Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of Same-Knee Intra-Articular Injection of Corticosteroid and Lorecivivint Within 7 Days: An Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel-Arm Study.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common painful disorder. Intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections are frequently prescribed to treat knee pain. Lorecivivint (LOR), a novel IA cdc2-Like Kinase (CLK)/Dual-Specificity Tyrosine Phosphorylation-Regulated Kinase (DYRK) inhibitor thought to modulate Wnt and inflammatory pathways, has appeared safe and demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes compared with placebo. While LOR is proposed for stand-alone use, in clinical practice, providers might administer LOR in close time proximity to IA corticosteroid. This open-label, parallel-arm, healthy volunteer study assessed potential short-term safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between IA LOR and triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) administered 7 days apart. METHODS: Healthy volunteers were randomized to Treatment Sequence 1 (IA 40 mg TCA followed by IA 0.07 mg LOR) or Treatment Sequence 2 (IA 0.07 mg LOR followed by IA 40 mg TCA). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were categorized by "epoch", with epoch 1 spanning from first until second injection, and epoch 2 spanning from second injection until end of study. Plasma PK was assessed pre injection and out to 22 days after to assess PK treatment interaction. RESULTS: A total of 18 TEAEs were reported by 11 (27.5%) of 40 enrolled participants, and there were no serious adverse events. Thirteen TEAEs were reported in Treatment Sequence 1 and five in Treatment Sequence 2, similarly distributed between epochs 1 and 2. In all participants and at all time points, plasma LOR concentrations were below the limit of quantification (0.100 ng/mL). Geometric mean concentrations and PK parameters for TCA were similar between treatment sequences. CONCLUSION: No safety signals were observed. There were no quantifiable plasma concentrations of LOR in either Treatment Sequence. The PK of TCA was unaffected by previous LOR injection. These results suggest that IA administration of LOR and TCA in close time proximity is unlikely to pose a safety concern. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04598542.

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a common disorder characterized by pain and loss of function. This clinical trial tested if two different treatments for OA injected into the same knee 1 week apart would impact the safety or exposure of either treatment. The treatments evaluated were an injection of a corticosteroid, triamcinolone acetonide, and a potential OA treatment in development, lorecivivint, a novel small molecule thought to inhibit inflammation and a biological pathway called the Wnt pathway. The amount of either treatment found in circulation was not different when injected before or after the other treatment. The order of injection did not change the safety profile for either agent, suggesting injection of the two agents 1 week apart is unlikely to pose a safety concern.

Comparing Patient-Reported Outcomes From Sham and Saline-Based Placebo Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From a Randomized Clinical Trial of Lorecivivint.

BACKGROUND: Durable, meaningful symptom responses to intra-articular saline placebo injections are observed in knee osteoarthritis (OA) trials, but it is unclear if these are due to physiological effects. PURPOSE: To perform a prospective comparison of patient-reported outcome responses among participants with knee OA who underwent intra-articular injection of saline-based placebo or sham (dry needle). STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: From a 24-week randomized double-blind trial, participants with moderate to severe knee OA received 2-mL intra-articular injections of saline-based placebo (PBO; 99.45% PBS) or sham (dry needle) to the target knee. Least squares mean differences of changes from baseline to week 24 were compared between the PBO and sham groups for the following: pain Numeric Rating Scale; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain, stiffness, and function; and patient global assessment. Bang Blinding Index was used to evaluate all-group blinding on day 1 and week 24. RESULTS: In total, 116 and 117 participants were randomized to the PBO and sham groups, respectively. Within the full trial population, the mean ± SD age and body mass index were 59.0 ± 8.5 years and 28.97 ± 4.01, respectively. An overall 406 (58.4%) were female, and 394 (57.3%) had Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 target knee OA. The PBO and sham groups demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements (≥10%) from baseline in all patient-reported outcomes at all time points (ie, weeks 4-24). Mean differences (95% CI) at week 24 between the PBO and sham groups were as follows: pain Numeric Rating Scale, -0.10 (-0.79 to 0.59; P = .78); WOMAC pain, -2.89 (-9.70 to 3.92; P = .40); WOMAC stiffness, -2.37 (-9.37 to 4.63; P = .51); and WOMAC function, -1.39 (-8.06 to 5.29; P = .68). Bang Blinding Index indicated that blinding was maintained. CONCLUSION: PBO and sham groups demonstrated equivalent patient-reported outcomes at all time points through week 24, suggesting that responses attributed to saline were contextual (ie, to the procedure) and not physiological. REGISTRATION: NCT03122860 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Osteoarthritis today: Lost in translation?

