Osteoarthritis

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

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thinkstock/Zinkevych

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No conflicts of interest were declared.

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

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

©pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who participated in a self-directed, web-based exercise program with automated text-message reminders and encouragement for 6 months showed significant improvement in overall knee pain and physical function, compared with patients who received web-based OA information alone, in a randomized trial of 180 individuals.

copyright Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

The results support a role for web-based exercise intervention to improve knee OA patients’ access to recommended exercises and to assist clinicians in managing patients on a population level, according to the first author of the study, Rachel Kate Nelligan, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our free-to-access, unsupervised program could serve as an entry-level intervention, with participants who do not experience clinical benefits progressing to subsequent steps for more intensive, personalized management,” they said. “Such an approach has the potential to better distribute limited health care resources and reduce demand for contact with health professionals, thus improving access for those requiring it.”

Only two other randomized, clinical trials have evaluated web-based interventions for OA without contact from health professionals, according to the authors. While one of those did not find any differences in outcomes at 4 months when comparing a self-directed progressive lower-limb strength, flexibility, and walking program to being on a wait list, a separate trial evaluating a 9-module physical activity program in adults with knee and/or hip OA vs. a wait-list control group found evidence for efficacy for physical function at 3 months, but not quality of life or function in sport and recreation.

For the current study, researchers recruited 206 adults in Australia with clinically diagnosed knee OA via online advertisements and a volunteer database. Participants were aged 45 years or older, and reported activity-related knee pain and morning knee stiffness lasting at least 30 minutes; knee pain on most days for at least 3 months; and average knee pain severity of 4 or higher on an 11-point numeric rating scale in the previous week. In addition, participants were required to own a cell phone with text messaging, have Internet access, and be able to complete assessments.

Patients randomized to the intervention of the My Knee Exercise website received web-based information about OA and the value of exercise, with a 24-week self-directed program of strengthening exercises plus automated text messages to motivate behavior changes and encourage adherence to the exercise program. Controls received access to web-based information about OA and the value of exercise, but without the prescribed exercises or texts. Patients in the intervention group received an average of 60 text messages during the study period, and the average reply rate was 73%.

The primary study outcomes were changes in overall knee pain based on a numeric 0-10 rating scale and changes in physical function based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index 0-68 scale. A total of 180 participants completed both primary outcome measures at 24 weeks. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and 61% were women.

After 24 weeks, the intervention group averaged significantly greater improvement of 1.6 units for overall knee pain (P < .001) and 5.2 units for physical function (P = .002), compared with controls.

In addition, the proportion of patients who exceeded the minimal clinically important difference in pain improvement of at least 1.8 units was significantly higher in the intervention group, compared with controls (72.1% vs. 42.0%; P < .001). Similarly, more intervention-group patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference in WOMAC physical function of improvement of at least 6 units (68.0% vs. 40.8%; P < .001).

Secondary outcomes included additional measures of knee pain, knee function for sport and recreation, quality of life, physical activity, self-efficacy, overall improvement, and treatment satisfaction. Between-group differences favored the intervention on most measures, including Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales for pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life; health-related quality of life; Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES) pain subscale, individual change since baseline, and overall patient satisfaction. “Changes in PASE [Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly], ASES function, and SEE [Self Efficacy Exercise] were similar in both groups,” the researchers said.

No serious adverse events were reported by any study participants. Eight patients in the intervention group reported knee pain during the study, compared with one of the controls, and use of pain medications was similar between the groups, except that more control participants used massage, heat or cold, and topical anti-inflammatories.

The results suggest that a majority of participants in the intervention group improved pain and function without the need for in-person contact with a health professional, the researchers noted. However, more intensive management may be needed to support the 30% who did not benefit from the unsupervised approach, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential bias of a volunteer study population, possible lack of generalizability to individuals with lower levels of education or self-efficacy, and lack of direct comparison between web-based intervention and clinician-delivered intervention, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, whose fellowships supported two of the authors. Lead author Ms. Nelligan disclosed a PhD scholarship from the Australian Government Research Training Program and personal fees from the University of Melbourne unrelated to the current study.

Adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who participated in a self-directed, web-based exercise program with automated text-message reminders and encouragement for 6 months showed significant improvement in overall knee pain and physical function, compared with patients who received web-based OA information alone, in a randomized trial of 180 individuals.

copyright Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

The results support a role for web-based exercise intervention to improve knee OA patients’ access to recommended exercises and to assist clinicians in managing patients on a population level, according to the first author of the study, Rachel Kate Nelligan, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our free-to-access, unsupervised program could serve as an entry-level intervention, with participants who do not experience clinical benefits progressing to subsequent steps for more intensive, personalized management,” they said. “Such an approach has the potential to better distribute limited health care resources and reduce demand for contact with health professionals, thus improving access for those requiring it.”

