’s hard to judge the results.

“It may be that people on NSAIDs for the duration of the study had more pain and had more disease to begin with, or had more symptoms or had failed other treatments,” she said, adding that the effect sizes were small.

Measures such as the IFP are ranked 0-3, so “the clinical difference of a 0.26 difference on a 0-3 scale is a bit uncertain,” she said.

Dr. Luitjens said that the researchers tried to adjust for potential confounders but agreed that randomized controlled trials are needed to better advise physicians and patients on the benefits or harms of using NSAIDs for OA.

Weighing the risks in older adults

Una Makris, MD, associate professor of internal medicine in the division of rheumatic diseases at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, noted that NSAIDs are “not always the safest option.”

“We are still in desperate need of disease-modifying drugs in OA with rigorous randomized trials to show efficacy for outcomes that are most meaningful to patients,” Dr. Makris, who was not involved in the study, told this news organization.

“OA is most common in older adults, those often with multiple comorbidities, so we must always weigh the risks – including known adverse effects which can be amplified in older adults – and benefits with the goal of improved function and less pain,” Dr. Makris said.

NSAID use also should be considered in the context of body mass index, cardiovascular risk, prior trauma or injury, other medication use, and behavioral factors, including physical activity, she said.

Dr. Luitjens, Dr. Nelson, and Dr. Makris reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Treatment with the interleukin-6 receptor antagonist sarilumab (Kevzara), along with a 14-week taper of glucocorticoids, proved to have significant efficacy in patients with relapsing polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) who were resistant to glucocorticoids in a phase 3 trial.

No new safety concerns were found with sarilumab in the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled SAPHYR trial. Sarilumab is approved in the United States for the treatment of moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis in adults who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to one or more disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

The results, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology by Robert Spiera, MD, director of the Scleroderma, Vasculitis, and Myositis Center at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, included clinically meaningful improvement in quality-of-life scores.

The disease, which primarily affects people over age 65, can cause widespread aching and stiffness. It’s one of the most common inflammatory diseases among older adults.

PMR is relatively easy to treat with glucocorticoids, but relapses are common, which means long courses of glucocorticoid therapy and the side effects that come with them.
 

Need for a steroid-sparing therapy

“We recognize that a steroid-sparing drug in polymyalgia rheumatica seems to be an unmet need,” Dr. Spiera said at the meeting.

The trial, sponsored by Sanofi, included active, refractory PMR patients who flared within 3 months of study entry while on at least 7.5 mg/day of prednisone or the equivalent. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to 52 weeks of treatment with subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg every 2 weeks plus the rapid 14-week glucocorticoid tapering regimen or were given placebo every 2 weeks plus a more traditional 52-week tapering of glucocorticoids.
 

COVID hampered recruitment

Recruitment was stopped early because of complications during the COVID-19 pandemic, so between October 2018 and July 2020, 118 of the intended 280 patients were recruited, and 117 were treated (sarilumab = 59, placebo = 58). Median age was 69 years in the treatment group and 70 among those taking placebo.

Of the 117 treated, only 78 patients (67%) completed treatment (sarilumab = 42, placebo = 36). The main reasons for stopping treatment were adverse events – including seven with sarilumab and four with placebo – and lack of efficacy (sarilumab = four, placebo = nine).

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who reached sustained remission at 52 weeks, defined as disease remission by week 12 and no disease flare, normal C-reactive protein (CRP), and adherence to the glucocorticoid taper during weeks 12-52.

The researchers found that sustained remission was significantly higher in the sarilumab arm versus the control group (28.3% versus 10.3%; P = .0193).

IL-6 inhibitors lower CRP, but if you take CRP out of the definition, Dr. Spiera said, “we still saw this difference: 31.7% of patients treated with sarilumab and 13.8% treated with placebo and a longer taper achieved that endpoint.”
 

Forty-four percent lower risk of flare with sarilumab

Patients in the sarilumab group also had 44% lower risk of having a flare after achieving clinical remission versus the comparator group (16.7% versus 29.3%; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.90; P = .0153).

Patient-reported outcomes, which included physical and mental health scores and disability index results, favored sarilumab.

The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was numerically higher in the sarilumab group, compared with the control group (94.9% versus 84.5%). TEAEs included neutropenia (15.3%) and arthralgia (15.3%) in the sarilumab group and insomnia (15.5%) in the comparator arm.

However, the frequency of serious AEs was higher in the control group, compared with the sarilumab arm (20.7% versus 13.6%). No deaths were reported, and, importantly in this age group treated with concurrent glucocorticoids and an IL-6 inhibitor, Dr. Spiera said, “there were no cases of diverticulitis requiring intervention.”

Dr. Spiera was asked about a seemingly low remission rate. He answered that the bar was very high for remission in this study.

Patients had to achieve remission by week 12 and with the rapid 14-week taper. “That means by week 12 the sarilumab arm patients were only on 2 mg of daily prednisone or its equivalent,” he said.

Patients had to maintain that for another 40 weeks, he noted, adding, “I think especially in the context of quality of life and function indices, these were important results.”

Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center vasculitis clinic, told this news organization that prolonged use of glucocorticoids in patients with PMR remains an important concern and the need for other options is critical.

“Around 30% of patients with PMR remain on prednisone 5 years after diagnosis,” he said. “Low-dose glucocorticoids are still associated with significant morbidity. Until recently, there has been a paucity of high-quality data regarding the use of steroid-sparing agents in PMR. “

He noted that the SAPHYR trial data are promising “with sarilumab being successful in achieving remission while minimizing glucocorticoids in patients with relapsing PMR.” The clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes was just as important, he added.

The main unanswered question is whether the disease-modifying ability of sarilumab will continue after it is stopped, Dr. Sattui said.

Dr. Spiera is a consultant for Sanofi, which funded the trial. He also disclosed financial relationships with GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corbus, InflaRx, AbbVie/Abbott, Novartis, Chemocentryx, Roche, and Vera. Dr. Sattui has received research support from AstraZeneca and has done unpaid consulting work for Sanofi.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with gout who underwent an intensive treat-to-target regimen of monthly up-titration of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to reach a target serum urate level were significantly more likely to reach that goal at 1 year than were patients who received conventional gout management in a randomized, controlled trial.

These results came from the TICOG (Tight Control of Gout) trial, one of a handful of recent trials to test a treat-to-target strategy with ULT in the management of gout. Beyond the primary outcome of reaching target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL (< 300 micromol/L), the results also showed that the tight-control strategy significantly lowered urate to a greater extent than conventional management, reduced tophus size in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, and improved gray scale synovitis on ultrasound significantly more than with conventional management, Sarah Black, MBBS, a rheumatology trainee at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, reported at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“Based on these outcomes, we question whether gout is best managed in primary or secondary care. We think there is an argument for establishing specialist gout clinics with more time to focus on patient education to help improve outcomes. These clinics could be led by allied health care professionals, such as specialist nurses and pharmacists,” Dr. Black said at the meeting.

