Osteoarthritis

Continued use of the nonsteroidal drug (NSAID) meloxicam was associated with less reported knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain at 4 weeks compared with switching to a placebo in a randomized trial.

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.

Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.

“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.

The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.

The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.

The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. David Walsh

“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.

Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.

Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.

“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.

He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.

“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”

Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.

It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”

Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.

SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.

Continued use of the nonsteroidal drug (NSAID) meloxicam was associated with less reported knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain at 4 weeks compared with switching to a placebo in a randomized trial.

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.

Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.

“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.

The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.

The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.

The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. David Walsh

“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.

Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.

Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.

“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.

He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.

“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”

Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.

It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”

Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.

SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.

Continued use of the nonsteroidal drug (NSAID) meloxicam was associated with less reported knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain at 4 weeks compared with switching to a placebo in a randomized trial.

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score was 6.7 out of a possible total of 20 for patients who continued meloxicam for 4 weeks versus 7.8 in those who stopped and switched to a placebo. The estimated mean difference in pain score was 1.4 (P = .92 for noninferiority), which is below the threshold of 2.1 that is considered to be the minimum clinically important difference.

Furthermore, patients who had switched to placebo and then subsequently participated in a telephone-based cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program for another 10 weeks had higher pain levels compared with those who continued meloxicam. WOMAC scores were 12.1 and 11.8, respectively with a mean difference of 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“Among patients with knee osteoarthritis, placebo and CBT (after placebo) are inferior to meloxicam,” Liana Fraenkel, MD, MPH, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and coinvestigators concluded in their article, published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

They observed that the WOMAC pain score differences between the two groups were small, however, and that there were no statistically significant differences in participants’ global impression of change or function after 14 weeks.

“Although the overall results of the trial are negative, they provide clinicians with data to support shared decision-making and reassure patients willing to taper NSAIDs and consider self-management approaches such as CBT,” Dr. Fraenkel and coauthors suggested.

The Stopping NSAIDs for Arthritis Pain trial had ultimately included 364 participants, 86% of whom were men, recruited from four veterans affairs health care systems. All had been taking NSAIDs for knee OA pain for at least 3 months and had participated in a 2-week run-in period where the NSAID they had been taking was switched to meloxicam, 15 mg once daily.

The aim of the trial had been to see if discontinuing NSAIDs and starting a CBT program would be noninferior to continuing NSAIDs in patients with knee OA.

The trial does not provide robust information on the use of CBT, David Walsh, a rheumatologist and director of the Pain Centre Versus Arthritis at the University of Nottingham, England, said in an interview.

Courtesy Dr. David Walsh

“It can’t tell you about efficacy of CBT,” Dr. Walsh said as the CBT part of the study was not randomized, was not controlled, and was unblinded. ”It would be a different task to design a CBT trial aiming to help people to stop taking tablets,” he added.

Dr. Fraenkel and coinvestigators had reported that, at week 14, the adjusted mean difference in WOMAC pain score between the placebo (followed by CBT) and meloxicam groups was 0.8 (P = .28 for noninferiority).

“What the trial’s really doing is seeing whether people who’ve been on long-term nonsteroidals, can they just stop them without getting any worse? The conclusion for that is actually they are more likely to get worse than not if you just stop the nonsteroidals,” Dr. Walsh said.

“The withdrawal trial protocol is an important one. You can’t run a prospective trial for years to see whether something works for years. It is just not feasible. So actually, the protocol they’ve got of switching to placebo, or continuing with a nonsteroidal, is probably the best way of working out if an anti-inflammatory still has a pharmacological effect after actually being on it for X years,” Dr. Walsh said.

Dr. Walsh, who was not involved in the trial, observed that while the difference in pain scores between the groups was small, the deterioration in scores might be important for individual patients. Some may do worse, although granted that there may be some that might do better, he said.

“It is suggesting to me that nonsteroidals are still working in people who are on long-term treatment. It is not a very big pharmacological effect, but we already know from the RCTs of anti-inflammatory tablets, that they can be beneficial,” Dr. Walsh noted.

He also pointed out that patients’ pain had been improved after being switched from their current NSAID to meloxicam – the overall WOMAC pain score at recruitment was 9.6 and was 5.6 after the 2-week meloxicam run-in phase.

“Now, whether that’s because they’ve been switched to meloxicam, or whether it’s because they’re in a trial,” is an important question, Dr. Walsh suggested, adding that “it looks as though it’s more likely to be because they’re in a trial, because improvement was maintained during the following 4 weeks on placebo.”

Another point he made was that there was a higher percentage of patients in the placebo group that started taking other types of painkillers, just under half (46%) used acetaminophen versus a quarter (26%) of those who continued using meloxicam.

It is an interesting trial, “trying to tackle some really difficult questions and I think that there are really important implications from it that we can build on, but is it actually going to change the lives of patients at the moment? Not massively,” Dr. Walsh said, ”but it’s another step in the right direction.”

Dr. Fraenkel disclosed receiving research funding from the VA Office of Research and Development, the sponsor of the trial.

SOURCE: Fraenkel L et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jul 20. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2821.

New data from the National Institutes of Health–funded Osteoarthritis Initiative suggest that, in some women at least, taking bisphosphonates may help to reduce the chances that there will be radiographic progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

decade3d/Thinkstock

In a propensity-matched cohort analysis, women who had a Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade of less than 2 and who used bisphosphonates were half as likely as those who did not use bisphosphonates to have radiographic OA progression at 2 years (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.79). Radiographic OA progression has been defined as a one-step increase in the KL grade.

While the association appeared even stronger in women with a KL grade less than 2 and who were not overweight (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92), bisphosphonate use was not associated with radiographic OA progression in women with a higher (≥2) KL grade (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35).

“In all analyses, the effect of bisphosphonates was larger in radiographic-disease-naive individuals, suggesting protection using bisphosphonates may be more profound in those who do not already have evidence of knee damage or who have mild disease, and once damage occurs, bisphosphonate use may not have much effect,” Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, of the University of Toronto and her coauthors reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“Our study was the first to our knowledge to examine bisphosphonate exposure effects in different disease severity subgroups and obesity classifications using a rigorous, propensity-matched time-to-event analysis that uniquely addresses confounding by indication,” Dr. Hayes and her team wrote.

Furthermore, they noted that extensive sensitivity analyses, which included redoing the primary analyses to look at statin use, showed that their main conclusions were unchanged and that this helped account for any potential residual confounding, healthy-user bias, or exposure misclassification.
 

Study details

The Osteoarthritis Initiative is a 10-year longitudinal cohort study conducted at four clinical sites in the United States and recruited men and women aged 45-75 years over a 2-year period starting in 2004. Dr. Hayes and her coauthors restricted their analyses to women 50 years and older. Their study population consisted of 344 bisphosphonate users and 344 bisphosphonate nonusers.

The main bisphosphonate being taken was alendronate (69%), and the average duration of bisphosphonate use was 3.3 years, but no significant effect of duration of use on radiographic progression was found.

The women were followed until the first radiographic OA progression, or the first missed visit or end of the 2-year follow-up period.

Overall, 95 (13.8%) of the 688 women included in the analysis experienced radiographic OA progression. Of those, 27 (3.9%) had a KL grade of less than 2 and 68 (9.8%) had a KL grade of 2 or greater. Ten women with KL less than 2 and 27 women with KL or 2 or greater were taking bisphosphonates at their baseline visit.

“Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that non-users and users with a baseline KL grade of 0 or 1 had 2-year risks of progression of 10.5% and 5.9%, respectively, whereas non-users and users with a baseline KL grade of 2 or 3 had 2-year of these women risks of progression of 23.0% and 23.5%, respectively,” reported the authors.

Before propensity score matching, Dr. Hayes and her colleagues observed that women taking bisphosphonates were older, had lower body weight and a higher prevalence of any fracture or hip and vertebral fractures, and were also more likely be White, compared with non-users. “In addition, bisphosphonate-users appeared to be healthier than non-users, as suggested by a lower smoking prevalence, lower average baseline KL grade, lower diabetes prevalence, and higher multivitamin use (a healthy-user proxy),” they acknowledged.

Results in perspective

“The key thing that I’m concerned about when I see something like bisphosphonates and osteoarthritis is just how well confounding has been addressed,” commented Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, in an interview.

“So are there factors other than the bisphosphonates themselves that might explain the findings? It looks like they’ve taken into account a lot of important things that one would consider for trying to get the two groups to look as similar as possible,” she added. Dr. Neogi queried, however, if body mass index had been suitably been adjusted for even after propensity score matching.

“The effect estimate is quite large, so I do think there is some confounding. So I would feel comfortable saying that there’s a signal here for bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of progression among those who do not have radiographic OA at baseline,” Dr. Neogi observed.

“The context of all this is that there have been large, well-designed, randomized control trials of oral bisphosphonates from years ago that did not find any benefit of bisphosphonates in [terms of] radiographic OA progression,” Dr. Neogi explained.

In the Knee OA Structural Arthritis (KOSTAR) study, now considered “quite a large landmark study,” the efficacy of risedronate in providing symptom relief and slowing disease progression was studied in almost 2,500 patients. “They saw some improvements in signs and symptoms, but risedronate did not significantly reduce radiographic progression. [However] there were some signals on biomarkers,” Dr. Neogi said.

One of the issues is that radiographs are too insensitive to pick up early bone changes in OA, a fact not missed by Dr. Hayes et al. More recent research has thus looked to using more sensitive imaging methods, such as CT and MRI, such as a recent study published in JAMA looking at the use of intravenous zoledronic acid on bone marrow lesions and cartilage volume. The results did not show any benefit of bisphosphonate use over 2 years.

“So even though we thought the MRI might provide a better way to detect a signal, it hasn’t panned out,” Dr. Neogi said.

But that’s not to say that there isn’t still a signal. Dr. Neogi’s most recent research has been using MRI to look at bone marrow lesion volume in women who were newly starting bisphosphonate therapy versus those who were not, and this has been just been accepted for publication.

“We found no difference in bone marrow lesion volume between the two groups. But in the women who had bone marrow lesions at baseline, there was a statistically significant greater proportion of women on bisphosphonates having a decrease in bone marrow lesion volume than the non-initiators,” she said.

So is there evidence that putting more women on bisphosphonates could prevent OA? “I’m not sure that you would be able to say that this should be something that all postmenopausal women should be on,” Dr. Neogi said.

“There’s a theoretical risk that has not been formally studied that, if you diminish bone turnover and you get more and more mineralization occurring, the bone potentially may have altered mechanical properties, become stiffer and, over the long term, that might not be good for OA.”

She added that, if there is already a clear clinical indication for bisphosphonate use, however, such as older women who have had a fracture and who should be on a bisphosphonate anyway, then “a bisphosphonate has the theoretical potential additional benefit for their osteoarthritis.”

The authors and Dr. Neogi had no conflicts of interest or relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Hayes KN et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 July 14. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4133.
 

New data from the National Institutes of Health–funded Osteoarthritis Initiative suggest that, in some women at least, taking bisphosphonates may help to reduce the chances that there will be radiographic progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

decade3d/Thinkstock

In a propensity-matched cohort analysis, women who had a Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade of less than 2 and who used bisphosphonates were half as likely as those who did not use bisphosphonates to have radiographic OA progression at 2 years (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.79). Radiographic OA progression has been defined as a one-step increase in the KL grade.

While the association appeared even stronger in women with a KL grade less than 2 and who were not overweight (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92), bisphosphonate use was not associated with radiographic OA progression in women with a higher (≥2) KL grade (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35).

“In all analyses, the effect of bisphosphonates was larger in radiographic-disease-naive individuals, suggesting protection using bisphosphonates may be more profound in those who do not already have evidence of knee damage or who have mild disease, and once damage occurs, bisphosphonate use may not have much effect,” Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, of the University of Toronto and her coauthors reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“Our study was the first to our knowledge to examine bisphosphonate exposure effects in different disease severity subgroups and obesity classifications using a rigorous, propensity-matched time-to-event analysis that uniquely addresses confounding by indication,” Dr. Hayes and her team wrote.

Furthermore, they noted that extensive sensitivity analyses, which included redoing the primary analyses to look at statin use, showed that their main conclusions were unchanged and that this helped account for any potential residual confounding, healthy-user bias, or exposure misclassification.
 

Study details

The Osteoarthritis Initiative is a 10-year longitudinal cohort study conducted at four clinical sites in the United States and recruited men and women aged 45-75 years over a 2-year period starting in 2004. Dr. Hayes and her coauthors restricted their analyses to women 50 years and older. Their study population consisted of 344 bisphosphonate users and 344 bisphosphonate nonusers.

The main bisphosphonate being taken was alendronate (69%), and the average duration of bisphosphonate use was 3.3 years, but no significant effect of duration of use on radiographic progression was found.

