[Vitamin D supplementation not useful for all older people]. / Vitamine D niet zinvol voor alle 50-plussers.

An estimated 1.5 million Dutch people take vitamin D supplements on prescription, not including those who take multivitamins or vitamin D over the counter. Yet, controversial health benefits of vitamin D supplementation in the general population continues, often explained with not adequately powered studies, combination therapy with calcium, high bolus doses of vitamin D and poor study designs. Recently, the VITAL study does not show an effect in fracture incidence after treatment with daily vitamin D (2000IU) compared to placebo. However, zooming into the results a positive trend is observed in patients with a fragility fracture and/or using anti-osteoporosis medication. Additionally this study does not rule out a positive effect of vitamin D supplementation in severe vitamin D deficiency and high fracture risk patients.

High-intensity versus low-intensity resistance training in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether (i) high-intensity resistance training (RT) leads to increased muscle strength compared to low-intensity RT in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA); and (ii) RT with vitamin D supplementation leads to increased muscle strength compared to placebo in a subgroup with vitamin D deficiency. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Outpatient rehabilitation centre. SUBJECTS: Patients with knee OA. INTERVENTIONS: 12 weeks of RT at high-intensity RT (70-80% of 1-repetition maximum (1-RM)) or low-intensity RT (40-50% of 1-RM) and 24 weeks of vitamin D (1200 International units vitamin D3 per day) or placebo supplementation. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was isokinetic muscle strength. Other outcome measure for muscle strength was the estimated 1-RM. Secondary outcome measures were knee pain and physical functioning. RESULTS: 177 participants with a mean age of 67.6 ± 5.8 years were included, of whom 50 had vitamin D deficiency. Isokinetic muscle strength (in Newton metre per kilogram bodyweight) at start, end and 24 weeks after the RT was 0.98 ± 0.40, 1.11 ± 0.40, 1.09 ± 0.42 in the high-intensity group and 1.02 ± 0.41, 1.15 ± 0.42, 1.12 ± 0.40 in the low-intensity group, respectively. No differences were found between the groups, except for the estimated 1-RM in favour of the high-intensity group. In the subgroup with vitamin D deficiency, no difference on isokinetic muscle strength was found between the vitamin D and placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: High-intensity RT did not result in greater improvements in isokinetic muscle strength, pain and physical functioning compared to low-intensity RT in knee OA, but was well tolerated. Therefore these results suggest that either intensity of resistance training could be utilised in exercise programmes for patients with knee osteoarthritis. No synergistic effect of vitamin D supplementation and RT was found, but this finding was based on underpowered data.

Associations of vascular and bone status in arthritis patients.

Cardiovascular (CV) disease and osteoporosis (OP) have been associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Bone and vascular biomarkers and parameters along with the effect of 1-year anti-TNF therapy on these markers were assessed in order to determine correlations between vascular pathophysiology and bone metabolism in RA and AS. Thirty-six patients treated with etanercept or certolizumab pegol and 17 AS patients treated with ETN were included in a 12-month follow-up study. Bone and vascular markers were previously assessed by ELISA. Bone density was measured by DXA and quantitative CT (QCT). Flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD), common carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and pulse-wave velocity (PWV) were assessed by ultrasound. Multiple correlation analyses indicated associations between bone and vascular markers. Osteoprotegerin, sclerostin and cathepsin K were significantly associated with FMD, IMT and PWV, respectively (p < 0.05). Moreover, total and trabecular BMD determined by QCT inversely correlated with IMT (p < 0.05). On the other hand, among vascular parameters, platelet-derived growth factor BB and IMT correlated with DXA femoral and QCT total BMD, respectively (p < 0.05). In the RM-ANOVA analysis, anti-TNF treatment together with baseline osteocalcin, procollagen 1 N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) or vitamin D3 levels determined one-year changes in IMT (p < 0.05). In the MANOVA analysis, baseline disease activity indices (DAS28, BASDAI), the one-year changes in these indices, as well as CRP exerted effects on multiple correlations between bone and vascular markers (p < 0.05). As the pattern of interactions between bone and vascular biomarkers differed between baseline and after 12 months, anti-TNF therapy influenced these associations. We found a great number of correlations in our RA and AS patients undergoing anti-TNF therapy. Some of the bone markers have been associated with vascular pathophysiology, while some vascular markers correlated with bone status. In arthritis, systemic inflammation and disease activity may drive both vascular and bone disease.

