Gout

Lowering the serum urate target to less than 0.20 mmol/L (<3.6 mg/dL) for patients with erosive gout does not achieve better gout outcomes and leads to more medication use and subsequent side effects, according to findings from a 2-year, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Nicola Dalbeth, MD, of the bone and joint research group, department of medicine, faculty of medical and health sciences at University of Auckland (New Zealand), and coauthors noted that intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with oral urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and their findings suggest lower is not always better.

Their data, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, suggest the less-intensive standard target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (<5.4 mg/dL), currently recommended by rheumatology guidelines, is sufficient.

The more intensive target leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion score in erosive gout, the authors found.

Rheumatologist Angelo Gaffo, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not part of the study, said erosion scores are the best way to test outcomes and this study provides support for current gout treatment approaches.

“It is reassuring that the approach of treating to target is a good approach,” Dr. Gaffo said. “The very, very low targets were not better than the [standard target].”

The trial included 104 participants with erosive gout on oral ULT who were randomized either to a serum urate target of less than 0.20 mmol/L or less than 0.30 mmol/L.

Ninety participants completed the study: 44 (85%) in the intensive target group and 46 (88%) in the standard target group. All were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were mostly men with an average age of 61. Average period of disease was 19 years and about half had a gout flare in the 3 months before enrollment in the study.
 

Fewer in intensive group hit target

The researchers found that serum urate at year 2 was significantly lower in the intensive target group, compared with the level in the standard target group (P = .002), but fewer participants in the intensive group hit their target, compared with those in the standard group (62% vs. 83%; P < .05).

The intensive group also required more medication. Participants in that group needed higher doses of the first-line treatment allopurinol (mean, 746 mg/day vs. 496 mg/day; P < .001). They also used more combination therapy (P = .0004).

Bone erosion scores were slightly better in both groups over 2 years, but there was no between-group difference (P = .20).

Rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

The authors noted that a previous study has shown that escalating doses of allopurinol to achieve a target lower than 0.36 mmol/L (6.48 mg/dL) can reduce progression of bone erosion in gout.

“However, improved erosion scores were not observed in this study,” the authors noted.

The authors said that emerging data on intensive serum urate lowering “may lead to erosion healing in gout,” particularly with pegloticase (Krystexxa), a treatment that leads to profound reductions in serum urate.

They highlighted a small longitudinal study of patients treated with pegloticase in whom researchers observed the filling in of bone erosions over a year.
 

Pegloticase not available outside United States

However, the authors explained, use of pegloticase is unlikely to be widespread for erosive gout because of its lack of availability outside the United States and the need for infusions every 2 weeks. Therefore, more feasible strategies are needed.

Guidelines suggest the serum urate target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (5.4 mg/dL) for people with severe gout, including those with chronic arthropathy.
 

Managing gout is a long-term process

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, a rheumatologist in a large group practice in the Washington, D.C., area and clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, who was not part of this study, said he would not come to the conclusion that some cynics might draw that there’s no point in trying to continually lower uric acid.

“Managing gout is a long-term proposition, and the long-term benefit of continuous uric acid lowering continue to accumulate over a period of time,” Dr. Baraf said.

He agreed with Dr. Dalbeth and colleagues that trying to get serum uric acid to less than 0.20 mmol/L is very difficult to achieve with oral drugs.

He said: “The study was not able to show a change in erosions because the amount of uric acid lowering wasn’t profound enough over a short enough period of time to show that, but over a longer period of time it might well show that.”

He said oral therapies work more slowly than enzyme-based therapies, such as pegloticase, but agreed there are barriers to using pegloticase.

“A drug like pegloticase costs about $26,000 per infusion every 2 weeks for a 6-month period. It’s not practical, and we tend to use it for people who are severely functionally impaired,” said Dr. Baraf.

It would still be a goal to keep the arthritis from progressing by using oral therapies, he said.

“I wouldn’t denigrate the fact that oral therapies are effective in decreasing flares over time, decreasing tophaceous deposits and probably – over a longer period of time allowing bone to heal. But 2 years is not enough time to show that.” He said showing benefit on erosions may take 5-10 years instead.

The study authors noted that the trial’s results “are not relevant to those without erosive disease, and to health care systems without access to a broad range of urate-lowering agents.”

Dr. Dalbeth reports personal fees (all less than $10,000) from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Arthrosi, Horizon, AbbVie, JW Pharmaceuticals, and PK Med outside the submitted work. The other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Gaffo reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baraf has been an investigator/consultant and speaker for Horizon Therapeutics, maker of pegloticase; is an investigator and a consultant to Selecta Biosciences; and has been an investigator, speaker, and consultant for Takeda.

Lowering the serum urate target to less than 0.20 mmol/L (<3.6 mg/dL) for patients with erosive gout does not achieve better gout outcomes and leads to more medication use and subsequent side effects, according to findings from a 2-year, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Nicola Dalbeth, MD, of the bone and joint research group, department of medicine, faculty of medical and health sciences at University of Auckland (New Zealand), and coauthors noted that intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with oral urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and their findings suggest lower is not always better.

Their data, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, suggest the less-intensive standard target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (<5.4 mg/dL), currently recommended by rheumatology guidelines, is sufficient.

The more intensive target leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion score in erosive gout, the authors found.

Rheumatologist Angelo Gaffo, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not part of the study, said erosion scores are the best way to test outcomes and this study provides support for current gout treatment approaches.

“It is reassuring that the approach of treating to target is a good approach,” Dr. Gaffo said. “The very, very low targets were not better than the [standard target].”

The trial included 104 participants with erosive gout on oral ULT who were randomized either to a serum urate target of less than 0.20 mmol/L or less than 0.30 mmol/L.

Ninety participants completed the study: 44 (85%) in the intensive target group and 46 (88%) in the standard target group. All were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were mostly men with an average age of 61. Average period of disease was 19 years and about half had a gout flare in the 3 months before enrollment in the study.
 

Fewer in intensive group hit target

The researchers found that serum urate at year 2 was significantly lower in the intensive target group, compared with the level in the standard target group (P = .002), but fewer participants in the intensive group hit their target, compared with those in the standard group (62% vs. 83%; P < .05).

The intensive group also required more medication. Participants in that group needed higher doses of the first-line treatment allopurinol (mean, 746 mg/day vs. 496 mg/day; P < .001). They also used more combination therapy (P = .0004).

Bone erosion scores were slightly better in both groups over 2 years, but there was no between-group difference (P = .20).

Rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

The authors noted that a previous study has shown that escalating doses of allopurinol to achieve a target lower than 0.36 mmol/L (6.48 mg/dL) can reduce progression of bone erosion in gout.

“However, improved erosion scores were not observed in this study,” the authors noted.

The authors said that emerging data on intensive serum urate lowering “may lead to erosion healing in gout,” particularly with pegloticase (Krystexxa), a treatment that leads to profound reductions in serum urate.

They highlighted a small longitudinal study of patients treated with pegloticase in whom researchers observed the filling in of bone erosions over a year.
 

Pegloticase not available outside United States

However, the authors explained, use of pegloticase is unlikely to be widespread for erosive gout because of its lack of availability outside the United States and the need for infusions every 2 weeks. Therefore, more feasible strategies are needed.

Guidelines suggest the serum urate target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (5.4 mg/dL) for people with severe gout, including those with chronic arthropathy.
 

Managing gout is a long-term process

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, a rheumatologist in a large group practice in the Washington, D.C., area and clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, who was not part of this study, said he would not come to the conclusion that some cynics might draw that there’s no point in trying to continually lower uric acid.

“Managing gout is a long-term proposition, and the long-term benefit of continuous uric acid lowering continue to accumulate over a period of time,” Dr. Baraf said.

He agreed with Dr. Dalbeth and colleagues that trying to get serum uric acid to less than 0.20 mmol/L is very difficult to achieve with oral drugs.

He said: “The study was not able to show a change in erosions because the amount of uric acid lowering wasn’t profound enough over a short enough period of time to show that, but over a longer period of time it might well show that.”

He said oral therapies work more slowly than enzyme-based therapies, such as pegloticase, but agreed there are barriers to using pegloticase.

“A drug like pegloticase costs about $26,000 per infusion every 2 weeks for a 6-month period. It’s not practical, and we tend to use it for people who are severely functionally impaired,” said Dr. Baraf.

It would still be a goal to keep the arthritis from progressing by using oral therapies, he said.

“I wouldn’t denigrate the fact that oral therapies are effective in decreasing flares over time, decreasing tophaceous deposits and probably – over a longer period of time allowing bone to heal. But 2 years is not enough time to show that.” He said showing benefit on erosions may take 5-10 years instead.

The study authors noted that the trial’s results “are not relevant to those without erosive disease, and to health care systems without access to a broad range of urate-lowering agents.”

Dr. Dalbeth reports personal fees (all less than $10,000) from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Arthrosi, Horizon, AbbVie, JW Pharmaceuticals, and PK Med outside the submitted work. The other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Gaffo reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baraf has been an investigator/consultant and speaker for Horizon Therapeutics, maker of pegloticase; is an investigator and a consultant to Selecta Biosciences; and has been an investigator, speaker, and consultant for Takeda.

Lowering the serum urate target to less than 0.20 mmol/L (<3.6 mg/dL) for patients with erosive gout does not achieve better gout outcomes and leads to more medication use and subsequent side effects, according to findings from a 2-year, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial.

Nicola Dalbeth, MD, of the bone and joint research group, department of medicine, faculty of medical and health sciences at University of Auckland (New Zealand), and coauthors noted that intensive serum urate lowering is difficult to achieve with oral urate-lowering therapy (ULT) and their findings suggest lower is not always better.

Their data, published in Arthritis & Rheumatology, suggest the less-intensive standard target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (<5.4 mg/dL), currently recommended by rheumatology guidelines, is sufficient.

The more intensive target leads to a high medication burden and does not improve bone erosion score in erosive gout, the authors found.

Rheumatologist Angelo Gaffo, MD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, who was not part of the study, said erosion scores are the best way to test outcomes and this study provides support for current gout treatment approaches.

“It is reassuring that the approach of treating to target is a good approach,” Dr. Gaffo said. “The very, very low targets were not better than the [standard target].”

The trial included 104 participants with erosive gout on oral ULT who were randomized either to a serum urate target of less than 0.20 mmol/L or less than 0.30 mmol/L.

Ninety participants completed the study: 44 (85%) in the intensive target group and 46 (88%) in the standard target group. All were included in the primary intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were mostly men with an average age of 61. Average period of disease was 19 years and about half had a gout flare in the 3 months before enrollment in the study.
 

Fewer in intensive group hit target

The researchers found that serum urate at year 2 was significantly lower in the intensive target group, compared with the level in the standard target group (P = .002), but fewer participants in the intensive group hit their target, compared with those in the standard group (62% vs. 83%; P < .05).

The intensive group also required more medication. Participants in that group needed higher doses of the first-line treatment allopurinol (mean, 746 mg/day vs. 496 mg/day; P < .001). They also used more combination therapy (P = .0004).

Bone erosion scores were slightly better in both groups over 2 years, but there was no between-group difference (P = .20).

Rates of adverse and serious adverse events were similar between the groups.

The authors noted that a previous study has shown that escalating doses of allopurinol to achieve a target lower than 0.36 mmol/L (6.48 mg/dL) can reduce progression of bone erosion in gout.

“However, improved erosion scores were not observed in this study,” the authors noted.

The authors said that emerging data on intensive serum urate lowering “may lead to erosion healing in gout,” particularly with pegloticase (Krystexxa), a treatment that leads to profound reductions in serum urate.

They highlighted a small longitudinal study of patients treated with pegloticase in whom researchers observed the filling in of bone erosions over a year.
 

Pegloticase not available outside United States

However, the authors explained, use of pegloticase is unlikely to be widespread for erosive gout because of its lack of availability outside the United States and the need for infusions every 2 weeks. Therefore, more feasible strategies are needed.

Guidelines suggest the serum urate target of less than 0.30 mmol/L (5.4 mg/dL) for people with severe gout, including those with chronic arthropathy.
 

Managing gout is a long-term process

Herbert S.B. Baraf, MD, a rheumatologist in a large group practice in the Washington, D.C., area and clinical professor of medicine at George Washington University, Washington, who was not part of this study, said he would not come to the conclusion that some cynics might draw that there’s no point in trying to continually lower uric acid.