The women were followed until the first radiographic OA progression, or the first missed visit or end of the 2-year follow-up period.

Overall, 95 (13.8%) of the 688 women included in the analysis experienced radiographic OA progression. Of those, 27 (3.9%) had a KL grade of less than 2 and 68 (9.8%) had a KL grade of 2 or greater. Ten women with KL less than 2 and 27 women with KL or 2 or greater were taking bisphosphonates at their baseline visit.

“Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that non-users and users with a baseline KL grade of 0 or 1 had 2-year risks of progression of 10.5% and 5.9%, respectively, whereas non-users and users with a baseline KL grade of 2 or 3 had 2-year of these women risks of progression of 23.0% and 23.5%, respectively,” reported the authors.

Before propensity score matching, Dr. Hayes and her colleagues observed that women taking bisphosphonates were older, had lower body weight and a higher prevalence of any fracture or hip and vertebral fractures, and were also more likely be White, compared with non-users. “In addition, bisphosphonate-users appeared to be healthier than non-users, as suggested by a lower smoking prevalence, lower average baseline KL grade, lower diabetes prevalence, and higher multivitamin use (a healthy-user proxy),” they acknowledged.

Results in perspective

“The key thing that I’m concerned about when I see something like bisphosphonates and osteoarthritis is just how well confounding has been addressed,” commented Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, in an interview.

“So are there factors other than the bisphosphonates themselves that might explain the findings? It looks like they’ve taken into account a lot of important things that one would consider for trying to get the two groups to look as similar as possible,” she added. Dr. Neogi queried, however, if body mass index had been suitably been adjusted for even after propensity score matching.

“The effect estimate is quite large, so I do think there is some confounding. So I would feel comfortable saying that there’s a signal here for bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of progression among those who do not have radiographic OA at baseline,” Dr. Neogi observed.

“The context of all this is that there have been large, well-designed, randomized control trials of oral bisphosphonates from years ago that did not find any benefit of bisphosphonates in [terms of] radiographic OA progression,” Dr. Neogi explained.

In the Knee OA Structural Arthritis (KOSTAR) study, now considered “quite a large landmark study,” the efficacy of risedronate in providing symptom relief and slowing disease progression was studied in almost 2,500 patients. “They saw some improvements in signs and symptoms, but risedronate did not significantly reduce radiographic progression. [However] there were some signals on biomarkers,” Dr. Neogi said.

One of the issues is that radiographs are too insensitive to pick up early bone changes in OA, a fact not missed by Dr. Hayes et al. More recent research has thus looked to using more sensitive imaging methods, such as CT and MRI, such as a recent study published in JAMA looking at the use of intravenous zoledronic acid on bone marrow lesions and cartilage volume. The results did not show any benefit of bisphosphonate use over 2 years.

“So even though we thought the MRI might provide a better way to detect a signal, it hasn’t panned out,” Dr. Neogi said.

But that’s not to say that there isn’t still a signal. Dr. Neogi’s most recent research has been using MRI to look at bone marrow lesion volume in women who were newly starting bisphosphonate therapy versus those who were not, and this has been just been accepted for publication.

“We found no difference in bone marrow lesion volume between the two groups. But in the women who had bone marrow lesions at baseline, there was a statistically significant greater proportion of women on bisphosphonates having a decrease in bone marrow lesion volume than the non-initiators,” she said.

So is there evidence that putting more women on bisphosphonates could prevent OA? “I’m not sure that you would be able to say that this should be something that all postmenopausal women should be on,” Dr. Neogi said.

“There’s a theoretical risk that has not been formally studied that, if you diminish bone turnover and you get more and more mineralization occurring, the bone potentially may have altered mechanical properties, become stiffer and, over the long term, that might not be good for OA.”

She added that, if there is already a clear clinical indication for bisphosphonate use, however, such as older women who have had a fracture and who should be on a bisphosphonate anyway, then “a bisphosphonate has the theoretical potential additional benefit for their osteoarthritis.”

The authors and Dr. Neogi had no conflicts of interest or relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Hayes KN et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 July 14. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4133.
 

New data from the National Institutes of Health–funded Osteoarthritis Initiative suggest that, in some women at least, taking bisphosphonates may help to reduce the chances that there will be radiographic progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA).

decade3d/Thinkstock

In a propensity-matched cohort analysis, women who had a Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) grade of less than 2 and who used bisphosphonates were half as likely as those who did not use bisphosphonates to have radiographic OA progression at 2 years (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.79). Radiographic OA progression has been defined as a one-step increase in the KL grade.

While the association appeared even stronger in women with a KL grade less than 2 and who were not overweight (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.26-0.92), bisphosphonate use was not associated with radiographic OA progression in women with a higher (≥2) KL grade (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.83-1.35).

“In all analyses, the effect of bisphosphonates was larger in radiographic-disease-naive individuals, suggesting protection using bisphosphonates may be more profound in those who do not already have evidence of knee damage or who have mild disease, and once damage occurs, bisphosphonate use may not have much effect,” Kaleen N. Hayes, PharmD, of the University of Toronto and her coauthors reported in the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research.

“Our study was the first to our knowledge to examine bisphosphonate exposure effects in different disease severity subgroups and obesity classifications using a rigorous, propensity-matched time-to-event analysis that uniquely addresses confounding by indication,” Dr. Hayes and her team wrote.

Furthermore, they noted that extensive sensitivity analyses, which included redoing the primary analyses to look at statin use, showed that their main conclusions were unchanged and that this helped account for any potential residual confounding, healthy-user bias, or exposure misclassification.
 

Study details

The Osteoarthritis Initiative is a 10-year longitudinal cohort study conducted at four clinical sites in the United States and recruited men and women aged 45-75 years over a 2-year period starting in 2004. Dr. Hayes and her coauthors restricted their analyses to women 50 years and older. Their study population consisted of 344 bisphosphonate users and 344 bisphosphonate nonusers.

The main bisphosphonate being taken was alendronate (69%), and the average duration of bisphosphonate use was 3.3 years, but no significant effect of duration of use on radiographic progression was found.

The women were followed until the first radiographic OA progression, or the first missed visit or end of the 2-year follow-up period.

Overall, 95 (13.8%) of the 688 women included in the analysis experienced radiographic OA progression. Of those, 27 (3.9%) had a KL grade of less than 2 and 68 (9.8%) had a KL grade of 2 or greater. Ten women with KL less than 2 and 27 women with KL or 2 or greater were taking bisphosphonates at their baseline visit.

“Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that non-users and users with a baseline KL grade of 0 or 1 had 2-year risks of progression of 10.5% and 5.9%, respectively, whereas non-users and users with a baseline KL grade of 2 or 3 had 2-year of these women risks of progression of 23.0% and 23.5%, respectively,” reported the authors.

Before propensity score matching, Dr. Hayes and her colleagues observed that women taking bisphosphonates were older, had lower body weight and a higher prevalence of any fracture or hip and vertebral fractures, and were also more likely be White, compared with non-users. “In addition, bisphosphonate-users appeared to be healthier than non-users, as suggested by a lower smoking prevalence, lower average baseline KL grade, lower diabetes prevalence, and higher multivitamin use (a healthy-user proxy),” they acknowledged.

Results in perspective

“The key thing that I’m concerned about when I see something like bisphosphonates and osteoarthritis is just how well confounding has been addressed,” commented Tuhina Neogi, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and epidemiology at Boston University and chief of rheumatology at Boston Medical Center, in an interview.

“So are there factors other than the bisphosphonates themselves that might explain the findings? It looks like they’ve taken into account a lot of important things that one would consider for trying to get the two groups to look as similar as possible,” she added. Dr. Neogi queried, however, if body mass index had been suitably been adjusted for even after propensity score matching.

“The effect estimate is quite large, so I do think there is some confounding. So I would feel comfortable saying that there’s a signal here for bisphosphonates in reducing the risk of progression among those who do not have radiographic OA at baseline,” Dr. Neogi observed.

“The context of all this is that there have been large, well-designed, randomized control trials of oral bisphosphonates from years ago that did not find any benefit of bisphosphonates in [terms of] radiographic OA progression,” Dr. Neogi explained.

In the Knee OA Structural Arthritis (KOSTAR) study, now considered “quite a large landmark study,” the efficacy of risedronate in providing symptom relief and slowing disease progression was studied in almost 2,500 patients. “They saw some improvements in signs and symptoms, but risedronate did not significantly reduce radiographic progression. [However] there were some signals on biomarkers,” Dr. Neogi said.

One of the issues is that radiographs are too insensitive to pick up early bone changes in OA, a fact not missed by Dr. Hayes et al. More recent research has thus looked to using more sensitive imaging methods, such as CT and MRI, such as a recent study published in JAMA looking at the use of intravenous zoledronic acid on bone marrow lesions and cartilage volume. The results did not show any benefit of bisphosphonate use over 2 years.

“So even though we thought the MRI might provide a better way to detect a signal, it hasn’t panned out,” Dr. Neogi said.

But that’s not to say that there isn’t still a signal. Dr. Neogi’s most recent research has been using MRI to look at bone marrow lesion volume in women who were newly starting bisphosphonate therapy versus those who were not, and this has been just been accepted for publication.

“We found no difference in bone marrow lesion volume between the two groups. But in the women who had bone marrow lesions at baseline, there was a statistically significant greater proportion of women on bisphosphonates having a decrease in bone marrow lesion volume than the non-initiators,” she said.

So is there evidence that putting more women on bisphosphonates could prevent OA? “I’m not sure that you would be able to say that this should be something that all postmenopausal women should be on,” Dr. Neogi said.

“There’s a theoretical risk that has not been formally studied that, if you diminish bone turnover and you get more and more mineralization occurring, the bone potentially may have altered mechanical properties, become stiffer and, over the long term, that might not be good for OA.”

She added that, if there is already a clear clinical indication for bisphosphonate use, however, such as older women who have had a fracture and who should be on a bisphosphonate anyway, then “a bisphosphonate has the theoretical potential additional benefit for their osteoarthritis.”

The authors and Dr. Neogi had no conflicts of interest or relationships to disclose.

SOURCE: Hayes KN et al. J Bone Miner Res. 2020 July 14. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.4133.
 

As the Food and Drug Administration focuses on other issues, companies, both big and small, are looking to boost physician and consumer interest in their “medical foods” – products that fall somewhere between drugs and supplements and promise to mitigate symptoms, or even address underlying pathologies, of a range of diseases.

Manufacturers now market an array of medical foods, ranging from powders and capsules for Alzheimer disease to low-protein spaghetti for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The FDA has not been completely absent; it takes a narrow view of what medical conditions qualify for treatment with food products and has warned some manufacturers that their misbranded products are acting more like unapproved drugs.

By the FDA’s definition, medical food is limited to products that provide crucial therapy for patients with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). An example is specialized baby formula for infants with phenylketonuria. Unlike supplements, medical foods are supposed to be used under the supervision of a physician. This has prompted some sales reps to turn up in the clinic, and most manufacturers have online approval forms for doctors to sign. Manufacturers, advisers, and regulators were interviewed for a closer look at this burgeoning industry.
 

The market

The global market for medical foods – about $18 billion in 2019 – is expected to grow steadily in the near future. It is drawing more interest, especially in Europe, where medical foods are more accepted by physicians and consumers, Meghan Donnelly, MS, RDN, said in an interview. She is a registered dietitian who conducts physician outreach in the United States for Flavis, a division of Dr. Schär. That company, based in northern Italy, started out targeting IEMs but now also sells gluten-free foods for celiac disease and low-protein foods for CKD.

It is still a niche market in the United States – and isn’t likely to ever approach the size of the supplement market, according to Marcus Charuvastra, the managing director of Targeted Medical Pharma, which markets Theramine capsules for pain management, among many other products. But it could still be a big win for a manufacturer if they get a small slice of a big market, such as for Alzheimer disease.
 

Defining medical food

According to an update of the Orphan Drug Act in 1988, a medical food is “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” The FDA issued regulations to accompany that law in 1993 but has since only issued a guidance document that is not legally binding.

Medical foods are not drugs and they are not supplements (the latter are intended only for healthy people). The FDA doesn’t require formal approval of a medical food, but, by law, the ingredients must be generally recognized as safe, and manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices. However, the agency has taken a narrow view of what conditions require medical foods.

Policing medical foods hasn’t been a priority for the FDA, which is why there has been a proliferation of products that don’t meet the FDA’s view of the statutory definition of medical foods, according to Miriam Guggenheim, a food and drug law attorney in Washington, D.C. The FDA usually takes enforcement action when it sees a risk to the public’s health.

The agency’s stance has led to confusion – among manufacturers, physicians, consumers, and even regulators – making the market a kind of Wild West, according to Paul Hyman, a Washington, D.C.–based attorney who has represented medical food companies.

