An oleuropein-based dietary supplement may improve joint functional capacity in older people with high knee joint pain: findings from a multicentre-RCT and post hoc analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate a 6-month intervention with an olive leaf extract (OLE) on knee functionality and biomarkers of bone/cartilage metabolism and inflammation. DESIGN: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-centric trial included 124 subjects with knee pain or mobility issues. Subjects received twice a day one capsule of placebo or 125 mg OLE (Bonolive™, an OLE containing 50 mg of oleuropein) for 6 months. The co-primary endpoints were Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and serum Coll2-1NO2. The secondary endpoints were the subscales of the KOOS, knee pain VAS at rest and at walking, OARSI core set of performance-based tests and multiple inflammatory and bone or cartilage remodeling serum biomarkers and concentration of oleuropein's metabolites in urine. RESULTS: At 6 months, OLE group was not efficient on global KOOS score, changes of inflammatory and cartilage remodeling biomarkers compared to placebo. Post hoc analyses demonstrated a large and significant treatment effect of OLE in a sub-group of subjects with high walking pain at baseline (p = 0.03). This was observed at 6 months for the global KOOS score, and each different subscale and for pain at walking (p = 0.02). OLE treatment was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: OLE was not effective on joint discomfort excepted in a sub-group of subjects with high pain at treatment initiation. As oleuropein is well tolerated, OLE can be used to relieve knee joint pain and enhance mobility in subjects with articular pain.

Belgian rheumatologists' perception on eligibility of RA patients for anti-TNF treatment matches more closely Dutch rather than Belgian reimbursement criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To assess discrepancies between perception of Belgian rheumatologists on eligibility of RA patients for anti-TNF treatment and Belgian reimbursement criteria and to compare Belgian with Dutch criteria and UK guidelines. METHODS: Consecutive MTX-experienced patients with active RA were recruited from 25 private and academic rheumatology practices. Discrepancies between eligibility for anti-TNF treatment according to the rheumatologist and fulfillment of Belgian reimbursement criteria [HAQ > or =25%, tender joint count (TJC) and swollen joint count (SJC) > or =8; > or =1 erosion; failure of > or =2 DMARDs including MTX; no tuberculosis] were recorded. Reasons for failing the Belgian criteria and results of applying Dutch reimbursement criteria and UK guidelines on the dataset were analysed. RESULTS: Of 492 patients, rheumatologists considered 135 (27.4%) as eligible, whereas Belgian criteria were fulfilled for only 34 (6.9%). Positive predictive value (PPV) of rheumatologists' perception on eligibility for fulfillment of Belgian criteria was 22.9%, whereas negative predictive value (NPV) was 99.1%. The 104 patients (21.1%) considered eligible despite criteria not being fulfilled had significantly greater TJCs, SJCs, disease activity score (DAS28) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index scores than the 385 patients (78.2%) in the no-discrepancy group. Number of swollen joints, HAQ and erosions mainly accounted for discrepancies. Of 492 patients, 263 (53.4%) qualified for Dutch criteria and 41 (8.3%) for UK guidelines. PPV of Belgian rheumatologists' perception was 72.6% for fulfilling Dutch criteria (NPV 49.6%) and 23.4% for UK guidelines (NPV 96.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Rheumatologists consider more RA patients eligible for anti-TNF treatment than would be reimbursed according to Belgian criteria. Dutch guidelines, based on DAS28, match more closely eligibility according to Belgian rheumatologists.