Rheumatology

Low serum levels of two complement proteins are linked to worse pregnancy outcomes in women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the results of a multicenter study appear to confirm.

The study evaluated preconception complement levels in 260 pregnancies in 197 women who had APS or carried antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), and found that low levels of C3 and C4 in the 6 months prior to pregnancy were associated with several gestational complications and resulted in pregnancy losses.

“This study has validated, on large scale, the possible utility of preconception measurement of C3 and C4 levels to predict pregnancy loss in patients with aPL, even at a high-risk profile,” said study investigator Daniele Lini, MD, of ASST Spedali Civili and the University of Brescia (Italy).

“The tests are easy and cheap to be routinely performed, and they could therefore represent a valid aid to identify women that need particular monitoring and management,” he said at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

aPL and adverse obstetric outcomes

aPL, which include lupus anticoagulant, anti–beta₂-glycoprotein 1, and anticardiolipin antibodies, have been shown to induce fetal loss in animal models. Their influence on the outcome of human pregnancies, however, has been less clear, with several studies failing to prove a link between their presence and obstetric complications.  

Dr. Lini and coinvestigators conducted a multicenter study involving 11 Italian centers and one Russian center, retrospectively looking for women with primary APS or women who had persistently high levels of aPL but no symptoms who had become pregnant. Of 503 pregnancies, information on complement levels before conception was available for 260, of which 184 had occurred in women with APS and 76 in women with persistently high aPL.

The pregnancies were grouped according to whether there were low (n = 93) or normal (n = 167) levels of C3 and C4 in the last 6 months.

“Women with adverse pregnancy outcomes showed significantly lower preconception complement levels than those with successful pregnancies, without any difference between APS and aPL carriers,” Dr. Lini reported.

Comparing those with low to those with high complement levels, the preterm live birth rate (before 37 weeks’ gestation) was 37% versus 18% (P < .0001).

The full-term live birth rates were a respective 42% and 72% (P < .0001).

The rate of pregnancy loss, which included both abortion and miscarriage, was a respective 21% and 10% (P = .008).

A subgroup analysis focusing on where there was triple aPL positivity found that preconception low C3 and/or C4 levels was associated with an increased rate of pregnancy loss (P = .05). This association disappeared if there was just one or two aPL present.

The researchers found no correlation between complement levels and rates of venous thromboembolism or thrombocytopenia.
 

Study highlights ‘impact and importance’ of complement in APS

The study indicates “the impact and the importance of complement” in APS, said Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD, the founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel.

In the early days of understanding APS, said Dr. Shoenfeld, it was thought that complement was not as important as it was in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The importance of raised complement seen in studies of APS would often be discounted or neglected in comparison to SLE.

However, “slowly, slowly” it has been found that “complement [in APS] is activated very similarly to SLE,” Dr. Shoenfeld noted.

“I think that it’s important to assess the component levels,” Dr. Lini said in discussion. “This is needed to be done in the preconception counseling for APS and aPL carrier patients.”

Determining whether there is single, double, or even triple aPL positivity could be useful in guiding clinical decisions.

“If we have triple positivity, that could mean that there may be a more immunologic activation of the system and that it could be useful to administrate hydroxychloroquine [to] those patients who would like to have a pregnancy,” Dr. Lini suggested.

Plus, in those with decreased complement levels, “this could be a very useful tool” to identify where something could go wrong during their pregnancy.

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Lini and Dr. Shoenfeld disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low serum levels of two complement proteins are linked to worse pregnancy outcomes in women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the results of a multicenter study appear to confirm.

The study evaluated preconception complement levels in 260 pregnancies in 197 women who had APS or carried antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), and found that low levels of C3 and C4 in the 6 months prior to pregnancy were associated with several gestational complications and resulted in pregnancy losses.

“This study has validated, on large scale, the possible utility of preconception measurement of C3 and C4 levels to predict pregnancy loss in patients with aPL, even at a high-risk profile,” said study investigator Daniele Lini, MD, of ASST Spedali Civili and the University of Brescia (Italy).

“The tests are easy and cheap to be routinely performed, and they could therefore represent a valid aid to identify women that need particular monitoring and management,” he said at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

aPL and adverse obstetric outcomes

aPL, which include lupus anticoagulant, anti–beta₂-glycoprotein 1, and anticardiolipin antibodies, have been shown to induce fetal loss in animal models. Their influence on the outcome of human pregnancies, however, has been less clear, with several studies failing to prove a link between their presence and obstetric complications.  

Dr. Lini and coinvestigators conducted a multicenter study involving 11 Italian centers and one Russian center, retrospectively looking for women with primary APS or women who had persistently high levels of aPL but no symptoms who had become pregnant. Of 503 pregnancies, information on complement levels before conception was available for 260, of which 184 had occurred in women with APS and 76 in women with persistently high aPL.

The pregnancies were grouped according to whether there were low (n = 93) or normal (n = 167) levels of C3 and C4 in the last 6 months.

“Women with adverse pregnancy outcomes showed significantly lower preconception complement levels than those with successful pregnancies, without any difference between APS and aPL carriers,” Dr. Lini reported.

Comparing those with low to those with high complement levels, the preterm live birth rate (before 37 weeks’ gestation) was 37% versus 18% (P < .0001).

The full-term live birth rates were a respective 42% and 72% (P < .0001).

The rate of pregnancy loss, which included both abortion and miscarriage, was a respective 21% and 10% (P = .008).

A subgroup analysis focusing on where there was triple aPL positivity found that preconception low C3 and/or C4 levels was associated with an increased rate of pregnancy loss (P = .05). This association disappeared if there was just one or two aPL present.

The researchers found no correlation between complement levels and rates of venous thromboembolism or thrombocytopenia.
 

Study highlights ‘impact and importance’ of complement in APS

The study indicates “the impact and the importance of complement” in APS, said Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD, the founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel.

In the early days of understanding APS, said Dr. Shoenfeld, it was thought that complement was not as important as it was in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The importance of raised complement seen in studies of APS would often be discounted or neglected in comparison to SLE.

However, “slowly, slowly” it has been found that “complement [in APS] is activated very similarly to SLE,” Dr. Shoenfeld noted.

“I think that it’s important to assess the component levels,” Dr. Lini said in discussion. “This is needed to be done in the preconception counseling for APS and aPL carrier patients.”

Determining whether there is single, double, or even triple aPL positivity could be useful in guiding clinical decisions.

“If we have triple positivity, that could mean that there may be a more immunologic activation of the system and that it could be useful to administrate hydroxychloroquine [to] those patients who would like to have a pregnancy,” Dr. Lini suggested.

Plus, in those with decreased complement levels, “this could be a very useful tool” to identify where something could go wrong during their pregnancy.

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Lini and Dr. Shoenfeld disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Low serum levels of two complement proteins are linked to worse pregnancy outcomes in women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), the results of a multicenter study appear to confirm.

The study evaluated preconception complement levels in 260 pregnancies in 197 women who had APS or carried antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), and found that low levels of C3 and C4 in the 6 months prior to pregnancy were associated with several gestational complications and resulted in pregnancy losses.

“This study has validated, on large scale, the possible utility of preconception measurement of C3 and C4 levels to predict pregnancy loss in patients with aPL, even at a high-risk profile,” said study investigator Daniele Lini, MD, of ASST Spedali Civili and the University of Brescia (Italy).

“The tests are easy and cheap to be routinely performed, and they could therefore represent a valid aid to identify women that need particular monitoring and management,” he said at the 14th International Congress on Systemic Lupus Erythematosus held together with the 6th International Congress on Controversies in Rheumatology and Autoimmunity.

aPL and adverse obstetric outcomes

aPL, which include lupus anticoagulant, anti–beta₂-glycoprotein 1, and anticardiolipin antibodies, have been shown to induce fetal loss in animal models. Their influence on the outcome of human pregnancies, however, has been less clear, with several studies failing to prove a link between their presence and obstetric complications.  

Dr. Lini and coinvestigators conducted a multicenter study involving 11 Italian centers and one Russian center, retrospectively looking for women with primary APS or women who had persistently high levels of aPL but no symptoms who had become pregnant. Of 503 pregnancies, information on complement levels before conception was available for 260, of which 184 had occurred in women with APS and 76 in women with persistently high aPL.

The pregnancies were grouped according to whether there were low (n = 93) or normal (n = 167) levels of C3 and C4 in the last 6 months.

“Women with adverse pregnancy outcomes showed significantly lower preconception complement levels than those with successful pregnancies, without any difference between APS and aPL carriers,” Dr. Lini reported.

Comparing those with low to those with high complement levels, the preterm live birth rate (before 37 weeks’ gestation) was 37% versus 18% (P < .0001).

The full-term live birth rates were a respective 42% and 72% (P < .0001).

The rate of pregnancy loss, which included both abortion and miscarriage, was a respective 21% and 10% (P = .008).

A subgroup analysis focusing on where there was triple aPL positivity found that preconception low C3 and/or C4 levels was associated with an increased rate of pregnancy loss (P = .05). This association disappeared if there was just one or two aPL present.

The researchers found no correlation between complement levels and rates of venous thromboembolism or thrombocytopenia.
 

Study highlights ‘impact and importance’ of complement in APS

The study indicates “the impact and the importance of complement” in APS, said Yehuda Shoenfeld, MD, the founder and head of the Zabludowicz Center for Autoimmune Diseases at the Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer, Israel.

In the early days of understanding APS, said Dr. Shoenfeld, it was thought that complement was not as important as it was in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). The importance of raised complement seen in studies of APS would often be discounted or neglected in comparison to SLE.

However, “slowly, slowly” it has been found that “complement [in APS] is activated very similarly to SLE,” Dr. Shoenfeld noted.

“I think that it’s important to assess the component levels,” Dr. Lini said in discussion. “This is needed to be done in the preconception counseling for APS and aPL carrier patients.”

Determining whether there is single, double, or even triple aPL positivity could be useful in guiding clinical decisions.

“If we have triple positivity, that could mean that there may be a more immunologic activation of the system and that it could be useful to administrate hydroxychloroquine [to] those patients who would like to have a pregnancy,” Dr. Lini suggested.

Plus, in those with decreased complement levels, “this could be a very useful tool” to identify where something could go wrong during their pregnancy.

The study had no outside funding. Dr. Lini and Dr. Shoenfeld disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).

This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.

The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.

The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.

Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.

In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”

“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.

In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”

“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.

Previous FDA concerns

In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”

Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.

On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.

ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.

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

U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).

This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.

The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.

The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.

Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.

In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”

“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.

In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”

“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.

Previous FDA concerns

In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”

Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.

On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.

ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.

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

U.S. regulators approved avacopan (Tavneos) for a rare immune disorder after receiving additional information to address concerns raised about the drug that were previously discussed at a public meeting in May.

Wikimedia Commons/FitzColinGerald/ Creative Commons License

ChemoCentryx, the drug’s manufacturer, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the drug as an adjunctive treatment for severe active antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody–associated vasculitis (also known as ANCA-associated vasculitis or ANCA vasculitis).

This systemic disease results from overactivation of the complement system, leading to inflammation and eventual destruction of small blood vessels. This can lead to organ damage and failure, with the kidney as the major target, said the company in a statement.

The avacopan approval was based in large part on the results of the ADVOCATE trial, which were highlighted in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine , titled “Avacopan – Time to replace glucocorticoids?” But the FDA-approved indication for avacopan is as an adjunctive treatment of adult patients with severe active ANCA-associated vasculitis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis [GPA] and microscopic polyangiitis [MPA]) in combination with standard therapy including glucocorticoids. “Tavneos does not eliminate glucocorticoid use,” the label states.

