Sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations: systematic review of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments.

We aimed to summarise effects and use of non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Scopus, clinical.trials.gov, PROSPERO and PEDro for systematic reviews from 2014 to 2022 and for primary studies from date of inception to March 29, 2022, and studies with patients diagnosed with sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. Inclusion criteria required that studies reported effects of non-pharmacological and/or pharmacological treatments or number of patients receiving these treatments. Results were reported narratively and in forest plots. Eleven studies were included. No systematic reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria. None of the included studies had a control group. We found that between 23 and 100% received corticosteroids, 0-100% received NSAIDs, 5-100% received hydroxychloroquine, 12-100% received methotrexate, 0-100% received TNF inhibitors, and 3-4% received azathioprine. Only ten patients in one study had used non-pharmacological treatments, including occupational therapy, chiropractic and acupuncture. There are no controlled studies on treatment effects for patients with sarcoidosis with musculoskeletal manifestations. We found 11 studies reporting use of pharmacological treatments and only one study reporting use of non-pharmacological treatments. Our study identified major research gaps for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment in musculoskeletal sarcoidosis and warrant randomised clinical trials for both.

Inflammation and biologic therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis achieving versus not achieving ACR/EULAR Boolean remission in a treat-to-target study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate limiting factors of American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/EULAR Boolean remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and compare patients who fulfil the criteria to patients who only partly fulfil the criteria, with respect to imaging inflammation and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) usage. METHODS: Patients with DMARD-naïve RA were treated according to current recommendations in the the ARCTIC trial (Aiming for Remission in rheumatoid arthritis: a randomised trial examining the benefit of ultrasound in a Clinical TIght Control regimen). Limiting factors of reaching ACR/EULAR Boolean remission at 2 years were assessed. Imaging inflammation (ultrasound and MRI) in patients in remission was compared with patients failing to fulfil different components of the criteria. The OR of biologic therapy was calculated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 203 patients, 112 (55%) reached ACR/EULAR Boolean remission; 49 (24%) fulfilled three of four criteria. The main limiting factors were patient global assessment (PGA) (59%) and tender joints (22%). Imaging inflammation was not significantly different for patients in remission and patients not fulfilling the criteria due to elevated PGA and/or tender joints, but higher odds of using biologics (OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.73 to 7.61) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: PGA and tender joints were the factors most often limiting achievement of ACR/EULAR Boolean remission. The level of imaging inflammation was not elevated in these patients compared with patients in remission, but the odds of using biologic DMARDs were higher.

Calcium supplementation and inflammation increase mortality in rheumatoid arthritis: A 15-year cohort study in 609 patients from the Oslo Rheumatoid Arthritis Register.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether osteoporosis or use of calcium supplementations predict all-cause mortality, or death from CVD, in a longitudinal cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients in the Oslo RA register (ORAR) were examined, and bone mineral density was measured in 1996. The cohort was linked to the Norwegian Cause of Death registry on December 31, 2010. Death from CVD was defined in 3 following different outcomes: (1) primary atherosclerotic death, (2) atherosclerotic death as one of the 5 listed causes of death, and (3) CVD according to World Health Organization (WHO) definition as primary cause of death. Baseline predictors of all-cause mortality and death from CVD were identified in separate Cox regression models, using backwards selection. Sensitivity analyses were performed including analyses of interactions and competing risk. RESULTS: A total of 609 patients were examined in 1996/1997. By December 31, 2010, 162 patients (27%) had died, resulting in 7439 observed patient-years. Of the deceased, 40 (24.7%) had primary atherosclerotic death. In the final model of all-cause mortality increased baseline ESR [hazard ratio (HR) 1.02 per mm/h, 95% CI: 1.01-1.03], calcium supplementation (1.74, 1.07-2.84), and osteoporosis, defined as a T score ≤2.5 SD at any location, (1.58, 1.07-2.32) predicted higher mortality rates, in models adjusted for age, gender, and a propensity score. In the final model of primary atherosclerotic death, increased ESR (1.03 per mm/h, 1.01-1.05) and calcium supplementation (3.39, 1.41-8.08), predicted higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Increased baseline ESR and use of calcium supplementation were predictors of increased all-cause mortality and risk of death from CVD in this longitudinal study of patients with RA.