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent joint disease that is associated with pain, loss of function, and high direct and indirect economic costs. The current therapeutic options are inadequate, providing only a moderate symptom relief without the possibility of disease modification. While treatment options and personalized medicines are increasing for many complex diseases, OA drug development has been impeded by the advanced state of disease at the time of diagnosis and intervention, heterogeneity in both symptoms and rates of progression, and a lack of validated biomarkers and relevant outcome measures. This review article summarizes the OA landscape, including therapies in development as potential OA treatments, potential biomarkers undergoing evaluation by the US Food and Drug Administration, and a summary of current OA treatment guidelines, with a particular focus on the knee OA.

Individual Participant Symptom Responses to Intra-Articular Lorecivivint in Knee Osteoarthritis: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase 2B Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Established thresholds for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide clinically relevant responder data from trials. Lorecivivint (LOR) is an intra-articular (IA) therapy in development for knee osteoarthritis (OA). A post hoc analysis from a phase 2b trial (NCT03122860) determined proportions of LOR responders. METHODS: A 24-week, randomized trial of 0.07 mg LOR demonstrated PRO improvements compared with PBO in moderate-to-severe knee OA participants. Participants treated with LOR and PBO achieving 30%/50%/70% improvements at weeks 12 and 24 in Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), WOMAC Pain/Function subscales, Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), and OMERACT-OARSI responder criteria were determined. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were compared with PBO. RESULTS: There were 115 and 116 participants in the LOR and PBO groups, respectively. For Pain NRS, LOR increased ORs of achieving 30% [week 12, OR = 2.47 (1.45, 4.19), P < 0.001; week 24, OR = 2.37 (1.40, 4.02), P < 0.01] and 50% [week 24, OR = 1.89 (1.11, 3.23), P < 0.05] improvements over baseline. For WOMAC Pain, LOR increased ORs of achieving 30% [week 24, OR = 1.79 (1.06, 3.01), P < 0.05] and 50% [week 12, OR = 1.79 (1.06, 3.03), P < 0.05; week 24, OR = 1.73 (1.02, 2.93), P < 0.05] improvements. For WOMAC Function, LOR increased ORs of achieving 30% [week 12, OR = 1.85 (1.10, 3.12), P < 0.05; week 24, OR = 1.93 (1.14, 3.26), P < 0.05] improvements. For PtGA, LOR increased ORs of achieving 50% [week 12, OR = 2.28 (1.25, 4.16), P < 0.01] improvements. LOR produced numerical increases at the 70% threshold. LOR increased ORs of achieving OMERACT-OARSI responses [week 12, OR = 2.21 (1.29, 3.78); P < 0.01; week 24, OR = 2.57 (1.49, 4.43), P < 0.001] and strict responses [week 12, OR = 2.13 (1.26, 3.61), P < 0.01; week 24, OR = 2.05 (1.21, 3.47), P < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: LOR (0.07 mg) demonstrated improved PRO threshold responses across single and composite measures of pain, function, and patient global assessment compared with PBO, with benefits sustained to 24 weeks.

Lorecivivint (LOR) is a new injectable medicine being studied as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis (OA). An early (phase 2b) trial found participants with moderate-to-severe knee OA receiving LOR on average reported improved pain, function, and reduced impact of OA symptoms over 24 weeks compared with placebo. To consider how likely individuals were to respond to treatment, this study analyzed how many participants per group achieved different percentage levels of symptom improvement. Participants were given a single LOR or placebo injection into their most painful (target) knee at trial initiation. Participants reported their target knee status from day 1 (baseline) to week 24 using pain and function questionnaires. We analyzed the number of participants given 0.07 mg LOR and placebo whose symptom scores improved by 30, 50, and 70% over baseline scores at weeks 12 and 24. Results showed that 0.07 mg LOR treatment produced a higher likelihood beyond chance at week 12 of achieving a 30% improvement in some pain and function scores and a 50% improvement in other symptom scores compared with placebo. Similar 30% and 50% symptom score improvements were found at week 24. More complex scores, combining individual symptom scores into single index measures, also showed improvements beyond chance for 0.07 mg LOR from baseline compared with placebo at weeks 12 and 24. Thus, more participants with knee OA who were treated with 0.07 mg LOR demonstrated long-lasting, meaningful improvements in pain and function compared to those given placebo.

