Osteoarthritis

Losing weight and lowering body mass index may help people slow, delay, or even prevent the structural defects of knee osteoarthritis, especially on the medial side of the knee, results of a prospective multicohort study from Australia suggest.

“We showed that the more weight that is lost, the greater the apparent benefit for delaying or preventing knee joint degradation in osteoarthritis,” senior study author Amanda Sainsbury, PhD, professor of obesity research at the University of Western Australia, Perth, said in an interview. “For example, a person weighing 100 kilograms [220 pounds] who loses 10 kilograms [22 pounds] is likely to have double the benefit compared to losing 5 kilograms [11 pounds].”

wragg/iStockphoto.com

“We showed evidence of association, not causality,” she and her colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “Future randomized, controlled trials are required to demonstrate causality.”

Dr. Sainsbury and colleagues analyzed radiographs of knees from three independent cohort studies from the United States and the Netherlands – the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST), and the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study – at baseline and again 4-5 years later.

The authors created two groups of knees at baseline: the “incidence cohort” of 9,683 knees from 5,774 participants without OA structural defects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1) and the “progression cohort” of 6,075 knees from 3,988 participants with OA structural defects (KL grade 2 or higher). After 4-5 years, they determined OA incidence (KL grade 2 or higher in participants without baseline knee OA) and progression (increase of one or more KL grades in those with baseline knee OA).At baseline, the mean patient age in both groups was around 60, and around 60% of participants were female. In the incidence and progression groups, respectively, White patients comprised 87.5% and 80.4% of participants; mean body mass index was 28.2 and 30.4 kg/m²; and 32.6% and 48.4% of participants were obese (BMI, 30 or higher). The authors combined data from the three studies and used logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, with clustering of both knees within individuals. On multivariable analysis, they found that change in BMI 4-5 years post baseline was positively linked with both incidence and progression of knee OA structural defects.

In the incidence group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 1,101 patients and increased 1 or more units in 1,611. In the progression group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 798 patients and increased in 1,008.

The adjusted odds ratio for overall structural defects in the incidence group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09) in the progression group was. A 1-unit decrease in BMI was linked with a nearly 5% drop in odds of incidence and progression of knee OA, and a 5-unit decrease was linked with a more than 21% drop in odds of incidence and progression.

In the incidence group, change in BMI was positively linked with medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (narrowing; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) and with medial femoral surface degeneration indicated by osteophytes (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

In the progression group, change in BMI was positively linked with overall structural defects (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09) as well as medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

“Previous research showed that weight loss helps reduce symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, such as pain and impaired physical function,” said lead study author Zübeyir Salis, BEng, a PhD student in public health at the University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. “Weight loss is emerging as a suitable strategy for potentially delaying and preventing osteoarthritic knee joint degeneration.”
 

Two experts not involved in the study welcome its results

Kai Sun, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, rheumatology, and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N. C., said it makes mechanical sense that less weight bearing decreases knee damage over time, but she was somewhat surprised that even people who started with normal BMI improved their outcomes by decreasing BMI further.

“Knee osteoarthritis and obesity prevalence are both growing,” Dr. Sun said. “Knee osteoarthritis may one day be considered an obesity-related comorbidity like hypertension and diabetes and be used as additional justification for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to treat obesity.”

She noted that the study’s major strengths include its large sample size, long follow-up, and separate inclusion of disease incidence and progression, but also noted some limitations.

“BMI data at only two time points does not consider BMI fluctuations between those times,” she added. “Limited data were presented on physical activity levels, and most participants being White and elderly limited the generalizability of the results.”

Eduardo Grunvald, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the weight management program at the University of California, San Diego, agreed about the study’s strengths and pointed out its lack of information about the cause of BMI changes.

Dr. Grunvald would like to know whether the BMI changes contributed to the knee changes or vice versa. “An individual’s worsening knee pain could lead to less physical activity and possible increased BMI.

“Long-term weight-loss maintenance is extremely challenging, and for optimal outcomes, medical professionals who treat joint disease should partner with clinicians trained to treat obesity,” he advised.

The authors are planning further related research. “We’re looking forward to running a randomized, controlled clinical weight-loss trial,” Dr. Sainsbury said.The study was supported by scholarship and fellowship funds from the Australian government. Mr. Salis and Dr. Sainsbury each own 50% of shares in a company that provides educational resources and services in adult weight management. Dr. Sainsbury and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sun and Dr. Grunvald reported no relevant financial relationships.

Losing weight and lowering body mass index may help people slow, delay, or even prevent the structural defects of knee osteoarthritis, especially on the medial side of the knee, results of a prospective multicohort study from Australia suggest.

“We showed that the more weight that is lost, the greater the apparent benefit for delaying or preventing knee joint degradation in osteoarthritis,” senior study author Amanda Sainsbury, PhD, professor of obesity research at the University of Western Australia, Perth, said in an interview. “For example, a person weighing 100 kilograms [220 pounds] who loses 10 kilograms [22 pounds] is likely to have double the benefit compared to losing 5 kilograms [11 pounds].”

wragg/iStockphoto.com

“We showed evidence of association, not causality,” she and her colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “Future randomized, controlled trials are required to demonstrate causality.”

Dr. Sainsbury and colleagues analyzed radiographs of knees from three independent cohort studies from the United States and the Netherlands – the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST), and the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study – at baseline and again 4-5 years later.

The authors created two groups of knees at baseline: the “incidence cohort” of 9,683 knees from 5,774 participants without OA structural defects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1) and the “progression cohort” of 6,075 knees from 3,988 participants with OA structural defects (KL grade 2 or higher). After 4-5 years, they determined OA incidence (KL grade 2 or higher in participants without baseline knee OA) and progression (increase of one or more KL grades in those with baseline knee OA).At baseline, the mean patient age in both groups was around 60, and around 60% of participants were female. In the incidence and progression groups, respectively, White patients comprised 87.5% and 80.4% of participants; mean body mass index was 28.2 and 30.4 kg/m²; and 32.6% and 48.4% of participants were obese (BMI, 30 or higher). The authors combined data from the three studies and used logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, with clustering of both knees within individuals. On multivariable analysis, they found that change in BMI 4-5 years post baseline was positively linked with both incidence and progression of knee OA structural defects.

In the incidence group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 1,101 patients and increased 1 or more units in 1,611. In the progression group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 798 patients and increased in 1,008.

The adjusted odds ratio for overall structural defects in the incidence group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09) in the progression group was. A 1-unit decrease in BMI was linked with a nearly 5% drop in odds of incidence and progression of knee OA, and a 5-unit decrease was linked with a more than 21% drop in odds of incidence and progression.

In the incidence group, change in BMI was positively linked with medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (narrowing; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) and with medial femoral surface degeneration indicated by osteophytes (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

In the progression group, change in BMI was positively linked with overall structural defects (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09) as well as medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

“Previous research showed that weight loss helps reduce symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, such as pain and impaired physical function,” said lead study author Zübeyir Salis, BEng, a PhD student in public health at the University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. “Weight loss is emerging as a suitable strategy for potentially delaying and preventing osteoarthritic knee joint degeneration.”
 

Two experts not involved in the study welcome its results

Kai Sun, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, rheumatology, and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N. C., said it makes mechanical sense that less weight bearing decreases knee damage over time, but she was somewhat surprised that even people who started with normal BMI improved their outcomes by decreasing BMI further.

“Knee osteoarthritis and obesity prevalence are both growing,” Dr. Sun said. “Knee osteoarthritis may one day be considered an obesity-related comorbidity like hypertension and diabetes and be used as additional justification for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to treat obesity.”

She noted that the study’s major strengths include its large sample size, long follow-up, and separate inclusion of disease incidence and progression, but also noted some limitations.

“BMI data at only two time points does not consider BMI fluctuations between those times,” she added. “Limited data were presented on physical activity levels, and most participants being White and elderly limited the generalizability of the results.”

Eduardo Grunvald, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the weight management program at the University of California, San Diego, agreed about the study’s strengths and pointed out its lack of information about the cause of BMI changes.

Dr. Grunvald would like to know whether the BMI changes contributed to the knee changes or vice versa. “An individual’s worsening knee pain could lead to less physical activity and possible increased BMI.

“Long-term weight-loss maintenance is extremely challenging, and for optimal outcomes, medical professionals who treat joint disease should partner with clinicians trained to treat obesity,” he advised.

The authors are planning further related research. “We’re looking forward to running a randomized, controlled clinical weight-loss trial,” Dr. Sainsbury said.The study was supported by scholarship and fellowship funds from the Australian government. Mr. Salis and Dr. Sainsbury each own 50% of shares in a company that provides educational resources and services in adult weight management. Dr. Sainsbury and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sun and Dr. Grunvald reported no relevant financial relationships.

Losing weight and lowering body mass index may help people slow, delay, or even prevent the structural defects of knee osteoarthritis, especially on the medial side of the knee, results of a prospective multicohort study from Australia suggest.

“We showed that the more weight that is lost, the greater the apparent benefit for delaying or preventing knee joint degradation in osteoarthritis,” senior study author Amanda Sainsbury, PhD, professor of obesity research at the University of Western Australia, Perth, said in an interview. “For example, a person weighing 100 kilograms [220 pounds] who loses 10 kilograms [22 pounds] is likely to have double the benefit compared to losing 5 kilograms [11 pounds].”

wragg/iStockphoto.com

“We showed evidence of association, not causality,” she and her colleagues wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology. “Future randomized, controlled trials are required to demonstrate causality.”

Dr. Sainsbury and colleagues analyzed radiographs of knees from three independent cohort studies from the United States and the Netherlands – the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study (MOST), and the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study – at baseline and again 4-5 years later.

The authors created two groups of knees at baseline: the “incidence cohort” of 9,683 knees from 5,774 participants without OA structural defects (Kellgren-Lawrence grade 0 or 1) and the “progression cohort” of 6,075 knees from 3,988 participants with OA structural defects (KL grade 2 or higher). After 4-5 years, they determined OA incidence (KL grade 2 or higher in participants without baseline knee OA) and progression (increase of one or more KL grades in those with baseline knee OA).At baseline, the mean patient age in both groups was around 60, and around 60% of participants were female. In the incidence and progression groups, respectively, White patients comprised 87.5% and 80.4% of participants; mean body mass index was 28.2 and 30.4 kg/m²; and 32.6% and 48.4% of participants were obese (BMI, 30 or higher). The authors combined data from the three studies and used logistic regression and generalized estimating equations, with clustering of both knees within individuals. On multivariable analysis, they found that change in BMI 4-5 years post baseline was positively linked with both incidence and progression of knee OA structural defects.

In the incidence group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 1,101 patients and increased 1 or more units in 1,611. In the progression group, BMI decreased 1 or more units in 798 patients and increased in 1,008.

The adjusted odds ratio for overall structural defects in the incidence group was 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09) in the progression group was. A 1-unit decrease in BMI was linked with a nearly 5% drop in odds of incidence and progression of knee OA, and a 5-unit decrease was linked with a more than 21% drop in odds of incidence and progression.

In the incidence group, change in BMI was positively linked with medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (narrowing; OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12) and with medial femoral surface degeneration indicated by osteophytes (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

In the progression group, change in BMI was positively linked with overall structural defects (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.09) as well as medial, but not lateral, joint space degeneration (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.12).

“Previous research showed that weight loss helps reduce symptoms of knee osteoarthritis, such as pain and impaired physical function,” said lead study author Zübeyir Salis, BEng, a PhD student in public health at the University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia. “Weight loss is emerging as a suitable strategy for potentially delaying and preventing osteoarthritic knee joint degeneration.”
 

Two experts not involved in the study welcome its results

Kai Sun, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine, rheumatology, and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N. C., said it makes mechanical sense that less weight bearing decreases knee damage over time, but she was somewhat surprised that even people who started with normal BMI improved their outcomes by decreasing BMI further.

“Knee osteoarthritis and obesity prevalence are both growing,” Dr. Sun said. “Knee osteoarthritis may one day be considered an obesity-related comorbidity like hypertension and diabetes and be used as additional justification for pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to treat obesity.”

She noted that the study’s major strengths include its large sample size, long follow-up, and separate inclusion of disease incidence and progression, but also noted some limitations.

“BMI data at only two time points does not consider BMI fluctuations between those times,” she added. “Limited data were presented on physical activity levels, and most participants being White and elderly limited the generalizability of the results.”

Eduardo Grunvald, MD, professor of medicine and medical director of the weight management program at the University of California, San Diego, agreed about the study’s strengths and pointed out its lack of information about the cause of BMI changes.

Dr. Grunvald would like to know whether the BMI changes contributed to the knee changes or vice versa. “An individual’s worsening knee pain could lead to less physical activity and possible increased BMI.

