Long-term effects on bone mineral density after four years of treatment with two intensive combination strategies, including initially high-dose prednisolone, in early rheumatoid arthritis patients: the COBRA-light trial.

In this study, no difference in bone loss was observed between patients with early RA initially treated with COmbinatietherapie Bij Reumatoide Artritis (COBRA) (including initially 60 mg/day prednisolone) and patients treated with COBRA-light (including initially 30 mg/day prednisolone) during 4-year observation. PURPOSE: To assess changes in bone mineral density (BMD) after 4 years in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients initially treated with COBRA-light or COBRA therapy. METHODS: In a 1 year, open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial, patients were assigned to COBRA-light (methotrexate 25 mg/week plus initially prednisolone 30 mg/day) or COBRA (methotrexate 7.5 mg/week, sulfasalazine 2 g/day plus initially prednisolone 60 mg/day) therapy. After 1 year, antirheumatic treatment was at the discretion of treating rheumatologists. BMD was measured at baseline and after 1, 2 and 4 years at hips and lumbar spine with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. BMD changes between treatment strategies on average over time were compared with GEE analysis. RESULTS: Data from 155 out of 162 patients could be analysed: 68% were female with a mean age of 52 (SD 13) years. Both COBRA-light and COBRA therapy showed declines in BMD at the total hip of -3.3% and -1.7%, respectively (p = 0.12), and the femoral neck, -3.7% and -3.0%, respectively (p = 0.95). At the lumbar spine, both treatment groups showed minor decline in BMD over 4 years: -0.5% and -1.0%, respectively (p = 0.10). CONCLUSION: In a treat-to-target design in early RA, over 4 years, no differences between groups were found in change in BMD at total hip, femoral neck and the lumbar spine. At the hip, bone loss was around 3% in both groups, while mild bone loss was observed at lumbar spine, both in patients starting prednisolone 60 and 30 mg/day. These data suggest that the well-known negative effects of prednisolone can be modulated by modern treatment of RA.

Balneotherapy (or spa therapy) for rheumatoid arthritis. An abridged version of Cochrane Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatment options for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include pharmacological interventions, physical therapy treatments and balneotherapy. AIM: To evaluate the benefits and harms of balneotherapy in patients with RA. DESIGN: A systematic review. POPULATION: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials consisting of participants with definitive or classical RA. METHODS: We searched various databases up to December 2014. Balneotherapy had to be the intervention under study, and had to be compared with another intervention or with no intervention. We considered pain, improvement, disability, tender joints, swollen joints and adverse events among the main outcome measures. We excluded studies when only laboratory variables were reported as outcome measures. Two review authors independently selected trials, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: This review includes nine studies involving 579 participants. Most studies showed an unclear risk of bias in most domains. We found no statistically significant differences on pain or improvement between mudpacks versus placebo (1 study; N.=45; hand RA; very low level of evidence). As for the effectiveness of additional radon in carbon dioxide baths, we found no statistically significant differences between groups for all outcomes at three-month follow-up (2 studies; N.=194; low to moderate level of evidence). We noted some benefit of additional radon at six months in pain (moderate level of evidence). One study (N.=148) compared balneotherapy (seated immersion) versus hydrotherapy (exercises in water), land exercises or relaxation therapy. We found no statistically significant differences in pain or in physical disability (very low level of evidence) between groups. We found no statistically significant differences in pain intensity at eight weeks, but some benefit of mineral baths in overall improvement at eight weeks compared to Cyclosporin A (1 study; N.=57; low level of evidence). CONCLUSION: Overall evidence is insufficient to show that balneotherapy is more effective than no treatment; that one type of bath is more effective than another or that one type of bath is more effective than exercise or relaxation therapy. CLINICAL REHABILITATION IMPACT: We were not able to assess any clinical relevant impact of balneotherapy over placebo, no treatment or other treatments.