Only two other randomized, clinical trials have evaluated web-based interventions for OA without contact from health professionals, according to the authors. While one of those did not find any differences in outcomes at 4 months when comparing a self-directed progressive lower-limb strength, flexibility, and walking program to being on a wait list, a separate trial evaluating a 9-module physical activity program in adults with knee and/or hip OA vs. a wait-list control group found evidence for efficacy for physical function at 3 months, but not quality of life or function in sport and recreation.

For the current study, researchers recruited 206 adults in Australia with clinically diagnosed knee OA via online advertisements and a volunteer database. Participants were aged 45 years or older, and reported activity-related knee pain and morning knee stiffness lasting at least 30 minutes; knee pain on most days for at least 3 months; and average knee pain severity of 4 or higher on an 11-point numeric rating scale in the previous week. In addition, participants were required to own a cell phone with text messaging, have Internet access, and be able to complete assessments.

Patients randomized to the intervention of the My Knee Exercise website received web-based information about OA and the value of exercise, with a 24-week self-directed program of strengthening exercises plus automated text messages to motivate behavior changes and encourage adherence to the exercise program. Controls received access to web-based information about OA and the value of exercise, but without the prescribed exercises or texts. Patients in the intervention group received an average of 60 text messages during the study period, and the average reply rate was 73%.

The primary study outcomes were changes in overall knee pain based on a numeric 0-10 rating scale and changes in physical function based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index 0-68 scale. A total of 180 participants completed both primary outcome measures at 24 weeks. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and 61% were women.

After 24 weeks, the intervention group averaged significantly greater improvement of 1.6 units for overall knee pain (P < .001) and 5.2 units for physical function (P = .002), compared with controls.

In addition, the proportion of patients who exceeded the minimal clinically important difference in pain improvement of at least 1.8 units was significantly higher in the intervention group, compared with controls (72.1% vs. 42.0%; P < .001). Similarly, more intervention-group patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference in WOMAC physical function of improvement of at least 6 units (68.0% vs. 40.8%; P < .001).

Secondary outcomes included additional measures of knee pain, knee function for sport and recreation, quality of life, physical activity, self-efficacy, overall improvement, and treatment satisfaction. Between-group differences favored the intervention on most measures, including Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales for pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life; health-related quality of life; Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES) pain subscale, individual change since baseline, and overall patient satisfaction. “Changes in PASE [Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly], ASES function, and SEE [Self Efficacy Exercise] were similar in both groups,” the researchers said.

No serious adverse events were reported by any study participants. Eight patients in the intervention group reported knee pain during the study, compared with one of the controls, and use of pain medications was similar between the groups, except that more control participants used massage, heat or cold, and topical anti-inflammatories.

The results suggest that a majority of participants in the intervention group improved pain and function without the need for in-person contact with a health professional, the researchers noted. However, more intensive management may be needed to support the 30% who did not benefit from the unsupervised approach, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential bias of a volunteer study population, possible lack of generalizability to individuals with lower levels of education or self-efficacy, and lack of direct comparison between web-based intervention and clinician-delivered intervention, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, whose fellowships supported two of the authors. Lead author Ms. Nelligan disclosed a PhD scholarship from the Australian Government Research Training Program and personal fees from the University of Melbourne unrelated to the current study.

Adults with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who participated in a self-directed, web-based exercise program with automated text-message reminders and encouragement for 6 months showed significant improvement in overall knee pain and physical function, compared with patients who received web-based OA information alone, in a randomized trial of 180 individuals.

copyright Nandyphotos/Thinkstock

The results support a role for web-based exercise intervention to improve knee OA patients’ access to recommended exercises and to assist clinicians in managing patients on a population level, according to the first author of the study, Rachel Kate Nelligan, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our free-to-access, unsupervised program could serve as an entry-level intervention, with participants who do not experience clinical benefits progressing to subsequent steps for more intensive, personalized management,” they said. “Such an approach has the potential to better distribute limited health care resources and reduce demand for contact with health professionals, thus improving access for those requiring it.”

Only two other randomized, clinical trials have evaluated web-based interventions for OA without contact from health professionals, according to the authors. While one of those did not find any differences in outcomes at 4 months when comparing a self-directed progressive lower-limb strength, flexibility, and walking program to being on a wait list, a separate trial evaluating a 9-module physical activity program in adults with knee and/or hip OA vs. a wait-list control group found evidence for efficacy for physical function at 3 months, but not quality of life or function in sport and recreation.

For the current study, researchers recruited 206 adults in Australia with clinically diagnosed knee OA via online advertisements and a volunteer database. Participants were aged 45 years or older, and reported activity-related knee pain and morning knee stiffness lasting at least 30 minutes; knee pain on most days for at least 3 months; and average knee pain severity of 4 or higher on an 11-point numeric rating scale in the previous week. In addition, participants were required to own a cell phone with text messaging, have Internet access, and be able to complete assessments.