“Long-term weight-loss maintenance is extremely challenging, and for optimal outcomes, medical professionals who treat joint disease should partner with clinicians trained to treat obesity,” he advised.

The authors are planning further related research. “We’re looking forward to running a randomized, controlled clinical weight-loss trial,” Dr. Sainsbury said.The study was supported by scholarship and fellowship funds from the Australian government. Mr. Salis and Dr. Sainsbury each own 50% of shares in a company that provides educational resources and services in adult weight management. Dr. Sainsbury and one coauthor reported relevant financial relationships with various pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Sun and Dr. Grunvald reported no relevant financial relationships.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Omega-3 supplements did not reduce fractures during a median 5.3-year follow-up in the more than 25,000 generally healthy men and women (≥ age 50 and ≥ age 55, respectively) in the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The large randomized controlled trial tested whether omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease or cancer in a representative sample of midlife and older adults from 50 U.S. states – which they did not. In a further analysis of VITAL, vitamin D supplements (cholecalciferol, 2,000 IU/day) did not lower the risk of incident total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with placebo.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

Now this new analysis shows that omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1 g/day of fish oil) did not reduce the risk of such fractures in the VITAL population either. Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, presented the latest findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“In this, the largest randomized controlled trial in the world, we did not find an effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on fractures,” Dr. LeBoff, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The current analysis did “unexpectedly” show that among participants who received the omega-3 fatty acid supplements, there was an increase in fractures in men, and fracture risk was higher in people with a normal or low body mass index and lower in people with higher BMI.

However, these subgroup findings need to be interpreted with caution and may be caused by chance, Dr. LeBoff warned. The researchers will be investigating these findings in further analyses.
 

Should patients take omega-3 supplements or not?

Asked whether, in the meantime, patients should start or keep taking fish oil supplements for possible health benefits, she noted that certain individuals might benefit.

For example, in VITAL, participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week and received omega-3 fatty acid supplements had a decrease in the combined cardiovascular endpoint, and Black participants who took fish oil supplements had a substantially reduced risk of the outcome, regardless of fish intake.

“I think everybody needs to review [the study findings] with clinicians and make a decision in terms of what would be best for them,” she said.

Session comoderator Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, commented that “many people take omega-3 because they think it will help” knee, hip, or other joint pain.

Perhaps men are more prone to joint pain because of osteoarthritis and the supplements lessen the pain, so these men became more physically active and more prone to fractures, she speculated.

The current study shows that, “so far, we haven’t been able to demonstrate a reduced rate of fractures with fish oil supplements in clinical randomized trials” conducted in relatively healthy and not the oldest patients, she summarized. “We’re not talking about 80-year-olds.”

In this “well-conducted study, they were not able to see any difference” with omega-3 fatty acid supplements versus placebo, but apparently, there are no harms associated with taking these supplements, she said.

To patients who ask her about such supplements, Dr. Langdahl advised: “Try it out for 3 months. If it really helps you, if it takes away your joint pain or whatever, then that might work for you. But then remember to stop again because it might just be a temporary effect.”
 

Could fish oil supplements protect against fractures?

An estimated 22% of U.S. adults aged 60 and older take omega-3 fatty acid supplements, Dr. LeBoff noted.

Preclinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce bone resorption and have anti-inflammatory effects, but observational studies have reported conflicting findings.

The researchers conducted this ancillary study of VITAL to fill these knowledge gaps.

VITAL enrolled a national sample of 25,871 U.S. men and women, including 5,106 Black participants, with a mean age of 67 and a mean BMI of 28 kg/m2.

Importantly, participants were not recruited by low bone density, fractures, or vitamin D deficiency. Prior to entry, participants were required to stop taking omega-3 supplements and limit nonstudy vitamin D and calcium supplements.

The omega-3 fatty acid supplements used in the study contained eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in a 1.2:1 ratio.

VITAL had a 2x2 factorial design whereby 6,463 participants were randomized to receive the omega-3 fatty acid supplement and 6,474 were randomized to placebo. (Remaining participants were randomized to receive vitamin D or placebo.)

Participants in the omega-3 fatty acid and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. For example, about half (50.5%) were women, and on average, they ate 1.1 servings of dark-meat fish (such as salmon) per week.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and each year.

Plasma omega-3 levels were measured at baseline and, in 1,583 participants, at 1 year of follow-up. The mean omega-3 index rose 54.7% in the omega-3 fatty acid group and changed less than 2% in the placebo group at 1 year.

Study pill adherence was 87.0% at 2 years and 85.7% at 5 years.

Fractures were self-reported on annual questionnaires and centrally adjudicated in medical record review.
 

No clinically meaningful effect of omega-3 fatty acids on fractures

During a median 5.3-year follow-up, researchers adjudicated 2,133 total fractures and confirmed 1,991 fractures (93%) in 1551 participants.

Incidences of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were similar in both groups.

Compared with placebo, omega-3 fatty acid supplements had no significant effect on risk of total fractures (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12), or hip fractures (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.30), all adjusted for age, sex, and race.

The “confidence intervals were narrow, likely excluding a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. LeBoff noted.

Among men, those who received fish oil supplements had a greater risk of fracture than those who received placebo (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51), but this result “was not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing,” Dr. LeBoff cautioned.

In the overall population, participants with a BMI less than 25 who received fish oil versus placebo had an increased risk of fracture, and those with a BMI of at least 30 who received fish oil versus placebo had a decreased risk of fracture, but the limits of the confidence intervals crossed 1.00.

After excluding digit, skull, and pathologic fractures, there was no significant reduction in total fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), or hip fractures (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33), with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

Similarly, there was no significant reduction in risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical spine fractures) or wrist fractures with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

VITAL only studied one dose of omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and results may not be generalizable to younger adults, or older adults living in residential communities, Dr. LeBoff noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. VITAL was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. LeBoff and Dr. Langdahl have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omega-3 supplements did not reduce fractures during a median 5.3-year follow-up in the more than 25,000 generally healthy men and women (≥ age 50 and ≥ age 55, respectively) in the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The large randomized controlled trial tested whether omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease or cancer in a representative sample of midlife and older adults from 50 U.S. states – which they did not. In a further analysis of VITAL, vitamin D supplements (cholecalciferol, 2,000 IU/day) did not lower the risk of incident total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with placebo.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

Now this new analysis shows that omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1 g/day of fish oil) did not reduce the risk of such fractures in the VITAL population either. Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, presented the latest findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“In this, the largest randomized controlled trial in the world, we did not find an effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on fractures,” Dr. LeBoff, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The current analysis did “unexpectedly” show that among participants who received the omega-3 fatty acid supplements, there was an increase in fractures in men, and fracture risk was higher in people with a normal or low body mass index and lower in people with higher BMI.

However, these subgroup findings need to be interpreted with caution and may be caused by chance, Dr. LeBoff warned. The researchers will be investigating these findings in further analyses.
 

Should patients take omega-3 supplements or not?

Asked whether, in the meantime, patients should start or keep taking fish oil supplements for possible health benefits, she noted that certain individuals might benefit.

For example, in VITAL, participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week and received omega-3 fatty acid supplements had a decrease in the combined cardiovascular endpoint, and Black participants who took fish oil supplements had a substantially reduced risk of the outcome, regardless of fish intake.

“I think everybody needs to review [the study findings] with clinicians and make a decision in terms of what would be best for them,” she said.

Session comoderator Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, commented that “many people take omega-3 because they think it will help” knee, hip, or other joint pain.

Perhaps men are more prone to joint pain because of osteoarthritis and the supplements lessen the pain, so these men became more physically active and more prone to fractures, she speculated.

The current study shows that, “so far, we haven’t been able to demonstrate a reduced rate of fractures with fish oil supplements in clinical randomized trials” conducted in relatively healthy and not the oldest patients, she summarized. “We’re not talking about 80-year-olds.”

In this “well-conducted study, they were not able to see any difference” with omega-3 fatty acid supplements versus placebo, but apparently, there are no harms associated with taking these supplements, she said.

To patients who ask her about such supplements, Dr. Langdahl advised: “Try it out for 3 months. If it really helps you, if it takes away your joint pain or whatever, then that might work for you. But then remember to stop again because it might just be a temporary effect.”
 

Could fish oil supplements protect against fractures?

An estimated 22% of U.S. adults aged 60 and older take omega-3 fatty acid supplements, Dr. LeBoff noted.

Preclinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce bone resorption and have anti-inflammatory effects, but observational studies have reported conflicting findings.

The researchers conducted this ancillary study of VITAL to fill these knowledge gaps.

VITAL enrolled a national sample of 25,871 U.S. men and women, including 5,106 Black participants, with a mean age of 67 and a mean BMI of 28 kg/m2.

Importantly, participants were not recruited by low bone density, fractures, or vitamin D deficiency. Prior to entry, participants were required to stop taking omega-3 supplements and limit nonstudy vitamin D and calcium supplements.

The omega-3 fatty acid supplements used in the study contained eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in a 1.2:1 ratio.

VITAL had a 2x2 factorial design whereby 6,463 participants were randomized to receive the omega-3 fatty acid supplement and 6,474 were randomized to placebo. (Remaining participants were randomized to receive vitamin D or placebo.)

Participants in the omega-3 fatty acid and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. For example, about half (50.5%) were women, and on average, they ate 1.1 servings of dark-meat fish (such as salmon) per week.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and each year.

Plasma omega-3 levels were measured at baseline and, in 1,583 participants, at 1 year of follow-up. The mean omega-3 index rose 54.7% in the omega-3 fatty acid group and changed less than 2% in the placebo group at 1 year.

Study pill adherence was 87.0% at 2 years and 85.7% at 5 years.

Fractures were self-reported on annual questionnaires and centrally adjudicated in medical record review.
 

No clinically meaningful effect of omega-3 fatty acids on fractures

During a median 5.3-year follow-up, researchers adjudicated 2,133 total fractures and confirmed 1,991 fractures (93%) in 1551 participants.

Incidences of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were similar in both groups.

Compared with placebo, omega-3 fatty acid supplements had no significant effect on risk of total fractures (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12), or hip fractures (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.30), all adjusted for age, sex, and race.

The “confidence intervals were narrow, likely excluding a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. LeBoff noted.

Among men, those who received fish oil supplements had a greater risk of fracture than those who received placebo (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51), but this result “was not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing,” Dr. LeBoff cautioned.

In the overall population, participants with a BMI less than 25 who received fish oil versus placebo had an increased risk of fracture, and those with a BMI of at least 30 who received fish oil versus placebo had a decreased risk of fracture, but the limits of the confidence intervals crossed 1.00.

After excluding digit, skull, and pathologic fractures, there was no significant reduction in total fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), or hip fractures (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33), with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

Similarly, there was no significant reduction in risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical spine fractures) or wrist fractures with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

VITAL only studied one dose of omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and results may not be generalizable to younger adults, or older adults living in residential communities, Dr. LeBoff noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. VITAL was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. LeBoff and Dr. Langdahl have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Omega-3 supplements did not reduce fractures during a median 5.3-year follow-up in the more than 25,000 generally healthy men and women (≥ age 50 and ≥ age 55, respectively) in the Vitamin D and Omega-3 Trial (VITAL).

The large randomized controlled trial tested whether omega-3 fatty acid or vitamin D supplements prevented cardiovascular disease or cancer in a representative sample of midlife and older adults from 50 U.S. states – which they did not. In a further analysis of VITAL, vitamin D supplements (cholecalciferol, 2,000 IU/day) did not lower the risk of incident total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures, compared with placebo.

Dmitriy Danilchenko/Shutterstock

Now this new analysis shows that omega-3 fatty acid supplements (1 g/day of fish oil) did not reduce the risk of such fractures in the VITAL population either. Meryl S. LeBoff, MD, presented the latest findings during an oral session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

“In this, the largest randomized controlled trial in the world, we did not find an effect of omega-3 fatty acid supplements on fractures,” Dr. LeBoff, from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, told this news organization.

The current analysis did “unexpectedly” show that among participants who received the omega-3 fatty acid supplements, there was an increase in fractures in men, and fracture risk was higher in people with a normal or low body mass index and lower in people with higher BMI.

However, these subgroup findings need to be interpreted with caution and may be caused by chance, Dr. LeBoff warned. The researchers will be investigating these findings in further analyses.
 

Should patients take omega-3 supplements or not?

Asked whether, in the meantime, patients should start or keep taking fish oil supplements for possible health benefits, she noted that certain individuals might benefit.

For example, in VITAL, participants who ate less than 1.5 servings of fish per week and received omega-3 fatty acid supplements had a decrease in the combined cardiovascular endpoint, and Black participants who took fish oil supplements had a substantially reduced risk of the outcome, regardless of fish intake.

“I think everybody needs to review [the study findings] with clinicians and make a decision in terms of what would be best for them,” she said.

