Tools in the assessment of sarcopenia.

This review provides a framework for the development of an operational definition of sarcopenia and of the potential end points that might be adopted in clinical trials among older adults. While the clinical relevance of sarcopenia is widely recognized, there is currently no universally accepted definition of the disorder. The development of interventions to alter the natural history of sarcopenia also requires consensus on the most appropriate end points for determining outcomes of clinical importance which might be utilized in intervention studies. We review current approaches to the definition of sarcopenia and the methods used for the assessment of various aspects of physical function in older people. The potential end points of muscle mass, muscle strength, muscle power, and muscle fatigue, as well as the relationships between them, are explored with reference to the availability and practicality of the available methods for measuring these end points in clinical trials. Based on current evidence, none of the four potential outcomes in question is sufficiently comprehensive to recommend as a uniform single outcome in randomized clinical trials. We propose that sarcopenia may be optimally defined (for the purposes of clinical trial inclusion criteria as well as epidemiological studies) using a combination of measures of muscle mass and physical performance. The choice of outcome measures for clinical trials in sarcopenia is more difficult; co-primary outcomes, tailored to the specific intervention in question, may be the best way forward in this difficult but clinically important area.

Treatment of osteoporosis in men.

SUMMARY: Aspects of osteoporosis in men, such as screening and identification strategies, definitions of diagnosis and intervention thresholds, and treatment options (both approved and in the pipeline) are discussed. INTRODUCTION: Awareness of osteoporosis in men is improving, although it remains under-diagnosed and under-treated. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO) workshop was convened to discuss osteoporosis in men and to provide a report by a panel of experts (the authors). METHODS: A debate with an expert panel on preselected topics was conducted. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Although additional fracture data are needed to endorse the clinical care of osteoporosis in men, consensus views were reached on diagnostic criteria and intervention thresholds. Empirical data in men display similarities with data acquired in women, despite pathophysiological differences, which may not be clinically relevant. Men should receive treatment at a similar 10-year fracture probability as in women. The design of mixed studies may reduce the lag between comparable treatments for osteoporosis in women becoming available in men.

Management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis.

This review summarizes the available evidence-based data that form the basis for therapeutic intervention and covers the current status of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) management, regulatory requirements, and risk-assessment options. Glucocorticoids are known to cause bone loss and fractures, yet many patients receiving or initiating glucocorticoid therapy are not appropriately evaluated and treated. An European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis workshop was convened to discuss GIOP management and to provide a report by a panel of experts. An expert panel reviewed the available studies that discussed approved therapeutic agents, focusing on randomized and controlled clinical trials reporting on bone mineral density and/or fracture risk of at least 48 weeks' duration. There is no evidence that GIOP and postmenopausal osteoporosis respond differently to treatments. The FRAX algorithm can be adjusted according to glucocorticoid dose. Available antiosteoporotic therapies such as bisphosphonates and teriparatide are efficacious in GIOP management. Several other agents approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis may become available for GIOP. It is advised to stop antiosteoporotic treatment after glucocorticoid cessation, unless the patient remains at increased risk of fracture. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation as an osteoporosis-prevention measure is less effective than specific antiosteoporotic treatment. Fracture end-point studies and additional studies investigating specific subpopulations (pediatric, premenopausal, or elderly patients) would strengthen the evidence base and facilitate the development of intervention thresholds and treatment guidelines.

Implications for fracture healing of current and new osteoporosis treatments: an ESCEO consensus paper.