Patients randomized to the intervention of the My Knee Exercise website received web-based information about OA and the value of exercise, with a 24-week self-directed program of strengthening exercises plus automated text messages to motivate behavior changes and encourage adherence to the exercise program. Controls received access to web-based information about OA and the value of exercise, but without the prescribed exercises or texts. Patients in the intervention group received an average of 60 text messages during the study period, and the average reply rate was 73%.

The primary study outcomes were changes in overall knee pain based on a numeric 0-10 rating scale and changes in physical function based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index 0-68 scale. A total of 180 participants completed both primary outcome measures at 24 weeks. The average age of the participants was 60 years, and 61% were women.

After 24 weeks, the intervention group averaged significantly greater improvement of 1.6 units for overall knee pain (P < .001) and 5.2 units for physical function (P = .002), compared with controls.

In addition, the proportion of patients who exceeded the minimal clinically important difference in pain improvement of at least 1.8 units was significantly higher in the intervention group, compared with controls (72.1% vs. 42.0%; P < .001). Similarly, more intervention-group patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference in WOMAC physical function of improvement of at least 6 units (68.0% vs. 40.8%; P < .001).

Secondary outcomes included additional measures of knee pain, knee function for sport and recreation, quality of life, physical activity, self-efficacy, overall improvement, and treatment satisfaction. Between-group differences favored the intervention on most measures, including Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales for pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life; health-related quality of life; Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale (ASES) pain subscale, individual change since baseline, and overall patient satisfaction. “Changes in PASE [Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly], ASES function, and SEE [Self Efficacy Exercise] were similar in both groups,” the researchers said.

No serious adverse events were reported by any study participants. Eight patients in the intervention group reported knee pain during the study, compared with one of the controls, and use of pain medications was similar between the groups, except that more control participants used massage, heat or cold, and topical anti-inflammatories.

The results suggest that a majority of participants in the intervention group improved pain and function without the need for in-person contact with a health professional, the researchers noted. However, more intensive management may be needed to support the 30% who did not benefit from the unsupervised approach, they said.

The study findings were limited by several factors, including the potential bias of a volunteer study population, possible lack of generalizability to individuals with lower levels of education or self-efficacy, and lack of direct comparison between web-based intervention and clinician-delivered intervention, the researchers noted.

The study was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, whose fellowships supported two of the authors. Lead author Ms. Nelligan disclosed a PhD scholarship from the Australian Government Research Training Program and personal fees from the University of Melbourne unrelated to the current study.

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.

The Food and Drug Administration has warned two manufacturers about illegal marketing of drugs containing cannabidiol (CBD) for over-the-counter use without an approved new drug application, for using substandard manufacturing processes, and for failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices. These warnings add to 51 previous warning letters issued by the FDA since 2015 to other manufacturers of products containing CBD who were violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

In a news release, the agency explained that its two most recent letters, sent to Honest Globe Inc. on March 15 and BioLyte Laboratories LLC on March 18, were issued because CBD has “known pharmacologic effects on humans, with demonstrated risks, it cannot be legally marketed as an inactive ingredient in OTC drug products that are not reviewed and approved by the FDA.” They also describe the companies’ failures to comply with current good manufacturing practices.

“The FDA continues to alert the public to potential safety and efficacy concerns with unapproved CBD products sold online and in stores across the country,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy P. Abernethy, MD, PhD, said in the release. “It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient [Epidiolex]. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products – prioritizing those that pose a risk to public health.”

The specific products from Santa Ana, Calif.–based Honest Globe that the FDA called unapproved new drugs and misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act included Elixicure Original Pain Relief and Elixicure Lavender Pain Relief, both of which were described as containing CBD. Products from Grand Rapids, Mich.–based BioLyte Laboratories LLC that the FDA similarly cited for violations included Silver Gel, Silver Gel with Aloe, Silver Liquid Supplement, Therapeutic Pain Gel, Pain Relief Cream, and Magnesium Oil Spray.

The agency has asked the two companies to respond to its letters within 15 working days, “stating how they will address these violations or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they believe these products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.”

jevans@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has warned two manufacturers about illegal marketing of drugs containing cannabidiol (CBD) for over-the-counter use without an approved new drug application, for using substandard manufacturing processes, and for failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices. These warnings add to 51 previous warning letters issued by the FDA since 2015 to other manufacturers of products containing CBD who were violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

In a news release, the agency explained that its two most recent letters, sent to Honest Globe Inc. on March 15 and BioLyte Laboratories LLC on March 18, were issued because CBD has “known pharmacologic effects on humans, with demonstrated risks, it cannot be legally marketed as an inactive ingredient in OTC drug products that are not reviewed and approved by the FDA.” They also describe the companies’ failures to comply with current good manufacturing practices.

“The FDA continues to alert the public to potential safety and efficacy concerns with unapproved CBD products sold online and in stores across the country,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy P. Abernethy, MD, PhD, said in the release. “It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient [Epidiolex]. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products – prioritizing those that pose a risk to public health.”