The ADVOCATE trial was a global, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy phase 3 trial of 330 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis conducted in 20 countries, ChemoCentryx said. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either rituximab or cyclophosphamide (followed by azathioprine/mycophenolate) and either avacopan or study-supplied oral prednisone.

Subjects in both treatment groups could also receive nonprotocol glucocorticoids as needed. The study met its primary endpoints of disease remission at 26 weeks and sustained remission at 52 weeks, as assessed by the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (BVAS), ChemoCentryx said. Common adverse reactions among study participants included nausea, headache, hypertension, diarrhea, vomiting, rash, fatigue, upper abdominal pain, dizziness, blood creatinine increase, and paresthesia.

In the ChemoCentryx statement, Peter A. Merkel, MD, MPH, a consultant to the company and the chief of rheumatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, called the avacopan clearance a “first-in-a-decade approval of a medicine for ANCA-associated vasculitis.”

“Patients will now have access to a new class of medication that provides beneficial effects for the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis,” Dr. Merkel said.

In reviewing the avacopan application, the FDA noted that the medicine is intended to treat “a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality.”

“It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies,” the FDA staff said in a review of the ChemoCentryx application for approval of avacopan, which was posted online ahead of a meeting this past May.

Previous FDA concerns

In that review, FDA staff made public various concerns about the evidence used in seeking approval of the medicine. The FDA staff said there were “substantial uncertainties around the phase 3 study design and results, raising questions about the adequacy of this single trial to inform the benefit-risk assessment.”

Members of the FDA’s Arthritis Advisory Committee voted 10-8 on May 6 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval. The panel also voted 9-9 on whether the efficacy data support approval of avacopan, and 10-8 that the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx in July said it filed an amendment to its new drug application (NDA) for avacopan. This appears to have answered regulators’ questions about the drug.

On a call with analysts Friday, ChemoCentryx officials outlined a marketing strategy for avacopan, with efforts focused on reaching influential rheumatologists and nephrologists. The company will set a U.S. wholesale acquisition cost for the drug of about $150,000-$200,000 a patient, in keeping with the range of prices often seen for orphan drugs. ChemoCentryx said it intends to offer financial support programs for the medicine.

ChemoCentryx said avacopan is also approved for the treatment of microscopic polyangiitis and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (the two main forms of ANCA-associated vasculitis) in Japan. The regulatory decision in Europe is expected by the end of this year.

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

About half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who taper or stop disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) retain stable remission after 12 months, and a majority of those who do relapse regain remission when back on their original treatments, according to data from the open-label, randomized Rheumatoid Arthritis in Ongoing Remission (RETRO) study.

“Currently, 40%-50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis reach stable remission,” as a result of factors including earlier diagnosis and a wider range of treatments, Koray Tascilar, MD, of Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and colleagues wrote in their publication of the RETRO trial results in Lancet Rheumatology.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with RA in sustained remission may be able to taper or withdraw treatment, but data from randomized trials are limited, the researchers said.

In the RETRO trial, researchers compared three strategies for RA patients in remission, which was defined as <2.6 on the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). They randomized 100 adults to continue DMARDs and glucocorticoids, 102 to taper DMARDs and glucocorticoids to half their prior doses, and 101 to reduce the doses to half for 6 months and then stop DMARDs. Patients were enrolled between May 26, 2010, and May 29, 2018, from 14 treatment centers in Germany. The final analysis included 282 patients; 92 in the continuation group, 93 in the taper group, and 96 in the stop group. The mean age of the patients was 56.5 years, and 59% were women. The mean duration of RA was 7.4 years, and the mean duration of remission was 20 months.

Overall, at 12 months, 61% of the patients remained in remission without relapse; 81.2% of the continuation group, 58.6% of the taper group, and 43.3% of the stop group. Relapses occurred in 17%, 43%, and 55% of patients in the continuation, taper, and stop groups, respectively. The median times to relapse in the three groups were 30.6 weeks, 24.3 weeks, and 26.1 weeks, respectively.

Most of the relapses occurred between weeks 24 and 36 after stopping treatment, the researchers wrote. Corresponding hazard ratios for relapse were 3.02 for the taper group and 4.34 for the stop group, compared with the continuation group. In comparison to continuing treatment, the number needed to treat for one more relapse to occur during the 12-month observation period was four for tapering and three for stopping, they noted.

The study protocol called for a return to baseline treatment for any patients who relapsed in the taper and stop groups, and most patients who relapsed regained remission after restarting their baseline treatments. Among patients who had a follow-up visit after a relapse, 10 (63%) of 16 patients in the continuation group reachieved remission before the end of the study, as did 21 (62%) of 34 in the taper group and 35 (76%) of 46 in the stop group.

The most common treatments at baseline were methotrexate (76%) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (32%).

The researchers also identified several baseline characteristics associated with relapse. Overall, relapse occurred more often in biologic DMARD users than in participants treated with other drugs, more often in women than men, and more often in those with a longer disease duration, higher baseline DAS28-ESR and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, and in those who were positive for rheumatoid factor or anti–citrullinated protein antibodies.

A total of 38 serious adverse events occurred in 29 participants during the study period, but none were deemed treatment related, and none led to study withdrawal.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of masking of patients and assessors and potential underestimation of disease activity, the researchers noted. Also, the study did not include radiographic data that might have been used to confirm progression; however, such data could have produced a null result and were not feasible in the study population, they wrote.

“If RETRO had been a trial to test the superiority of 100% dose continuation, compared with tapering plus rescue treatment or stopping plus rescue treatment, we would not be able to show that continuation is superior to tapering or stopping,” the researchers noted.

The study results support “an increasingly dynamic management approach in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in stable remission,” given the changing nature of RA management, that may help reduce overtreatment in many RA patients, the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, the observation that most of the patients regained remission after reintroduction of antirheumatic treatments is helpful with regard to the benefit-risk aspect of treatment reduction.”

Real-world setting serves as starting point

The RETRO study is unique in that it tried to reflect a real-life setting by enrolling patients on baseline treatment with combinations of conventional synthetic DMARDs and biologic DMARDs seen in clinical practice rather than only patients taking biologic DMARDs – primarily TNF inhibitors – as done in previous studies of tapering and stopping DMARDs, wrote Catherine L. Hill, MD, of the University of Adelaide (Australia), in an accompanying editorial. It is also “used a simple, pragmatic one-size-fits-all treatment-tapering strategy,” she wrote.

However, she emphasized that answers are needed to questions about what relapse rates are acceptable, what duration of treatment-free time is ideal, and whether benefits to the patient outweigh risks.

Dr. Hill also highlighted the issue of identifying patients who are appropriate candidates for tapering or withdrawal. Stricter remission criteria may not be feasible in routine practice, and so “the development of algorithms to guide patient selection is likely to be the most practical way forward for clinicians and patients,” she wrote.

“Contemplation of treatment tapering or discontinuation in some patients with rheumatoid arthritis is remarkable and a measure of how far treatments have advanced,” Dr. Hill wrote. “However, further work to address outstanding questions on who should taper and how best to do it is still required,” she concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Tascilar disclosed lecture fees from Gilead and Union Chimique Belge; several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies outside the current study. Dr. Hill had no financial conflicts to disclose.

About half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who taper or stop disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) retain stable remission after 12 months, and a majority of those who do relapse regain remission when back on their original treatments, according to data from the open-label, randomized Rheumatoid Arthritis in Ongoing Remission (RETRO) study.

“Currently, 40%-50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis reach stable remission,” as a result of factors including earlier diagnosis and a wider range of treatments, Koray Tascilar, MD, of Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and colleagues wrote in their publication of the RETRO trial results in Lancet Rheumatology.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with RA in sustained remission may be able to taper or withdraw treatment, but data from randomized trials are limited, the researchers said.

In the RETRO trial, researchers compared three strategies for RA patients in remission, which was defined as <2.6 on the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). They randomized 100 adults to continue DMARDs and glucocorticoids, 102 to taper DMARDs and glucocorticoids to half their prior doses, and 101 to reduce the doses to half for 6 months and then stop DMARDs. Patients were enrolled between May 26, 2010, and May 29, 2018, from 14 treatment centers in Germany. The final analysis included 282 patients; 92 in the continuation group, 93 in the taper group, and 96 in the stop group. The mean age of the patients was 56.5 years, and 59% were women. The mean duration of RA was 7.4 years, and the mean duration of remission was 20 months.

Overall, at 12 months, 61% of the patients remained in remission without relapse; 81.2% of the continuation group, 58.6% of the taper group, and 43.3% of the stop group. Relapses occurred in 17%, 43%, and 55% of patients in the continuation, taper, and stop groups, respectively. The median times to relapse in the three groups were 30.6 weeks, 24.3 weeks, and 26.1 weeks, respectively.

Most of the relapses occurred between weeks 24 and 36 after stopping treatment, the researchers wrote. Corresponding hazard ratios for relapse were 3.02 for the taper group and 4.34 for the stop group, compared with the continuation group. In comparison to continuing treatment, the number needed to treat for one more relapse to occur during the 12-month observation period was four for tapering and three for stopping, they noted.

The study protocol called for a return to baseline treatment for any patients who relapsed in the taper and stop groups, and most patients who relapsed regained remission after restarting their baseline treatments. Among patients who had a follow-up visit after a relapse, 10 (63%) of 16 patients in the continuation group reachieved remission before the end of the study, as did 21 (62%) of 34 in the taper group and 35 (76%) of 46 in the stop group.

The most common treatments at baseline were methotrexate (76%) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (32%).

The researchers also identified several baseline characteristics associated with relapse. Overall, relapse occurred more often in biologic DMARD users than in participants treated with other drugs, more often in women than men, and more often in those with a longer disease duration, higher baseline DAS28-ESR and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, and in those who were positive for rheumatoid factor or anti–citrullinated protein antibodies.

A total of 38 serious adverse events occurred in 29 participants during the study period, but none were deemed treatment related, and none led to study withdrawal.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of masking of patients and assessors and potential underestimation of disease activity, the researchers noted. Also, the study did not include radiographic data that might have been used to confirm progression; however, such data could have produced a null result and were not feasible in the study population, they wrote.

“If RETRO had been a trial to test the superiority of 100% dose continuation, compared with tapering plus rescue treatment or stopping plus rescue treatment, we would not be able to show that continuation is superior to tapering or stopping,” the researchers noted.

The study results support “an increasingly dynamic management approach in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in stable remission,” given the changing nature of RA management, that may help reduce overtreatment in many RA patients, the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, the observation that most of the patients regained remission after reintroduction of antirheumatic treatments is helpful with regard to the benefit-risk aspect of treatment reduction.”

Real-world setting serves as starting point

The RETRO study is unique in that it tried to reflect a real-life setting by enrolling patients on baseline treatment with combinations of conventional synthetic DMARDs and biologic DMARDs seen in clinical practice rather than only patients taking biologic DMARDs – primarily TNF inhibitors – as done in previous studies of tapering and stopping DMARDs, wrote Catherine L. Hill, MD, of the University of Adelaide (Australia), in an accompanying editorial. It is also “used a simple, pragmatic one-size-fits-all treatment-tapering strategy,” she wrote.

However, she emphasized that answers are needed to questions about what relapse rates are acceptable, what duration of treatment-free time is ideal, and whether benefits to the patient outweigh risks.

Dr. Hill also highlighted the issue of identifying patients who are appropriate candidates for tapering or withdrawal. Stricter remission criteria may not be feasible in routine practice, and so “the development of algorithms to guide patient selection is likely to be the most practical way forward for clinicians and patients,” she wrote.