“Managing gout is a long-term proposition, and the long-term benefit of continuous uric acid lowering continue to accumulate over a period of time,” Dr. Baraf said.

He agreed with Dr. Dalbeth and colleagues that trying to get serum uric acid to less than 0.20 mmol/L is very difficult to achieve with oral drugs.

He said: “The study was not able to show a change in erosions because the amount of uric acid lowering wasn’t profound enough over a short enough period of time to show that, but over a longer period of time it might well show that.”

He said oral therapies work more slowly than enzyme-based therapies, such as pegloticase, but agreed there are barriers to using pegloticase.

“A drug like pegloticase costs about $26,000 per infusion every 2 weeks for a 6-month period. It’s not practical, and we tend to use it for people who are severely functionally impaired,” said Dr. Baraf.

It would still be a goal to keep the arthritis from progressing by using oral therapies, he said.

“I wouldn’t denigrate the fact that oral therapies are effective in decreasing flares over time, decreasing tophaceous deposits and probably – over a longer period of time allowing bone to heal. But 2 years is not enough time to show that.” He said showing benefit on erosions may take 5-10 years instead.

The study authors noted that the trial’s results “are not relevant to those without erosive disease, and to health care systems without access to a broad range of urate-lowering agents.”

Dr. Dalbeth reports personal fees (all less than $10,000) from AstraZeneca, Dyve BioSciences, Selecta, Arthrosi, Horizon, AbbVie, JW Pharmaceuticals, and PK Med outside the submitted work. The other authors have no disclosures. Dr. Gaffo reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Baraf has been an investigator/consultant and speaker for Horizon Therapeutics, maker of pegloticase; is an investigator and a consultant to Selecta Biosciences; and has been an investigator, speaker, and consultant for Takeda.

A new meta-analysis appears to show that colchicine has no benefit as a treatment for COVID-19, but its inclusion of trials studying differing patient populations and testing different outcomes led to “misleading” results, says a researcher involved in one of the trials.

The meta-analysis, which includes data from the recent Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, was published Nov. 22 in RMD Open.

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta, MBBS, MD, of the GMERS Medical College Gotri in Vadodara, India, and colleagues included outcomes from six studies of 16,148 patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine or supportive care. They evaluated the efficacy outcomes of mortality, need for ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and length of stay in hospital, as well as safety outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events, and diarrhea.

The studies in the meta-analysis included a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Greece, the international, open-label RECOVERY RCT of 11,340 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an RCT of 72 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 in Brazil, an RCT of 100 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Iran, the international COLCORONA trial of 4,488 patients with COVID-19 who were treated with colchicine or placebo on an outpatient basis, and the randomized COLORIT trial of 43 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Russia.
 

Studies “asked very different questions” about colchicine

Commenting on the meta-analysis, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology with New York University, said the authors combined studies “that are not comparable and that asked very different questions.” Two of the studies in the meta-analysis are very large, and four are very small, which skews the results, he explained.

“The larger studies therefore drive the outcome, and while the small studies are potentially insight providing, the large studies are the only ones worth giving our attention to in the context of the meta-analysis,” he said. The two largest studies – RECOVERY and COLCORONA – taken together show no benefit for colchicine as a treatment, even though the former demonstrated no benefit and the latter did show a benefit, explained Dr. Pillinger, a co–principal investigator for the COLCORONA trial in the United States.

The studies were designed differently and should not have been included in the same analysis, Dr. Pillinger argued. In the case of COLCORONA, early treatment with colchicine was the intervention, whereas RECOVERY focused on hospitalized patients.

“In designing [COLCORONA], the author group (of whom I was a member) expressly rejected the idea that colchicine might be useful for the sicker hospitalized patients, based on the long experience with colchicine of some of us as rheumatologists,” Dr. Pillinger said.

“In short, COLCORONA proved a benefit of colchicine in outpatient COVID-19, and its authors presumed there would be no inpatient benefit; RECOVERY went ahead and proved a lack of inpatient benefit, at least when high-dose steroids were also given,” he said. “While there is no conflict between these results, the combination of the two studies in this meta-analysis suggests there might be no benefit for colchicine overall, which is misleading and can lead physicians to reject the potential of outpatient colchicine, even for future studies.”

Dr. Pillinger said he still believes colchicine has potential value as a COVID-19 treatment option for patients with mild disease, “especially for low–vaccine rate, resource-starved countries.

“It would be unfortunate if meta-analyses such as this one would put a stop to colchicine’s use, or at least its further investigation,” he said.
 

Study details

The authors of the study assessed heterogeneity of the trials’ data across the outcomes using an I2 test. They evaluated the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

The results of their meta-analysis showed that colchicine offered no significant improvement in mortality in six studies (risk difference, –0.0; 95% confidence interval, –0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 15%). It showed no benefit with respect to requiring ventilatory support in five studies of 15,519 patients (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38-1.21; I2 = 47%); being admitted to the ICU in three studies with 220 patients (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.25; I2 = 34%); and length of stay while in the hospital in four studies of 11,560 patients (mean difference, –1.17; 95% CI, –3.02 to 0.67; I2 = 77%).

There was no difference in serious adverse events in three studies with 4,665 patients (RD, –0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.00; I2 = 28%) for patients who received colchicine, compared with supportive care alone. Patients who received colchicine were more likely to have a higher rate of adverse events (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33; I2 = 81%) and to experience diarrhea (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.62-2.29; I2 = 0%) than were patients who received supportive care alone. The researchers note that for most outcomes, the GRADE quality of evidence was moderate.

“Our findings on colchicine should be interpreted cautiously due to the inclusion of open-labeled, randomized clinical trials,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues write. “The analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes are based on a small number of RCTs in control interventions.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pillinger is co–principal investigator of the U.S. component of the COLCORONA trial; he reported no other relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis appears to show that colchicine has no benefit as a treatment for COVID-19, but its inclusion of trials studying differing patient populations and testing different outcomes led to “misleading” results, says a researcher involved in one of the trials.

The meta-analysis, which includes data from the recent Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, was published Nov. 22 in RMD Open.

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta, MBBS, MD, of the GMERS Medical College Gotri in Vadodara, India, and colleagues included outcomes from six studies of 16,148 patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine or supportive care. They evaluated the efficacy outcomes of mortality, need for ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and length of stay in hospital, as well as safety outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events, and diarrhea.

The studies in the meta-analysis included a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Greece, the international, open-label RECOVERY RCT of 11,340 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an RCT of 72 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 in Brazil, an RCT of 100 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Iran, the international COLCORONA trial of 4,488 patients with COVID-19 who were treated with colchicine or placebo on an outpatient basis, and the randomized COLORIT trial of 43 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Russia.
 

Studies “asked very different questions” about colchicine

Commenting on the meta-analysis, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology with New York University, said the authors combined studies “that are not comparable and that asked very different questions.” Two of the studies in the meta-analysis are very large, and four are very small, which skews the results, he explained.

“The larger studies therefore drive the outcome, and while the small studies are potentially insight providing, the large studies are the only ones worth giving our attention to in the context of the meta-analysis,” he said. The two largest studies – RECOVERY and COLCORONA – taken together show no benefit for colchicine as a treatment, even though the former demonstrated no benefit and the latter did show a benefit, explained Dr. Pillinger, a co–principal investigator for the COLCORONA trial in the United States.

The studies were designed differently and should not have been included in the same analysis, Dr. Pillinger argued. In the case of COLCORONA, early treatment with colchicine was the intervention, whereas RECOVERY focused on hospitalized patients.

“In designing [COLCORONA], the author group (of whom I was a member) expressly rejected the idea that colchicine might be useful for the sicker hospitalized patients, based on the long experience with colchicine of some of us as rheumatologists,” Dr. Pillinger said.

“In short, COLCORONA proved a benefit of colchicine in outpatient COVID-19, and its authors presumed there would be no inpatient benefit; RECOVERY went ahead and proved a lack of inpatient benefit, at least when high-dose steroids were also given,” he said. “While there is no conflict between these results, the combination of the two studies in this meta-analysis suggests there might be no benefit for colchicine overall, which is misleading and can lead physicians to reject the potential of outpatient colchicine, even for future studies.”

Dr. Pillinger said he still believes colchicine has potential value as a COVID-19 treatment option for patients with mild disease, “especially for low–vaccine rate, resource-starved countries.

“It would be unfortunate if meta-analyses such as this one would put a stop to colchicine’s use, or at least its further investigation,” he said.
 

Study details

The authors of the study assessed heterogeneity of the trials’ data across the outcomes using an I2 test. They evaluated the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

The results of their meta-analysis showed that colchicine offered no significant improvement in mortality in six studies (risk difference, –0.0; 95% confidence interval, –0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 15%). It showed no benefit with respect to requiring ventilatory support in five studies of 15,519 patients (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38-1.21; I2 = 47%); being admitted to the ICU in three studies with 220 patients (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.25; I2 = 34%); and length of stay while in the hospital in four studies of 11,560 patients (mean difference, –1.17; 95% CI, –3.02 to 0.67; I2 = 77%).

There was no difference in serious adverse events in three studies with 4,665 patients (RD, –0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.00; I2 = 28%) for patients who received colchicine, compared with supportive care alone. Patients who received colchicine were more likely to have a higher rate of adverse events (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33; I2 = 81%) and to experience diarrhea (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.62-2.29; I2 = 0%) than were patients who received supportive care alone. The researchers note that for most outcomes, the GRADE quality of evidence was moderate.

“Our findings on colchicine should be interpreted cautiously due to the inclusion of open-labeled, randomized clinical trials,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues write. “The analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes are based on a small number of RCTs in control interventions.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pillinger is co–principal investigator of the U.S. component of the COLCORONA trial; he reported no other relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A new meta-analysis appears to show that colchicine has no benefit as a treatment for COVID-19, but its inclusion of trials studying differing patient populations and testing different outcomes led to “misleading” results, says a researcher involved in one of the trials.

The meta-analysis, which includes data from the recent Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial, was published Nov. 22 in RMD Open.

Kedar Gautambhai Mehta, MBBS, MD, of the GMERS Medical College Gotri in Vadodara, India, and colleagues included outcomes from six studies of 16,148 patients with COVID-19 who received colchicine or supportive care. They evaluated the efficacy outcomes of mortality, need for ventilation, intensive care unit admission, and length of stay in hospital, as well as safety outcomes of adverse events, serious adverse events, and diarrhea.

The studies in the meta-analysis included a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) of 105 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Greece, the international, open-label RECOVERY RCT of 11,340 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, an RCT of 72 hospitalized patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 in Brazil, an RCT of 100 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Iran, the international COLCORONA trial of 4,488 patients with COVID-19 who were treated with colchicine or placebo on an outpatient basis, and the randomized COLORIT trial of 43 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Russia.
 

Studies “asked very different questions” about colchicine

Commenting on the meta-analysis, Michael H. Pillinger, MD, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine, biochemistry, and molecular pharmacology with New York University, said the authors combined studies “that are not comparable and that asked very different questions.” Two of the studies in the meta-analysis are very large, and four are very small, which skews the results, he explained.

“The larger studies therefore drive the outcome, and while the small studies are potentially insight providing, the large studies are the only ones worth giving our attention to in the context of the meta-analysis,” he said. The two largest studies – RECOVERY and COLCORONA – taken together show no benefit for colchicine as a treatment, even though the former demonstrated no benefit and the latter did show a benefit, explained Dr. Pillinger, a co–principal investigator for the COLCORONA trial in the United States.

The studies were designed differently and should not have been included in the same analysis, Dr. Pillinger argued. In the case of COLCORONA, early treatment with colchicine was the intervention, whereas RECOVERY focused on hospitalized patients.

“In designing [COLCORONA], the author group (of whom I was a member) expressly rejected the idea that colchicine might be useful for the sicker hospitalized patients, based on the long experience with colchicine of some of us as rheumatologists,” Dr. Pillinger said.

“In short, COLCORONA proved a benefit of colchicine in outpatient COVID-19, and its authors presumed there would be no inpatient benefit; RECOVERY went ahead and proved a lack of inpatient benefit, at least when high-dose steroids were also given,” he said. “While there is no conflict between these results, the combination of the two studies in this meta-analysis suggests there might be no benefit for colchicine overall, which is misleading and can lead physicians to reject the potential of outpatient colchicine, even for future studies.”