George A. Burdock, PhD, an Orlando-based regulatory consultant who has worked with medical food makers, believes the FDA will be forced to expand their narrow definition. He foresees a reconsideration of many medical food products in light of an October 2019 White House executive order prohibiting federal agencies from issuing guidance in lieu of rules.
 

Manufacturers and the FDA differ

One example of a product about which regulators and manufacturers differ is Theramine, which is described as “specially designed to supply the nervous system with the fuel it needs to meet the altered metabolic requirements of chronic pain and inflammatory disorders.”

It is not considered a medical food by the FDA, and the company has had numerous discussions with the agency about their diverging views, according to Mr. Charuvastra. “We’ve had our warning letters and we’ve had our sit downs, and we just had an inspection.”

Targeted Medical Pharma continues to market its products as medical foods but steers away from making any claims that they are like drugs, he said.

Confusion about medical foods has been exposed in the California Workers’ Compensation System by Leslie Wilson, PhD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. They found that physicians regularly wrote medical food prescriptions for non–FDA-approved uses and that the system reimbursed the majority of the products at a cost of $15.5 million from 2011 to 2013. More than half of these prescriptions were for Theramine.

Dr. Wilson reported that, for most products, no evidence supported effectiveness, and they were frequently mislabeled – for all 36 that were studied, submissions for reimbursement were made using a National Drug Code, an impossibility because medical foods are not drugs, and 14 were labeled “Rx only.”
 

Big-name companies joining in

The FDA does not keep a list of approved medical foods or manufacturers. Both small businesses and big food companies like Danone, Nestlé, and Abbott are players. Most products are sold online.

In the United States, Danone’s Nutricia division sells formulas and low-protein foods for IEMs. They also sell Ketocal, a powder or ready-to-drink liquid that is pitched as a balanced medical food to simplify and optimize the ketogenic diet for children with intractable epilepsy. Yet the FDA does not include epilepsy among the conditions that medical foods can treat.

Nestlé sells traditional medical foods for IEMs and also markets a range of what it calls nutritional therapies for such conditions as irritable bowel syndrome and dysphagia.

Nestlé is a minority shareholder in Axona, a product originally developed by Accera (Cerecin as of 2018). Jacquelyn Campo, senior director of global communications at Nestlé Health Sciences, said that the company is not actively involved in the operations management of Cerecin. However, on its website, Nestlé touts Axona, which is only available in the United States, as a “medical food” that “is intended for the clinical dietary management of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.” The Axona site claims that the main ingredient, caprylic triglyceride, is broken down into ketones that provide fuel to treat cerebral hypometabolism, a precursor to Alzheimer disease. In a 2009 study, daily dosing of a preliminary formulation was associated with improved cognitive performance compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

In 2013, the FDA warned Accera that it was misbranding Axona as a medical food and that the therapeutic claims the company was making would make the product an unapproved drug. Ms. Campo said Nestlé is aware of the agency’s warning, but added, “to our knowledge, Cerecin provided answers to the issues raised by the FDA.”

With the goal of getting drug approval, Accera went on to test a tweaked formulation in a 400-patient randomized, placebo-controlled trial called NOURISH AD that ultimately failed. Nevertheless, Axona is still marketed as a medical food. It costs about $100 for a month’s supply.

Repeated requests for comment from Cerecin were not answered. Danielle Schor, an FDA spokesperson, said the agency will not discuss the status of individual products.
 

More disputes and insurance coverage

Mary Ann DeMarco, executive director of sales and marketing for the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based medical food maker Primus Pharmaceuticals, said the company believes its products fit within the FDA’s medical foods rubric.

These include Fosteum Plus capsules, which it markets “for the clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteopenia and osteoporosis.” The capsules contain a combination of genistein, zinc, calcium, phosphate, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. As proof of effectiveness, the company cites clinical data on some of the ingredients – not the product itself.

Primus has run afoul of the FDA before when it similarly positioned another product, called Limbrel, as a medical food for osteoarthritis. From 2007 to 2017, the FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with Limbrel, including reports of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In December 2017, the agency urged Primus to recall Limbrel, a move that it said was “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” Primus withdrew the product but laid out a defense of Limbrel on a devoted website.

The FDA would not comment any further, said Ms. Schor. Ms. DeMarco said that Primus is working with the FDA to bring Limbrel back to market.

A lack of insurance coverage – even for approved medical foods for IEMs – has frustrated advocates, parents, and manufacturers. They are putting their weight behind the Medical Nutrition Equity Act, which would mandate public and private payer coverage of medical foods for IEMs and digestive conditions such as Crohn disease. That 2019 House bill has 56 cosponsors; there is no Senate companion bill.

“If you can get reimbursement, it really makes the market,” for Primus and the other manufacturers, Mr. Hyman said.

Primus Pharmaceuticals has launched its own campaign, Cover My Medical Foods, to enlist consumers and others to the cause.
 

Partnering with advocates

Although its low-protein breads, pastas, and baking products are not considered medical foods by the FDA, Dr. Schär is marketing them as such in the United States. They are trying to make a mark in CKD, according to Ms. Donnelly. She added that Dr. Schär has been successful in Europe, where nutrition therapy is more integrated in the health care system.

In 2019, Flavis and the National Kidney Foundation joined forces to raise awareness of nutritional interventions and to build enthusiasm for the Flavis products. The partnership has now ended, mostly because Flavis could no longer afford it, according to Ms. Donnelly.

“Information on diet and nutrition is the most requested subject matter from the NKF,” said Anthony Gucciardo, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at the foundation. The partnership “has never been necessarily about promoting their products per se; it’s promoting a healthy diet and really a diet specific for CKD.”

The NKF developed cobranded materials on low-protein foods for physicians and a teaching tool they could use with patients. Consumers could access nutrition information and a discount on Flavis products on a dedicated webpage. The foundation didn’t describe the low-protein products as medical foods, said Mr. Gucciardo, even if Flavis promoted them as such.

In patients with CKD, dietary management can help prevent the progression to end-stage renal disease. Although Medicare covers medical nutrition therapy – in which patients receive personalized assessments and dietary advice – uptake is abysmally low, according to a 2018 study.

Dr. Burdock thinks low-protein foods for CKD do meet the FDA’s criteria for a medical food but that the agency might not necessarily agree with him. The FDA would not comment.
 

Physician beware

When it comes to medical foods, the FDA has often looked the other way because the ingredients may already have been proven safe and the danger to an individual or to the public’s health is relatively low, according to Dr. Burdock and Mr. Hyman.

However, if the agency “feels that a medical food will prevent people from seeking medical care or there is potential to defraud the public, it is justified in taking action against the company,” said Dr. Burdock.

According to Dr. Wilson, the pharmacist who reported on the inappropriate medical food prescriptions in the California system, the FDA could help by creating a list of approved medical foods. Physicians should take time to learn about the difference between medical foods and supplements, she said, adding that they should also not hesitate to “question the veracity of the claims for them.”

Ms. Guggenheim believed doctors need to know that, for the most part, these are not FDA-approved products. She emphasized the importance of evaluating the products and looking at the data of their impact on a disease or condition.

“Many of these companies strongly believe that the products work and help people, so clinicians need to be very data driven,” she said.

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

As the Food and Drug Administration focuses on other issues, companies, both big and small, are looking to boost physician and consumer interest in their “medical foods” – products that fall somewhere between drugs and supplements and promise to mitigate symptoms, or even address underlying pathologies, of a range of diseases.

Manufacturers now market an array of medical foods, ranging from powders and capsules for Alzheimer disease to low-protein spaghetti for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The FDA has not been completely absent; it takes a narrow view of what medical conditions qualify for treatment with food products and has warned some manufacturers that their misbranded products are acting more like unapproved drugs.

By the FDA’s definition, medical food is limited to products that provide crucial therapy for patients with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). An example is specialized baby formula for infants with phenylketonuria. Unlike supplements, medical foods are supposed to be used under the supervision of a physician. This has prompted some sales reps to turn up in the clinic, and most manufacturers have online approval forms for doctors to sign. Manufacturers, advisers, and regulators were interviewed for a closer look at this burgeoning industry.
 

The market

The global market for medical foods – about $18 billion in 2019 – is expected to grow steadily in the near future. It is drawing more interest, especially in Europe, where medical foods are more accepted by physicians and consumers, Meghan Donnelly, MS, RDN, said in an interview. She is a registered dietitian who conducts physician outreach in the United States for Flavis, a division of Dr. Schär. That company, based in northern Italy, started out targeting IEMs but now also sells gluten-free foods for celiac disease and low-protein foods for CKD.

It is still a niche market in the United States – and isn’t likely to ever approach the size of the supplement market, according to Marcus Charuvastra, the managing director of Targeted Medical Pharma, which markets Theramine capsules for pain management, among many other products. But it could still be a big win for a manufacturer if they get a small slice of a big market, such as for Alzheimer disease.
 

Defining medical food

According to an update of the Orphan Drug Act in 1988, a medical food is “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” The FDA issued regulations to accompany that law in 1993 but has since only issued a guidance document that is not legally binding.

Medical foods are not drugs and they are not supplements (the latter are intended only for healthy people). The FDA doesn’t require formal approval of a medical food, but, by law, the ingredients must be generally recognized as safe, and manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices. However, the agency has taken a narrow view of what conditions require medical foods.

Policing medical foods hasn’t been a priority for the FDA, which is why there has been a proliferation of products that don’t meet the FDA’s view of the statutory definition of medical foods, according to Miriam Guggenheim, a food and drug law attorney in Washington, D.C. The FDA usually takes enforcement action when it sees a risk to the public’s health.

The agency’s stance has led to confusion – among manufacturers, physicians, consumers, and even regulators – making the market a kind of Wild West, according to Paul Hyman, a Washington, D.C.–based attorney who has represented medical food companies.

George A. Burdock, PhD, an Orlando-based regulatory consultant who has worked with medical food makers, believes the FDA will be forced to expand their narrow definition. He foresees a reconsideration of many medical food products in light of an October 2019 White House executive order prohibiting federal agencies from issuing guidance in lieu of rules.
 

Manufacturers and the FDA differ

One example of a product about which regulators and manufacturers differ is Theramine, which is described as “specially designed to supply the nervous system with the fuel it needs to meet the altered metabolic requirements of chronic pain and inflammatory disorders.”

It is not considered a medical food by the FDA, and the company has had numerous discussions with the agency about their diverging views, according to Mr. Charuvastra. “We’ve had our warning letters and we’ve had our sit downs, and we just had an inspection.”

Targeted Medical Pharma continues to market its products as medical foods but steers away from making any claims that they are like drugs, he said.

Confusion about medical foods has been exposed in the California Workers’ Compensation System by Leslie Wilson, PhD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. They found that physicians regularly wrote medical food prescriptions for non–FDA-approved uses and that the system reimbursed the majority of the products at a cost of $15.5 million from 2011 to 2013. More than half of these prescriptions were for Theramine.

Dr. Wilson reported that, for most products, no evidence supported effectiveness, and they were frequently mislabeled – for all 36 that were studied, submissions for reimbursement were made using a National Drug Code, an impossibility because medical foods are not drugs, and 14 were labeled “Rx only.”
 

Big-name companies joining in

The FDA does not keep a list of approved medical foods or manufacturers. Both small businesses and big food companies like Danone, Nestlé, and Abbott are players. Most products are sold online.

In the United States, Danone’s Nutricia division sells formulas and low-protein foods for IEMs. They also sell Ketocal, a powder or ready-to-drink liquid that is pitched as a balanced medical food to simplify and optimize the ketogenic diet for children with intractable epilepsy. Yet the FDA does not include epilepsy among the conditions that medical foods can treat.

Nestlé sells traditional medical foods for IEMs and also markets a range of what it calls nutritional therapies for such conditions as irritable bowel syndrome and dysphagia.

Nestlé is a minority shareholder in Axona, a product originally developed by Accera (Cerecin as of 2018). Jacquelyn Campo, senior director of global communications at Nestlé Health Sciences, said that the company is not actively involved in the operations management of Cerecin. However, on its website, Nestlé touts Axona, which is only available in the United States, as a “medical food” that “is intended for the clinical dietary management of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.” The Axona site claims that the main ingredient, caprylic triglyceride, is broken down into ketones that provide fuel to treat cerebral hypometabolism, a precursor to Alzheimer disease. In a 2009 study, daily dosing of a preliminary formulation was associated with improved cognitive performance compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

In 2013, the FDA warned Accera that it was misbranding Axona as a medical food and that the therapeutic claims the company was making would make the product an unapproved drug. Ms. Campo said Nestlé is aware of the agency’s warning, but added, “to our knowledge, Cerecin provided answers to the issues raised by the FDA.”

With the goal of getting drug approval, Accera went on to test a tweaked formulation in a 400-patient randomized, placebo-controlled trial called NOURISH AD that ultimately failed. Nevertheless, Axona is still marketed as a medical food. It costs about $100 for a month’s supply.