Session comoderator Bente Langdahl, MD, PhD, commented that “many people take omega-3 because they think it will help” knee, hip, or other joint pain.

Perhaps men are more prone to joint pain because of osteoarthritis and the supplements lessen the pain, so these men became more physically active and more prone to fractures, she speculated.

The current study shows that, “so far, we haven’t been able to demonstrate a reduced rate of fractures with fish oil supplements in clinical randomized trials” conducted in relatively healthy and not the oldest patients, she summarized. “We’re not talking about 80-year-olds.”

In this “well-conducted study, they were not able to see any difference” with omega-3 fatty acid supplements versus placebo, but apparently, there are no harms associated with taking these supplements, she said.

To patients who ask her about such supplements, Dr. Langdahl advised: “Try it out for 3 months. If it really helps you, if it takes away your joint pain or whatever, then that might work for you. But then remember to stop again because it might just be a temporary effect.”
 

Could fish oil supplements protect against fractures?

An estimated 22% of U.S. adults aged 60 and older take omega-3 fatty acid supplements, Dr. LeBoff noted.

Preclinical studies have shown that omega-3 fatty acids reduce bone resorption and have anti-inflammatory effects, but observational studies have reported conflicting findings.

The researchers conducted this ancillary study of VITAL to fill these knowledge gaps.

VITAL enrolled a national sample of 25,871 U.S. men and women, including 5,106 Black participants, with a mean age of 67 and a mean BMI of 28 kg/m2.

Importantly, participants were not recruited by low bone density, fractures, or vitamin D deficiency. Prior to entry, participants were required to stop taking omega-3 supplements and limit nonstudy vitamin D and calcium supplements.

The omega-3 fatty acid supplements used in the study contained eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid in a 1.2:1 ratio.

VITAL had a 2x2 factorial design whereby 6,463 participants were randomized to receive the omega-3 fatty acid supplement and 6,474 were randomized to placebo. (Remaining participants were randomized to receive vitamin D or placebo.)

Participants in the omega-3 fatty acid and placebo groups had similar baseline characteristics. For example, about half (50.5%) were women, and on average, they ate 1.1 servings of dark-meat fish (such as salmon) per week.

Participants completed detailed questionnaires at baseline and each year.

Plasma omega-3 levels were measured at baseline and, in 1,583 participants, at 1 year of follow-up. The mean omega-3 index rose 54.7% in the omega-3 fatty acid group and changed less than 2% in the placebo group at 1 year.

Study pill adherence was 87.0% at 2 years and 85.7% at 5 years.

Fractures were self-reported on annual questionnaires and centrally adjudicated in medical record review.
 

No clinically meaningful effect of omega-3 fatty acids on fractures

During a median 5.3-year follow-up, researchers adjudicated 2,133 total fractures and confirmed 1,991 fractures (93%) in 1551 participants.

Incidences of total, nonvertebral, and hip fractures were similar in both groups.

Compared with placebo, omega-3 fatty acid supplements had no significant effect on risk of total fractures (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.13), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91-1.12), or hip fractures (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61-1.30), all adjusted for age, sex, and race.

The “confidence intervals were narrow, likely excluding a clinically meaningful effect,” Dr. LeBoff noted.

Among men, those who received fish oil supplements had a greater risk of fracture than those who received placebo (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.51), but this result “was not corrected for multiple hypothesis testing,” Dr. LeBoff cautioned.

In the overall population, participants with a BMI less than 25 who received fish oil versus placebo had an increased risk of fracture, and those with a BMI of at least 30 who received fish oil versus placebo had a decreased risk of fracture, but the limits of the confidence intervals crossed 1.00.

After excluding digit, skull, and pathologic fractures, there was no significant reduction in total fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), nonvertebral fractures (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14), or hip fractures (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33), with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

Similarly, there was no significant reduction in risk of major osteoporotic fractures (hip, wrist, humerus, and clinical spine fractures) or wrist fractures with omega-3 supplements versus placebo.

VITAL only studied one dose of omega-3 fatty acid supplements, and results may not be generalizable to younger adults, or older adults living in residential communities, Dr. LeBoff noted.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Arthritis Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. VITAL was funded by the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. LeBoff and Dr. Langdahl have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

Clinical research in rheumatology was suffering from an identity crisis of sorts 40 years ago. A lack of consensus across continents resulted in differing views about clinical outcome measures and judgments about treatments.

Patients were not allowed to be the generating source of a clinical outcome, according to Peter Tugwell, MSc, MD. “The only outcomes that were acceptable were clinician assessments, blood tests, and imaging,” said Dr. Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and public health at the University of Ottawa (Ont.) and a practicing rheumatologist at Ottawa Hospital.

Clinicians were coming to different conclusions about patient responses to treatment when managing rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OMERACT sought to address this lack of uniformity. This international group, formed in 1992, leverages stakeholder groups to improve outcome measurement in rheumatology endpoints through a consensus-building, data-driven format.

It was originally known as “Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials,” but its leaders have since broadened its scope to “Outcome Measures in Rheumatology.” Over the years, it has evolved into an international network that assesses measurement across a wide variety of intervention studies. Now 30 years old, the network spans 40 active working groups and has influenced work in patient outcomes across 500 peer-reviewed publications.

The network meets every 2 years to address what is always a challenging agenda, said Dr. Tugwell, one of its founding members and chair. “There’s lots of strong opinions.” Participating in the discussions are individuals from all stages of seniority in rheumatology and clinical epidemiology, patient research partners, industry, approval agencies, and many countries who are committed to the spirit of OMERACT.

“The secret to our success has been getting world leaders to come together and have those discussions, work them through, and identify common ground in such a way that the approval agencies accept these outcome measures in clinical trials,” he added.

“My impression was the founders perceived a problem in the early 1990s and devised a consensus method in an attempt to quantify clinical parameters to define disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis – an important first step to do clinical trials and allow comparisons between them,” said Patricia Woo, CBE, FMedSci, FRCP, emeritus professor of pediatric rheumatology and previous head of the Centre for Paediatric and Adolescent Rheumatology at UCL, London. At that time, even disease definitions varied between the United States and Europe and other parts of the world, said Dr. Woo, who is not a part of OMERACT. “This was especially true for pediatric rheumatology.”
 

Fusing the continental divide

OMERACT arose from a need to streamline clinical outcome measures in rheumatology. Research papers during the 1980s demonstrated a lack of coherence in managing patients with rheumatoid arthritis in routine practice. In addition, the measures used to define clinical endpoints in clinical trials operated in silos – they were either too specific to a certain trial, overlapped with other concepts, or didn’t reflect changes in treatment.

Approval agencies in Europe and North America were approving only outcomes measures developed by their respective researchers. This was also true of patients they tested on. “This seemed crazy,” Dr. Tugwell said.

Dr. Tugwell was involved in the Cochrane collaboration, which conducts systematic reviews of best evidence across the world that assesses the magnitude of benefits versus harms.

To achieve this goal, “you need to pull studies from around the world,” he said. Maarten Boers, MD, PhD, a rheumatologist (and later professor of clinical epidemiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center) from the Netherlands, spent a year in Ontario, Canada, to train as a clinical epidemiologist. Together, Dr. Tugwell and Dr. Boers began discussing options to develop more streamlined outcome measures.

Courtesy OMERACT

They initiated the first OMERACT conference in Maastricht, the Netherlands, in 1992. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency participated, along with leaders of outcomes measurement in Europe and in North America.

Discussions centered on methods to develop outcomes in a meaningful fashion. During the first meeting, North American and European approval agencies agreed to accept each other’s studies and endpoints and patient reported outcomes.

Agreement was achieved on a preliminary set of outcome domains and measures that later became known as the WHO-ILAR (World Health Organization–International League of Associations for Rheumatology) core set. The set included seven outcome domains: tender joints, swollen joints, pain, physician global assessment, patient global assessment, physical disability, and acute phase reactants, and one additional outcome domain for studies lasting 1 year or more: radiographs of the joints.

“A proactive program was planned to test not only the validity of these endpoints, but also the methods for their measurement. This was the start of a continuing process,” OMERACT members said in a joint statement for this article. Meetings have since taken place every 2 years.

Courtesy OMERACT

OMERACT accomplishments

OMERACT now requires buy-in from four continents: Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America.

Its leaders have developed an explicit process for gaining endorsement of core outcome domains and instrument measurement sets. To fully capture the possibilities of “what to measure,” i.e., “measurable aspects of health conditions,” OMERACT has developed a framework of concepts, core areas, and outcome domains. The key concepts are pathophysiology (with a core area termed “manifestations/abnormalities”) and impact (with core areas of “death/lifespan,” and “life impact,” and the optional area of “societal/resource use”). An outcome domain defines an element of a core area to measure the effects of a treatment, such as blood markers, pain intensity, physical function, or emotional well-being.

A core outcome domain set is developed by agreeing to at least one outcome domain within one of the three core areas. Subsequently, a core outcome measurement set is developed by agreeing to at least one applicable measurement instrument for each core outcome domain. This requires documentation of validity, summarized under three metrics: truth, discrimination, and feasibility.

OMERACT’s handbook provides tutelage on establishing and implementing core outcomes, and several workbooks offer guidance on developing core outcome domain sets, selecting instruments for core outcome measurement sets, and OMERACT methodology.

All this work has led to widespread adoption.

Approval agencies have accepted OMERACT’s filter and methods advances, which have been adopted by many research groups in rheumatology and among nonrheumatology research groups. Organizations such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke have sought its advice.

Its core outcomes have been adopted and used for approval in the great majority of studies on rheumatoid arthritis, Dr. Tugwell said.

Several BMJ articles underscore the influence and uptake of OMERACT’s core outcome set. One 2017 paper, which analyzed 273 randomized trials of rheumatoid arthritis drug treatments on ClinicalTrials.gov, found that the WHO-ILAR arthritis core outcome set was reported in 81% of the studies. “The adoption of a core outcome set has the potential to increase consistency in outcomes measured across trials and ensure that trials are more likely to measure appropriate outcomes,” the authors concluded.

Since the initial 1992 meeting, OMERACT has broadened its focus from rheumatoid arthritis to 25 other musculoskeletal conditions.

For example, other OMERACT conferences have led to consensus on core sets of measures for osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis, psychosocial measures, and a core set of data for cost-effectiveness evaluations.
 

‘Speed is a limitation’

OMERACT is a bottom-up volunteer organization. It doesn’t represent any official organization of any clinical society. “We’ve not asked to be adopted by the American College of Rheumatology, EULAR [European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology], or other international organizations,” Dr. Tugwell said. It offers a chance for patients, users, and doers of research to work together to agree on rigorous criteria accepted by the approval agencies and take the necessary time to work things through.

This is not a fast process, usually taking 4-6 years to initiate and establish an outcome domain set, he emphasized. “It would be beneficial to do it faster if we had the resources to meet every year. The fact is we’re a volunteer organization that meets every 2 years.”

Speed is a limitation, he acknowledged, but it’s an acceptable trade-off for doing things correctly.

The group has faced other challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, pivoting to a virtual format that had benefits and limitations.

In one respect, moving to a virtual meeting increased uptake in participation and voting, Dr. Tugwell said. Patient participants with severe rheumatoid arthritis no longer faced the challenges of travel. “On the other hand, we didn’t have the same opportunity to achieve common ground virtually,” he said. “Where there are strong disagreements, I’m a great believer that people need to know one another. There needs to be relationship building.”

OMERACT’s emerging leader program has been a cornerstone of its in-person meetings, engaging young rheumatologists to interact with some of the leaders of outcome measurement. The virtual format dampened this process somewhat, eliminating those important “café chats” between the stakeholders.

The hope is to bring people face-to-face once more at the next meeting in May 2023. The agenda will focus on relationship building, identifying controversial areas, and bringing younger people to develop relationships, Dr. Tugwell said. OMERACT will retain a virtual option for the worldwide voting, “which will allow for more buy-in from so many more people,” he added.
 

A consensus on pain

The onus of developing outcome measures that move with the times is sometimes too great for one group to manage. In 2018, OMERACT became a part of the Red Hat Group (RHG), an organization conceived at the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) VII meeting in Amsterdam.

RHG aims to improve the choice of outcomes in health research. It includes eight groups: COMET; OMERACT; the Cochrane Skin Core Outcome Set Initiative; Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations; Center for Medical Technology Policy; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium; and Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology.

The collaboration between groups offers a “very interesting interface between consensus building as well as hard evidence,” Dr. Tugwell said. The focus goes beyond rheumatology to other clinical areas of common interest, exploring how one classifies outcome domains in terms of symptoms, life impact, or death.

Pain is an important common denominator that the RHG has evaluated.

