Rheumatology

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

Is innervation of cartilage the driving force behind development of osteoarthritis and subsequent pain, or is the degeneration of joints in osteoarthritis affecting nerves and creating pain?

This was the question underpinning a fascinating debate at the OARSI 2021 World Congress, featuring two giants of the OA research community: Anne-Marie Malfait, MD, PhD, professor of medicine in the division of rheumatology at Rush Medical College, Chicago, and Stefan Lohmander, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of orthopedics at Lund (Sweden) University in Sweden.

At stake in the discussion is a greater understanding of the physiological processes that underpin both the development of OA in joints and the experience of pain in patients with OA.

Dr. Lohmander started by pointing out that, while pain is the primary symptoms of OA, it does not always overlap with the physiological processes of the disease, as measured by techniques such as MRI, x-ray, biomarkers, and gait analysis.

“This lack of complete overlap is often a problem when doing our clinical trials,” Dr. Lohmander told the conference, sponsored by Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “When talking about osteoarthritis, we also need to remind ourselves every so often that we are speaking of either the symptoms or the disease and maybe not always the both of them.”

While a healthy joint has pain receptors everywhere but the cartilage, studies have found that the osteoarthritic joint brings blood vessels, sensory nerves, and cells expressing nerve growth factor from the subchondral bone into even noncalcified articular cartilage, he said.

These nociceptor neurons are mechanosensitive, so mechanical injury to the joint triggers inflammation, and the inflammatory proteins themselves act on the nociceptors to generate pain signals in the brain, “so clearly, it is the joint that signals the brain,” Dr. Lohmander said.

However, Dr. Malfait pointed out that there is a body of evidence from animal studies showing that the absence of sensory nerves in joints – either from disease or removal – is associated with the onset or worsening of OA.

“Healthy nerves are really important to ensure healthy joints,” Dr. Malfait said. She said age-related loss of sensory nerves always preceded age-related OA, and was also associated with age-related loss of proprioception and vibratory perception.

Interestingly, animal studies suggest that removing intra-articular nociceptors can actually have a protective effect on the osteoarthritic joint, Dr. Malfait said. Studies in humans who have experienced neurologic lesions also suggests improvement in conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis.

She raised the idea of neurogenic inflammation: that peripheral neurons are releasing vasoactive mediators that contribute to inflammation in tissues. “These nerves and nerve products are talking to all the different cells in the joints,” she said.

Defending his argument that joint pathology is the cause of pain, not the pain causing the joint pathology, Dr. Lohmander gave the example of studies that looked at radiographic abnormalities between two knees of the same patient who also had discordant pain measures for each knee. This research “showed strong association between radiographic osteoarthritis and knee pain, supporting the argument that structural abnormalities cause knee pain,” he said.

Martin van der Esch, PhD, of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said the debate was one of the highlights of the conference because it addressed such an important and longstanding question in OA.

“Is osteoarthritis leading to a generalized pain, so involvement of the nervous system, but the source – the causality – is in the joint?” he said in an interview. “Or is it the other way around, so that means is there first a problem inside the nervous system – including also the vascular system – and which is presented in the joint?”

It is more than an academic discussion because the conclusions of that could mean different treatment approaches are needed for different groups of patients, and raises the different ways of thinking about OA, he said.

None of the sources for this story declared having any relevant conflicts of interest.

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

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

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

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

No matter where an initial fracture occurs in a postmenopausal woman, there is a subsequent increased risk of another fracture, with the risk surprisingly highest in the youngest postmenopausal group and among certain minorities, new data indicate.

“To our knowledge, no previous prospective study has reported detailed patterns of subsequent fracture locations after initial fracture according to age strata among women in the U.S.,” the authors noted in their article, published online May 5, 2021, in EClinicalMedicine.

The results show that a first fracture of the lower arm or wrist; upper arm; or shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg, or ankle – as well as those of the hip or pelvis – were associated with an approximately three- to sixfold increased risk for subsequent fractures. The findings have important implications for clinicians, said lead author Carolyn J. Crandall, MD, professor of medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“By not paying attention to which types of fractures increase the risk of future fractures, we are missing the opportunity to identify people at increased risk of future fracture and counsel them regarding risk reduction,” she said in a press statement.

Commenting on the research, Michael R. McClung, MD, stressed this message to clinicians needs to be underscored.

“This paper is one of a series of papers highlighting the fact that having a previous fracture is a risk factor for subsequent fractures,” he said in an interview.

“This has been known for a very long time, but it is a point still not appreciated by patients and primary care doctors, so having another study pointing this out is important,” emphasized Dr. McClung, of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center in Portland.
 

30% of women’s health initiative participants had a fracture

For the study, Dr. Crandall and colleagues evaluated data on 157,282 women between the ages of 50 and 79 who were enrolled in the Women’s Health Initiative between 1993 and 2018.

The women were a mean age of 63.1 years and 47,126 (30%) experienced an incident fracture during the study period.

With a mean follow-up of 15.4 years, each type of fracture was associated with an increased risk of a subsequent fracture after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, body mass index, hormone therapy use, and other factors.

A wide range of initial risk fractures – including an initial lower arm or wrist fracture (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.80), upper arm or shoulder fracture (aHR, 5.06), upper leg fracture (aHR, 5.11), knee fracture (aHR, 5.03), lower leg/ankle fracture (aHR, 4.10), and spinal fracture (aHR, 6.69) – increased the risk of sustaining a subsequent hip fracture. 

For initial fractures of the lower arm or wrist, there was an increased risk of a subsequent fracture of the upper arm/shoulder, upper leg, knee, lower leg/ankle, hip/pelvis, and spine (aHRs ranged from 2.63 to 5.68). 

“The finding that knee fracture has the same prognostic value for subsequent fracture as hip or wrist fracture is a novel key finding, as knee fracture is generally not considered ‘osteoporotic’,” the authors noted.

The risk of fracture after sustaining an initial hip or pelvis fracture was exceptionally high – with as much as a 27-fold higher risk of a subsequent upper leg (nonhip) fracture (aHR, 27.18).

“Thirty-four percent of women who experienced initial hip or pelvis fracture experienced a subsequent nonhip fracture,” the authors noted.

However, the risks associated with an initial hip fracture are already well established, and the study’s more notable findings are the risks of other bone breaks, Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

“The (increased risk with hip fracture) is a rather substantial result,” she said. “However, the more major point of this study is that no matter where the initial fracture happened, the risk of the future fracture was elevated.”
 

Don’t disregard risks in younger women, racial/ethnic groups

The findings regarding age are also important. The highest risk was observed in the youngest postmenopausal age group of 50-59 years (aHR, 6.45), which decreased slightly in the 60- to 69-year age group (aHR, 6.04) and further decreased in the 70- to 79-year age group (aHR, 4.99).

“This was a surprise, and it highlights that clinicians should not disregard initial fractures among young postmenopausal women,” Dr. Crandall told this news organization.

Even greater increased risks for a subsequent fracture following an initial lower extremity fracture were observed in non-Hispanic Black women, Hispanic or Latina women, and women of Asian Pacific Islander ethnicity, ranging from ninefold to 14-fold, versus a sevenfold risk among non-Hispanic White women.

“This has public health implications because it means that we may have been missing the opportunity to prevent fractures among younger postmenopausal women and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups,” Dr. Crandall noted.

Is risk greatest 1-2 years after the initial fracture?

The findings suggest that current treatment guidelines may need to be revisited in light of inconsistencies regarding when, and for which fracture types, to initiate treatment.

“It will be important to determine whether existing risk calculators can be adapted (or new calculators developed) to help refine decision-making to determine which of the women with fractures other than hip or vertebral fractures should be treated,” the authors wrote.

Dr. McClung said a randomized, controlled trial of osteoporosis treatment in people who present with all types of fractures would help determine whether having a knee or a wrist fracture does indeed warrant such therapy.

