Susanne Reiter

Eular evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis - report of a task force of the Eular Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics(ESCISIT)

Objectives: To develop evidence based recommendations for the management of hand osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: The multidisciplinary guideline development group comprised 16 rheumatologists, one physiatrist, one orthopaedic surgeon, two allied health professionals, and one evidence based medicine expert, representing 15 different European countries. Each participant contributed up to 10 propositions describing key clinical points for management of hand OA. Final recommendations were agreed using a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, AMED, Cochrane Library, HTA, and NICE reports was used to identify the best available research evidence to support each proposition. Where possible, the effect size and number needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risk or odds ratio was estimated for safety, and incremental cost effectiveness ratio was used for cost effectiveness. The strength of recommendation was provided according to research evidence, clinical expertise, and perceived patient preference. Results: Eleven key propositions involving 17 treatment modalities were generated through three Delphi rounds. Treatment topics included general considerations (for example, clinical features, risk factors, comorbidities), non-pharmacological (for example, education plus exercise, local heat, and splint), pharmacological (for example, paracetamol, NSAIDs, NSAIDs plus gastroprotective agents, COX-2 inhibitors, systemic slow acting disease modifying drugs, intra-articular corticosteroids), and surgery. Of 17 treatment modalities, only six were supported by research evidence (education plus exercise, NSAIDs, COX-2 inhibitors, topical NSAIDs, topical capsaicin, and chondroitin sulphate). Others were supported either by evidence extrapolated from studies of OA affecting other joint sites or by expert opinion. Strength of recommendation varied according to level of evidence, benefits and harms/costs of the treatment, and clinical expertise. Conclusion: Eleven key recommendations for treatment of hand OA were developed using a combination of research based evidence and expert consensus. The evidence was evaluated and the strength of recommendation was provided.

How to define responders in osteoarthritis

Abstract Background: Osteoarthritis is a clinical syndrome of failure of the joint accompanied by varying degrees of joint pain, functional limitation, and reduced quality of life due to deterioration of articular cartilage and involvement of other joint structures. Scope: Regulatory agencies require relevant clinical benefit on symptoms and structure modification for registration of a new therapy as a disease-modifying osteoarthritis drug (DMOAD). An international Working Group of the European Society on Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) and International Osteoporosis Foundation was convened to explore the current burden of osteoarthritis, review current regulatory guidelines for the conduct of clinical trials, and examine the concept of responder analyses for improving drug evaluation in osteoarthritis. Findings: The ESCEO considers that the major challenges in DMOAD development are the absence of a precise definition of the disease, particularly in the early stages, and the lack of consensus on how to detect structural changes and link them to clinically meaningful endpoints. Responder criteria should help identify progression of disease and be clinically meaningful. The ideal criterion should be sensitive to change over time and should predict disease progression and outcomes such as joint replacement. Conclusion: The ESCEO considers that, for knee osteoarthritis, clinical trial data indicate that radiographic joint space narrowing >0.5 mm over 2 or 3 years might be a reliable surrogate measure for total joint replacement. On-going research using techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging and biochemical markers may allow the identification of these patients earlier in the disease process.

Can we identify patients with high risk of osteoarthritis progression who will respond to treatment? A focus on epidemiology and phenotype of osteoarthritis

Osteoarthritis is a syndrome affecting a variety of patient profiles. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society working meeting explored the possibility of identifying different patient profiles in osteoarthritis. The risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis include systemic factors (e.g., age, sex, obesity, genetics, race, and bone density) and local biomechanical factors (e.g., obesity, sport, joint injury, and muscle weakness); most also predict disease progression, particularly joint injury, malalignment, and synovitis/effusion. The characterization of patient profiles should help to better orientate research, facilitate trial design, and define which patients are the most likely to benefit from treatment. There are a number of profile candidates. Generalized, polyarticular osteoarthritis and local, monoarticular osteoarthritis appear to be two different profiles; the former is a feature of osteoarthritis co-morbid with inflammation or the metabolic syndrome, while the latter is more typical of post-trauma osteoarthritis, especially in cases with severe malalignment. Other biomechanical factors may also define profiles, such as joint malalignment, loss of meniscal function, and ligament injury. Early- and late-stage osteoarthritis appear as separate profiles, notably in terms of treatment response. Finally, there is evidence that there are two separate profiles related to lesions in the subchondral bone, which may determine benefit from bone-active treatments. Decisions on appropriate therapy should be made considering clinical presentation, underlying pathophysiology, and stage of disease. Identification of patient profiles may lead to more personalized healthcare, with more targeted treatment for osteoarthritis.