Effectiveness of an Integrated Multidisciplinary Osteoarthritis Outpatient Program versus Outpatient Clinic as Usual: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the leading causes of pain and disability. Given the constraint in the provision of care, there is a need to develop and assess effectiveness of new treatment models. The objective was to compare satisfaction with and effectiveness of a new integrated multidisciplinary outpatient program with usual care in an outpatient clinic for patients with OA. METHODS: Patients with clinical OA referred to a rheumatology outpatient clinic were randomized to a 3.5-h multidisciplinary group-based educational program followed by individual consultations, or to usual care. The primary outcome was satisfaction with the health service evaluated on a numerical rating scale (0 = extremely unsatisfied, 10 = extremely satisfied) after 4 months. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life measures. RESULTS: Of 391 patients, 86.4% (n = 338) were women, and mean age was 61.2 (SD 8.0) years. At 4 months, patients who received integrated multidisciplinary care were significantly more satisfied with the health service compared with controls, with a mean difference of -1.05 (95% CI -1.68 to -0.43, p < 0.001). Among secondary outcomes, only self-efficacy with other symptoms scale (10-100) improved significantly in the multidisciplinary group compared with controls at 4 months (3.59, 95% CI 0.69-6.5, p = 0.02). At 12 months, the Australian/Canadian Hand Osteoarthritis Index pain (0-10) and fatigue scores (0-10) were slightly worse in the multidisciplinary group with differences of 0.38 (95% CI 0.06-0.71, p = 0.02) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.02-1.07, p = 0.04), respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving an integrated multidisciplinary care model were more satisfied with healthcare than those receiving usual care, whereas there were no clinically relevant improvements in health outcomes.

Inequities in access to biologic and synthetic DMARDs across 46 European countries.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated access to biologic and synthetic disease modifying drugs (bDMARDs and sDMARDs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) across Europe. METHODS: A cross-sectional study at national level was performed in 49 European countries. A questionnaire was sent to one expert, addressing the number of approved and reimbursed bDMARDs and sDMARDs, prices and co-payments, as well as acceptability of bDMARDs (barriers). Data on socio-economic welfare (gross domestic product per capita (GDP), health expenditure, income) were retrieved from web-based sources. Data on health status of RA patients were retrieved from an observational study. Dimensions of access (availability, affordability and acceptability) were correlated with the country's welfare and RA health status. RESULTS: In total, 46 countries (94%) participated. Six countries did not reimburse any of the five sDMARDs surveyed, and in ten countries no bDMARDs were reimbursed. While the price of annual treatment with an average sDMARD was never higher than GPD, the price of one year treatment with a bDMARD exceeded GPD in 26 countries. Perceived barriers for access to bDMARDs were mainly found among financial and administrative restrictions. All dimensions of access were positively correlated with the country's economic welfare (coefficients 0.69 to 0.86 for overall access scores). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with RA in lower income European countries have less access to bDMARDs and sDMARDs, with particularly striking unaffordability of bDMARDs in some of these countries. When accepting that sDMARDs and bDMARDs are equally needed across countries to treat RA, our data point to inequities in access to pharmacological treatment for RA in Europe.

Tai Chi and yoga as complementary therapies in rheumatologic conditions.

Tai Chi and yoga are complementary therapies which have, during the last few decades, emerged as popular treatments for rheumatologic and musculoskeletal diseases. This review covers the evidence of Tai Chi and yoga in the management of rheumatologic diseases, especially osteoarthritis of the knee, hip and hand, and rheumatoid arthritis. There is evidence that Tai Chi and yoga are safe, and some evidence that they have benefit, leading to reduction of pain and improvement of physical function and quality of life in patients. Recommendations for Tai Chi in knee osteoarthritis have recently been issued by the American College of Rheumatology. To allow broader recommendations for the use of Tai Chi and yoga in rheumatic diseases, there is a need to collect more evidence researched with larger randomised controlled trials.