Repeated requests for comment from Cerecin were not answered. Danielle Schor, an FDA spokesperson, said the agency will not discuss the status of individual products.
 

More disputes and insurance coverage

Mary Ann DeMarco, executive director of sales and marketing for the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based medical food maker Primus Pharmaceuticals, said the company believes its products fit within the FDA’s medical foods rubric.

These include Fosteum Plus capsules, which it markets “for the clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteopenia and osteoporosis.” The capsules contain a combination of genistein, zinc, calcium, phosphate, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. As proof of effectiveness, the company cites clinical data on some of the ingredients – not the product itself.

Primus has run afoul of the FDA before when it similarly positioned another product, called Limbrel, as a medical food for osteoarthritis. From 2007 to 2017, the FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with Limbrel, including reports of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In December 2017, the agency urged Primus to recall Limbrel, a move that it said was “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” Primus withdrew the product but laid out a defense of Limbrel on a devoted website.

The FDA would not comment any further, said Ms. Schor. Ms. DeMarco said that Primus is working with the FDA to bring Limbrel back to market.

A lack of insurance coverage – even for approved medical foods for IEMs – has frustrated advocates, parents, and manufacturers. They are putting their weight behind the Medical Nutrition Equity Act, which would mandate public and private payer coverage of medical foods for IEMs and digestive conditions such as Crohn disease. That 2019 House bill has 56 cosponsors; there is no Senate companion bill.

“If you can get reimbursement, it really makes the market,” for Primus and the other manufacturers, Mr. Hyman said.

Primus Pharmaceuticals has launched its own campaign, Cover My Medical Foods, to enlist consumers and others to the cause.
 

Partnering with advocates

Although its low-protein breads, pastas, and baking products are not considered medical foods by the FDA, Dr. Schär is marketing them as such in the United States. They are trying to make a mark in CKD, according to Ms. Donnelly. She added that Dr. Schär has been successful in Europe, where nutrition therapy is more integrated in the health care system.

In 2019, Flavis and the National Kidney Foundation joined forces to raise awareness of nutritional interventions and to build enthusiasm for the Flavis products. The partnership has now ended, mostly because Flavis could no longer afford it, according to Ms. Donnelly.

“Information on diet and nutrition is the most requested subject matter from the NKF,” said Anthony Gucciardo, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at the foundation. The partnership “has never been necessarily about promoting their products per se; it’s promoting a healthy diet and really a diet specific for CKD.”

The NKF developed cobranded materials on low-protein foods for physicians and a teaching tool they could use with patients. Consumers could access nutrition information and a discount on Flavis products on a dedicated webpage. The foundation didn’t describe the low-protein products as medical foods, said Mr. Gucciardo, even if Flavis promoted them as such.

In patients with CKD, dietary management can help prevent the progression to end-stage renal disease. Although Medicare covers medical nutrition therapy – in which patients receive personalized assessments and dietary advice – uptake is abysmally low, according to a 2018 study.

Dr. Burdock thinks low-protein foods for CKD do meet the FDA’s criteria for a medical food but that the agency might not necessarily agree with him. The FDA would not comment.
 

Physician beware

When it comes to medical foods, the FDA has often looked the other way because the ingredients may already have been proven safe and the danger to an individual or to the public’s health is relatively low, according to Dr. Burdock and Mr. Hyman.

However, if the agency “feels that a medical food will prevent people from seeking medical care or there is potential to defraud the public, it is justified in taking action against the company,” said Dr. Burdock.

According to Dr. Wilson, the pharmacist who reported on the inappropriate medical food prescriptions in the California system, the FDA could help by creating a list of approved medical foods. Physicians should take time to learn about the difference between medical foods and supplements, she said, adding that they should also not hesitate to “question the veracity of the claims for them.”

Ms. Guggenheim believed doctors need to know that, for the most part, these are not FDA-approved products. She emphasized the importance of evaluating the products and looking at the data of their impact on a disease or condition.

“Many of these companies strongly believe that the products work and help people, so clinicians need to be very data driven,” she said.

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

As the Food and Drug Administration focuses on other issues, companies, both big and small, are looking to boost physician and consumer interest in their “medical foods” – products that fall somewhere between drugs and supplements and promise to mitigate symptoms, or even address underlying pathologies, of a range of diseases.

Manufacturers now market an array of medical foods, ranging from powders and capsules for Alzheimer disease to low-protein spaghetti for chronic kidney disease (CKD). The FDA has not been completely absent; it takes a narrow view of what medical conditions qualify for treatment with food products and has warned some manufacturers that their misbranded products are acting more like unapproved drugs.

By the FDA’s definition, medical food is limited to products that provide crucial therapy for patients with inborn errors of metabolism (IEM). An example is specialized baby formula for infants with phenylketonuria. Unlike supplements, medical foods are supposed to be used under the supervision of a physician. This has prompted some sales reps to turn up in the clinic, and most manufacturers have online approval forms for doctors to sign. Manufacturers, advisers, and regulators were interviewed for a closer look at this burgeoning industry.
 

The market

The global market for medical foods – about $18 billion in 2019 – is expected to grow steadily in the near future. It is drawing more interest, especially in Europe, where medical foods are more accepted by physicians and consumers, Meghan Donnelly, MS, RDN, said in an interview. She is a registered dietitian who conducts physician outreach in the United States for Flavis, a division of Dr. Schär. That company, based in northern Italy, started out targeting IEMs but now also sells gluten-free foods for celiac disease and low-protein foods for CKD.

It is still a niche market in the United States – and isn’t likely to ever approach the size of the supplement market, according to Marcus Charuvastra, the managing director of Targeted Medical Pharma, which markets Theramine capsules for pain management, among many other products. But it could still be a big win for a manufacturer if they get a small slice of a big market, such as for Alzheimer disease.
 

Defining medical food

According to an update of the Orphan Drug Act in 1988, a medical food is “a food which is formulated to be consumed or administered enterally under the supervision of a physician and which is intended for the specific dietary management of a disease or condition for which distinctive nutritional requirements, based on recognized scientific principles, are established by medical evaluation.” The FDA issued regulations to accompany that law in 1993 but has since only issued a guidance document that is not legally binding.

Medical foods are not drugs and they are not supplements (the latter are intended only for healthy people). The FDA doesn’t require formal approval of a medical food, but, by law, the ingredients must be generally recognized as safe, and manufacturers must follow good manufacturing practices. However, the agency has taken a narrow view of what conditions require medical foods.

Policing medical foods hasn’t been a priority for the FDA, which is why there has been a proliferation of products that don’t meet the FDA’s view of the statutory definition of medical foods, according to Miriam Guggenheim, a food and drug law attorney in Washington, D.C. The FDA usually takes enforcement action when it sees a risk to the public’s health.

The agency’s stance has led to confusion – among manufacturers, physicians, consumers, and even regulators – making the market a kind of Wild West, according to Paul Hyman, a Washington, D.C.–based attorney who has represented medical food companies.

George A. Burdock, PhD, an Orlando-based regulatory consultant who has worked with medical food makers, believes the FDA will be forced to expand their narrow definition. He foresees a reconsideration of many medical food products in light of an October 2019 White House executive order prohibiting federal agencies from issuing guidance in lieu of rules.
 

Manufacturers and the FDA differ

One example of a product about which regulators and manufacturers differ is Theramine, which is described as “specially designed to supply the nervous system with the fuel it needs to meet the altered metabolic requirements of chronic pain and inflammatory disorders.”

It is not considered a medical food by the FDA, and the company has had numerous discussions with the agency about their diverging views, according to Mr. Charuvastra. “We’ve had our warning letters and we’ve had our sit downs, and we just had an inspection.”

Targeted Medical Pharma continues to market its products as medical foods but steers away from making any claims that they are like drugs, he said.

Confusion about medical foods has been exposed in the California Workers’ Compensation System by Leslie Wilson, PhD, and colleagues at the University of California, San Francisco. They found that physicians regularly wrote medical food prescriptions for non–FDA-approved uses and that the system reimbursed the majority of the products at a cost of $15.5 million from 2011 to 2013. More than half of these prescriptions were for Theramine.

Dr. Wilson reported that, for most products, no evidence supported effectiveness, and they were frequently mislabeled – for all 36 that were studied, submissions for reimbursement were made using a National Drug Code, an impossibility because medical foods are not drugs, and 14 were labeled “Rx only.”
 

Big-name companies joining in

The FDA does not keep a list of approved medical foods or manufacturers. Both small businesses and big food companies like Danone, Nestlé, and Abbott are players. Most products are sold online.

In the United States, Danone’s Nutricia division sells formulas and low-protein foods for IEMs. They also sell Ketocal, a powder or ready-to-drink liquid that is pitched as a balanced medical food to simplify and optimize the ketogenic diet for children with intractable epilepsy. Yet the FDA does not include epilepsy among the conditions that medical foods can treat.

Nestlé sells traditional medical foods for IEMs and also markets a range of what it calls nutritional therapies for such conditions as irritable bowel syndrome and dysphagia.

Nestlé is a minority shareholder in Axona, a product originally developed by Accera (Cerecin as of 2018). Jacquelyn Campo, senior director of global communications at Nestlé Health Sciences, said that the company is not actively involved in the operations management of Cerecin. However, on its website, Nestlé touts Axona, which is only available in the United States, as a “medical food” that “is intended for the clinical dietary management of mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.” The Axona site claims that the main ingredient, caprylic triglyceride, is broken down into ketones that provide fuel to treat cerebral hypometabolism, a precursor to Alzheimer disease. In a 2009 study, daily dosing of a preliminary formulation was associated with improved cognitive performance compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer disease.

In 2013, the FDA warned Accera that it was misbranding Axona as a medical food and that the therapeutic claims the company was making would make the product an unapproved drug. Ms. Campo said Nestlé is aware of the agency’s warning, but added, “to our knowledge, Cerecin provided answers to the issues raised by the FDA.”

With the goal of getting drug approval, Accera went on to test a tweaked formulation in a 400-patient randomized, placebo-controlled trial called NOURISH AD that ultimately failed. Nevertheless, Axona is still marketed as a medical food. It costs about $100 for a month’s supply.

Repeated requests for comment from Cerecin were not answered. Danielle Schor, an FDA spokesperson, said the agency will not discuss the status of individual products.
 

More disputes and insurance coverage

Mary Ann DeMarco, executive director of sales and marketing for the Scottsdale, Ariz.–based medical food maker Primus Pharmaceuticals, said the company believes its products fit within the FDA’s medical foods rubric.

These include Fosteum Plus capsules, which it markets “for the clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteopenia and osteoporosis.” The capsules contain a combination of genistein, zinc, calcium, phosphate, vitamin K2, and vitamin D. As proof of effectiveness, the company cites clinical data on some of the ingredients – not the product itself.

Primus has run afoul of the FDA before when it similarly positioned another product, called Limbrel, as a medical food for osteoarthritis. From 2007 to 2017, the FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with Limbrel, including reports of drug-induced liver injury, pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis. In December 2017, the agency urged Primus to recall Limbrel, a move that it said was “necessary to protect the public health and welfare.” Primus withdrew the product but laid out a defense of Limbrel on a devoted website.

The FDA would not comment any further, said Ms. Schor. Ms. DeMarco said that Primus is working with the FDA to bring Limbrel back to market.

A lack of insurance coverage – even for approved medical foods for IEMs – has frustrated advocates, parents, and manufacturers. They are putting their weight behind the Medical Nutrition Equity Act, which would mandate public and private payer coverage of medical foods for IEMs and digestive conditions such as Crohn disease. That 2019 House bill has 56 cosponsors; there is no Senate companion bill.

“If you can get reimbursement, it really makes the market,” for Primus and the other manufacturers, Mr. Hyman said.

Primus Pharmaceuticals has launched its own campaign, Cover My Medical Foods, to enlist consumers and others to the cause.
 

Partnering with advocates

Although its low-protein breads, pastas, and baking products are not considered medical foods by the FDA, Dr. Schär is marketing them as such in the United States. They are trying to make a mark in CKD, according to Ms. Donnelly. She added that Dr. Schär has been successful in Europe, where nutrition therapy is more integrated in the health care system.

In 2019, Flavis and the National Kidney Foundation joined forces to raise awareness of nutritional interventions and to build enthusiasm for the Flavis products. The partnership has now ended, mostly because Flavis could no longer afford it, according to Ms. Donnelly.

“Information on diet and nutrition is the most requested subject matter from the NKF,” said Anthony Gucciardo, senior vice president of strategic partnerships at the foundation. The partnership “has never been necessarily about promoting their products per se; it’s promoting a healthy diet and really a diet specific for CKD.”