He further commented that future studies should evaluate the shorter- versus longer-term risks.

“The most recent research suggests that the risk of having a second fracture is much higher in the first year or 2 after the first or incident fracture,” he observed. “So, the next stage in research with this dataset would be to ask not what happens over a 10-year time frame but what happens over the first year or 2 after the fracture.”

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Crandall reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. McClung reported being a consultant and on the speakers bureau for Amgen and being a speaker for Alexion.

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

The use of braces or insoles in combination with nonbiomechanical treatments appear to deliver the greatest pain relief for patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, although the evidence supporting these interventions has a high degree of uncertainty, according findings from a large meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

“It’s been highlighted for several years now that due to the high rate of joint replacement, we need to promote more effective nonsurgical treatments,” Ans van Ginckel, PhD, of Ghent (Belgium) University, told the conference.

However, guidelines on the use of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain vary widely, and there are few studies that compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

To address this, Dr. van Ginckel and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized, controlled trials – involving a total of 2,413 participants – of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain. The treatments included were valgus braces, combined brace treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), lateral or medial wedged insoles, combined insole treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), contralateral cane use, gait retraining, and modified shoes.

“These treatments are mainly based on the premise that people with knee osteoarthritis likely experience a higher external knee adduction moment during walking, compared to healthy people,” Dr. van Ginckel told the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “This has been associated to some extent with disease onset, severity, and progression.”

When compared to nonbiomechanical controls, walking sticks and canes were the only intervention that showed a benefit in reducing pain, although the authors described the data supporting this as “high risk.”

When all the treatments were ranked according to the degree of pain relief seen in studies, combined insole and/or combined brace treatments showed the greatest degree of benefit.

However, Dr. van Ginckel said the evidence supporting even these treatments was of low to very low certainty, there was significant variation in the control treatments used in the studies, and the confidence intervals were wide. This also reflected the multifactorial nature of pain in knee OA, she said.

“A plausible explanation is the partial role in the biomechanics of the pathogenesis of pain and the multifactorial nature of pain,” she said.

Commenting on the study, Rik Lories, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and of the department of development and regeneration at Catholic University Leuven, said the findings of the analysis show how difficult it is to study biomechanical interventions for knee OA.

“It was a smart approach to try to get some more information about a wide array of studies that have been performed, being selective with regards to what to include,” Dr. Lories said. “It’s still a big challenge in terms of how do you control for confounders.”

Dr. Lories said that he took a positive view of the findings, suggesting that these interventions are unlikely to cause harm, and are therefore “not a road to avoid” in helping to reduce knee OA pain. But he also argued that the analysis pointed to a clear need for better studies of biomechanical interventions for knee OA. “I think that’s an important message that somehow the field has to improve the quality of their trials,” he said in an interview, although he acknowledged that such trials may be difficult to run and get funding for.

Dr. van Ginckel was supported by an EU Horizon 2020 fellowship, and a coauthor was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The use of braces or insoles in combination with nonbiomechanical treatments appear to deliver the greatest pain relief for patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, although the evidence supporting these interventions has a high degree of uncertainty, according findings from a large meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

“It’s been highlighted for several years now that due to the high rate of joint replacement, we need to promote more effective nonsurgical treatments,” Ans van Ginckel, PhD, of Ghent (Belgium) University, told the conference.

However, guidelines on the use of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain vary widely, and there are few studies that compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

To address this, Dr. van Ginckel and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized, controlled trials – involving a total of 2,413 participants – of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain. The treatments included were valgus braces, combined brace treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), lateral or medial wedged insoles, combined insole treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), contralateral cane use, gait retraining, and modified shoes.

“These treatments are mainly based on the premise that people with knee osteoarthritis likely experience a higher external knee adduction moment during walking, compared to healthy people,” Dr. van Ginckel told the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “This has been associated to some extent with disease onset, severity, and progression.”

When compared to nonbiomechanical controls, walking sticks and canes were the only intervention that showed a benefit in reducing pain, although the authors described the data supporting this as “high risk.”

When all the treatments were ranked according to the degree of pain relief seen in studies, combined insole and/or combined brace treatments showed the greatest degree of benefit.

However, Dr. van Ginckel said the evidence supporting even these treatments was of low to very low certainty, there was significant variation in the control treatments used in the studies, and the confidence intervals were wide. This also reflected the multifactorial nature of pain in knee OA, she said.

“A plausible explanation is the partial role in the biomechanics of the pathogenesis of pain and the multifactorial nature of pain,” she said.

Commenting on the study, Rik Lories, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and of the department of development and regeneration at Catholic University Leuven, said the findings of the analysis show how difficult it is to study biomechanical interventions for knee OA.

“It was a smart approach to try to get some more information about a wide array of studies that have been performed, being selective with regards to what to include,” Dr. Lories said. “It’s still a big challenge in terms of how do you control for confounders.”

Dr. Lories said that he took a positive view of the findings, suggesting that these interventions are unlikely to cause harm, and are therefore “not a road to avoid” in helping to reduce knee OA pain. But he also argued that the analysis pointed to a clear need for better studies of biomechanical interventions for knee OA. “I think that’s an important message that somehow the field has to improve the quality of their trials,” he said in an interview, although he acknowledged that such trials may be difficult to run and get funding for.

Dr. van Ginckel was supported by an EU Horizon 2020 fellowship, and a coauthor was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The use of braces or insoles in combination with nonbiomechanical treatments appear to deliver the greatest pain relief for patients with medial tibiofemoral osteoarthritis, although the evidence supporting these interventions has a high degree of uncertainty, according findings from a large meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials presented at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

“It’s been highlighted for several years now that due to the high rate of joint replacement, we need to promote more effective nonsurgical treatments,” Ans van Ginckel, PhD, of Ghent (Belgium) University, told the conference.

However, guidelines on the use of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain vary widely, and there are few studies that compare the effectiveness of different interventions.

To address this, Dr. van Ginckel and colleagues conducted a network meta-analysis of 27 randomized, controlled trials – involving a total of 2,413 participants – of biomechanical treatments for knee OA pain. The treatments included were valgus braces, combined brace treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), lateral or medial wedged insoles, combined insole treatment (with added nonbiomechanical treatment), contralateral cane use, gait retraining, and modified shoes.

“These treatments are mainly based on the premise that people with knee osteoarthritis likely experience a higher external knee adduction moment during walking, compared to healthy people,” Dr. van Ginckel told the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International. “This has been associated to some extent with disease onset, severity, and progression.”

When compared to nonbiomechanical controls, walking sticks and canes were the only intervention that showed a benefit in reducing pain, although the authors described the data supporting this as “high risk.”

When all the treatments were ranked according to the degree of pain relief seen in studies, combined insole and/or combined brace treatments showed the greatest degree of benefit.

However, Dr. van Ginckel said the evidence supporting even these treatments was of low to very low certainty, there was significant variation in the control treatments used in the studies, and the confidence intervals were wide. This also reflected the multifactorial nature of pain in knee OA, she said.

“A plausible explanation is the partial role in the biomechanics of the pathogenesis of pain and the multifactorial nature of pain,” she said.

Commenting on the study, Rik Lories, MD, PhD, head of the division of rheumatology at University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium) and of the department of development and regeneration at Catholic University Leuven, said the findings of the analysis show how difficult it is to study biomechanical interventions for knee OA.

“It was a smart approach to try to get some more information about a wide array of studies that have been performed, being selective with regards to what to include,” Dr. Lories said. “It’s still a big challenge in terms of how do you control for confounders.”

Dr. Lories said that he took a positive view of the findings, suggesting that these interventions are unlikely to cause harm, and are therefore “not a road to avoid” in helping to reduce knee OA pain. But he also argued that the analysis pointed to a clear need for better studies of biomechanical interventions for knee OA. “I think that’s an important message that somehow the field has to improve the quality of their trials,” he said in an interview, although he acknowledged that such trials may be difficult to run and get funding for.