“We believe it’s too general. We’re trying to define pain across all Red Hat Groups because it’s clear that the research community has all these different scales for defining pain severity,” Dr. Tugwell said. “We have to find a way to make ruthless decisions and rules for doing it. And of course, it has to be transparent.”
 

Looking ahead

As part of its ongoing work, OMERACT is evaluating the robustness of instruments that rheumatologists use as outcome measures in clinical trials, which can be a laborious process. The OMERACT Filter 2.0, part of the latest iteration of the handbook, offers strong guidance for researchers but needs a long-term strategy and key methodological support. “To that end, we set up a technical advisory group to help people in the instrument selection work and that remains an ongoing process,” OMERACT leaders said in their joint statement.

OMERACT is looking at opportunities to create benchmark processes for developing core sets outside of rheumatology and a methodology around outcome measures such as contextual factors, composites, and surrogates.

It will also be taking a step back to solicit opinions from the approval agencies represented by the OMERACT membership on the OMERACT handbook.

The goal is to make sure the handbook aligns with everyone else’s approval and labeling requirements.
 

OMERACT’s patient participants bring important perspectives

OMERACT over the years has sought to become a more patient-centered group. Patients have been involved in OMERACT activities since its sixth meeting, forming an independent, yet integrated, group within the network. They have their own steering committee and produced and helped to update a glossary for OMERACT patients and professionals. 

Catherine (McGowan) Hofstetter, who was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis 30 years ago, chairs OMERACT’s Patient Research Partners Support Team. In a Q&A, she discussed the importance of patient voices and OMERACT’s plans to further educate and include patients in the dialogue on outcomes.

Question: Have patients always been a part of OMERACT meetings? 

Answer: Patients have been involved with OMERACT since 2002. The patient voice adds relevance to all the work that OMERACT does. You can’t begin to talk about outcomes unless there is a patient at the table with lived experience.

Q: Can you cite a few examples of how the patient voice enriches the conversation on outcomes research? 

A: Outcomes and priorities that are important to patients are often completely different than those of the clinician. For instance, a work outcome is important to someone who doesn’t have any medical insurance or disability insurance, so that you can ensure that there is food on the table and a roof over your head. Or it may be important to someone because the employment provides medical and disability insurance to provide security for them and their family. These are two different perspectives on work and therefore work priorities and outcomes.

Q: What have been some of the challenges of getting patients to participate?

A: Training patients is one challenge. OMERACT’s work has a very steep learning curve, and while the basics are the same between the groups in terms of looking at what we measure and how we measure it, the nuances of different working groups require a lot of time and energy to be comfortable enough with the work, and then be confident enough to bring your perspective and lived experience to the table. It’s also a very accomplished group, which can be quite intimidating. Self-disclosure is a very personal and intimate undertaking that requires patience, compassion, and respect.

Q: Are there any plans to enhance patient engagement?

A: When we had OMERACT 2020 it was a virtual conference that took place over about 6 months. We had far more patient research partners [PRPs] participate than we have ever had at any OMERACT face-to-face meeting. There is a desire and passion on the part of patients to lend their voices to the work. The working groups meet virtually throughout the year to advance their agendas, and PRPs are a part of each of the working groups. 

Hopefully, we can start working toward including more voices at the conferences by enabling a hybrid model. The PRP Support Team will begin engaging patients this fall with education, mentoring, and team-building exercises so by the time we meet in person in May 2023, they will have enough background knowledge and information to give them the confidence that will enhance their experience at the face-to-face meeting.

We also need to ensure that those patients who want to stay engaged can. This means that the education and training should continue long after the face-to-face meeting is over. We need to build capacity in the PRP group and look to succession planning and be a resource to working groups struggling to find PRPs to work with them on a longer-term basis.

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

People with diabetes who take nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs even on a short-term basis may have about a 50% greater risk of developing heart failure, according to results from a national registry study of more than 330,000 patients to be presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“According to data from this study, even short-term NSAID use – within 28 days – in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with an increased risk of first-time heart failure hospitalization,” lead author Anders Holt, MD, said in an interview.

“Further, it seems that patients above 79 years of age or with elevated hemoglobin A1c levels, along with new users of NSAIDs, are particularly susceptible.” He added that no such association was found in patients below age 65 years with normal A1c levels.

Dr. Holt has a dual appointment as a cardiologist at Copenhagen University and Herlev-Gentofte Hospital in Hellerup, Denmark, and the department of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland (New Zealand). Jarl Emmanuel Strange, MD, PhD, a fellow at Copenhagen University, is to present the abstract on Aug. 26.

“This is quite an important observation given that, unfortunately, NSAIDs continue to be prescribed rather easily to people with diabetes and these agents do have risk,” said Rodica Busui, MD, PhD, codirector of the JDRF Center of Excellence at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and president-elect for medicine and science of the American Diabetes Association. Dr. Busui is also lead author of an ADA/American College of Cardiology consensus report on heart failure in diabetes.

The study hypothesized that fluid retention “is a known but underappreciated side effect” of NSAID use and that short-term NSAID use could lead to heart failure in patients with type 2 diabetes, which has been linked to subclinical cardiomyopathy and kidney dysfunction.

“According to this study and particularly the subgroups analyses, it seems that incident heart failure associated with short-term NSAID use could be more than ‘just fluid overload,’ ” Dr. Holt said. “Further investigations into the specific mechanisms causing these associations are warranted.”

The study identified 331,189 patients with type 2 diabetes in nationwide Danish registries from 1998 to 2018. Median age was 62 years, and 23,308 (7%) were hospitalized with heart failure during follow-up, Dr. Holt said. Of them, 16% claimed at least one NSAID prescription within 2 years and 3% claimed they had at least three prescriptions.

Study follow-up started 120 days after the first-time type 2 diabetes diagnosis and focused on patients who had no previous diagnosis of heart failure or rheumatologic disease. The investigators reported on patients who had one, two, three or four prescriptions for NSAID within a year of starting follow-up.

The study used a case-crossover design, which, the abstract stated, “uses each individual as his or her own control making it suitable to study the effect of short-term exposure on immediate events while mitigating unmeasured confounding.”

Dr. Holt noted that short-term NSAID use was linked to increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-1.63). The investigators identified even greater risks in three subgroups: age of at least 80 years (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.39-2.28), elevated A1c levels treated with one or less antidiabetic medication (OR 1.68; 95% CI, 1-2.88), and patients without previous NSAID use (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.78-4.23).

In the cohort, celecoxib and naproxen were rarely used (0.4 and 0.9%, respectively), while 3.3% of patients took diclofenac or 12.2% ibuprofen. The latter two NSAIDs had ORs of 1.48 and 1.46, respectively, for hospitalization for new-onset heart failure using 28-day exposure windows (95% CI for both, 1.1­-2 and 1.26-1.69). No increased risk emerged for celecoxib or naproxen.

“High age and A1c levels and being a new user were tied to the strongest associations, along with known use of RASi [renin-angiotensin system inhibitors] and diuretics,” Dr. Holt said. “On the contrary, it seemed safe – from our data – to prescribe short-term NSAIDs for patients below 65 years of age and patients with normal A1c levels.

“Interestingly,” he added, “subclinical structural heart disease among patients with type 2 diabetes could play an important role.”

The findings are noteworthy, Dr. Busui said. “Although there are some limitations with the study design in general when one looks at data extracted from registers, the very large sample size and the fact that the Danish national register captures data in a standardized fashion does make the findings very relevant, especially now that we have confirmed that heart failure is the most prevalent cardiovascular complication in people with diabetes, as we have highlighted in the most recent ADA/ACC consensus on heart failure in diabetes.”

The study received funding from the Danish Heart Foundation and a number of private foundations. Dr. Holt and colleagues have no disclosures. Dr. Busui disclosed relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim–Lilly Alliance, Novo Nordisk, Averitas Pharma, Nevro, Regenacy Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics.

 

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

In June, the Concord, Mass.–based company Tremeau Pharmaceuticals announced that the Food and Drug Administration was letting it proceed with a phase 3 clinical trial to test rofecoxib, the once-bestselling painkiller known as Vioxx, in patients with migraine.

The anti-inflammatory drug, a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, received its first FDA approval in 1999 and became widely prescribed for arthritis and acute pain. In 2004 it was withdrawn by its manufacturer, Merck, after being shown to raise the risk of cardiovascular events.

In clinical trials and in real-world epidemiological studies, rofecoxib was associated with elevated heart attack, stroke, and related deaths; one 2005 study estimated that it had been responsible for some 38,000 excess deaths in the United States before being withdrawn. In 2007 Merck, beset with allegations that it had suppressed and mischaracterized rofecoxib’s safety data, paid out nearly $5 billion to settle thousands of lawsuits filed by patients and their families.

Shortly before its withdrawal, rofecoxib was approved for the treatment of migraine. Now, with its original patents expired, Tremeau hopes to gain approval for its reformulated version of the drug in both migraine and in hemophilia arthropathy, an indication for which it received an orphan drug designation in 2017 and the agency’s green light for trials in 2020.

Brad Sippy, Tremeau’s chief executive officer, said that his company chose the two indications in part because both patient populations have low cardiovascular risk. Migraine patients are generally younger than the arthritis populations formerly treated with rofecoxib and are unlikely to take the drug for more than a day or 2 at time, avoiding the risks associated with extended exposure.
 

A crowded market

The past several years have seen the emergence of a cornucopia of new migraine treatments, including monoclonal antibodies such as erenumab (Aimovig, Amgen), which help prevent attacks by blocking the vasodilator calcitonin gene-related peptide, or CGRP. In addition to the standard arsenal of triptans and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute pain relief, migraine patients can now choose among serotonin-blocking agents such as lasmiditan (Reyvow, Eli Lilly), known as “ditans,” and small-molecule CGRP antagonists such as ubrogepant (Ubrelvy, Abbie), known as “gepants.” Some NSAIDs, including one COX inhibitor, have been formulated into rapidly absorbed powders or liquids for migraine.

Mr. Sippy said he sees a role for rofecoxib even in this crowded space. “Migraine as you know is a multimodal situation – few people say that only one drug works for them,” he said. “We think this is an option that would basically be like a high dose of ibuprofen,” but with less frequent dosing and lower gastrointestinal and platelet effects compared with ibuprofen and other NSAIDs.
 

An improved formulation

Rofecoxib “crosses the blood brain barrier very readily – better than other COX inhibitors on the market,” Mr. Sippy added. “It was well absorbed in its original formulation, and our product is even better absorbed than the original – we estimate it’s probably an hour quicker to [peak concentration].” In addition, he said, “our formulation is more efficient at delivering the drug so we don’t need as much active ingredient – our 17.5 milligrams gets you the same systemic exposure as 25 milligrams of the old product.”

A different mechanism of action

Neurologist Alan M. Rapoport, MD, editor-in-chief of Neurology Reviews and professor of neurology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that he was “cautiously optimistic” that “if used correctly and not too frequently, [rofecoxib] will find its niche in migraine treatment.”

“Patients liked Vioxx,” said Dr. Rapoport, past president of the International Headache Society. Even people currently on prevention “need to have an acute care drug handy.” While some patients on monoclonal antibodies have had success with gepants for acute care, “these both target the same pathway. It’s always nice to have options with a different mechanism of action.”

One of the arguments Tremeau has cited for reintroducing rofecoxib has been an urgent need for alternatives to opioid painkillers. Indeed some analysts have linked the demise of Vioxx with a subsequent increase in opioid prescribing.

Dr. Rapoport noted that he never prescribes opioids or butalbital, a barbiturate, for migraine, and that most headache specialists avoid them in clinical practice. But in the emergency setting, he said, patients receive them all too frequently.

Mr. Sippy said that opioid prescribing, while not unknown in migraine, was a bigger problem in hemophilic arthropathy, the first indication his company has pursued for rofecoxib. People with hemophilia “have a kind of arthritis that would respond well to an anti-inflammatory drug but they can’t take NSAIDs due to bleeding risk. This is why so many end up on opioids. Rofecoxib, as a COX-2 inhibitor, doesn’t have any effect on platelet aggregation, which would make it another option.”
 

No unique risks at prescribed doses

The migraine indication originally started out narrower: Patients with both migraine and bleeding disorders. “But in talking with the FDA, they encouraged us to develop it for migraine,” Mr. Sippy said. The company is considering pursuing a third indication: menstrual pain co-occurring with migraine. Tremeau has not ruled out seeking an indication in patients with arthritis who cannot take other painkillers, whether opioids or NSAIDs.

Five years ago, when Tremeau first announced its plans to bring rofecoxib back – indeed the company was set up for that purpose and has only this and another COX-2 inhibitor in development – some experts warned that there is little to prevent the drug from being used off-label, whether in higher doses or for other diseases.

“That’s something else we’re seeking to solve in addition to going for younger populations,” said Mr. Sippy, who worked at Merck during the Vioxx crisis and later headed neurology at Sunovion before starting his own company.