The specific products from Santa Ana, Calif.–based Honest Globe that the FDA called unapproved new drugs and misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act included Elixicure Original Pain Relief and Elixicure Lavender Pain Relief, both of which were described as containing CBD. Products from Grand Rapids, Mich.–based BioLyte Laboratories LLC that the FDA similarly cited for violations included Silver Gel, Silver Gel with Aloe, Silver Liquid Supplement, Therapeutic Pain Gel, Pain Relief Cream, and Magnesium Oil Spray.

The agency has asked the two companies to respond to its letters within 15 working days, “stating how they will address these violations or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they believe these products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.”

jevans@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has warned two manufacturers about illegal marketing of drugs containing cannabidiol (CBD) for over-the-counter use without an approved new drug application, for using substandard manufacturing processes, and for failure to comply with current good manufacturing practices. These warnings add to 51 previous warning letters issued by the FDA since 2015 to other manufacturers of products containing CBD who were violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

In a news release, the agency explained that its two most recent letters, sent to Honest Globe Inc. on March 15 and BioLyte Laboratories LLC on March 18, were issued because CBD has “known pharmacologic effects on humans, with demonstrated risks, it cannot be legally marketed as an inactive ingredient in OTC drug products that are not reviewed and approved by the FDA.” They also describe the companies’ failures to comply with current good manufacturing practices.

“The FDA continues to alert the public to potential safety and efficacy concerns with unapproved CBD products sold online and in stores across the country,” FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Amy P. Abernethy, MD, PhD, said in the release. “It’s important that consumers understand that the FDA has only approved one drug containing CBD as an ingredient [Epidiolex]. These other, unapproved, CBD products may have dangerous health impacts and side effects. We remain focused on exploring potential pathways for CBD products to be lawfully marketed while also educating the public about these outstanding questions of CBD’s safety. Meanwhile, we will continue to monitor and take action, as needed, against companies that unlawfully market their products – prioritizing those that pose a risk to public health.”

The specific products from Santa Ana, Calif.–based Honest Globe that the FDA called unapproved new drugs and misbranded under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act included Elixicure Original Pain Relief and Elixicure Lavender Pain Relief, both of which were described as containing CBD. Products from Grand Rapids, Mich.–based BioLyte Laboratories LLC that the FDA similarly cited for violations included Silver Gel, Silver Gel with Aloe, Silver Liquid Supplement, Therapeutic Pain Gel, Pain Relief Cream, and Magnesium Oil Spray.

The agency has asked the two companies to respond to its letters within 15 working days, “stating how they will address these violations or providing their reasoning and supporting information as to why they believe these products are not in violation of the law. Failure to adequately address the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure and/or injunction.”

jevans@mdedge.com

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

bjancin@mdedge.com

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

bjancin@mdedge.com

It’s been a banner year for treatment advances in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), with two drugs gaining approval for lupus nephritis while other promising molecules with novel mechanisms of action advanced smartly through the developmental pipeline, speakers agreed at the 2021 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“I think the most important thing in rheumatology in the last year is where we are now with lupus. With two drugs being approved for lupus nephritis, I think that’s really huge as we talk about treat-to-target,” said Alvin F. Wells, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist in Franklin, Wisc.

Martin Bergman, MD, concurred.

“Lupus has been blowing up in the past year. We have two new medications for lupus nephritis, we have two or three new mechanisms of action for therapy. I think that was one of the biggest things in rheumatology in the past year,” said Dr. Bergman, a rheumatologist at Drexel University in Philadelphia and in private practice in Ridley Park, Pa.

Together with Roy Fleischmann, MD, Dr. Wells spotlighted promising new molecules for the treatment of SLE, giant cell arteritis, vasculitis, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis.
 

SLE

The two drugs approved in recent months specifically for lupus nephritis are voclosporin (Lupkynis) and belimumab (Benlysta), which has been approved for lupus for a decade. Voclosporin, an oral calcineurin inhibitor, is a modification of cyclosporine offering significant advantages over the older drug: It’s more potent, requires no dose titration, has a better safety profile, and is metabolized more quickly.

“A safer and easier-to-use calcineurin inhibitor is going to be huge,” Dr. Wells predicted.

Up for Food and Drug Administration review in the coming year on the basis of the positive phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials is anifrolumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds to the type 1 interferon receptor subunit 1d. At 52 weeks in the pooled analysis, one or more SLE flares occurred in 33.6% of patients on anifrolumab and 42.9% of placebo-treated controls.

“This is not a blockbuster, but it’s a worthwhile addition, like belimumab,” according to Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas, Dallas.

Dr. Wells concurred, with a reservation: In a subgroup analysis of the TULIP trials, anifrolumab wasn’t significantly better than placebo in black patients, who tend to have more severe and tough-to-treat renal disease.

“Anifrolumab doesn’t look as effective as some other agents, and I’d be disinclined to give it to my black patients,” the rheumatologist said.