Dr. van Ginckel was supported by an EU Horizon 2020 fellowship, and a coauthor was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. No conflicts of interest were declared.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The first clinical trial of fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with psoriatic arthritis has found the procedure to be as safe as a sham procedure, but it didn’t show any effectiveness in decreasing PsA symptoms over 6 months, a team of researchers in Denmark reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021 Apr 29. 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-219511).

ChrisChrisW/Getty Images

Nonetheless, the investigators said the trial indicates fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is worthy of further study.

“Overall, we think that the results are very interesting and that the feasibility and safety aspects as well as the clinical results of the trial may encourage more research into the potential of FMT in the treatment of inflammatory arthritis and may help guide the direction of future trials within the field,” lead author Maja S. Kragsnaes, MD, PhD, and principal investigator Torkell Ellingsen, MD, PhD, of Odense (Denmark) University Hospital said together in an interview.

“The most important findings from this trial is that FMT appears to be safe in patients with PsA and that the patients find the treatment acceptable, and it supports future research into the therapeutic potential of FMT in PsA,” they said.

The study evaluated 6-month outcomes of 31 patients randomized to the FMT and sham groups. FMT patients were three times more likely to experience treatment failure – defined by the need for treatment intensification – with failure rates of 60% versus 20% in the sham group.

As a secondary endpoint, the study used 6-month change in the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and 20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20). The sham group demonstrated a greater decrease in HAQ-DI, indicating better physical function (–0.30 vs. –0.07; P = .031). The proportion of ACR20 responders was similar between both groups: 47% for the FMT patients (7 of 15) and 53% for sham (8 of 15).

The study included adults aged 18-75 years with active peripheral disease, defined as three or more swollen joints, who’d been taking at least15 mg methotrexate a week for at least 3 months before enrolling in the study, with a washout period of 12 weeks (26 weeks for those on biologic agents). Four healthy donors provided the stool transplants.

In the study, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen acknowledged that FMT has been shown to be safe for Clostridioides difficile infection or inflammatory bowel disease when “thoroughly screened stool” is used. “Hence,” they wrote, “our findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting a gut-joint axis in the pathogenesis of PsA.”

Factors that may influence the effectiveness of FMT in PsA merit further investigation, Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said. “From FMT trials in patients with active ulcerative colitis, higher dose and repeated administration appear to be effective and safe in inducing remission,” they said in their joint statement, pointing to research from China.

“Moreover,” they added, “successes of FMT in inflammatory bowel disease appear to have been driven by ‘superdonors’ characterized by the presence or absence of specific bacteria species.”

They said will continue to investigate the effectiveness of FMT in immune-mediated diseases, including how to characterize superdonors.

“We will conduct new randomized trials using different FMT strategies – by changing the type of administration form, dose, and treatment frequency – to explore whether microbial dysbiosis or specific bacteria are common or decisive mediators of disease activity in inflammatory diseases and whether this proposed relation can be modified without exacerbating the disease,” Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen said.

Dr. Kragsnaes and Dr. Ellingsen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

The serious infection risk associated with rituximab treatment for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is high but can be offset by co-prescribing co-trimoxazole, data from a single-center, retrospective study reaffirm.

Over the course of a 3-year study period, 14 (28%) of 50 patients with AAV treated with rituximab experienced at latest one severe infection defined as a grade 3 or higher event. The incidence of severe infections was 15.4 per 100 person-years.

However, a lower rate of infections was seen in patients who had been co-prescribed co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole), Francesco Dernie, a fifth-year medical student at the University of Oxford (England), reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“In the case of rituximab, the depletion of B cells and associated immune suppression is a double-edged sword, allowing effective disease control, but also leaving the body vulnerable to opportunistic and severe infections,” Mr. Dernie said at the meeting.

Of the patients who developed a severe infection on rituximab, just 7% had been treated with co-trimoxazole. In comparison, 44% of those who did not get a severe infection had received co-trimoxazole. Multivariate analysis confirmed that co-trimoxazole use was an influencing factor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.096 (95% confidence interval, 0.009–0.996; P = .05).

Another finding was that patients with low immunoglobulin G levels (less than 6 g/L) were more likely to develop a severe infection than were those with higher IgG levels. Indeed, the OR for hypogammaglobulinemia and the risk for infection was 8.782 (95% CI, 1.19–64.6; P = .033).

“Our results support the monitoring of IgG levels to identify patients who may be more susceptible to infection, as well as the prescription of prophylactic co-trimoxazole to reduce overall severe infection risk,” Mr. Dernie and associates concluded in their abstract.

It’s a “really important message around co-trimoxazole,” observed Neil Basu, MBChB, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant at the Institute of Infection, Immunity & Inflammation, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“It still frustrates me when I see that patients haven’t received that while receiving rituximab. Of course, co-trimoxazole can have its problems,” said Dr. Basu, who was not involved in the study. “It’s not uncommon for patients to develop reactions or be intolerant to the drug.”

Raashid Luqmani, DM, a senior coauthor of the work and professor of rheumatology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, said: “The tolerance of co-trimoxazole has been remarkably good in this cohort.” If there was a problem with using co-trimoxazole, then “our standard would be to go with trimethoprim alone as the next in line and follow that with inhaled pentamidine. So, it’s kind of following what we would all generally do,” Dr. Luqmani said.

Study details

To look at the characteristics of and risk factors for serious infections associated with rituximab use in AAV, Mr. Dernie and associates retrospectively examined the electronic records of patients who had been treated between August 2016 and August 2019. Follow-up was until August 2020.

Of the 50 patients identified, nearly half (48%) were men. The average age was 60 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years. Most (n = 36; 72%) patients had a diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, while another 2 (4%) had microscopic polyangiitis, 1 (2%) had eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 11 (22%) had an overlapping type of vasculitis or undefined AAV.

Of the 18 severe infection events recorded, most (56%) involved the respiratory tract. Less than one-third (28%) were sepsis or neutropenic sepsis events, and there was one case each (6%) of cellulitis, complicated urinary tract infection, and recurrent wound infection.

There were “small numbers of individual comorbidities that were not sufficient to enter into our regression analysis,” Mr. Dernie noted. “It’s likely that comorbid conditions such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing severe infections, and thus should factor into their individualized management.”

Mr. Dernie acknowledged in discussion: “One of the limitations of the study was we just looked at patients in a time when they were receiving rituximab, so they may have historically been exposed to other treatment options.” However, he added, “they weren’t having any other major DMARDs or immunosuppressive treatments at the time.”

Dr. Luqmani observed: “If you look at Francesco’s data on the hypogammaglobulinemia at the start of rituximab, that probably gives you a good idea of just how immunosuppressed these patients were already before we got to this point.”

Dr. Luqmani added: “I suspect that’s in keeping with a lot of other centers that have started using rituximab an awful lot for patients who previously had episodes of vasculitis treated with other disease-modifying therapies, particularly cyclophosphamide.”

But for how long should co-trimoxazole be given after the last rituximab dose? asked the chair of the session, Richard Watts, DM, of Norwich (England) Medical School. These data are purely observational, so it’s not possible to say, Mr. Dernie noted: “The patients that we included as having co-trimoxazole seem to be on it more or less consistently, permanently,” he said.

What about the best dose? “It’s a tricky one,” Dr. Luqmani said, as “we not only use co-trimoxazole for prophylaxis, but we often also want to use it for treatment of the vasculitis itself.”

It’s very likely that there was a mix of patients in the analysis that had received co-trimoxazole as either a treatment or prophylaxis, which means different doses, he said.

“It might be interesting to know whether there was a difference” between doses used and the prevention of infection, added Dr. Luqmani, “but I suspect the numbers are too small to tell.”

Mr. Dernie, Dr. Luqmani, and the other coauthors had no disclosures.

