Once-monthly oral ibandronate provides significant improvement in bone mineral density in postmenopausal women treated with glucocorticoids for inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To study the efficacy and safety of once-monthly oral ibandronate in the prevention of glucocorticoid (GC)-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) in postmenopausal women with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. METHOD: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of 140 postmenopausal women was conducted. At baseline, the mean lumbar spine (LS) (L1-L4) bone mineral density (BMD) was normal or osteopaenic (T-score ≥ -2.0) and the patients were receiving treatment with 5-15 mg/day of prednisone equivalent. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either monthly oral ibandronate 150 mg or placebo for 12 months. All patients received vitamin D and calcium supplements. The primary endpoint was the relative change in mean LS BMD from baseline to 12 months. RESULTS: Mean LS BMD increased significantly by 2.6% and 3.2% from baseline to 6 and 12 months with ibandronate compared to 0.3% and -0.1% with placebo, respectively (p < 0.001). Comparable significant mean increases were also found in trochanter, femoral neck and total hip BMDs at 12 months. Reductions in the serum levels of bone turnover markers C-terminal telopeptide of type I collagen (sCTX), N-terminal propeptide of type I procollagen (P1NP), and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRACP) were significantly more marked in the ibandronate group than in the placebo group at 1, 6, and 12 months. Adverse events (AEs) were reported at a similar frequency in both groups. A higher proportion of serious AEs (SAEs) were reported in the ibandronate group without emergence of any single SAE. CONCLUSIONS: Once-monthly oral ibandronate provides a significant increase in LS and total hip BMD with an acceptable safety profile in postmenopausal women treated with low-dose GCs for inflammatory rheumatic diseases.

Cost-effectiveness of infliximab in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of infliximab therapy in Finnish RA patients in a real-life clinical setting and identified factors influencing it, using the national register of biological treatment (ROB-FIN). METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed, derived from EQ-5D, and related to HAQ score and disease activity using multiple regression. QALYs were calculated based on these utilities, using patient-level data up to the last control registered. Cost-effectiveness analyses included costs per ACR50 responder, and costs per low DAS28 score (<3.2) achieved, in combination with a clinically significant improvement (>1.2). The costs considered were direct medical costs of infliximab and cost of intravenous infusion. Patient-level costs were calculated based on dose and dosage frequency, and were related to the difference in QALYs resulting from infliximab therapy. RESULTS: The 297 patients had been treated with infliximab for an average of 21 months. The HAQ score and patient's global assessment improved significantly on infliximab therapy. More than two-thirds of the patients achieved a clinically important improvement in HAQ. A QALY gain occurred in 76%. 35% of these had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of < or =40,000 Euro/QALY gained, the median cost being 51,884 Euro. The cost per QALY gained was significantly lower for patients achieving an ACR50 response at 3, 12 and 24 months. CONCLUSION: Treatment with infliximab and aiming at ACR50 response appears cost-effective, remembering the restrictions of an observational study set up. Current Care guidelines, which require sufficient disease control when deciding on continuing biological therapy, get support from these findings.

Peripheral blood neutrophil leukotriene B4 release and migration in rheumatoid arthritis.

The present study was designed to compare peripheral blood neutrophil migration and leukotriene (LT) release between patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and healthy controls and to correlate the neutrophil functions with clinical disease activity. Nineteen patients with moderately active RA and 19 age and sex matched healthy volunteers participated in this study. Isolated peripheral blood neutrophils from RA patients released equal amounts of LTB4 but their random migration was enhanced as compared with neutrophils from healthy controls. LTB4 release in whole blood was significantly lower in samples from RA patients than in those from the healthy volunteers (13.5 +/- 1.4 and 19.1 +/- 1.4 ng/10(6) neutrophils respectively; P < 0.001). LTB4 release from isolated RA neutrophils correlated with the levels of C-reactive protein, duration of morning stiffness and Ritchie articular swelling index. Concentrations of hyaluronate, cyclic AMP and 13, 14-dihydro-15-keto prostaglandin were not different between patients with RA and healthy volunteers. Neither was there any difference in TXB2 production by platelets during blood clotting. In conclusion, peripheral blood neutrophils of RA patients seem to be primed and/or activated as their random migration is enhanced as compared with those of healthy volunteers. In RA, LTB4 release from peripheral blood neutrophils seems to reflect the clinical activity of the disease. However, RA neutrophils released smaller (in whole blood) or equal (isolated cells) amount of LTB4 as compared with the respective controls. These contradictory findings suggest that LTB4 release from peripheral blood neutrophils has no major role in the regulation of disease activity in rheumatoid arthritis.