Gout management guidelines issued by the British Society for Rheumatology in 2017 call for a target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL, whereas the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for a serum urate level of < 6 mg/dL.

The single-center, nonblinded trial recruited 110 patients aged 18-85 years over a 3-year period to take ULT with allopurinol as first-line therapy starting at 100 mg/day. Everyone received the same advice regarding ULT up-titration, lifestyle changes, and gout education at baseline. The second-line agent for ULT was febuxostat (Uloric) 80 mg daily, with uricosuric drugs as third-line agents. All patients received colchicine or NSAID prophylaxis for gout flares for the first 6 months, depending on their comorbidities.

The trial excluded patients who had been treated with ULT within the past 6 months or had experienced prior hypersensitivity to ULT, severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate), significant liver impairment, or any other significant medical disease affecting life expectancy shorter than 1 year.

Conventional management consisted of urate level review at 0, 6, and 12 months with up-titration at each visit and primary care management of ULT between reviews until the target serum urate level was reached. In the tight-control group, monthly up-titrations occurred at the Musgrave Park Hospital at visits with the study team that were led by a rheumatologist and a specialist pharmacist.

A total of 48 patients in the conventional arm and 47 in the tight-control arm completed the trial. At baseline, monosodium urate crystals were detected in joint aspirates in 56% of patients receiving tight control and in 58.5% of those receiving conventional management. The mean serum urate level was 490 micromol/L (8.24 mg/dL) for tight-control patients and 470 micromol/L (7.9 mg/dL) for conventionally managed patients.

By 1 year, 89.4% of patients in the tight-control group had achieved the target urate level, compared with 39.6% in the conventional-management group (P < .001). At 6 months, serum urate had declined by 37.6% with tight control vs. 18% with conventional management. By the end of the trial, the median allopurinol dose was 400 mg with tight control (range, 200-900 mg) and 200 mg with conventional management (range, 0-400 mg). A total of 89% of patients were taking allopurinol at the end of the trial.

As expected, tight control led to more flares per month on average (0.35 vs. 0.13) in the 79 patients for whom complete data on flare frequency were available.

On blinded ultrasound evaluations, the median diameter of the first MTP tophus declined significantly more with tight control than with conventional management (–4.65 mm vs. –0.30 mm; P = .003). Gray scale synovitis in the knee improved in 63% of patients undergoing tight control, compared with 14% of conventionally managed patients (P = .043). The researchers observed no difference in resolution of the double-contour sign or in the number of erosions between the groups, although the 1-year time frame may not have been long enough to see resolution and improvement, Dr. Black said.

Dr. Black said that a follow-up study is planned with the same patient cohort at 3 years.

When asked about the feasibility of monthly ULT titration visits for gout management, audience member Tuhina Neogi, MD, professor of epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, told this news organization, “We don’t have a lot of data to guide us in that regard, and I also think it depends on what the increment of the dose titration is, but we generally do recognize that therapeutic inertia is bad – keeping someone on a dose for a long time. For me, I don’t think monthly is unreasonable if you have good prophylaxis [against acute flares].”

Dr. Neogi also noted that such monthly assessments don’t have to take place at a hospital. “I think there are many different practice models in which it could be implemented [that are not physician-driven].”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Black has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neogi has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with gout who underwent an intensive treat-to-target regimen of monthly up-titration of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to reach a target serum urate level were significantly more likely to reach that goal at 1 year than were patients who received conventional gout management in a randomized, controlled trial.

These results came from the TICOG (Tight Control of Gout) trial, one of a handful of recent trials to test a treat-to-target strategy with ULT in the management of gout. Beyond the primary outcome of reaching target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL (< 300 micromol/L), the results also showed that the tight-control strategy significantly lowered urate to a greater extent than conventional management, reduced tophus size in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, and improved gray scale synovitis on ultrasound significantly more than with conventional management, Sarah Black, MBBS, a rheumatology trainee at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, reported at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“Based on these outcomes, we question whether gout is best managed in primary or secondary care. We think there is an argument for establishing specialist gout clinics with more time to focus on patient education to help improve outcomes. These clinics could be led by allied health care professionals, such as specialist nurses and pharmacists,” Dr. Black said at the meeting.

Gout management guidelines issued by the British Society for Rheumatology in 2017 call for a target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL, whereas the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for a serum urate level of < 6 mg/dL.

The single-center, nonblinded trial recruited 110 patients aged 18-85 years over a 3-year period to take ULT with allopurinol as first-line therapy starting at 100 mg/day. Everyone received the same advice regarding ULT up-titration, lifestyle changes, and gout education at baseline. The second-line agent for ULT was febuxostat (Uloric) 80 mg daily, with uricosuric drugs as third-line agents. All patients received colchicine or NSAID prophylaxis for gout flares for the first 6 months, depending on their comorbidities.

The trial excluded patients who had been treated with ULT within the past 6 months or had experienced prior hypersensitivity to ULT, severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate), significant liver impairment, or any other significant medical disease affecting life expectancy shorter than 1 year.

Conventional management consisted of urate level review at 0, 6, and 12 months with up-titration at each visit and primary care management of ULT between reviews until the target serum urate level was reached. In the tight-control group, monthly up-titrations occurred at the Musgrave Park Hospital at visits with the study team that were led by a rheumatologist and a specialist pharmacist.

A total of 48 patients in the conventional arm and 47 in the tight-control arm completed the trial. At baseline, monosodium urate crystals were detected in joint aspirates in 56% of patients receiving tight control and in 58.5% of those receiving conventional management. The mean serum urate level was 490 micromol/L (8.24 mg/dL) for tight-control patients and 470 micromol/L (7.9 mg/dL) for conventionally managed patients.

By 1 year, 89.4% of patients in the tight-control group had achieved the target urate level, compared with 39.6% in the conventional-management group (P < .001). At 6 months, serum urate had declined by 37.6% with tight control vs. 18% with conventional management. By the end of the trial, the median allopurinol dose was 400 mg with tight control (range, 200-900 mg) and 200 mg with conventional management (range, 0-400 mg). A total of 89% of patients were taking allopurinol at the end of the trial.

As expected, tight control led to more flares per month on average (0.35 vs. 0.13) in the 79 patients for whom complete data on flare frequency were available.

On blinded ultrasound evaluations, the median diameter of the first MTP tophus declined significantly more with tight control than with conventional management (–4.65 mm vs. –0.30 mm; P = .003). Gray scale synovitis in the knee improved in 63% of patients undergoing tight control, compared with 14% of conventionally managed patients (P = .043). The researchers observed no difference in resolution of the double-contour sign or in the number of erosions between the groups, although the 1-year time frame may not have been long enough to see resolution and improvement, Dr. Black said.

Dr. Black said that a follow-up study is planned with the same patient cohort at 3 years.