“We’re going for the former middle dose as our high dose and now we know that you don’t want to take more than the prescribed amount. If it doesn’t work you get off it; you don’t want to dose-creep on it. That’s been a key insight: At the appropriate dose, this product has no unique risk relative to the drug class and potentially some unique benefits,” he said.
 

Risk versus benefit

Joseph Ross, MD, a health policy researcher at Yale University in New Haven, Conn., who in a 2018 editorial expressed concerns about rofecoxib’s revival, said in an email that he felt its use in migraine could be justified, with caveats.

During Vioxx’s original approval and time on the market, “there was a cardiovascular risk associated with use that was not being transparently and clearly reported to patients and clinicians,” Dr. Ross said.

“In terms of testing the product for use in patients with migraine – a population of generally younger patients at lower risk of cardiovascular disease – my only concern is that the risk is clearly communicated and that there is adequate postmarket safety surveillance,” he said. “If patients are making fully informed decisions, the potential benefit of the drug with respect to pain control may be worth the risks.”

Dr. Rapoport serves as an adviser for AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Cala Health, Collegium Pharmaceutical, Satsuma, Teva, Theranica and Xoc; he is on the speakers bureau of AbbVie, Amgen, Biohaven, Impel, Lundbeck, and Teva. Dr. Ross disclosed research support from Johnson and Johnson, the Medical Device Innovation Consortium, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, along with government grants; he is also an expert witness in a lawsuit against Biogen.

Similar to a phenomenon already well documented in women, inadequate nutrition appears to be linked to hormonal abnormalities and potentially preventable tibial cortical bone density loss in athletic men, according to results of a small, prospective study.

Based on these findings, “we suspect that a subset of male runners might not be fueling their bodies with enough nutrition and calories for their physical activity,” reported Melanie S. Haines, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

This is not the first study to suggest male athletes are at risk of a condition equivalent to what has been commonly referred to as the female athlete triad, but it enlarges the objective data that the phenomenon is real, and it makes insufficient availability of energy the likely cause.

In women, the triad is described as a lack of adequate stored energy, irregular menses, and bone density loss. In men, menstrual cycles are not relevant, of course, but this study like others suggests a link between the failure to maintain adequate stores of energy, disturbances in hormone function, and decreased bone density in both men and women, Dr. Haines explained.
 

RED-S vs. male or female athlete triad

“There is now a move away from the term female athlete triad or male athlete triad,” Dr. Haines reported. Rather the factors of failing to maintain adequate energy for metabolic demands, hormonal disturbances, and bone density loss appear to be relevant to both sexes, according to Dr. Haines, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. She said several groups, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), have transitioned to the term RED-S to apply to both sexes.

“RED-S is an acronym for relative energy deficiency in sport, and it appears to be gaining traction,” Dr. Haines said in an interview.

According to her study and others, excessive lean body mass from failure to supply sufficient energy for physiological needs “negatively affects hormones and bone,” Dr. Haines explained. In men and women, endocrine disturbances are triggered when insufficient calories lead to inadequate macro- and micronutrients.

In this study, 31 men aged 16-30 years were evaluated. Fifteen were in the athlete group, defined by running at least 30 miles per week for at least the previous 6 months. There were 16 control subjects; all exercised less than 2 hours per week and did not participate in team sports, but they were not permitted in the study if their body mass index exceeded 27.5 kg/m².
 

Athletes vs. otherwise healthy controls

Conditions that affect bone health were exclusion criteria in both groups, and neither group was permitted to take medications affecting bone health other than dietary calcium or vitamin D supplements for 2 months prior to the study.

Tibial cortical porosity was significantly greater – signaling deterioration in microarchitecture – in athletes, compared with control subjects (P = .003), according to quantitative computed tomography measurements. There was also significantly lower tibial cortical bone mineral density (P = .008) among athletes relative to controls.

Conversely, tibial trabecular measures of bone density and architecture were better among athletes than controls, but this was expected and did not contradict the hypothesis of the study.

“Trabecular bone refers to the inner part of the bone, which increases with weight-bearing exercise, but cortical bone is the outer shell, and the source of stress fractures,” Dr. Haines explained.

The median age of both the athletes and the controls was 24 years. Baseline measurements were similar. Body mass index, fat mass, estradiol, and leptin were all numerically lower in the athletes than controls, but none were significant, although there was a trend for the difference in leptin (P = .085).
 

Hormones correlated with tibial failure load

When these characteristics were evaluated in the context of mean tibial failure load, a metric related to strength, there was a strongly significant positive association with lean body mass (R = 0.85; P < 0.001) and estradiol level (R = 0.66; P = .007). The relationship with leptin also reached significance (R = 0.59; P = .046).

Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between testosterone and tibial failure load. The reason is unclear, but Dr. Haines’s interpretation is that the relationship between specific hormonal disturbances and bone density loss “might not be as simple” as once hypothesized.

The next step is a longitudinal evaluation of the same group of athletes to follow changes in the relationship between these variables over time, according to Dr. Haines.

Eventually, with evidence that there is a causal relationship between nutrition, hormonal changes, and bone loss, the research in this area will focus on better detection of risk and prophylactic strategies.

“Intervention trials to show that we can prevent stress factors will be difficult to perform,” Dr. Haines acknowledged, but she said that preventing adverse changes in bone at relatively young ages could have implications for long-term bone health, including protection from osteoporosis later in life.

The research presented by Dr. Haines is consistent with an area of research that is several decades old, at least in females, according to Siobhan M. Statuta, MD, a sports medicine primary care specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in men is more recent, but she said that it is now well accepted the there is a parallel hormonal issue in men and women.

“It is not a question of not eating enough. Often, athletes continue to consume the same diet, but their activity increases,” Dr. Statuta explained. “The problem is that they are not supplying enough of the calories they need to sustain the energy they are expending. You might say they are not fueling their engines appropriately.”

In 2014, the International Olympic Committee published a consensus statement on RED-S. They described this as a condition in which a state of energy deficiency leads to numerous complications in athletes, not just osteoporosis. Rather, a host of physiological systems, ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to cardiovascular events, were described.
 

RED-S addresses health beyond bones

“The RED-S theory is better described as a spoke-and-wheel concept rather than a triad. While inadequate energy availability is important to both, RED-S places this at the center of the wheel with spokes leading to all the possible complications rather than as a first event in a limited triad,” Dr. Statuta said in an interview.

However, she noted that the term RED-S is not yet appropriate to replace that of the male and female athlete triad.

“More research is required to hash out the relationship of a body in a state of energy deficiency and how it affects the entire body, which is the principle of RED-S,” Dr. Statuta said. “There likely are scientific effects, and we are currently investigating these relationships more.”

“These are really quite similar entities but have different foci,” she added. Based on data collected over several decades, “the triad narrows in on two body systems affected by low energy – the reproductive system and bones. RED-S incorporates these same systems yet adds on many more organ systems.

The original group of researchers have remained loyal to the concept of the triad that involves inadequate availability of energy followed by hormonal irregularities and osteoporosis. This group, the Female and Male Athlete Triad Coalition, has issued publications on this topic several times. Consensus statements were updated last year.

“The premise is that the triad leading to bone loss is shared by both men and women, even if the clinical manifestations differ,” said Dr. Statuta. The most notable difference is that men do not experience menstrual irregularities, but Dr. Statuta suggested that the clinical consequences are not necessarily any less.

“Males do not have menstrual cycles as an outward marker of an endocrine disturbance, so it is harder to recognize clinically, but I think there is agreement that not having enough energy available is the trigger of endocrine changes and then bone loss is relevant to both sexes,” she said. She said this is supported by a growing body of evidence, including the data presented by Dr. Haines at the Endocrine Society meeting.

Dr. Haines and Dr. Statuta report no potential conflicts of interest.

Similar to a phenomenon already well documented in women, inadequate nutrition appears to be linked to hormonal abnormalities and potentially preventable tibial cortical bone density loss in athletic men, according to results of a small, prospective study.

Based on these findings, “we suspect that a subset of male runners might not be fueling their bodies with enough nutrition and calories for their physical activity,” reported Melanie S. Haines, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

This is not the first study to suggest male athletes are at risk of a condition equivalent to what has been commonly referred to as the female athlete triad, but it enlarges the objective data that the phenomenon is real, and it makes insufficient availability of energy the likely cause.

In women, the triad is described as a lack of adequate stored energy, irregular menses, and bone density loss. In men, menstrual cycles are not relevant, of course, but this study like others suggests a link between the failure to maintain adequate stores of energy, disturbances in hormone function, and decreased bone density in both men and women, Dr. Haines explained.
 

RED-S vs. male or female athlete triad

“There is now a move away from the term female athlete triad or male athlete triad,” Dr. Haines reported. Rather the factors of failing to maintain adequate energy for metabolic demands, hormonal disturbances, and bone density loss appear to be relevant to both sexes, according to Dr. Haines, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. She said several groups, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), have transitioned to the term RED-S to apply to both sexes.

“RED-S is an acronym for relative energy deficiency in sport, and it appears to be gaining traction,” Dr. Haines said in an interview.

According to her study and others, excessive lean body mass from failure to supply sufficient energy for physiological needs “negatively affects hormones and bone,” Dr. Haines explained. In men and women, endocrine disturbances are triggered when insufficient calories lead to inadequate macro- and micronutrients.

In this study, 31 men aged 16-30 years were evaluated. Fifteen were in the athlete group, defined by running at least 30 miles per week for at least the previous 6 months. There were 16 control subjects; all exercised less than 2 hours per week and did not participate in team sports, but they were not permitted in the study if their body mass index exceeded 27.5 kg/m².
 

Athletes vs. otherwise healthy controls

Conditions that affect bone health were exclusion criteria in both groups, and neither group was permitted to take medications affecting bone health other than dietary calcium or vitamin D supplements for 2 months prior to the study.

Tibial cortical porosity was significantly greater – signaling deterioration in microarchitecture – in athletes, compared with control subjects (P = .003), according to quantitative computed tomography measurements. There was also significantly lower tibial cortical bone mineral density (P = .008) among athletes relative to controls.

Conversely, tibial trabecular measures of bone density and architecture were better among athletes than controls, but this was expected and did not contradict the hypothesis of the study.

“Trabecular bone refers to the inner part of the bone, which increases with weight-bearing exercise, but cortical bone is the outer shell, and the source of stress fractures,” Dr. Haines explained.

The median age of both the athletes and the controls was 24 years. Baseline measurements were similar. Body mass index, fat mass, estradiol, and leptin were all numerically lower in the athletes than controls, but none were significant, although there was a trend for the difference in leptin (P = .085).
 

Hormones correlated with tibial failure load

When these characteristics were evaluated in the context of mean tibial failure load, a metric related to strength, there was a strongly significant positive association with lean body mass (R = 0.85; P < 0.001) and estradiol level (R = 0.66; P = .007). The relationship with leptin also reached significance (R = 0.59; P = .046).

Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between testosterone and tibial failure load. The reason is unclear, but Dr. Haines’s interpretation is that the relationship between specific hormonal disturbances and bone density loss “might not be as simple” as once hypothesized.

The next step is a longitudinal evaluation of the same group of athletes to follow changes in the relationship between these variables over time, according to Dr. Haines.

Eventually, with evidence that there is a causal relationship between nutrition, hormonal changes, and bone loss, the research in this area will focus on better detection of risk and prophylactic strategies.

“Intervention trials to show that we can prevent stress factors will be difficult to perform,” Dr. Haines acknowledged, but she said that preventing adverse changes in bone at relatively young ages could have implications for long-term bone health, including protection from osteoporosis later in life.

The research presented by Dr. Haines is consistent with an area of research that is several decades old, at least in females, according to Siobhan M. Statuta, MD, a sports medicine primary care specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in men is more recent, but she said that it is now well accepted the there is a parallel hormonal issue in men and women.

“It is not a question of not eating enough. Often, athletes continue to consume the same diet, but their activity increases,” Dr. Statuta explained. “The problem is that they are not supplying enough of the calories they need to sustain the energy they are expending. You might say they are not fueling their engines appropriately.”

In 2014, the International Olympic Committee published a consensus statement on RED-S. They described this as a condition in which a state of energy deficiency leads to numerous complications in athletes, not just osteoporosis. Rather, a host of physiological systems, ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to cardiovascular events, were described.
 

RED-S addresses health beyond bones

“The RED-S theory is better described as a spoke-and-wheel concept rather than a triad. While inadequate energy availability is important to both, RED-S places this at the center of the wheel with spokes leading to all the possible complications rather than as a first event in a limited triad,” Dr. Statuta said in an interview.

However, she noted that the term RED-S is not yet appropriate to replace that of the male and female athlete triad.