The serious infection risk associated with rituximab treatment for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is high but can be offset by co-prescribing co-trimoxazole, data from a single-center, retrospective study reaffirm.

Over the course of a 3-year study period, 14 (28%) of 50 patients with AAV treated with rituximab experienced at latest one severe infection defined as a grade 3 or higher event. The incidence of severe infections was 15.4 per 100 person-years.

However, a lower rate of infections was seen in patients who had been co-prescribed co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole), Francesco Dernie, a fifth-year medical student at the University of Oxford (England), reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“In the case of rituximab, the depletion of B cells and associated immune suppression is a double-edged sword, allowing effective disease control, but also leaving the body vulnerable to opportunistic and severe infections,” Mr. Dernie said at the meeting.

Of the patients who developed a severe infection on rituximab, just 7% had been treated with co-trimoxazole. In comparison, 44% of those who did not get a severe infection had received co-trimoxazole. Multivariate analysis confirmed that co-trimoxazole use was an influencing factor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.096 (95% confidence interval, 0.009–0.996; P = .05).

Another finding was that patients with low immunoglobulin G levels (less than 6 g/L) were more likely to develop a severe infection than were those with higher IgG levels. Indeed, the OR for hypogammaglobulinemia and the risk for infection was 8.782 (95% CI, 1.19–64.6; P = .033).

“Our results support the monitoring of IgG levels to identify patients who may be more susceptible to infection, as well as the prescription of prophylactic co-trimoxazole to reduce overall severe infection risk,” Mr. Dernie and associates concluded in their abstract.

It’s a “really important message around co-trimoxazole,” observed Neil Basu, MBChB, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant at the Institute of Infection, Immunity & Inflammation, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“It still frustrates me when I see that patients haven’t received that while receiving rituximab. Of course, co-trimoxazole can have its problems,” said Dr. Basu, who was not involved in the study. “It’s not uncommon for patients to develop reactions or be intolerant to the drug.”

Raashid Luqmani, DM, a senior coauthor of the work and professor of rheumatology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, said: “The tolerance of co-trimoxazole has been remarkably good in this cohort.” If there was a problem with using co-trimoxazole, then “our standard would be to go with trimethoprim alone as the next in line and follow that with inhaled pentamidine. So, it’s kind of following what we would all generally do,” Dr. Luqmani said.

Study details

To look at the characteristics of and risk factors for serious infections associated with rituximab use in AAV, Mr. Dernie and associates retrospectively examined the electronic records of patients who had been treated between August 2016 and August 2019. Follow-up was until August 2020.

Of the 50 patients identified, nearly half (48%) were men. The average age was 60 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years. Most (n = 36; 72%) patients had a diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, while another 2 (4%) had microscopic polyangiitis, 1 (2%) had eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 11 (22%) had an overlapping type of vasculitis or undefined AAV.

Of the 18 severe infection events recorded, most (56%) involved the respiratory tract. Less than one-third (28%) were sepsis or neutropenic sepsis events, and there was one case each (6%) of cellulitis, complicated urinary tract infection, and recurrent wound infection.

There were “small numbers of individual comorbidities that were not sufficient to enter into our regression analysis,” Mr. Dernie noted. “It’s likely that comorbid conditions such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing severe infections, and thus should factor into their individualized management.”

Mr. Dernie acknowledged in discussion: “One of the limitations of the study was we just looked at patients in a time when they were receiving rituximab, so they may have historically been exposed to other treatment options.” However, he added, “they weren’t having any other major DMARDs or immunosuppressive treatments at the time.”

Dr. Luqmani observed: “If you look at Francesco’s data on the hypogammaglobulinemia at the start of rituximab, that probably gives you a good idea of just how immunosuppressed these patients were already before we got to this point.”

Dr. Luqmani added: “I suspect that’s in keeping with a lot of other centers that have started using rituximab an awful lot for patients who previously had episodes of vasculitis treated with other disease-modifying therapies, particularly cyclophosphamide.”

But for how long should co-trimoxazole be given after the last rituximab dose? asked the chair of the session, Richard Watts, DM, of Norwich (England) Medical School. These data are purely observational, so it’s not possible to say, Mr. Dernie noted: “The patients that we included as having co-trimoxazole seem to be on it more or less consistently, permanently,” he said.

What about the best dose? “It’s a tricky one,” Dr. Luqmani said, as “we not only use co-trimoxazole for prophylaxis, but we often also want to use it for treatment of the vasculitis itself.”

It’s very likely that there was a mix of patients in the analysis that had received co-trimoxazole as either a treatment or prophylaxis, which means different doses, he said.

“It might be interesting to know whether there was a difference” between doses used and the prevention of infection, added Dr. Luqmani, “but I suspect the numbers are too small to tell.”

Mr. Dernie, Dr. Luqmani, and the other coauthors had no disclosures.

The serious infection risk associated with rituximab treatment for antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is high but can be offset by co-prescribing co-trimoxazole, data from a single-center, retrospective study reaffirm.

Over the course of a 3-year study period, 14 (28%) of 50 patients with AAV treated with rituximab experienced at latest one severe infection defined as a grade 3 or higher event. The incidence of severe infections was 15.4 per 100 person-years.

However, a lower rate of infections was seen in patients who had been co-prescribed co-trimoxazole (trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole), Francesco Dernie, a fifth-year medical student at the University of Oxford (England), reported at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

“In the case of rituximab, the depletion of B cells and associated immune suppression is a double-edged sword, allowing effective disease control, but also leaving the body vulnerable to opportunistic and severe infections,” Mr. Dernie said at the meeting.

Of the patients who developed a severe infection on rituximab, just 7% had been treated with co-trimoxazole. In comparison, 44% of those who did not get a severe infection had received co-trimoxazole. Multivariate analysis confirmed that co-trimoxazole use was an influencing factor, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.096 (95% confidence interval, 0.009–0.996; P = .05).

Another finding was that patients with low immunoglobulin G levels (less than 6 g/L) were more likely to develop a severe infection than were those with higher IgG levels. Indeed, the OR for hypogammaglobulinemia and the risk for infection was 8.782 (95% CI, 1.19–64.6; P = .033).

“Our results support the monitoring of IgG levels to identify patients who may be more susceptible to infection, as well as the prescription of prophylactic co-trimoxazole to reduce overall severe infection risk,” Mr. Dernie and associates concluded in their abstract.

It’s a “really important message around co-trimoxazole,” observed Neil Basu, MBChB, a clinical senior lecturer and honorary consultant at the Institute of Infection, Immunity & Inflammation, University of Glasgow (Scotland).

“It still frustrates me when I see that patients haven’t received that while receiving rituximab. Of course, co-trimoxazole can have its problems,” said Dr. Basu, who was not involved in the study. “It’s not uncommon for patients to develop reactions or be intolerant to the drug.”

Raashid Luqmani, DM, a senior coauthor of the work and professor of rheumatology at the Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Science, University of Oxford, said: “The tolerance of co-trimoxazole has been remarkably good in this cohort.” If there was a problem with using co-trimoxazole, then “our standard would be to go with trimethoprim alone as the next in line and follow that with inhaled pentamidine. So, it’s kind of following what we would all generally do,” Dr. Luqmani said.

Study details

To look at the characteristics of and risk factors for serious infections associated with rituximab use in AAV, Mr. Dernie and associates retrospectively examined the electronic records of patients who had been treated between August 2016 and August 2019. Follow-up was until August 2020.

Of the 50 patients identified, nearly half (48%) were men. The average age was 60 years, ranging from 25 to 90 years. Most (n = 36; 72%) patients had a diagnosis of granulomatosis with polyangiitis, while another 2 (4%) had microscopic polyangiitis, 1 (2%) had eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis, and 11 (22%) had an overlapping type of vasculitis or undefined AAV.