“Contemplation of treatment tapering or discontinuation in some patients with rheumatoid arthritis is remarkable and a measure of how far treatments have advanced,” Dr. Hill wrote. “However, further work to address outstanding questions on who should taper and how best to do it is still required,” she concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Tascilar disclosed lecture fees from Gilead and Union Chimique Belge; several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies outside the current study. Dr. Hill had no financial conflicts to disclose.

About half of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who taper or stop disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) retain stable remission after 12 months, and a majority of those who do relapse regain remission when back on their original treatments, according to data from the open-label, randomized Rheumatoid Arthritis in Ongoing Remission (RETRO) study.

“Currently, 40%-50% of patients with rheumatoid arthritis reach stable remission,” as a result of factors including earlier diagnosis and a wider range of treatments, Koray Tascilar, MD, of Friedrich Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) and colleagues wrote in their publication of the RETRO trial results in Lancet Rheumatology.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with RA in sustained remission may be able to taper or withdraw treatment, but data from randomized trials are limited, the researchers said.

In the RETRO trial, researchers compared three strategies for RA patients in remission, which was defined as <2.6 on the 28-joint Disease Activity Score with erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR). They randomized 100 adults to continue DMARDs and glucocorticoids, 102 to taper DMARDs and glucocorticoids to half their prior doses, and 101 to reduce the doses to half for 6 months and then stop DMARDs. Patients were enrolled between May 26, 2010, and May 29, 2018, from 14 treatment centers in Germany. The final analysis included 282 patients; 92 in the continuation group, 93 in the taper group, and 96 in the stop group. The mean age of the patients was 56.5 years, and 59% were women. The mean duration of RA was 7.4 years, and the mean duration of remission was 20 months.

Overall, at 12 months, 61% of the patients remained in remission without relapse; 81.2% of the continuation group, 58.6% of the taper group, and 43.3% of the stop group. Relapses occurred in 17%, 43%, and 55% of patients in the continuation, taper, and stop groups, respectively. The median times to relapse in the three groups were 30.6 weeks, 24.3 weeks, and 26.1 weeks, respectively.

Most of the relapses occurred between weeks 24 and 36 after stopping treatment, the researchers wrote. Corresponding hazard ratios for relapse were 3.02 for the taper group and 4.34 for the stop group, compared with the continuation group. In comparison to continuing treatment, the number needed to treat for one more relapse to occur during the 12-month observation period was four for tapering and three for stopping, they noted.

The study protocol called for a return to baseline treatment for any patients who relapsed in the taper and stop groups, and most patients who relapsed regained remission after restarting their baseline treatments. Among patients who had a follow-up visit after a relapse, 10 (63%) of 16 patients in the continuation group reachieved remission before the end of the study, as did 21 (62%) of 34 in the taper group and 35 (76%) of 46 in the stop group.

The most common treatments at baseline were methotrexate (76%) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors (32%).

The researchers also identified several baseline characteristics associated with relapse. Overall, relapse occurred more often in biologic DMARD users than in participants treated with other drugs, more often in women than men, and more often in those with a longer disease duration, higher baseline DAS28-ESR and Health Assessment Questionnaire scores, and in those who were positive for rheumatoid factor or anti–citrullinated protein antibodies.

A total of 38 serious adverse events occurred in 29 participants during the study period, but none were deemed treatment related, and none led to study withdrawal.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of masking of patients and assessors and potential underestimation of disease activity, the researchers noted. Also, the study did not include radiographic data that might have been used to confirm progression; however, such data could have produced a null result and were not feasible in the study population, they wrote.

“If RETRO had been a trial to test the superiority of 100% dose continuation, compared with tapering plus rescue treatment or stopping plus rescue treatment, we would not be able to show that continuation is superior to tapering or stopping,” the researchers noted.

The study results support “an increasingly dynamic management approach in patients with rheumatoid arthritis in stable remission,” given the changing nature of RA management, that may help reduce overtreatment in many RA patients, the researchers concluded. “Furthermore, the observation that most of the patients regained remission after reintroduction of antirheumatic treatments is helpful with regard to the benefit-risk aspect of treatment reduction.”

Real-world setting serves as starting point

The RETRO study is unique in that it tried to reflect a real-life setting by enrolling patients on baseline treatment with combinations of conventional synthetic DMARDs and biologic DMARDs seen in clinical practice rather than only patients taking biologic DMARDs – primarily TNF inhibitors – as done in previous studies of tapering and stopping DMARDs, wrote Catherine L. Hill, MD, of the University of Adelaide (Australia), in an accompanying editorial. It is also “used a simple, pragmatic one-size-fits-all treatment-tapering strategy,” she wrote.

However, she emphasized that answers are needed to questions about what relapse rates are acceptable, what duration of treatment-free time is ideal, and whether benefits to the patient outweigh risks.

Dr. Hill also highlighted the issue of identifying patients who are appropriate candidates for tapering or withdrawal. Stricter remission criteria may not be feasible in routine practice, and so “the development of algorithms to guide patient selection is likely to be the most practical way forward for clinicians and patients,” she wrote.

“Contemplation of treatment tapering or discontinuation in some patients with rheumatoid arthritis is remarkable and a measure of how far treatments have advanced,” Dr. Hill wrote. “However, further work to address outstanding questions on who should taper and how best to do it is still required,” she concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Lead author Dr. Tascilar disclosed lecture fees from Gilead and Union Chimique Belge; several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies outside the current study. Dr. Hill had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Any pause in taking the osteoporosis drug risedronate (Actonel) should last no longer than 2 years rather than the 2-3 years currently recommended for bisphosphonates, new research suggests.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In a cohort of patients aged 66 and older in Ontario, Canada, those who had been taking risedronate had a 34% greater risk of a hip fracture during year 2 to year 3 of a pause in taking the drug – a drug holiday – compared with those who had been taking alendronate (Fosamax). 

The study showed that “risedronate, which has a shorter half-life, confers relatively less hip fracture protection than alendronate during drug holidays longer than 2 years and careful monitoring and follow-up after 2 years is likely warranted,” Kaley (Kaleen) N. Hayes, Pharm D, PhD, summarized in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Dr. Hayes is an assistant professor in the department of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.

“Although alendronate and risedronate have similar effectiveness for preventing fractures on treatment, our findings suggest that older patients on a risedronate drug holiday may benefit from assessment to consider resuming therapy after 2 years to prevent hip fractures,” she elaborated in an email.

Juliet Compston, MD, identified this study as one of the meeting’s clinical science highlights.

“This is the first study to directly compare fracture incidence during a drug holiday after treatment with the two most commonly prescribed oral bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate,” she told this news organization in an email.

The difference in fracture incidence during the 3-year drug holiday is “consistent with the known difference in pharmacokinetic properties of the two drugs,” noted Dr. Compston, professor of bone medicine and honorary consultant physician at the University of Cambridge (England) School of Clinical Medicine.

Since the increased risk of fracture after stopping risedronate vs. alendronate was seen by 2 years, “reevaluation of risk in risedronate-treated patients should therefore be considered earlier than the recommended period of 2-3 years after discontinuation,” she said.

“The study does not provide information about the optimal duration of drug holiday for either risedronate or alendronate, but it supports a shorter duration for the former of up to 2 years,” according to Dr. Compston.

Study rationale and findings

“The question of whether people treated for osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates should have drug holidays is controversial,” Dr. Compston noted, “but many guidelines recommend that in lower-risk individuals who have received bisphosphonates for 5 years, a break from treatment of 2-3 years should be considered.”

Five or more years of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis has been associated with rare adverse effects such as atypical femoral fractures, and these drugs appear to have fracture protection effects that linger for a while, so a drug holiday is recommended for most patients, Dr. Hayes added.

Guidelines such as the 2016 ASBMR task force report on long-term bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, she continued, “acknowledge that evidence for this recommendation comes primarily from the extension trial for alendronate, and patients undergoing a risedronate drug holiday may need to be reassessed earlier because of risedronate’s shorter half-life.”

Compared with alendronate, risedronate accumulates less in the bone and is eliminated more quickly from the body, so its fracture protection during drug holidays may be shorter.

The researchers aimed to estimate the 3-year fracture risk after discontinuing long-term (3 or more years) risedronate vs. alendronate therapy among older adults in Ontario.

From health care administrative data, they identified 120,368 patients aged 66 years and older who had started taking risedronate or alendronate as initial therapy for osteoporosis during the period 2000-2016. They had taken the therapy for 3 or more years (with at least 80% adherence) before stopping it for 120 days or longer.

The researchers found that 45% of patients were taking risedronate and 55% were taking alendronate, which are the main bisphosphonates used in Ontario, Dr. Hayes noted. Etidronate (Didronel) is recommended as second-line therapy and accounts for less than 2% of patients starting oral bisphosphonate therapy. 

In an earlier study, the researchers identified a shift toward greater use of risedronate than alendronate since 2008, likely related to newer formulations (for example, monthly and weekly delayed-release formulations of risedronate vs. only weekly alendronate formulations).

The researchers matched 25,077 patients taking alendronate with 25,077 patients taking risedronate, based on fracture risk–related characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, medication use, and health care use.

The patients had a mean age of 74 when they started taking an oral bisphosphonate; 82% were women and most were White.  

Most patients (78%) had received a prescription from a general practitioner and, on average, they took the bisphosphonate therapy for 5.9 years before the drug holiday.  

The primary outcome of incident hip fracture during a 3-year drug holiday occurred in 915 patients. There were 12.4 events per 1,000 patients in the risedronate group vs. 10.6 events per 1,000 patients in the alendronate group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.34).

The risks were not significantly higher during year 1 or year 2 of the drug holiday, but the curves began to diverge after 2 years, coauthor Suzanne Cadarette, PhD, of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, explained when replying to a question after the presentation. Dr. Cadarette supervised this PhD dissertation research by Dr. Hayes.

The researchers acknowledged that the limitations of their study include a lack of information about race or bone mineral density, and the findings may not apply to a younger, more racially diverse population.

The research was supported by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant, and a doctoral research award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Any pause in taking the osteoporosis drug risedronate (Actonel) should last no longer than 2 years rather than the 2-3 years currently recommended for bisphosphonates, new research suggests.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In a cohort of patients aged 66 and older in Ontario, Canada, those who had been taking risedronate had a 34% greater risk of a hip fracture during year 2 to year 3 of a pause in taking the drug – a drug holiday – compared with those who had been taking alendronate (Fosamax). 

The study showed that “risedronate, which has a shorter half-life, confers relatively less hip fracture protection than alendronate during drug holidays longer than 2 years and careful monitoring and follow-up after 2 years is likely warranted,” Kaley (Kaleen) N. Hayes, Pharm D, PhD, summarized in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Dr. Hayes is an assistant professor in the department of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.

“Although alendronate and risedronate have similar effectiveness for preventing fractures on treatment, our findings suggest that older patients on a risedronate drug holiday may benefit from assessment to consider resuming therapy after 2 years to prevent hip fractures,” she elaborated in an email.

Juliet Compston, MD, identified this study as one of the meeting’s clinical science highlights.

“This is the first study to directly compare fracture incidence during a drug holiday after treatment with the two most commonly prescribed oral bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate,” she told this news organization in an email.

The difference in fracture incidence during the 3-year drug holiday is “consistent with the known difference in pharmacokinetic properties of the two drugs,” noted Dr. Compston, professor of bone medicine and honorary consultant physician at the University of Cambridge (England) School of Clinical Medicine.

Since the increased risk of fracture after stopping risedronate vs. alendronate was seen by 2 years, “reevaluation of risk in risedronate-treated patients should therefore be considered earlier than the recommended period of 2-3 years after discontinuation,” she said.

“The study does not provide information about the optimal duration of drug holiday for either risedronate or alendronate, but it supports a shorter duration for the former of up to 2 years,” according to Dr. Compston.