“More research is required to hash out the relationship of a body in a state of energy deficiency and how it affects the entire body, which is the principle of RED-S,” Dr. Statuta said. “There likely are scientific effects, and we are currently investigating these relationships more.”

“These are really quite similar entities but have different foci,” she added. Based on data collected over several decades, “the triad narrows in on two body systems affected by low energy – the reproductive system and bones. RED-S incorporates these same systems yet adds on many more organ systems.

The original group of researchers have remained loyal to the concept of the triad that involves inadequate availability of energy followed by hormonal irregularities and osteoporosis. This group, the Female and Male Athlete Triad Coalition, has issued publications on this topic several times. Consensus statements were updated last year.

“The premise is that the triad leading to bone loss is shared by both men and women, even if the clinical manifestations differ,” said Dr. Statuta. The most notable difference is that men do not experience menstrual irregularities, but Dr. Statuta suggested that the clinical consequences are not necessarily any less.

“Males do not have menstrual cycles as an outward marker of an endocrine disturbance, so it is harder to recognize clinically, but I think there is agreement that not having enough energy available is the trigger of endocrine changes and then bone loss is relevant to both sexes,” she said. She said this is supported by a growing body of evidence, including the data presented by Dr. Haines at the Endocrine Society meeting.

Dr. Haines and Dr. Statuta report no potential conflicts of interest.

Similar to a phenomenon already well documented in women, inadequate nutrition appears to be linked to hormonal abnormalities and potentially preventable tibial cortical bone density loss in athletic men, according to results of a small, prospective study.

Based on these findings, “we suspect that a subset of male runners might not be fueling their bodies with enough nutrition and calories for their physical activity,” reported Melanie S. Haines, MD, at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

This is not the first study to suggest male athletes are at risk of a condition equivalent to what has been commonly referred to as the female athlete triad, but it enlarges the objective data that the phenomenon is real, and it makes insufficient availability of energy the likely cause.

In women, the triad is described as a lack of adequate stored energy, irregular menses, and bone density loss. In men, menstrual cycles are not relevant, of course, but this study like others suggests a link between the failure to maintain adequate stores of energy, disturbances in hormone function, and decreased bone density in both men and women, Dr. Haines explained.
 

RED-S vs. male or female athlete triad

“There is now a move away from the term female athlete triad or male athlete triad,” Dr. Haines reported. Rather the factors of failing to maintain adequate energy for metabolic demands, hormonal disturbances, and bone density loss appear to be relevant to both sexes, according to Dr. Haines, an endocrinologist at Massachusetts General Hospital and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, both in Boston. She said several groups, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC), have transitioned to the term RED-S to apply to both sexes.

“RED-S is an acronym for relative energy deficiency in sport, and it appears to be gaining traction,” Dr. Haines said in an interview.

According to her study and others, excessive lean body mass from failure to supply sufficient energy for physiological needs “negatively affects hormones and bone,” Dr. Haines explained. In men and women, endocrine disturbances are triggered when insufficient calories lead to inadequate macro- and micronutrients.

In this study, 31 men aged 16-30 years were evaluated. Fifteen were in the athlete group, defined by running at least 30 miles per week for at least the previous 6 months. There were 16 control subjects; all exercised less than 2 hours per week and did not participate in team sports, but they were not permitted in the study if their body mass index exceeded 27.5 kg/m².
 

Athletes vs. otherwise healthy controls

Conditions that affect bone health were exclusion criteria in both groups, and neither group was permitted to take medications affecting bone health other than dietary calcium or vitamin D supplements for 2 months prior to the study.

Tibial cortical porosity was significantly greater – signaling deterioration in microarchitecture – in athletes, compared with control subjects (P = .003), according to quantitative computed tomography measurements. There was also significantly lower tibial cortical bone mineral density (P = .008) among athletes relative to controls.

Conversely, tibial trabecular measures of bone density and architecture were better among athletes than controls, but this was expected and did not contradict the hypothesis of the study.

“Trabecular bone refers to the inner part of the bone, which increases with weight-bearing exercise, but cortical bone is the outer shell, and the source of stress fractures,” Dr. Haines explained.

The median age of both the athletes and the controls was 24 years. Baseline measurements were similar. Body mass index, fat mass, estradiol, and leptin were all numerically lower in the athletes than controls, but none were significant, although there was a trend for the difference in leptin (P = .085).
 

Hormones correlated with tibial failure load

When these characteristics were evaluated in the context of mean tibial failure load, a metric related to strength, there was a strongly significant positive association with lean body mass (R = 0.85; P < 0.001) and estradiol level (R = 0.66; P = .007). The relationship with leptin also reached significance (R = 0.59; P = .046).

Unexpectedly, there was no relationship between testosterone and tibial failure load. The reason is unclear, but Dr. Haines’s interpretation is that the relationship between specific hormonal disturbances and bone density loss “might not be as simple” as once hypothesized.

The next step is a longitudinal evaluation of the same group of athletes to follow changes in the relationship between these variables over time, according to Dr. Haines.

Eventually, with evidence that there is a causal relationship between nutrition, hormonal changes, and bone loss, the research in this area will focus on better detection of risk and prophylactic strategies.

“Intervention trials to show that we can prevent stress factors will be difficult to perform,” Dr. Haines acknowledged, but she said that preventing adverse changes in bone at relatively young ages could have implications for long-term bone health, including protection from osteoporosis later in life.

The research presented by Dr. Haines is consistent with an area of research that is several decades old, at least in females, according to Siobhan M. Statuta, MD, a sports medicine primary care specialist at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville. The evidence that the same phenomenon occurs in men is more recent, but she said that it is now well accepted the there is a parallel hormonal issue in men and women.

“It is not a question of not eating enough. Often, athletes continue to consume the same diet, but their activity increases,” Dr. Statuta explained. “The problem is that they are not supplying enough of the calories they need to sustain the energy they are expending. You might say they are not fueling their engines appropriately.”

In 2014, the International Olympic Committee published a consensus statement on RED-S. They described this as a condition in which a state of energy deficiency leads to numerous complications in athletes, not just osteoporosis. Rather, a host of physiological systems, ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to cardiovascular events, were described.
 

RED-S addresses health beyond bones

“The RED-S theory is better described as a spoke-and-wheel concept rather than a triad. While inadequate energy availability is important to both, RED-S places this at the center of the wheel with spokes leading to all the possible complications rather than as a first event in a limited triad,” Dr. Statuta said in an interview.

However, she noted that the term RED-S is not yet appropriate to replace that of the male and female athlete triad.

“More research is required to hash out the relationship of a body in a state of energy deficiency and how it affects the entire body, which is the principle of RED-S,” Dr. Statuta said. “There likely are scientific effects, and we are currently investigating these relationships more.”

“These are really quite similar entities but have different foci,” she added. Based on data collected over several decades, “the triad narrows in on two body systems affected by low energy – the reproductive system and bones. RED-S incorporates these same systems yet adds on many more organ systems.

The original group of researchers have remained loyal to the concept of the triad that involves inadequate availability of energy followed by hormonal irregularities and osteoporosis. This group, the Female and Male Athlete Triad Coalition, has issued publications on this topic several times. Consensus statements were updated last year.

“The premise is that the triad leading to bone loss is shared by both men and women, even if the clinical manifestations differ,” said Dr. Statuta. The most notable difference is that men do not experience menstrual irregularities, but Dr. Statuta suggested that the clinical consequences are not necessarily any less.

“Males do not have menstrual cycles as an outward marker of an endocrine disturbance, so it is harder to recognize clinically, but I think there is agreement that not having enough energy available is the trigger of endocrine changes and then bone loss is relevant to both sexes,” she said. She said this is supported by a growing body of evidence, including the data presented by Dr. Haines at the Endocrine Society meeting.

Dr. Haines and Dr. Statuta report no potential conflicts of interest.

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

A Pennsylvania-based internist was sentenced to 20 years in prison by a federal judge on May 10 for running a prescription “pill mill” from his medical practice.

Since May 2005, Andrew Berkowitz, MD, 62, of Huntington Valley, Pa., was president and CEO of A+ Pain Management, a clinic in the Philadelphia area, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Prosecutors said patients, no matter their complaint, would leave Dr. Berkowitz’s offices with “goodie bags” filled with a selection of drugs. A typical haul included topical analgesics, such as Relyyt and/or lidocaine; muscle relaxants, including chlorzoxazone and/or cyclobenzaprine; anti-inflammatories, such as celecoxib and/or fenoprofen; and schedule IV substances, including tramadol, eszopiclone, and quazepam.

The practice was registered in Pennsylvania as a nonpharmacy dispensing site, allowing Dr. Berkowitz to bill insurers for the drugs, according to The Pennsylvania Record, a journal covering Pennsylvania’s legal system. Dr. Berkowitz also prescribed oxycodone for “pill seeking” patients, who gave him their tacit approval of submitting claims to their insurance providers, which included Medicare, Aetna, and others, for the items in the goodie bag.

In addition, Dr. Berkowitz fraudulently billed insurers for medically unnecessary physical therapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic adjustments, as well as for treatments that were never provided, according to federal officials.

According to the Department of Justice, Dr. Berkowitz collected more than $4,000 per bag from insurers. From 2015 to 2018, prosecutors estimate that Dr. Berkowitz took in more than $4 million in fraudulent proceeds from his scheme.

The pill mill came to the attention of federal authorities after Blue Cross investigators forwarded to the FBI several complaints it had received about Dr. Berkowitz. In 2017, the FBI sent a cooperating witness to Dr. Berkowitz’s clinic. The undercover patient received a prescription for oxycodone, Motrin, and Flexeril and paid $185, according to The Record.

After being indicted in 2019, Dr. Berkowitz pleaded guilty in January 2020 to 19 counts of health care fraud and to 23 counts of distributing oxycodone outside the course of professional practice and without a legitimate medical purpose.

On May 10, he was sentenced to 20 years in prison, followed by 5 years of supervised release. In addition, he was ordered to pay a $40,000 fine and almost $4 million in restitution. As a result of civil False Claims Act liability for false claims submitted to Medicare, he is also obligated to pay approximately $1.8 million and is subject to a permanent prohibition on prescribing, distributing, or dispensing controlled substances.

Dr. Berkowitz’s actions were deemed especially egregious in light of the opioid epidemic.

“Doctors are supposed to treat illness, not feed it,” said Jacqueline Maguire, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Philadelphia division. “Andrew Berkowitz prescribed patients unnecessary pills and handed out opioids to addicts.” Jennifer Arbittier Williams, acting U.S. Attorney, added upon announcing the sentence, “Doctors who dare engage in health care fraud and drug diversion, two drivers of the opioid epidemic ravaging our communities, should heed this sentence as a warning that they will be held responsible, criminally and financially.”

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

From stubborn high blood pressure to diverticulitis, two deputy editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine reviewed eight recently published articles they feel will influence practice.

1. Adding a New Medication Versus Maximizing Dose to Intensify Hypertension Treatment in Older Adults: A Retrospective Observational Study

Roughly one in three adults with hypertension have inadequate blood pressure control, and clinicians have two options for intensifying treatment: “The dose of the current drug regimen can be maximized, or a new drug can be added,” said deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Data from randomized controlled trials suggest treatment with lower doses of combination therapy may be more effective, with fewer side effects – although the best strategy in older adults remains unclear.

To answer that question, researchers conducted a large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study, and observational data were used to emulate a target trial with two groups: new medication and maximizing dose.

The cohort comprised people aged 65 years or older with hypertension and was limited to those with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher. Two intensification approaches were used: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with a new medication; and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication.

A total of 178,562 patients were included in the study, and 45,575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132,987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose.

“Both produced systolic blood pressure reduction with a slight advantage in the ‘add a new medication’ group,” Dr. Wee said. “That group reduced their systolic blood pressure by over 4.5 points as compared to 3.8 points in the maximized [dose] group.”

At 12 months the results were similar, but only 50% of patients in the new medication group were able to sustain that strategy, compared with two-thirds of patients who had their dose increased.

“This suggests that, in older adults, adding a new antihypertensive medication versus maximizing dosing of existing regimen is less common, only minimally more effective, and less sustainable,” Dr. Wee said. “Maximizing dose of antihypertensive medication is a reasonable approach [and] may be easier to sustain.”
 

2. Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography Beyond Age 75 Years: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammograms through the age of 74 years, and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials suggests mortality is reduced among women with at least a 10-year life expectancy, Dr. Wee said.

However, whether screening beyond age 75 years is cost effective, especially among women with comorbidities, is unclear.

To address that question, researchers estimated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

The results showed that extending annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost effective, but biennial mammography was. “It was cost effective to age 80 regardless of baseline comorbidity score, but it averted only small, absolute numbers of breast cancer deaths – especially for women with comorbidities,” Dr. Wee said. “It was not cost effective beyond age 80.”
 