Of the 18 severe infection events recorded, most (56%) involved the respiratory tract. Less than one-third (28%) were sepsis or neutropenic sepsis events, and there was one case each (6%) of cellulitis, complicated urinary tract infection, and recurrent wound infection.

There were “small numbers of individual comorbidities that were not sufficient to enter into our regression analysis,” Mr. Dernie noted. “It’s likely that comorbid conditions such as COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] also contribute to an individual’s risk of developing severe infections, and thus should factor into their individualized management.”

Mr. Dernie acknowledged in discussion: “One of the limitations of the study was we just looked at patients in a time when they were receiving rituximab, so they may have historically been exposed to other treatment options.” However, he added, “they weren’t having any other major DMARDs or immunosuppressive treatments at the time.”

Dr. Luqmani observed: “If you look at Francesco’s data on the hypogammaglobulinemia at the start of rituximab, that probably gives you a good idea of just how immunosuppressed these patients were already before we got to this point.”

Dr. Luqmani added: “I suspect that’s in keeping with a lot of other centers that have started using rituximab an awful lot for patients who previously had episodes of vasculitis treated with other disease-modifying therapies, particularly cyclophosphamide.”

But for how long should co-trimoxazole be given after the last rituximab dose? asked the chair of the session, Richard Watts, DM, of Norwich (England) Medical School. These data are purely observational, so it’s not possible to say, Mr. Dernie noted: “The patients that we included as having co-trimoxazole seem to be on it more or less consistently, permanently,” he said.

What about the best dose? “It’s a tricky one,” Dr. Luqmani said, as “we not only use co-trimoxazole for prophylaxis, but we often also want to use it for treatment of the vasculitis itself.”

It’s very likely that there was a mix of patients in the analysis that had received co-trimoxazole as either a treatment or prophylaxis, which means different doses, he said.

“It might be interesting to know whether there was a difference” between doses used and the prevention of infection, added Dr. Luqmani, “but I suspect the numbers are too small to tell.”

Mr. Dernie, Dr. Luqmani, and the other coauthors had no disclosures.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

Intramuscular injections of glucocorticoids have efficacy similar to that of intra-articular injections in reducing pain in knee osteoarthritis but without the concerns about joint infection and the challenges of administration, according to results from a randomized, controlled trial reported at the OARSI 2021 World Congress.

Intra-articular injections of glucocorticoids are commonly used to relieve OA pain, but some general practitioners have difficulty administering them to patients, said Qiuke Wang, a PhD candidate at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. There are also concerns about whether intra-articular injections may cause damage to knee cartilage, Mr. Wang said at the conference, which is sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International.

Mr. Wang and colleagues conducted a randomized, controlled trial in which 145 patients with symptomatic knee OA received either an intramuscular or intra-articular injection of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide, and then followed up at regular intervals for 24 weeks.

The study showed that Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for pain improved in both the intra-articular and intramuscular groups. Improvements in pain scores peaked in the intra-articular injection group at the 4-week mark, when the difference with intramuscular injections was statistically significant. However, the two groups showed no significant differences in pain improvement at the 8-, 12-, and 24-week follow-up points.

“Intra-articular injection can act immediately on inhibiting joint inflammation after injection,” Mr. Wang said in an interview. “In contrast, for intramuscular injection, glucocorticoid needs firstly to be absorbed by muscle into blood and then travel into the knee via the circulatory system.”

The study also showed no significant differences between the two groups in the secondary outcomes of patient symptoms, stiffness, function, and sport and quality of life scores. There were more adverse events in the intra-articular injection group: 42% of patients reported an adverse event, compared to 33% in the intramuscular group, and the adverse events reported in the intramuscular group were nonserious events, such as headache and flushing.

Mr. Wang told the conference that while the intramuscular injection was inferior to intra-articular injections at 4 weeks, it was noninferior at 8 and 24 weeks and should be considered an effective way to reduce pain in patients with knee OA.

“This trial provides evidence for shared decision making because in some cases a patient may have a preference for specific injection and the GP may feel incompetent to administer the intra-articular injection,” he said.

An audience member pointed out that there was now a growing body of evidence suggesting that intra-articular injections may contribute to faster progression of knee OA because of effects on knee cartilage.

Mr. Wang acknowledged that their own research had shown these side effects of intra-articular injections, which was why the trial was intended to examine whether intramuscular injections might achieve the same pain relief.

“In the real practice, I would say that both injections are effective, but the intra-articular injection may provide a slightly [better] effect in the short term,” he said.

Commenting on the findings, Martin van der Esch, PhD, of Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, said there were no guidelines as to whether intra-articular or intramuscular injections were the best option, so it really came down to the clinician’s decision.

“Therefore this is really an interesting study, because it gives some light – not the answer – but some light in what direction it could go for specific groups of patients,” Dr. van der Esch said in an interview.

Dr. van der Esch suggested that intramuscular injections might be more appropriate for patients with more systemic disease affecting multiple joints, but intra-articular injections might offer greater benefits in a patient with severe and long-lasting disease in a single joint.

No conflicts of interest were declared.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, 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.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, 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.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

A panel of federal advisers on May 6 lent support to the ChemoCentryx bid for approval of avacopan for a rare and serious autoimmune condition. But they also flagged concerns about both the evidence supporting claims of a benefit for this experimental drug and its safety.

At a meeting of the Food and Drug Administration’s Arthritis Advisory Committee, panelists voted 10-8 on a question of whether the risk-benefit profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval.

ChemoCentryx is seeking approval of avacopan for antineutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)–associated vasculitis in the subtypes of granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA).

Regardless of their vote on this approval question, the panelists shared an interest in avacopan’s potential to reduce glucocorticoid use among some patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, also called AAV. Mara L. Becker, MD, MSCE, the chair of the FDA’s panel, was among the panelists who said they reluctantly voted no.

“It pains me because I really want more steroid-sparing” medicines, said Dr. Becker of Duke University, Durham, N.C., who cited a need to gather more data on avacopan.

Margrit Wiesendanger, MD, PhD, of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, who was among the panelists voting yes, spoke of a need for caution if the FDA approves avacopan.

“Judicious use of this new medication will be warranted and perhaps additional guidance could be given to rheumatologists to help them decide for whom this medication is best,” she said.

Panelists had spoken earlier of avacopan as a possible alternative medicine for people with AAV who have conditions that make glucocorticoids riskier for them, such as those who have diabetes.
 

Close votes on safety profile, efficacy

The panel also voted 10-8 on a question about whether the safety profile of avacopan is adequate to support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

In addition, the panel voted 9-9 on a question about whether efficacy data support approval of avacopan for the treatment of adult patients with AAV.

The FDA considers the recommendations of its advisory panels, but is not bound by them.

The FDA staff clearly expressed the view that ChemoCentryx fell short with the evidence presented for avacopan approval. Shares of San Carlos, Calif.–based ChemoCentryx dropped sharply from a May 3 closing price of $48.82 to a May 4 closing price of $26.63 after the FDA released the staff’s review of avacopan.

In a briefing prepared for the meeting, FDA staff detailed concerns about the evidence ChemoCentryx is using to seek approval. While acknowledging a need for new treatments for AAV as a rare condition, FDA staff honed in on what they described flaws in the testing of this experimental medicine, which is a small-molecule antagonist of the receptor of C5a, an end product of the complement cascade that acts as a potent neutrophil chemoattractant and agonist.

The FDA usually requires two phase 3 studies for approval of a new medicine but will do so with a single trial in cases of exceptional need, the agency staff said. But in these cases, the bar rises for the evidence provided from that single trial.
 

Difficulties in interpretation of complex study design

In the case of avacopan, though, the data from the key avacopan trial, Study CL010_168, known as ADVOCATE, 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.

In the briefing document, the FDA staff noted that it had “communicated many of the concerns” about ChemoCentryx’s research earlier to the company.

“Complexities of the study design, as detailed in the briefing document, raise questions about the interpretability of the data to define a clinically meaningful benefit of avacopan and its role in the management of AAV,” the FDA staff wrote.