Dr. Pillinger said he still believes colchicine has potential value as a COVID-19 treatment option for patients with mild disease, “especially for low–vaccine rate, resource-starved countries.

“It would be unfortunate if meta-analyses such as this one would put a stop to colchicine’s use, or at least its further investigation,” he said.
 

Study details

The authors of the study assessed heterogeneity of the trials’ data across the outcomes using an I2 test. They evaluated the quality of the evidence for the outcomes using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

The results of their meta-analysis showed that colchicine offered no significant improvement in mortality in six studies (risk difference, –0.0; 95% confidence interval, –0.01 to 0.01; I2 = 15%). It showed no benefit with respect to requiring ventilatory support in five studies of 15,519 patients (risk ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.38-1.21; I2 = 47%); being admitted to the ICU in three studies with 220 patients (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.19-1.25; I2 = 34%); and length of stay while in the hospital in four studies of 11,560 patients (mean difference, –1.17; 95% CI, –3.02 to 0.67; I2 = 77%).

There was no difference in serious adverse events in three studies with 4,665 patients (RD, –0.01; 95% CI, –0.02 to 0.00; I2 = 28%) for patients who received colchicine, compared with supportive care alone. Patients who received colchicine were more likely to have a higher rate of adverse events (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.07-2.33; I2 = 81%) and to experience diarrhea (RR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.62-2.29; I2 = 0%) than were patients who received supportive care alone. The researchers note that for most outcomes, the GRADE quality of evidence was moderate.

“Our findings on colchicine should be interpreted cautiously due to the inclusion of open-labeled, randomized clinical trials,” Dr. Mehta and colleagues write. “The analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes are based on a small number of RCTs in control interventions.”

The authors reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Pillinger is co–principal investigator of the U.S. component of the COLCORONA trial; he reported no other relevant conflicts of interest.

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

Allopurinol may finally start to get the respect that many rheumatologists feel it deserves as a first-line urate-lowering treatment for gout, following results of a randomized trial showing that it was noninferior to febuxostat both in the overall trial population and in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Sirisak Boakaew/Getty Images

In the multicenter, randomized, double-blinded comparison trial that used a treat-to-target strategy, allopurinol met the primary outcome of noninferiority to febuxostat for preventing gout flare during the observation phase of therapy, reported James O’Dell, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology and vice chair for education in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Both agents were well tolerated, with or without CKD. Most importantly, both agents were highly effective when used in a treat-to-target protocol in getting patients to target urate levels,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

And although febuxostat contains a boxed warning about the risks of cardiovascular adverse events with its use, there were no signals for increased cardiovascular toxicity with febuxostat compared with allopurinol, the investigators found.

The trial is the first to compare allopurinol, a decades-old drug, with febuxostat, approved in 2009, in a treat-to-target approach, Dr. O’Dell said.
 

American College of Physicians’ guideline ‘antiquated’

The results of the study “will hopefully teach doctors how to treat gout better by encouraging them to use higher doses of gout medications safely than they’re actually using at this time,” said Donald Thomas Jr., MD, in private practice in Greenbelt, Md., and associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Thomas, who moderated a media briefing where Dr. O’Dell discussed the results of the trial, said that he had recently read the 2017 gout guideline by the American College of Physicians (ACP), which he called “antiquated.”

The ACP recommends the use of corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or low-dose colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. The ACP also recommends “against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks.”

The guideline recommends that clinicians discuss potential benefits, risks, costs, and personal preferences before starting patients on urate-lowering therapy in patients with recurrent gout attacks.

The 2017 guidelines also state, however, that “[e]vidence was insufficient to conclude whether the benefits of escalating urate-lowering therapy to reach a serum urate target (‘treat to target’) outweigh the harms associated with repeated monitoring and medication escalation.”

“I’ve been a proud member of the American College of Physicians for years, I’m a master of the ACP, and they do a lot of great things, but this is one case where their insistence that they’re not going to have a guideline that isn’t completely based in evidence from studies is getting in the way of common sense,” Dr. O’Dell said.

“Their contention is that what matters to a gout patient is a gout flare, and how do we know that gout flares are less if you treat to target or not – and that’s a fair question,” he continued, “except for the fact that in uric acid metabolism we know physiologically that there’s a magic number and that’s 6.8 mg/dL, and anything above that, every day uric acid is above 6.8, you are literally putting crystal out into all places in your body.”

In contrast, the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout strongly recommends starting urate-lowering therapy for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage because of gout, or frequent gout flares. It also advises using allopurinol as the preferred first-line urate-lowering therapy, including for those with stage 3 or greater CKD, and using a low starting dose of allopurinol of 100 mg/day or less (lower in CKD) or febuxostat at 40 mg/day or less. It endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for serum urate < 6 mg/dL with dose titration of urate-lowering agents guided by serial serum urate measurements.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Dell expressed hope that the results of this clinical trial will put the issue to rest, and that the ACP will update its guideline accordingly.

VA-sponsored trial

The study was conducted at 19 Veterans Affairs medical centers and two non-VA sites. The trial was divided into dose-titration, maintenance, and observation phases, each lasting 24 weeks.

A total of 950 participants with gout and a serum urate concentration 6.8 mg/dL or greater were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive allopurinol 100-800 mg or febuxostat 40 mg to 80/120 mg daily. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration requested that the maximum titrated dose of febuxostat in the trial be capped at 80 mg daily. All patients stopped prophylaxis with NSAIDs, colchicine, or prednisone before the observation phase.

Patients with persistent hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol were eligible, and these patients were started in the titration phase at their current dose.

The mean patient age was 62.9 years in the allopurinol arm and 61.3 years in the febuxostat arm. Men comprised 98% of patients in each study arm.

The racial/ethnic distribution of patients was similar between the groups. In all, 38.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 36% assigned to febuxostat had CKD stages 1-3. (Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were excluded from the study.)

A gout flare occurred if a participants reported three or more symptoms of tender, warm, swollen joints, or gout flare, or if the participant reported use of medication for gout flare in the observation phase during weeks 49-72.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint, with 36.5% of patients on allopurinol reporting gout flare in the observation phase, compared with 43.5% on febuxostat (P for noninferiority < .001).

Among patients with CKD stage 3, the respective percentages of patients reporting at least one gout flare in the observation phase were 31.9% and 45.3% (P for noninferiority < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in each arm had mean serum urate concentrations less than 6.0 mg/dL during the maintenance phase (weeks 36, 42, and 48).

In each arm, about 20% of patients left the study before completing 72 weeks of follow-up. Serious adverse events occurred in 26.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 26.1% of patients assigned to febuxostat.

Cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 6.8%, respectively. There were three cases of cardiovascular death in the allopurinol arm and one in the febuxostat arm. Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in two and four patients, respectively, stroke in one and two, and unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization in four and three patients.

In the question-and-answer session of the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Thomas whether he would use the agents interchangeably in his practice. He replied “no, I start off with allopurinol in all of my patients, even those with chronic kidney disease, because it has been shown to be safe. I start off at a very low dose, go up slowly, [and] if they have a reaction, I change it to febuxostat.”

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. O’Dell and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allopurinol may finally start to get the respect that many rheumatologists feel it deserves as a first-line urate-lowering treatment for gout, following results of a randomized trial showing that it was noninferior to febuxostat both in the overall trial population and in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Sirisak Boakaew/Getty Images

In the multicenter, randomized, double-blinded comparison trial that used a treat-to-target strategy, allopurinol met the primary outcome of noninferiority to febuxostat for preventing gout flare during the observation phase of therapy, reported James O’Dell, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology and vice chair for education in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Both agents were well tolerated, with or without CKD. Most importantly, both agents were highly effective when used in a treat-to-target protocol in getting patients to target urate levels,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

And although febuxostat contains a boxed warning about the risks of cardiovascular adverse events with its use, there were no signals for increased cardiovascular toxicity with febuxostat compared with allopurinol, the investigators found.

The trial is the first to compare allopurinol, a decades-old drug, with febuxostat, approved in 2009, in a treat-to-target approach, Dr. O’Dell said.
 

American College of Physicians’ guideline ‘antiquated’

The results of the study “will hopefully teach doctors how to treat gout better by encouraging them to use higher doses of gout medications safely than they’re actually using at this time,” said Donald Thomas Jr., MD, in private practice in Greenbelt, Md., and associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Thomas, who moderated a media briefing where Dr. O’Dell discussed the results of the trial, said that he had recently read the 2017 gout guideline by the American College of Physicians (ACP), which he called “antiquated.”

The ACP recommends the use of corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or low-dose colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. The ACP also recommends “against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks.”

The guideline recommends that clinicians discuss potential benefits, risks, costs, and personal preferences before starting patients on urate-lowering therapy in patients with recurrent gout attacks.

The 2017 guidelines also state, however, that “[e]vidence was insufficient to conclude whether the benefits of escalating urate-lowering therapy to reach a serum urate target (‘treat to target’) outweigh the harms associated with repeated monitoring and medication escalation.”

“I’ve been a proud member of the American College of Physicians for years, I’m a master of the ACP, and they do a lot of great things, but this is one case where their insistence that they’re not going to have a guideline that isn’t completely based in evidence from studies is getting in the way of common sense,” Dr. O’Dell said.

“Their contention is that what matters to a gout patient is a gout flare, and how do we know that gout flares are less if you treat to target or not – and that’s a fair question,” he continued, “except for the fact that in uric acid metabolism we know physiologically that there’s a magic number and that’s 6.8 mg/dL, and anything above that, every day uric acid is above 6.8, you are literally putting crystal out into all places in your body.”

In contrast, the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout strongly recommends starting urate-lowering therapy for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage because of gout, or frequent gout flares. It also advises using allopurinol as the preferred first-line urate-lowering therapy, including for those with stage 3 or greater CKD, and using a low starting dose of allopurinol of 100 mg/day or less (lower in CKD) or febuxostat at 40 mg/day or less. It endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for serum urate < 6 mg/dL with dose titration of urate-lowering agents guided by serial serum urate measurements.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Dell expressed hope that the results of this clinical trial will put the issue to rest, and that the ACP will update its guideline accordingly.

VA-sponsored trial

The study was conducted at 19 Veterans Affairs medical centers and two non-VA sites. The trial was divided into dose-titration, maintenance, and observation phases, each lasting 24 weeks.

A total of 950 participants with gout and a serum urate concentration 6.8 mg/dL or greater were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive allopurinol 100-800 mg or febuxostat 40 mg to 80/120 mg daily. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration requested that the maximum titrated dose of febuxostat in the trial be capped at 80 mg daily. All patients stopped prophylaxis with NSAIDs, colchicine, or prednisone before the observation phase.

Patients with persistent hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol were eligible, and these patients were started in the titration phase at their current dose.

The mean patient age was 62.9 years in the allopurinol arm and 61.3 years in the febuxostat arm. Men comprised 98% of patients in each study arm.

The racial/ethnic distribution of patients was similar between the groups. In all, 38.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 36% assigned to febuxostat had CKD stages 1-3. (Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were excluded from the study.)

A gout flare occurred if a participants reported three or more symptoms of tender, warm, swollen joints, or gout flare, or if the participant reported use of medication for gout flare in the observation phase during weeks 49-72.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint, with 36.5% of patients on allopurinol reporting gout flare in the observation phase, compared with 43.5% on febuxostat (P for noninferiority < .001).

Among patients with CKD stage 3, the respective percentages of patients reporting at least one gout flare in the observation phase were 31.9% and 45.3% (P for noninferiority < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in each arm had mean serum urate concentrations less than 6.0 mg/dL during the maintenance phase (weeks 36, 42, and 48).

In each arm, about 20% of patients left the study before completing 72 weeks of follow-up. Serious adverse events occurred in 26.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 26.1% of patients assigned to febuxostat.

Cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 6.8%, respectively. There were three cases of cardiovascular death in the allopurinol arm and one in the febuxostat arm. Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in two and four patients, respectively, stroke in one and two, and unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization in four and three patients.

In the question-and-answer session of the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Thomas whether he would use the agents interchangeably in his practice. He replied “no, I start off with allopurinol in all of my patients, even those with chronic kidney disease, because it has been shown to be safe. I start off at a very low dose, go up slowly, [and] if they have a reaction, I change it to febuxostat.”

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. O’Dell and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Allopurinol may finally start to get the respect that many rheumatologists feel it deserves as a first-line urate-lowering treatment for gout, following results of a randomized trial showing that it was noninferior to febuxostat both in the overall trial population and in patients with stage 3 chronic kidney disease (CKD).