When asked about the feasibility of monthly ULT titration visits for gout management, audience member Tuhina Neogi, MD, professor of epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, told this news organization, “We don’t have a lot of data to guide us in that regard, and I also think it depends on what the increment of the dose titration is, but we generally do recognize that therapeutic inertia is bad – keeping someone on a dose for a long time. For me, I don’t think monthly is unreasonable if you have good prophylaxis [against acute flares].”

Dr. Neogi also noted that such monthly assessments don’t have to take place at a hospital. “I think there are many different practice models in which it could be implemented [that are not physician-driven].”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Black has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neogi has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

PHILADELPHIA – Patients with gout who underwent an intensive treat-to-target regimen of monthly up-titration of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) to reach a target serum urate level were significantly more likely to reach that goal at 1 year than were patients who received conventional gout management in a randomized, controlled trial.

These results came from the TICOG (Tight Control of Gout) trial, one of a handful of recent trials to test a treat-to-target strategy with ULT in the management of gout. Beyond the primary outcome of reaching target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL (< 300 micromol/L), the results also showed that the tight-control strategy significantly lowered urate to a greater extent than conventional management, reduced tophus size in the first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint, and improved gray scale synovitis on ultrasound significantly more than with conventional management, Sarah Black, MBBS, a rheumatology trainee at Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, Northern Ireland, reported at the American College of Rheumatology annual meeting.

“Based on these outcomes, we question whether gout is best managed in primary or secondary care. We think there is an argument for establishing specialist gout clinics with more time to focus on patient education to help improve outcomes. These clinics could be led by allied health care professionals, such as specialist nurses and pharmacists,” Dr. Black said at the meeting.

Gout management guidelines issued by the British Society for Rheumatology in 2017 call for a target serum urate level of < 5 mg/dL, whereas the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for a serum urate level of < 6 mg/dL.

The single-center, nonblinded trial recruited 110 patients aged 18-85 years over a 3-year period to take ULT with allopurinol as first-line therapy starting at 100 mg/day. Everyone received the same advice regarding ULT up-titration, lifestyle changes, and gout education at baseline. The second-line agent for ULT was febuxostat (Uloric) 80 mg daily, with uricosuric drugs as third-line agents. All patients received colchicine or NSAID prophylaxis for gout flares for the first 6 months, depending on their comorbidities.

The trial excluded patients who had been treated with ULT within the past 6 months or had experienced prior hypersensitivity to ULT, severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min as measured by estimated glomerular filtration rate), significant liver impairment, or any other significant medical disease affecting life expectancy shorter than 1 year.

Conventional management consisted of urate level review at 0, 6, and 12 months with up-titration at each visit and primary care management of ULT between reviews until the target serum urate level was reached. In the tight-control group, monthly up-titrations occurred at the Musgrave Park Hospital at visits with the study team that were led by a rheumatologist and a specialist pharmacist.

A total of 48 patients in the conventional arm and 47 in the tight-control arm completed the trial. At baseline, monosodium urate crystals were detected in joint aspirates in 56% of patients receiving tight control and in 58.5% of those receiving conventional management. The mean serum urate level was 490 micromol/L (8.24 mg/dL) for tight-control patients and 470 micromol/L (7.9 mg/dL) for conventionally managed patients.

By 1 year, 89.4% of patients in the tight-control group had achieved the target urate level, compared with 39.6% in the conventional-management group (P < .001). At 6 months, serum urate had declined by 37.6% with tight control vs. 18% with conventional management. By the end of the trial, the median allopurinol dose was 400 mg with tight control (range, 200-900 mg) and 200 mg with conventional management (range, 0-400 mg). A total of 89% of patients were taking allopurinol at the end of the trial.

As expected, tight control led to more flares per month on average (0.35 vs. 0.13) in the 79 patients for whom complete data on flare frequency were available.

On blinded ultrasound evaluations, the median diameter of the first MTP tophus declined significantly more with tight control than with conventional management (–4.65 mm vs. –0.30 mm; P = .003). Gray scale synovitis in the knee improved in 63% of patients undergoing tight control, compared with 14% of conventionally managed patients (P = .043). The researchers observed no difference in resolution of the double-contour sign or in the number of erosions between the groups, although the 1-year time frame may not have been long enough to see resolution and improvement, Dr. Black said.

Dr. Black said that a follow-up study is planned with the same patient cohort at 3 years.

When asked about the feasibility of monthly ULT titration visits for gout management, audience member Tuhina Neogi, MD, professor of epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, told this news organization, “We don’t have a lot of data to guide us in that regard, and I also think it depends on what the increment of the dose titration is, but we generally do recognize that therapeutic inertia is bad – keeping someone on a dose for a long time. For me, I don’t think monthly is unreasonable if you have good prophylaxis [against acute flares].”

Dr. Neogi also noted that such monthly assessments don’t have to take place at a hospital. “I think there are many different practice models in which it could be implemented [that are not physician-driven].”

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Black has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Neogi has received consulting fees from a variety of pharmaceutical companies, including Alnylam, Regeneron, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and GlaxoSmithKline.

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

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – The new American College of Rheumatology Guideline for Vaccinations in Patients with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) emphasizes that both adult and pediatric patients should receive recommended vaccinations whenever possible.

But the guideline, currently in press, also offers recommendations about whether and when to withhold vaccines from patients with RMDs, such as avoiding the use of live attenuated virus vaccines in patients who are on immunosuppressive drug regimens, such as conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic DMARDs, or targeted synthetic DMARDs.

The new consensus guideline was formulated with the understanding that patients with RMDs are at increased risk for vaccine-preventable infections and more serious complications from infections, compared with the general population.

However, the guideline also acknowledges that the immunogenicity and safety of vaccines may differ among patients with RMDs, and that, depending on the patient age and disease state, individuals may benefit from modified vaccine indications, schedules, or modified medication schedules, said guideline panel member Anne Bass, MD, a rheumatologist at Hospital for Special Surgery and a professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York, who presented the guideline with other panel members in a session outlining the recommendations at the annual meeting of the ACR.

“In addition, vaccination recommendations – since much of it relates to medications – really applies across diseases, and so the ACR felt that, rather than having vaccine recommendations tacked onto the end of treatment guidelines for each individual disease, that the topic should be discussed or tackled as a whole,” she said.

The guideline does not cover vaccinations in patients taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs because this class of agents has minimal or no impact on antibody responses to vaccines. The guideline also does not address vaccinations against COVID-19 infections since the rapidly changing formulations would make the recommendations obsolete before they were even published, and because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides up-to-date guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations in patients with compromised immunity, she said.
 

Guiding principles

The overarching principles of the guideline are to give indicated vaccines to patients with RMD whenever possible and that any decision to hold medications before or after vaccination consider the dosage used, RMD disease activity, and the patient’s risk for vaccine-preventable infection.

The guideline also states that “shared decision-making with patients is a key component of any vaccination strategy.”