“We acknowledge that AAV is a rare and serious disease associated with high morbidity and increased mortality. It is also a disease with high unmet need for new therapies. However, FDA wants to ensure that new products have a defined context of use, i.e., how a product would be used, and a favorable benefit-risk assessment for patients,” the staff added.

In addition, there were differences in the assessments performed by investigators and the adjudication committee, most frequently related to the attribution of persistent vasculitis, the FDA staff noted.

Statistical analyses of the primary endpoint using investigators’ estimates “resulted in more conservative estimates of treatment effect, e.g., statistical significance for superiority would no longer be demonstrated,” the FDA staff noted. “While the prespecified analysis used the Adjudicator assessments, the assessment based on the Investigators, experienced in management of vasculitis, may better reflect real-world use.”
 

Imbalances in use of glucocorticoids and maintenance therapy

Also among the complications in assessing the ADVOCATE trial data were the glucocorticoids taken by patients in the study, the FDA staff said.

In the avacopan arm of the trial, 86% of patients received non–study-supplied glucocorticoids. In addition, more avacopan‐treated patients experienced adverse events and serious adverse events within the hepatobiliary system leading to discontinuation.

Subgroups given different treatments represented another challenge in interpreting ADVOCATE results for the FDA staff.

At week 26, the proportion of patients in disease remission in the avacopan group (72.3%) was noninferior to the prednisone group (70.1%), the FDA staff said in the briefing document.

But at week 52, a disparity was observed between subgroups that had received rituximab and cyclophosphamide (intravenous and oral) induction treatment. The estimated risk difference for disease remission at week 52 was 15.0% (95% CI, 2.2%-27.7%) in the subgroup receiving induction with rituximab and 3.3% (95% CI, –14.8% to 21.4%) in the cyclophosphamide plus maintenance azathioprine subgroup, the agency’s staff said.

“Based on the data, there is no evidence of clinically meaningful treatment effect in the cyclophosphamide induction subgroup,” the FDA staff wrote. “Further, the treatment comparison in the complementary rituximab induction subgroup may not be considered meaningful because these patients did not receive maintenance therapy, i.e., due to undertreating of patients, the effect observed in the rituximab subgroup may not represent a clinically meaningful treatment effect, compared to standard of care.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

Rachel L. Glaser, MD, clinical team leader in FDA’s division of rheumatology and transplant medicine, reiterated these concerns to the advisory committee at the May 6 meeting.

“Throughout the development program, FDA advised the applicant that a noninferiority comparison would not be sufficient to show that avacopan can replaced glucocorticoids as it would be difficult to establish whether avacopan is effective or whether an effect was due to the rituximab or cyclophosphamide administered to both treatment arms,” she said.

In its briefing for the meeting, ChemoCentryx noted the limits of treatments now available for AAV. It also emphasized the toll of the condition, ranging from skin manifestations to glomerulonephritis to life-threatening pulmonary hemorrhage. If untreated, 80% of patients with GPA or MPA die within 2 years of disease onset, ChemoCentryx said in its briefing materials for the meeting.

The side effects of glucocorticoids were well known to the FDA panelists and the ChemoCentryx presenters. Witnesses at an open public hearing told their own stories of depression, anxiety, and irritability caused by these medicines.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

During the ChemoCentryx presentation, a presenter for the company, Peter Merkel, MD, MPH, of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said avacopan would provide patients with AAV with an alternative allowing them “to go on a much lower glucocorticoids regimen.”

A similar view was presented in a February 2021 editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine, titled “Avacopan – Time to Replace Glucocorticoids?” Written by Kenneth J. Warrington, MD, of the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., the opinion article called the ADVOCATE trial “a milestone in the treatment of ANCA-associated vasculitis; complement inhibition with avacopan has glucocorticoid-sparing effects and results in superior disease control.”

Dr. Warrington reported no conflicts in connection with his editorial nor payments from ChemoCentryx. He did report grants from other firms such as Eli Lilly.

Julia Lewis, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., was among the more skeptical members of the FDA panel. She was among the “nays” in all three voting questions put to the panel. Still, she said there were signs of “clinically meaningful benefit” in the data presented, but noted that the nonstudy use of glucocorticoids made it difficult to interpret the ADVOCATE results.

Dr. Lewis noted that the FDA usually requires two studies for a drug approval, particularly with a compound not yet cleared for any use. While ANCA-associated vasculitis is rare, it would be possible to recruit patients for another trial of avacopan, adding to the results reported already for avacopan from ADVOCATE, she said.

“Were there to be another study, this would certainly be a supportive study and maybe qualify as two studies,” she said.

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Nearly one out of five American adults with hypertension is on a prescription drug known to raise blood pressure, based on analysis of more than 27,000 people included in recent reports from the recurring National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).

Nearly half of these American adults had hypertension, and in this subgroup, 18.5% reported using a prescription drug known to increase blood pressure. The most widely used class of agents with this effect was antidepressants, used by 8.7%; followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), used by 6.5%; steroids, 1.9%; estrogens, 1.7%; and several other agents each used by fewer than 1% of the study cohort, John Vitarello, MD, said during a press briefing on reports from the upcoming annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology.

He and his associates estimated that this use of prescription drugs known to raise blood pressure could be what stands in the way of some 560,000-2.2 million Americans from having their hypertension under control, depending on the exact blood pressure impact that various pressure-increasing drugs have and presuming that half of those on blood pressure increasing agents could stop them and switch to alternative agents, said Dr. Vitarello, a researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.

He also highlighted that the study assessed only prescription drugs and did not examine OTC drug use, which may be especially relevant for the many people who regularly take NSAIDs.

“Clinicians should review the prescription and OTC drug use of patients with hypertension and consider stopping drugs that increase blood pressure or switching the patient to alternatives” that are blood pressure neutral, Dr. Vitarello said during the briefing. He cautioned that maintaining hypertensive patients on agents that raise their blood pressure can result in “prescribing cascades” where taking drugs that boost blood pressure results in need for intensified antihypertensive treatment.
 

An opportunity for NSAID alternatives

“This study hopefully raises awareness that there is a very high use of medications that increase blood pressure, and use of OTC agents could increase the rate even higher” said Eugene Yang, MD, a cardiologist and codirector of the Cardiovascular Wellness and Prevention Program of the University of Washington, Seattle. Substituting for certain antidepressant agents may often not be realistic, but an opportunity exists for reducing NSAID use, a class also linked with an increased risk for bleeding and other adverse effects, Dr. Yang said during the briefing. Minimizing use of NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen use “is something to think about,” he suggested.

“The effect of NSAIDs on blood pressure is not well studied and can vary from person to person” noted Dr. Vitarello, who added that higher NSAID dosages and more prolonged use likely increase the risk for an adverse effect on blood pressure. One reasonable option is to encourage patients to use an alternative class of pain reliever such as acetaminophen.

It remains “a challenge” to discern differences in adverse blood pressure effects, and in all adverse cardiovascular effects among different NSAIDs, said Dr. Yang. Results from “some studies show that certain NSAIDs may be safer, but other studies did not. We need to be very careful using NSAIDs because, on average, they increase blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg. We need to be mindful to try to prescribe alternative agents, like acetaminophen.”
 

A decade of data from NHANES

The analysis run by Dr. Vitarello and associates used data from 27,599 American adults included in the NHANES during 2009-2018, and focused on the 44% who either had an average blood pressure measurement of at least 130/80 mm Hg or reported having ever been told by a clinician that they had hypertension. The NHANES assessments included the prescription medications taken by each participant. The prevalence of using at least one prescription drug known to raise blood pressure was 24% among women and 14% among men, and 4% of those with hypertension were on two or more pressure-increasing agents.