Sirisak Boakaew/Getty Images

In the multicenter, randomized, double-blinded comparison trial that used a treat-to-target strategy, allopurinol met the primary outcome of noninferiority to febuxostat for preventing gout flare during the observation phase of therapy, reported James O’Dell, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology and vice chair for education in the department of internal medicine at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.

“Both agents were well tolerated, with or without CKD. Most importantly, both agents were highly effective when used in a treat-to-target protocol in getting patients to target urate levels,” he said in an oral abstract presentation during the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2021 Annual Meeting, which was held online.

And although febuxostat contains a boxed warning about the risks of cardiovascular adverse events with its use, there were no signals for increased cardiovascular toxicity with febuxostat compared with allopurinol, the investigators found.

The trial is the first to compare allopurinol, a decades-old drug, with febuxostat, approved in 2009, in a treat-to-target approach, Dr. O’Dell said.
 

American College of Physicians’ guideline ‘antiquated’

The results of the study “will hopefully teach doctors how to treat gout better by encouraging them to use higher doses of gout medications safely than they’re actually using at this time,” said Donald Thomas Jr., MD, in private practice in Greenbelt, Md., and associate professor of medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md.

Dr. Thomas, who moderated a media briefing where Dr. O’Dell discussed the results of the trial, said that he had recently read the 2017 gout guideline by the American College of Physicians (ACP), which he called “antiquated.”

The ACP recommends the use of corticosteroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), or low-dose colchicine to treat patients with acute gout. The ACP also recommends “against initiating long-term urate-lowering therapy in most patients after a first gout attack or in patients with infrequent attacks.”

The guideline recommends that clinicians discuss potential benefits, risks, costs, and personal preferences before starting patients on urate-lowering therapy in patients with recurrent gout attacks.

The 2017 guidelines also state, however, that “[e]vidence was insufficient to conclude whether the benefits of escalating urate-lowering therapy to reach a serum urate target (‘treat to target’) outweigh the harms associated with repeated monitoring and medication escalation.”

“I’ve been a proud member of the American College of Physicians for years, I’m a master of the ACP, and they do a lot of great things, but this is one case where their insistence that they’re not going to have a guideline that isn’t completely based in evidence from studies is getting in the way of common sense,” Dr. O’Dell said.

“Their contention is that what matters to a gout patient is a gout flare, and how do we know that gout flares are less if you treat to target or not – and that’s a fair question,” he continued, “except for the fact that in uric acid metabolism we know physiologically that there’s a magic number and that’s 6.8 mg/dL, and anything above that, every day uric acid is above 6.8, you are literally putting crystal out into all places in your body.”

In contrast, the ACR’s 2020 guideline for the management of gout strongly recommends starting urate-lowering therapy for all patients with tophaceous gout, radiographic damage because of gout, or frequent gout flares. It also advises using allopurinol as the preferred first-line urate-lowering therapy, including for those with stage 3 or greater CKD, and using a low starting dose of allopurinol of 100 mg/day or less (lower in CKD) or febuxostat at 40 mg/day or less. It endorses a treat-to-target management strategy that aims for serum urate < 6 mg/dL with dose titration of urate-lowering agents guided by serial serum urate measurements.

Dr. Thomas and Dr. O’Dell expressed hope that the results of this clinical trial will put the issue to rest, and that the ACP will update its guideline accordingly.

VA-sponsored trial

The study was conducted at 19 Veterans Affairs medical centers and two non-VA sites. The trial was divided into dose-titration, maintenance, and observation phases, each lasting 24 weeks.

A total of 950 participants with gout and a serum urate concentration 6.8 mg/dL or greater were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive allopurinol 100-800 mg or febuxostat 40 mg to 80/120 mg daily. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration requested that the maximum titrated dose of febuxostat in the trial be capped at 80 mg daily. All patients stopped prophylaxis with NSAIDs, colchicine, or prednisone before the observation phase.

Patients with persistent hyperuricemia despite treatment with allopurinol were eligible, and these patients were started in the titration phase at their current dose.

The mean patient age was 62.9 years in the allopurinol arm and 61.3 years in the febuxostat arm. Men comprised 98% of patients in each study arm.

The racial/ethnic distribution of patients was similar between the groups. In all, 38.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 36% assigned to febuxostat had CKD stages 1-3. (Patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD were excluded from the study.)

A gout flare occurred if a participants reported three or more symptoms of tender, warm, swollen joints, or gout flare, or if the participant reported use of medication for gout flare in the observation phase during weeks 49-72.

As noted before, the trial met its primary endpoint, with 36.5% of patients on allopurinol reporting gout flare in the observation phase, compared with 43.5% on febuxostat (P for noninferiority < .001).

Among patients with CKD stage 3, the respective percentages of patients reporting at least one gout flare in the observation phase were 31.9% and 45.3% (P for noninferiority < .001).

Approximately 80% of patients in each arm had mean serum urate concentrations less than 6.0 mg/dL during the maintenance phase (weeks 36, 42, and 48).

In each arm, about 20% of patients left the study before completing 72 weeks of follow-up. Serious adverse events occurred in 26.7% of patients assigned to allopurinol and 26.1% of patients assigned to febuxostat.

Cardiovascular adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 6.8%, respectively. There were three cases of cardiovascular death in the allopurinol arm and one in the febuxostat arm. Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in two and four patients, respectively, stroke in one and two, and unstable angina requiring urgent revascularization in four and three patients.

In the question-and-answer session of the briefing, this news organization asked Dr. Thomas whether he would use the agents interchangeably in his practice. He replied “no, I start off with allopurinol in all of my patients, even those with chronic kidney disease, because it has been shown to be safe. I start off at a very low dose, go up slowly, [and] if they have a reaction, I change it to febuxostat.”

The study was supported by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Dr. O’Dell and Dr. Thomas have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have been diagnosed with various forms of arthritis, new federal estimates report. The disorders limit the activities of 43.9% of them. Researchers also report that adults with poorer mental or physical health and those who are more disadvantaged socially are most vulnerable to arthritis.

“There is a substantial unmet need for existing, evidence-based, arthritis-appropriate interventions for people with arthritis to minimize activity limitations,” study coauthor and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention epidemiologist Kristina Theis, PhD, MPH, told this news organization. “Our findings show that interventions addressing self-management, education, physical activity, workplace accommodations, and mental health, among other areas, are all indicated for people with arthritis.”

The CDC report was published Oct. 8 in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Researchers estimated the number of arthritis cases on the basis of in-person interviews conducted with tens of thousands of U.S. adults as part of the National Health Interview Survey during 2016-2018. In the report, the researchers considered arthritis to include general arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, lupus, and fibromyalgia.
 

Activity limitations rose faster than predicted

According to the report, an estimated 58.5 million U.S. adults (23.7%; 21.5% age-standardized) told interviewers that they had been diagnosed with arthritis conditions. Of those, 25.7 million (43.9%; 40.8% age-standardized) had arthritis-attributable activity limitations (AAALs), which represents 10.4% of all adults.

The number of adults who reported having arthritis rose by 4.1 million from previous estimates for the years 2013-2015, a number that’s on pace with predictions. The number in the AAAL category rose by 2 million, a jump that’s higher than what had been predicted.

“The aging of the population is one factor in the increasing number of people with arthritis, even though arthritis is not an inevitable part of aging,” Dr. Theis said. “Individual factors, such as body mass index or other health conditions, and societal factors, such as educational and economic opportunities, likely play a role.”

Arthritis was especially common among those aged ≥ 65 years (50.4%), those who were unable to work or were disabled (52.3%), and those who self-reported fair/poor health (51.2%) or joint symptoms in the past 30 days (52.2%). The rate of arthritis was also high among those whose activities of daily living (ADL) were limited (54.8%) and those whose instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) were limited (55.9%).

The researchers report that the percentage of AAAL was also high among the following groups: “adults with joint symptoms in the past 30 days (51.6%), adults who were unable to work or disabled (54.7%), adults of other/multiple races (54.5%) or non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Natives (60.7%), adults with low income (53.3%) or poor/near poor income-to-poverty ratios (63.3%), or with moderate psychological distress (59.5%). AAAL was reported by a high proportion of adults with arthritis who had an ADL disability (82.6%), IADL disability (80.4%), serious psychological distress (76.3%), or fair/poor self-rated health (72.6%).”

The researchers found that among all adults with arthritis, the percentage of adults with arthritis was high among women (59.3%), those with obesity or overweight (74.2%), and those who weren’t sufficiently active (58%).

Comments on latest findings

Michael LaValley, PhD, biostatistician at the Boston University School of Public Health, who has studied arthritis statistics, told this news organization that the findings “fall right in line with the trends that have been observed in arthritis over the past 20 years. The prevalence is increasing, which certainly seems to be influenced by the aging population in the U.S.”

As for specific conditions, he said the rate of osteoarthritis may be influenced by older Americans and by those with obesity and sedentary behavior. “There is also some thinking that there may be environmental factors increasing the risk for some types of arthritis, but nothing conclusive. There also may be more clinical attention paid to arthritic conditions, leading to more people being diagnosed or even just suspecting that they have arthritis.”

It’s difficult to disentangle connections between arthritis and risk factors such as poverty, he said. “There almost certainly are occupational exposures that put people at risk of osteoarthritis – having to kneel, stoop, and lift heavy things – or other musculoskeletal conditions like lower back pain. These exposures are most likely in jobs that would predominantly go to people with few other options because of lower levels of income and education. People in these jobs would also be more likely to have financial stresses that lead to increased psychological distress and less time to take care of their health.”

Also, he said, “There is probably some reverse causation with the occupational results, self-related health, and psychological distress. These could all be affected by a person’s arthritis. Having arthritis may interfere with getting a better-paying job, and arthritis could certainly reduce someone’s self-reported health and induce psychological distress.”

The authors and LaValley have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The anti-inflammatory agents colchicine and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) failed to provide substantial benefits in separate randomized COVID-19 trials.

Both were reported at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

The open-label ECLA PHRI COLCOVID trial randomized 1,277 hospitalized adults (mean age 62 years) to usual care alone or with colchicine at a loading dose of 1.5 mg for 2 hours followed by 0.5 mg on day 1 and then 0.5 mg twice daily for 14 days or until discharge.

The investigators hypothesized that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, might modulate the hyperinflammatory syndrome, or cytokine storm, associated with COVID-19.

Results showed that the need for mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 25.0% of patients receiving colchicine and 28.8% with usual care (P = .08).

The coprimary endpoint of death at 28 days was also not significantly different between groups (20.5% vs. 22.2%), principal investigator Rafael Diaz, MD, said in a late-breaking COVID-19 trials session at the congress.

Among the secondary outcomes at 28 days, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of new intubation or death from respiratory failure from 27.0% to 22.3% (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.99) but not mortality from respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 16.8%).

The only important adverse effect was severe diarrhea, which was reported in 11.3% of the colchicine group vs. 4.5% in the control group, said Dr. Diaz, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica (ECLA), Rosario, Argentina.

The results are consistent with those from the massive RECOVERY trial, which earlier this year stopped enrollment in the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and COLCORONA, which missed its primary endpoint using colchicine among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Session chair and COLCORONA principal investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, pointed out that, as clinicians, it’s fairly uncommon to combine systemic steroids with colchicine, which was the case in 92% of patients in ECLA PHRI COLCOVID.

“I think it is an inherent limitation of testing colchicine on top of steroids,” said Dr. Tardif, of the Montreal Heart Institute.
 

Icosapent ethyl in PREPARE-IT

Dr. Diaz returned in the ESC session to present the results of the PREPARE-IT trial, which tested whether icosapent ethyl – at a loading dose of 8 grams (4 capsules) for the first 3 days and 4 g/d on days 4-60 – could reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2,041 health care and other public workers in Argentina at high risk for infection (mean age 40.5 years).

Vascepa was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for the reduction of elevated triglyceride levels, with an added indication in 2019 to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in people with elevated triglycerides and established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The rationale for using the high-dose prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preparation includes its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects, and that unsaturated fatty acids, especially EPA, might inactivate the enveloped virus, he explained.

Among 1,712 participants followed for up to 60 days, however, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 7.9% with icosapent ethyl vs. 7.1% with a mineral oil placebo (P = .58).