2019 EULAR points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage fragility fractures in adults 50 years or older.

OBJECTIVE: To establish European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage fragility fractures in adults 50 years or older. METHODS: Points to consider were developed in accordance with EULAR standard operating procedures for EULAR-endorsed recommendations, led by an international multidisciplinary task force, including patient research partners and different health professionals from 10 European countries. Level of evidence and strength of recommendation were determined for each point to consider, and the mean level of agreement among the task force members was calculated. RESULTS: Two overarching principles and seven points to consider were formulated based on scientific evidence and the expert opinion of the task force. The two overarching principles focus on shared decisions between patients and non-physician health professionals and involvement of different non-physician health professionals in prevention and management of fragility fractures. Four points to consider relate to prevention: identification of patients at risk of fracture, fall risk evaluation, multicomponent interventions to prevent primary fracture and discouragement of smoking and overuse of alcohol. The remaining three focus on management of fragility fractures: exercise and nutritional interventions, the organisation and coordination of multidisciplinary services for post-fracture models of care and adherence to anti-osteoporosis medicines. The mean level of agreement among the task force for the overarching principles and the points to consider ranged between 8.4 and 9.6. CONCLUSION: These first EULAR points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage fragility fractures in adults 50 years or older serve to guide healthcare practice and education.

Prevention and management of osteoporotic fractures by non-physician health professionals: a systematic literature review to inform EULAR points to consider.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) about the effect of non-pharmacological interventions delivered by non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures. METHODS: Eight clinical questions based on two criteria guided the SLR: (1) adults≥50 years at high risk of osteoporotic fracture and (2) interventions delivered by non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures. Interventions focused on diagnostic procedures to identify risk of falling, therapeutic approaches and implementation strategies. Outcomes included fractures, falls, risk of falling and change in bone mineral density. Systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were preferentially selected. Data were synthesised using a qualitative descriptive approach. RESULTS: Of 15 917 records, 43 articles were included. Studies were clinically and methodologically diverse. We identified sufficient evidence that structured exercise, incorporating progressive resistance training delivered to people who had undergone hip fracture surgery, and multicomponent exercise, delivered to people at risk of primary fracture, reduced risk of falling. The effectiveness of multidisciplinary fracture liaison services in reducing refracture rate was confirmed. There was insufficient evidence found to support the effectiveness of nutrients and falls prevention programmes in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Despite study heterogeneity, our SLR showed beneficial effects of some interventions delivered by non-physician health professionals and the positive impact of multidisciplinary team working and patient educational approaches to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures. These results informed a EULAR taskforce that developed points to consider for non-physician health professionals to prevent and manage osteoporotic fractures.

Stratified exercise therapy compared with usual care by physical therapists in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized controlled trial protocol (OCTOPuS study).