Osteoporotic fracture healing is critical to clinical outcome in terms of functional recovery, morbidity, and quality of life. Osteoporosis treatments may affect bone repair, so insights into their impact on fracture healing are important. We reviewed the current evidence for an impact of osteoporosis treatments on bone repair. Treatment with bisphosphonate in experimental models is associated with increased callus size and mineralization, reduced callus remodeling, and improved mechanical strength. Local and systemic bisphosphonate treatment may improve implant fixation. No negative impact on fracture healing has been observed, even after major surgery or when administered immediately after fracture. Experimental data for denosumab and raloxifene suggest no negative implications for bone repair. The extensive experimental results for teriparatide indicate increased callus formation, improved biomechanical strength, and greater external callus volume and total bone mineral content and density. Case reports and a randomized trial have produced mixed results but are consistent with a positive impact of teriparatide on clinical fracture healing. Studies with strontium ranelate in models of fracture healing indicate that it is associated with improved bone microstructure, callus volume, and biomechanical properties. Finally, there is experimental evidence for a beneficial effect of some of the agents currently being developed for osteoporosis, notably sclerostin antibody and DKK1 antibody. There is currently no evidence that osteoporosis treatments are detrimental for bone repair and some promising experimental evidence for positive effects on healing, notably for agents with a bone-forming mode of action, which may translate into therapeutic applications.

Frailty and sarcopenia: definitions and outcome parameters.

An operational definition of musculoskeletal decline in older people is needed to allow development of interventions for prevention or treatment, as was developed for the treatment of osteoporosis. Frailty and sarcopenia are linked, but distinct, correlates of musculoskeletal aging that have many causes, including age-related changes in body composition, inflammation, and hormonal imbalance. With the emergence of a number of exciting candidate therapies to retard the loss of muscle mass with aging, the derivation of a consensual definition of sarcopenia and physical frailty becomes an urgent priority. Although several consensual definitions have been proposed, these require clinical validation. An operational definition, which might provide a threshold for treatment/trial inclusion, should incorporate a loss of muscle mass as well as evidence of a decrease in muscle strength and/or physical activity. Evidence is required for a link between improvements in the measures of muscle strength and/or physical activity and clinical outcomes to allow development of interventions to improve clinical outcomes in frail older patients.

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.

The need for a transparent, ethical, and successful relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry: a view of the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science (GREES).

UNLABELLED: This paper provides recommendations for fair and unbiased relationship between academic scientists and the pharmaceutical industry. INTRODUCTION: Real or perceived problems in the relationship between academics and the industry have been the subject of much recent debate. It has been suggested that academic clinicians should sever all links with the industry-a view that is rarely challenged. METHODS: Academic experts and members of the pharmaceutical industry were invited to an expert consensus meeting to debate this topic. This meeting was organized by the Group for the Respect of Ethics and Excellence in Science. Conflict of interest, competing interest, right and duties of academic scientist, authorship, and staff and student education were discussed. RESULTS: Guidelines for a transparent, ethical, strong, and successful partnership between the academic scientist and the pharmaceutical industry have been provided. CONCLUSIONS: The Group support interactions between the industry and clinicians provided that it is transparent and ethical.

Risk of hip fracture derived from relative risks: an analysis applied to the population of Sweden.

Bone mineral density measurements are widely used to estimate the relative risk of hip fracture. In addition, many other risk factors have been identified, some of which are known to add to the risk independently of other risk factors, including bone mineral density measurements. In this paper we develop an algorithm that converts relative risks for hip fracture to absolute (15 years and lifetime) risks, modeled on the population of Sweden. Lifetime risks increased as expected with increments in relative risk. Average lifetime risk in women at the age of 50 years was 22.7%, which increased to 64.9% when the relative risk was 6.0. In men the risk increased from 11.1% to 41.3%. The identification of high-risk groups had little effect on the specificity of assessments but increased the sensitivity over a wide range of assumptions. The increment in lifetime risk was relatively stable across all ages, reducing the complexity of computing lifetime risks from relative risk. The derivation of absolute risk from relative risk permits the optimization of selection of individuals or populations either for further risk assessment or for treatment.

Selective estrogen receptor modulators: an alternative to hormone replacement therapy.