There were also no significant changes from baseline in the icosapent ethyl and placebo groups for the secondary outcomes of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0 vs. 0), triglycerides (median –2 mg/dL vs. 7 mg/dL), or Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) questionnaire scores (median 0.01 vs. 0.03).

The use of a mineral oil placebo has been the subject of controversy in previous fish oil trials, but, Dr. Diaz noted, it did not have a significant proinflammatory effect or cause any excess adverse events.

Overall, adverse events were similar between the active and placebo groups, including atrial fibrillation (none), major bleeding (none), minor bleeding (7 events vs. 10 events), gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8% vs. 7.0%), and diarrhea (8.6% vs. 7.7%).

Although it missed the primary endpoint, Dr. Diaz said, “this is the first large, randomized blinded trial to demonstrate excellent safety and tolerability of an 8-gram-per-day loading dose of icosapent ethyl, opening up the potential for acute use in randomized trials of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, strokes, and revascularization.”

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Diaz said the Delta variant was not present at the time of the analysis and that the second half of the trial will report on whether icosapent ethyl can reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in participants diagnosed with COVID-19.

ECLA PHRI COLCOVID was supported by the Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica Population Health Research Institute. PREPARE-IT was supported by Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica with collaboration from Amarin. Dr. Diaz reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The anti-inflammatory agents colchicine and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) failed to provide substantial benefits in separate randomized COVID-19 trials.

Both were reported at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

The open-label ECLA PHRI COLCOVID trial randomized 1,277 hospitalized adults (mean age 62 years) to usual care alone or with colchicine at a loading dose of 1.5 mg for 2 hours followed by 0.5 mg on day 1 and then 0.5 mg twice daily for 14 days or until discharge.

The investigators hypothesized that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, might modulate the hyperinflammatory syndrome, or cytokine storm, associated with COVID-19.

Results showed that the need for mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 25.0% of patients receiving colchicine and 28.8% with usual care (P = .08).

The coprimary endpoint of death at 28 days was also not significantly different between groups (20.5% vs. 22.2%), principal investigator Rafael Diaz, MD, said in a late-breaking COVID-19 trials session at the congress.

Among the secondary outcomes at 28 days, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of new intubation or death from respiratory failure from 27.0% to 22.3% (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.99) but not mortality from respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 16.8%).

The only important adverse effect was severe diarrhea, which was reported in 11.3% of the colchicine group vs. 4.5% in the control group, said Dr. Diaz, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica (ECLA), Rosario, Argentina.

The results are consistent with those from the massive RECOVERY trial, which earlier this year stopped enrollment in the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and COLCORONA, which missed its primary endpoint using colchicine among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Session chair and COLCORONA principal investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, pointed out that, as clinicians, it’s fairly uncommon to combine systemic steroids with colchicine, which was the case in 92% of patients in ECLA PHRI COLCOVID.

“I think it is an inherent limitation of testing colchicine on top of steroids,” said Dr. Tardif, of the Montreal Heart Institute.
 

Icosapent ethyl in PREPARE-IT

Dr. Diaz returned in the ESC session to present the results of the PREPARE-IT trial, which tested whether icosapent ethyl – at a loading dose of 8 grams (4 capsules) for the first 3 days and 4 g/d on days 4-60 – could reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2,041 health care and other public workers in Argentina at high risk for infection (mean age 40.5 years).

Vascepa was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for the reduction of elevated triglyceride levels, with an added indication in 2019 to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in people with elevated triglycerides and established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The rationale for using the high-dose prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preparation includes its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects, and that unsaturated fatty acids, especially EPA, might inactivate the enveloped virus, he explained.

Among 1,712 participants followed for up to 60 days, however, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 7.9% with icosapent ethyl vs. 7.1% with a mineral oil placebo (P = .58).

There were also no significant changes from baseline in the icosapent ethyl and placebo groups for the secondary outcomes of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0 vs. 0), triglycerides (median –2 mg/dL vs. 7 mg/dL), or Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) questionnaire scores (median 0.01 vs. 0.03).

The use of a mineral oil placebo has been the subject of controversy in previous fish oil trials, but, Dr. Diaz noted, it did not have a significant proinflammatory effect or cause any excess adverse events.

Overall, adverse events were similar between the active and placebo groups, including atrial fibrillation (none), major bleeding (none), minor bleeding (7 events vs. 10 events), gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8% vs. 7.0%), and diarrhea (8.6% vs. 7.7%).

Although it missed the primary endpoint, Dr. Diaz said, “this is the first large, randomized blinded trial to demonstrate excellent safety and tolerability of an 8-gram-per-day loading dose of icosapent ethyl, opening up the potential for acute use in randomized trials of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, strokes, and revascularization.”

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Diaz said the Delta variant was not present at the time of the analysis and that the second half of the trial will report on whether icosapent ethyl can reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in participants diagnosed with COVID-19.

ECLA PHRI COLCOVID was supported by the Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica Population Health Research Institute. PREPARE-IT was supported by Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica with collaboration from Amarin. Dr. Diaz reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The anti-inflammatory agents colchicine and icosapent ethyl (Vascepa; Amarin) failed to provide substantial benefits in separate randomized COVID-19 trials.

Both were reported at the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Congress 2021.

The open-label ECLA PHRI COLCOVID trial randomized 1,277 hospitalized adults (mean age 62 years) to usual care alone or with colchicine at a loading dose of 1.5 mg for 2 hours followed by 0.5 mg on day 1 and then 0.5 mg twice daily for 14 days or until discharge.

The investigators hypothesized that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, might modulate the hyperinflammatory syndrome, or cytokine storm, associated with COVID-19.

Results showed that the need for mechanical ventilation or death occurred in 25.0% of patients receiving colchicine and 28.8% with usual care (P = .08).

The coprimary endpoint of death at 28 days was also not significantly different between groups (20.5% vs. 22.2%), principal investigator Rafael Diaz, MD, said in a late-breaking COVID-19 trials session at the congress.

Among the secondary outcomes at 28 days, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of new intubation or death from respiratory failure from 27.0% to 22.3% (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.99) but not mortality from respiratory failure (19.5% vs. 16.8%).

The only important adverse effect was severe diarrhea, which was reported in 11.3% of the colchicine group vs. 4.5% in the control group, said Dr. Diaz, director of Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica (ECLA), Rosario, Argentina.

The results are consistent with those from the massive RECOVERY trial, which earlier this year stopped enrollment in the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, and COLCORONA, which missed its primary endpoint using colchicine among nonhospitalized adults with COVID-19.

Session chair and COLCORONA principal investigator Jean-Claude Tardif, MD, pointed out that, as clinicians, it’s fairly uncommon to combine systemic steroids with colchicine, which was the case in 92% of patients in ECLA PHRI COLCOVID.

“I think it is an inherent limitation of testing colchicine on top of steroids,” said Dr. Tardif, of the Montreal Heart Institute.
 

Icosapent ethyl in PREPARE-IT

Dr. Diaz returned in the ESC session to present the results of the PREPARE-IT trial, which tested whether icosapent ethyl – at a loading dose of 8 grams (4 capsules) for the first 3 days and 4 g/d on days 4-60 – could reduce the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in 2,041 health care and other public workers in Argentina at high risk for infection (mean age 40.5 years).

Vascepa was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for the reduction of elevated triglyceride levels, with an added indication in 2019 to reduce cardiovascular (CV) events in people with elevated triglycerides and established CV disease or diabetes with other CV risk factors.

The rationale for using the high-dose prescription eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preparation includes its anti-inflammatory and antithrombotic effects, and that unsaturated fatty acids, especially EPA, might inactivate the enveloped virus, he explained.

Among 1,712 participants followed for up to 60 days, however, the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate was 7.9% with icosapent ethyl vs. 7.1% with a mineral oil placebo (P = .58).

There were also no significant changes from baseline in the icosapent ethyl and placebo groups for the secondary outcomes of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (0 vs. 0), triglycerides (median –2 mg/dL vs. 7 mg/dL), or Influenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) questionnaire scores (median 0.01 vs. 0.03).

The use of a mineral oil placebo has been the subject of controversy in previous fish oil trials, but, Dr. Diaz noted, it did not have a significant proinflammatory effect or cause any excess adverse events.

Overall, adverse events were similar between the active and placebo groups, including atrial fibrillation (none), major bleeding (none), minor bleeding (7 events vs. 10 events), gastrointestinal symptoms (6.8% vs. 7.0%), and diarrhea (8.6% vs. 7.7%).

Although it missed the primary endpoint, Dr. Diaz said, “this is the first large, randomized blinded trial to demonstrate excellent safety and tolerability of an 8-gram-per-day loading dose of icosapent ethyl, opening up the potential for acute use in randomized trials of myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndromes, strokes, and revascularization.”

During a discussion of the results, Dr. Diaz said the Delta variant was not present at the time of the analysis and that the second half of the trial will report on whether icosapent ethyl can reduce the risk for hospitalization or death in participants diagnosed with COVID-19.

ECLA PHRI COLCOVID was supported by the Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica Population Health Research Institute. PREPARE-IT was supported by Estudios Clínicos Latinoamérica with collaboration from Amarin. Dr. Diaz reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

Diets high in red meats, saturated fats, and sugars, relative to diets dominated by fruits, vegetables, and legumes, are associated with an increased risk of gout independent of an underlying genetic risk, according to independent sets of data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Only one of the two retrospective analyses evaluated diet in the context of a genetic risk score, but “no evidence of an additional or multiplicative interaction” was seen when genetic risk was evaluated on top of the risk already known to be associated with a Western diet, reported Chio Yokose, MD, a researcher and clinician in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A parallel study presented at the EULAR Congress looked at the impact of a proinflammatory diet. Although genetic predisposition was not considered in this analysis, this diet, too, was associated with increased risk of gout independent of a long list of other variables. Each of the studies supports the potential for diet to be a target for risk reduction.

“Adhering to a diet with low inflammatory potential may mediate systemic and metabolic inflammation,” reported Natalie McCormick, PhD, a research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital. She said the association of an inflammatory diet with gout is analogous to previous studies linking this type of diet to type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease because the inflammatory response is a pathogenic factor.

The two retrospective studies evaluated different but overlapping sets of data. Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick collaborated on both studies.

In the study of Western diet, which was restricted to women, the focus was on both diet and genes. Using food frequency questionnaires completed by 18,512 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), subjects were placed in quintiles for relative exposure to Western diets and for an interventional diet called DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) that is high in fruits and vegetables.

A genetic risk score (GRS) was developed for participants using 114 serum urate single-nucleotide polymorphisms from a genomewide association study.

For the Western diet, there was a stepwise increased risk of gout per quintile associated with greater exposure. For the DASH diet, the same phenomenon was seen in reverse so that risk of gout was incrementally lower per quintile defining greater adherence.

When considered as a variable, GRS altered these basic relationships only for the DASH diet. After adjusting for multiple factors, such as age, menopause, use of hormone therapy, and hypertension, there was no significant interaction observed for genetic predisposition in relation to the Western diet.

For the DASH diet, there was an even greater reduction in the relative risk of gout among those with a high GRS if they were in the quintile defining greatest adherence to the DASH diet. Although this association fell just short of reaching statistical significance (P = .056), Dr. Yokose indicated that it was a strong trend.

Gout similarly associated with proinflammatory diet

The proinflammatory diet shares many food items with the Western diet, including refined carbohydrates, sweetened beverages, red meat, and fried foods. The study that evaluated its impact used dietary history collected from in 164,090 women in the NHS and 40,598 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. In both, participants completed dietary questionnaires every 4 years. Patients were assigned an Empirical Dietary Index of Inflammatory Potential (EDIP) score on the basis of these questionnaires.

When the 2,874 incident gout cases were evaluated by EDIP quintile, those in the highest had a 50% greater risk of gout than did those in the lowest when adjusted for multiple potential confounders. When stratified by intake of alcohol, the impact of being in the highest quintile of inflammatory diet was even greater, producing a 2.37-fold increased risk of gout.
 

Impact of weight on risk for gout

The impact of proinflammatory diet was detectable even after adjusting for adiposity, a gout risk factor reconfirmed in a third study presented at EULAR by this same team of investigators. In that study, presented by Dr. Yokose, a GRS above the mean was associated with a further increased likelihood of gout among those with elevated body mass index. However, obesity remained a risk factor for gout even among those with a low GRS.

copyright joloei/Thinkstock

The data from this study indicate “maintaining healthy weight is an important gout prevention strategy, regardless of underlying genetic risk,” Dr. Yokose reported.

