[Remarkable medical advances in rheumatology : may be ]. / Une révolution thérapeutique en rhumatologie : oui, mais .

The development of new drugs is a significant activity in a university hospital that favors access to therapeutic novelties to patients. Rheumatology, whose drug armamentarium was poor in the 1980s, has benefited from the huge progresses of immunology in the 1980-1990s, allowing a therapeutic revolution in whom the academic hospital of Liège (CHU Liège) has been strongly implicated. First protocols with anti-TNF-? monoclonal antibodies have been applied in 1997. Sixty-one protocols have been initiated in rheumatoid arthritis, 12 in ankylosing spondylitis, 10 in psoriatic arthritis, 9 in systemic erythematosus lupus, 3 in giant cell arteritis, 1 in polymyalgia rheumatica, 5 in osteoarthritis and 4 in osteoporosis. Potential and pitfalls will be discussed disease by disease and also by drug categories. The balance remains globally positive, but remission is far from be reached.

La recherche clinique médicamenteuse est une activité importante dans un hôpital universitaire. Elle valide des nouveautés thérapeutiques et fait bénéficier les patients de traitements novateurs bien avant leur mise sur le marché. La rhumatologie est une discipline dont l'arsenal thérapeutique était pauvre dans les années 1980, et les immenses progrès de l'immunologie, réalisés entre 1980 et 1995, lui ont permis de vivre une véritable révolution thérapeutique à laquelle notre service a amplement participé. C'est en 1997 que les premiers traitements par anticorps monoclonaux anti-TNF-? (les traitements dits biologiques) ont été utilisés au CHU de Liège. Soixante et une études seront initiées dans la polyarthrite rhumatoïde, 12 dans la spondylarthrite ankylosante, 10 dans la polyarthrite psoriasique, 9 dans le lupus érythémateux disséminé, 3 dans l'artérite temporale de Horton, une dans la pseudopolyarthrite rhizomélique, une dans la sclérodermie, 5 dans l'arthrose, 4 dans l'ostéoporose. Les espoirs et les déceptions observées dans les différentes indications, et avec les différentes molécules, sont analysées. Le bilan est globalement positif, mais les résultats encore insuffisants que pour arriver au concept de rémission.

Comparison of the proportion of patients potentially treated with an anti-osteoporotic drug using the current criteria of the Belgian national social security and the new suggested FRAX criteria.

To assess the number of anti-osteoporosis treatments that would be reimbursed by the Belgian social security if either FRAX or the current criteria were used to determine access to reimbursement. This is a retrospective study based on data from 1,000 women randomly selected from an outpatient hospital specialized in bone metabolism in Belgium. Proportions of potentially refunded treatments between FRAX and current criteria were compared. Out of the 1,000 women files, 890 have sufficient information to assess FRAX. In Belgium, current criteria include a bone mineral density (BMD) T score below -2.5 at the lumbar spine, the femoral neck or the total hip and/or at least a prevalent vertebral fracture. Using these criteria, 167 women (18.8 %) would have access to reimbursement. Using the criteria based on the validated Belgian FRAX tool, only 116 women (13.0 %) would have access to reimbursement, meaning that access to reimbursement based on FRAX criteria would reduce by 30 % the anti-osteoporosis drug expenses covered by the national social security. Interestingly, only 65 women out of the 116 (56.0 %) selected with the FRAX criteria were also selected with the current criteria of the national social security. A substantial proportion of individuals that would potentially receive a reimbursement for their treatment using the FRAX criteria do not have access to any refund for their treatment with the current criteria. Since patients identified with the FRAX tool are those with the highest risk profile for future fractures, reappraisals of treatment reimbursement guidelines are expected in Belgium.

Effect of collagen hydrolysate in articular pain: a 6-month randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of a food supplement made of collagen hydrolysate 1200 mg/day versus placebo during 6 months, in subjects with joint pain at the lower or upper limbs or at the lumbar spine. DESIGN: Comparative double-blind randomized multicenter study in parallel groups. SETTING: 200 patients of both genders of at least 50 years old with joint pain assessed as ≥30 mm on a visual analogical scale (VAS). INTERVENTION: Collagen hydrolysate 1200 mg/day or placebo during 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Comparison of the percentage of clinical responder between the active collagen hydrolysate group and the placebo group after 6 months of study. A responder subject was defined as a subject experiencing a clinically significant improvement (i.e. by 20% or more) in the most painful joint using the VAS score. All analyses were performed using an intent-to-treat procedure. RESULTS: At 6 months, the proportion of clinical responders to the treatment, according to VAS scores, was significantly higher in the collagen hydrolysate (CH) group 51.6%, compared to the placebo group 36.5% (p<0.05). However, there was no significant difference between groups at 3 months (44.1% vs. 39.6%, p=0.53). No significant difference in terms of security and tolerability was observed between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that collagen hydrolysate 1200 mg/day could increase the number of clinical responders (i.e. improvement of at least 20% on the VAS) compared to placebo. More studies are needed to confirm the clinical interest of this food supplement.