Rheumatoid Arthritis Care Experiences of Black People Living in Canada: A Qualitative Study to Inform Health Service Improvements.

OBJECTIVE: To understand experiences related to rheumatoid arthritis (RA) care and propose service-level strategies to reduce and mitigate inequities for Black people living in Canada. METHODS: Purposive and respondent driven sampling was used to recruit participants for qualitative interviews to explore population factors relevant to RA care and challenges and facilitators for access to health care services, medications, and enacting preferred treatment plans. Thematic analysis was conducted using the Braun and Clarke method with inductive and deductive coding and critical race theory guiding analysis. RESULTS: Six women and two men with RA, and two women health care professionals, expressed how their racial identity contributed to their understanding of RA, preferences for treatment, and outcome goals. Health care access was influenced by financial limitations and racism, by exclusion, and discrimination, and also by cultural norms in seeking health care and awareness about RA within the Black community. Participants experienced health system fragmentation and were not connected to ancillary supports. Treatment decision-making was influenced by the legacy of oppression and medical experimentation on Black people and the predominance of biomedical approaches emphasized by health care providers. Holistic and cultural approaches, provided in safe, trauma-informed care environments, with flexibility in service models, are desired. Partnerships between arthritis care services and Black community organizations are proposed to promote community awareness and knowledge about arthritis and provide support mechanisms for patients within their community. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights unique considerations based on race and ethnicity and provides suggestions for arthritis care to mitigate inequities for Black people living with arthritis.

Barriers and supports for uptake of human papillomavirus vaccination in Indigenous people globally: A systematic review.

Despite the availability of effective and safe human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines that reduce the incidence and impact of cervical cancer and other cancers, HPV vaccine coverage rates remain persistently low and the cervical cancer burden disproportionately high among Indigenous people globally. This study aimed to systematically identify, appraise, and summarize the literature on documented barriers and supports to HPV vaccination in Indigenous populations internationally. Forty-three studies were included and an inductive, qualitative, thematic synthesis was applied. We report on 10 barrier themes and 7 support themes to vaccine uptake, and provide a quantitative summary of metrics. Focusing on Indigenous perspectives reported in the literature, we propose recommendations on community-research collaboration, culturally safe intergenerational and gender-equitable community HPV vaccine education, as well as multi-level transparency to ensure informed consent is secured in the context of reciprocal relationships. Although the voices of key informant groups (e.g., HPV-vaccine eligible youth and community Elders) are underrepresented in the literature, the identification of barriers and supports to HPV vaccination in a global Indigenous context might help inform researchers and health policy makers who aim to improve HPV vaccine uptake in Indigenous populations.

Access, relationships, quality and safety (ARQS): a qualitative study to develop an Indigenous-centred understanding of virtual care quality.

BACKGROUND: Among Indigenous peoples in Canada, access to high-quality healthcare remains an important determinant of health. The shift to virtual and remote-based approaches, expedited during the COVID-19 pandemic, influenced the ways in which individuals accessed care and the quality of care received. This study sought to determine which elements are required for effective and sustainable virtual care approaches for delivery of primary care to Indigenous patients and develop quality indicators grounded in Indigenous community and experience. We share a conceptual framework to understand how Indigenous patients access and define high-quality virtual care, grounded in Indigenous patient experiences and worldviews. METHODS: Using principles of patient-oriented research, we grounded this work in social justice and participatory action research. We sought to gain an in-depth understanding of the Indigenous experiences of virtual care and specifically of primary care. This was developed through semistructured interviews with Indigenous patients and Indigenous virtual primary care providers. RESULTS: Thirteen participants were interviewed between 5 August 2021 and 25 October 2021. Using Framework Analysis, we constructed four domains including access, relationships, quality and safety as being primary facets of defining high-quality Indigenous virtual primary care. DISCUSSION: The results presented here indicate that the shift to virtual care, largely seen in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, does not compromise quality of care, nor does it lead to negative patient experiences. Optimal care is possible in virtual settings for some care needs and types of appointments and has the potential to decrease barriers to access and improve patient experiences of safety and quality while facilitating patient/provider relationships. CONCLUSION: In summary, high-quality Indigenous virtual care benefits from attention to patients' experiences of access, relationships, safety and quality with their service providers and healthcare teams.

The Indigenous primary health care and policy research network: Guiding innovation within primary health care with Indigenous peoples in Alberta.

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released its Final Report with 94 Calls to Action, several of which called upon the health care sector to reform based on the principles of reconciliation. In the province of Alberta, Canada, numerous initiatives have arisen to address the health legacy Calls to Action, yet there is no formal mechanism to connect them all. As such, these initiatives have resulted in limited improvements overall. Recognizing the need for clear leadership, responsibility, and dedicated funding, stakeholders from across Alberta were convened in the Spring of 2019 for two full-day roundtable meetings to provide direction for a proposed Canadian Institutes of Health Research Network Environment for Indigenous Health Research that focused on primary health care and policy research. The findings from these roundtable meetings were synthesized and integrated into the foundational principles of the Indigenous Primary Health Care and Policy Research (IPHCPR) Network. The IPHCPR Network has envisioned a renewed and transformed primary health care system to achieve Indigenous health equity, aligned with principles and health legacy Calls to Action advocated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

Towards attainment of Indigenous health through empowerment: resetting health systems, services and provider approaches.