All three studies reinforce diet as a modifiable risk factor for gout. According to both Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick, healthy diets should be considered as a gout prevention strategy.

Annelies Boonen, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine (rheumatology) at the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands), did not challenge these conclusions. However, she cautioned that it is “very difficult to evaluate food questionnaires.” She further noted that retrospective analyses complicate efforts to control for the many potential confounders.

Ultimately, healthy diets can be recommended for many reasons, particularly in individuals with other risk factors for gout. For this reason, Dr. Boonen indicated that it will be difficult to prove definitively that gout can be prevented by avoiding Western diets and other diets high in proinflammatory foods. However, definitive proof of this benefit might not be essential for the purpose of a general recommendation to eat healthy foods.

Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Diets high in red meats, saturated fats, and sugars, relative to diets dominated by fruits, vegetables, and legumes, are associated with an increased risk of gout independent of an underlying genetic risk, according to independent sets of data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Only one of the two retrospective analyses evaluated diet in the context of a genetic risk score, but “no evidence of an additional or multiplicative interaction” was seen when genetic risk was evaluated on top of the risk already known to be associated with a Western diet, reported Chio Yokose, MD, a researcher and clinician in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A parallel study presented at the EULAR Congress looked at the impact of a proinflammatory diet. Although genetic predisposition was not considered in this analysis, this diet, too, was associated with increased risk of gout independent of a long list of other variables. Each of the studies supports the potential for diet to be a target for risk reduction.

“Adhering to a diet with low inflammatory potential may mediate systemic and metabolic inflammation,” reported Natalie McCormick, PhD, a research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital. She said the association of an inflammatory diet with gout is analogous to previous studies linking this type of diet to type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease because the inflammatory response is a pathogenic factor.

The two retrospective studies evaluated different but overlapping sets of data. Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick collaborated on both studies.

In the study of Western diet, which was restricted to women, the focus was on both diet and genes. Using food frequency questionnaires completed by 18,512 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), subjects were placed in quintiles for relative exposure to Western diets and for an interventional diet called DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) that is high in fruits and vegetables.

A genetic risk score (GRS) was developed for participants using 114 serum urate single-nucleotide polymorphisms from a genomewide association study.

For the Western diet, there was a stepwise increased risk of gout per quintile associated with greater exposure. For the DASH diet, the same phenomenon was seen in reverse so that risk of gout was incrementally lower per quintile defining greater adherence.

When considered as a variable, GRS altered these basic relationships only for the DASH diet. After adjusting for multiple factors, such as age, menopause, use of hormone therapy, and hypertension, there was no significant interaction observed for genetic predisposition in relation to the Western diet.

For the DASH diet, there was an even greater reduction in the relative risk of gout among those with a high GRS if they were in the quintile defining greatest adherence to the DASH diet. Although this association fell just short of reaching statistical significance (P = .056), Dr. Yokose indicated that it was a strong trend.

Gout similarly associated with proinflammatory diet

The proinflammatory diet shares many food items with the Western diet, including refined carbohydrates, sweetened beverages, red meat, and fried foods. The study that evaluated its impact used dietary history collected from in 164,090 women in the NHS and 40,598 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. In both, participants completed dietary questionnaires every 4 years. Patients were assigned an Empirical Dietary Index of Inflammatory Potential (EDIP) score on the basis of these questionnaires.

When the 2,874 incident gout cases were evaluated by EDIP quintile, those in the highest had a 50% greater risk of gout than did those in the lowest when adjusted for multiple potential confounders. When stratified by intake of alcohol, the impact of being in the highest quintile of inflammatory diet was even greater, producing a 2.37-fold increased risk of gout.
 

Impact of weight on risk for gout

The impact of proinflammatory diet was detectable even after adjusting for adiposity, a gout risk factor reconfirmed in a third study presented at EULAR by this same team of investigators. In that study, presented by Dr. Yokose, a GRS above the mean was associated with a further increased likelihood of gout among those with elevated body mass index. However, obesity remained a risk factor for gout even among those with a low GRS.

copyright joloei/Thinkstock

The data from this study indicate “maintaining healthy weight is an important gout prevention strategy, regardless of underlying genetic risk,” Dr. Yokose reported.

All three studies reinforce diet as a modifiable risk factor for gout. According to both Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick, healthy diets should be considered as a gout prevention strategy.

Annelies Boonen, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine (rheumatology) at the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands), did not challenge these conclusions. However, she cautioned that it is “very difficult to evaluate food questionnaires.” She further noted that retrospective analyses complicate efforts to control for the many potential confounders.

Ultimately, healthy diets can be recommended for many reasons, particularly in individuals with other risk factors for gout. For this reason, Dr. Boonen indicated that it will be difficult to prove definitively that gout can be prevented by avoiding Western diets and other diets high in proinflammatory foods. However, definitive proof of this benefit might not be essential for the purpose of a general recommendation to eat healthy foods.

Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Diets high in red meats, saturated fats, and sugars, relative to diets dominated by fruits, vegetables, and legumes, are associated with an increased risk of gout independent of an underlying genetic risk, according to independent sets of data presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology.

Only one of the two retrospective analyses evaluated diet in the context of a genetic risk score, but “no evidence of an additional or multiplicative interaction” was seen when genetic risk was evaluated on top of the risk already known to be associated with a Western diet, reported Chio Yokose, MD, a researcher and clinician in the division of rheumatology, allergy, and immunology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

A parallel study presented at the EULAR Congress looked at the impact of a proinflammatory diet. Although genetic predisposition was not considered in this analysis, this diet, too, was associated with increased risk of gout independent of a long list of other variables. Each of the studies supports the potential for diet to be a target for risk reduction.

“Adhering to a diet with low inflammatory potential may mediate systemic and metabolic inflammation,” reported Natalie McCormick, PhD, a research fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital. She said the association of an inflammatory diet with gout is analogous to previous studies linking this type of diet to type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease because the inflammatory response is a pathogenic factor.

The two retrospective studies evaluated different but overlapping sets of data. Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick collaborated on both studies.

In the study of Western diet, which was restricted to women, the focus was on both diet and genes. Using food frequency questionnaires completed by 18,512 women participating in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), subjects were placed in quintiles for relative exposure to Western diets and for an interventional diet called DASH (Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension) that is high in fruits and vegetables.

A genetic risk score (GRS) was developed for participants using 114 serum urate single-nucleotide polymorphisms from a genomewide association study.

For the Western diet, there was a stepwise increased risk of gout per quintile associated with greater exposure. For the DASH diet, the same phenomenon was seen in reverse so that risk of gout was incrementally lower per quintile defining greater adherence.

When considered as a variable, GRS altered these basic relationships only for the DASH diet. After adjusting for multiple factors, such as age, menopause, use of hormone therapy, and hypertension, there was no significant interaction observed for genetic predisposition in relation to the Western diet.

For the DASH diet, there was an even greater reduction in the relative risk of gout among those with a high GRS if they were in the quintile defining greatest adherence to the DASH diet. Although this association fell just short of reaching statistical significance (P = .056), Dr. Yokose indicated that it was a strong trend.

Gout similarly associated with proinflammatory diet

The proinflammatory diet shares many food items with the Western diet, including refined carbohydrates, sweetened beverages, red meat, and fried foods. The study that evaluated its impact used dietary history collected from in 164,090 women in the NHS and 40,598 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. In both, participants completed dietary questionnaires every 4 years. Patients were assigned an Empirical Dietary Index of Inflammatory Potential (EDIP) score on the basis of these questionnaires.

When the 2,874 incident gout cases were evaluated by EDIP quintile, those in the highest had a 50% greater risk of gout than did those in the lowest when adjusted for multiple potential confounders. When stratified by intake of alcohol, the impact of being in the highest quintile of inflammatory diet was even greater, producing a 2.37-fold increased risk of gout.
 

Impact of weight on risk for gout

The impact of proinflammatory diet was detectable even after adjusting for adiposity, a gout risk factor reconfirmed in a third study presented at EULAR by this same team of investigators. In that study, presented by Dr. Yokose, a GRS above the mean was associated with a further increased likelihood of gout among those with elevated body mass index. However, obesity remained a risk factor for gout even among those with a low GRS.

copyright joloei/Thinkstock

The data from this study indicate “maintaining healthy weight is an important gout prevention strategy, regardless of underlying genetic risk,” Dr. Yokose reported.

All three studies reinforce diet as a modifiable risk factor for gout. According to both Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick, healthy diets should be considered as a gout prevention strategy.

Annelies Boonen, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine (rheumatology) at the University of Maastricht (the Netherlands), did not challenge these conclusions. However, she cautioned that it is “very difficult to evaluate food questionnaires.” She further noted that retrospective analyses complicate efforts to control for the many potential confounders.

Ultimately, healthy diets can be recommended for many reasons, particularly in individuals with other risk factors for gout. For this reason, Dr. Boonen indicated that it will be difficult to prove definitively that gout can be prevented by avoiding Western diets and other diets high in proinflammatory foods. However, definitive proof of this benefit might not be essential for the purpose of a general recommendation to eat healthy foods.

Dr. Yokose and Dr. McCormick reported no potential conflicts of interest.

A new protocol designed to help patients in rheumatology clinics quit smoking proved both efficient and effective in referring willing participants to free tobacco quit lines.

seanika/ThinkStock

“Rheumatology visits provide a unique opportunity to address smoking as a chronic modifiable risk factor in populations at high risk for cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and rheumatic disease progression,” wrote Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a smoking cessation protocol for patients with rheumatic diseases, the researchers launched a quasi-experimental cohort study in which their Quit Connect protocol was tested at three rheumatology clinics. Adapting the Ask, Advise, Connect primary care protocol to a new setting, nurses and medical assistants were trained to use electronic health record (EHR) prompts that would check if patients who smoked were ready to quit within 30 days, advise them to do so, and then use electronic referrals to connect them to state-run tobacco quit lines. An extended baseline period – October 2012 to March 2016 – was compared to a 6-month intervention period from April to October 2016.

Across 54,090 pre- and postimplementation rheumatology clinic visits, 4,601 were with current smokers. Demographics were similar across both periods: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, about two-thirds were female, and 85% were White.

Clinicians’ assessment of tobacco use before and after implementation of the program stayed steady at 96% of patient visits, but the percentage of tobacco users’ visits that included checking for readiness to quit within the next 30 days rose from 3% (135 of 4,078) to 80% (421 of 523).

Before the implementation of the program, 0.6% of eligible visits with current smokers included a quit-line referral offer. After implementation, 93 (18%) of the 523 smokers who visited – 122 of whom said they were ready to quit – were offered referrals, a 26-fold increase. Of the 93 offered referrals, 66 (71%) accepted and 16 set a quit date or reported having quit; 11 accepted counseling services and nicotine replacement.

Although clinic staff reported encountering several obstacles, such as the need to craft nonthreatening language for challenging patients, they also contributed their own talking points that were included in the EHR tools and desktop brochures. On average, the protocol took less than 90 seconds to perform.

Rheumatologists can make headway on patients quitting smoking

“While smoking cessation programs require time and resources to implement, this study suggests a role for evidence-based protocols within rheumatology centers,” Medha Barbhaiya, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “Given that current smokers are at an increased risk of developing more severe rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and patients often visit their rheumatologist multiple times yearly, rheumatologists may be well-positioned to address smoking cessation with patients.”

In regard to next steps, she noted that “while future large studies in diverse cohorts are needed to confirm these findings, implementing a formal smoking cessation protocol within rheumatology centers may provide a unique opportunity for rheumatologists to directly help patients modify their disease risk, leading to improved health outcomes.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was a prepost design and not a randomized trial. They also recognized that many tobacco users require 8-10 attempts before permanently quitting, likely lessening the lasting impact of the short-term study. They did cite expert analysis, however, that says “connecting patients to evidence-based resources makes them more likely to permanently quit.”