Real-World Health Care Resource Utilization and Costs Among US Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis Compared with Controls.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence, healthcare resource utilization and costs (HCRU&C) of knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients versus controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective, matched-cohort administrative claims analysis using IBM MarketScan databases (2011-2017). Newly diagnosed, adult (18+ yrs) knee OA patients identified by ICD9/10 code were matched 1:1 to controls by age, sex, payer, and geography; alpha level set to 0.05. Prevalence was estimated for 2017. All-cause and knee OA-related HCRU&C reported per-patient-per-year (PPPY) over follow-up period up to 4 years. RESULTS: Overall 2017 knee OA prevalence was 4% (615,514 knee OA/15.4M adults). A total of 510,605 patients meeting inclusion criteria were matched 1:1 with controls. The knee OA cohort had mean age 60 years and was 58% female. Versus controls, knee OA patients had significantly more PPPY outpatient (84.5 versus 45.0) and pharmacy (29.8 versus 19.8) claims, and significantly higher PPPY outpatient costs ($12,571 versus $6,465), and pharmacy costs ($3,655 versus $2,038). Knee OA patients incurred $7,707 more PPPY total healthcare costs than controls, of which $4,674 (60.6%) were knee OA-related medical claims and $1,926 (25%) were knee OA-related medications of interest. PPPY costs for nonselective NSAIDs, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, intraarticular hyaluronic acid, non-acute opioids, and knee replacement were higher for knee OA patients than controls. Using median and mean all-cause total cost ($9,330 and $24,550, respectively), the estimated sum cost of knee OA patients in MarketScan ranged from $5.7B to $15B annually. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis demonstrated an annual 2017 prevalence of 4.0% (≥18 years) and 13.2% (≥65 years) for newly diagnosed knee OA patients. Compared with controls, all-cause costs were significantly higher for knee OA patients, nearly double that of matched controls, attributable to increased medical and treatment costs and comorbidity treatment burden. Additionally, the estimated annual cost of knee OA treatment was substantial, ranging between $5.7 billion and $15 billion.

SM04755, a small-molecule inhibitor of the Wnt pathway, as a potential topical treatment for tendinopathy.

The Wnt pathway is upregulated in tendinopathy, affecting inflammation and tenocyte differentiation. Given its potential role in tendinopathy, this signaling pathway may be a relevant target for treatment. The current study examined the therapeutic potential of SM04755, a topical, small-molecule Wnt pathway inhibitor, for the treatment of tendinopathy using in vitro assays and animal models. In vitro, SM04755 decreased Wnt pathway activity, induced tenocyte differentiation, and inhibited catabolic enzymes and pro-inflammatory cytokines in human mesenchymal stem cells, rat tendon-derived stem cells, and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Evaluation of the mechanism of action of SM04755 by biochemical profiling and computational modeling identified CDC-like kinase 2 (CLK2) and dual-specificity tyrosine phosphorylation-regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) as molecular targets. CLK and DYRK1A inhibition by siRNA knockdown or pharmacological inhibition induced tenocyte differentiation and reduced tenocyte catabolism. In vivo, topically applied SM04755 showed therapeutically relevant exposure in tendons with low systemic exposure and no detectable toxicity in rats. Moreover, SM04755 showed reduced tendon inflammation and evidence of tendon regeneration, decreased pain, and improved weight-bearing function in rat collagenase-induced tendinopathy models compared with vehicle control. Together, these data demonstrate that CLK2 and DYRK1A inhibition by SM04755 resulted in Wnt pathway inhibition, enhanced tenocyte differentiation and protection, and reduced inflammation. SM04755 has the potential to benefit symptoms and modify disease processes in tendinopathy.

