A summary of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis.

Key statements of the Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis are summarized. They were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis and approved by the Russian Ministry of Health. PURPOSE: To summarize key statements of the Russian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis. METHODS: The Russian clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis were developed by a task force representing the key Russian professional associations involved in the management of osteoporosis: These comprised the Russian Association of Endocrinologists, the Russian Association for Osteoporosis, the Association of Rheumatologists of Russia, the Association of Orthopedic surgeons and Traumatologists of Russia, the Russian Association of Gynecologists-Endocrinologists, and the Russian Association of Gerontologists and Geriatrics. The guidelines are based on a systematic literature review and principles of evidence-based medicine and were compiled in accordance with the requirements for clinical recommendations developed by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. RESULTS: Key statements included in the Russian guidelines of osteoporosis approved by the Russian Ministry of Health in 2021 are summarized. The statements are graded based on levels of evidence and supported by short comments. The guidelines are focused on the current approach to screening, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment of osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are a practical tool for general practitioners, as well as medical specialists, primarily endocrinologists, rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, and other physicians who are involved in the management of patients with osteoporosis.

Quality of life after fragility fracture in the Russian Federation: results from the Russian arm of the International Cost and Utility Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study (ICUROS).

Changes in health-related quality of life (QoL) due to hip, humeral, ankle, spine, and distal forearm fracture were measured in Russian adults age 50 years or more over the first 18 months after fracture. The accumulated mean QoL loss after hip fracture was 0.5 and significantly greater than after fracture of the distal forearm (0.13), spine (0.21), proximal humerus (0.26), and ankle (0.27). INTRODUCTION: Data on QoL following osteoporotic fractures in Russia are scarce. The present study evaluated the impact of hip, vertebral, proximal humerus, distal forearm, and ankle fracture up to 18 months after fracture from the Russian arm of the International Costs and Utilities Related to Osteoporotic Fractures Study. METHODS: Individuals age ≥ 50 years with low-energy-induced humeral, hip, clinical vertebral, ankle, or distal forearm fracture were enrolled. After a recall of pre-fracture status, HRQoL was prospectively collected over 18 months of follow-up using EQ-5D-3L. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify determinants of QALYs loss. RESULTS: At 2 weeks, patients with hip fracture (n = 223) reported the lowest mean health state utility value (HSUV) compared with other fracture sites. Thereafter, utility values increased but remained significantly lower than before fracture. For spine (n = 183), humerus (n = 166), and ankle fractures (n = 214), there was a similar pattern of disutility with a nadir within 2 weeks and a progressive recovery thereafter. The accumulated mean QoL loss after hip fracture was 0.5 and significantly greater than after fracture of the distal forearm (0.13), spine (0.21), proximal humerus (0.26), and ankle (0.27). Substantial impairment in self-care and usual activities immediately after fracture were important predictors of recovery across at all fracture sites. CONCLUSIONS: Fractures of the hip, vertebral, distal forearm, ankle, and proximal humerus incur substantial loss of QoL in Russia. The utility values derived from this study can be used in future economic evaluations.

Validity of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) score and definition of cut-off points for disease activity states in a population-based European cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the validity of the rheumatoid arthritis impact of disease (RAID) for measuring disease activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to determine cut-off values for defining the disease activity states. METHODS: A total of 622 RA patients from an European database have been included. Cross-validation was based on assessment of convergent and discriminant validity. Optimal cut-offs were determined against external criteria by calculating the respective 25th and 75th percentiles mean values of RAID. External criteria included definitions for remission (REM), low disease activity (LDA), moderate disease activity (MDA) and high disease activity (HDA), cut-offs of the 28-joint disease activity score-C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) score. RESULTS: The RAID showed a moderate degree of correlation with respect to DAS28-CRP (rho=0.417; P<0.0001). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to discriminate the ability of RAID to distinguish patients with active and non-active disease was very good with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.847 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.816 to 0.878; P<0.0001). Based on the distributions of RAID in the different disease activity groups, we propose the following cut-off values for REM: RAID ≤3; for LDA: RAID >3 and ≤4; for MDA: RAID >4 and ≤6; for HDA: RAID >6. Mean RAID differed significantly between patients classified as REM, LDA, MDA or HDA (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The cut-offs revealed good measurement characteristics in cross-validation analysis, had great discriminatory performance in distinguishing patients with different levels of disease activity and are suited for widespread use in everyday practice application and research.

European multicentre pilot survey to assess vitamin D status in rheumatoid arthritis patients and early development of a new Patient Reported Outcome questionnaire (D-PRO).

OBJECTIVE: To collect data on vitamin D (25(OH)D) serum levels in a large number of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from different European countries, to investigate their relation with disease activity, disability, quality of life, and possibly to construct a new Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaire in order to self-estimate if they are at risk for vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency-related clinical implications (D-PRO). METHODS: This was a European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) supported cross-sectional study (project No CLI064) which involved 625 RA patients (mean age 55±11years, mean disease duration 11±9years), 276 age and sex matched healthy subjects, and rheumatologists working in academic institutions or hospital centres, as well as PARE organizations (patient representatives) from 13 European countries. Serum samples for 25(OH)D level measurement were collected during winter time and analyzed in a central laboratory using chemiluminescence immunoassay (DiaSorin). Patient past medical history was recorded. RA patients were provided with three questionnaires: the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact Diseases score (RAID), the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and the new D-PRO questionnaire at the time of 25(OH)D serum sampling. D-PRO questionnaire consisted of three domains, Symptom Risk Score (SRS), Habitus Risk Score (HRS) and Global Risk Score (SRS+HRS=GRS), constructed with items possibly related to vitamin D deficiency. D-PRO was correlated with both clinical and PRO scores. DAS28-CRP was also evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed by non parametric tests. RESULTS: Mean serum concentration of 25(OH)D in RA patients (17.62±9.76ng/ml) was found significantly lower if compared to the levels obtained in matched controls (18.95±9.45ng/ml) (p=0.01), with statistically significant differences among several European countries. Negative correlations were found between 25(OH)D serum levels and DAS28-CRP (p<0.001), RAID (p=0.05) and HAQ (p=0.04) scores in the RA patients group. Negative correlations were also found in the cohort of enrolled RA patients between 25(OH)D serum concentrations and SRS (p=0.04), HRS (p=0.02) and GRS (p=0.02) domains of the D-PRO questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: This first multicentre European survey add new evidences that vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency is frequent in RA patients with statistically significant differences among several countries. Vitamin D serum concentrations seem to correlate negatively and significantly with the D-PRO Global Risk Score, clinimetric indexes for quality of life, disease activity and disability in present cohort of RA European patients.