Sacroiliac MRI Lesions Set Apart axSpA and Other Back Pain
The analysis of structural lesions in sacroiliac joints using MRI showed distinct patterns of structural changes across multiple groups, with patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) showing higher rates of erosions and fatty lesions than other groups without axSpA. Inflammatory and structural lesions occurred simultaneously in those with axSpA.
METHODOLOGY:
Researchers assessed differences in the structural lesions appearing on sacroiliac joint MRIs in 172 participants (mean age, 30.1-34.3 years) from two projects comparing patients with axSpA with those without.
They included patients with axSpA (n = 47) and those without axSpA comprising patients with chronic back pain (n = 47), women with postpartum back pain (n = 7), runners (n = 24), and healthy individuals (n = 47).
Two trained, calibrated readers independently inspected the sacroiliac joint MRIs for erosions, fatty lesions, sclerosis, and ankylosis.
A scoring system similar to that of the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada scoring method was used for the assessment.
Several structural lesion cutoffs were identified and tested as suggested by two working groups, with specific definitions for three or more erosions, three or more fatty lesions, and five or more erosions and/or fatty lesions. The frequency of patients meeting the cutoffs was assessed within different subgroups.
TAKEAWAY:
Structural lesions were identified in 79% of patients with axSpA and 13% of those without axSpA, with erosions (75% vs 9%) and fatty lesions (40% vs 4%) showing the most marked differences and sclerosis (13% vs 3%) and ankylosis (15% vs 2%) showing smaller group differences.
Erosions were also prevalent in women with postpartum back pain (57%), and fatty lesions were the most prevalent in healthy individuals (6%).
Significant differences were noted across groups for fatty lesions ( P < .001), erosions ( P < .001), and ankylosis ( P = .016); however, sclerosis showed no significant variation. The proposed cutoff definitions performed well in differentiating axSpA from non-axSpA.
< .001), erosions ( < .001), and ankylosis ( = .016); however, sclerosis showed no significant variation. The proposed cutoff definitions performed well in differentiating axSpA from non-axSpA. In the axSpA group, an overlap of 72%-79% was observed between structural lesions and inflammation, while non-axSpA subgroups showed a significantly lower rate of overlap. However, 4%-29% of patients in the non-SpA subgroup compared with only 6% in the axSpA group had structural lesions without inflammation.
IN PRACTICE:
"We are convinced that if structural lesions ought to be part of axSpA classification criteria, the implementation of cut-offs for these lesions should be considered. Nevertheless, for a comprehensive understanding of the possible added value of structural lesions, it is crucial to look at the prevalence of structural lesions in the absence of inflammation," the authors wrote.
SOURCE:
This study was led by Zohra Kerami, Amsterdam UMC Locatie AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. It was published online on May 28, 2025, in RMD Open .
LIMITATIONS:
The sample sizes were notably small for some subgroups. Additionally, comprehensive clinical and demographic information was lacking for healthy individuals, women with postpartum back pain, and runners. Data on previous pregnancies and the interval between MRI and delivery were not collected systematically, which limited the analysis of pregnancy-related effects.