Panel member Clifton O. Bingham III, MD, professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, outlined expanded indications for vaccinations against influenza, pneumococcal infections, varicella zoster virus (VZV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).
 

Influenza

The guideline conditionally recommends that patients with RMD aged 65 years and older and adults older than age 18 years who are on immunosuppressive medications should receive either high-dose or adjuvanted influenza vaccination rather than regular-dose vaccines.

“It’s recognized that the high-dose or adjuvanted vaccinations may be unavailable for patients when they’re seen in your practice,” Dr. Bingham said,” and we came out with two additional statements within the guidelines that said that any flu vaccine is recommended over no flu vaccinations, because we do know that responses are elicited, and a flu vaccination today is preferred over a flu vaccination delay.”
 

Pneumococcal vaccination

The panelists strongly recommended that patients with RMD younger than age 65 years who are on immunosuppressive medication receive pneumococcal vaccinations.

The ACR guideline is in sync with those issued by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Dr. Bingham said. He urged audience members to visit a CDC-ACIP web page for more information on who should receive pneumococcal vaccination and when.
 

Recombinant varicella zoster

The recommendations strongly support that patients aged 18 years and over who are on immunosuppressive therapies should receive the recombinant VZV vaccine (Shingrix).

HPV

A less robust, conditional recommendation is for patients with RMDs who are between the ages of 26 and 45 years and on immunosuppressive medications to receive the HPV vaccine (if they have not already received the vaccine).

Non-live attenuated vaccines

Kevin Winthrop, MD, MPH, professor of infectious diseases and public health at Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, summarized the recommendations for managing immunosuppressive therapies in patients scheduled to receive vaccinations using killed or nonactive antigens.

“In influenza season, don’t pass up the opportunity to vaccinate,” he said, adding, “if you can wait on rituximab dosing, do it, and if you can’t, go ahead and vaccinate.”

The guidelines also recommend a 2-week methotrexate hold at the time of influenza vaccination; other DMARD dosing changes are likely not necessary at the time of vaccination, “but this is an area of fervent study, and I think in a year or two we’ll have more experimental hold data with regard to other DMARDs,” Dr. Winthrop said.

For other nonlive attenuated vaccinations, recommendations are similar to those for influenza, except with more flexible timing because these vaccinations are not seasonal. When and how to hold methotrexate is still up in the air, he said.

Additionally, it’s recommended that vaccinations be delayed in patients on high-dose prednisone until the drug is tapered to below 20 mg per day, and ideally to less than 10 mg per day, he said.
 

Live-attenuated vaccines

The guideline conditionally recommends deferring live-attenuated vaccines in patients on immunosuppressive drugs. It also recommends holding these medications “for an appropriate period before” vaccination and for 4 weeks afterward.

“Although the evidence around conventional synthetic DMARDs and TNF inhibitors is reassuring in terms of their safety at the time of live attenuated vaccines, as you can see the number of studies is quite small, and so the voting panel conditionally recommend against administering live-attenuated virus vaccines to patients who are on conventional synthetics, biologic, or targeted DMARDs,” Dr. Bass said.
 

In utero exposures

Most women with RMD who have recently given birth will consult their general pediatricians rather than rheumatologists for infant vaccinations, but pediatricians may not be aware of the affect that in utero exposures to biologic DMARDs can have on vaccine safety and immunogenicity in infants, Dr, Bass said.

“It’s important that you, as a provider, give your recommendations regarding infant rotavirus vaccination after in utero exposure to the pregnant rheumatic disease patient prior to delivery, and let that patient know that this is something that they should share with their pediatrician to be,” she advised audience members.
 

Getting the message out

In an interview, session moderator and guidelines panelist Lisa F. Imundo, MD, director of the center for adolescent rheumatology at Columbia University in New York, noted that rheumatologists don’t usually have the full schedule of pediatric vaccinations in stock and often leave the decisions about what to give – and when – to general practitioners.

“Pediatric rheumatologists sometimes will give patients flu vaccinations because they’re a high-risk population of patients, and we want to make sure that they’re getting it in a timely manner,” she said.

In addition, because pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccines are not indicated in the general pediatric population, children on biologic DMARDs who have completed their standard series of pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCV13 or PVC15) are recommended to get a 23-valent pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine, Dr. Imundo said.

She also noted that communication between pediatric rheumatologists and general practitioners about vaccine recommendations can be challenging.

“It’s a huge issue, figuring out how we’re going to communicate all of this information to our pediatric colleagues,” she said. “With individual patients, we may sometimes remind doctors, especially with our younger patients who haven’t gotten their live vaccines, that they really shouldn’t get live vaccines until they’re off medication or until we arrange holding medication for some period of time.”

She said that ACR vaccine committee members are working with infectious disease specialists and guideline developers for the American Academy of Pediatrics to ensure guidelines include the most important vaccination recommendations for pediatric patients with RMDs.

The development process for the guidelines was supported by the ACR. Dr. Bass reported no relevant disclosures, Dr. Bingham disclosed consulting activities, grant/research support, and royalties from various corporate entities. Dr. Winthrop disclosed consulting activities for and research funding from various companies. Dr. Imundo reported no relevant financial relationships.

PHILADELPHIA – A double dose of the antiosteoporosis biologic denosumab (Prolia) slowed progression and repaired joints in erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) but showed no impact on pain levels until 2 years after patients received the first dose, the lead investigator of a Belgium-based randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial showing the efficacy of denosumab double-dosing regimen in structural modification of erosive hand osteoarthritis,” Ruth Wittoek, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Ghent (Belgium) University, said in presenting the results.

“Our primary endpoint was confirmed by a more robust secondary endpoint, both showing that denosumab stopped erosive progression and induced remodeling in patients with erosive hand OA,” she added. “Moreover, the double-dosing regimen was well-tolerated.”

However, during the question-and-answer period after her presentation, Dr. Wittoek acknowledged the study didn’t evaluate the impact denosumab had on cartilage and didn’t detect a signal for pain resolution until 96 weeks during the open-label extension phase. “I’m not quite sure if denosumab is sufficient to treat symptoms in osteoarthritis,” she said. “There were positive signals but, of course, having to wait 2 years for an effect is kind of hard for our patients.”

The trial randomized 100 adult patients 1:1 to denosumab 60 mg every 12 weeks – double the normal dose for osteoporosis – or placebo. The primary endpoint was changes in erosive progression and signs of repair based on x-ray at 48 weeks, after which all patients were switched to denosumab for the open-label study. To quantify changes, the investigators used the Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS), which uses a scale of 0-300 to quantify radiographic changes in erosive hand OA.

Dr. Wittoek said that the average change in GUSS at week 24 was +6 vs. –2.8 (P = .024) in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, widening at week 48 to +10.1 and –7.9 (P = .003). By week 96, the variation was +18.8 for denosumab and +17 for placebo with switch to denosumab (P = .03).