Dr. Fleischmann was far more enthusiastic about obinutuzumab (Gazyva), a humanized anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody already approved for the treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and follicular lymphoma.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

A humanized monoclonal antibody known for now as BIIB059 demonstrated efficacy and was well tolerated in the phase 2 LILAC trial. BIIB059 binds to blood dendritic cell antigen 2 (BDCA2), a receptor specific to plasmacytoid dendritic cells, resulting in decreased production of type 1 interferon and other inflammatory cytokines. The LILAC trial included 132 SLE patients with active arthritis and skin disease who received subcutaneous injections of BIIB059 at 450 mg or placebo every 4 weeks, with an extra dose at week 2. The primary endpoint was met, with an absolute 15-joint reduction in the total number of tender or swollen joints from baseline to week 24 in the BIIB059 group, compared to an 11.6-joint reduction with placebo. In addition, the likelihood of an SRI-4 response at week 24 was 3.49-fold greater with BIIB059 than with placebo.

Dr. Wells noted that the BIIB059 group showed continued improvement from week 12 to week 24, unlike the response pattern seen with many biologics for rheumatoid arthritis, where a plateau is reached by 8-12 weeks.

Vasculitis

The positive results for the C5a receptor inhibitor avacopan for treatment of antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis in the phase-3 ADVOCATE trial have been hailed by some rheumatologists as a major breakthrough, but Dr. Fleischmann isn’t so sure.

The trial randomized 331 patients to oral avacopan at 30 mg twice daily or oral prednisone, with all patients on either cyclophosphamide or rituximab. Avacopan was noninferior to prednisone in terms of remission at week 26, but superior to prednisone for sustained taper at week 52. The rate of serious adverse events was 45.1% with prednisone and 42.2% in the avacopan arm.

“This is a drug that’s going to be much, much more expensive than prednisone. There were people in our group who were ecstatic that this drug is going to come, but how much it’s going to be used, I don’t know,” Dr. Fleischmann said.

Dr. Wells said cost-benefit analyses will be needed in order to learn if avacopan’s anticipated high sticker price is offset by the cost of serious corticosteroid side effects such as avascular necrosis.
 

Giant cell arteritis

Mavrilimumab is a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits human granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor receptor alpha. It demonstrated impressive efficacy in a phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 70 patients with biopsy-confirmed giant cell arteritis. Participants were on corticosteroids until they went into remission and were then randomized to mavrilimumab or placebo, with the steroids stopped. By week 26, 19% of patients in the mavrilimumab arm had flared, as compared to 46.4% of controls.

“This is a game changer,” Dr. Wells declared. “I struggle with these patients because I can’t get the IL-6 drugs approved for them. I need something else.”

Dr. Fleischmann has a good idea how he’ll use mavrilimumab, if it wins approval: “I think this is clearly a drug you would use in a patient you can’t get off steroids and you’re having all the steroid toxicity. I don’t know that you’d use it right away.”

Osteoarthritis

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that tanezumab, a monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, will win FDA approval in 2021 for the treatment of osteoarthritis pain in patients with an inadequate response or intolerance to standard-of-care NSAIDs and opioids. But he cautioned his colleagues not to expect too much from the biologic, which has a long and checkered developmental history.

“It works better than placebo. It does not work better than an NSAID or an opioid. So it should be reasonable in patients who cannot take an NSAID or cannot or will not take an opioid,” he said.

There are safety issues to be aware of with tanezumab, he added: clinically significant increased risks of peripheral neuropathy and joint space narrowing.
 

Rheumatoid arthritis

Dr. Wells thought one of the most interesting novel therapies for RA in the past year didn’t involve a pharmaceutical, but rather noninvasive auricular branch stimulation of the vagus nerve. He cited an open-label, 12-week, uncontrolled study in 27 patients with active RA who wore an ear clip for vagal nerve stimulation for 12 weeks. The mean Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) – the primary study endpoint – improved from 6.30 at baseline to 3.76 at week 12. The number of tender joints dropped from 12.17 to 4.7, while the swollen joint count went from 7.0 to 3.44. Pain scores improved from 75.23 to 43.3. Scores on the Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index improved from 1.59 to 1.05. There was no significant change in CRP. All in all, a modest clinical effect achieved noninvasively.

“The thing that did it for me was the effect on MRI from baseline: decreased synovitis, osteitis, and bone erosion scores,” Dr. Wells said. “This is noninvasive, so patients who want to do medical marijuana or CBD can put an earring on their auricular nerve.”

Dr. Fleischmann scoffed. “An open-label study, 27 patients? Let me see the real study,” he quipped.

Dr. Fleischmann reported receiving clinical trial research grants from and serving as a consultant to more than a dozen pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wells serves as a consultant to MiCare Path.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

Remote interventions using an Internet-based app and telephone outreach to engage patients with osteoarthritis to self-manage their disease have demonstrated the potential to improve some symptoms, at least in the short term, showing the potential for tools to interact with OA patients without having them come into an office or clinic.

ponsulak/Thinkstock

Remote interaction using these two forms of telemedicine – one a sophisticated digital platform, the other using a device that’s been around for almost 150 years – may have greater utility for keeping physicians connected with their OA patients during the COVID-19 pandemic, OA experts said in an interview.