Study rationale and findings

“The question of whether people treated for osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates should have drug holidays is controversial,” Dr. Compston noted, “but many guidelines recommend that in lower-risk individuals who have received bisphosphonates for 5 years, a break from treatment of 2-3 years should be considered.”

Five or more years of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis has been associated with rare adverse effects such as atypical femoral fractures, and these drugs appear to have fracture protection effects that linger for a while, so a drug holiday is recommended for most patients, Dr. Hayes added.

Guidelines such as the 2016 ASBMR task force report on long-term bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, she continued, “acknowledge that evidence for this recommendation comes primarily from the extension trial for alendronate, and patients undergoing a risedronate drug holiday may need to be reassessed earlier because of risedronate’s shorter half-life.”

Compared with alendronate, risedronate accumulates less in the bone and is eliminated more quickly from the body, so its fracture protection during drug holidays may be shorter.

The researchers aimed to estimate the 3-year fracture risk after discontinuing long-term (3 or more years) risedronate vs. alendronate therapy among older adults in Ontario.

From health care administrative data, they identified 120,368 patients aged 66 years and older who had started taking risedronate or alendronate as initial therapy for osteoporosis during the period 2000-2016. They had taken the therapy for 3 or more years (with at least 80% adherence) before stopping it for 120 days or longer.

The researchers found that 45% of patients were taking risedronate and 55% were taking alendronate, which are the main bisphosphonates used in Ontario, Dr. Hayes noted. Etidronate (Didronel) is recommended as second-line therapy and accounts for less than 2% of patients starting oral bisphosphonate therapy. 

In an earlier study, the researchers identified a shift toward greater use of risedronate than alendronate since 2008, likely related to newer formulations (for example, monthly and weekly delayed-release formulations of risedronate vs. only weekly alendronate formulations).

The researchers matched 25,077 patients taking alendronate with 25,077 patients taking risedronate, based on fracture risk–related characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, medication use, and health care use.

The patients had a mean age of 74 when they started taking an oral bisphosphonate; 82% were women and most were White.  

Most patients (78%) had received a prescription from a general practitioner and, on average, they took the bisphosphonate therapy for 5.9 years before the drug holiday.  

The primary outcome of incident hip fracture during a 3-year drug holiday occurred in 915 patients. There were 12.4 events per 1,000 patients in the risedronate group vs. 10.6 events per 1,000 patients in the alendronate group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.34).

The risks were not significantly higher during year 1 or year 2 of the drug holiday, but the curves began to diverge after 2 years, coauthor Suzanne Cadarette, PhD, of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, explained when replying to a question after the presentation. Dr. Cadarette supervised this PhD dissertation research by Dr. Hayes.

The researchers acknowledged that the limitations of their study include a lack of information about race or bone mineral density, and the findings may not apply to a younger, more racially diverse population.

The research was supported by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant, and a doctoral research award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Any pause in taking the osteoporosis drug risedronate (Actonel) should last no longer than 2 years rather than the 2-3 years currently recommended for bisphosphonates, new research suggests.

BananaStock/thinkstockphotos.com

In a cohort of patients aged 66 and older in Ontario, Canada, those who had been taking risedronate had a 34% greater risk of a hip fracture during year 2 to year 3 of a pause in taking the drug – a drug holiday – compared with those who had been taking alendronate (Fosamax). 

The study showed that “risedronate, which has a shorter half-life, confers relatively less hip fracture protection than alendronate during drug holidays longer than 2 years and careful monitoring and follow-up after 2 years is likely warranted,” Kaley (Kaleen) N. Hayes, Pharm D, PhD, summarized in an oral presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research. Dr. Hayes is an assistant professor in the department of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, R.I.

“Although alendronate and risedronate have similar effectiveness for preventing fractures on treatment, our findings suggest that older patients on a risedronate drug holiday may benefit from assessment to consider resuming therapy after 2 years to prevent hip fractures,” she elaborated in an email.

Juliet Compston, MD, identified this study as one of the meeting’s clinical science highlights.

“This is the first study to directly compare fracture incidence during a drug holiday after treatment with the two most commonly prescribed oral bisphosphonates, alendronate and risedronate,” she told this news organization in an email.

The difference in fracture incidence during the 3-year drug holiday is “consistent with the known difference in pharmacokinetic properties of the two drugs,” noted Dr. Compston, professor of bone medicine and honorary consultant physician at the University of Cambridge (England) School of Clinical Medicine.

Since the increased risk of fracture after stopping risedronate vs. alendronate was seen by 2 years, “reevaluation of risk in risedronate-treated patients should therefore be considered earlier than the recommended period of 2-3 years after discontinuation,” she said.

“The study does not provide information about the optimal duration of drug holiday for either risedronate or alendronate, but it supports a shorter duration for the former of up to 2 years,” according to Dr. Compston.

Study rationale and findings

“The question of whether people treated for osteoporosis with oral bisphosphonates should have drug holidays is controversial,” Dr. Compston noted, “but many guidelines recommend that in lower-risk individuals who have received bisphosphonates for 5 years, a break from treatment of 2-3 years should be considered.”

Five or more years of bisphosphonate treatment for osteoporosis has been associated with rare adverse effects such as atypical femoral fractures, and these drugs appear to have fracture protection effects that linger for a while, so a drug holiday is recommended for most patients, Dr. Hayes added.

Guidelines such as the 2016 ASBMR task force report on long-term bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, she continued, “acknowledge that evidence for this recommendation comes primarily from the extension trial for alendronate, and patients undergoing a risedronate drug holiday may need to be reassessed earlier because of risedronate’s shorter half-life.”

Compared with alendronate, risedronate accumulates less in the bone and is eliminated more quickly from the body, so its fracture protection during drug holidays may be shorter.

The researchers aimed to estimate the 3-year fracture risk after discontinuing long-term (3 or more years) risedronate vs. alendronate therapy among older adults in Ontario.

From health care administrative data, they identified 120,368 patients aged 66 years and older who had started taking risedronate or alendronate as initial therapy for osteoporosis during the period 2000-2016. They had taken the therapy for 3 or more years (with at least 80% adherence) before stopping it for 120 days or longer.

The researchers found that 45% of patients were taking risedronate and 55% were taking alendronate, which are the main bisphosphonates used in Ontario, Dr. Hayes noted. Etidronate (Didronel) is recommended as second-line therapy and accounts for less than 2% of patients starting oral bisphosphonate therapy. 

In an earlier study, the researchers identified a shift toward greater use of risedronate than alendronate since 2008, likely related to newer formulations (for example, monthly and weekly delayed-release formulations of risedronate vs. only weekly alendronate formulations).

The researchers matched 25,077 patients taking alendronate with 25,077 patients taking risedronate, based on fracture risk–related characteristics, including demographics, diagnoses, medication use, and health care use.

The patients had a mean age of 74 when they started taking an oral bisphosphonate; 82% were women and most were White.  

Most patients (78%) had received a prescription from a general practitioner and, on average, they took the bisphosphonate therapy for 5.9 years before the drug holiday.  

The primary outcome of incident hip fracture during a 3-year drug holiday occurred in 915 patients. There were 12.4 events per 1,000 patients in the risedronate group vs. 10.6 events per 1,000 patients in the alendronate group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.34).

The risks were not significantly higher during year 1 or year 2 of the drug holiday, but the curves began to diverge after 2 years, coauthor Suzanne Cadarette, PhD, of the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Toronto, explained when replying to a question after the presentation. Dr. Cadarette supervised this PhD dissertation research by Dr. Hayes.

The researchers acknowledged that the limitations of their study include a lack of information about race or bone mineral density, and the findings may not apply to a younger, more racially diverse population.

The research was supported by the University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, a Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant, and a doctoral research award. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

“Postmenopausal women with low bone mass should obtain adequate calcium and vitamin D and participate in bone-loading exercises,” researchers noted in a recent study published in Osteoporosis International.

sbm Hotting/Fotolia.com

“Additional use of bisphosphonates will increase bone mineral density (BMD), especially at the spine,” wrote Nancy Waltman, PhD, College of Nursing, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and colleagues.

The findings are partial results from the Heartland Osteoporosis Prevention Study (HOPS), which randomized women who had entered menopause within the previous 6 months and had osteopenia (low bone mass, T score –1.0 to –2.49) to receive one of three treatments for 12 months:

• Bone-loading and resistance exercise plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Risedronate plus calcium and vitamin D supplements.
• Calcium and vitamin D supplements alone (control).

At 1 year, “risedronate significantly increased BMD at the spine, compared to exercise and control, and serum biomarkers of bone turnover also significantly reduced in the risedronate group,” Laura Bilek, PT, PhD, said during an oral presentation of the research at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

However, the results also showed that, importantly, “in postmenopausal women, exercise appears to improve strength at the hip through changes in structure, not BMD,” stressed Dr. Bilek, of the College of Allied Health Professionals, University of Nebraska Medical Center.
 

Bone health is about more than just bone mineral density

“The key takeaway for clinicians is that bone health is about more than just density!” she noted in an email.

Current guidelines don’t recommend prescribing risedronate until a woman has overt osteoporosis, she said.

On the other hand, many studies have shown that, to be most effective, bone-loading exercises should be a lifelong habit and women should begin to do them at least during menopause and should not wait until bone loss occurs.

Other studies have shown that exercise changes bone structure (size or geometry), which improves bone strength. The current study supports both prior observations.

And exercise also improves muscle strength and decreases the risk of falls and fractures, Dr. Bilek noted.

Invited to comment, Pauline M. Camacho, MD, cochair of the task force for the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) guidelines for osteoporosis, noted that all three measures – pharmacotherapy, exercise, and calcium/vitamin D – are important in the successful management of osteoporosis.

This study showed that risedronate is superior to calcium/vitamin D supplementation as well as exercise for BMD and for bone turnover in these women with osteopenia, said Dr. Camacho, professor of medicine and director of the Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease Center, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago.

“Most women with osteopenia do not receive pharmacologic therapy,” she noted, and receive it only “if there is a history of fractures or they have other features that change that diagnosis to osteoporosis.

“There is no downside to exercise, and this needs to be advised to all patients,” she said. “The other aspect of exercise that was not assessed in this study is its effect on balance. Patients who exercise will have improved balance, which should translate into fewer falls, and thus fewer fractures.”
 

How can women with osteopenia maintain bone health?

In their article, Dr. Waltman and colleagues say the Lifting Intervention for Training Muscle and Osteoporosis Rehabilitation (LIFTMOR) clinical trial is one of the first to address clinician concerns about the safety and effectiveness of exercise to improve bone health.

In that trial of 101 postmenopausal women with low bone mass, 8 months of 30-minute, twice-weekly, supervised high-intensity resistance and impact training was safe and BMD increased by 2.9% at the lumbar spine and 0.3% at the femoral neck.

“Our [HOPS] study,” Dr. Waltman and colleagues explained, “builds on the LIFTMOR clinical trial and adds further data to inform whether postmenopausal women with low bone mass can effectively maintain or even improve BMD with bone-loading exercises prior to prescriptions for medication.

“Our long-term goal is to contribute to the development of clinical practice guidelines for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women with low bone mass,” they said.

They randomized 276 postmenopausal women who were a mean age of 54 (range, 44-63); most were White (78%) or Hispanic (6%).

Women were excluded from the study if they had a diagnosis of osteoporosis (T-score < −2.5); had an increased risk of a major fracture or hip fracture; had been on bisphosphonates within the last 6 months; were currently on estrogen, tamoxifen, or aromatase inhibitors; had a serum vitamin D level < 10 mg/mL or > 100 mg/mL; had any conditions that prohibited prescriptions for calcium and vitamin D supplements, risedronate, or exercise; or weighed more than 300 pounds.