The study was supported in part by Pfizer’s office of Independent Grants for Learning and Change and by a grant collaboration from the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Wisconsin Partnership Program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

A new protocol designed to help patients in rheumatology clinics quit smoking proved both efficient and effective in referring willing participants to free tobacco quit lines.

seanika/ThinkStock

“Rheumatology visits provide a unique opportunity to address smoking as a chronic modifiable risk factor in populations at high risk for cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and rheumatic disease progression,” wrote Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a smoking cessation protocol for patients with rheumatic diseases, the researchers launched a quasi-experimental cohort study in which their Quit Connect protocol was tested at three rheumatology clinics. Adapting the Ask, Advise, Connect primary care protocol to a new setting, nurses and medical assistants were trained to use electronic health record (EHR) prompts that would check if patients who smoked were ready to quit within 30 days, advise them to do so, and then use electronic referrals to connect them to state-run tobacco quit lines. An extended baseline period – October 2012 to March 2016 – was compared to a 6-month intervention period from April to October 2016.

Across 54,090 pre- and postimplementation rheumatology clinic visits, 4,601 were with current smokers. Demographics were similar across both periods: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, about two-thirds were female, and 85% were White.

Clinicians’ assessment of tobacco use before and after implementation of the program stayed steady at 96% of patient visits, but the percentage of tobacco users’ visits that included checking for readiness to quit within the next 30 days rose from 3% (135 of 4,078) to 80% (421 of 523).

Before the implementation of the program, 0.6% of eligible visits with current smokers included a quit-line referral offer. After implementation, 93 (18%) of the 523 smokers who visited – 122 of whom said they were ready to quit – were offered referrals, a 26-fold increase. Of the 93 offered referrals, 66 (71%) accepted and 16 set a quit date or reported having quit; 11 accepted counseling services and nicotine replacement.

Although clinic staff reported encountering several obstacles, such as the need to craft nonthreatening language for challenging patients, they also contributed their own talking points that were included in the EHR tools and desktop brochures. On average, the protocol took less than 90 seconds to perform.

Rheumatologists can make headway on patients quitting smoking

“While smoking cessation programs require time and resources to implement, this study suggests a role for evidence-based protocols within rheumatology centers,” Medha Barbhaiya, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “Given that current smokers are at an increased risk of developing more severe rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and patients often visit their rheumatologist multiple times yearly, rheumatologists may be well-positioned to address smoking cessation with patients.”

In regard to next steps, she noted that “while future large studies in diverse cohorts are needed to confirm these findings, implementing a formal smoking cessation protocol within rheumatology centers may provide a unique opportunity for rheumatologists to directly help patients modify their disease risk, leading to improved health outcomes.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was a prepost design and not a randomized trial. They also recognized that many tobacco users require 8-10 attempts before permanently quitting, likely lessening the lasting impact of the short-term study. They did cite expert analysis, however, that says “connecting patients to evidence-based resources makes them more likely to permanently quit.”

The study was supported in part by Pfizer’s office of Independent Grants for Learning and Change and by a grant collaboration from the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Wisconsin Partnership Program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

A new protocol designed to help patients in rheumatology clinics quit smoking proved both efficient and effective in referring willing participants to free tobacco quit lines.

seanika/ThinkStock

“Rheumatology visits provide a unique opportunity to address smoking as a chronic modifiable risk factor in populations at high risk for cardiovascular disease, pulmonary disease, and rheumatic disease progression,” wrote Christie M. Bartels, MD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and colleagues. The study was published in Arthritis Care & Research.

To assess the effectiveness of implementing a smoking cessation protocol for patients with rheumatic diseases, the researchers launched a quasi-experimental cohort study in which their Quit Connect protocol was tested at three rheumatology clinics. Adapting the Ask, Advise, Connect primary care protocol to a new setting, nurses and medical assistants were trained to use electronic health record (EHR) prompts that would check if patients who smoked were ready to quit within 30 days, advise them to do so, and then use electronic referrals to connect them to state-run tobacco quit lines. An extended baseline period – October 2012 to March 2016 – was compared to a 6-month intervention period from April to October 2016.

Across 54,090 pre- and postimplementation rheumatology clinic visits, 4,601 were with current smokers. Demographics were similar across both periods: The mean age of the patients was 51 years, about two-thirds were female, and 85% were White.

Clinicians’ assessment of tobacco use before and after implementation of the program stayed steady at 96% of patient visits, but the percentage of tobacco users’ visits that included checking for readiness to quit within the next 30 days rose from 3% (135 of 4,078) to 80% (421 of 523).

Before the implementation of the program, 0.6% of eligible visits with current smokers included a quit-line referral offer. After implementation, 93 (18%) of the 523 smokers who visited – 122 of whom said they were ready to quit – were offered referrals, a 26-fold increase. Of the 93 offered referrals, 66 (71%) accepted and 16 set a quit date or reported having quit; 11 accepted counseling services and nicotine replacement.

Although clinic staff reported encountering several obstacles, such as the need to craft nonthreatening language for challenging patients, they also contributed their own talking points that were included in the EHR tools and desktop brochures. On average, the protocol took less than 90 seconds to perform.

Rheumatologists can make headway on patients quitting smoking

“While smoking cessation programs require time and resources to implement, this study suggests a role for evidence-based protocols within rheumatology centers,” Medha Barbhaiya, MD, a rheumatologist at the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York, said in an interview. “Given that current smokers are at an increased risk of developing more severe rheumatic disease and cardiovascular disease, and patients often visit their rheumatologist multiple times yearly, rheumatologists may be well-positioned to address smoking cessation with patients.”

In regard to next steps, she noted that “while future large studies in diverse cohorts are needed to confirm these findings, implementing a formal smoking cessation protocol within rheumatology centers may provide a unique opportunity for rheumatologists to directly help patients modify their disease risk, leading to improved health outcomes.”

The authors acknowledged their study’s limitations, including the fact that it was a prepost design and not a randomized trial. They also recognized that many tobacco users require 8-10 attempts before permanently quitting, likely lessening the lasting impact of the short-term study. They did cite expert analysis, however, that says “connecting patients to evidence-based resources makes them more likely to permanently quit.”

The study was supported in part by Pfizer’s office of Independent Grants for Learning and Change and by a grant collaboration from the University of Wisconsin Clinical and Translational Science Award and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Wisconsin Partnership Program, through the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.

Febuxostat (Uloric) was not associated with increased cardiovascular risk in patients with gout when compared to those who used allopurinol, in an analysis of new users of the drugs in Medicare fee-for-service claims data from the period of 2008-2016.

The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, update and echo the results from a similar previous study by the same Brigham and Women’s Hospital research group that covered 2008-2013 Medicare claims data. That original claims data study from 2018 sought to confirm the findings of the postmarketing surveillance CARES (Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Patients With Gout and Cardiovascular Morbidities) trial that led to a boxed warning for increased risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality vs. allopurinol. The trial, however, did not show a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) overall with febuxostat.

The recency of the new data with more febuxostat-exposed patients overall provides greater reassurance on the safety of the drug, corresponding author Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “We also were able to get data on cause of death, which we did not have before when we conducted our first paper.”

Dr. Kim said she was not surprised by any of the findings, which were consistent with the results of her earlier work. “Our result on CV death also was consistent and reassuring,” she noted.

The newest Medicare claims study also corroborates results from FAST (Febuxostat Versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial), a separate postmarketing surveillance study that was ordered by the European Medicines Agency after febuxostat’s approval in 2009. It showed that the two drugs were noninferior to each other for the risk of all-cause mortality or a composite cardiovascular outcome (hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death).

“While CARES showed higher CV death and all-cause death rates in febuxostat compared to allopurinol, FAST did not,” Dr. Kim noted. “Our study of more than 111,000 older gout patients treated with either febuxostat or allopurinol in real-world settings also did not find a difference in the risk of MACE, CV mortality, or all-cause mortality,” she added. “Taking these data all together, I think we can be more certain about the CV safety of febuxostat when its use is clinically indicated or needed,” she said.

Study details

Dr. Kim, first author Ajinkya Pawar, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s, and colleagues identified 467,461 people with gout aged 65 years and older who had been enrolled in Medicare for at least a year. They then used propensity-score matching to compare 27,881 first-time users of febuxostat with 83,643 first-time users of allopurinol on the primary outcome of the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality.

In the updated study, the mean follow‐up periods for febuxostat and allopurinol were 284 days and 339 days, respectively. Overall, febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol with regard to MACE (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.05), and the results were consistent among patients with baseline CVD (HR, 0.94). In addition, rates of secondary outcomes of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality were not significantly different between febuxostat and allopurinol patients, except for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98).

The study findings were limited mainly by the potential bias caused by nonadherence to medications, and potential for residual confounding and misclassification bias, the researchers noted.

However, the study was strengthened by its incident new-user design that allowed only patients with no use of either medication for a year before the first dispensing and its active comparator design, and the data are generalizable to the greater population of older gout patients, they said.

Consequently, the data from this large, real-world study support the safety of febuxostat with regard to cardiovascular risk in gout patients, including those with baseline cardiovascular disease, they concluded.

The study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Roche, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Bristol‐Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Another author reported serving as the principal investigator with research grants from Vertex, Bayer, and Novartis to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated projects.

Febuxostat (Uloric) was not associated with increased cardiovascular risk in patients with gout when compared to those who used allopurinol, in an analysis of new users of the drugs in Medicare fee-for-service claims data from the period of 2008-2016.

The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, update and echo the results from a similar previous study by the same Brigham and Women’s Hospital research group that covered 2008-2013 Medicare claims data. That original claims data study from 2018 sought to confirm the findings of the postmarketing surveillance CARES (Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Patients With Gout and Cardiovascular Morbidities) trial that led to a boxed warning for increased risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality vs. allopurinol. The trial, however, did not show a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) overall with febuxostat.

The recency of the new data with more febuxostat-exposed patients overall provides greater reassurance on the safety of the drug, corresponding author Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “We also were able to get data on cause of death, which we did not have before when we conducted our first paper.”

Dr. Kim said she was not surprised by any of the findings, which were consistent with the results of her earlier work. “Our result on CV death also was consistent and reassuring,” she noted.

The newest Medicare claims study also corroborates results from FAST (Febuxostat Versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial), a separate postmarketing surveillance study that was ordered by the European Medicines Agency after febuxostat’s approval in 2009. It showed that the two drugs were noninferior to each other for the risk of all-cause mortality or a composite cardiovascular outcome (hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death).

“While CARES showed higher CV death and all-cause death rates in febuxostat compared to allopurinol, FAST did not,” Dr. Kim noted. “Our study of more than 111,000 older gout patients treated with either febuxostat or allopurinol in real-world settings also did not find a difference in the risk of MACE, CV mortality, or all-cause mortality,” she added. “Taking these data all together, I think we can be more certain about the CV safety of febuxostat when its use is clinically indicated or needed,” she said.

Study details

Dr. Kim, first author Ajinkya Pawar, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s, and colleagues identified 467,461 people with gout aged 65 years and older who had been enrolled in Medicare for at least a year. They then used propensity-score matching to compare 27,881 first-time users of febuxostat with 83,643 first-time users of allopurinol on the primary outcome of the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality.

In the updated study, the mean follow‐up periods for febuxostat and allopurinol were 284 days and 339 days, respectively. Overall, febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol with regard to MACE (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.05), and the results were consistent among patients with baseline CVD (HR, 0.94). In addition, rates of secondary outcomes of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality were not significantly different between febuxostat and allopurinol patients, except for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98).

The study findings were limited mainly by the potential bias caused by nonadherence to medications, and potential for residual confounding and misclassification bias, the researchers noted.

However, the study was strengthened by its incident new-user design that allowed only patients with no use of either medication for a year before the first dispensing and its active comparator design, and the data are generalizable to the greater population of older gout patients, they said.

Consequently, the data from this large, real-world study support the safety of febuxostat with regard to cardiovascular risk in gout patients, including those with baseline cardiovascular disease, they concluded.

The study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Roche, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Bristol‐Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Another author reported serving as the principal investigator with research grants from Vertex, Bayer, and Novartis to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated projects.

Febuxostat (Uloric) was not associated with increased cardiovascular risk in patients with gout when compared to those who used allopurinol, in an analysis of new users of the drugs in Medicare fee-for-service claims data from the period of 2008-2016.

The findings, published March 25 in the Journal of the American Heart Association, update and echo the results from a similar previous study by the same Brigham and Women’s Hospital research group that covered 2008-2013 Medicare claims data. That original claims data study from 2018 sought to confirm the findings of the postmarketing surveillance CARES (Cardiovascular Safety of Febuxostat and Allopurinol in Patients With Gout and Cardiovascular Morbidities) trial that led to a boxed warning for increased risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality vs. allopurinol. The trial, however, did not show a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) overall with febuxostat.