Estrogen is a key regulatory hormone, which in addition to its role in reproduction, affects a number of physiological systems, including the skeleton and cardiovascular system. The important role of estrogen in various tissues is perhaps most evident in postmenopausal women who, in addition to menopausal symptoms, experience increases in osteoporosis and coronary heart disease as their estrogen levels decline. Estrogen replacement, while effective against osteoporosis and heart disease, produces a number of side effects associated with the breast and uterus which limits compliance. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as raloxifene and tamoxifen, produce beneficial estrogen-like effects on bone and lipid metabolism, while antagonizing estrogen in reproductive tissue. SERMs can be distinguished from each other in reproductive tissue, particularly the uterus, by their activity profile. For example, while triphenylethylenes like tamoxifen behave as partial agonists, raloxifene (a benzothiophene) behaves as a complete antagonist in the uterus. The SERM profile is distinct from that of full estrogens (ie. 17beta-estradiol or 17alpha-dihydroequilenin) which behave as estrogen agonists in all tissues and pure estrogen antagonists (i.e. ICI-164,384) which exhibit only an estrogen antagonist profile in a battery of tissue types. The precise mechanism by which SERMs produce this tissue-selective pharmacology remains a question. It is clear, however, that for raloxifene, both the estrogen agonist effects on bone and cholesterol metabolism as well as the estrogen antagonist effects in uterine and mammary tissue involve high affinity interaction with the estrogen receptor. The estrogen antagonist activity is mediated via classical pharmacological competition for estrogen receptor binding. The estrogen agonist activity, in bone for example, appears to involve novel post-receptor pathways and non-classical estrogen response element(s) which are activated by SERMs. These novel response elements may represent natural pathways which respond to estrogen metabolites in vivo.

Lifetime risk of hip fractures is underestimated.

Estimates of lifetime risk of osteoporotic fracture have assumed that mortality rates do not change. Since mortality in the elderly is decreasing in all regions of the world we assessed the effect of this on lifetime risks for hip fracture using Sweden as a reference country. Lifetime risks of hip fracture at the age of 50 years were 4.6% and 13.9% in men and women respectively, assuming all survive to current average life expectancy. Estimates increased to 8.1% and 19.5% when based on present mortality and to 11.1% and 22.7% respectively based on predicted mortality. We conclude that lifetime risks of hip fracture have been considerably underestimated.

Cefaclor advanced formulation versus cefaclor in the treatment of pneumonia.

The use of cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) in the treatment of pneumonia caused by susceptible organisms was investigated in a multi-center trial conducted in the United Kingdom and the United States. A total of 266 patients were enrolled in this double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel study; 132 patients were treated with cefaclor AF and 134 patients received the reference drug cefaclor. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of lobar pneumonia or bronchopneumonia, with a positive sputum culture and an infiltrate on chest roentgenogram. Patients received either cefaclor AF (750 mg twice daily) or cefaclor (500 mg three times daily) for 10 to 14 days. Forty patients in the cefaclor AF group and 45 in the cefaclor group were evaluable for efficacy, with 37 (92.5%) and 43 (95.6%), respectively, showing a favorable posttherapy clinical response. Proven or presumed pathogen elimination was achieved in 87.5% and 86.7% of cases, respectively. Both study drugs demonstrated high levels of activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae (including beta-lactamase-producing strains), and Moraxella catarrhalis (including beta-lactamase-producing strains). There were no statistically significant differences between drugs in efficacy results. One or more side effects were reported by 42.4% of the patients treated with cefaclor AF and by 44.0% of those treated with cefaclor; diarrhea, nausea, headache, and respiratory disorders were the most common adverse events. No drug-related side effects were seen with a frequency or severity that would be unexpected with the use of oral cephalosporins. Cefaclor AF and cefaclor performed equally well with respect to clinical and bacteriologic response rates in the treatment of pneumonia.

Acute bronchitis: results of U.S. and European trials of antibiotic therapy.