OBJECTIVES: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is characterized by its heterogeneity, with large differences in clinical characteristics between patients. Therefore, a stratified approach to exercise therapy, whereby patients are allocated to homogeneous subgroups and receive a stratified, subgroup-specific intervention, can be expected to optimize current clinical effects. Recently, we developed and pilot tested a model of stratified exercise therapy based on clinically relevant subgroups of knee OA patients that we previously identified. Based on the promising results, it is timely to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of stratified exercise therapy compared with usual, "nonstratified" exercise therapy. METHODS: A pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including economic and process evaluation, comparing stratified exercise therapy with usual care by physical therapists (PTs) in primary care, in a total of 408 patients with clinically diagnosed knee OA. Eligible physical therapy practices are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to provide the experimental (in 204 patients) or control intervention (in 204 patients), respectively. The experimental intervention is a model of stratified exercise therapy consisting of (a) a stratification algorithm that allocates patients to a "high muscle strength subgroup," "low muscle strength subgroup," or "obesity subgroup" and (b) subgroup-specific, protocolized exercise therapy (with an additional dietary intervention from a dietician for the obesity subgroup only). The control intervention will be usual best practice by PTs (i.e., nonstratified exercise therapy). Our primary outcome measures are knee pain severity (Numeric Rating Scale) and physical functioning (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscale daily living). Measurements will be performed at baseline, 3-month (primary endpoint), 6-month (questionnaires only), and 12-month follow-up, with an additional cost questionnaire at 9 months. Intention-to-treat, multilevel, regression analysis comparing stratified versus usual care will be performed. CONCLUSION: This study will demonstrate whether stratified care provided by primary care PTs is effective and cost-effective compared with usual best practice from PTs.

Pharmacological Management of Osteoporosis in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients: A Review of the Literature and Practical Guide.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic disabling disease that is associated with increased localized and generalized osteoporosis (OP). Previous studies estimated that approximately one-third of the RA population experience bone loss. Moreover, RA patients suffer from a doubled fracture incidence depending on several clinical factors, such as disease severity, age, glucocorticoid (GC) use, and immobility. As OP fractures are related to impaired quality of life and increased mortality rates, OP has an enormous impact on global health status. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a holistic approach in daily clinical practice. In other words, both OP- and RA-related factors should be taken into account in treatment guidelines for OP in RA. First, to determine the actual fracture risk, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), including vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and calculation of the 10-year fracture risk with FRAX®, should be performed. In case of high fracture risk, calcium and vitamin D should be supplemented alongside anti-osteoporotic treatment. Importantly, RA treatment should be optimal, aiming at low disease activity or remission. Moreover, GC treatment should be at the lowest possible dose. In this way, good fracture risk management will lead to fracture risk reduction in RA patients. This review provides a practical guide for clinicians regarding pharmacological treatment options in RA patients with OP, taking into account both osteoporotic-related factors and factors related to RA.

Current Treatments and New Developments in the Management of Glucocorticoid-induced Osteoporosis.

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are often used for improvement of quality of life, particularly in the elderly, but long-term GC use may cause harm; bone loss and fractures are among the most devastating side effects. Fracture risk is particularly high in patients with a severe underlying disease with an urgent need for treatment with high-dose GCs. Moreover, it is important to realize that these patients suffer from an augmented background fracture risk as these patients have a high presence of traditional risk factors for osteoporosis, such as high age, low body mass index (BMI), smoking and relatives with osteoporosis or hip fractures. It is thus crucial for prevention of osteoporotic fractures to use the lowest dose of GC for a short period of time to prevent fractures. Another important task is optimal treatment of the underlying disease; for instance, fracture risk is higher in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis than in patients in whom rheumatoid arthritis is in remission. Thus, fracture risk is generally highest in the early phase, when GC dosage and the disease activity of the underlying disease are high. Finally, some of the traditional risk factors can be modulated, e.g., smoking and low BMI. Life-style measures, such as adequate amounts of calcium and vitamin D and exercise therapy are also crucial. In some patients, anti-osteoporotic drugs are also indicated. In general, oral bisphosphonates (BPs) are the first choice, because of their efficacy and safety combined with the low cost of the drug. However, for those patients who do not tolerate oral BPs, alternatives ("second-line therapies") are available: BP intravenously (zoledronic acid), denosumab (Dmab), and teriparatide. Both zoledronic acid and Dmab have been proven to be superior to oral bisphosphonates like risedronate in improvement of bone mineral density. For teriparatide, vertebral fracture reduction has been shown in comparison with alendronate. Thus, to reduce the global burden of GC use and fracture risk, fracture risk management in GC users should involve at least involve life-style measures and the use of the lowest possible dose of GC. In high-risk patients, anti-osteoporotic drugs should be initiated. First choice drugs are oral BPs; however, in those with contraindications and those who do not tolerate oral BPs, second-line therapies should be started. Although this is a reasonable treatment algorithm, an unmet need is that the most pivotal (second-line) drugs are not used in daily clinical practice at the initial phase, usually characterized by high-dose GC and active underlying disease, when they are most needed. In some patients second-line drugs are started later in the disease course, with lower GC dosages and higher disease activity. As this is a paradox, we think it is a challenge for physicians and expert committees to develop an algorithm with clear indications in which specific patient groups second-line anti-osteoporotic drugs should or could be initiated as first-choice treatment.