The recency of the new data with more febuxostat-exposed patients overall provides greater reassurance on the safety of the drug, corresponding author Seoyoung C. Kim, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview. “We also were able to get data on cause of death, which we did not have before when we conducted our first paper.”

Dr. Kim said she was not surprised by any of the findings, which were consistent with the results of her earlier work. “Our result on CV death also was consistent and reassuring,” she noted.

The newest Medicare claims study also corroborates results from FAST (Febuxostat Versus Allopurinol Streamlined Trial), a separate postmarketing surveillance study that was ordered by the European Medicines Agency after febuxostat’s approval in 2009. It showed that the two drugs were noninferior to each other for the risk of all-cause mortality or a composite cardiovascular outcome (hospitalization for nonfatal myocardial infarction, biomarker-positive acute coronary syndrome, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death).

“While CARES showed higher CV death and all-cause death rates in febuxostat compared to allopurinol, FAST did not,” Dr. Kim noted. “Our study of more than 111,000 older gout patients treated with either febuxostat or allopurinol in real-world settings also did not find a difference in the risk of MACE, CV mortality, or all-cause mortality,” she added. “Taking these data all together, I think we can be more certain about the CV safety of febuxostat when its use is clinically indicated or needed,” she said.

Study details

Dr. Kim, first author Ajinkya Pawar, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s, and colleagues identified 467,461 people with gout aged 65 years and older who had been enrolled in Medicare for at least a year. They then used propensity-score matching to compare 27,881 first-time users of febuxostat with 83,643 first-time users of allopurinol on the primary outcome of the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular mortality.

In the updated study, the mean follow‐up periods for febuxostat and allopurinol were 284 days and 339 days, respectively. Overall, febuxostat was noninferior to allopurinol with regard to MACE (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-1.05), and the results were consistent among patients with baseline CVD (HR, 0.94). In addition, rates of secondary outcomes of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality were not significantly different between febuxostat and allopurinol patients, except for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98).

The study findings were limited mainly by the potential bias caused by nonadherence to medications, and potential for residual confounding and misclassification bias, the researchers noted.

However, the study was strengthened by its incident new-user design that allowed only patients with no use of either medication for a year before the first dispensing and its active comparator design, and the data are generalizable to the greater population of older gout patients, they said.

Consequently, the data from this large, real-world study support the safety of febuxostat with regard to cardiovascular risk in gout patients, including those with baseline cardiovascular disease, they concluded.

The study was supported by the division of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants to Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Roche, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Bristol‐Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Another author reported serving as the principal investigator with research grants from Vertex, Bayer, and Novartis to Brigham and Women’s Hospital for unrelated projects.

Two reports support the safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and represent the first available data on such patients.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

In an observational cohort study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed data from 325 adults with RMDs who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine during the period of Dec. 17, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021. Of these, 51% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 49% received the Moderna vaccine.

The patients, who were invited to participate on social media, were aged 34-54 years, 96% were women, and 89% were White. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common RMD condition (38%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (28%) and overlap connective tissue disease (19%). The patients were using a range of immunomodulatory treatment regimens, including nonbiologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in 44%, biologics in 19%, and combination therapy in 37%.

Overall, 89% of patients reported localized symptoms of pain, swelling, and erythema, and 69% reported systemic symptoms. Fatigue was the most common systemic symptom, and 7.4% reported severe fatigue.

None of the patients experienced allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, and 3% reported new infections that required treatment.

“These early, reassuring results may ameliorate concern among patients and provide guidance for rheumatology providers in critical discussions regarding vaccine hesitancy or refusal,” they concluded.

Antibody responses

In another study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases by the same group of researchers, antibody responses against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were seen in 74% of 123 adults with an RMD at 18-26 days after receiving a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (52% Pfizer vaccine and 48% Moderna) between Jan. 8, 2021, and Feb. 12, 2021.

The most common diagnoses in these patients were inflammatory arthritis (28%), systemic lupus erythematosus (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome (13%). A total of 28% of participants reported taking no immunomodulatory agents, 19% reported nonbiologic DMARDs, 14% reported biologic DMARDs, and 19% reported combination therapy.

Although no differences appeared based on disease groups or overall categories of immunomodulatory therapies, patients whose treatment included mycophenolate or rituximab were significantly less likely to develop antibody responses than were patients not taking these medications (P = .001 and P = .04, respectively). Although rituximab and methotrexate have been associated with reduced responses to vaccines such as the flu vaccine, methotrexate was not associated with reduced vaccine response in this study. A total of 94% of patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor had detectable antibodies.

The studies’ findings were limited by several factors including a lack of longer-term safety data; the small, nonrandomized sample of mainly white women; limited information on immunomodulatory drug dosage and timing; lack of serial antibody measurements; use of an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect antibody response after natural infection; and the inclusion of data only on the first dose of a two-dose vaccine series, the researchers noted. However, the data should provide additional reassurance to RMD patients and their health care teams about vaccination against COVID-19, they said.

Both studies were supported by the Ben-Dov family. In addition, the studies were supported by grants to various study authors from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Transplantation and Immunology Research Network of the American Society of Transplantation. One author disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallinckrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two reports support the safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and represent the first available data on such patients.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

In an observational cohort study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed data from 325 adults with RMDs who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine during the period of Dec. 17, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021. Of these, 51% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 49% received the Moderna vaccine.

The patients, who were invited to participate on social media, were aged 34-54 years, 96% were women, and 89% were White. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common RMD condition (38%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (28%) and overlap connective tissue disease (19%). The patients were using a range of immunomodulatory treatment regimens, including nonbiologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in 44%, biologics in 19%, and combination therapy in 37%.

Overall, 89% of patients reported localized symptoms of pain, swelling, and erythema, and 69% reported systemic symptoms. Fatigue was the most common systemic symptom, and 7.4% reported severe fatigue.

None of the patients experienced allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, and 3% reported new infections that required treatment.

“These early, reassuring results may ameliorate concern among patients and provide guidance for rheumatology providers in critical discussions regarding vaccine hesitancy or refusal,” they concluded.

Antibody responses

In another study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases by the same group of researchers, antibody responses against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were seen in 74% of 123 adults with an RMD at 18-26 days after receiving a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (52% Pfizer vaccine and 48% Moderna) between Jan. 8, 2021, and Feb. 12, 2021.

The most common diagnoses in these patients were inflammatory arthritis (28%), systemic lupus erythematosus (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome (13%). A total of 28% of participants reported taking no immunomodulatory agents, 19% reported nonbiologic DMARDs, 14% reported biologic DMARDs, and 19% reported combination therapy.

Although no differences appeared based on disease groups or overall categories of immunomodulatory therapies, patients whose treatment included mycophenolate or rituximab were significantly less likely to develop antibody responses than were patients not taking these medications (P = .001 and P = .04, respectively). Although rituximab and methotrexate have been associated with reduced responses to vaccines such as the flu vaccine, methotrexate was not associated with reduced vaccine response in this study. A total of 94% of patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor had detectable antibodies.

The studies’ findings were limited by several factors including a lack of longer-term safety data; the small, nonrandomized sample of mainly white women; limited information on immunomodulatory drug dosage and timing; lack of serial antibody measurements; use of an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect antibody response after natural infection; and the inclusion of data only on the first dose of a two-dose vaccine series, the researchers noted. However, the data should provide additional reassurance to RMD patients and their health care teams about vaccination against COVID-19, they said.

Both studies were supported by the Ben-Dov family. In addition, the studies were supported by grants to various study authors from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Transplantation and Immunology Research Network of the American Society of Transplantation. One author disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallinckrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Two reports support the safety and immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and represent the first available data on such patients.

peterschreiber_media/iStock/Getty Images

In an observational cohort study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, Caoilfhionn M. Connolly, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues reviewed data from 325 adults with RMDs who received the first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine during the period of Dec. 17, 2020, to Feb. 11, 2021. Of these, 51% received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine and 49% received the Moderna vaccine.

The patients, who were invited to participate on social media, were aged 34-54 years, 96% were women, and 89% were White. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common RMD condition (38%), followed by systemic lupus erythematosus (28%) and overlap connective tissue disease (19%). The patients were using a range of immunomodulatory treatment regimens, including nonbiologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in 44%, biologics in 19%, and combination therapy in 37%.

Overall, 89% of patients reported localized symptoms of pain, swelling, and erythema, and 69% reported systemic symptoms. Fatigue was the most common systemic symptom, and 7.4% reported severe fatigue.

None of the patients experienced allergic reactions requiring epinephrine, and 3% reported new infections that required treatment.

“These early, reassuring results may ameliorate concern among patients and provide guidance for rheumatology providers in critical discussions regarding vaccine hesitancy or refusal,” they concluded.

Antibody responses

In another study published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases by the same group of researchers, antibody responses against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were seen in 74% of 123 adults with an RMD at 18-26 days after receiving a first dose of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (52% Pfizer vaccine and 48% Moderna) between Jan. 8, 2021, and Feb. 12, 2021.

The most common diagnoses in these patients were inflammatory arthritis (28%), systemic lupus erythematosus (20%), and Sjögren’s syndrome (13%). A total of 28% of participants reported taking no immunomodulatory agents, 19% reported nonbiologic DMARDs, 14% reported biologic DMARDs, and 19% reported combination therapy.

Although no differences appeared based on disease groups or overall categories of immunomodulatory therapies, patients whose treatment included mycophenolate or rituximab were significantly less likely to develop antibody responses than were patients not taking these medications (P = .001 and P = .04, respectively). Although rituximab and methotrexate have been associated with reduced responses to vaccines such as the flu vaccine, methotrexate was not associated with reduced vaccine response in this study. A total of 94% of patients taking a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor had detectable antibodies.

The studies’ findings were limited by several factors including a lack of longer-term safety data; the small, nonrandomized sample of mainly white women; limited information on immunomodulatory drug dosage and timing; lack of serial antibody measurements; use of an enzyme immunoassay designed to detect antibody response after natural infection; and the inclusion of data only on the first dose of a two-dose vaccine series, the researchers noted. However, the data should provide additional reassurance to RMD patients and their health care teams about vaccination against COVID-19, they said.

Both studies were supported by the Ben-Dov family. In addition, the studies were supported by grants to various study authors from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, and the Transplantation and Immunology Research Network of the American Society of Transplantation. One author disclosed financial relationships with Sanofi, Novartis, CSL Behring, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Veloxis, Mallinckrodt, and Thermo Fisher Scientific. The other researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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

On the advice of its independent data monitoring committee (DMC), the RECOVERY trial has stopped recruitment to the colchicine arm for lack of efficacy in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“The DMC saw no convincing evidence that further recruitment would provide conclusive proof of worthwhile mortality benefit either overall or in any prespecified subgroup,” the British investigators announced on March 5.

“The RECOVERY trial has already identified two anti-inflammatory drugs – dexamethasone and tocilizumab – that improve the chances of survival for patients with severe COVID-19. So, it is disappointing that colchicine, which is widely used to treat gout and other inflammatory conditions, has no effect in these patients,” cochief investigator Martin Landray, MBChB, PhD, said in a statement.

“We do large, randomized trials to establish whether a drug that seems promising in theory has real benefits for patients in practice. Unfortunately, colchicine is not one of those,” said Dr. Landry, University of Oxford (England).

The RECOVERY trial is evaluating a range of potential treatments for COVID-19 at 180 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Indonesia, and Nepal, and was designed with the expectation that drugs would be added or dropped as the evidence changes. Since November 2020, the trial has included an arm comparing colchicine with usual care alone.

As part of a routine meeting March 4, the DMC reviewed data from a preliminary analysis based on 2,178 deaths among 11,162 patients, 94% of whom were being treated with a corticosteroid such as dexamethasone.

The results showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality in patients randomized to colchicine versus usual care alone (20% vs. 19%; risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.11; P = .63).

Follow-up is ongoing and final results will be published as soon as possible, the investigators said. Thus far, there has been no convincing evidence of an effect of colchicine on clinical outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Recruitment will continue to all other treatment arms – aspirin, baricitinib, Regeneron’s antibody cocktail, and, in select hospitals, dimethyl fumarate – the investigators said.

Cochief investigator Peter Hornby, MD, PhD, also from the University of Oxford, noted that this has been the largest trial ever of colchicine. “Whilst we are disappointed that the overall result is negative, it is still important information for the future care of patients in the U.K. and worldwide.”

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