3. Prediction of End-Stage Kidney Disease Using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate With and Without Race: A Prospective Cohort Study

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is used to make dialysis and transplant decisions. “However, the accuracy of using eGFR alone has been questioned and, previously, some eGFR equations included a correction for race and this has been quite controversial,” Dr. Wee said. “And just last year, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration released their new equations, removing the adjustment for race.”

The study authors posed two questions:

• How well does eGFR alone predict risk of ESKD, compared with Kidney Function Risk Equation (KFRE)?  
• Does using different eGFR equations affect performance of either eGFR alone or KFRE in predicting the risk of ESKD?

During a maximum 16 years of follow-up, 856 participants (n = 3,873) developed ESKD. Across all eGFR equations, the KFRE score was superior for predicting 2-year incidence of end-stage kidney disease, compared with eGFR alone.

“KFRE score better predicted 2-year risk of ESKD than eGFR alone regardless of eGFR equations used,” Dr. Wee said. “Correcting eGFR equations for race did not improve performance and validates recent guidelines.”
 

4. Comparative Fracture Risk During Osteoporosis Drug Holidays After Long-Term Risedronate Versus Alendronate Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

The study looked at the comparative risks of drug holidays after long-term (≥ 3 years) risedronate versus alendronate therapy in a cohort of individuals aged 66 years or older. The primary outcome was hip fracture within 3 years after a 120-day ascertainment period.

The cohort included 25,077 propensity score–matched pairs (81% female) with a mean age of 81 years. Hip fracture rates were higher among risedronate than alendronate drug holidays, although this association was attenuated when any fracture was included as the outcome.

Overall, risedronate treatment before a drug holiday was associated with an 18% greater risk of hip fractures than alendronate, and this relative increase translated to a small absolute increase of 0.6%.

“These differences primarily manifested after 24 months, but given these small differences, I’m not sure if we need to change our current management strategy,” Dr. Wee said. “But further study is warranted.”
 

5. The Effects of Four Doses of Vitamin D Supplements on Falls in Older Adults: A Response-Adaptive, Randomized Clinical Trial

This study assessed the effects of four doses of vitamin D₃ supplements on the risk of falls.

The cohort included 688 participants, aged 70 years and older, with an elevated fall risk and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 25-72.5 nmol/L. The intervention was 200 (control), 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day.

“Their results showed that supplementation at doses of 1,000 IU/day or higher did not prevent falls compared with 200 IU/day,” said deputy editor Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH. “Several analyses raised safety concerns about vitamin D3 doses of 1,000 IU/day or higher.”
 

6. Postdiagnosis Smoking Cessation and Reduced Risk for Lung Cancer Progression and Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study

This study sought to determine if quitting smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer reduced the risk for disease progression and mortality. Researchers prospectively analyzed patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were recruited between 2007 and 2016 and followed annually through 2020. The cohort comprised 517 current smokers who were diagnosed with early-stage (IA-IIIA) NSCLC.

The adjusted median overall survival time was 21.6 months higher among patients who quit smoking versus those who continued smoking, and a higher 5-year overall and progression-free survival were observed among patients who quit than those who continued smoking. After adjusting for confounders, smoking cessation remained associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression.
 

7. Acute Consumption of Alcohol and Discrete Atrial Fibrillation Events

This study sought to determine if alcohol consumption heightened the risk for an episode of atrial fibrillation (AFib). The cohort included 100 individuals with paroxysmal AFib who were fitted with a continuous electrocardiogram monitor and an ankle-worn transdermal ethanol sensor for 4 weeks. Real-time documentation of each alcoholic drink consumed was self-recorded and finger-stick blood tests for phosphatidylethanol were used to corroborate ascertainments of drinking events.

Phosphatidylethanol testing correlated with the number of real-time recorded drinks and with the transdermal alcohol sensor. Consuming one alcoholic drink was associated with a twofold increased risk of AFib over the next 4 hours. The risk rose threefold with the consumption of two drinks.

“There is evidence of dose-response relationship with higher risk with more drinks,” Dr. Chang said. “Even one drink may predispose to an acute episode of AF[ib] in those so predisposed.”
 

8. Evaluation and Management After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review

Management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is usually conservative and includes bowel rest and fluids. However, uncertainty remains about the role of hospitalization and antibiotics, Dr. Chang said. The new review included 51 studies looking at colonoscopy, nonsurgical treatments, and elective surgery for patients with diverticulitis.

It was unclear if patients with recent acute diverticulitis are at increased risk for colorectal cancer, although those with complicated diverticulitis do appear to be at a higher risk of the disease. Treatment with mesalamine was shown to be ineffective in preventing recurrence, and other nonsurgical treatments lacked adequate evidence.

As for surgery, elective procedures reduce recurrence in patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, but it is unclear which of these patients may benefit most.

“The ACP recommends initial management without antibiotics,” said Dr. Chang, adding that other questions need to be addressed, such as inpatient versus outpatient management and elective surgery after an acute episode.

Dr. Wee and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

From stubborn high blood pressure to diverticulitis, two deputy editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine reviewed eight recently published articles they feel will influence practice.

1. Adding a New Medication Versus Maximizing Dose to Intensify Hypertension Treatment in Older Adults: A Retrospective Observational Study

Roughly one in three adults with hypertension have inadequate blood pressure control, and clinicians have two options for intensifying treatment: “The dose of the current drug regimen can be maximized, or a new drug can be added,” said deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Data from randomized controlled trials suggest treatment with lower doses of combination therapy may be more effective, with fewer side effects – although the best strategy in older adults remains unclear.

To answer that question, researchers conducted a large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study, and observational data were used to emulate a target trial with two groups: new medication and maximizing dose.

The cohort comprised people aged 65 years or older with hypertension and was limited to those with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher. Two intensification approaches were used: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with a new medication; and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication.

A total of 178,562 patients were included in the study, and 45,575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132,987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose.

“Both produced systolic blood pressure reduction with a slight advantage in the ‘add a new medication’ group,” Dr. Wee said. “That group reduced their systolic blood pressure by over 4.5 points as compared to 3.8 points in the maximized [dose] group.”

At 12 months the results were similar, but only 50% of patients in the new medication group were able to sustain that strategy, compared with two-thirds of patients who had their dose increased.

“This suggests that, in older adults, adding a new antihypertensive medication versus maximizing dosing of existing regimen is less common, only minimally more effective, and less sustainable,” Dr. Wee said. “Maximizing dose of antihypertensive medication is a reasonable approach [and] may be easier to sustain.”
 

2. Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography Beyond Age 75 Years: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammograms through the age of 74 years, and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials suggests mortality is reduced among women with at least a 10-year life expectancy, Dr. Wee said.

However, whether screening beyond age 75 years is cost effective, especially among women with comorbidities, is unclear.

To address that question, researchers estimated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

The results showed that extending annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost effective, but biennial mammography was. “It was cost effective to age 80 regardless of baseline comorbidity score, but it averted only small, absolute numbers of breast cancer deaths – especially for women with comorbidities,” Dr. Wee said. “It was not cost effective beyond age 80.”
 

3. Prediction of End-Stage Kidney Disease Using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate With and Without Race: A Prospective Cohort Study

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is used to make dialysis and transplant decisions. “However, the accuracy of using eGFR alone has been questioned and, previously, some eGFR equations included a correction for race and this has been quite controversial,” Dr. Wee said. “And just last year, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration released their new equations, removing the adjustment for race.”

The study authors posed two questions:

• How well does eGFR alone predict risk of ESKD, compared with Kidney Function Risk Equation (KFRE)?  
• Does using different eGFR equations affect performance of either eGFR alone or KFRE in predicting the risk of ESKD?

During a maximum 16 years of follow-up, 856 participants (n = 3,873) developed ESKD. Across all eGFR equations, the KFRE score was superior for predicting 2-year incidence of end-stage kidney disease, compared with eGFR alone.

“KFRE score better predicted 2-year risk of ESKD than eGFR alone regardless of eGFR equations used,” Dr. Wee said. “Correcting eGFR equations for race did not improve performance and validates recent guidelines.”
 

4. Comparative Fracture Risk During Osteoporosis Drug Holidays After Long-Term Risedronate Versus Alendronate Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

The study looked at the comparative risks of drug holidays after long-term (≥ 3 years) risedronate versus alendronate therapy in a cohort of individuals aged 66 years or older. The primary outcome was hip fracture within 3 years after a 120-day ascertainment period.

The cohort included 25,077 propensity score–matched pairs (81% female) with a mean age of 81 years. Hip fracture rates were higher among risedronate than alendronate drug holidays, although this association was attenuated when any fracture was included as the outcome.

Overall, risedronate treatment before a drug holiday was associated with an 18% greater risk of hip fractures than alendronate, and this relative increase translated to a small absolute increase of 0.6%.

“These differences primarily manifested after 24 months, but given these small differences, I’m not sure if we need to change our current management strategy,” Dr. Wee said. “But further study is warranted.”
 

5. The Effects of Four Doses of Vitamin D Supplements on Falls in Older Adults: A Response-Adaptive, Randomized Clinical Trial

This study assessed the effects of four doses of vitamin D₃ supplements on the risk of falls.

The cohort included 688 participants, aged 70 years and older, with an elevated fall risk and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 25-72.5 nmol/L. The intervention was 200 (control), 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day.

“Their results showed that supplementation at doses of 1,000 IU/day or higher did not prevent falls compared with 200 IU/day,” said deputy editor Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH. “Several analyses raised safety concerns about vitamin D3 doses of 1,000 IU/day or higher.”
 

6. Postdiagnosis Smoking Cessation and Reduced Risk for Lung Cancer Progression and Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study

This study sought to determine if quitting smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer reduced the risk for disease progression and mortality. Researchers prospectively analyzed patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were recruited between 2007 and 2016 and followed annually through 2020. The cohort comprised 517 current smokers who were diagnosed with early-stage (IA-IIIA) NSCLC.

The adjusted median overall survival time was 21.6 months higher among patients who quit smoking versus those who continued smoking, and a higher 5-year overall and progression-free survival were observed among patients who quit than those who continued smoking. After adjusting for confounders, smoking cessation remained associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression.
 

7. Acute Consumption of Alcohol and Discrete Atrial Fibrillation Events

This study sought to determine if alcohol consumption heightened the risk for an episode of atrial fibrillation (AFib). The cohort included 100 individuals with paroxysmal AFib who were fitted with a continuous electrocardiogram monitor and an ankle-worn transdermal ethanol sensor for 4 weeks. Real-time documentation of each alcoholic drink consumed was self-recorded and finger-stick blood tests for phosphatidylethanol were used to corroborate ascertainments of drinking events.

Phosphatidylethanol testing correlated with the number of real-time recorded drinks and with the transdermal alcohol sensor. Consuming one alcoholic drink was associated with a twofold increased risk of AFib over the next 4 hours. The risk rose threefold with the consumption of two drinks.

“There is evidence of dose-response relationship with higher risk with more drinks,” Dr. Chang said. “Even one drink may predispose to an acute episode of AF[ib] in those so predisposed.”
 

8. Evaluation and Management After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review

Management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is usually conservative and includes bowel rest and fluids. However, uncertainty remains about the role of hospitalization and antibiotics, Dr. Chang said. The new review included 51 studies looking at colonoscopy, nonsurgical treatments, and elective surgery for patients with diverticulitis.

It was unclear if patients with recent acute diverticulitis are at increased risk for colorectal cancer, although those with complicated diverticulitis do appear to be at a higher risk of the disease. Treatment with mesalamine was shown to be ineffective in preventing recurrence, and other nonsurgical treatments lacked adequate evidence.

As for surgery, elective procedures reduce recurrence in patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, but it is unclear which of these patients may benefit most.

“The ACP recommends initial management without antibiotics,” said Dr. Chang, adding that other questions need to be addressed, such as inpatient versus outpatient management and elective surgery after an acute episode.

Dr. Wee and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

From stubborn high blood pressure to diverticulitis, two deputy editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine reviewed eight recently published articles they feel will influence practice.

1. Adding a New Medication Versus Maximizing Dose to Intensify Hypertension Treatment in Older Adults: A Retrospective Observational Study

Roughly one in three adults with hypertension have inadequate blood pressure control, and clinicians have two options for intensifying treatment: “The dose of the current drug regimen can be maximized, or a new drug can be added,” said deputy editor Christina C. Wee, MD, MPH, at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians.

Data from randomized controlled trials suggest treatment with lower doses of combination therapy may be more effective, with fewer side effects – although the best strategy in older adults remains unclear.

To answer that question, researchers conducted a large-scale, population-based, retrospective cohort study, and observational data were used to emulate a target trial with two groups: new medication and maximizing dose.