Biomarkers and personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: a proposal for interactions between academia, industry and regulatory bodies

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most appropriate conditions for the application of personalised medicine as a high degree of heterogeneity has been recognised, which remains to be explained. Such heterogeneity is also reflected in the large number of treatment targets and options. A growing number of biologics as well as small molecules are already in use and there are promising new drugs in development. In order to make the best use of treatment options, both targeted and non-targeted biomarkers have to be identified and validated. To this aim, new rules are needed for the interaction between academia and industry under regulatory control. Setting up multi-centre biosample collections with clear definition of access, organising early, possibly non-committing discussions with regulatory authorities, and defining a clear route for the validation, qualification and registration of the biomarker–drug combination are some of the more critical areas where effective collaboration between the drug industry, academia and regulators is needed.

Balancing benefits and risks of glucocorticoids in rheumatic diseases and other inflammatory joint disorders: new insights from emerging data. An expert consensus paper from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

AbstractPurposeThis consensus review article considers the question of whether glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is still relevant in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, with a particular focus on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and whether its side effects can be adequately managed. Recent basic and clinical research on the molecular, cellular and clinical effects of GCs have considerably advanced our knowledge in this field. An overview of the subject seems appropriate.MethodsThis review is the result of a multidisciplinary expert working group, organised by European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis. The recent literature was surveyed and the salient evidence synthetized.ResultsThe pathophysiological basis of RA (and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases) now strongly implicates the adaptive immune system in addition to innate mechanisms. The molecular effect of GCs and differential GC sensitivity is better understood, although exploiting this knowledge is still in its infancy. The newer treatment strategies of early and aggressive control of RA have gr eatly improved clinical outcomes, but improvements are still possible. Newer targeted anti-inflammatory drugs have made an important impact, yet they too are associated with numerous side effects.DiscussionShort durations of moderate doses of GCs are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit/risk ratio. Patients should be assessed for fracture risk and bone preserving agents and be prescribed calcium and vitamin D supplementation.ConclusionsWithin a strategy of a disease modifying approach to inflammatory disease, combination therapy including a GC is effective approach.

Extent and time course of pain intensity upon treatment with a topical diclofenac sodium patch versus placebo in acute traumatic injury based on a validated end point: post hoc analysis of a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Objective: To investigate the extent and time course of pain intensity upon treatment with a topical diclofenac patch compared with placebo in acute traumatic sport injury based on a validated and established end point. Methods: Post hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, 1-week study in 120 patients with traumatic blunt soft tissue injury. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (in millimetres) for pain on movement were analysed. The mean absolute VAS changes in pain intensity from baseline over the study course were calculated for the diclofenac patch formulation (active) and placebo; mean differences between active and placebo were assessed twice daily during the first 3 days after enrolment and then once daily up to day 7. Results: The diclofenac patch was consistently superior to placebo in relieving pain. The mean differences compared with placebo were greatest on day 2 (23.6 – 30.6 mm, p < 0.0001) and day 3 (24.5 – 24.6 mm, p < 0.0001). Diminishing differences were observed over the study course. Conclusion: The investigated diclofenac sodium patch provides clinically relevant pain relief in patients with acute traumatic injuries. Maximum effects versus placebo are detected at 2 – 3 days post-injury. This analysis may serve as useful information for the planning of clinical trials in acute traumatic injury.

Updating the 2003 European regulatory requirements for registering disease-modifying drugs to be used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Pivotal clinical trials of several drugs licensed in Europe have used the ‘Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than NSAIDs for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis’, published in 2003 by the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products for Human Use (CPMP) [1]. This document was produced to specify requirements for investigation and approval of new DMARDs; however, since it was published we have seen the development of novel therapies for RA (especially biologic agents) and new therapeutic strategies emphasizing early intervention and tight control to achieve low disease activity or remission [2]. In light of this, the ethics and study design of clinical trials need to be reassessed. To address this situation, the authors—a consensus committee bringing together expertise in RA, clinical trial design and regulatory affairs—reviewed the current literature. A consensus was reached, endorsed by all authors, that updates the CHMP guidance, specifically as it relates to, the choice of comparator in different patient populations, the assessment of signs and symptoms and physical function and structural damage evaluation and duration of trials.