The NKF developed cobranded materials on low-protein foods for physicians and a teaching tool they could use with patients. Consumers could access nutrition information and a discount on Flavis products on a dedicated webpage. The foundation didn’t describe the low-protein products as medical foods, said Mr. Gucciardo, even if Flavis promoted them as such.

In patients with CKD, dietary management can help prevent the progression to end-stage renal disease. Although Medicare covers medical nutrition therapy – in which patients receive personalized assessments and dietary advice – uptake is abysmally low, according to a 2018 study.

Dr. Burdock thinks low-protein foods for CKD do meet the FDA’s criteria for a medical food but that the agency might not necessarily agree with him. The FDA would not comment.
 

Physician beware

When it comes to medical foods, the FDA has often looked the other way because the ingredients may already have been proven safe and the danger to an individual or to the public’s health is relatively low, according to Dr. Burdock and Mr. Hyman.

However, if the agency “feels that a medical food will prevent people from seeking medical care or there is potential to defraud the public, it is justified in taking action against the company,” said Dr. Burdock.

According to Dr. Wilson, the pharmacist who reported on the inappropriate medical food prescriptions in the California system, the FDA could help by creating a list of approved medical foods. Physicians should take time to learn about the difference between medical foods and supplements, she said, adding that they should also not hesitate to “question the veracity of the claims for them.”

Ms. Guggenheim believed doctors need to know that, for the most part, these are not FDA-approved products. She emphasized the importance of evaluating the products and looking at the data of their impact on a disease or condition.

“Many of these companies strongly believe that the products work and help people, so clinicians need to be very data driven,” she said.

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

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

New EULAR recommendations for the intra-articular (IA) treatment of arthropathies aim to facilitate uniformity and quality of care for this mainstay of rheumatologic practice, according to a report on the new guidance that was presented at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

Until now there were no official recommendations on how best to use it in everyday practice. “This is the first time that there’s been a joint effort to develop evidence-based recommendations,” Jacqueline Usón, MD, PhD, associate professor medicine at Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, said in an interview. “Everything that we are saying is pretty logical, but it’s nice to see it put in recommendations based on evidence.”

IA therapy has been around for decades and is key for treating adults with a number of different conditions where synovitis, effusion, pain, or all three, are present, such as inflammatory arthritis and osteoarthritis, Dr. Usón observed during her presentation.

“Today, commonly used injectables are not only corticosteroids but also local anesthetics, hyaluronic acid, blood products, and maybe pharmaceuticals,” she said, adding that “there is a wide variation in the way intra-articular therapies are used and delivered to patients.” Health professionals also have very different views and habits depending on geographic locations and health care systems, she observed. Ironing out the variation was one of the main objectives of the recommendations.

As one of the two conveners of the EULAR task force behind the recommendations, Dr. Usón, herself a rheumatologist at University Hospital of Móstoles, pointed out that the task force brought together a range of specialties – rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, radiologists, nuclear medicine specialists, among others, as well as patients – to ensure that the best advice could be given.

The task force followed EULAR standard operating procedures for developing recommendations, with discussion groups, systematic literature reviews, and Delphi technique-based consensus all being employed. The literature search considered publications from 1946 up until 2019.

“We agreed on the need for more background information from health professionals and patients, so we developed two surveys: One for health professionals with 160 items, [for which] we obtained 186 responses from 26 countries; and the patient survey was made up of 44 items, translated into 10 different languages, and we obtained 200 responses,” she said.

The results of the systematic literature review and surveys were used to help form expert consensus, leading to 5 overarching principles and 11 recommendations that look at before, during, and after intra-articular therapy.
 

Five overarching principles

The first overarching principle recognizes the widespread use of IA therapies and that their use is specific to the disease that is being treated and “may not be interchangeable across indications,” Dr. Usón said. The second principle concerns improving patient-centered outcomes, which are “those that are relevant to the patient,” and include the benefits, harms, preferences, or implications for self-management.

“Contextual factors are important and contribute to the effect of IAT [intra-articular treatment],” she said, discussing the third principle. “These include effective communication, patient expectations, or settings [where the procedure takes place]. In addition, one should take into account that the route of delivery has in itself a placebo effect. We found that in different RCTs [randomized controlled trials], the pooled placebo effect of IA saline is moderate to large.”

The fourth principle looks at ensuring that patients and clinicians make an informed and shared decision, which is again highlighted by the first recommendation. The fifth, and last, overarching principle acknowledges that IA injections may be given by a range of health care professionals.
 

Advice for before, during, and after injection

Patients need to be “fully informed of the nature of the procedure, the injectable used, and potential effects – benefits and risks – [and] informed consent should be obtained and documented,” said Dr. Usón, outlining the first recommendation. “That seems common,” she said in the interview, “but when we did the survey, we realize that many patients didn’t [give consent], and the doctors didn’t even ask for it. This is why it’s a very general statement, and it’s our first recommendation. The agreement was 99%!”

The recommendations also look at the optimal settings for performing injections, such as providing a professional and private, well-lighted room, and having a resuscitation kit nearby in case patients faint. Accuracy is important, Dr. Usón said, and imaging, such as ultrasound, should be used where available to ensure accurate injection into the joint. This is an area where further research could be performed, she said, urging young rheumatologists and health professionals to consider this. “Intra-articular therapy is something that you learn and do, but you never really investigate in it,” she said.

One recommendation states that when intra-articular injections are being given to pregnant patients, the safety of injected compound must be considered, both for the mother and for the fetus. There is another recommendation on the need to perform IA injections under aseptic conditions, and another stating that patients should be offered local anesthetics, after explaining the pros and cons.

Special populations of patients are also considered, Dr. Usón said. For example, the guidance advises warning patients with diabetes of the risk of transient glycemia after IA glucocorticoids and the need to monitor their blood glucose levels carefully for a couple of days afterward.

As a rule, “IAT is not a contraindication to people with clotting or bleeding disorders, or taking antithrombotic medications,” she said, unless they are at a high risk of bleeding.

Importantly, the recommendations cover when IAT can be performed after joint replacement surgery (after at least 3 months), and the need to “avoid overuse of injected joints” while also avoiding complete immobilization for at least 24 hours afterward. The recommendations very generally cover re-injections, but not how long intervals between injections should be. When asked about interval duration after her presentation, Dr. Usón said that the usual advice is to give IA injections no more than 2-3 times a year, but it depends on the injectable.

“It wasn’t our intention to review the efficacy and the safety of the different injectables, nor to review the use of IAT in different types of joint diseases,” she said. “We do lack a lot of information, a lot of evidence in this, and I really would hope that new rheumatologists start looking into and start investigating in this topic,” she added.
 

Recommendations will increase awareness of good clinical practice

“IA injections are commonly administered in the rheumatology setting. This is because [IA injection] is often a useful treatment for acute flare of arthritis, particularly when it is limited to a few joints,” observed Ai Lyn Tan, MD, associate professor and honorary consultant rheumatologist at the Leeds (England) Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine.

IA injection “also relieves symptoms relatively quickly for patients; however, the response can be variable, and there are side effects associated with IA injections,” Dr. Tan added in an interview.

There is a lack of universally accepted recommendations, Dr. Tan observed, noting that while there might be some local guidelines on how to safely perform IA injections these were often not standardized and were subject to being continually updated to try to improve the experience for patients.

“It is therefore timely to learn about the new EULAR recommendations for IA injections. The advantage of this will be to increase awareness of good clinical practice for performing IA injections.”

Dr. Tan had no relevant conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: EULAR COVID-19 Recommendations. E-congress content available until Sept. 1, 2020.

Patients with OA treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs, according to the results of a large, population-based study performed in British Columbia.

Within 1 year of starting treatment, 296 of 13,798 patients treated with tramadol had died, compared with 246 of 13,798 treated with naproxen, giving a death rate of 21.5 versus 17.8 per 1,000 person-years, and representing a 20% increase in all-cause mortality versus the NSAID (hazard ratio, 1.2).

Similar results were seen comparing tramadol with diclofenac and tramadol with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, but with increasing death rates of 24.8 versus 19.5 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.3) and 23.6 versus 15.7 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.5), respectively.

However, all-cause mortality was lower with tramadol than with the opiate painkiller, codeine (21.5 vs. 25.5 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 0.8), reported Ms. Lingyi Li, a PhD student from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

This is not the first time that tramadol’s excess mortality risk has been highlighted. Indeed, just last year (JAMA. 2019;321[10]:969-82), researchers using The Health Improvement Network database reported found that tramadol was associated with higher all-cause mortality than two COX-2 inhibitors, celecoxib (31.2 versus 18.4 per 1,000 person-years) and etoricoxib (25.7 versus 12.8 per 1,000 person-years).

Ms. Li and associates’ data not only now add further weight to those findings, but also go a step further by also looking at other serious risks associated with tramadol’s use among patients with OA. “The objective of this study is to compare tramadol with other commonly prescribed pain relief medications on the risk of several severe outcomes, including mortality, cardiovascular diseases [CVD], venous thromboembolism [VTE], and hip fracture,” Ms. Li said during her virtual presentation.

Using sequential propensity score matching, the researchers compared data on patients in British Columbia during 2005-2014 with a first prescription of tramadol (56,325), the NSAIDs naproxen (n = 13,798) or diclofenac (n = 17,675), COX-2 inhibitors (17,039), or codeine (n = 7,813).

“For CVD, we found that there is a higher risk among tramadol users, compared with diclofenac [HR, 1.2] and COX-2 inhibitors [HR, 1.2], but not with naproxen [HR, 1.0] and codeine [HR, 0.9] users,” Ms. Li reported.

Similarly, the 1-year risk of VTE was significantly higher among tramadol users only when compared with diclofenac (HR, 1.5) and COX-2 inhibitors (HR, 1.7).

“For hip fractures, tramadol initiation was associated with an increased risk of hip fractures, compared with all NSAIDs, but not with codeine,” Ms. Li said. The risk of hip fractures was 40%-50% higher with tramadol versus naproxen (HR, 1.4), diclofenac and COX-2 inhibitors (both HR, 1.5).

“Our results suggest an unfavorable safety profile of tramadol use,” Ms. Li said, suggesting that “several guidelines on tramadol use in clinical practice might need to be revisited.”

According to a recent Cochrane review there is “moderate-quality evidence” that tramadol “has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis.” The authors of the review wrote that, while some patients might glean a benefit from treatment, the evidence suggests that “adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol.”

Current guidance on the use of tramadol varies. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guidelines recommend its use in patients with symptomatic knee OA on a par with NSAIDs while the American College of Rheumatology guidance (Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72[2]:149-62) conditionally recommends that it be used only if there is no real alternative, such as a contraindication to NSAIDs or pain relief is ineffective.

Patients with rheumatic disease are increasingly taking opioid painkillers such as tramadol, with other data reported at the EULAR 2020 E-Congress showing a rise from 15% in 2007 to 25% in 2016 in the Catalonia region of Spain alone. A rise from 5% to 10% has previously been reported in the United States from 2003 to 2009.

With increasing rates of tramadol prescribing, the worry is that perhaps tramadol is not as safe a people think it is, as Thomas Schwenk, MD, pointed out when he reviewed the previous research showing excess mortality with tramadol (NEJM Journal Watch, March 2019).

“The opioid agonist tramadol often is prescribed for patients with osteoarthritis pain because it is thought to be safer than opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” he observed. Dr. Schwenk, who is dean of the University of Nevada, Reno, added that the “results [of that study] suggest that tramadol is not as safe as some people believe.”

He suggested cautious prescribing: “Tramadol might be an option for patients in whom NSAIDs are contraindicated, but it should be prescribed as judiciously as traditional opioids.”

Responsible prescribing to avoid opioid misuse in patients with rheumatic diseases was also advocated in a EULAR press release from the congress. A study from Iceland was highlighted that found patients with inflammatory arthritis frequently did not stop taking opioids after the source of their pain had gone; in fact, their use went up despite being treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

“We would like to raise awareness of a responsible approach both by the prescribers and also the patients,” said John Isaacs, PhD, of the University of Newcastle (England). “In order to alleviate chronic pain, medications should in any case only be part of a comprehensive therapy program, in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together.”

The study authors had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li L et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:118, Abstract OP0191.

Patients with OA treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs, according to the results of a large, population-based study performed in British Columbia.

Within 1 year of starting treatment, 296 of 13,798 patients treated with tramadol had died, compared with 246 of 13,798 treated with naproxen, giving a death rate of 21.5 versus 17.8 per 1,000 person-years, and representing a 20% increase in all-cause mortality versus the NSAID (hazard ratio, 1.2).

Similar results were seen comparing tramadol with diclofenac and tramadol with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, but with increasing death rates of 24.8 versus 19.5 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.3) and 23.6 versus 15.7 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.5), respectively.