“During the open-label extension the denosumab treatment group continued to increase to show remodeling while the former placebo treatment group, now also receiving denosumab, also  showed signs of remodeling,” she said. “So, there was no more erosive progression.”

The secondary endpoint was the percentage of new erosive joint development at week 48: 1.8% in the denosumab group and 7% in placebo group (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.50; P < .001). “Meaning the odds of erosive progression is 77% lower in the denosumab treatment group,” Dr. Wittoek said.

By week 96, those percentages were 0% and 0.7% in the respective treatment groups. “During the open-label extension, it was clear that denosumab blocked all new development of erosive joints,” she said.

Pain was one of the study’s exploratory endpoints, and the mean numeric rating scale showed no difference between treatment arms until the 96-week results, with a reduction by almost half in the denosumab group (from 4.2 at week 48 to 2.4) and a lesser reduction in the placebo-switched-to-denosumab arm (from 4.2 to 3.5; P = .028) between arms.

The placebo group was more susceptible to adverse events, namely musculoskeletal complaints and nervous system disorders, Dr. Wittoek noted. Infection rates, the most common adverse event, were similar between the two groups: 41 and 39 in the respective arms. Despite the double dose of denosumab, safety and tolerability in this trial was comparable to other trials, she said.

In comments submitted by e-mail, Dr. Wittoek noted that the extension study results will go out to 144 weeks. She also addressed the issues surrounding pain as an outcome.

“Besides disability, pain is also important from the patient’s perspective,” Dr. Wittoek said in the e-mailed comments. “However, pain and radiographic progression are undeniably coupled, but it’s unclear how.”

In erosive hand OA, structural progression and pain may not be related on a molecular level, she said. “Therefore, we don’t deny that pain levels should also be covered by treatment, but they should not be confused with structural modification; it is just another domain, not more nor less important.

The second year of the open-label extension study should clarify the pain outcomes, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

In an interview, David T. Felson, MD, MPH, professor and director of clinical epidemiology research at Boston University, questioned the delayed pain effect the study suggested. “It didn’t make any sense to me that there would be because both groups at that point got denosumab, so if there was going to be a pain effect that would’ve happened,” he said.

The pain effect is “really important,” he said. “We don’t use denosumab in rheumatoid arthritis to treat erosions because it doesn’t necessarily affect the pain and dysfunction of rheumatoid arthritis, and I’m not sure that isn’t going to be true in erosive hand osteoarthritis, but it’s possible.”

To clarify the pain outcomes, he said, “They’re going to have to work on the data.”

Amgen sponsored the trial but had no role in the design. Dr. Wittoek and Dr. Felson reported no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – A double dose of the antiosteoporosis biologic denosumab (Prolia) slowed progression and repaired joints in erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) but showed no impact on pain levels until 2 years after patients received the first dose, the lead investigator of a Belgium-based randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial showing the efficacy of denosumab double-dosing regimen in structural modification of erosive hand osteoarthritis,” Ruth Wittoek, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Ghent (Belgium) University, said in presenting the results.

“Our primary endpoint was confirmed by a more robust secondary endpoint, both showing that denosumab stopped erosive progression and induced remodeling in patients with erosive hand OA,” she added. “Moreover, the double-dosing regimen was well-tolerated.”

However, during the question-and-answer period after her presentation, Dr. Wittoek acknowledged the study didn’t evaluate the impact denosumab had on cartilage and didn’t detect a signal for pain resolution until 96 weeks during the open-label extension phase. “I’m not quite sure if denosumab is sufficient to treat symptoms in osteoarthritis,” she said. “There were positive signals but, of course, having to wait 2 years for an effect is kind of hard for our patients.”

The trial randomized 100 adult patients 1:1 to denosumab 60 mg every 12 weeks – double the normal dose for osteoporosis – or placebo. The primary endpoint was changes in erosive progression and signs of repair based on x-ray at 48 weeks, after which all patients were switched to denosumab for the open-label study. To quantify changes, the investigators used the Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS), which uses a scale of 0-300 to quantify radiographic changes in erosive hand OA.

Dr. Wittoek said that the average change in GUSS at week 24 was +6 vs. –2.8 (P = .024) in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, widening at week 48 to +10.1 and –7.9 (P = .003). By week 96, the variation was +18.8 for denosumab and +17 for placebo with switch to denosumab (P = .03).

“During the open-label extension the denosumab treatment group continued to increase to show remodeling while the former placebo treatment group, now also receiving denosumab, also  showed signs of remodeling,” she said. “So, there was no more erosive progression.”

The secondary endpoint was the percentage of new erosive joint development at week 48: 1.8% in the denosumab group and 7% in placebo group (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.50; P < .001). “Meaning the odds of erosive progression is 77% lower in the denosumab treatment group,” Dr. Wittoek said.

By week 96, those percentages were 0% and 0.7% in the respective treatment groups. “During the open-label extension, it was clear that denosumab blocked all new development of erosive joints,” she said.

Pain was one of the study’s exploratory endpoints, and the mean numeric rating scale showed no difference between treatment arms until the 96-week results, with a reduction by almost half in the denosumab group (from 4.2 at week 48 to 2.4) and a lesser reduction in the placebo-switched-to-denosumab arm (from 4.2 to 3.5; P = .028) between arms.

The placebo group was more susceptible to adverse events, namely musculoskeletal complaints and nervous system disorders, Dr. Wittoek noted. Infection rates, the most common adverse event, were similar between the two groups: 41 and 39 in the respective arms. Despite the double dose of denosumab, safety and tolerability in this trial was comparable to other trials, she said.

In comments submitted by e-mail, Dr. Wittoek noted that the extension study results will go out to 144 weeks. She also addressed the issues surrounding pain as an outcome.

“Besides disability, pain is also important from the patient’s perspective,” Dr. Wittoek said in the e-mailed comments. “However, pain and radiographic progression are undeniably coupled, but it’s unclear how.”

In erosive hand OA, structural progression and pain may not be related on a molecular level, she said. “Therefore, we don’t deny that pain levels should also be covered by treatment, but they should not be confused with structural modification; it is just another domain, not more nor less important.

The second year of the open-label extension study should clarify the pain outcomes, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

In an interview, David T. Felson, MD, MPH, professor and director of clinical epidemiology research at Boston University, questioned the delayed pain effect the study suggested. “It didn’t make any sense to me that there would be because both groups at that point got denosumab, so if there was going to be a pain effect that would’ve happened,” he said.

The pain effect is “really important,” he said. “We don’t use denosumab in rheumatoid arthritis to treat erosions because it doesn’t necessarily affect the pain and dysfunction of rheumatoid arthritis, and I’m not sure that isn’t going to be true in erosive hand osteoarthritis, but it’s possible.”

To clarify the pain outcomes, he said, “They’re going to have to work on the data.”

