Corticosteroid Injections for Symptomatic Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Pilot Blinded Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effect of corticosteroids compared to lidocaine-only injections over 12 weeks among patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: Participants with KOA were randomized to receive a knee injection of methylprednisolone acetate 1 mL (40 mg) plus 2 mL lidocaine (1%) or 1 mL saline and 2 mL lidocaine. Participants and providers were blinded to treatment allocation using an opacified syringe. The outcome was the average change from baseline of the total Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (range 0-100) assessed at 2-week intervals over 12 weeks. Participants received KOOS questionnaires on their smartphones through a web-based platform. We used linear mixed-effects regressions with robust variance estimators to evaluate the association between the intervention and change in KOOS total and subscales (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03835910; registered 2019-02-11). RESULTS: Of the 33 randomized participants, 31 were included in the final analysis. The predicted mean (SE) change in total KOOS over the 12-week follow-up was 9.4 (3.2) in the corticosteroids arm versus -1.3 (1.4) in the control arm (P = 0.003). Of participants, 47% achieved change as large as the minimal clinically important difference (16 units) in the intervention arm compared to 6% of participants in the lidocaine arm. Further, there were greater improvements in the intervention arm for KOOS subscales and for Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments of pain intensity, behavior, and interference. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroid injections demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in KOA symptoms over 12 weeks of follow-up. These data support larger studies to better quantify short-term benefits.

Obesity, Adipokines, and Chronic and Persistent Pain in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

We aimed to determine whether adipokines are associated with pain and polysymptomatic distress in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) over time in a large patient registry. The cohort study was conducted in a subset of Forward; a patient-based multi-disease, multipurpose rheumatic disease registry with patients enrolled from community-based rheumatology practices across the U.S. Adipokines (adiponectin, leptin, and fibroblast growth factor[FGF]-21) were measured on stored serum as part of a multi-analyte panel. Body mass index (BMI), pain, polysymptomatic distress, and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were reported on biannual questionnaires. Linear regression was used to evaluate independent associations between BMI, adipokines, and PROs. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated independent associations between adipokines and clinically meaningful changes in pain over time (change in numerical rating>1.1 [range 0-10], sustained over 1 year). Among 645 patients included in these analyses, there were significant differences in RA characteristics, comorbidity, PROs, and adipokines across obesity categories. Of note, severely obese patients were more likely to experience greater pain, polysymptomatic distress, and fatigue. Patients with higher FGF-21 levels had higher pain and polysymptomatic stress at baseline, were more likely to use opioids, and were more likely to have sustained worsening pain over time [HR (per 1 SD) (95% CI): 1.22 (1.02,1.46) P = .03] independent of BMI. Obesity and elevated levels of FGF-21 are associated with pain and polysymptomatic distress in RA. Elevated FGF-21 levels may help identify those at risk of worsening pain trajectories over time, independent of BMI. PERSPECTIVE: This study characterizes the relationship between severe obesity and pain and polysymptomatic distress in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and demonstrates that the adipocytokine fibroblast growth factor-21 is independently associated with pain and predicts a worsening trajectory over time. Further mechanistic studies are needed.

Protocol for a multi-center randomized controlled trial to evaluate the benefits of exercise incentives and corticosteroid injections in osteoarthritis of the knee (MOVE-OK).