Acute bronchitis, an illness frequently encountered by primary-care physicians, is an inflammation of the tracheobronchial tree that results from a respiratory tract infection. It is characterized by persistent cough and sputum production and is occasionally accompanied by fever and/or chest pain. Acute bronchitis may have a viral or bacterial origin and is often treated with antibiotics. Four clinical trials were conducted to compare high and low doses of loracarbef, a new oral beta-lactam antibiotic, with three agents commonly used to treat acute bronchitis: amoxicillin/clavulanate, cefaclor, and amoxicillin. Results of these studies indicated that loracarbef, 400 and 200 mg twice daily, had clinical and bacteriologic efficacy against the common respiratory pathogens Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella (Branhamella) catarrhalis that was comparable with that of the comparative agents. Loracarbef was as well tolerated as cefaclor and amoxicillin; moreover, it produced a significantly lower incidence of diarrhea than did amoxicillin/clavulanate. Loracarbef may be considered a safe and effective alternative agent for the treatment of patients with acute bronchitis.

Efficacy of cefaclor AF in the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections.

Cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) was compared with cefaclor for the treatment of skin and skin-structure infections in a double-blind study at 28 centers in North America. Of the 563 patients originally randomized, 278 patients received cefaclor AF (375 mg twice daily) and 285 patients received cefaclor (250 mg three times daily). A total of 154 patients treated with cefaclor AF and 157 patients treated with cefaclor qualified for the efficacy analysis after completing 7 days of therapy. At the post-therapy visit, favorable clinical response rates for evaluable patients were 97.4% in the cefaclor AF group and 94.9% in the cefaclor group; favorable bacteriologic response rates were 85.7% and 84.1%, respectively. At the late post-therapy evaluation, 7 to 14 days after completion of therapy, favorable clinical response rates were 90.1% in the cefaclor AF group versus 89.9% in the cefaclor group, and favorable bacteriologic response rates were 88.7% and 86.9%, respectively. No significant difference was seen between the groups in clinical or bacteriologic efficacy at either evaluation or in the frequency of nature of side effects reported during the study.

Loracarbef (LY163892) versus amoxicillin/clavulanate in the treatment of acute purulent bacterial bronchitis.

In this single-blind study, 488 patients with acute bronchitis were randomly assigned to receive 400 mg of loracarbef twice daily or 500/125 mg of amoxicillin/clavulanate three times daily for seven days. Treatment efficacy was evaluated in 98 patients treated with loracarbef and in 99 treated with amoxicillin-clavulanate in whom pretreatment positive cultures of pathogens susceptible to both study drugs were found. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Moraxella (Branhamella) catarrhalis, and Klebsiella pneumoniae were isolated in pure or mixed cultures in 64% of the evaluable patients; S pneumoniae was found in 26%. Among the evaluable patients, the rate of favorable clinical responses (cure and improvement) in the loracarbef group (96 of 98 patients; 98.0%) was similar to that in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group (96 of 99 patients; 97.0%); the favorable bacteriologic response rates were also similar (93.7% vs 92.9%, respectively). Eight patients in the loracarbef group and nine in the amoxicillin/clavulanate group discontinued treatment because of adverse events. The events were presumed to be drug related in five of the loracarbef group and in seven of the amoxicillin/clavulanate group. During therapy, diarrhea was the most frequently reported event in both groups. However, it occurred in only 8.2% of the loracarbef-treated patients compared with 22.5% of the amoxicillin/clavulanate patients (P less than 0.001). It is concluded that both loracarbef and amoxicillin/clavulanate are safe and effective in the treatment of acute purulent bacterial bronchitis.

A multicentre trial of cefaclor advanced formulation versus cefaclor in the treatment of acute bronchitis.