Amgen sponsored the trial but had no role in the design. Dr. Wittoek and Dr. Felson reported no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – A double dose of the antiosteoporosis biologic denosumab (Prolia) slowed progression and repaired joints in erosive hand osteoarthritis (OA) but showed no impact on pain levels until 2 years after patients received the first dose, the lead investigator of a Belgium-based randomized clinical trial reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“This is the first placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial showing the efficacy of denosumab double-dosing regimen in structural modification of erosive hand osteoarthritis,” Ruth Wittoek, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist at Ghent (Belgium) University, said in presenting the results.

“Our primary endpoint was confirmed by a more robust secondary endpoint, both showing that denosumab stopped erosive progression and induced remodeling in patients with erosive hand OA,” she added. “Moreover, the double-dosing regimen was well-tolerated.”

However, during the question-and-answer period after her presentation, Dr. Wittoek acknowledged the study didn’t evaluate the impact denosumab had on cartilage and didn’t detect a signal for pain resolution until 96 weeks during the open-label extension phase. “I’m not quite sure if denosumab is sufficient to treat symptoms in osteoarthritis,” she said. “There were positive signals but, of course, having to wait 2 years for an effect is kind of hard for our patients.”

The trial randomized 100 adult patients 1:1 to denosumab 60 mg every 12 weeks – double the normal dose for osteoporosis – or placebo. The primary endpoint was changes in erosive progression and signs of repair based on x-ray at 48 weeks, after which all patients were switched to denosumab for the open-label study. To quantify changes, the investigators used the Ghent University Scoring System (GUSS), which uses a scale of 0-300 to quantify radiographic changes in erosive hand OA.

Dr. Wittoek said that the average change in GUSS at week 24 was +6 vs. –2.8 (P = .024) in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively, widening at week 48 to +10.1 and –7.9 (P = .003). By week 96, the variation was +18.8 for denosumab and +17 for placebo with switch to denosumab (P = .03).

“During the open-label extension the denosumab treatment group continued to increase to show remodeling while the former placebo treatment group, now also receiving denosumab, also  showed signs of remodeling,” she said. “So, there was no more erosive progression.”

The secondary endpoint was the percentage of new erosive joint development at week 48: 1.8% in the denosumab group and 7% in placebo group (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.50; P < .001). “Meaning the odds of erosive progression is 77% lower in the denosumab treatment group,” Dr. Wittoek said.

By week 96, those percentages were 0% and 0.7% in the respective treatment groups. “During the open-label extension, it was clear that denosumab blocked all new development of erosive joints,” she said.

Pain was one of the study’s exploratory endpoints, and the mean numeric rating scale showed no difference between treatment arms until the 96-week results, with a reduction by almost half in the denosumab group (from 4.2 at week 48 to 2.4) and a lesser reduction in the placebo-switched-to-denosumab arm (from 4.2 to 3.5; P = .028) between arms.

The placebo group was more susceptible to adverse events, namely musculoskeletal complaints and nervous system disorders, Dr. Wittoek noted. Infection rates, the most common adverse event, were similar between the two groups: 41 and 39 in the respective arms. Despite the double dose of denosumab, safety and tolerability in this trial was comparable to other trials, she said.

In comments submitted by e-mail, Dr. Wittoek noted that the extension study results will go out to 144 weeks. She also addressed the issues surrounding pain as an outcome.

“Besides disability, pain is also important from the patient’s perspective,” Dr. Wittoek said in the e-mailed comments. “However, pain and radiographic progression are undeniably coupled, but it’s unclear how.”

In erosive hand OA, structural progression and pain may not be related on a molecular level, she said. “Therefore, we don’t deny that pain levels should also be covered by treatment, but they should not be confused with structural modification; it is just another domain, not more nor less important.

The second year of the open-label extension study should clarify the pain outcomes, she said.

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

In an interview, David T. Felson, MD, MPH, professor and director of clinical epidemiology research at Boston University, questioned the delayed pain effect the study suggested. “It didn’t make any sense to me that there would be because both groups at that point got denosumab, so if there was going to be a pain effect that would’ve happened,” he said.

The pain effect is “really important,” he said. “We don’t use denosumab in rheumatoid arthritis to treat erosions because it doesn’t necessarily affect the pain and dysfunction of rheumatoid arthritis, and I’m not sure that isn’t going to be true in erosive hand osteoarthritis, but it’s possible.”

To clarify the pain outcomes, he said, “They’re going to have to work on the data.”

Amgen sponsored the trial but had no role in the design. Dr. Wittoek and Dr. Felson reported no relevant disclosures.
 

PHILADELPHIA – What works in the clinic can also work in community settings: Patients who are overweight or obese with knee osteoarthritis can find relief from pain through diet and exercise programs conducted in recreation centers, local gyms, fitness centers, and other places close to home, according to investigators in a pragmatic randomized trial.

The Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities With Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study was modeled after the successful Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis trial, which showed that adults randomized to 18 months of either a diet and exercise program or diet alone had more weight loss and larger reductions in levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 than patients randomized to exercise alone, and that diet alone was associated with greater reductions in knee compressive force than exercise alone.

That study was conducted by Stephen P. Messier, PhD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.. As previously reported, the investigators also saw continued benefits for participants years after the original trial.

With the WE-CAN trial, results of which were reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Messier and colleagues took the intervention one step further, randomizing 823 community-dwelling adults who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 27 kg/m2) with knee OA to either an 18-month diet and exercise intervention or attention control group consisting of five 1-hour face-to-face meetings over 18 months, plus information packets and phone sessions during alternate months.

“Compared to the control group, diet plus exercise had a statistically significant but modest reduction in pain. Diet plus exercise was 20% more likely to attain a clinically important 2-point improvement in pain,” Dr. Messier said in an oral abstract session at ACR.
 

Real-world setting

The primary goal of WE-CAN was to “determine whether adaptation of a diet and exercise academic center–based efficacy trial to community settings results in a statistically significant reduction in pain relative to an attention control.”

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

A total of 3,751 potential candidates were screened, and 823 were randomized and assigned to either a diet and exercise arm (414) or attention control arm (409). Of the patients randomized, 336 in the diet/exercise arm and 322 in the control arm attended the final 18-month follow-up visit.

The exercise component consisted of a 15-minute walking period, followed by a 20-minute weight-training period, and ending with a second 15-minute walking period. The diet goal was 10% or greater weight loss, aided by a distribution of low-calorie recipes to produce a reduced-calorie diet of the patient’s choice, with the option to include nutritional powder to make low-calories shakes as meal replacements, one or two per day for the first 6 months, with the option of one per day for the remaining months.

The pragmatic components included the use of established community facilities in both urban and rural counties in North Carolina, broad inclusion criteria, patient-centered outcomes, use of community-based staff to deliver the treatment, nonphysicians trained by study physicians to perform knee exams, and various means of communication, Dr. Messier said.