Balneotherapy for osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Balneotherapy (or spa therapy, mineral baths) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain and as a consequence to relieve patients' suffering and make them feel well. In this update we included one extra study. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of balneotherapy for patients with osteoarthritis (OA). SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following databases up to October 2006: EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field database, PEDro, CENTRAL (Issue 3, 2006) and performed reference checking and communicated with authors to retrieve eligible studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing balneotherapy with any intervention or no intervention. At least 90% of the patient population had to be diagnosed with OA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. Disagreements were solved by consensus. In the event of clinical heterogeneity or lack of data we refrained from statistical pooling. MAIN RESULTS: Seven trials (498 patients) were included in this review. Two studies compared spa-treatment with no treatment. One study evaluated baths as an add-on treatment to home exercises and another compared thermal water from Cserkeszölö with tap water (placebo). Three studies evaluated sulphur or Dead Sea baths with no treatment or mineral baths with tap water baths or no treatment. Only one of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and two studies provided data to perform an intention-to-treat analysis ourselves. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by one trial. We found: silver level evidence concerning the beneficial effects on pain, quality of life and analgesic intake of mineral baths compared to no treatment (SMD between 1.82 and 0.34). a statistically significant difference in pain and function of Dead Sea + sulphur versus no treatment, only at end of treatment (WMD 5.7, 95%CI 3.3 to 8.1), but not at 3 month follow-up (WMD 2.6, 95%CI -1.1 to 6.3). no statistically significant differences in pain or function at one or three months of Dead Sea baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.5, 95%CI -0.6 to 1.6) or at one or three months of sulphur baths versus no treatment (WMD 0.4, 95%CI -0.9 to 1.7). Adverse events were not measured in the included trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found silver level evidence (www.cochranemsk.org) concerning the beneficial effects of mineral baths compared to no treatment. Of all other balneological treatments no clear effects were found. However, the scientific evidence is weak because of the poor methodological quality and the absence of an adequate statistical analysis and data presentation. Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution.

Balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Balneotherapy (spa therapy) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain, improve joint motion and as a consequence to relieve people' suffering and make them feel well. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review on the effectiveness of balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Using the Cochrane search strategy, studies were found by screening: 1) The MEDLINE CD-ROM database from 1966 to June 2002 and 2) the database from the Cochrane 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies' Field, the Pedro database up to June 2002. Also, 3) reference checking and 4) personal communications with authors was carried out to retrieve eligible studies. Date of the most recent literature search: June, 2002 SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing balneotherapy with any other intervention or with no intervention. Included participants all suffered from definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by the American Rheumatism Association Criteria (ARA) or by the criteria of Steinbrocker. At least one of the WHO/ILAR core set of endpoints for RA clinical trials had to be among the main outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The Delphi list was the criteria list used to assess the components of methodological quality. Two reviewers carried out quality assessment and data extraction of the studies. Disagreements were solved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials, representing 355 people, were included in this review. Most trials reported positive findings (the absolute improvement in measured outcomes ranged from 0 to 44%), but were methodologically flawed to some extent. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by two trials. None of the trials performed an intention-to-treat analysis and only two performed a comparison of effects between groups. Pooling of the data was not performed; because of heterogeneity of the studies, multiple outcome measurements, and the overall data presentation was too scarce. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: One cannot ignore the positive findings reported in most trials. However the scientific evidence is insufficient because of the poor methodological quality, the absence of an adequate statistical analysis, and the absence, for the patient, of most essential outcome measures (pain, self assessed function, quality of life). Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution. Because of the methodological flaws an answer about the apparent effectiveness of balneotherapy cannot be provided at this moment. A large, methodological sound trial is needed.

Bone turnover, joint damage and bone mineral density in early rheumatoid arthritis treated with combination therapy including high-dose prednisolone.

OBJECTIVES: Exploration of bone metabolism changes at different levels of disease activity, both with and without oral corticosteroid therapy, and prediction of changes in joint damage and bone density from the observed changes in markers of bone turnover. METHODS: Data analysis from a randomized clinical trial with 155 rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients; median age 50 yr, early and active disease (diagnosis < 2 yr); one group treated with a combination of sulphasalazine (SSZ; 2000 mg/day), methotrexate (MTX; 7.5 mg/week) and prednisolone (initially 60 mg/day, tapered in six weekly steps to 7.5 mg/day), the other group with SSZ alone. Prednisolone and MTX were tapered and stopped after weeks 28 and 40, respectively, while SSZ was continued. Urine and serum samples were collected at baseline and weeks 16, 28, 40 and 56. Measurements of urinary pyridinoline (PYD) and deoxypyridinoline (DPD) and serum alkaline phosphatase (tAP) and osteocalcin (OC) were performed, as well as standard clinimetry and bone densitometry. RESULTS: Over time and in both treatment groups, bone formation and bone resorption markers showed a pattern similar to erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR): a significant decrease compared with baseline and a larger decrease with combined treatment at weeks 16 and 28. PYD excretion, tAP, OC, and joint damage scores were significantly lower in the combined treatment group. Changes in bone density (of spine and hips) did not significantly differ between treatment groups. Mainly cumulative ESR explained progression of joint damage. CONCLUSIONS: Prednisolone and disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug therapy in patients with early and active RA are both independently associated with decreased levels of urinary excretion of bone collagen resorption markers PYD and DPD. Markers of bone formation and resorption closely followed changes in ESR in both treatment groups. Reduced bone resorption together with reduced bone formation-initially at a somewhat faster pace-resulted in less bone turnover and explain the observed (non-significant and partially reversible) extra bone loss in the lumbar spine associated with prednisolone (combined treatment).

Balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Balneotherapy (hydrotherapy or spa therapy) for patients with arthritis is one of the oldest forms of therapy. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to soothe the pain and as a consequence to relieve patients' suffering and make them feel well. OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review to assess the effects of balneotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Using the Cochrane search strategy, studies were found by screening: 1) The Medline CD-ROM database from 1966 to June 1999 and 2) the database from the Cochrane Field 'Rehabilitation and Related Therapies', which contains also studies published in journals not covered by Medline. Also, 3) reference checking and 4) personal communications with authors was carried out to retrieve eligible studies. To perform an adequate assessment of the methodological quality the languages of the publications had to be: Dutch, English, French or German. Date of the most recent literature search: June, 1999 SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing balneotherapy with any intervention or with no intervention. Patients included had rheumatoid arthritis (RA), osteoarthritis (OA) or some other form of arthritis. Trials incorporating patients with definite or classical rheumatoid arthritis (RA) as defined by the American Rheumatism Association Criteria (ARA) (Ropes 1958) (these criteria have changed over time) or by the criteria of Steinbrocker (1949) were regarded as a separate group. At least one of the WHO/ILAR core set of endpoints for RA clinical trials had to be the main outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A criteria list used to assess the methodological quality was the one developed at the Department of Epidemiology at the Maastricht University, called "the Maastricht list". The quality scores and data abstraction of the studies were carried out independently by two reviewers (HdV, RdB). Disagreements were solved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: Ten trials with 607 patients were included in this review. Most trials reported positive findings, but were methodologically flawed to some extent. A 'quality of life' outcome was reported by two trials. Just one of the randomized trials mentioned an intention-to-treat analysis and only three performed a comparison of effects between groups. Pooling of the data was not performed, because of heterogeneity of the studies, multiple outcome measurements, and, apart from two studies, the overall data presentation was too scarce to enable pooling of the data. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: One cannot ignore the positive findings reported in most trials. However the scientific evidence is weak because of the poor methodological quality, the absence of an adequate statistical analysis, and the absence, for the patient, of most essential outcome measures (pain, quality of life), Therefore, the noted "positive findings" should be viewed with caution. Because of the methodological flaws an answer about the efficacy of balneotherapy cannot be provided at this time. Flaws found in the reviewed studies could be avoided in future trials.

Balneotherapy and quality assessment: interobserver reliability of the Maastricht criteria list and the need for blinded quality assessment.

This study investigates aspects of the reliability of the Maastricht criteria list for quality assessment in systematic reviews, and whether blinded reviewing is necessary to prevent review bias. We used the data set of 12 articles from a systematic review concerning the efficacy of balneotherapy in patients with arthritis. Twenty reviewers participated of which two reviewers, who have been involved in developing the Maastricht criteria list, acted as reference standard. Half of all assessments were performed blindly. A high level of agreement was found between the reviewers and a high level of correlation with the reference standard. The quality scores between the blinded and unblinded assessment did not differ much. Based on the results we conclude that the Maastricht criteria list is a reliable instrument in quality assessment of clinical trials. Within the limits of this study we found no evidence that blinding is necessary to prevent review bias.

Taking baths: the efficacy of balneotherapy in patients with arthritis. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To review English, French, German, and Dutch language studies of the effectiveness of balneotherapy. Balneotherapy (hydrotherapy or spa therapy) is one of the oldest forms of therapy for patients with arthritis. One of the aims of balneotherapy is to relieve pain. METHODS: We performed a systematic review that included randomized and nonrandomized studies. Quality scores of the studies were determined using a criteria list. RESULTS: Most studies report positive findings, but all studies showed methodological flaws. A quality of life measurement was never reported as an outcome measure. None of the randomized clinical trials included intention-to-treat analysis or comparison of effects between groups. CONCLUSION: Because of the methodological flaws a conclusion about the efficacy of balneotherapy cannot be provided from studies we reviewed. We conclude that most flaws found could be avoidable in future research.

Cyclosporine nephrotoxicity in rheumatoid arthritis: no effect of short term misoprostol treatment.

We assessed the effect of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol on cyclosporine nephrotoxicity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Thirteen patients with RA were given cyclosporine with misoprostol tablets, 800 micrograms/day for one week in a randomized, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. All had cyclosporine nephrotoxicity, documented by an increase in serum creatinine of at least 15% over the values before the start of cyclosporine treatment. Mean glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (single shot 51Cr-EDTA plasma clearance) at baseline was 77.3 ml/min (SD, 22.0). After misoprostol, it was 80.0 ml/min (SD, 18.9); after placebo, 79.1 ml/min (SD, 20.0). None of these changes were statistically significant. Serum creatinine levels and whole blood cyclosporine levels were also unchanged. Power to detect at least a 5 ml/min rise in GFR was 0.92. Short term misoprostol treatment does not improve the GFR of patients with RA on cyclosporine.