DISCLOSURES:
This study did not receive any specific funding. Few authors reported receiving consultancy fees, research support, and/or speaking fees and honoraria for lectures or participation in advisory boards from various pharmaceutical companies. One author reported being an associate editor and another reported being an owner of Joint Imaging BV.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Orforglipron Lowers A1c, Weight in Early Type 2 Diabetes
CHICAGO — The investigational non-peptide small-molecule oral GLP-1 agonist orforglipron significantly reduced A1c over 40 weeks in adults with early type 2 diabetes, according to the results of ACHIEVE-1 sponsored by Eli Lilly. In the trial, orforglipron reduced A1c to the 6.5% range and produced clinically meaningful weight loss with a safety profile similar to that of other GLP-1 drugs. ACHIEVE-1 is the first of seven phase 3 studies of the safety and efficacy of the drug in over 6000 patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity, Orforglipron and other similar non-peptide small molecules "have the potential to be widely accepted as a much earlier therapy for type 2 diabetes," Julio Rosenstock, MD, senior scientific advisor for Velocity Clinical Research and clinical professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said at a press briefing here at the American Diabetes Association (ADA) 85th Scientific Sessions. The findings were simultaneously published in the New England Journal of Medicine . Orforglipron is a once-daily non-peptide small molecule that can be taken any time of day without restrictions on meals or water intake. This contrasts with the currently approved oral GLP-1 receptor agonist semaglutide (Rybelsus, Novo Nordisk), a peptide that ideally should be taken while fasting and with no food or water for at least 30 minutes after ingestion to prevent degradation. Lilly is the farthest along in the development of a small-molecule non-peptide GLP-1 agonist, but at least two others are in phase 3 trials, including CX11 (also known as VCT220) from Corxel Pharmaceuticals and HRS-7535 from Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals and Kailera Therapeutics. Several more are in phase 2 trials. As a class, the oral non-peptide small-molecule GLP-1 receptor agonists "have the potential to open the access for more people because they're easier to take, they're simpler to produce, and in theory, they should be less expensive. So you can see the potential for these drugs," Rosenstock said. However, Amy E. Rothberg, MD, clinical professor of internal medicine and of nutritional sciences at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, told Medscape Medical News that she's concerned because, unlike injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists, "most oral medications are metabolized by the liver. The enzymes that metabolize them may be affected by people's weight. Therefore, if you have obesity, the distribution and the kinetics of the drug may be different than someone who is normal weight. Also, if someone loses weight from having a higher BMI to a lower weight, that may affect the drug distribution and the drug bioavailability." She believes that "the companies need to look at drug exposure before and after weight loss because efficacy and safety could be affected by weight change." First Phase 3 Orforglipron Data Meets Endpoints In ACHEIVE-1, 559 participants with early (duration range, 4.0-5.1 years) type 2 diabetes with A1c levels of 7.0%-9.5% (mean 8.0%) using only diet and exercise and a BMI 23.0 kg/m2 or greater, were randomized equally to receive orforglipron 3 mg, 12 mg, or 36 mg, or placebo once daily for 40 weeks. The primary endpoint, percentage-point change in A1c from baseline to week 40, showed reductions of 1.24, 1.47, 1.48 for the 3-mg, 12-mg, and 36-mg doses, respectively, compared with a 0.41 percentage-point reduction with placebo. All three orforglipron doses produced significant A1c reductions compared with placebo ( P < .001 for all comparisons). At week 40, the mean A1c level ranged from 6.5% to 6.7% with orforglipron, Rosenstock reported. Percentage of body weight losses from baseline to week 40 were 4.5%, 5.8%, and 7.6% for the 3-mg, 12-mg, and 36-mg doses, respectively, versus 1.7% with placebo. The most common adverse events were mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal events, most of which occurred during dose escalation. Gastrointestinal events leading to drug discontinuation occurred in 2.8%, 2.2%, and 5.7% of patients, respectively, for the three orforglipron doses, versus none with placebo. This was similar to what has been observed with other oral and injected GLP-1 agonists, Rosenstock said. "We did not see any surprises. You're going to see the same ranges of nausea and vomiting as with semaglutide and tirzepatide." There were no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. The overall proportions discontinuing permanently due to adverse events ranged from 4% to 8% with orforglipron versus 1% with placebo. "A Remarkable Scientific Achievement" Asked to comment, Simeon Taylor, MD, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Institutional Research Training Program in Diabetes & Obesity