All women received 1,200 mg/day of calcium (from supplements or diet) and 1,000-3,000 IU/day of vitamin D supplements, based on their serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels.  

The exercise program consisted of visiting a gym three times a week for 45 minutes of bone-loading exercise – jogging with a weighted vest – and resistance exercises, which were supervised by a trainer for the first 2 weeks.

Women in the risedronate group received a 150-mg tablet of risedronate every 4 weeks.  

At baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, the women had DXA scans to determine BMD and hip structure, and had blood tests to determine levels of serum markers for bone formation (bone specific alkaline phosphatase [Alkphase B]) and bone resorption (N-terminal telopeptide [NTx]).

Compared with baseline, at 12 months, the women had the following changes in BMD at the following sites:

• Spine: +1.9%, +0.9%, and –0.4%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Total hip: +0.9%, +0.5%, and +0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.
• Femoral neck: +0.09%, –0.4%, and –0.5%, in the risedronate, exercise, and control groups.

These improvements in BMD were significantly greater in the risedronate group than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for both).

The decreases in serum levels of NtX and Alkphase B were also greater with risedronate than in the exercise or control groups (P < .01 for all).

The most frequent adverse effect with the calcium supplement was constipation (n = 4). Some women taking risedronate had gastrointestinal disturbances (n = 4), muscle or joint pain (n = 11), or chest pain and dizziness (n = 2). None of the women had adverse effects from vitamin D. A few women had muscle soreness from exercise that went away after the exercises were adapted. None of the women had a serious injury or fracture from exercise.

More women in the exercise group withdrew from the study (n = 20), with most citing lack of time as the reason; 13 women withdrew from the risedronate group, and 16 withdrew from the control group.

Of the 276 participants who completed the 12-month study, treatment adherence was 92% for calcium, 94% for vitamin D, 75% for risedronate, and 59% for exercise.

Exercise was associated with positive changes in intertrochanter hip structural analysis measures, which will be described in an upcoming study, Dr. Bilek said.

The study was funded by the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health. The researchers have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.

Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.

Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.

What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.

Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.

What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.

How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.

The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.

The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).

Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.

What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.

Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.

Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.

During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.

What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.

Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.

Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.

Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.

[email protected]

After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.

Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.

Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.

What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.

Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.

What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.

How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.

The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.

The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).

Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.

What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.

Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.

Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.

During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.

What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.

Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.

Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.

Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.

[email protected]

After many years at the University of California, San Francisco, Lindsey A. Criswell, MD, MPH, DSc, began a new chapter in February 2021 as the director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease, part of the National Institutes of Health. NIH Director Francis S. Collins, MD, PhD, selected her for the post.

“Dr. Criswell has rich experience as a clinician, researcher, and administrator,” Dr. Collins said in a prepared statement. “Her ability to oversee the research program of one of the country’s top research-intensive medical schools, and her expertise in autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, make her well positioned to direct NIAMS.” Dr. Criswell, a rheumatologist, was named a full professor of medicine at UCSF in 2007 and had served as vice chancellor of research at the university since 2017. She has authored more than 250 peer-reviewed scientific papers, and her efforts have contributed to the identification of more than 30 genes linked to autoimmune disorders. In her first media interview, Dr. Criswell opens up about her mentors, operational challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, and highlights many NIAMS research projects underway.

Who inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist? I have had great opportunities to work with fabulous mentors. Wallace (Wally) Epstein, MD, was my mentor when I was a rheumatology fellow and junior faculty member at UCSF. He was broadly admired for the breadth of his experience as a clinician and a researcher, and he was noteworthy at that time for his strong support for women and students of color. One of the many things I appreciated about him was his diverse range of interests outside of work, which included cello playing and woodworking.

Another mentor was Ephraim (Eph) Engleman, MD, the first academic rheumatologist in California. Eph continued to see patients beyond the age of 100. Perhaps his most important contributions were his efforts towards advocacy for funding for research and education in rheumatology. A prodigy violinist, he too had a broad range of personal interests.

What research into the genetics and epidemiology of human autoimmune disease that you have been a part of has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact? Some of my most rewarding and impactful work has focused on the shared genetic basis of autoimmune diseases. We’ve identified dozens of genes that contribute to the risk and outcome of rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and other autoimmune disorders. These discoveries regarding shared genes and pathways among such a diverse set of conditions have helped to inform optimal therapeutic target and treatment strategies across multiple diseases. For example, exploration of RA genes and pathways has revealed that approved agents for other conditions, such as cancer, may be appropriately repurposed for the treatment of RA. These are critical observations that have the potential to dramatically accelerate progress in developing new therapies for autoimmune diseases, such as RA.

Did you have much interaction with Stephen I. Katz, MD, PhD, your longtime predecessor who passed away unexpectedly in 2018? If so, what do you remember most about him? I regret that I had very little interaction with Steve, but I am well aware of the impact he had on NIAMS, NIH, and the research enterprise overall. He inspired so many people in a personal way, and I am energized by the legacy that he left behind.

What are your goals for the early part of your tenure as the new director of NIAMS? An important goal is getting to know the NIAMS community and expanding my knowledge of the Institute’s musculoskeletal and skin portfolios. I am also conducting outreach to Institute/Center directors and other NIH leadership to increase opportunities for input and advice. In doing this, I am identifying shared research interests, best practices, and potential partners for possible future collaborations. Another important goal is to increase NIAMS’ visibility within and beyond NIH. Ultimately, I want to contribute to the great work of the Institute and improve the lives of people with rheumatic, musculoskeletal, and skin diseases.

How would you characterize your management style? I like to lead with a flat hierarchy and work collectively to address opportunities and challenges. I value team building and tend to tap a variety of perspectives and expertise at all levels to achieve consensus, where possible.

The Accelerating Medicines Partnership (AMP) program was launched in 2014, with projects in three disease areas including the autoimmune disorders RA and lupus. What are some recent highlights from this program with respect to RA and lupus? AMP RA/SLE was dedicated to identifying promising therapeutic targets for RA and systemic lupus erythematosus. AMP-funded researchers have applied cutting-edge technologies to study cells from the synovial tissues of the joints of people with RA, and from the kidneys of people with lupus nephritis. In 2014, studying tissues in patients where the disease is active was a novel approach, since most research was conducted in mouse models or human blood samples.

The AMP RA/SLE Network developed a rich dataset that is available to the research community. Investigators are now using the data to facilitate RA and lupus research. For example, using AMP data, NIAMS-supported researchers identified potential biomarkers that could help predict an imminent RA flare. Work from another NIAMS-supported group suggests that targeting the regulatory transcription factor HIF-1, which drives inflammation and tissue damage, might be an effective approach for treating renal injury in lupus.

The data generated are accessible to the scientific community through two NIH websites: the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGaP) and the Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (IMMPORT).

Given the success of AMP RA/SLE, NIH plans to launch an “AMP 2.0” later in 2021. The AMP Autoimmune and Immune-Mediated Diseases (AMP AIM) program will provide an opportunity to leverage the accomplishments of AMP RA/SLE to new conditions, including psoriatic spectrum diseases and Sjögren’s syndrome.

What are some recent highlights from NIAMS-supported research in skin diseases? NIAMS-supported investigators continue to make significant strides in our understanding of skin biology and disease. For example, researchers recently demonstrated that imiquimod, a drug used to treat precancerous skin lesions, can help mouse ear wounds heal without scarring.

Another team addressed the safety and potential benefit of Staphylococcus hominis A9, a bacterium isolated from healthy human skin, as a topical therapy for atopic dermatitis.

Moving forward, AMP AIM will refine and extend the single-cell analysis of tissues to additional diseases, including psoriasis, setting the stage for the discovery of new therapeutic targets for the disease.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic changed the landscape of research, at least for the short term? This is a once-in-a-century pandemic that none of us were fully prepared for. We understand that it has been particularly challenging for women scientists, scientists with young children, and trainees and junior faculty who are at critically important and vulnerable stages of their careers. There isn’t a lab or clinical setting that hasn’t been negatively impacted in some way.

During the pandemic, the NIH instituted administrative flexibilities to support the grantee community, including extensions in time. In addition, the agency has issued several funding opportunities specific to COVID-19, some of which involve NIAMS participation.

What is NIAMS doing to help early/young investigators as well as female investigators and those from minority groups? Structural racism in biomedical research is a heightened concern. Earlier this year, Dr. Collins established the UNITE initiative to address structural racism and promote racial equity and inclusion at the NIH and within the larger biomedical community that we support. NIAMS is fully committed to this effort. One example is the Diversity Supplement Program, which is designed to attract and encourage eligible individuals from underrepresented populations to research careers.

Early-stage investigators are another top priority. In a tribute to the beloved former NIAMS director, NIH recently established the Stephen I. Katz Early Stage Investigator Research Grant Program. The R01 award provides support for a project unrelated to an early investigator’s area of postdoctoral study. (No preliminary data are allowed.) This award mechanism is a unique opportunity for early-stage investigators to take their research in a completely new direction.

Managing work and family life is an important concern, particularly for female investigators. Many NIH grant awards allow for reimbursement of actual, allowable costs incurred for childcare and parental leave. The NIH is exploring initiatives to promote research continuity and retention of eligible investigators facing major life events, such as pregnancy, childbirth, and adoption, at vulnerable career stages.

Who inspires you most in your work today? I am inspired by the ongoing struggles of our patients, junior investigators, and by the committed staff members on my team.

[email protected]

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

It took years for Elle Moxley to get a diagnosis that explained her crippling gastrointestinal pain, digestion problems, fatigue, and hot, red rashes. And after learning in 2016 that she had Crohn’s disease, a chronic inflammation of the digestive tract, she spent more than 4 years trying medications before getting her disease under control with a biologic drug called Remicade.

So Ms. Moxley, 33, was dismayed to receive a notice from her insurer in January that Remicade would no longer be covered as a preferred drug on her plan. Another drug, Inflectra, which the Food and Drug Administration says has no meaningful clinical differences from Remicade, is now preferred. It is a “biosimilar” drug.

“I felt very powerless,” said Ms. Moxley, who recently started a job as a public relations coordinator for Kansas City (Mo.) Public Schools. “I have this decision being made for me and my doctor that’s not in my best interest, and it might knock me out of remission.”

After Ms. Moxley’s first Inflectra infusion in July, she developed a painful rash. It went away after a few days, but she said she continues to feel extremely fatigued and experiences gastrointestinal pain, constipation, diarrhea and nausea.

Many medical professionals look to biosimilar drugs as a way to increase competition and give consumers cheaper options, much as generic drugs do, and they point to the more robust use of these products in Europe to cut costs.

Yet the United States has been slower to adopt biosimilar drugs since the first such medicine was approved in 2015. That’s partly because of concerns raised by patients like Moxley and their doctors, but also because brand-name biologics have kept biosimilars from entering the market. The companies behind the brand-name drugs have used legal actions to extend the life of their patents and incentives that make offering the brand biologic more attractive than offering a biosimilar on a formulary, listing which drugs are covered on an insurance plan.

“It distorts the market and makes it so that patients can’t get access,” said Jinoos Yazdany, MD, MPH, a professor of medicine and chief of the rheumatology division at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

The FDA has approved 31 biosimilar medications since 2015, but only about 60% have made it to market, according to an analysis by NORC, a research organization at the University of Chicago.

Remicade’s manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, which makes the Remicade biosimilar Inflectra, have been embroiled in a long-running lawsuit over Pfizer’s claims that Johnson & Johnson tried to choke off competition through exclusionary contracts with insurers and other anticompetitive actions. In July, the companies settled the case on undisclosed terms.