Exploring Tai Chi in rheumatoid arthritis: a quantitative and qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory and systemic disease which affects the musculoskeletal system. Exercise programmes are reported to improve physical functioning in patients with RA. Tai Chi is a traditional Chinese martial art which combines slow and gentle movements with mental focus. The purpose of this study was to study in which way Tai Chi group exercise impacted on disease activity, physical function, health status and experience in RA patients, applying quantitative and qualitative methods. METHODS: Fifteen patients with RA (13 females, age 33-70 years) were recruited from a rheumatology department into a single group study. The patients were instructed in Tai Chi exercise twice weekly for 12 weeks. Assessments at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 weeks follow-up were performed with a wide range of measures, including disease activity, self-reported health status, physical performance tests (Walking in Figure of Eight, Timed-Stands Test, and Shoulder Movement Impairment Scale). Qualitative data were obtained from a focus group interview conducted after completed intervention with taping and verbatim transcription. Review of the transcripts identified themes important to patients practicing Tai Chi. RESULTS: Within the group, Tai Chi practice lead to improved lower-limb muscle function at the end of intervention and at 12 weeks follow-up. Qualitative analyses showed that patients experienced improved physical condition, confidence in moving, balance and less pain during exercise and in daily life. Other experience included stress reduction, increased body awareness, confidence in moving and indicated that Tai Chi was a feasible exercise modality in RA. CONCLUSIONS: Improved muscle function in lower limbs was also reflected when patient experiences with Tai Chi were studied in depth in this explorative study. The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods shows that Tai Chi has beneficial effects on health not related to disease activity and standardised health status assessment, and may contribute to an understanding of how Tai Chi exerts its effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00522054.

What's in team rehabilitation care after arthroplasty for osteoarthritis? Results from a multicenter, longitudinal study assessing structure, process, and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Clinical course and outcome connected to rehabilitation after hip or knee arthroplasty have been studied extensively, but few studies have assessed the content of team rehabilitation care for these patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to provide a thorough description of the structure, process, and outcome of team rehabilitation care for patients with hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. DESIGN: This was a multicenter, longitudinal observational study. METHODS: Patients (N=183) from 6 rehabilitation centers in Norway who were undergoing inpatient rehabilitation following hip or knee arthroplasty were included in the study. Structure and process components were recorded by participants and health care professionals in a patient diary. Participants also completed questionnaires regarding their experiences during their rehabilitation stay and recorded data for outcome measures at admission, at discharge, and 6 months after discharge. The main outcome measures were pain intensity and physical function, as assessed with the physical function scale of the Medical OUTCOMES: Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: Data were complete for 172 participants (94%) at discharge and for 148 patients (81%) at the 6-month follow-up. Health care professionals, physical therapists, nurses, and physicians were most often involved in team care. Occupational therapists, social workers, and psychologists were seldom part of the rehabilitation team. Exercises provided by physical therapists were the most common treatment modality. Patient education, massage, and manual therapy also frequently were provided. The participants were very satisfied with their care and its organization, information, and communication and with the availability of health care professionals. They were moderately satisfied with the social environment of the rehabilitation setting. The participants had large improvements in the outcome measures during the rehabilitation stay and at the 6-month follow-up. LIMITATIONS: For typical physical therapy modalities such as exercises, electrotherapy, and acupuncture, there are limited descriptions and assessments of treatment doses. CONCLUSIONS: Current team rehabilitation care involves a traditional team with physical therapists, nurses, and physicians. Several types of treatment modalities are used, with greatest emphasis on physical training. This detailed description of current team rehabilitation practice might help clinicians and researchers in planning clinical trials within a rehabilitation setting, as well as in improving rehabilitation practice.

Bone loss in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from a population-based cohort of 366 patients followed up for two years.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent of and risk factors for bone loss in a population-based cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) receiving conventional health care. METHODS: In a longitudinal study, clinical data were collected and bone mineral density (BMD) measurements were performed at baseline and after 2 years. Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry was used for hip and spine BMD measurements. At baseline, patients received advice about lifestyle adjustments and calcium and vitamin D supplementation; during the followup period they were treated with antirheumatic and bone-sparing drugs, according to clinical judgment. RESULTS: After a mean +/- SD of 2.2 +/- 0.2 years, 366 (298 women, 68 men) of the 488 patients who were examined at baseline were reexamined. At that time, 47.9% were current users of corticosteroids and 37.0% were using antiresorptive drugs (hormone replacement therapy, bisphosphonates, or calcitonin). The mean BMD reduction was -0.64% in the femoral neck, -0.77% in the total hip, and -0.29% in the spine at L2-4. BMD was increased at all measurement sites in current users of antiresorptive drugs (0.16-1.64%) but was decreased in patients using calcium and vitamin D alone (-1.99% to -1.39%) and in patients not using any osteoporosis treatment (-1.20% to -0.43%). Current use of corticosteroids was independently associated with increased risk for BMD loss in the total hip (odds ratio [OR] 2.63, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.38-5.00) and spine at L2-4 (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.30-5.63), whereas current use of antiresorptive drugs was associated with decreased risk for bone loss in the total hip (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.89). CONCLUSION: Results of this population-based, 2-year followup study indicate that adequate management of patients with RA, addressing both the rheumatic disease and osteoporosis, protects against bone loss.