Dynamics of the Type I Interferon Response During Immunosuppressive Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Objective: The type I interferon (IFN) response in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been extensively studied in relation to therapy with biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). However, the effect of conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs and glucocorticoids (GCs) on IFN response gene (IRG) expression remains largely unknown, even though csDMARDS are used throughout all disease phases, including simultaneously with biologic therapy. This study was aimed to determine the dynamics of IFN response upon immunosuppressive treatment. Methods: Whole blood was collected in PAXgene tubes from 35 RA patients who received either COBRA therapy (combination of prednisone, initially 60 mg, methotrexate and sulfasalazine) (n = 14) or COBRA-light therapy (prednisone, initially 30 mg, and methotrexate) (n = 21). Expression of 10 IRGs was determined by real-time PCR at baseline (T0), after 4 weeks (T4), and 13 weeks (T13) of treatment. IRG selection was based on the differential presence of transcription factor binding sites (TFBS), in order to study the therapy effect on different pathway components involved in IFN signaling. Results: Seven of the 10 IRGs displayed significant changes during treatment (p ≤ 0.016). These 7 IRGs all displayed a particularly pronounced decrease between T0 and T4 (≥1.6-fold, p ≤ 0.0059). The differences between IRG sensitivity to the treatment appeared related to the presence of TFBS for STAT1 and IRF proteins within the genes. The extent of the decreases between T0 and T4 was similar for the COBRA- and COBRA-light-treated group, despite the differences in drug combination and doses in those groups. Between T4 and T13, however, IRG expression in the COBRA-light-treated group displayed a significant increase, whereas it remained stable or decreased even further in most COBRA-treated patients (comparison of mean fold changes, p = 0.011). A significant association between IRG dynamics and clinical response to therapy was not detected. Conclusions: Immunosuppressive treatment with csDMARDs, in this case a combination of prednisolone, methotrexate and sulfasalazine, substantially downregulates the IFN response in RA patients. The dynamics of this downregulation were partly dependent on the presence of TFBS within the IRGs and the combination and dosages of agents, but they were irrespective of the clinical response to therapy.

Common mechanisms and holistic care in atherosclerosis and osteoporosis.

Cardiovascular (CV) disease and osteoporosis (OP) have become increasing challenges in the aging population and even more in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathies, and systemic lupus erythematosus. In this review, we discuss how the epidemiology and pathogenesis of CV events and OP are overlapping. Smoking, diabetes mellitus, physical inactivity as conventional risk factors as well as systemic inflammation are among the modifiable risk factors for both CV events and bone loss. In rheumatic patients, systemic "high-grade" inflammation may be the primary driver of accelerated atherogenesis and bone resorption. In the general population, in which some individuals might have low-grade systemic inflammation, a holistic approach to drug treatment and lifestyle modifications may have beneficial effects on the bone as well as the vasculature. In rheumatic patients with accelerated inflammatory atherosclerosis and bone loss, the rapid and effective suppression of inflammation in a treat-to-target regime, aiming at clinical remission, is necessary to effectively control comorbidities.