Participants in each arm were closely matched by demographic and clinical characteristics, with a mean age of 64.5 years in the diet/exercise group and 64.7 years in the attention control group, respective mean weight of 100.7 kg and 101.1 kg, and respective BMI of 36.7 and 36.9. Women comprised about 77% of participants in each group.
 

Endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of a significantly greater reduction in pain at 18 months in the diet and exercise group as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 20 (worst pain).

In an analysis adjusted for sex, BMI, and baseline values, there was a 32% reduction in pain scores from baseline in the active intervention arm versus 24% in the control arm (P = .02).

In all, 60.2% of participants assigned to diet and exercise had a minimum reduction in pain scores of at least 2 points at 18 months, compared with 49.7% of participants assigned to the attention control group. This translated into a relative risk for achieving at least a 2-point improvement with diet and exercise was 1.20 (P = .01).

Among participants who remained in the study for the entire 18 months, there were significant improvements in the diet and exercise group compared with controls in the prespecified secondary endpoints of weight change (–8 kg vs. –2 kg), waist circumference, WOMAC function, 6-minute walk distance, and mean Short Form–36 health-related quality of life subscale (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Dr. Messier acknowledged that the diagnosis of knee OA was based only on ACR clinical criteria and was not confirmed with imaging. In addition, offering patients the option of free meal replacement limited the pragmatic nature of the intervention.

He also noted that the 24% reduction in pain seen in the control group suggests that interacting with patients can improve clinical outcomes.
 

‘Tour de force’

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Messier’s presentation, David T. Felson, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center, called in and said the study was “a tour de force” and congratulated Dr. Messier and colleagues on “a lovely study.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Dr. Felson asked whether the investigators had conducted a mediation analysis to determine what proportion of the improvement was attributable to weight loss, and whether patients assigned to exercise were sticking with it throughout the study.

Dr. Messier replied that they had not yet done a mediation analysis but were continuing to examine the data. Regarding the exercise question, he noted that “the adherence was over 80% for 6 months and over 70% for the whole 18 months, so they did a really nice job.”

In an interview, session moderator Anne Davidson, MBBS, director of the rheumatology program at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., commented that the investigators managed to accomplish a very challenging task.

“In terms of recruitment of patients with engagement of community facilities and quality of data, I would say that, as far as an osteoarthritis study goes, this was really a tremendous effort on the part of all people involved,” she said.

She noted that, while the WE-CAN program may work in North Carolina, there may be barriers to implementing it elsewhere, such as large suburban areas where some patients experience food insecurity and others have difficulty with transportation and access to treatment facilities.

“The question here that remains is, as Dr. Felson asked, what is the contribution of weight loss and what is the contribution of exercise? Because if it’s just weight loss, we have a whole lot of new things coming to help with that,” she said.

The WE-CAN study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Messier disclosed that GNC, a health food and nutrition chain, donated the meal replacements used by patients. Dr. Davidson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – What works in the clinic can also work in community settings: Patients who are overweight or obese with knee osteoarthritis can find relief from pain through diet and exercise programs conducted in recreation centers, local gyms, fitness centers, and other places close to home, according to investigators in a pragmatic randomized trial.

The Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities With Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study was modeled after the successful Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis trial, which showed that adults randomized to 18 months of either a diet and exercise program or diet alone had more weight loss and larger reductions in levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 than patients randomized to exercise alone, and that diet alone was associated with greater reductions in knee compressive force than exercise alone.

That study was conducted by Stephen P. Messier, PhD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.. As previously reported, the investigators also saw continued benefits for participants years after the original trial.

With the WE-CAN trial, results of which were reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Messier and colleagues took the intervention one step further, randomizing 823 community-dwelling adults who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 27 kg/m2) with knee OA to either an 18-month diet and exercise intervention or attention control group consisting of five 1-hour face-to-face meetings over 18 months, plus information packets and phone sessions during alternate months.

“Compared to the control group, diet plus exercise had a statistically significant but modest reduction in pain. Diet plus exercise was 20% more likely to attain a clinically important 2-point improvement in pain,” Dr. Messier said in an oral abstract session at ACR.
 

Real-world setting

The primary goal of WE-CAN was to “determine whether adaptation of a diet and exercise academic center–based efficacy trial to community settings results in a statistically significant reduction in pain relative to an attention control.”

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

A total of 3,751 potential candidates were screened, and 823 were randomized and assigned to either a diet and exercise arm (414) or attention control arm (409). Of the patients randomized, 336 in the diet/exercise arm and 322 in the control arm attended the final 18-month follow-up visit.

The exercise component consisted of a 15-minute walking period, followed by a 20-minute weight-training period, and ending with a second 15-minute walking period. The diet goal was 10% or greater weight loss, aided by a distribution of low-calorie recipes to produce a reduced-calorie diet of the patient’s choice, with the option to include nutritional powder to make low-calories shakes as meal replacements, one or two per day for the first 6 months, with the option of one per day for the remaining months.

The pragmatic components included the use of established community facilities in both urban and rural counties in North Carolina, broad inclusion criteria, patient-centered outcomes, use of community-based staff to deliver the treatment, nonphysicians trained by study physicians to perform knee exams, and various means of communication, Dr. Messier said.

Participants in each arm were closely matched by demographic and clinical characteristics, with a mean age of 64.5 years in the diet/exercise group and 64.7 years in the attention control group, respective mean weight of 100.7 kg and 101.1 kg, and respective BMI of 36.7 and 36.9. Women comprised about 77% of participants in each group.
 

Endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of a significantly greater reduction in pain at 18 months in the diet and exercise group as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 20 (worst pain).

In an analysis adjusted for sex, BMI, and baseline values, there was a 32% reduction in pain scores from baseline in the active intervention arm versus 24% in the control arm (P = .02).

In all, 60.2% of participants assigned to diet and exercise had a minimum reduction in pain scores of at least 2 points at 18 months, compared with 49.7% of participants assigned to the attention control group. This translated into a relative risk for achieving at least a 2-point improvement with diet and exercise was 1.20 (P = .01).

Among participants who remained in the study for the entire 18 months, there were significant improvements in the diet and exercise group compared with controls in the prespecified secondary endpoints of weight change (–8 kg vs. –2 kg), waist circumference, WOMAC function, 6-minute walk distance, and mean Short Form–36 health-related quality of life subscale (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Dr. Messier acknowledged that the diagnosis of knee OA was based only on ACR clinical criteria and was not confirmed with imaging. In addition, offering patients the option of free meal replacement limited the pragmatic nature of the intervention.

He also noted that the 24% reduction in pain seen in the control group suggests that interacting with patients can improve clinical outcomes.
 

‘Tour de force’

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Messier’s presentation, David T. Felson, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center, called in and said the study was “a tour de force” and congratulated Dr. Messier and colleagues on “a lovely study.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Dr. Felson asked whether the investigators had conducted a mediation analysis to determine what proportion of the improvement was attributable to weight loss, and whether patients assigned to exercise were sticking with it throughout the study.