However, all-cause mortality was lower with tramadol than with the opiate painkiller, codeine (21.5 vs. 25.5 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 0.8), reported Ms. Lingyi Li, a PhD student from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

This is not the first time that tramadol’s excess mortality risk has been highlighted. Indeed, just last year (JAMA. 2019;321[10]:969-82), researchers using The Health Improvement Network database reported found that tramadol was associated with higher all-cause mortality than two COX-2 inhibitors, celecoxib (31.2 versus 18.4 per 1,000 person-years) and etoricoxib (25.7 versus 12.8 per 1,000 person-years).

Ms. Li and associates’ data not only now add further weight to those findings, but also go a step further by also looking at other serious risks associated with tramadol’s use among patients with OA. “The objective of this study is to compare tramadol with other commonly prescribed pain relief medications on the risk of several severe outcomes, including mortality, cardiovascular diseases [CVD], venous thromboembolism [VTE], and hip fracture,” Ms. Li said during her virtual presentation.

Using sequential propensity score matching, the researchers compared data on patients in British Columbia during 2005-2014 with a first prescription of tramadol (56,325), the NSAIDs naproxen (n = 13,798) or diclofenac (n = 17,675), COX-2 inhibitors (17,039), or codeine (n = 7,813).

“For CVD, we found that there is a higher risk among tramadol users, compared with diclofenac [HR, 1.2] and COX-2 inhibitors [HR, 1.2], but not with naproxen [HR, 1.0] and codeine [HR, 0.9] users,” Ms. Li reported.

Similarly, the 1-year risk of VTE was significantly higher among tramadol users only when compared with diclofenac (HR, 1.5) and COX-2 inhibitors (HR, 1.7).

“For hip fractures, tramadol initiation was associated with an increased risk of hip fractures, compared with all NSAIDs, but not with codeine,” Ms. Li said. The risk of hip fractures was 40%-50% higher with tramadol versus naproxen (HR, 1.4), diclofenac and COX-2 inhibitors (both HR, 1.5).

“Our results suggest an unfavorable safety profile of tramadol use,” Ms. Li said, suggesting that “several guidelines on tramadol use in clinical practice might need to be revisited.”

According to a recent Cochrane review there is “moderate-quality evidence” that tramadol “has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis.” The authors of the review wrote that, while some patients might glean a benefit from treatment, the evidence suggests that “adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol.”

Current guidance on the use of tramadol varies. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guidelines recommend its use in patients with symptomatic knee OA on a par with NSAIDs while the American College of Rheumatology guidance (Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72[2]:149-62) conditionally recommends that it be used only if there is no real alternative, such as a contraindication to NSAIDs or pain relief is ineffective.

Patients with rheumatic disease are increasingly taking opioid painkillers such as tramadol, with other data reported at the EULAR 2020 E-Congress showing a rise from 15% in 2007 to 25% in 2016 in the Catalonia region of Spain alone. A rise from 5% to 10% has previously been reported in the United States from 2003 to 2009.

With increasing rates of tramadol prescribing, the worry is that perhaps tramadol is not as safe a people think it is, as Thomas Schwenk, MD, pointed out when he reviewed the previous research showing excess mortality with tramadol (NEJM Journal Watch, March 2019).

“The opioid agonist tramadol often is prescribed for patients with osteoarthritis pain because it is thought to be safer than opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” he observed. Dr. Schwenk, who is dean of the University of Nevada, Reno, added that the “results [of that study] suggest that tramadol is not as safe as some people believe.”

He suggested cautious prescribing: “Tramadol might be an option for patients in whom NSAIDs are contraindicated, but it should be prescribed as judiciously as traditional opioids.”

Responsible prescribing to avoid opioid misuse in patients with rheumatic diseases was also advocated in a EULAR press release from the congress. A study from Iceland was highlighted that found patients with inflammatory arthritis frequently did not stop taking opioids after the source of their pain had gone; in fact, their use went up despite being treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

“We would like to raise awareness of a responsible approach both by the prescribers and also the patients,” said John Isaacs, PhD, of the University of Newcastle (England). “In order to alleviate chronic pain, medications should in any case only be part of a comprehensive therapy program, in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together.”

The study authors had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li L et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:118, Abstract OP0191.

Patients with OA treated with tramadol had a 20%-50% higher risk of dying during the first year of treatment than did patients who were treated with NSAIDs, according to the results of a large, population-based study performed in British Columbia.

Within 1 year of starting treatment, 296 of 13,798 patients treated with tramadol had died, compared with 246 of 13,798 treated with naproxen, giving a death rate of 21.5 versus 17.8 per 1,000 person-years, and representing a 20% increase in all-cause mortality versus the NSAID (hazard ratio, 1.2).

Similar results were seen comparing tramadol with diclofenac and tramadol with cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, but with increasing death rates of 24.8 versus 19.5 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.3) and 23.6 versus 15.7 per 1,000 person-years (HR, 1.5), respectively.

However, all-cause mortality was lower with tramadol than with the opiate painkiller, codeine (21.5 vs. 25.5 per 1,000 person-years; HR, 0.8), reported Ms. Lingyi Li, a PhD student from the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, at the annual European Congress of Rheumatology, held online this year due to COVID-19.

This is not the first time that tramadol’s excess mortality risk has been highlighted. Indeed, just last year (JAMA. 2019;321[10]:969-82), researchers using The Health Improvement Network database reported found that tramadol was associated with higher all-cause mortality than two COX-2 inhibitors, celecoxib (31.2 versus 18.4 per 1,000 person-years) and etoricoxib (25.7 versus 12.8 per 1,000 person-years).

Ms. Li and associates’ data not only now add further weight to those findings, but also go a step further by also looking at other serious risks associated with tramadol’s use among patients with OA. “The objective of this study is to compare tramadol with other commonly prescribed pain relief medications on the risk of several severe outcomes, including mortality, cardiovascular diseases [CVD], venous thromboembolism [VTE], and hip fracture,” Ms. Li said during her virtual presentation.

Using sequential propensity score matching, the researchers compared data on patients in British Columbia during 2005-2014 with a first prescription of tramadol (56,325), the NSAIDs naproxen (n = 13,798) or diclofenac (n = 17,675), COX-2 inhibitors (17,039), or codeine (n = 7,813).

“For CVD, we found that there is a higher risk among tramadol users, compared with diclofenac [HR, 1.2] and COX-2 inhibitors [HR, 1.2], but not with naproxen [HR, 1.0] and codeine [HR, 0.9] users,” Ms. Li reported.

Similarly, the 1-year risk of VTE was significantly higher among tramadol users only when compared with diclofenac (HR, 1.5) and COX-2 inhibitors (HR, 1.7).

“For hip fractures, tramadol initiation was associated with an increased risk of hip fractures, compared with all NSAIDs, but not with codeine,” Ms. Li said. The risk of hip fractures was 40%-50% higher with tramadol versus naproxen (HR, 1.4), diclofenac and COX-2 inhibitors (both HR, 1.5).

“Our results suggest an unfavorable safety profile of tramadol use,” Ms. Li said, suggesting that “several guidelines on tramadol use in clinical practice might need to be revisited.”

According to a recent Cochrane review there is “moderate-quality evidence” that tramadol “has no important benefit on mean pain or function in people with osteoarthritis.” The authors of the review wrote that, while some patients might glean a benefit from treatment, the evidence suggests that “adverse events probably cause substantially more participants to stop taking tramadol.”

Current guidance on the use of tramadol varies. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons guidelines recommend its use in patients with symptomatic knee OA on a par with NSAIDs while the American College of Rheumatology guidance (Arthritis Care Res. 2020;72[2]:149-62) conditionally recommends that it be used only if there is no real alternative, such as a contraindication to NSAIDs or pain relief is ineffective.

Patients with rheumatic disease are increasingly taking opioid painkillers such as tramadol, with other data reported at the EULAR 2020 E-Congress showing a rise from 15% in 2007 to 25% in 2016 in the Catalonia region of Spain alone. A rise from 5% to 10% has previously been reported in the United States from 2003 to 2009.

With increasing rates of tramadol prescribing, the worry is that perhaps tramadol is not as safe a people think it is, as Thomas Schwenk, MD, pointed out when he reviewed the previous research showing excess mortality with tramadol (NEJM Journal Watch, March 2019).

“The opioid agonist tramadol often is prescribed for patients with osteoarthritis pain because it is thought to be safer than opioids or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,” he observed. Dr. Schwenk, who is dean of the University of Nevada, Reno, added that the “results [of that study] suggest that tramadol is not as safe as some people believe.”

He suggested cautious prescribing: “Tramadol might be an option for patients in whom NSAIDs are contraindicated, but it should be prescribed as judiciously as traditional opioids.”

Responsible prescribing to avoid opioid misuse in patients with rheumatic diseases was also advocated in a EULAR press release from the congress. A study from Iceland was highlighted that found patients with inflammatory arthritis frequently did not stop taking opioids after the source of their pain had gone; in fact, their use went up despite being treated with tumor necrosis factor inhibitors.

“We would like to raise awareness of a responsible approach both by the prescribers and also the patients,” said John Isaacs, PhD, of the University of Newcastle (England). “In order to alleviate chronic pain, medications should in any case only be part of a comprehensive therapy program, in which doctors, psychologists, and physiotherapists work together.”

The study authors had no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Li L et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020;79[suppl 1]:118, Abstract OP0191.

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.

An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.

The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.

These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.

“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.

“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.

The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

New ‘atlas’

It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.

However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”

“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.

The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”

The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.

The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.

Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.

The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
 

‘Curious’ finding

Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.

After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.

The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).

Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”

One of the highest cumulative associations was for mood disorders and circulatory conditions during the first 15 years following a mood disorder diagnosis, compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).

The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).

“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.

Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
 

A strong case

In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”

Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”

For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.

The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose an unprecedented challenge to health care systems worldwide. In addition to the direct impact of the disease itself, there is a growing concern related to ensuring adequate health care utilization and addressing the needs of vulnerable populations, such as those with chronic illness.

Emanuel et al. have advocated a framework of fair allocation of resources, led by the principles of equity, maximizing benefits, and prioritizing the vulnerable. In these uncertain times, patients with rheumatic diseases represent a vulnerable population whose health and wellness are particularly threatened, not only by the risk of COVID-19, but also by reduced access to usual medical care (e.g., in-person clinic visits), potential treatment interruptions (e.g., planned infusion therapies), and the ongoing shortage of hydroxychloroquine, to name a few.

As rheumatologists, we are now tasked with the development of best practices for caring for patients with rheumatic conditions in this uncertain, evolving, and nearly data-free landscape. We also must maintain an active role as advocates for our patients to help them navigate this pandemic. Herein, we discuss our approach to caring for patients with rheumatic diseases within our practice in New York City, an epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Communication with patients

Maintaining an open line of communication with our patients (by phone, patient portal, telemedicine, and so on) has become more essential than ever. It is through these communications that we best understand our patients’ concerns and provide support and personalized treatment decisions. The most common questions we have received during recent weeks are:

• Should I stop my medication to lower my risk for infection?
• Are my current symptoms caused by coronavirus, and what should I do next?
• Where can I fill my hydroxychloroquine prescription?

The American College of Rheumatology has deployed a number of task forces aimed at advocating for rheumatologists and patients with rheumatic diseases and is doing an exemplary job guiding us. For patients, several other organizations (e.g., CreakyJoints, Arthritis Foundation, Lupus Research Alliance, Vasculitis Foundation, and Scleroderma Foundation) are also providing accurate information regarding hygiene practices, social distancing, management of medications, and other guidance related to specific rheumatic diseases. In line with ACR recommendations, we encourage a personalized, shared decision-making process with each of our patients.

Patients with rheumatic disease at risk for COVID-19 infection

First, for rheumatology patients who have no COVID-19 symptoms, our management approach is individualized. For patients who are able to maintain social distancing, we have not routinely stopped immunosuppressive medications, including disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and biologic agents. However, we discuss the risks and benefits of continuing immunosuppressive therapy during this time with all of our patients.

In certain cases of stable, non–life-threatening disease, we may consider spacing or temporarily interrupting immunosuppressive therapy, using individualized, shared decision making. Yet, it is important to recognize that, for some patients, achieving adequate disease control can require a substantial amount of time.

Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that disease flares requiring steroid therapy may increase the risk for infection even more, keeping in mind that, in some rheumatic diseases, high disease activity itself can increase infection risk. We advise patients who are continuing therapy to maintain at least a 1-month supply of their medications.

Decisions regarding infusions in the hospital and outpatient settings are similarly made on an individual basis, weighing the risk for virus exposure against that of disease flare. The more limited availability of appropriately distanced infusion chairs in some already overburdened systems must be considered in this discussion. We agree with the ACR, whose infusion guidance recommends that “possible changes might include temporary interruption of therapy, temporary initiation of a bridge therapy such as a less potent anti-inflammatory or immune-modulating agent, or temporary change to an alternative therapy.”