Two prospective randomized, double-blind, parallel studies were carried out in Europe to compare cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) with cefaclor in the treatment of acute bronchitis caused by susceptible pathogens. A total of 1,321 patients suffering from acute bronchitis confirmed by clinical data and a negative chest X-ray were randomized for treatment in the two multicentre trials. Three doses of cefaclor AF were tested: 375 mg twice daily and 500 mg twice daily were compared with cefaclor 250 mg three times daily; and cefaclor AF 750 mg twice daily was compared with cefaclor 500 mg three times daily. Duration of therapy was seven days. Assessments (complete history, physical examination, sputum specimens for culture and Gram's stain, plus clinical and laboratory evaluations of safety) were carried out within 24 hours before the first dose, during therapy, within 72 hours after therapy completion and, in the 375 mg and 500 mg dose groups, 1-2 weeks after the end of therapy. There were no significant differences between the total evaluable cefaclor AF population and the total evaluable cefaclor population with regard to favourable post-therapy responses. Most favourable clinical and bacteriological response rates in the 375 and 500 mg doses were 80% or above. In the higher dose group, there was a favourable post-therapy symptomatic response in 100% of evaluable patients, with favourable bacteriological responses in 93.3% patients receiving cefaclor AF and 96.8% receiving cefaclor (no significant difference). Only one serious drug-related adverse event was reported (anaphylactic reaction). Adverse events related to the digestive system were reported by 4.7% of the cefaclor AF-treated patients and 4.5% of the cefaclor-treated patients during the entire study period. Cefaclor AF, at all three dose levels studies, was seen to be as safe as cefaclor in the treatment of acute bronchitis caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella (Branhamella) catarrhalis.

Cefaclor AF in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis.

Two double-blind, double-dummy, randomized multicentre studies compared the safety and efficacy of 10-day regimens of cefaclor advanced formulation (cefaclor AF) (375 mg twice daily) with cefaclor (250 mg three times daily) in the treatment of proven group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis. Of the 1,138 patients enrolled, 764 (cefaclor AF:392; cefaclor: 372) were evaluated for efficacy. All patients enrolled in the studies (570 treated with cefaclor AF and 568 treated with cefaclor) were evaluated for safety. Clinical and bacteriological evaluations were performed on treatment days 4-6, and after completion of treatment within 3-5 days and 2-3 weeks. In evaluable patients, the post-therapy clinical success and bacteriological cure rates for cefaclor AF were 96.7% and 93.6%, respectively; the rates were 98.1% and 94.1% for cefaclor. Sixteen cefaclor AF-treated patients and 14 cefaclor-treated patients withdrew early from the trial because of adverse events. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in the overall number of adverse events reported. Diarrhoea was the most frequently reported adverse event (5.6%) in cefaclor AF-treated patients, and headache/migraine was the most frequently reported adverse event (5.6%) in the cefaclor-treated patients. Cefaclor AF (375 mg twice daily) is as effective and safe as cefaclor capsules (250 mg three times daily) in the treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis/tonsillitis.

Comparative trials of cefaclor AF in uncomplicated cystitis and asymptomatic bacteriuria.

Two different doses of cefaclor advanced formulation (AF), a new sustained-release formulation of cefaclor, were compared with the regular formulation of cefaclor for efficacy and safety in the treatment of uncomplicated cystitis and asymptomatic bacteriuria. A 7-day course of treatment was used, and the trials were double-dummy and double-blind. In one trial, cefaclor AF 500 mg once daily (at night) was compared with cefaclor 250 mg three times a day. Satisfactory clinical and bacteriological responses were found in 179/189 (94.7%) and 160/191 (83.8%) patients, respectively, given cefaclor AF and in 82/87 (94.3%) and 74/90 (82.2%) patients given cefaclor, 5-9 days after the end of treatment. In the other trial, cefaclor AF 375 mg twice daily was compared with cefaclor 250 mg three times a day. Satisfactory clinical and bacteriological responses were obtained in 164/180 (91.1%) and 156/184 (84.8%) patients, respectively, given cefaclor AF, and in 86/92 (93.5%) and 81/93 (87.1%) patients taking cefaclor, 5-9 days after the end of treatment. Very similar results were found in both studies in those patients who were assessable 3-5 weeks later. Only 4.3% and 2.4% of patients treated with cefaclor AF (375 mg and 500 mg, respectively) and 2.2% of cefaclor patients discontinued therapy due to adverse events. The three most commonly reported events were vaginal moniliasis or vaginitis (8.6%), headache (5.0%) and nausea (4.8%). No significant differences were found between clinical efficacy and safety parameters in the different study groups, and it was concluded that cefaclor AF in a twice-daily or once-daily dosage is as effective and as safe as the currently recommened three-times-a-day dosage of cefaclor.