Dr. Messier replied that they had not yet done a mediation analysis but were continuing to examine the data. Regarding the exercise question, he noted that “the adherence was over 80% for 6 months and over 70% for the whole 18 months, so they did a really nice job.”

In an interview, session moderator Anne Davidson, MBBS, director of the rheumatology program at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., commented that the investigators managed to accomplish a very challenging task.

“In terms of recruitment of patients with engagement of community facilities and quality of data, I would say that, as far as an osteoarthritis study goes, this was really a tremendous effort on the part of all people involved,” she said.

She noted that, while the WE-CAN program may work in North Carolina, there may be barriers to implementing it elsewhere, such as large suburban areas where some patients experience food insecurity and others have difficulty with transportation and access to treatment facilities.

“The question here that remains is, as Dr. Felson asked, what is the contribution of weight loss and what is the contribution of exercise? Because if it’s just weight loss, we have a whole lot of new things coming to help with that,” she said.

The WE-CAN study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Messier disclosed that GNC, a health food and nutrition chain, donated the meal replacements used by patients. Dr. Davidson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.

PHILADELPHIA – What works in the clinic can also work in community settings: Patients who are overweight or obese with knee osteoarthritis can find relief from pain through diet and exercise programs conducted in recreation centers, local gyms, fitness centers, and other places close to home, according to investigators in a pragmatic randomized trial.

The Weight Loss and Exercise for Communities With Arthritis in North Carolina (WE-CAN) study was modeled after the successful Intensive Diet and Exercise for Arthritis trial, which showed that adults randomized to 18 months of either a diet and exercise program or diet alone had more weight loss and larger reductions in levels of the inflammatory cytokine interleukin-6 than patients randomized to exercise alone, and that diet alone was associated with greater reductions in knee compressive force than exercise alone.

That study was conducted by Stephen P. Messier, PhD, and colleagues at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.. As previously reported, the investigators also saw continued benefits for participants years after the original trial.

With the WE-CAN trial, results of which were reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, Dr. Messier and colleagues took the intervention one step further, randomizing 823 community-dwelling adults who were overweight or obese (body mass index [BMI], ≥ 27 kg/m2) with knee OA to either an 18-month diet and exercise intervention or attention control group consisting of five 1-hour face-to-face meetings over 18 months, plus information packets and phone sessions during alternate months.

“Compared to the control group, diet plus exercise had a statistically significant but modest reduction in pain. Diet plus exercise was 20% more likely to attain a clinically important 2-point improvement in pain,” Dr. Messier said in an oral abstract session at ACR.
 

Real-world setting

The primary goal of WE-CAN was to “determine whether adaptation of a diet and exercise academic center–based efficacy trial to community settings results in a statistically significant reduction in pain relative to an attention control.”

Ariel Skelley/Getty Images

A total of 3,751 potential candidates were screened, and 823 were randomized and assigned to either a diet and exercise arm (414) or attention control arm (409). Of the patients randomized, 336 in the diet/exercise arm and 322 in the control arm attended the final 18-month follow-up visit.

The exercise component consisted of a 15-minute walking period, followed by a 20-minute weight-training period, and ending with a second 15-minute walking period. The diet goal was 10% or greater weight loss, aided by a distribution of low-calorie recipes to produce a reduced-calorie diet of the patient’s choice, with the option to include nutritional powder to make low-calories shakes as meal replacements, one or two per day for the first 6 months, with the option of one per day for the remaining months.

The pragmatic components included the use of established community facilities in both urban and rural counties in North Carolina, broad inclusion criteria, patient-centered outcomes, use of community-based staff to deliver the treatment, nonphysicians trained by study physicians to perform knee exams, and various means of communication, Dr. Messier said.

Participants in each arm were closely matched by demographic and clinical characteristics, with a mean age of 64.5 years in the diet/exercise group and 64.7 years in the attention control group, respective mean weight of 100.7 kg and 101.1 kg, and respective BMI of 36.7 and 36.9. Women comprised about 77% of participants in each group.
 

Endpoints met

The trial met its primary endpoint of a significantly greater reduction in pain at 18 months in the diet and exercise group as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and scored on a scale of 0 (no pain) to 20 (worst pain).

In an analysis adjusted for sex, BMI, and baseline values, there was a 32% reduction in pain scores from baseline in the active intervention arm versus 24% in the control arm (P = .02).

In all, 60.2% of participants assigned to diet and exercise had a minimum reduction in pain scores of at least 2 points at 18 months, compared with 49.7% of participants assigned to the attention control group. This translated into a relative risk for achieving at least a 2-point improvement with diet and exercise was 1.20 (P = .01).

Among participants who remained in the study for the entire 18 months, there were significant improvements in the diet and exercise group compared with controls in the prespecified secondary endpoints of weight change (–8 kg vs. –2 kg), waist circumference, WOMAC function, 6-minute walk distance, and mean Short Form–36 health-related quality of life subscale (P < .001 for all comparisons).

Dr. Messier acknowledged that the diagnosis of knee OA was based only on ACR clinical criteria and was not confirmed with imaging. In addition, offering patients the option of free meal replacement limited the pragmatic nature of the intervention.

He also noted that the 24% reduction in pain seen in the control group suggests that interacting with patients can improve clinical outcomes.
 

‘Tour de force’

In the question-and-answer session following Dr. Messier’s presentation, David T. Felson, MD, a rheumatologist at Boston Medical Center, called in and said the study was “a tour de force” and congratulated Dr. Messier and colleagues on “a lovely study.”

Richard Mark Kirkner/MDedge News

Dr. Felson asked whether the investigators had conducted a mediation analysis to determine what proportion of the improvement was attributable to weight loss, and whether patients assigned to exercise were sticking with it throughout the study.

Dr. Messier replied that they had not yet done a mediation analysis but were continuing to examine the data. Regarding the exercise question, he noted that “the adherence was over 80% for 6 months and over 70% for the whole 18 months, so they did a really nice job.”

In an interview, session moderator Anne Davidson, MBBS, director of the rheumatology program at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y., commented that the investigators managed to accomplish a very challenging task.

“In terms of recruitment of patients with engagement of community facilities and quality of data, I would say that, as far as an osteoarthritis study goes, this was really a tremendous effort on the part of all people involved,” she said.

She noted that, while the WE-CAN program may work in North Carolina, there may be barriers to implementing it elsewhere, such as large suburban areas where some patients experience food insecurity and others have difficulty with transportation and access to treatment facilities.

“The question here that remains is, as Dr. Felson asked, what is the contribution of weight loss and what is the contribution of exercise? Because if it’s just weight loss, we have a whole lot of new things coming to help with that,” she said.

The WE-CAN study was supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Messier disclosed that GNC, a health food and nutrition chain, donated the meal replacements used by patients. Dr. Davidson reported no relevant conflicts of interest.