We also reinforce recommended behaviors for preventing infection, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and avoiding touching one’s face.

Patients with rheumatic disease and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection

With the worldwide spread of COVID-19, patients with rheumatic diseases will undoubtedly be among those exposed and infected. Though current data are limited, within a cohort from China, 1% had an autoimmune disease. Testing recommendations to confirm COVID-19 and decision guidelines for outpatient versus inpatient management are evolving, and we consult the most up-to-date, local information regarding testing as individual potential cases arise.

For patients who develop COVID-19 and are currently taking DMARDs and biologics, we recommend that they discontinue these medications, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). HCQ may be continued because its mechanism is not expected to worsen infection, and it plays a key role in the management of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). In addition, in vitro antiviral effects have been reported and there is growing interest for its use in the management of COVID-19. However, there are conflicting data and methodological concerns about the nonrandomized human studies that suggest a benefit of HCQ against COVID-19.

The decision regarding management of glucocorticoids in the setting of new COVID-19 infection is challenging and should be individualized. At present, expert panels recommend against the use of glucocorticoids among individuals with COVID-19 who do not have acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, adrenal insufficiency must be considered among patients with COVID-19 who are treated with chronic glucocorticoids. Again, these decisions should be made on an individual, case-by-case basis.

Implications of a hydroxychloroquine shortage

The use of HCQ in rheumatology is supported by years of research. Particularly in SLE, HCQ has been shown to reduce disease activity and damage and to improve survival. Furthermore, for pregnant patients with SLE, numerous studies have demonstrated the safety and benefit of HCQ for both the mother and fetus; thus, it is strongly recommended. By contrast, despite the growing interest for HCQ in patients with COVID-19, the evidence is inconclusive and limited.

The ACR suggests that decisions regarding HCQ dose reductions to extend individual patients supplies should be tailored to each patient’s need and risk in the unfortunate setting of medication shortages. Even in patients with stable SLE, however, disease flares at 6 months are more common among individuals who discontinue HCQ. Of note, these flares may incorporate novel and severe disease manifestations.

Unfortunately, other therapeutic options for SLE are associated with more adverse effects (including increased susceptibility to infection) or are largely unavailable (e.g., quinacrine). Thus, we strive to continue standard dosing of HCQ for patients who are currently flaring or recently flared, and we make shared, individualized decisions for those patients with stable disease as the HCQ shortage evolves.

Future research on COVID-19 and rheumatic disease

While we might expect that an underlying rheumatic disease and associated treatments may predispose individuals to developing COVID-19, current data do not indicate which, if any, rheumatic diseases and associated therapies convey the greatest risk.

To address this uncertainty, the rheumatology community created the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance, an international effort to initiate and maintain a deidentified patient registry for individuals with rheumatic disease who develop COVID-19. These efforts will allow us to gain essential insights regarding which patient demographics, underlying diseases, and medications are most common among patients who develop COVID-19.

This alliance encourages rheumatologists and those caring for patients with rheumatic diseases to report their patient cases to this registry. As we are confronted with making management decisions with a scarcity of supporting data, efforts like these will improve our ability to make individualized treatment recommendations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented us all with unprecedented challenges. As rheumatologists, it is our duty to lead our patients through this uncharted territory with close communication, information, advocacy, and personalized treatment decisions. Each of these is central to the management of rheumatology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

With the growing interest in immunomodulatory therapies for the complications of this infection, we have the unique opportunity to share our expertise, recommendations, and caution with our colleagues. As clinicians and scientists, we must advocate for data collection and studies that will allow us to develop novel, data-driven disease management approaches while providing the best care possible for our patients.

Stephen Paget, MD, is physician in chief emeritus for the Center for Rheumatology at Hospital for Special Surgery in New York. Kimberly Showalter, MD, is a third-year rheumatology fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery. Sebastian E. Sattui, MD, is a third-year rheumatology and 1-year vasculitis fellow at Hospital for Special Surgery.

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

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

When COVID-19 is suspected or confirmed in a patient with a rheumatic disease, treatment with hydroxychloroquine may be continued, but other treatments may need to be stopped or held temporarily, according to new guidance issued by the American College of Rheumatology.

That includes disease-modifying treatment with antirheumatic drugs such as sulfasalazine, methotrexate, leflunomide, and the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as immunosuppressants and non-interleukin (IL)-6 biologics, and this is regardless of how severe the COVID-19 illness is. NSAIDs should also be stopped if there are respiratory symptoms.

The advice is slightly less drastic if someone with stable rheumatic disease has probably been exposed to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or are asymptomatic. In those patients, DMARDs may be continued, although there is uncertainty over whether there is a need to temporarily stop methotrexate or leflunomide. Interruption of immunosuppressive, non–IL-6, and JAK inhibitor treatment is advised pending a negative SARS-CoV-2 test result, assuming the patient’s rheumatic disease is stable.
 

Impetus for ACR COVID-19 guidance

“One of the earliest challenges for rheumatologists during the COVID-19 pandemic was determining how to advise our patients who were taking immunosuppressive medications and were concerned as to whether or not to discontinue their therapy,” ACR President Ellen Gravallese, MD, said in an interview about the ACR Clinical Guidance Document, which is published online in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

“A second challenge was keeping our patients safe from exposure to the virus, while still seeing those patients in person who required office visits,” added Dr. Gravallese, who is chief of the division of rheumatology, inflammation, and immunity at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

She continued: “The ACR Clinical Guidance Document was prepared in order to assist rheumatologists with decisions as to how to handle current medications during different phases of a patient’s exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.”

But with very little evidence available on how to manage COVID-19 patients generally, let alone specifically in those with rheumatic diseases, “it became evident that any recommendations made would need to be done in a thoughtful and organized manner, evaluating the evidence that was available and obtaining the advice of experts in infectious disease, epidemiology, and in the use of biologic and nonbiologic agents for rheumatic disease,” she said.

As such, the ACR convened a task force of 10 rheumatologists and 4 infectious disease specialists from North America to look at how best to manage patients with rheumatic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“Our charge was to develop a guidance document for the care of adult rheumatic disease patients in the context of COVID-19 and not per se to provide guidance for the treatment of COVID-19,” explained task force member and the corresponding author for the guidance, Ted R. Mikuls, MD, MSPH, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha.

Dr. Mikuls, who was speaking at a virtual town hall meeting hosted by the ACR on May 6, noted that the guidance was obviously based on the best consensus of the available data and as such represented a “living document” that “would change and be added to” as necessary.
 

General recommendations for adult rheumatic disease management

In terms of general recommendations for the management of adult rheumatic disease patients, Dr. Mikuls said that six statements had been made “specific to risk assessment, prevention of infection, and best practices related to glucocorticoid use and the use of ACE [angiotensin-converting enzyme] inhibitors and ARBs [angiotensin II receptor blockers] during the pandemic.”

For example, general advice is to counsel patients to keep up general preventive measures such as social distancing and regular hand washing, reducing the number of in-person health care visits, and undertaking other means to try to prevent potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure. As for general treatment advice, glucocorticoids should be used at their lowest doses possible and should not be abruptly stopped, and antihypertensive treatment should be used as indicated.

Additional guidance statements include those that address the treatment of patients with stable rheumatic disease in the absence of infection or known exposure to SARS-CoV-2, with guidance specific to the treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and those with newly diagnosed or active rheumatic disease.
 

SLE and inflammatory arthritis recommendations

“There are several sections within the guidance document that address the treatment of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus during this pandemic,” Dr. Gravallese pointed out. “In general, it is recommended that lupus patients who are currently taking hydroxychloroquine can remain on the therapy prior to and during infection and that newly diagnosed patients with lupus can be placed on this medication at full dose. It is recommended that pregnant patients with lupus remain on therapy with this drug.”

She also observed that, for the treatment of active inflammatory arthritis, “the recommendations were written to address specific medications that could be used in this setting. In general, the task force recommendations were guided by the importance of controlling inflammation prior to exposure to the virus, even during this pandemic.
 

Guidance raises questions

During the ACR’s town hall meeting, the task force answered several questions raised by the guidance, such as the reasoning behind recommending that the use of traditional DMARDs be discontinued in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dr. Mikuls observed: “Maybe if you just read the guidance statements it isn’t terribly intuitive.” There was a lot of discussion about whether or not conventional DMARDs were immunosuppressive, and even though they may not have such effects, it was decided to err on the side of caution.

“I think the task force felt that, with a COVID-19–positive patient, there is a concern of potentially confusing adverse effects related to medicines or conflate those with problems from the infection,” he said. Although rare, examples of those issues could be drug-induced hypersensitivity, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal side effects of hepatitis, all of which have been described in COVID-19. “Not only could it cause confusion, but it could maybe worsen those sequalae of COVID-19,” he said.

“I think the other part of this answer was that the panel really felt that the risk in terms of the flaring of the underlying rheumatic disease was likely to be pretty low given the finite time frame you’d be taking about – usually a time frame of 2-3 weeks you’d be holding the agent – so I think that is really why the task force ended up with that recommendation.”

Similarly, for the JAK inhibitors, the decision was to err on the side of caution when COVID-19 was suspected or confirmed. “Not so much because of the risk of thromboembolic disease, but concerns over immunosuppression that these drugs carry with them and also the fact the JAK inhibitors are probably inhibitors of type 1 interferons, which play a significant role in viral immunity and could potentially have a negative impact,” said Stanley Cohen, MD, who practices rheumatology in the Dallas area.

“On the flipside, there is interest in some of the JAK inhibitors as a potential treatment for COVID-19,” Dr. Cohen said, referring to anecdotal evidence for baricitinib (Olumiant).

Michael Weinblatt, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, addressed the recent concern over the use of NSAIDs by the public.

“There’s been a lot in the lay press that NSAIDs – because of the effects on receptors in the lung – could lead to deleterious outcomes in patients with COVID and there’s very little data to support this.

“We did recommend that NSAIDs be held in the hospitalized patient and that wasn’t because of the COVID-19 issue, it really was just medical practice, and we didn’t want to confound the care of these really sick patients with potential toxicities from NSAIDs. But as far as routine rheumatological care in your outpatients, we did not recommend that nonsteroidals be stopped if they were tolerated.”

One part of the guidance that might already need revision is the recommendation on the continued use of hydroxychloroquine in patients who develop COVID-19.

“Our guidance document says it’s OK; we were all in very strong agreement to continue hydroxychloroquine in our patients with COVID-19 because at that point, just a couple of weeks ago, we thought it was part of the potential treatment,” Karen Costenbader, MD, MPH, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said during the town hall meeting.

“Now the pendulum has swung the other way, and we’re worried about maybe we shouldn’t be continuing it because COVID-19 patients will be getting many other medications,” Dr. Costenbader said, and these may affect the QT-interval. “They will not be getting azithromycin because the pendulum swung the other way on that one too, but definitely on many other medications when they are sick.”

Potentially, she added, “if the rheumatic disease is under good control the inpatient physicians could decide whether they should continue [hydroxychloroquine] or not. If the COVID-19 is a mild disease, I would say we probably could continue in accordance with what we put in the document, but we will have to revisit this as well.”
 

Guidance is a ‘living document’

“We will be providing updates to the Clinical Guidance Document as the need arises,” Dr. Gravallese emphasized. While the general recommendations are unlikely to change very much, “the task force will be interested in seeing the results of all new data, but the results of randomized, clinical trials will be particularly important as they become available,” she said. In particular, randomized, controlled trials of glucocorticoids and IL-6 receptor blockade for use in COVID-19 will be of great importance.

“In this initial document, we could not take on all of the medical scenarios our members will face. For example, we could not take on recommendations for the pediatric population as this group of patients has a very different response than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus,” Dr. Gravallese acknowledged. The plan is to provide guidance for that group of patients soon.

In addition, the ACR Executive Committee has appointed a Practice and Advocacy Task Force that will “address issues rheumatologists face on the practice side, including advice regarding how to effectively use telemedicine, address the frequency and safety of infusions, determine urgent versus nonurgent issues that would or would not require face-to-face visits, and help with financial challenges.”

The American College of Rheumatology supported the guidance-development process. Dr. Mikuls, Dr. Weinblatt, Dr. Cohen, and Dr. Costenbader each disclosed research support or consultancies with multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Gravallese had no disclosures.

SOURCE: Mikuls TR et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020 Apr 29. doi: 10.1002/art.41301.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. – Stimulation of the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve with an implantable electrical device is a potentially effective treatment for chronic, intractable knee pain.

In a small case series consisting of five patients with chronic knee pain, pain intensity scores on the visual analog scale (VAS) dropped from an average of 8 out of 10 before the implant to 1.4 out of 10 when measured 6 months afterward.