The cohort comprised people aged 65 years or older with hypertension and was limited to those with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher. Two intensification approaches were used: adding a new medication, defined as a total dose increase with a new medication; and maximizing dose, defined as a total dose increase without new medication.

A total of 178,562 patients were included in the study, and 45,575 (25.5%) had intensification by adding a new medication and 132,987 (74.5%) by maximizing dose.

“Both produced systolic blood pressure reduction with a slight advantage in the ‘add a new medication’ group,” Dr. Wee said. “That group reduced their systolic blood pressure by over 4.5 points as compared to 3.8 points in the maximized [dose] group.”

At 12 months the results were similar, but only 50% of patients in the new medication group were able to sustain that strategy, compared with two-thirds of patients who had their dose increased.

“This suggests that, in older adults, adding a new antihypertensive medication versus maximizing dosing of existing regimen is less common, only minimally more effective, and less sustainable,” Dr. Wee said. “Maximizing dose of antihypertensive medication is a reasonable approach [and] may be easier to sustain.”
 

2. Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Mammography Beyond Age 75 Years: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends biennial screening mammograms through the age of 74 years, and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials suggests mortality is reduced among women with at least a 10-year life expectancy, Dr. Wee said.

However, whether screening beyond age 75 years is cost effective, especially among women with comorbidities, is unclear.

To address that question, researchers estimated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness of extending mammography to age 80, 85, or 90 years according to comorbidity burden, using data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program and the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

The results showed that extending annual mammography beyond age 75 years was not cost effective, but biennial mammography was. “It was cost effective to age 80 regardless of baseline comorbidity score, but it averted only small, absolute numbers of breast cancer deaths – especially for women with comorbidities,” Dr. Wee said. “It was not cost effective beyond age 80.”
 

3. Prediction of End-Stage Kidney Disease Using Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate With and Without Race: A Prospective Cohort Study

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is associated with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) and is used to make dialysis and transplant decisions. “However, the accuracy of using eGFR alone has been questioned and, previously, some eGFR equations included a correction for race and this has been quite controversial,” Dr. Wee said. “And just last year, the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration released their new equations, removing the adjustment for race.”

The study authors posed two questions:

• How well does eGFR alone predict risk of ESKD, compared with Kidney Function Risk Equation (KFRE)?  
• Does using different eGFR equations affect performance of either eGFR alone or KFRE in predicting the risk of ESKD?

During a maximum 16 years of follow-up, 856 participants (n = 3,873) developed ESKD. Across all eGFR equations, the KFRE score was superior for predicting 2-year incidence of end-stage kidney disease, compared with eGFR alone.

“KFRE score better predicted 2-year risk of ESKD than eGFR alone regardless of eGFR equations used,” Dr. Wee said. “Correcting eGFR equations for race did not improve performance and validates recent guidelines.”
 

4. Comparative Fracture Risk During Osteoporosis Drug Holidays After Long-Term Risedronate Versus Alendronate Therapy: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

The study looked at the comparative risks of drug holidays after long-term (≥ 3 years) risedronate versus alendronate therapy in a cohort of individuals aged 66 years or older. The primary outcome was hip fracture within 3 years after a 120-day ascertainment period.

The cohort included 25,077 propensity score–matched pairs (81% female) with a mean age of 81 years. Hip fracture rates were higher among risedronate than alendronate drug holidays, although this association was attenuated when any fracture was included as the outcome.

Overall, risedronate treatment before a drug holiday was associated with an 18% greater risk of hip fractures than alendronate, and this relative increase translated to a small absolute increase of 0.6%.

“These differences primarily manifested after 24 months, but given these small differences, I’m not sure if we need to change our current management strategy,” Dr. Wee said. “But further study is warranted.”
 

5. The Effects of Four Doses of Vitamin D Supplements on Falls in Older Adults: A Response-Adaptive, Randomized Clinical Trial

This study assessed the effects of four doses of vitamin D₃ supplements on the risk of falls.

The cohort included 688 participants, aged 70 years and older, with an elevated fall risk and a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 25-72.5 nmol/L. The intervention was 200 (control), 1,000, 2,000, or 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day.

“Their results showed that supplementation at doses of 1,000 IU/day or higher did not prevent falls compared with 200 IU/day,” said deputy editor Stephanie Chang, MD, MPH. “Several analyses raised safety concerns about vitamin D3 doses of 1,000 IU/day or higher.”
 

6. Postdiagnosis Smoking Cessation and Reduced Risk for Lung Cancer Progression and Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study

This study sought to determine if quitting smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer reduced the risk for disease progression and mortality. Researchers prospectively analyzed patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were recruited between 2007 and 2016 and followed annually through 2020. The cohort comprised 517 current smokers who were diagnosed with early-stage (IA-IIIA) NSCLC.

The adjusted median overall survival time was 21.6 months higher among patients who quit smoking versus those who continued smoking, and a higher 5-year overall and progression-free survival were observed among patients who quit than those who continued smoking. After adjusting for confounders, smoking cessation remained associated with a lower risk for all-cause mortality, cancer-specific mortality, and disease progression.
 

7. Acute Consumption of Alcohol and Discrete Atrial Fibrillation Events

This study sought to determine if alcohol consumption heightened the risk for an episode of atrial fibrillation (AFib). The cohort included 100 individuals with paroxysmal AFib who were fitted with a continuous electrocardiogram monitor and an ankle-worn transdermal ethanol sensor for 4 weeks. Real-time documentation of each alcoholic drink consumed was self-recorded and finger-stick blood tests for phosphatidylethanol were used to corroborate ascertainments of drinking events.

Phosphatidylethanol testing correlated with the number of real-time recorded drinks and with the transdermal alcohol sensor. Consuming one alcoholic drink was associated with a twofold increased risk of AFib over the next 4 hours. The risk rose threefold with the consumption of two drinks.

“There is evidence of dose-response relationship with higher risk with more drinks,” Dr. Chang said. “Even one drink may predispose to an acute episode of AF[ib] in those so predisposed.”
 

8. Evaluation and Management After Acute Left-Sided Colonic Diverticulitis: A Systematic Review

Management of uncomplicated diverticulitis is usually conservative and includes bowel rest and fluids. However, uncertainty remains about the role of hospitalization and antibiotics, Dr. Chang said. The new review included 51 studies looking at colonoscopy, nonsurgical treatments, and elective surgery for patients with diverticulitis.

It was unclear if patients with recent acute diverticulitis are at increased risk for colorectal cancer, although those with complicated diverticulitis do appear to be at a higher risk of the disease. Treatment with mesalamine was shown to be ineffective in preventing recurrence, and other nonsurgical treatments lacked adequate evidence.

As for surgery, elective procedures reduce recurrence in patients with prior complicated or smoldering or frequently recurrent diverticulitis, but it is unclear which of these patients may benefit most.

“The ACP recommends initial management without antibiotics,” said Dr. Chang, adding that other questions need to be addressed, such as inpatient versus outpatient management and elective surgery after an acute episode.

Dr. Wee and Dr. Chang disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.

But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,

and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.

The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”

The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.

“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”

Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”

Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.

“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.

Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.

Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.

An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.

An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.

Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”

In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.

Treating knee pain

Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.

Three types of injections also can help:

• Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
• Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
• Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).

The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.  

“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”

He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.

Shoulder pain

The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.

As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.

First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?

Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.

Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.

As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.

MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.

Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.

Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.

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

Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.

But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,

and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.

The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”

The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.

“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”

Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”

Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.

“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.

Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.

Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.

An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.

An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.

Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”

In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.

Treating knee pain

Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.

Three types of injections also can help:

• Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
• Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
• Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).

The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.  

“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”

He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.

Shoulder pain

The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.

As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.

First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?

Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.

Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.

As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.

MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.

Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.

Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.

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

Knee and shoulder pain are common complaints for patients in the primary care office.

But identifying the source of the pain can be complicated,

and an accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause of discomfort is key to appropriate management – whether that involves simple home care options of ice and rest or a recommendation for a follow-up with a specialist.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the American College of Physicians, Greg Nakamoto, MD, department of orthopedics, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, discussed common knee and shoulder problems that patients often present with in the primary care setting, and offered tips on diagnosis and appropriate management.

The most common conditions causing knee pain are osteoarthritis and meniscal tears. “The differential for knee pain is broad,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “You have to have a way to divide it down, such as if it’s acute or chronic.”

The initial workup has several key components. The first steps: Determine the location of the pain – anterior, medial, lateral, posterior – and then whether it stems from an injury or is atraumatic.

“If you have to ask one question – ask where it hurts,” he said. “And is it from an injury or just wear and tear? That helps me when deciding if surgery is needed.”

Pain in the knee generally localizes well to the site of pathology, and knee pain of acute traumatic onset requires more scrutiny for problems best treated with early surgery. “This also helps establish whether radiographic findings are due to injury or degeneration,” Dr. Nakamoto said. “The presence of swelling guides the need for anti-inflammatories or cortisone.”

Palpating for tenderness along the joint line is important, as is palpating above and below the joint line, Dr. Nakamoto said.

“Tenderness limited to the joint line, combined with a meniscal exam maneuver that reproduces joint-line pain, is suggestive of pain from meniscal pathology,” he said.

Imaging is an important component of evaluating knee symptoms, and the question often arises as to when to order an MRI.

Dr. Nakamoto offered the following scenario: If significant osteoarthritis is evident on weight-bearing x-ray, treat the patient for the condition. However, if little or no osteoarthritis appears on x-ray, and if the onset of symptoms was traumatic and both patient history and physical examination suggest a meniscal tear, order an MRI.

An early MRI also is needed if the patient has had either atraumatic or traumatic onset of symptoms and their history and physical exams are suspicious for a mechanically locked or locking meniscus. For suspicion of a ruptured quadriceps or patellar tendon or a stress fracture, an MRI is needed urgently.

An MRI would be ordered later if the patient’s symptoms have not improved significantly after 3 months of conservative management.

Dr. Nakamoto stressed how common undiagnosed meniscus tears are in the general population. A third of men aged 50-59 years and nearly 20% of women in that age group have a tear, he said. “That number goes up to 56% and 51% in men and women aged 70-90 years, and 61% of these tears were in patients who were asymptomatic in the last month.”

In the setting of osteoarthritis, 76% of asymptomatic patients had a meniscus tear, and 91% of patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis had a meniscus tear, he added.

Treating knee pain

Treatment will vary depending on the underlying etiology of pain. For a possible meniscus tear, the recommendation is for a conservative intervention with ice, ibuprofen, knee immobilizer, and crutches, with a follow-up appointment in a week.

Three types of injections also can help:

• Cortisone for osteoarthritis or meniscus tears, swelling, and inflammation, and prophylaxis against inflammation.
• Viscosupplementation (intra‐articular hyaluronic acid) for chronic, baseline osteoarthritis symptoms.
• Regenerative therapies (platelet-rich plasma, stem cells, etc.) are used primarily for osteoarthritis (these do not regrow cartilage, but some patients report decreased pain).

The data on injections are mixed, Dr. Nakamoto said. For example, the results of a 2015 Cochrane review on cortisone injections for osteoarthritis reported that the benefits were small to moderate at 4‐6 weeks, and small to none at 13 weeks.  

“There is a lot of controversy for viscosupplementation despite all of the data on it,” he said. “But the recommendations from professional organizations are mixed.”

He noted that he has been using viscosupplementation since the 1990s, and some patients do benefit from it.

Shoulder pain

The most common causes of shoulder pain are adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tears and tendinopathy, and impingement.

As with knee pain, the same assessment routine largely applies.

First, pinpoint the location: Is the trouble spot the lateral shoulder and upper arm, the trapezial ridge, or the shoulder blade?

Next, assess pain on movement: Does the patient experience discomfort reaching overhead or behind the back, or moving at the glenohumeral joint/capsule and engaging the rotator cuff? Check for stiffness, weakness, and decreased range of motion in the rotator cuff.

Determine if the cause of the pain is traumatic or atraumatic and stems from an acute injury versus degeneration or overuse.

As with the knee, imaging is a major component of the assessment and typically involves the use of x-ray. An MRI may be required for evaluating full- and partial-thickness tears and when contemplating surgery.

MRI also is necessary for evaluating cases of acute, traumatic shoulder injury, and patients exhibiting disability suggestive of a rotator cuff tear in an otherwise healthy tendon.

Some pain can be treated with cortisone injections or regenerative therapies, which generally are given at the acromioclavicular or glenohumeral joints or in the subacromial space. A 2005 meta-analysis found that subacromial injections of corticosteroids are effective for improvement for rotator cuff tendinitis up to a 9‐month period.

Surgery may be warranted in some cases, Dr. Nakamoto said. These include adhesive capsulitis, rotator cuff tear, acute traumatic injury in an otherwise healthy tendon, and chronic (or acute-on-chronic) tears in a degenerative tendon following a trial of conservative therapy.

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