“This is certainly relevant during the pandemic, but this has been of high interest for years as well, as researchers and clinicians have been seeking the best ways to reach patients with these types of programs,” said Kelli Allen, PhD, a research health scientist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Two separate studies evaluated the telemedicine platforms. In JAMA Internal Medicine, researchers reported that telephone-based cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for patients aged 60 and older with OA and insomnia led to improved sleep, fatigue and, to a lesser extent, pain, in a randomized, controlled trial with 327 patients.

A separate randomized, controlled trial of 105 OA patients at the University of Nottingham (England), published in JAMA Network Open, reported that users of a smartphone-based exercise intervention app had greater improvements in pain and function than did controls.

“I think these two studies represent a first step in terms of moving forward, and certainly the interventions could be refined and potentially combined together for patients in the future,” said C. Kent Kwoh, MD, director of the University of Arizona Arthritis Center in Tucson.

Phone-based CBT study

The telephone-based CBT study consisted of two groups: the CBT group (n = 163) who completed six 20- to 30-minute telephone calls over 8 weeks, kept daily diaries, and received tailored educational materials and an education-only group (n = 164). At 2 months after treatment, Insomnia Severity Index scores decreased 8.1 points on average in the CBT group versus 4.8 points in the education-only patients (P < .001).

That variation between the intervention group and controls was sustained out to a year: 7.7 points lower than baseline versus 4.7 points lower. At the same time point, 56.3% of the CBT group remained in remission with Insomnia Severity Index scores less than 7 versus 25.8% of controls. Fatigue outcomes were similarly disparate between the groups.

Pain outcomes were a different story, however. “Post treatment, significant differences were observed for pain, but these differences were not sustained at 12-month follow-up,” first author Susan M. McCurry, PhD, a clinical psychologist and faculty member at the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues wrote.

“I think their positive findings illustrate that remotely delivered interventions can be ‘low tech’ and still effective,” Dr. Allen said of the CBT phone study. She noted that complete case data were available for 282 of 327 patients. “The high rate of session attendance suggests that they chose a delivery modality appropriate for their target patient group.”

The scalability of the telephone model is noteworthy, Dr. Kwoh said. “Having a telemedicine intervention that could be scaled a little more easily rather than an in-person intervention, and having individualized treatment, that’s beneficial, as is targeting two symptoms that are very bothersome and burdensome to patients with OA: insomnia and fatigue.” Following patients out to 12 months is a strength of the study, he added.
 

Smartphone app–based exercise study

The U.K. study evaluated 6-week outcomes of 48 patients with knee OA who used a proprietary app-based exercise program (Joint Academy) and 57 controls who used traditional self-management. The app provided daily exercises and texts, along with email and smartphone reminders. The app was derived from the Better Management of Patients with OA program initiated in Sweden in 2008 that used OA treatment guidelines for education and exercise in person in primary care clinics.

App users showed a 1.5-point reduction in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain score at 6 weeks versus virtually no change in controls (P < .001). In terms of secondary outcomes, pain scores improved 2.2 points on average for app users versus 1.2 for controls (P = .02), with similar improvements recorded in both stiffness and physical function.

Average change in the 30-second sit-to-stand test measured 4.5 for the app users and 1.2 for the usual-care group (P < .001). The study found no difference between the two groups in changes in temporal summation, conditional pain modulation, or Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire scores.

First author Sameer Akram Gohir, MSc, PhD, and colleagues wrote that the reasons for differences in outcomes between app users and controls aren’t clear. “The superior outcome in the intervention group may depend on the content and context in the app, including a combination of standardized exercises and information, as well as using a digital delivery system.”

Data gathering was cut short because of COVID-19 restrictions in the United Kingdom, as 27 patients missed their in-person follow-up visits. That was one shortcoming of the study, Dr. Kwoh noted.

“Given the caveats certainly they were able to show robust changes in terms of decreased pain, and also improvement in a variety of performance measures. Certainly this may be beneficial – we don’t know – in terms of cost-effectiveness, but it may be beneficial for insurance companies to adapt such a program,” he said, adding that future studies into the cost effectiveness of the digital platform would be in order.

“Certainly, if this program were to decrease physician visits or postpone the need for joint replacement for individuals, then it could be certainly very cost effective,” Dr. Kwoh said.

The completion rate among patients in the study – almost 90% – was “impressive,” Dr. Allen said. “However, this is a relatively short-term study, and I think an important question for future research is whether patients continue with this level of engagement for a longer period of time.”