The researchers based their identification of pressure-increasing prescription drugs on the list included in the 2017 guideline for managing high blood pressure from the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association. This list specifies that the antidepressants that raise blood pressure are the monoamine oxidase inhibitors, serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants.

Dr. Vitarello and Dr. Yang had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Reduced access to medical care, increased mental health issues, poor lifestyle habits, and concern over future care are just some of the patient-reported problems associated with the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the results of multiple studies.

Data from the Europe-based REUMAVID study, which surveyed more 1,800 patients between April and July last year, have revealed that 58% of patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) had their appointments with their rheumatologists canceled, 42% could not get in touch with their primary care physicians, and 52% experienced interrupted visits to mental health specialists.

Not surprisingly, this took a toll on patients’ self-perceived health, with nearly two-thirds stating that they had fair to very poor health, and 47% reporting that their health had worsened. Furthermore, 57% of respondents reported high levels of anxiety, almost 46% were at risk for depression, and 49% reported having poor well-being overall.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had tremendous impact,” Marco Garrido-Cumbrera, PhD, of the University of Seville, Spain, said at the British Society for Rheumatology annual conference.

Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera, who is key player in the REUMAVID initiative, explained that the project was conceived to respond to concerns raised by the president of the Spanish Federation of Spondyloarthritis Associations (CEADE) about providing the right information to their members.

“First in Italy and then in Spain, it was really difficult to deal with the pandemic and there was a lot of uncertainty from a patient perspective,” Dr. Garrido-Cumbrera said.

Victoria Navarro-Compán, MD, PhD, of La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, who was not involved in the study, observed: “I think this reflects how important collaboration between patient organizations is in order to gather relevant data, and to do it in record time.”

The REUMAVID project was the result of initial collaboration between the Health and Territory Research Group at the University of Seville and CEADE but also involved patient organizations from six other European countries: the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, and Arthritis Action in the United Kingdom; the French Association for the Fight against Rheumatism (AFLAR; L’Association Française de Lutte Anti-Rhumatismale); the National Association of People with Rheumatological and Rare Diseases (APMARR; Associazione Nazionale Persone con Malattie Reumatologiche e Rare) in Italy; Portuguese League Against Rheumatic Diseases (LPCDR; Liga Portuguesa contra as Doenças Reumáticas) in Portugal; the Hellenic League Against Rheumatism (ELEANA) in Greece; and the Cyprus League Against Rheumatism.
 

Pandemic presented ‘perfect storm’

“We’ve never been so well-communicated as we are now,” said Helena Marzo-Ortega, MD, PhD, a consultant rheumatologist at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust in England who participated the REUMAVID project. The beginning of the pandemic was “the perfect storm” in that everybody jumped in to try to do something. This resulted in a myriad of research publications, surveys, and attempts to try to understand and make sense of what was happening.

“Research is being conducted in a more structured manner, and it’s given us a lot of very insightful information,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega added. Obviously, patients are important stakeholders to consult when conducting research into how the pandemic has affected them, she added, as they are the ones who had their lives turned upside down.

“A pandemic knows no boundaries, has no limits, everybody can be affected equally. But patients with rheumatic conditions were at particular risk because of the treatments,” she said. “You can remember how worried we all were initially, and thinking about the potential impact of immunosuppressants and many other aspects of these conditions.”

One of the many positives to come out of the pandemic is the “possibility of doing collaborative research at a worldwide level, not just European,” Dr. Marzo-Ortega said, referring to how the EULAR COVID-19 registries are part of the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance.

Furthermore, Dr. Marzo-Ortega believes the rheumatology community is now better prepared for any upsurges in COVID-19 or any new potentially pandemic-causing viruses.

“What we know now is that we have to be alert, and we know how to respond. We also know how to communicate effectively in order to be able to improve outcomes, not only for the health of the whole population, but also to protect patients such as ours,” she said.
 

Rheumatology practice changed practically overnight

The REUMAVID study is not alone in looking at the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on RMD patients’ health and well-being, particularly during periods of lockdown or where patients were advised to “shield.”

There were “near overnight changes to rheumatology practice,” said Chris Wincup, MBBS, a clinical research fellow at University College London (UCL), who presented the findings of another large-scale survey that looked at the early effects of the pandemic nationally in the United Kingdom.

“The recovery of those services has taken time and, speaking with patients, this varies between different locations,” Dr. Wincup noted. “Unfortunately, access to care does remain a major area of unmet need [and] is something that we’re going to need to think about when planning services in the future,” he added.

Between September and October last year, Dr. Wincup and fellow UCL researchers conducted an online survey among 2,054 patients attending U.K. rheumatology clinics. As in the REUMAVID study, accessing care was difficult or very difficult for a substantial proportion of patients. However, getting medication and monitoring “were generally well maintained” despite lockdown measures.

Many patients (57%) had “extremely high levels of worry about their future care being negatively impacted as a result of the pandemic,” Dr. Wincup said, with 44% saying that their current care was worse than before the pandemic and 41% being dissatisfied with the services they were able to access.

While 48% of patients welcomed a more hybrid approach to their care, 69% thought face-to-face appointments with their rheumatologists were important and 49% wanted only face-to-face appointments. “A possible more hybrid approach, compared with pure face-to-face, is going to be something that may be required,” he said.
 

Different approach taken in CONTAIN Study

A different approach to assessing the impact of the COVID pandemic was taken by researchers at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, observed Gary Macfarlane, MBChB, PhD.

In the COVID-19 and Musculoskeletal Heath During Lockdown (CONTAIN) study, three well-defined populations of patients from existing cohort studies were looked at prospectively. This included patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) participating in two separate British Society for Rheumatology registries, and patients at high risk for developing chronic widespread pain who had been part of the MAmMOTH (Maintaining Musculoskeletal Health) study.

“Our aim was to quantify the changes from the previous prepandemic assessment, focusing on quality of life, changes in lifestyle, and recording what has happened to their musculoskeletal health, including symptoms and disease-specific measures,” Dr. Macfarlane said.

Patients had been invited to participate in June 2020 and were reminded in October 2020 and could respond online or via a postal questionnaire. Some patients were invited to participate in in-depth interviews.

Although the participation rate was low, at 29%, this was typical of studies being conducted at this time due to “survey fatigue,” Dr. Macfarlane said. The CONTAIN study population still included a good number of patients, however, with 596 having AS, 162 PsA, and 296 at risk for chronic widespread pain.

According to Dr. Macfarlane, the CONTAIN study results were “generally reassuring.” Although there was a significant decrease in quality of life as measured by the five-level EQ-5D instrument overall, and in every subgroup population studied, “the magnitude of the decrease was small.” There was no change in disease-specific quality of life in patients with AS, for example.

Levels of pain, anxiety, or depression did increase somewhat, he reported, but the factors that influenced quality of life remained the same before and during the pandemic, such as high levels of deprivation, living in an urban location, low levels of physical activity, and sleep problems.

“Rather surprisingly, sleep problems significantly decreased overall,” Dr. Macfarlane reported. Again, it was only a small change, but “the benefit in terms of the improvement in sleep strengthened with later periods in the follow-up.”

There was also some evidence of increased low-level and high-level physical activity in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“Mental health is a key issue not just in maintaining musculoskeletal health but also, in terms of the likelihood responding to therapy,” Dr. Macfarlane acknowledged. “Focusing on addressing anxiety is important,” he added.

“Providing enhanced support for self-management, including in relation to pain, is likely to be a priority in the absence of normal health care being available,” he suggested. Importantly, regardless of circumstances, “all patients can be affected.”

The REUMAVID study is conducted by the Health & Territory Research of the University of Seville, with the support of Novartis Pharma AG. The CONTAIN study is supported by the British Society for Rheumatology and Versus Arthritis.

No other relevant conflicts of interested were declared.
 

Repetitive weight loss and gain in overweight or obese patients with knee osteoarthritis is associated with significantly greater cartilage and bone marrow edema degeneration than stable weight or steady weight loss, research suggests.