An unfavorable body composition is common in early arthritis patients: A case control study.

BACKGROUND: An unfavorable body composition is often present in chronic arthritis patients. This unfavorable composition is a loss of muscle mass, with a stable or increased (abdominal) fat mass. Since it is unknown when this unfavorable composition develops, we compared body composition in disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD)-naive early arthritis patients with non-arthritis controls and explored the association, in early arthritis patients, with disease activity and traditional cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: 317 consecutive early arthritis patients (84% rheumatoid arthritis according to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria) and 1268 age-/gender-/ethnicity-matched non-arthritis controls underwent a Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan to assess fat percentage, fat mass index, fat mass distribution and appendicular lean (muscle) mass index. Additionally, disease activity, health assessment questionnaire (HAQ), acute phase proteins, lipid profile and blood pressure were evaluated. RESULTS: Loss of muscle mass (corrected for age suspected muscle mass) was 4-5 times more common in early arthritis patients, with a significantly lower mean appendicular lean mass index (females 6% and males 7% lower, p<0.01). Patients had more fat distributed to the trunk (females p<0.01, males p = 0.07) and females had a 4% higher mean fat mass index (p<0.01). An unfavorable body composition was associated with a higher blood pressure and an atherogenic lipid profile. There was no relationship with disease activity, HAQ or acute phase proteins. CONCLUSION: Loss of muscle mass is 4-5 times more common in early arthritis patients, and is in early arthritis patients associated with a higher blood pressure and an atherogenic lipid profile. Therefore, cardiovascular risk is already increased at the clinical onset of arthritis making cardiovascular risk management necessary in early arthritis patients.

Glucocorticoids, Inflammation and Bone.

The current review on glucocorticoids (GCs), inflammation and bone is focused on three aspects: (1) the mutual effects between GCs, inflammation and bone in inflammatory rheumatic diseases, (2) current views on fracture risk assessment in patients using GCs and (3) non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatment to prevent fractures in GC-using patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The use of GCs results in increased risk for fractures due to both direct and indirect negative effects of GCs on bone mass, and on bone and muscle strength. However, also the underlying inflammatory rheumatic disease is associated with the increased bone loss and fracture risk due to the chronic inflammation itself, and due to disability/immobility caused by active disease or joint destruction. The rapid and strong anti-inflammatory effect of GCs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis seems to balance the negative effects of GCs on bone in the early, active phase of the disease. Recently, an update of the American College of Rheumatology guidelines for prevention and treatment of GC-induced osteoporosis was published with renewed recommendations. To prevent fractures, general measures, including treatment of the underlying inflammatory disease adequately (even with GCs when indicated), a healthy lifestyle, including adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and regular weight bearing exercises are important. In rheumatic patients with high fracture risk using GCs, especially when the cumulative dose is high and/or the underlying inflammatory disease is active, treatment with anti-osteoporotic drugs, usually an oral bisphosphonate, is indicated.

Cost-utility of COBRA-light versus COBRA therapy in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis: the COBRA-light trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if COmbinatie therapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy is cost-effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with COBRA therapy. METHODS: This economic evaluation was performed next to the open-label, randomised non-inferiority COBRA-light trial in 164 patients with early RA. Non-responders to COBRA or COBRA-light received etanercept (50 mg/week) for 3-6 months. The societal perspective analysis took medical direct, non-medical direct and indirect costs into account. Costs were measured with patient cost diaries for the follow-up period of 52 weeks. Bootstrapping techniques estimated uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness ratios, presented in cost-effectiveness planes. RESULTS: 164 patients were randomised to either COBRA or COBRA-light strategy. At week 52, COBRA-light proved to be non-inferior to COBRA therapy on all clinical outcome measures. The results of the base-case cost-utility analysis (intention-to-treat analyses) revealed that COBRA-light strategy is more expensive (k€9.3 (SD 0.9) compared with COBRA (k€7.2 (SD 0.8)), but the difference in costs were not significant (k€2.0; 95% CI -0.3 to 4.4). Also, both strategies produced similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The sensitivity analyses showed robustness of these results. In a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, in which costs of etanercept were assumed to be provided as prescribed according to protocol, both arms had much higher costs: COBRA-light: k€11.5 (8.3) compared with k€8.5 (6.8) for COBRA, and the difference in costs was significant (k€2.9; 0.6 to 5.3). CONCLUSIONS: In the base-case cost-utility analysis, the two strategies produced similar QALYs for similar costs. But it is anticipated that if protocol had been followed correctly, the COBRA-light strategy would have been more costly due to additional etanercept costs, for a limited health gain. Given the limited added benefit and high costs of starting etanercept in the presence of low disease activity in our trial, such a strategy needs better justification than is available now. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 55552928, Results.

