"The least significant change on bone mineral density scan increased in patients with higher degrees of obesity".

BACKGROUND: The least significant change (LSC) threshold of 0.03 g/cm² is used to interpret bone mineral density (BMD) scans in the general population. Our working hypothesis was that the current LSC threshold would not be applicable in obese populations. AIMS: The aim of this study was to calculate the LSC in an obese population. METHODS: We performed an interventional study among 120 obesity patients, in whom two measurements of BMD were performed at 3 sites. Pairs of measures were used to calculate the LSC, using the Bland and Altman method. RESULTS: We calculated that the LSC was 0.046 g/cm² at the lumbar spine, 0.069 g/cm² at the femoral neck, and 0.06 g/cm² at the total hip. We also calculated the LSC for each class of obesity and observed an increase in LSC with increasing body mass index (BMI). We calculated a LSC of 0.05 g/cm² in patients with class 2 or class 3 obesity, whereas the LSC in patients with class 1 obesity is similar to the threshold used in the general population. DISCUSSION: In obese population, like BMD, LSC is higher than the threshold value of the general population, and increases with increasing BMI. CONCLUSION: LSC of 0.05 g/cm² could be used in clinical practice in patients with class 2 or 3 obesity. These findings should help to improve the interpretation of BMD scans in these patients and optimize their management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile-de France VII, France.

Urinary methotrexate dosage in rheumatoid arthritis, in patients treated for at least 6 months: a potential marker of adherence.

OBJECTIVES: Non-adherence to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments must be identified. A methotrexate (MTX) urinary dosage (METU) was recently developed. The aim of our study was to assess adherence to MTX in RA using METU in real-life conditions and to compare it with indirect adherence measurement technics. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study at Reims University Hospital. We included over 18-year-old patients with RA treated by MTX for more than 6 months. Patients were invited to complete demographic, clinical and psychological questionnaires and adherence measurement technics (Compliance Questionnaire of Rheumatology (CQR) and Medication Possession Ratio (MPR)). A urinary sample was collected to measure MTX and information about tolerance was evaluated through Methotrexate Intolerance Severity Score. RESULTS: 84 patients were included, 26 using oral MTX, 58 subcutaneous (SC) MTX. Among them, 73% were female, mean age was 61.5 years, MTX mean dose was 15 mg/week and 61.9% were treated by biological DMARDs (Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs). 77 patients (91.7%) were adherent to treatment according to METU, whereas MPR and CQR reported less adherence (69.5% and 61.9%, respectively). MPR and METU were not significantly different in SC MTX users (p=0.059). Non-adherent patients had a higher number of tender joints and C reactive protein value (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: This is the first largest study evaluating MTX adherence in patients with RA using a urinary dosage. We identified that indirect adherence measurements did not reflect real-life adherence. It would be appreciable to realise METU, in a new study, in patients with RA with unexplained response to treatment, to consider it before escalating therapeutic strategy.