In a statement, Pfizer said it would continue to sell Inflectra in the United States but noted ongoing challenges: “Pfizer has begun to see progress in the overall biosimilars marketplace in the U.S. However, changes in policy at a government level and acceptance of biosimilars among key stakeholders are critical to deliver more meaningful uptake so patients and the health care system at large can benefit from the cost savings these medicines may deliver.”

Johnson & Johnson said it is committed to making Remicade available to patients who choose it, which “compels us to compete responsibly on both price and value.”

Biologic medicines, which are generally grown from living organisms such as animal cells or bacteria, are more complex and expensive to manufacture than drugs made from chemicals. In recent years, biologic drugs have become a mainstay of treatment for autoimmune conditions like Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, as well as certain cancers and diabetes, among other conditions.

Other drugmakers can’t exactly reproduce these biologic drugs by following chemical recipes as they do for generic versions of conventional drugs.

Instead, biosimilar versions of biologic drugs are generally made from the same types of materials as the original biologics and must be “highly similar” to them to be approved by the FDA. They must have no clinically meaningful differences from the biologic drug, and be just as safe, pure and potent. More than a decade after Congress created an approval pathway for biosimilars, they are widely accepted as safe and effective alternatives to brand biologics.

Medical experts hope that as biosimilars become more widely used they will increasingly provide a brake on drug spending.

From 2015 to 2019, drug spending overall grew 6.1%, while spending on biologics grew more than twice as much – 14.6% – according to a report by IQVIA, a health care analytics company. In 2019, biologics accounted for 43% of drug spending in the United States

Biosimilars provide a roughly 30% discount over brand biologics in the United States but have the potential to reduce spending by more than $100 billion in the next 5 years, the IQVIA analysis found.

In a survey of 602 physicians who prescribe biologic medications, more than three-quarters said they believed biosimilars are just as safe and effective as their biologic counterparts, according to NORC.

But they were less comfortable with switching patients from a brand biologic to a biosimilar. While about half said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient just starting biologic therapy, only 31% said they were very likely to prescribe a biosimilar to a patient already doing well on a brand biologic.

It can be challenging to find a treatment regimen that works for patients with complicated chronic conditions, and physicians and patients often don’t want to rock the boat once that is achieved.

In Ms. Moxley’s case, for example, before her condition stabilized on Remicade, she tried a conventional pill called Lialda, the biologic drug Humira and a lower dose of Remicade.

Some doctors and patients raise concerns that switching between these drugs might cause patients to develop antibodies that cause the drugs to lose effectiveness. They want to see more research about the effects of such switches.

“We haven’t seen enough studies about patients going from the biologic to the biosimilar and bouncing back and forth,” said Marcus Snow, MD, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care. “We don’t want our patients to be guinea pigs.”

Manufacturers of biologic and biosimilar drugs have participated in advertising, exhibit or sponsorship opportunities with the American College of Rheumatology, according to ACR spokesperson Jocelyn Givens.

But studies show a one-time switch from Remicade to a biosimilar like Inflectra does not cause side effects or the development of antibodies, said Ross Maltz, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and former member of the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation’s National Scientific Advisory Committee. Studies may be conducted by researchers with extensive ties to the industry and funded by drugmakers.

Situations like Ms. Moxley’s are unusual, said Kristine Grow, senior vice president of communications at AHIP, an insurer trade group.

“For patients who have been taking a brand-name biologic for some time, health insurance providers do not typically encourage them to switch to a biosimilar because of a formulary change, and most plans exclude these patients from any changes in cost sharing due to formulary changes,” she said.

Drugmakers can seek approval from the FDA of their biosimilar as interchangeable with a biologic drug, allowing pharmacists, subject to state law, to switch a physician’s prescription from the brand drug, as they often do with generic drugs.

However, the FDA has approved only one biosimilar (Semglee, a form of insulin) as interchangeable with a biologic (Lantus).

Like Ms. Moxley, many other patients using biologics get copay assistance from drug companies, but the money often isn’t enough to cover the full cost. In her old job as a radio reporter, Ms. Moxley said, she hit the $7,000 maximum annual out-of-pocket spending limit for her plan by May.

In her new job, Ms. Moxley has an individual plan with a $4,000 maximum out-of-pocket limit, which she expects to blow past once again within months.

But she received good news recently: Her new plan will cover Remicade.

“I’m still concerned that I will have developed antibodies since my last dose,” she said. “But it feels like a step in the direction of good health again.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

After nearly a decade, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has updated its guidance on nonoperative treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

The clinical practice guidelines, released Sept. 13, 2021, is the third edition of the orthopedic society’s clinical practice recommendations.

According to Robert Brophy, MD, FAAOS, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University, St. Louis, and cochair of the AAOS clinical practice guideline work group, the AAOS guidelines are a “living document” that needs periodic updating as new research comes to light.

“The methodology for maintaining the AAOS guidelines aims to update guideline documents at least every 10 years,” Dr. Brophy said in an interview. “Since the last edition was from 2013, it was time to provide an updated guideline on this very important topic that affects such a high percentage of our patients and providers.”

The guidelines work group, composed of 12 medical doctors and 1 physical therapist, evaluated the evidence for 29 areas of treatment.

A rating scale based on available evidence and the strength of related medical studies labeled each treatment area as demonstrating strong, moderate, or limited evidence.

Eight treatment modalities weighed in with strong evidence for or against their use: lateral wedge insoles, topical or oral NSAIDs, exercise (supervised or unsupervised), self-management programs, patient education programs, oral acetaminophen, and oral opioids.

According to Dr. Brophy, many of the recommendations assigned a strong evidence base were similar to the prior edition of the guidelines.
 

Oral medications

NSAIDs and acetaminophen still remain steadfast options for the treatment of knee pain secondary to OA.

decade3d/Thinkstock

The most notable change was that opioids, which have a long history of being used to treat pain, are strongly recommended not to be used for arthritis.

“Reflecting the growing awareness of and emphasis on the opioid epidemic, one of the strongest changes between the current and prior guidelines centers on the use of opioid medications,” Dr. Brophy said. “In the prior guideline, a strong recommendation was made in favor of tramadol with an inconclusive recommendation made regarding other opioid medications. The updated guideline demonstrates clearly the evidence does not support the use of opioid medications – including tramadol – to treat knee osteoarthritis.”

This may require some education for both patients and doctors to buy in that knee pain can be treated adequately with NSAIDs and acetaminophen.

Patients may not understand that anti-inflammatory drugs treat the pain they are experiencing. They may equate an opioid with a “pain pill” and may need education from their doctor that NSAIDs and acetaminophen not only can relieve their pain, but also avoid potential adverse events prior to or after surgery should they progress to knee replacement surgery.

Furthermore, primary care physicians may not be looking at the long-term picture. Solving a short-term pain problem with opioids may limit the medication’s ability to provide pain relief after surgery should a patient develop a tolerance to the medication’s effects.
 

Recommendations on hip and foot alignment interventions

When it comes to alignment and joint stresses, the knee is sometimes considered the innocent bystander of hip and foot alignment.

Insoles. How the hip and foot align with each can determine the amount of weight that passes through the medial (inner) or lateral (outer) compartment of the knee. To that end, lateral foot insoles have been used in the past for unloading parts of the knee.

Nevertheless, recent evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant benefit for insoles in the setting of OA knee pain, earning the practice a strong recommendation against its use.

High-tibial osteotomy (HTO). The weight-bearing axis of the lower-extremity axis can also be realigned with HTO. The procedure shifts the body’s weight slightly to the opposite side of the knee.

Newer research has led the practice to be downgraded one level in the new guideline, from moderate to limited, despite its widespread use.

It will, however, likely continue to be used as an alternative to total knee replacement in younger patients and to shift weight away from an area of the knee where cartilage is being restored with a concomitant surgical procedure, according to the work group. They noted that additional research studies on the long-term efficacy of the procedure are still needed.

Topical treatments. The guideline authors gave these a strong recommendation. Gels with anti-inflammatory medication have long been available but were prescription only or of considerable cost. Now several affordable over-the-counter options with the same prescription strength can be found in pharmacies and supermarkets.

What makes these medications unique is that they have an NSAID medication in the formulation, which the vast majority of topical treatments found on shelves do not. They also benefit patients who are unable to tolerate oral NSAIDs because of gastrointestinal side effects.

Comparison with 2019 OARSI recommendations

In 2019, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International also published guidelines for the management of OA of the hand, hip, and knee.

Thomas Trojian, MD, a family medicine physician with expertise in sports medicine in York, Pa., and member of both the AAOS and OARSI recommendation committees, noted that the OARSI guidelines are meant to be practical guidelines of stepwise nonoperative treatment.

He said in an interview that “the OARSI guidelines recommend dietary weight management, education, and land-based [exercise] therapy, next topical NSAIDs, then injection therapy.”

Intra-articular steroids and viscosupplementation injection therapy in the form of hyaluronic acid derivatives continue to be a mainstay of treatment for both groups.

The AAOS group notably gave a moderate strength recommendation for intra-articular steroid injections with the caveat that the effects typically only last for 3 months. They also included newer extended-release steroid injections in the recommendation, stating that the evidence moderately suggests they provide more benefit than traditional short-acting steroid injections.
 

Methodology differs between guidelines

In the areas where the guidelines don’t fully line up, it is important to remember the methodology of each group often drives the guidelines and recommendations.

According to Yale Fillingham, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in group private practice in the greater Philadelphia area and the other cochair of the AAOS guidelines committee, the biggest difference between the AAOS and OARSI guidelines is that, although the OARSI guidelines are also grounded in the literature, the recommendation level was based on voting among panel members.

“The AAOS methodology requires the recommendation and strength of the recommendation to be dictated primarily by the best available evidence in the literature and much less on the expertise and opinion of the voting panel,” Dr. Fillingham said in an interview.

He pointed out that the AAOS voting panel can alter the guideline by adjusting the strength of the recommendation but noted it was only in very clearly defined situations. Therefore, the differences in methodology between the groups make it difficult to directly compare the two guidelines.

Multiple guidelines do, however, point to the importance of the issue. Dr. Fillingham commented: “The numerous organizations that have produced guidelines on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are a testament to the widespread and profound impact of knee osteoarthritis on our health care system and society.”

As a member of both recommendation groups, Dr. Trojian finds both guidelines reveal the importance of understanding that knee OA is a chronic illness. “There are ways we can manage knee OA and reduce the morbidity. ... The core skills of motivational interviewing are important. Open-ended questions, affirmation, reflection, and summarizing are needed to help patients find and remove roadblocks to promote lifestyle changes.”

Dr. Brophy, Dr. Trojian, and Dr. Fillingham have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

After nearly a decade, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has updated its guidance on nonoperative treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

The clinical practice guidelines, released Sept. 13, 2021, is the third edition of the orthopedic society’s clinical practice recommendations.

According to Robert Brophy, MD, FAAOS, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University, St. Louis, and cochair of the AAOS clinical practice guideline work group, the AAOS guidelines are a “living document” that needs periodic updating as new research comes to light.

“The methodology for maintaining the AAOS guidelines aims to update guideline documents at least every 10 years,” Dr. Brophy said in an interview. “Since the last edition was from 2013, it was time to provide an updated guideline on this very important topic that affects such a high percentage of our patients and providers.”

The guidelines work group, composed of 12 medical doctors and 1 physical therapist, evaluated the evidence for 29 areas of treatment.

A rating scale based on available evidence and the strength of related medical studies labeled each treatment area as demonstrating strong, moderate, or limited evidence.

Eight treatment modalities weighed in with strong evidence for or against their use: lateral wedge insoles, topical or oral NSAIDs, exercise (supervised or unsupervised), self-management programs, patient education programs, oral acetaminophen, and oral opioids.