One-year effects of glucocorticoids on bone density: a meta-analysis in cohorts on high and low-dose therapy.

BACKGROUND: Bone loss during glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is poorly quantified. OBJECTIVE: Quantification of bone loss in GC-treated patients with chronic inflammatory diseases (CID; low dose) and transplants (high dose). METHODS: Meta-analysis of cohorts: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE and bibliographic searches (1995-2012). Eligible studies prospectively included GC-treated patients with two dual X-ray absorptiometry measurements of spine or hip over a period of at least 12 months. Only supplementation with calcium or vitamin D3 was allowed. 5602 titles yielded 285 articles: 51 study arms in CID (N=1565), 18 study arms in transplantation (N=571). Prednisone-equivalent GC doses and inverse variance weighted mean bone changes were used in a random effects model. RESULTS: In CID, the mean GC dose was 8.7 mg/day (range 1.2-16.4). The mean 1-year bone loss in the lumbar spine was -1.7% (95% CI -2.2% to -1.2%); in the femoral neck: -1.3 (-1.8 to -0.7). In transplantation, the mean GC dose was 18.9 mg/day (range 6.0-52.7). Bone loss in the lumbar spine was -3.6% (-5.2% to -2.0%); in the femoral neck: -3.1% (-5.1% to -1.1%). Within the two groups, bone loss was not related to GC dose. CONCLUSION: In CID, GC-related bone loss appears limited and manageable if current anti-osteoporotic strategies are fully implemented. In transplantation, and probably also other high-dose settings, bone loss is considerable and represents unmet need. The heterogeneity probably reflects the important influence of other factors, most notably the underlying disease and the efficacy of GC treatment.

The short-term effects of two high-dose, step-down prednisolone regimens on body composition in early rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of two different high-dose, step-down prednisolone regimens on body composition in early RA patients after 26 weeks of treatment. METHODS: Prednisolone-naive patients with recent-onset RA (n = 108) were randomized to either COBRA (prednisolone 60 mg/day, tapered to 7.5 mg/day in 6 weeks; MTX and SSZ) or COBRA-light therapy (prednisolone 30 mg/day, tapered to 7.5 mg/day in 8 weeks and MTX). Body composition was assessed at baseline (before or soon after start of treatment) and after 26 weeks with DXA, and recorded as total body mass (TBM), total fat mass (FM), total lean mass (LM) and trunk/peripheral fat ratio. Log-ratio analyses assessed the proportional distribution of TBM (between LM, FM and bone mass) and FM (between trunk, extremities and head). The subgroup of patients with a DXA before start of treatment (n = 38) was analysed separately. RESULTS: In the subgroup of patients with a DXA before start of treatment, TBM increased by 1.6 kg (P < 0.001) and total FM by 1.3 kg (P < 0.001). The trunk/peripheral fat ratio and the proportional distribution of TBM and FM remained stable over time. There were no differences between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained in the study population as a whole. CONCLUSION: Both high-dose, step-down prednisolone regimens caused increases in TBM, mainly caused by an increase in FM, but we found no fat redistribution from peripheral to central tissues. This absence in fat redistribution contradicts the widely held assumption of rapid adverse effects of prednisolone on body composition in RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTNregistry, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN55552928.