Lorecivivint, a Novel Intraarticular CDC-like Kinase 2 and Dual-Specificity Tyrosine Phosphorylation-Regulated Kinase 1A Inhibitor and Wnt Pathway Modulator for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Phase II Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel Wnt pathway modulator, lorecivivint (SM04690), for treating pain and inhibiting structural progression in moderately to severely symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Subjects in this 52-week, phase IIa, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging trial received a single 2-ml intraarticular injection of lorecivivint (dose of 0.03 mg, 0.07 mg, or 0.23 mg) or placebo. Efficacy was assessed based on change from baseline on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score subscales for pain and function (scale 0-100 for each) and change from baseline in the radiographic medial joint space width (JSW). Baseline-adjusted analysis of covariance with multiple imputation was performed separately to evaluate efficacy. This proof-of-concept study evaluated the intent-to-treat population as well as a prespecified group of subjects with unilateral symptoms of knee OA (designated UNI) and an additional post hoc subgroup of subjects with unilateral symptoms but without widespread pain (designated UNI WP-). RESULTS: In this trial, 455 subjects were randomized to a treatment group. The primary end point, significant improvement in the WOMAC pain score compared with placebo at week 13, was not met by any lorecivivint dose group (mean ± SD change from baseline, -23.3 ± 2.2 in the 0.03 mg group, -23.5 ± 2.1 in the 0.07 mg group, -21.3 ± 2.2 in the 0.23 mg group, and -22.1 ± 2.1 in the placebo group; each P > 0.05 versus placebo). All groups (including placebo) demonstrated clinically meaningful (≥20-point) improvements from baseline in the WOMAC pain score. The durability of response was evaluated through week 52. In the prespecified UNI group and post hoc UNI WP- group at week 52, treatment with 0.07 mg lorecivivint significantly improved the WOMAC pain score (between-group difference versus placebo, -8.73, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] -17.44, -0.03 [P = 0.049] and -11.21, 95% CI -20.99, -1.43 [P = 0.025], respectively) and WOMAC function score (between-group difference versus placebo, -10.26, 95% CI -19.82, -0.69 [P = 0.036] and -13.38, 95% CI -24.33, -2.43 [P = 0.017], respectively). Relative to baseline, the mean change in the medial JSW at week 52 was -0.04 mm in the 0.03 mg cohort, -0.09 mm in the 0.07 mg cohort, -0.16 mm in the 0.23 mg cohort, and -0.14 mm in the placebo cohort; no treatment group achieved a significant change in medial JSW compared with placebo at week 52. In both unilateral symptom subgroups, the 0.07 mg lorecivivint dose significantly increased medial JSW compared with placebo at week 52 (medial JSW 0.39 mm, 95% CI 0.06, 0.72 in the UNI group [P = 0.021] and 0.42 mm, 95% CI 0.04, 0.80 in the UNI WP- group [P = 0.032]). Changes observed in the 0.03 mg and 0.23 mg dose groups were not significantly different from those in the placebo group for any of these measures. Lorecivivint appeared safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION: This phase IIa, proof-of-concept trial in patients with symptomatic knee OA did not meet its primary end point. Nevertheless, the study identified a target population in whom to evaluate the potential efficacy of lorecivivint for the treatment of knee OA.

Patient Expectations and Perceptions of Goal-setting Strategies for Disease Management in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify how patients perceive the broad effect of active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) on their daily lives and indicate how RA disease management could benefit from the inclusion of individual goal-setting strategies. METHODS: Two multinational surveys were completed by patients with RA. The "Good Days Fast" survey was conducted to explore the effect of disease on the daily lives and relationships of women with RA. The "Getting to Your Destination Faster" survey examined RA patients' treatment expectations and goal-setting practices. RESULTS: Respondents from all countries agreed that RA had a substantial negative effect on many aspects of their lives (work productivity, daily routines, participation in social and leisure activities) and emotional well-being (loss of self-confidence, feelings of detachment, isolation). Daily pain was a paramount issue, and being pain- and fatigue-free was considered the main indicator of a "good day." Setting personal, social, and treatment goals, as well as monitoring disease progress to achieve these, was considered very beneficial by patients with RA, but discussion of treatment goals seldom appeared to be a part of medical appointments. CONCLUSION: Many patients with RA feel unable to communicate their disease burden and treatment goals, which are critically important to them, to their healthcare provider (HCP). Insights gained from these 2 surveys should help to guide patients and HCP to better focus upon mutually defined goals for continued improvement of management and achievement of optimal care in RA.