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

A presentation at the OARSI 2021 World Congress outlined the results of a study using Osteoarthritis Initiative data from 2,271 individuals with knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or above, which examined the effects of “weight cycling” on OA outcomes.

Gabby Joseph, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, told the conference – which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International – that previous studies had shown weight loss improves OA symptoms and slow progression, and weight gain increases OA risk. However no studies had yet examined the effects of weight cycling.

The study compared 4 years of MRI data for those who showed less than 3% loss or gain in weight over that time – the control group – versus those who lost more than 5% over that time and those who gained more than 5%. Among these were 249 individuals in the top 10% of annual weight change over that period, who were designated as weight cyclers. They tended to be younger, female, and with slightly higher average BMI than noncyclers.

Weight cyclers had significantly greater progression of cartilage degeneration and bone marrow edema degeneration – as measured by whole-organ magnetic resonance score – than did noncyclers, regardless of their overall weight gain or loss by the end of the study period.

However, the study did not see any significant differences in meniscus progression between cyclers and noncyclers, and cartilage thickness decreased in all groups over the 4 years with no significant effects associated with weight gain, loss, or cycling. Dr. Joseph commented that future studies could use voxel-based relaxometry to more closely study localized cartilage abnormalities.

Researchers also examined the effect of weight cycling on changes to walking speed, and found weight cyclers had significantly lower walking speeds by the end of the 4 years, regardless of overall weight change.

“What we’ve seen is that fluctuations are not beneficial for your joints,” Dr. Joseph told the conference. “When we advise patients that they want to lose weight, we want to do this in a very steady fashion; we don’t want yo-yo dieting.” She gave the example of one patient who started the study with a BMI of 36, went up to 40 then went down to 32.

Commenting on the study, Lisa Carlesso, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said it addresses an important issue because weight cycling is common as people struggle to maintain weight loss.

While it is difficult to speculate on the physiological mechanisms that might explain the effect, Dr. Carlesso noted that there were significantly more women than men among the weight cyclers.

“We know, for example, that obese women with knee OA have significantly higher levels of the adipokine leptin, compared to men, and leptin is involved in cartilage degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said. “Similarly, we don’t have any information about joint alignment or measures of joint load, two things that could factor into the structural changes found.”

She suggested both these possibilities could be explored in future studies of weight cycling and its effects.

“It has opened up new lines of inquiry to be examined to mechanistically explain the relationship between cycling and worse cartilage and bone marrow degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Repetitive weight loss and gain in overweight or obese patients with knee osteoarthritis is associated with significantly greater cartilage and bone marrow edema degeneration than stable weight or steady weight loss, research suggests.

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

A presentation at the OARSI 2021 World Congress outlined the results of a study using Osteoarthritis Initiative data from 2,271 individuals with knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or above, which examined the effects of “weight cycling” on OA outcomes.

Gabby Joseph, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, told the conference – which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International – that previous studies had shown weight loss improves OA symptoms and slow progression, and weight gain increases OA risk. However no studies had yet examined the effects of weight cycling.

The study compared 4 years of MRI data for those who showed less than 3% loss or gain in weight over that time – the control group – versus those who lost more than 5% over that time and those who gained more than 5%. Among these were 249 individuals in the top 10% of annual weight change over that period, who were designated as weight cyclers. They tended to be younger, female, and with slightly higher average BMI than noncyclers.

Weight cyclers had significantly greater progression of cartilage degeneration and bone marrow edema degeneration – as measured by whole-organ magnetic resonance score – than did noncyclers, regardless of their overall weight gain or loss by the end of the study period.

However, the study did not see any significant differences in meniscus progression between cyclers and noncyclers, and cartilage thickness decreased in all groups over the 4 years with no significant effects associated with weight gain, loss, or cycling. Dr. Joseph commented that future studies could use voxel-based relaxometry to more closely study localized cartilage abnormalities.

Researchers also examined the effect of weight cycling on changes to walking speed, and found weight cyclers had significantly lower walking speeds by the end of the 4 years, regardless of overall weight change.

“What we’ve seen is that fluctuations are not beneficial for your joints,” Dr. Joseph told the conference. “When we advise patients that they want to lose weight, we want to do this in a very steady fashion; we don’t want yo-yo dieting.” She gave the example of one patient who started the study with a BMI of 36, went up to 40 then went down to 32.

Commenting on the study, Lisa Carlesso, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said it addresses an important issue because weight cycling is common as people struggle to maintain weight loss.

While it is difficult to speculate on the physiological mechanisms that might explain the effect, Dr. Carlesso noted that there were significantly more women than men among the weight cyclers.

“We know, for example, that obese women with knee OA have significantly higher levels of the adipokine leptin, compared to men, and leptin is involved in cartilage degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said. “Similarly, we don’t have any information about joint alignment or measures of joint load, two things that could factor into the structural changes found.”

She suggested both these possibilities could be explored in future studies of weight cycling and its effects.

“It has opened up new lines of inquiry to be examined to mechanistically explain the relationship between cycling and worse cartilage and bone marrow degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.

Repetitive weight loss and gain in overweight or obese patients with knee osteoarthritis is associated with significantly greater cartilage and bone marrow edema degeneration than stable weight or steady weight loss, research suggests.

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

A presentation at the OARSI 2021 World Congress outlined the results of a study using Osteoarthritis Initiative data from 2,271 individuals with knee osteoarthritis and a body mass index (BMI) of 25 kg/m² or above, which examined the effects of “weight cycling” on OA outcomes.

Gabby Joseph, PhD, of the University of California, San Francisco, told the conference – which was sponsored by the Osteoarthritis Research Society International – that previous studies had shown weight loss improves OA symptoms and slow progression, and weight gain increases OA risk. However no studies had yet examined the effects of weight cycling.

The study compared 4 years of MRI data for those who showed less than 3% loss or gain in weight over that time – the control group – versus those who lost more than 5% over that time and those who gained more than 5%. Among these were 249 individuals in the top 10% of annual weight change over that period, who were designated as weight cyclers. They tended to be younger, female, and with slightly higher average BMI than noncyclers.

Weight cyclers had significantly greater progression of cartilage degeneration and bone marrow edema degeneration – as measured by whole-organ magnetic resonance score – than did noncyclers, regardless of their overall weight gain or loss by the end of the study period.

However, the study did not see any significant differences in meniscus progression between cyclers and noncyclers, and cartilage thickness decreased in all groups over the 4 years with no significant effects associated with weight gain, loss, or cycling. Dr. Joseph commented that future studies could use voxel-based relaxometry to more closely study localized cartilage abnormalities.

Researchers also examined the effect of weight cycling on changes to walking speed, and found weight cyclers had significantly lower walking speeds by the end of the 4 years, regardless of overall weight change.

“What we’ve seen is that fluctuations are not beneficial for your joints,” Dr. Joseph told the conference. “When we advise patients that they want to lose weight, we want to do this in a very steady fashion; we don’t want yo-yo dieting.” She gave the example of one patient who started the study with a BMI of 36, went up to 40 then went down to 32.

Commenting on the study, Lisa Carlesso, PhD, of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., said it addresses an important issue because weight cycling is common as people struggle to maintain weight loss.

While it is difficult to speculate on the physiological mechanisms that might explain the effect, Dr. Carlesso noted that there were significantly more women than men among the weight cyclers.

“We know, for example, that obese women with knee OA have significantly higher levels of the adipokine leptin, compared to men, and leptin is involved in cartilage degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said. “Similarly, we don’t have any information about joint alignment or measures of joint load, two things that could factor into the structural changes found.”

She suggested both these possibilities could be explored in future studies of weight cycling and its effects.

“It has opened up new lines of inquiry to be examined to mechanistically explain the relationship between cycling and worse cartilage and bone marrow degeneration,” Dr. Carlesso said.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. No conflicts of interest were declared.