Dr. McCurry had no relevant financial relationships to disclose. The CBT phone study received funding from the Public Health Service and the National Institute on Aging. Coauthors disclosed relationships with Campbell Alliance Group, Mapi Research Trust, and Pfizer. Dr. Gohir reported no relevant financial relationships. The study received funding from the Versus Arthritis UK Plan Center, the National Institute for Health Research Nottingham Biomedical Research Center, and Pfizer Global. The Joint Academy provided software for the study. A coauthor reported a financial relationships with Pfizer. Dr. Kwoh said that in the past year he has consulted for Express Scripts, Kolon Tissue Gene, LG Chem, and Regeneron. In the past year, he also received institutional grants for clinical trials from AbbVie, Cumberland, Eicos, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Mitsubishi, and Pfizer. Dr. Allen had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

A novel educational and personalized physical therapy program is showing signs that it may help people to mitigate their risk of developing knee osteoarthritis after an injury.

Speaking at the Canadian Arthritis Research Conference: Research with Impact, Jackie Whittaker, PhD, observed that initial work from the Stop Osteoarthritis (SOAR) program showed that meaningful improvements in knee-related quality of life and improvement in participants’ perceived self-management could be achieved.

Further feasibility work is ongoing and a proof-of-concept and phase 3 study need to follow, but the research suggests the approach could potentially help to reduce the substantial burden of managing people who develop posttraumatic OA (PTOA) of the knee.
 

Understanding the post–knee injury period

“Despite the progress that we’ve made in preventing injuries, and reducing disability in people with osteoarthritis, we lack good evidence about what should be done in the period between joint injury and the onset of osteoarthritis to delay or halt that onset,” Dr. Whittaker said at the virtual meeting, which was sponsored by the Arthritis Society, the Canadian Rheumatology Association, and Canada’s Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis.

That’s where the SOAR program comes in. For the past 8 years, Dr. Whittaker, an assistant professor in the department of physical therapy at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver and affiliated to Arthritis Research Canada, and collaborators have been looking into the post–knee injury period with the aim of developing an intervention that could potentially reduce the risk of OA further down the line.

Much work has gone into understanding the burden and risk factors for PTOA of the knee in order to know who exactly to target with the intervention and what the risk factors may be for the subsequent development of OA .

This research suggests that knee injuries are most commonly seen in people aged between 15 and 35 years who participated in sporting or other physical activities, so this is the target population for the SOAR intervention.

Broadly speaking, sustaining any knee injury is associated with a sixfold increased risk for subsequent PTOA, Dr. Whittaker observed.

“Despite the fact that ACL [anterior cruciate ligament] and meniscal tears get all the press, collateral ligament injury are still associated with about a fivefold increased risk of osteoarthritis, and therefore maybe shouldn’t be so easily dismissed as an important target,” Dr. Whittaker said.

Postinjury risk factors for OA

“Basically, what all prevention comes down to is our understanding of risk factors and our ability to be able to modify them,” she said.

KatarzynaBialasiewicz/Thinkstock

Previous joint injury is one of the strongest and most established modifiable risk factors for developing knee OA, and Dr. Whittaker and associates have performed two small but “mighty” cohort studies comparing people who have and have not had a knee injury. These two studies have looked at different time periods following injury to see if they could first identify the risk factors for developing OA some 3-10 years later, and then to look more closely at some of those risk factors in first 2 years after injury with a view to targeting these with an intervention.

Data analysis of the latter study is still ongoing but have shown that, among injured subjects, there is a fear of movement and reinjury, knee strength is weaker in both injured and uninjured knees, and they are perhaps less physically active than those who have not been injured.

“Going into those two studies, we knew that this group of people already [had an] increased risk for osteoarthritis because they had an injury. However, what we found is that it looks like this risk may be compounded through adiposity [and] deficits in muscle strength and physical inactivity, which are associated with pain, stiffness, lack of confidence, and at times, unrealistic expectations and poor pacing,” Dr. Whittaker said.

She added: “It also looks like some of these additional factors and particular adiposity or fat gain may develop after injury, which would then give us a concrete target for delaying or halting the onset of osteoarthritis in the segment of the population.”
 

SOAR program components

The SOAR program intervention is an 8-week, physiotherapist-led program that targets people aged 15-35 years who have had a sport-related knee injury and received formal care. All of this is conducted via videoconferencing software and starts off with a 2-hour group education session or “knee camp.” This is followed by a one-on-one assessment with a physiotherapist and setting exercise and physical activity goals for the week.

Participants then undertake their personalized exercise and physical activity programs at home and track their progress using an activity monitor. They can participate in an optional weekly group exercise class and receive weekly one-on-one physiotherapy counseling where goals can be modified and any issues participants might be experiencing solved.

According to Dr. Whittaker, “this program really aims to increase participants capacity to manage their elevated risk for osteoarthritis, and we’re doing this by also optimizing their knee muscle function and their physical activity participation.”

While the knee camp enables a therapeutic alliance to be formed between participants and their physiotherapists, the weekly group classes provide social support and an opportunity to interact with others.

“Brief action planning builds self-efficacy [and] promotes autonomous health behaviors, while goal setting and tracking provide accountability, feedback about progress, and facilitated adherence,” she said.