at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, told Medscape Medical News : "This landmark scientific achievement ushers in a new chapter in the development of GLP-1 agonists." Taylor pointed out that "orforglipron's glycemic efficacy is only slightly less than monotherapy with Ozempic" and that it "has somewhat more placebo-subtracted weight loss efficacy in people with type 2 diabetes" than Ozempic. Overall, he said, "It is a remarkable scientific achievement to have developed a first-in-class orally bioavailable organic chemical entity with efficacy comparable to a third-generation injectable peptide drug. It is likely that many people with type 2 diabetes will be attracted to the option of an orally bioavailable drug." The other four ACHIEVE trials, to be reported later in 2025, will examine orforglipron in combination with metformin versus dapagliflozin (ACHIEVE-2), in combination with metformin compared to oral semaglutide (ACHIEVE-3), combined with multiple therapies versus insulin glargine (ACHIEVE-4), and in combination with insulin versus placebo (ACHIEVE-5). Another Lilly phase 3 trial, ATTAIN, is evaluating orforglipron for weight management. Results from ATTAIN-1 and ATTAIN-2 will also be presented later in 2025. "Lilly remains on track to submit orforglipron for weight management to global regulatory agencies by the end of this year and for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2026," according to a company statement. Rosenstock has reported receiving research/grant support from, serving on advisory boards for, and/or receiving consulting fees/honoraria from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Biomea Fusion, Boehringer Ingelheim, Corcept, Eli Lilly, Hanmi, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Oramed, Pfizer, Regeneron, Regor, Roche, Sanofi, Structure Therapeutics, and Terns. Taylor has reported receiving payments from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for an inventor's share of a patent covering metreleptin as a treatment for generalized lipodystrophy. He was employed by Eli Lilly in 2000-2002 and Bristol Myers Squibb in 2002-2013.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
SpaceX traces Starship test-stand explosion to failure of pressurized nitrogen tank
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. SpaceX thinks it knows why its newest Starship spacecraft went boom this week. The 171-foot-tall (52-meter-tall) vehicle exploded on a test stand at SpaceX's Starbase site late Wednesday night (June 18) as the company was preparing to ignite its six Raptor engines in a "static fire" trial. A day later, SpaceX narrowed in on a likely cause. "Initial analysis indicates the potential failure of a pressurized tank known as a COPV, or composite overwrapped pressure vessel, containing gaseous nitrogen in Starship's nosecone area, but the full data review is ongoing," the company wrote in an update on Thursday (June 19). "There is no commonality between the COPVs used on Starship and SpaceX's Falcon rockets," the company added. So, launches of the workhorse Falcon 9, which has already flown 75 times in 2025, should not be affected. The Starship explosion did not cause any reported injuries; all SpaceX personnel at Starbase are safe, according to the update. People living around the site, which is near the border city of Brownsville, shouldn't be worried about contamination from the incident, SpaceX said. "Previous independent tests conducted on materials inside Starship, including toxicity analyses, confirm they pose no chemical, biological, or toxicological risks," the company wrote. "SpaceX is coordinating with local, state, and federal agencies, as appropriate, on matters concerning environmental and safety impacts." That said, the explosion did damage the area around the test stand, which is at Starbase's Massey site (not the orbital launch mount area, from which Starship lifts off). "The explosion ignited several fires at the test site which remains clear of personnel and will be assessed once it has been determined to be safe to approach," SpaceX wrote in the update. "Individuals should not attempt to approach the area while safing operations continue." Related Stories: — SpaceX's Starship explodes in Texas during preparations for 10th test flight — SpaceX reached space with Starship Flight 9 launch, then lost control of its giant spaceship (video) — Starship and Super Heavy explained Wednesday night's explosion occurred during preparations for Starship's 10th flight test, which SpaceX had hoped to launch by the end of the month. (Static fires are common prelaunch tests, performed to ensure that engines are ready to fly.) That timeline will now shift to the right, though it's not clear at the moment by how much. The incident was the latest in a series of setbacks for Starship upper stages. SpaceX lost the vehicle — also known as Ship — on the last three Starship flight tests, which launched in January, March and May of this year. Starship's first stage, called Super Heavy, has a better track record of late. For example, on Flight 7 and Flight 8, the huge booster successfully returned to Starbase, where it was caught by the launch tower's "chopstick" arms as planned.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