Balancing benefits and risks of glucocorticoids in rheumatic diseases and other inflammatory joint disorders: new insights from emerging data. An expert consensus paper from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis (ESCEO).

PURPOSE: This consensus review article considers the question of whether glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is still relevant in the treatment of rheumatic diseases, with a particular focus on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and whether its side effects can be adequately managed. Recent basic and clinical research on the molecular, cellular and clinical effects of GCs have considerably advanced our knowledge in this field. An overview of the subject seems appropriate. METHODS: This review is the result of a multidisciplinary expert working group, organised by European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis. The recent literature was surveyed and the salient evidence synthetized. RESULTS: The pathophysiological basis of RA (and other inflammatory rheumatic diseases) now strongly implicates the adaptive immune system in addition to innate mechanisms. The molecular effect of GCs and differential GC sensitivity is better understood, although exploiting this knowledge is still in its infancy. The newer treatment strategies of early and aggressive control of RA have gr eatly improved clinical outcomes, but improvements are still possible. Newer targeted anti-inflammatory drugs have made an important impact, yet they too are associated with numerous side effects. DISCUSSION: Short durations of moderate doses of GCs are generally well tolerated and have a positive benefit/risk ratio. Patients should be assessed for fracture risk and bone preserving agents and be prescribed calcium and vitamin D supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Within a strategy of a disease modifying approach to inflammatory disease, combination therapy including a GC is effective approach.

Effective Treatment for Rapid Improvement of Both Disease Activity and Self-Reported Physical Activity in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the longitudinal relationship between disease activity and self-reported physical activity (PA) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis during the first year of treatment with combination therapy. METHODS: PA was measured with the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-Enhancing Physical Activity at baseline, 13 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks after start of treatment in the context of the Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis-Light trial. The reported PA classified patients as meeting or not meeting the World Health Organization (WHO) PA guideline (cutoff: 150 minutes of moderate-to-intense activity per week). Other measurements included the Disease Activity Score (DAS). Since both treatment arms showed equal treatment effect, these were analyzed as 1 group with simple before-after analyses and generalized estimating equations (GEE). RESULTS: In these analyses, 140 patients (86% of the trial population, 66% women, mean age 52 years) with complete data were included. At entry, 69% of the patients met the WHO PA guideline, increasing to 90% at week 13, and remaining stable at 89% after 1 year (P < 0.001). Mean DAS improved from 4.0 to 1.8 during the first year of treatment (P < 0.001). In GEE analyses, DAS decreases were significantly associated with PA increases (P = 0.008). Patients with clinically relevant responses (expressed as DAS remission, European League Against Rheumatism good response or American College of Rheumatology criteria for 70% improvement response) showed higher PA levels compared to nonresponders, regardless of the definition of response, for both the WHO and Dutch PA guideline. CONCLUSION: Early rheumatoid arthritis patients using combination therapy improved both disease activity and PA, a beneficial effect persisting for at least 1 year.

Bisphosphonates and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis: cons.

During the use of glucocorticoids (GCs), both vertebral and nonvertebral fracture risk are increased, due to the direct and indirect negative effects of GCs on bone, muscles, and the activity of the underlying inflammatory diseases. Inhibition of bone formation and increased apoptosis of osteocytes play a consistent and crucial role in the pathogenesis of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO), while changes in bone resorption during GC-use are variable. To prevent fractures, important general measures include using the lowest possible dose of GCs, treating the underlying disease adequately, a healthy life style, adequate calcium and vitamin D supplementation, and regular exercise. Although it has been shown that bisphosphonates reduce vertebral fractures during the first 2 years of GC-treatment, there are no data on long-term use of bisphosphonates during GC-treatment. Of some concern in GIO, bisphosphonates reduce bone turnover, including bone formation, which is already downregulated by GCs. In contrast, the use of the anabolic agent teriparatide is more effective in reducing vertebral fractures than alendronate. In summary, bisphosphonates remain the first choice in the first two years of treatment in GC-treated patients with high fracture risk, but their long-term effects on bone quality and fracture risk reduction remain uncertain.