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a high-priority problem among the aging population. While exercise has been shown to be beneficial in management of the disease, scalable and low-cost interventions to improve exercise in this population are lacking. Recent controversy over the value of corticosteroid injections for palliation has also arisen. Therefore, we designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a 2-period crossover design to study (1) behavioral incentives to promote exercise and (2) corticosteroid injections to reduce pain and improve function in patients with KOA when compared to lidocaine only. METHODS: The study design is a pragmatic factorial and crossover randomized clinical trial. Patients with KOA who are deemed eligible by their provider to receive knee injections and are able to walk without assistive devices will be recruited from clinical practices at four sites within the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health System in the USA. In total, 220 participants will be randomized to receive social incentives with gamification (i.e., incorporation of game elements) to promote exercise and compared to controls that receive a Fitbit but no incentive. Each patient will also be assigned to receive a blinded corticosteroid injection and a lidocaine-only injection in random order. The primary outcomes are the change in average daily step counts from baseline and the change in Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) from baseline. The study team will continuously collect step count, heart rate, and sleep data using activity monitors and patient-reported outcomes using the Way to Health (WTH) platform at two four-week intervals over eight months of follow-up. Mixed effects regression incorporating all available data points will be used for analysis. DISCUSSION: The "Marching on for Veterans with Osteoarthritis of the Knee" (MOVE-OK) trial will take a pragmatic approach to evaluate (1) whether incentives based on behaviorally enhanced gamification can improve physical activity in this patient population and (2) whether corticosteroids injections reduce pain and disability in patients with KOA. Results of this trial will help to direct clinical practice and inform management guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05035810 . Registered on 5 September 2021.

Identifying Factors Associated With Treatment Response in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Despite a wealth of studies evaluating rheumatoid arthritis (RA) therapies, it remains difficult to compare efficacies across trials due to heterogeneous study populations. We sought to identify patient/trial characteristics associated with clinical response to enable fairer comparisons. METHODS: We reviewed 565 disease-modifying antirheumatic drug studies compiled for American College of Rheumatology (ACR) management guidelines. Seventy-two articles on randomized controlled phase II/III trials from 1995 to 2018 reporting the proportion of patients achieving 20%, 50% or 70% improvement in the ACR's RA disease score (ACR20/50/70) or Disease Activity Score-28 with erythrocyte sedimentation rate or C-reactive protein (DAS28-ESR or DAS28-CRP) with follow-up more than 3 months were included. We explored associations between 34 patient/trial characteristics and ACR responses. We constructed multivariable models using these factors to compute expected response rates and to compare observed with expected response rates across therapies. RESULTS: Among eligible clinical trials, later publication year, baseline DAS28-CRP score, methotrexate/biologic naivety, baseline ESR, follow-up of 52 weeks or more, number of subjects enrolled, and anticitrullinated peptide antibody seropositivity were associated with greater ACR response. Greater age, longer disease duration, higher baseline Sharp score, and steroid use were associated with lower response rates. Predictive models incorporating these factors explained 29%, 37%, and 53% of variance in ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70, respectively. Overall, comparing observed versus expected rates of response across trials more closely approximated results of head-to-head trials. For example, although observed responses numerically favored adalimumab to tofacitinib, comparison of observed versus expected results across trials more closely approximated the results from a head-to-head trial ("Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis triaL [ORAL] Strategy"). CONCLUSION: We identified factors associated with ACR response in RA trials. Adjusting for expected outcomes yielded therapy comparisons somewhat more similar to head-to-head trials. These findings could inform other across-trial comparisons, particularly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

Knowledge of biosimilars and perceptions of the naming conventions for biosimilar products in clinical practice in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Biosimilar therapies and their naming conventions are both relatively new to the drug development market and in clinical practice. We studied the use of the four-letter naming convention in practice and the knowledge, perceptions, and preferences of US health care providers. METHODS: A survey was distributed among health care professionals with a history of utilizing biosimilars in clinical practice to measure key knowledge and the presence of discernable naming trends. Differences in responses across pre-hypothesized subgroups were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the 506 surveys emailed, 83 (16%) people responded. Overall, there was poor knowledge about the key concepts surrounding biosimilars. For example, only 52% of respondents correctly identified that biosimilars were not the same as the generic drug; however, frequent use correlated with superior knowledge across all groups. In reference to naming preferences, 67% of all respondents indicated that they commonly use the brand name to distinguish biosimilars in clinical practice and a majority of them (85%) indicated that the brand name was easier to remember than the nonproprietary name with the four-letter suffix. An unexpected number of neutral responses was documented. Notably, more than half of respondents (68%) indicated a neutral response when asked if the four-letter suffix promoted medical errors. CONCLUSIONS: There remains a knowledge gap with regard to biosimilars, and lack of consensus on how the naming convention is and should be utilized in clinical practice. The data also suggest that effective biosimilar education could aid in promoting familiarity with the naming convention among health care providers.