According to Dr. Brophy, many of the recommendations assigned a strong evidence base were similar to the prior edition of the guidelines.
 

Oral medications

NSAIDs and acetaminophen still remain steadfast options for the treatment of knee pain secondary to OA.

decade3d/Thinkstock

The most notable change was that opioids, which have a long history of being used to treat pain, are strongly recommended not to be used for arthritis.

“Reflecting the growing awareness of and emphasis on the opioid epidemic, one of the strongest changes between the current and prior guidelines centers on the use of opioid medications,” Dr. Brophy said. “In the prior guideline, a strong recommendation was made in favor of tramadol with an inconclusive recommendation made regarding other opioid medications. The updated guideline demonstrates clearly the evidence does not support the use of opioid medications – including tramadol – to treat knee osteoarthritis.”

This may require some education for both patients and doctors to buy in that knee pain can be treated adequately with NSAIDs and acetaminophen.

Patients may not understand that anti-inflammatory drugs treat the pain they are experiencing. They may equate an opioid with a “pain pill” and may need education from their doctor that NSAIDs and acetaminophen not only can relieve their pain, but also avoid potential adverse events prior to or after surgery should they progress to knee replacement surgery.

Furthermore, primary care physicians may not be looking at the long-term picture. Solving a short-term pain problem with opioids may limit the medication’s ability to provide pain relief after surgery should a patient develop a tolerance to the medication’s effects.
 

Recommendations on hip and foot alignment interventions

When it comes to alignment and joint stresses, the knee is sometimes considered the innocent bystander of hip and foot alignment.

Insoles. How the hip and foot align with each can determine the amount of weight that passes through the medial (inner) or lateral (outer) compartment of the knee. To that end, lateral foot insoles have been used in the past for unloading parts of the knee.

Nevertheless, recent evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant benefit for insoles in the setting of OA knee pain, earning the practice a strong recommendation against its use.

High-tibial osteotomy (HTO). The weight-bearing axis of the lower-extremity axis can also be realigned with HTO. The procedure shifts the body’s weight slightly to the opposite side of the knee.

Newer research has led the practice to be downgraded one level in the new guideline, from moderate to limited, despite its widespread use.

It will, however, likely continue to be used as an alternative to total knee replacement in younger patients and to shift weight away from an area of the knee where cartilage is being restored with a concomitant surgical procedure, according to the work group. They noted that additional research studies on the long-term efficacy of the procedure are still needed.

Topical treatments. The guideline authors gave these a strong recommendation. Gels with anti-inflammatory medication have long been available but were prescription only or of considerable cost. Now several affordable over-the-counter options with the same prescription strength can be found in pharmacies and supermarkets.

What makes these medications unique is that they have an NSAID medication in the formulation, which the vast majority of topical treatments found on shelves do not. They also benefit patients who are unable to tolerate oral NSAIDs because of gastrointestinal side effects.

Comparison with 2019 OARSI recommendations

In 2019, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International also published guidelines for the management of OA of the hand, hip, and knee.

Thomas Trojian, MD, a family medicine physician with expertise in sports medicine in York, Pa., and member of both the AAOS and OARSI recommendation committees, noted that the OARSI guidelines are meant to be practical guidelines of stepwise nonoperative treatment.

He said in an interview that “the OARSI guidelines recommend dietary weight management, education, and land-based [exercise] therapy, next topical NSAIDs, then injection therapy.”

Intra-articular steroids and viscosupplementation injection therapy in the form of hyaluronic acid derivatives continue to be a mainstay of treatment for both groups.

The AAOS group notably gave a moderate strength recommendation for intra-articular steroid injections with the caveat that the effects typically only last for 3 months. They also included newer extended-release steroid injections in the recommendation, stating that the evidence moderately suggests they provide more benefit than traditional short-acting steroid injections.
 

Methodology differs between guidelines

In the areas where the guidelines don’t fully line up, it is important to remember the methodology of each group often drives the guidelines and recommendations.

According to Yale Fillingham, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in group private practice in the greater Philadelphia area and the other cochair of the AAOS guidelines committee, the biggest difference between the AAOS and OARSI guidelines is that, although the OARSI guidelines are also grounded in the literature, the recommendation level was based on voting among panel members.

“The AAOS methodology requires the recommendation and strength of the recommendation to be dictated primarily by the best available evidence in the literature and much less on the expertise and opinion of the voting panel,” Dr. Fillingham said in an interview.

He pointed out that the AAOS voting panel can alter the guideline by adjusting the strength of the recommendation but noted it was only in very clearly defined situations. Therefore, the differences in methodology between the groups make it difficult to directly compare the two guidelines.

Multiple guidelines do, however, point to the importance of the issue. Dr. Fillingham commented: “The numerous organizations that have produced guidelines on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are a testament to the widespread and profound impact of knee osteoarthritis on our health care system and society.”

As a member of both recommendation groups, Dr. Trojian finds both guidelines reveal the importance of understanding that knee OA is a chronic illness. “There are ways we can manage knee OA and reduce the morbidity. ... The core skills of motivational interviewing are important. Open-ended questions, affirmation, reflection, and summarizing are needed to help patients find and remove roadblocks to promote lifestyle changes.”

Dr. Brophy, Dr. Trojian, and Dr. Fillingham have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

After nearly a decade, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has updated its guidance on nonoperative treatment for knee osteoarthritis.

The clinical practice guidelines, released Sept. 13, 2021, is the third edition of the orthopedic society’s clinical practice recommendations.

According to Robert Brophy, MD, FAAOS, an orthopedic surgeon at Washington University, St. Louis, and cochair of the AAOS clinical practice guideline work group, the AAOS guidelines are a “living document” that needs periodic updating as new research comes to light.

“The methodology for maintaining the AAOS guidelines aims to update guideline documents at least every 10 years,” Dr. Brophy said in an interview. “Since the last edition was from 2013, it was time to provide an updated guideline on this very important topic that affects such a high percentage of our patients and providers.”

The guidelines work group, composed of 12 medical doctors and 1 physical therapist, evaluated the evidence for 29 areas of treatment.

A rating scale based on available evidence and the strength of related medical studies labeled each treatment area as demonstrating strong, moderate, or limited evidence.

Eight treatment modalities weighed in with strong evidence for or against their use: lateral wedge insoles, topical or oral NSAIDs, exercise (supervised or unsupervised), self-management programs, patient education programs, oral acetaminophen, and oral opioids.

According to Dr. Brophy, many of the recommendations assigned a strong evidence base were similar to the prior edition of the guidelines.
 

Oral medications

NSAIDs and acetaminophen still remain steadfast options for the treatment of knee pain secondary to OA.

decade3d/Thinkstock

The most notable change was that opioids, which have a long history of being used to treat pain, are strongly recommended not to be used for arthritis.

“Reflecting the growing awareness of and emphasis on the opioid epidemic, one of the strongest changes between the current and prior guidelines centers on the use of opioid medications,” Dr. Brophy said. “In the prior guideline, a strong recommendation was made in favor of tramadol with an inconclusive recommendation made regarding other opioid medications. The updated guideline demonstrates clearly the evidence does not support the use of opioid medications – including tramadol – to treat knee osteoarthritis.”

This may require some education for both patients and doctors to buy in that knee pain can be treated adequately with NSAIDs and acetaminophen.

Patients may not understand that anti-inflammatory drugs treat the pain they are experiencing. They may equate an opioid with a “pain pill” and may need education from their doctor that NSAIDs and acetaminophen not only can relieve their pain, but also avoid potential adverse events prior to or after surgery should they progress to knee replacement surgery.

Furthermore, primary care physicians may not be looking at the long-term picture. Solving a short-term pain problem with opioids may limit the medication’s ability to provide pain relief after surgery should a patient develop a tolerance to the medication’s effects.
 

Recommendations on hip and foot alignment interventions

When it comes to alignment and joint stresses, the knee is sometimes considered the innocent bystander of hip and foot alignment.

Insoles. How the hip and foot align with each can determine the amount of weight that passes through the medial (inner) or lateral (outer) compartment of the knee. To that end, lateral foot insoles have been used in the past for unloading parts of the knee.

Nevertheless, recent evidence has failed to demonstrate a significant benefit for insoles in the setting of OA knee pain, earning the practice a strong recommendation against its use.

High-tibial osteotomy (HTO). The weight-bearing axis of the lower-extremity axis can also be realigned with HTO. The procedure shifts the body’s weight slightly to the opposite side of the knee.

Newer research has led the practice to be downgraded one level in the new guideline, from moderate to limited, despite its widespread use.

It will, however, likely continue to be used as an alternative to total knee replacement in younger patients and to shift weight away from an area of the knee where cartilage is being restored with a concomitant surgical procedure, according to the work group. They noted that additional research studies on the long-term efficacy of the procedure are still needed.

Topical treatments. The guideline authors gave these a strong recommendation. Gels with anti-inflammatory medication have long been available but were prescription only or of considerable cost. Now several affordable over-the-counter options with the same prescription strength can be found in pharmacies and supermarkets.

What makes these medications unique is that they have an NSAID medication in the formulation, which the vast majority of topical treatments found on shelves do not. They also benefit patients who are unable to tolerate oral NSAIDs because of gastrointestinal side effects.

Comparison with 2019 OARSI recommendations

In 2019, the Osteoarthritis Research Society International also published guidelines for the management of OA of the hand, hip, and knee.

Thomas Trojian, MD, a family medicine physician with expertise in sports medicine in York, Pa., and member of both the AAOS and OARSI recommendation committees, noted that the OARSI guidelines are meant to be practical guidelines of stepwise nonoperative treatment.

He said in an interview that “the OARSI guidelines recommend dietary weight management, education, and land-based [exercise] therapy, next topical NSAIDs, then injection therapy.”

Intra-articular steroids and viscosupplementation injection therapy in the form of hyaluronic acid derivatives continue to be a mainstay of treatment for both groups.

The AAOS group notably gave a moderate strength recommendation for intra-articular steroid injections with the caveat that the effects typically only last for 3 months. They also included newer extended-release steroid injections in the recommendation, stating that the evidence moderately suggests they provide more benefit than traditional short-acting steroid injections.
 

Methodology differs between guidelines

In the areas where the guidelines don’t fully line up, it is important to remember the methodology of each group often drives the guidelines and recommendations.

According to Yale Fillingham, MD, an orthopedic surgeon in group private practice in the greater Philadelphia area and the other cochair of the AAOS guidelines committee, the biggest difference between the AAOS and OARSI guidelines is that, although the OARSI guidelines are also grounded in the literature, the recommendation level was based on voting among panel members.

“The AAOS methodology requires the recommendation and strength of the recommendation to be dictated primarily by the best available evidence in the literature and much less on the expertise and opinion of the voting panel,” Dr. Fillingham said in an interview.

He pointed out that the AAOS voting panel can alter the guideline by adjusting the strength of the recommendation but noted it was only in very clearly defined situations. Therefore, the differences in methodology between the groups make it difficult to directly compare the two guidelines.

Multiple guidelines do, however, point to the importance of the issue. Dr. Fillingham commented: “The numerous organizations that have produced guidelines on the treatment of knee osteoarthritis are a testament to the widespread and profound impact of knee osteoarthritis on our health care system and society.”

As a member of both recommendation groups, Dr. Trojian finds both guidelines reveal the importance of understanding that knee OA is a chronic illness. “There are ways we can manage knee OA and reduce the morbidity. ... The core skills of motivational interviewing are important. Open-ended questions, affirmation, reflection, and summarizing are needed to help patients find and remove roadblocks to promote lifestyle changes.”