Pain relief was also long lasting, with an average score at 2 years still significantly reduced from baseline, at 3 out of 10 on the VAS.

“We have a lot of patients with chronic knee pain, and unfortunately, our hands are tied in terms of what we can do for them,” lead author Kwo Wei David Ho, MD, PhD, Stanford University, California, told Medscape Medical News.

“They can use NSAIDs, physical therapy, some get steroid injections, or genicular nerve blocks, but they don’t work that well. Some have knee replacement surgery, and can still have persistent knee pain after the operation, so here we are using an alternative therapy called peripheral nerve stimulation of the saphenous nerve. This provides a way to relieve pain without nerve destruction or motor dysfunction,” Ho said.

The findings were presented here at the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) 2020 Annual Meeting.

Patient Controlled

For the study, the investigators surgically implanted five patients with intractable knee pain with the StimRouter™ (Bioness, Inc).

The device takes about 15 to 30 minutes to implant, much like a pacemaker, and reduces pain by delivering gentle electrical stimulation directly to a target peripheral nerve, in this case the saphenous nerve, to interrupt the pain signal, Ho said.

“A thin, threadlike lead, or noodle, is implanted below the skin next to the target peripheral nerve responsible for the pain signal under ultrasound guidance, and then a patch or external pulse transmitter (EPT) is worn on top of the skin. This sends electric stimulation through the skin to the lead,” he explained.

The patient can then control the EPT and adjust stimulation with a wireless handheld programmer.

“Some patients turn it on at night for a couple of hours and then turn it off, some leave it on for the entire night, or the whole day if they prefer. What we’ve been noticing in our series is that after a while, patients are using less and less, and the pain gets better and better, and eventually they stop using it entirely because the pain completely resolves,” Ho said.

Good candidates for this treatment are post-knee replacement patients with residual pain, he added.

Durable Effect

Of the five patients in the case series, four had previous knee arthroplasty.

To determine the chances of a good response to the implant, study participants underwent a diagnostic saphenous nerve block, with the rationale that if the block successfully reduced knee pain by 50% or more in the short term, patients would likely respond well to the implant.

Before the peripheral nerve stimulation implant, the average pain intensity was 7.8 out of 10 on the VAS. After stimulator implantation, the average pain intensity was 1.4 at 6 months (P = .019, in 5 patients). At 1 year, the average pain intensity score was virtually the same, at 1.5 on the VAS, (P = .0032, in 4 patients). At 2 years, the average pain intensity score was 2.75 (P = .12, in 2 patients).

“This study provides preliminary evidence that stimulation at the saphenous nerve may be effective for selected patients with chronic knee pain,” Ho said.

Commenting on the findings for Medscape Medical News, Patrick Tighe, MD, MS, University of Florida, Gainesville, said that chronic knee pain continues to present “numerous diagnostic and therapeutic challenges for many patients.”

“It may be surprising, but there is still so much we don’t know about the innervation of the knee, and we are still learning about different ways to alter the behavior of those nerves,” said Tighe, who was not involved with the current study.

“This work points to some exciting opportunities to help patients suffering from chronic knee pain. We certainly need more research in this area to figure out the optimal approach to applying these findings more widely,” he said.

Ho and Tighe have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.

“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.

“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”

That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.

A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
 

In the OA pipeline

“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.

Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.

“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.

“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.

This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)

Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.

“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.

Welcome to the wild, wild West

Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.

“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.

He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.

As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.

These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.

“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.

The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.

Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.

“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”


 

On a brighter note

Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.

Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.

“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”

As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.

“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.

He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.

“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.

“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”

That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.

A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
 

In the OA pipeline

“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.

Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.

“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.

“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.

This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)

Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.

“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.

Welcome to the wild, wild West

Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.

“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.

He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.

As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.

These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.

“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.

The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.

Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.

“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”


 

On a brighter note

Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.

Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.

“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”

As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.

“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.

He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com

MAUI, HAWAII – Osteoarthritis therapy remains a barren landscape where conventional medicine has so little to offer that many affected patients eagerly embrace unproven Internet claims for costly out-of-pocket intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma, oxygen ozone, and mesenchymal stem cells, Eric M. Ruderman, MD, said at the 2020 Rheumatology Winter Clinical Symposium.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

He presented a whirlwind review of the evidence – or lack thereof – for a wide range of contemporary OA therapies, ranging from acupuncture to cupping, lateral wedge insoles, various substances for intra-articular injection, radiofrequency therapy, medical leeches, and several widely ballyhooed medications that are well along in the developmental pipeline but whose placebo-subtracted efficacy is actually quite modest.

“I’ve shown you the evidence, such as it is – it’s not very much. The question is, have we really moved the needle in this disease in the last 30 years? The answer is I’m not so sure we have,” concluded Dr. Ruderman, professor of medicine and associate chief for clinical affairs in the division of rheumatology at Northwestern University, Chicago.

Several audience members were less restrained in their assessments.

“You have not moved the needle in osteoarthritis,” stated orthopedic surgeon William Bugbee, MD, chief of joint reconstruction at the Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., adding that he’s not much impressed by the long-term impact of intra-articular injections, be they of glucocorticoid, hyaluronic acid, or anything else being put into osteoarthritic joints.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“To me, and to most orthopedic surgeons, an injection is a handshake. It’s like: ‘How do you do? Let’s get to know each other.’ But you know where this interaction is going – it’s going to end up in surgery. But that’s okay. Surgery is great. Let’s face it: It’s the only disease-modifying treatment for OA,” Dr. Bugbee declared.

Roy Fleischmann, MD, rose from the audience to assert that “the biggest need in rheumatology right now is a medication for OA that actually works and is actually disease modifying.”

That’s not going to happen until clinical trialists and the pharmaceutical industry learn how to subgroup OA and separate inflammatory OA from noninflammatory OA. Lumping the two together tends to wash out any strong efficacy signal an investigational agent might have, added Dr. Fleischmann, a rheumatologist at the University of Texas and medical director of the Metroplex Clinical Research Center, both in Dallas.

Dr. Ruderman noted that his own analysis of the contemporary evidence base for OA pharmacotherapies reached conclusions generally similar to those contained in the new American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation “Guideline for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hand, Hip, and Knee”. The list of pharmacotherapies that were strongly recommended in the guidelines was slim and rather tired: oral NSAIDs, intra-articular glucocorticoid injections, and – for knee OA only – topical NSAIDs. The strength of those favorable recommendations was based more upon solid evidence of safety rather than impressive efficacy, in his view. And the guidelines’ list of therapies whose use was strongly discouraged was much longer.

A factor in the flimsy evidence base for OA treatment is the strikingly large across-the-board placebo effect. This was nicely captured in a meta-analysis of 215 randomized, controlled trials of various therapies totaling more than 41,000 participants. Drilling down into the data, the British and Chinese investigators concluded that on average 75% of the overall treatment effect seen in the trials was caused by the placebo effect and only 25% represented a treatment-specific effect. The “winner” was intra-articular glucocorticoid, where the placebo effect was a mere 47%.
 

In the OA pipeline

“There’s a lot of interest in DMOADs – disease-modifying osteoarthritis drugs – but not a lot of success so far,” Dr. Ruderman observed.

Case in point: intra-articular sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18. In a 549-patient, multicenter, dose-ranging study, the two highest doses achieved a modest yet statistically significant advantage over placebo in total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness on MRI at 2 years. However, the investigators added that the result was of “uncertain clinical importance,” given the lack of a difference from baseline in total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index score.

“I’m not sure this is going anywhere,” Dr. Ruderman commented.

Tanezumab, a novel subcutaneously injected monoclonal antibody directed against nerve growth factor, has drawn a lot of attention. In an initial multicenter, phase 3, randomized trial it showed what Dr. Ruderman termed “some modest benefit” on pain and function.

“Very much like everything else in OA, you see a huge placebo effect buried in there,” according to the rheumatologist.

This modest clinical benefit was accompanied by a safety signal at the higher 5-mg dose of tanezumab. Moreover, a second phase 3 trial, this one conducted in nearly 3,000 OA patients and presented at the 2019 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, also raised significant safety concerns at the higher dose. And while the 2.5-mg dose was safer, it was disappointingly no more effective in terms of improvement in pain and function scores than diclofenac at 75 mg twice daily, Dr. Ruderman noted.

Dr. Fleischmann predicted that, given the enormous unmet need for new OA treatments, tanezumab at 2.5 mg will win regulatory approval, but it will be a costly niche drug reserved for the challenging subset of patients who can’t take an NSAID and are poor surgical candidates. (On March 2, 2020, Eli Lilly announced that the Food and Drug Administration had accepted its Biologics License Application for tanezumab for the treatment of chronic pain caused by moderate to severe OA.)

Intra-articular FX006, a microsphere-based, extended-release formulation of triamcinolone, outperformed conventional triamcinolone in a phase 3 clinical trial. However, the placebo-subtracted improvement in pain was modest.

“There’s some marginal benefit here, but over time I’m not sure this adds much to just straight-up triamcinolone,” Dr. Ruderman opined.

Welcome to the wild, wild West

Patients with knee OA ask Dr. Ruderman all the time about the intra-articular injections of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or mesenchymal stem cells they’ve seen touted on the Internet. As an evidence-based physician, he’s not a fan. A meta-analysis of 14 controlled trials of PRP, none double blind, showed some benefit in terms of pain and function at 3, 6, and 12 months, with little risk of adverse events. However, PRP is being marketed with a hype and claimed efficacy out of all proportion to the actual evidence.

“It’s the wild, wild West out there,” the rheumatologist warned.

He cited a study involving a scripted survey of 179 U.S. clinics offering PRP. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection in a hypothetical 52-year-old man with knee OA was $714, and it’s a cash business, since insurance companies won’t cover PRP. Out of 84 centers that were willing to share their claimed efficacy, 10 quoted 90%-100% rates of good results or symptomatic improvement, 27 claimed 80%-90% efficacy, and 29 quoted figures of 70%-80%, all of which are well above the success rates achieved in the flawed clinical trials.

As for mesenchymal stem cells, “if PRP is the wild, wild West, this is the surface of Mars,” Dr. Ruderman quipped.

These stem cell injections are neither FDA regulated nor approved. There are no barriers to setting up a mesenchymal stem cell injection center, and the number of such centers is skyrocketing. Anybody can set up a center, and there’s essentially no oversight.

“The evidence in this area is really terrible,” the rheumatologist said. He pointed to a meta-analysis of five trials, only two of which were rated by the researchers as having a low risk of bias. The conclusion: There was limited evidence of short-term benefit in pain and function, but no evidence of cartilage repair, which is the chief claimed benefit.

The same group of investigators who queried the PRP clinics also successfully contacted 273 of the proliferating U.S. centers offering direct-to-consumer mesenchymal stem cell therapy. The mean price quoted for a unilateral knee injection was a whopping $5,156, which – like PRP – isn’t covered by insurance. At the 36 clinics responding to a request for their efficacy rates, the mean claim was good results or symptomatic improvement in 82% of treated patients.

Dr. Bugbee didn’t endorse this intervention, which is increasingly popular among his fellow orthopedic surgeons.

“The regulatory pathway drives this. Mesenchymal stem cells are categorized as a minimally manipulated tissue, so the regulatory pathway is easy,” explained Dr. Bugbee. “I talk 9 out of 10 patients out of it because there’s no evidence of disease modification.”


 

On a brighter note

Radiofrequency ablation and neuromodulation procedures for treatment of symptomatic knee OA make no pretense of being disease modifying, but a new systematic review of 33 published studies deemed of moderate or high methodological quality totaling 1,512 patients documented improved pain, function, and disease-specific quality of life for 3-12 months with minimal complications.

Most of these procedures target the genicular nerve, the sensory nerve that innervates the knee.

“There’s some value here to this,” Dr. Ruderman said. “Our pain folks are actually pretty interested in this. At our center, they’re using this for patients with persistent knee pain after knee replacement, with some success. It’s not an unreasonable approach.”

As part of his examination of the evidence base for OA treatment, Dr. Ruderman looked into an intervention he wasn’t familiar with: acupuncture. He was pleasantly surprised.

“There’s quite a bit of data. There is decent evidence that acupuncture has significant benefit, at least for pain, and is certainly without significant side effects,” according to the rheumatologist.

He cited a review of a dozen systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials of acupuncture for OA. The Chinese investigators rated the overall quality of the evidence as moderate to low, but with some studies being rated high quality. “That’s not as bad as some of the other stuff I looked at,” Dr. Ruderman said.

Acupuncture was found to be 2.4 times more effective than Western medicine for short-term pain relief, and 4.1 times better in terms of total efficacy, with a lower risk of adverse events than with Western medicine.

Dr. Ruderman reported serving as a consultant for and/or receiving research grants from more than a half-dozen pharmaceutical companies.

bjancin@mdedge.com