And finally, regular communication with a physiotherapist in the program ensures timely support to learn how to navigate obstacles and helps participants to learn how to deal with their own knee health.

Testing the feasibility of the SOAR program intervention

“Currently we are smack in the middle of our feasibility study,” Dr. Whittaker said. So far, four physiotherapists have been trained to deliver an abridged, 4-week version of the program, and 25 of a planned 30 participants have been enrolled.

Results seem promising so far. No participants have dropped out of the program to date and attendance is at 100%.

“Based on data from the first 12 participants who completed the program, we are meeting all of our ‘a priori’ program benchmarks,” Dr. Whittaker said.

“It is very early days,” she emphasized, but “we are excited to see clinically important improvements in both knee-related quality of life and perceived self-management.

“This gives us some confidence that maybe all this time that we’ve put into developing our intervention is paying off, but obviously time will tell if we’re headed in the right direction,” she said. “Perhaps in time, we may be able to look at whether or not the individuals that participated in that program have fewer symptoms of OA disease. But that will obviously take us a few years before we’ll be able to get to that point.”

Dr. Whittaker acknowledged receiving funding for the SOAR program from the Arthritis Society, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, BC SUPPORT Unit, and the Canadian Musculoskeletal Rehab Network.

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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

People with rheumatic diseases should get vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 as soon as possible, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) recommends.

Choreograph/iStock/Getty Images

“It may be that people with rheumatic diseases are at increased risk of developing COVID or serious COVID-related complications,” Jonathan Hausmann, MD, assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an ACR podcast. “So the need to prevent COVID-19 is incredibly important in this group of patients.”

The guidelines recommend a delay in vaccination only in rare circumstances, such as for patients with very severe illness or who have recently been administered rituximab, Jeffrey R. Curtis, MD, MPH, lead author of the guidelines, said in the podcast.

“Our members have been inundated with questions and concerns from their patients on whether they should receive the vaccine,” ACR President David Karp, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

So the ACR convened a panel of nine rheumatologists, two infectious disease specialists, and two public health experts. Over the course of 8 weeks, the task force reviewed the literature and agreed on recommendations. The organization posted a summary of the guidelines on its website after its board of directors approved it Feb. 8. The paper is pending journal peer review.
 

Some risks are real

The task force confined its research to the COVID-19 vaccines being offered by Pfizer and Moderna because they are currently the only ones approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It found no reason to distinguish between the two vaccines in its recommendations.

Because little research has directly addressed the question concerning COVID-19 vaccination for patients with rheumatic diseases, the task force extrapolated from data on other vaccinations in people with rheumatic disease and on the COVID-19 vaccinations in other populations.

It analyzed reports that other types of vaccination, such as for influenza, triggered flares of rheumatic conditions. “It is really individual case reports or small cohorts where there may be a somewhat higher incidence of flare, but it’s usually not very large in its magnitude nor duration,” said Dr. Curtis of the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

The task force also considered the possibility that vaccinations could lead to a new autoimmune disorder, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome or Bell palsy. The risk is real, the task force decided, but not significant enough to influence their recommendations.

Likewise, in immunocompromised people, vaccinations with live virus, such as those for shingles, might trigger the infection the vaccination is meant to prevent. But this can’t happen with the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines because they contain messenger RNA instead of live viruses, Dr. Curtis said.

Courtesy University of Alabama at Birmingham

How well does it work?

One unanswered question is whether the COVID-19 vaccines work as well for patients with rheumatic diseases. The task force was reassured by data showing efficacy across a range of subgroups, including some with immunosenescence, Dr. Curtis said. “But until we have data in rheumatology patients, we’re just not going to know,” he said.

The guidelines specify that some drug regimens be modified when patients are vaccinated.

For patients taking rituximab, vaccination should be delayed, but only for those who are able to maintain safe social distancing to reduce the risk for COVID-19 exposure, Dr. Curtis said. “If somebody has just gotten rituximab recently, it might be more ideal to complete the vaccine series about 2-4 weeks before the next rituximab dose,” he said. “So if you are giving that therapy, say, at 6-month intervals, if you could vaccinate them at around month 5 from the most recent rituximab cycle, that might be more ideal.”

The guidance calls for withholding JAK inhibitors for a week after each vaccine dose is administered.

It calls for holding SQ abatacept 1 week prior and 1 week after the first COVID-19 vaccine dose, with no interruption after the second dose.

For abatacept IV, clinicians should “time vaccine administration so that the first vaccination will occur 4 weeks after abatacept infusion (i.e., the entire dosing interval), and postpone the subsequent abatacept infusion by 1 week (i.e., a 5-week gap in total).” It recommends no medication adjustment for the second vaccine dose.

For cyclophosphamide, the guidance recommends timing administration to occur about a week after each vaccine dose, when feasible.

None of this advice should supersede clinical judgment, Dr. Curtis said.

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