Management of osteoporosis in rheumatoid arthritis patients.

INTRODUCTION: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, the risk of both vertebral and non-vertebral fractures is roughly doubled, which is for an important part caused by inflammation-mediated amplification of bone loss and by immobilization. New treatments have become available in the last two decades to treat both RA and osteoporosis. AREAS COVERED: Epidemiology and assessment of osteoporosis and fracture risk (including the influence of RA disease activity and bone-influencing medications such as glucocorticoids), the importance of vertebral fracture assessment in addition to bone density measurement in patients with RA, the use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and their effects on generalized bone loss, and current and possible future anti-osteoporotic pharmacotherapeutic options are discussed with special focus on RA. EXPERT OPINION: Assessment of osteoporosis in RA patients should include evaluation of the effects of disease activity and bone-influencing medications such as (the dose of) glucocorticoids, above standard risk factors for fractures or osteoporosis as defined by the FRAX instrument. Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs are now well able to control disease activity using treat to target strategies. This lowering of disease activity by antirheumatic medications such as anti-TNF-α results in hampering of generalized bone loss; however, no fracture data are currently available. When treating osteoporosis in RA patients, additional focus should be on calcium supplementation, particularly in glucocorticoid users, and also on sufficient vitamin D use. Several anti-osteoporotic medications are now on the market; oral bisphosphonates are most commonly used, but in recent years, more agents have entered the market such as the parenteral antiresorptives denosumab (twice yearly) and zoledronic acid (once yearly), and the anabolic agent parathyroid hormone analogues. New agents, such as odanacatib and monoclonal antibodies against sclerostin, are now being tested and will most likely enlarge the possibilities of osteoporosis treatment in RA patients.

Intensive combination treatment regimens, including prednisolone, are effective in treating patients with early rheumatoid arthritis regardless of additional etanercept: 1-year results of the COBRA-light open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Recently, we documented the likely non-inferiority of Combinatietherapie Bij Reumatoïde Artritis (COBRA)-light therapy (methotrexate increased to 25 mg/week with initial prednisolone 30 mg/day) compared with the original COBRA therapy (methotrexate 7.5 mg/week, sulfasalazine 2 g/day, with initial prednisolone 60 mg/day) after 26 weeks in patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). OBJECTIVE: To assess the non-inferiority of COBRA-light versus COBRA after 1 year in terms of disease activity (DAS44), functional outcome (Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)) and radiographic progression (Sharp/van der Heijde score (SHS)), and to assess the effect of adding etanercept. METHODS: An open-label, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial of 162 patients with active early RA, following a treat-to-target protocol incorporating the addition of etanercept if DAS44 ≥1.6 at weeks 26 or 39. RESULTS: Both groups showed major improvements in DAS44 after 52 weeks: mean (SD) -2.41 (1.2) in the COBRA and -2.02 (1.0) in the COBRA-light group (p=ns). In both groups, functional ability improved and radiological progression of joints was minimal. At least one adverse event was reported in 96% of the patients in both groups. In total, 25 serious adverse events occurred: 9 vs 16 in COBRA and COBRA-light, respectively. Treatment actually instituted was often less intensive than required by the protocol: of the total population, 108 patients (67%) required etanercept (more in the COBRA-light group), but only 67 of these (62%) actually received it. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive COBRA or COBRA-light therapy has major, comparably favourable effects on disease activity, functional ability and radiological outcome after 1 year in patients with early RA. Protocolised addition of etanercept was often not implemented by treating rheumatologists, and patients receiving it appeared to have limited added benefit, probably because of low disease activity levels at its initiation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN55552928.