2 Biotech Stocks to Buy Before They Soar 84% and 240%, According to Certain Wall Street Analysts
These biotech companies have several catalysts ahead -- and in the past have soared on good news. They both offer innovative candidates that could result in game-changing treatments for patients. 10 stocks we like better than Viking Therapeutics › If you're looking to add growth to your portfolio, biotech stocks can be a great choice. Exciting research is happening in these companies' labs, and in some cases, game-changing treatment candidates are approaching important milestones or even going over the finish line. As an investor in these companies, you can benefit as they report positive clinical trial news, score a regulatory approval, or start generating product revenue. Wall Street considers two candidates extremely compelling right now, with forecasts for potential gains of more than 80% and 200% in the coming 12 months. One of these players is working in the high-growth area of weight loss drugs, and the other candidate showed its strengths by winning the world's first-ever approval of a product based on CRISPR gene editing. Let's check out these two biotech stocks to buy before they skyrocket. Viking Therapeutics (NASDAQ: VKTX) soared early last year when it reported strong data from the phase 2 trial of its weight loss candidate, VK2735, but the stock has since given back those gains and is trading closer to the level it was at prior to that data announcement. Since, the company has continued to advance VK2735 in injectable form and a version in pill form, and demand for these sorts of drugs remains high -- these are two reasons to believe that Viking has the potential to take off again. And catalysts may be on the horizon. The drug works in a manner similar to Eli Lilly's blockbuster tirzepatide, sold under the names Mounjaro and Zepbound. These drugs interact with hormones involved in digestion and have helped people quickly and safely lose weight. Viking is beginning the phase 3 trial for injectable VK2735 in the second quarter and expects data from its phase 2 trial of the pill version in the second half. Any data announcements could result in big moves for the stock, as there is plenty of room for a new company to enter the weight loss drug market -- one forecast to approach $100 billion in a few years. Wall Street is optimistic about Viking's prospects, with the average price forecast predicting an increase of about 240% in the stock price from today's level. Of course, Viking depends heavily on the outcome of these trials, so some risk is involved -- but data have been strong, so growth investors may want to get in on Viking now to potentially post a big win later. CRISPR Therapeutics (NASDAQ: CRSP) stock surged in the year leading up to a major milestone: its first product approval. But since last year's launch of Casgevy, a gene-editing treatment for blood disorders, the stock has been on the decline. Sometimes, investors buy a stock well before the company wins approval or launches a product, then lock in gains after the good news lands -- and I think this is what's happened here. But what this does is offer us a chance to get in at a very good price on a promising company that could deliver fantastic news down the road. Casgevy, as a gene-editing treatment, requires a longer time to roll out than a pill or injection, as it includes several steps that happen over a period of months. The company recently said new patient initiations should increase "significantly" this year -- so there's reason to be optimistic about revenue growth ahead. CRISPR Therapeutics also recently reported positive phase 1 data for a gene editing candidate addressing the problem of high cholesterol. And the company expects to report data soon from a phase 1 trial of a candidate targeting patients with elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) -- a risk factor for cardiovascular events. These could represent huge markets for CRISPR Therapeutics if the candidates reach the finish line, and in the meantime, any potential positive news could boost the stock. The company also expects other trial updates in candidates for oncology and autoimmune diseases this year -- so this biotech's calendar is full of possible catalysts. Wall Street's average price forecast calls for an 84% gain for CRISPR Therapeutics from today's price -- if all goes well in clinical trials and Casgevy starts to show revenue growth, now could represent a golden buying opportunity for growth investors. Before you buy stock in Viking Therapeutics, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Viking Therapeutics wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $664,089!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $881,731!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 994% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 Adria Cimino has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends CRISPR Therapeutics. The Motley Fool recommends Viking Therapeutics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Biotech Stocks to Buy Before They Soar 84% and 240%, According to Certain Wall Street Analysts was originally published by The Motley Fool