Dr. Brophy, Dr. Trojian, and Dr. Fillingham have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were taking glucocorticoids and received short-term denosumab (Prolia) had lost any gains in bone mineral density at the spine or hip as well as any improvements in bone turnover markers a year later, according to findings from a post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial.

That is, stopping denosumab after a 12-month course resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover markers and a concurrent return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density, Kenneth G. Saag, MD, professor of medicine and division director of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues reported in an article published online Sept. 17, 2021 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“These results provide further support for recommendations that patients discontinuing denosumab should transition to follow-on osteoporosis therapy to prevent or minimize remodeling-induced bone loss,” they concluded.

Like all nonbisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis, Dr. Saag and colleagues wrote, the pharmacologic effects of denosumab are readily reversible after discontinuation.

The current findings in glucocorticoid-treated patients are consistent with those observed in postmenopausal women 2 years after discontinuing denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Denosumab is typically given for a longer time in such patients, compared with patients receiving glucocorticoids.

Invited to comment, Karen E. Hansen, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved with the study, agreed that the results “highlight the need to prescribe another osteoporosis medication after stopping denosumab, in hopes of preventing loss of bone mineral density.”

Dr. Hansen, a coauthor of a review and meta-analysis of denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, noted that the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis suggests the use of denosumab as fourth-line therapy, after oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and teriparatide (Forteo).

“Its use is particularly relevant in patients who have contraindications or side effects from bisphosphonates or anabolic therapy, or when patient compliance must be ensured,” she said in an interview.

“The type, timing, and effect of therapy after denosumab discontinuation, however, remain controversial,” Dr. Saag and colleagues noted.

However, ongoing trials that are investigating the optimal medication and dosing needed to prevent such losses in bone mineral density after stopping denosumab should provide greater insight, Dr. Hansen said.

Bone health after stopping denosumab

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis often have bone loss that can be worsened by their frequent use of glucocorticoids, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for treating patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture.

Dr. Saag and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients receiving glucocorticoids who were part of a larger phase 2 clinical trial of 218 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The patients had been randomized to receive placebo (n = 26), 60 mg denosumab (the approved dose, n = 27), or 180 mg denosumab (n = 29), given as two subcutaneous 6-month injections at baseline and 6 months, followed by 12 months without any bone-loss prevention therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 55, and 62% were women.

While receiving denosumab, their serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) decreased significantly from baseline.

In patients who received the 60-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 0.16% lower than baseline and 15% higher than baseline at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

In patients who received the 180-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels also had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 9% and 76% higher than baseline levels, at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and total hip increased during the 12 months of denosumab treatment and then returned to baseline after 12 months of discontinuation of both doses of denosumab.

No osteoporotic fractures were reported during the 12-month denosumab treatment or the 12-month follow-up.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Saag is an investigator with Amgen, Mereo, and Radius, and a consultant for Amgen and Roche. Four coauthors are employees of Amgen. The other six coauthors all reported a financial relationship with Amgen.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were taking glucocorticoids and received short-term denosumab (Prolia) had lost any gains in bone mineral density at the spine or hip as well as any improvements in bone turnover markers a year later, according to findings from a post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial.

That is, stopping denosumab after a 12-month course resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover markers and a concurrent return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density, Kenneth G. Saag, MD, professor of medicine and division director of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues reported in an article published online Sept. 17, 2021 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“These results provide further support for recommendations that patients discontinuing denosumab should transition to follow-on osteoporosis therapy to prevent or minimize remodeling-induced bone loss,” they concluded.

Like all nonbisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis, Dr. Saag and colleagues wrote, the pharmacologic effects of denosumab are readily reversible after discontinuation.

The current findings in glucocorticoid-treated patients are consistent with those observed in postmenopausal women 2 years after discontinuing denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Denosumab is typically given for a longer time in such patients, compared with patients receiving glucocorticoids.

Invited to comment, Karen E. Hansen, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved with the study, agreed that the results “highlight the need to prescribe another osteoporosis medication after stopping denosumab, in hopes of preventing loss of bone mineral density.”

Dr. Hansen, a coauthor of a review and meta-analysis of denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, noted that the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis suggests the use of denosumab as fourth-line therapy, after oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and teriparatide (Forteo).

“Its use is particularly relevant in patients who have contraindications or side effects from bisphosphonates or anabolic therapy, or when patient compliance must be ensured,” she said in an interview.

“The type, timing, and effect of therapy after denosumab discontinuation, however, remain controversial,” Dr. Saag and colleagues noted.

However, ongoing trials that are investigating the optimal medication and dosing needed to prevent such losses in bone mineral density after stopping denosumab should provide greater insight, Dr. Hansen said.

Bone health after stopping denosumab

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis often have bone loss that can be worsened by their frequent use of glucocorticoids, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for treating patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture.

Dr. Saag and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients receiving glucocorticoids who were part of a larger phase 2 clinical trial of 218 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The patients had been randomized to receive placebo (n = 26), 60 mg denosumab (the approved dose, n = 27), or 180 mg denosumab (n = 29), given as two subcutaneous 6-month injections at baseline and 6 months, followed by 12 months without any bone-loss prevention therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 55, and 62% were women.

While receiving denosumab, their serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) decreased significantly from baseline.

In patients who received the 60-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 0.16% lower than baseline and 15% higher than baseline at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

In patients who received the 180-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels also had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 9% and 76% higher than baseline levels, at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and total hip increased during the 12 months of denosumab treatment and then returned to baseline after 12 months of discontinuation of both doses of denosumab.

No osteoporotic fractures were reported during the 12-month denosumab treatment or the 12-month follow-up.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Saag is an investigator with Amgen, Mereo, and Radius, and a consultant for Amgen and Roche. Four coauthors are employees of Amgen. The other six coauthors all reported a financial relationship with Amgen.

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were taking glucocorticoids and received short-term denosumab (Prolia) had lost any gains in bone mineral density at the spine or hip as well as any improvements in bone turnover markers a year later, according to findings from a post-hoc analysis of a phase 2 trial.

That is, stopping denosumab after a 12-month course resulted in a gradual increase in bone turnover markers and a concurrent return to baseline lumbar spine and total hip bone mineral density, Kenneth G. Saag, MD, professor of medicine and division director of clinical immunology and rheumatology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and colleagues reported in an article published online Sept. 17, 2021 in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“These results provide further support for recommendations that patients discontinuing denosumab should transition to follow-on osteoporosis therapy to prevent or minimize remodeling-induced bone loss,” they concluded.

Like all nonbisphosphonate medications for osteoporosis, Dr. Saag and colleagues wrote, the pharmacologic effects of denosumab are readily reversible after discontinuation.

The current findings in glucocorticoid-treated patients are consistent with those observed in postmenopausal women 2 years after discontinuing denosumab therapy for osteoporosis. Denosumab is typically given for a longer time in such patients, compared with patients receiving glucocorticoids.

Invited to comment, Karen E. Hansen, MD, a rheumatologist and associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who was not involved with the study, agreed that the results “highlight the need to prescribe another osteoporosis medication after stopping denosumab, in hopes of preventing loss of bone mineral density.”

Dr. Hansen, a coauthor of a review and meta-analysis of denosumab in the treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, noted that the American College of Rheumatology guideline for the prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis suggests the use of denosumab as fourth-line therapy, after oral bisphosphonates, intravenous bisphosphonates, and teriparatide (Forteo).

“Its use is particularly relevant in patients who have contraindications or side effects from bisphosphonates or anabolic therapy, or when patient compliance must be ensured,” she said in an interview.

“The type, timing, and effect of therapy after denosumab discontinuation, however, remain controversial,” Dr. Saag and colleagues noted.

However, ongoing trials that are investigating the optimal medication and dosing needed to prevent such losses in bone mineral density after stopping denosumab should provide greater insight, Dr. Hansen said.

Bone health after stopping denosumab

Patients with rheumatoid arthritis often have bone loss that can be worsened by their frequent use of glucocorticoids, leading to an increased risk of fragility fractures.

Denosumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL), was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 for treating patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture.

Dr. Saag and colleagues performed a post-hoc analysis of a subgroup of 82 patients receiving glucocorticoids who were part of a larger phase 2 clinical trial of 218 patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

The patients had been randomized to receive placebo (n = 26), 60 mg denosumab (the approved dose, n = 27), or 180 mg denosumab (n = 29), given as two subcutaneous 6-month injections at baseline and 6 months, followed by 12 months without any bone-loss prevention therapy.

The patients had a mean age of 55, and 62% were women.

While receiving denosumab, their serum levels of the bone resorption marker C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (CTX) and the bone formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) decreased significantly from baseline.

In patients who received the 60-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 0.16% lower than baseline and 15% higher than baseline at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

In patients who received the 180-mg dose of denosumab, CTX levels also had returned to baseline levels 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was discontinued.

Median levels of P1NP in these patients were 9% and 76% higher than baseline levels, at 6 months and 12 months after denosumab was stopped, respectively.

Bone mineral density at the lumbar spine and total hip increased during the 12 months of denosumab treatment and then returned to baseline after 12 months of discontinuation of both doses of denosumab.

No osteoporotic fractures were reported during the 12-month denosumab treatment or the 12-month follow-up.

The study was funded by Amgen, which markets denosumab. Dr. Saag is an investigator with Amgen, Mereo, and Radius, and a consultant for Amgen and Roche. Four coauthors are employees of Amgen. The other six coauthors all reported a financial relationship with Amgen.

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]

Withholding mycophenolate around the time of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 proved safe and augmented the humoral response to vaccination among a group of patients at one center who were taking the immunosuppressive drug for a variety of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs).

Previous studies have shown that use of mycophenolate attenuates the humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and the most up-to-date recommendations from the American College of Rheumatology on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with RMDs advise that mycophenolate should be withheld for a week after receiving the vaccine.

To understand better how withholding mycophenolate would affect immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, rheumatology fellow Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, and coauthors at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described in their report – published online Sept. 23, 2021, in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases – how they compared the immune responses to vaccination in 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate and 171 patients who did not stop taking it. All but 1 of the 24 patients who withheld mycophenolate were female, with a median age of 51 years, and they had mostly systemic lupus erythematosus (6 patients), myositis (5), scleroderma (4), or overlap connective tissue disease (4). Three patients received the Janssen/Johnson & Johnson vaccine; all others received either the two-dose Moderna or Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA series.

At a median of 32 days after vaccination, all but two of the patients (92%) who withheld mycophenolate had detectable antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, compared with 65% of those who continued the drug (P = .01). This calculated to patients who withheld the drug as having nearly sixfold higher odds for a positive antibody response (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.3-25.5; P = .02). The association remained statistically significant in an logistic regression analysis that was adjusted for age, sex, race, vaccine type, and use of rituximab and glucocorticoids.

The withholding group also had significantly higher median anti-RBD immunoglobulin titers than did the group that continued therapy (125 vs. 7 U/L; P = .004).

Two patients who reported a flare of their underlying disease during the perivaccination period were treated with topical and oral glucocorticoids.

The patients who withdrew mycophenolate had taken it with twice daily dosing at a median total daily dose of 2,000 mg. They ended up withholding a median of 20 doses around the time of vaccination, with 54% withholding before, 38% both before and after, and 8% only after vaccination.

The researchers said that the conclusions that can be drawn from the study were limited by its small sample size, which “did not allow for evaluation of optimal duration of withholding therapy,” and also its “nonrandomized design, lack of data on cellular response, and limited information on dosing of other immunosuppressive agents.”

Three of the authors disclosed receiving consulting and speaking honoraria from Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallincrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. A fourth author has received consulting fees from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mallinckrodt, EMD Serono, Allogene, and ArgenX.

[email protected]