Colonial policies and practices have introduced significant health challenges for Indigenous populations in commonwealth countries. Health systems and models of care were shaped for dominant society, and were not contextualised for Indigenous communities nor with provision of Indigenous cultural approaches to maintain health and wellness. Shifts to support Indigenous health outcomes have been challenged by debate on identifying which system and service components are to be included, implementation approaches, the lack of contextualised evaluation of implemented models to justify financial investments, but most importantly lack of effort in ensuring equity and participation by affected communities to uphold Indigenous rights to health. Prioritising the involvement, collaboration and empowerment of Indigenous communities and leadership are critical to successful transformation of healthcare in Indigenous communities. Locally determined priorities and solutions can be enacted to meet community and individual needs, and advance health attainment. In this paper, existing successful and sustainable models that demonstrate the empowerment of Indigenous peoples and communities in advocating for, designing, delivering and leading health and wellness supports are shared.

Qualitative Study of Treatment Preferences for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Pharmacotherapy Acceptance: Indigenous Patient Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient preferences that influence decision-making in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by indigenous patients living in southern Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative narrative-based study within a social constructivist framework. Thirteen in-depth interviews with indigenous patients with RA who had attended 1 of 3 rheumatology practices in southern Alberta (1 rural and 2 urban) were completed. Codes generated through 2 phases of analysis were condensed into main themes, triangulated, and used to produce theoretical statements. RESULTS: Patients preferred to use a combination of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatments to manage their RA. Nonpharmacologic treatments included physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual strategies. Patients' preferences for taking medications varied and were influenced by factors that were clinical (i.e., trust in health providers and understanding drugs' mechanisms of action, benefits, harms, and administration burden), familial (i.e., support), and societal (i.e., access to medications and stigmatization of drug dependency). CONCLUSION: Indigenous patients apply a holistic approach to the nonpharmacologic management of RA. Increases in preferences for RA medications could be supported through enhanced communication strategies to increase patient understanding of medication effects and health provider recognition of societal and familial influences on patient decisions. A patient-provider relationship based on trust was fundamental to reaching mutual understanding and should be fostered by models of practice that promote cultural safety, empathy, compassion, openness, acknowledgment, and respect of cultural differences.

Effectiveness, Complications, and Costs of Rheumatoid Arthritis Treatment with Biologics in Alberta: Experience of Indigenous and Non-indigenous Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To examine clinical effectiveness, treatment complications, and healthcare costs for indigenous and non-indigenous Albertans with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) participating in the Alberta Biologics Pharmacosurveillance program. METHODS: Patients initiating biologic therapy in Alberta (2004-2012) were characterized for disease severity and treatment response. Provincial hospitalization separations, physician claims, outpatient department data, and emergency department data were used to estimate treatment complication event rates and healthcare costs. RESULTS: Indigenous patients (n = 90) presented with higher disease activity [mean 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28) 6.11] than non-indigenous patients (n = 1400, mean DAS28 5.19, p < 0.0001). Improvements in DAS28, function, swollen joint count, CRP, and patient and physician global evaluation scores were comparable to non-indigenous patients, but indigenous patients did not have a significant improvement in erythrocyte sedimentation rate (-0.31 per month, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.16, p = 0.199). At the end of study followup, 13% (12/90) of indigenous and 33% (455/1400) of non-indigenous patients were in DAS28 remission (p < 0.001). Indigenous patients had a 40% increased risk of all-cause hospitalization [adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.8, p = 0.01] and a 4-fold increase in serious infection rate (adjusted IRR 4.0, 95% CI 2.3-7.0, p < 0.001). Non-indigenous patients incurred higher costs for RA-related hospitalizations (difference $896, 95% CI 520-1273, p < 0.001), and outpatient department visits (difference $128, 95% CI 2-255, p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: We identified disparities in treatment outcomes, safety profiles, and patient-experienced effects of RA for the indigenous population in Alberta. These disparities are critical to address to facilitate and achieve desired RA outcomes from individual and population perspectives.

Patient-reported Outcomes, Resource Use, and Social Participation of Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Treated with Biologics in Alberta: Experience of Indigenous and Non-indigenous Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient-reported outcomes, resource use, and social participation during the course of biologic therapy for indigenous and non-indigenous patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients initiating biologic therapy (2004 to 2012) were characterized longitudinally for patient-reported outcomes including physical function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire, EQ-5D, well-being [Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36)], and visual analog scales for pain, fatigue, sleep, stiffness, and patient's global assessment. Resource use, participation in activities of daily living, and effect of RA on work productivity were also evaluated for change during therapy. RESULTS: Indigenous patients (n = 90) presented with significantly worse scores for global evaluation, pain, sleep, quality of life, well-being, and physical function compared to non-indigenous patients (n = 1400). All patient-reported outcomes improved significantly during treatment for patients in both groups, but pain, sleep, and SF-36 physical health score changes occurred at slower rates for indigenous patients [difference in slopes 0.09 (p = 0.029), 0.08 (p = 0.043), and -0.35 (p = 0.03), respectively]. Performance of daily activities was affected for 50% of indigenous compared to 37% of non-indigenous patients, with more use of community services and assistance from others. Employed indigenous patients reported twice the number of days being unable to work owing to RA compared to employed non-indigenous patients. Of the unemployed indigenous patients, 82% indicated they had stopped working because of arthritis, versus 48% of non-indigenous patients (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Indigenous patients have greater consequences of RA regarding experienced symptoms, health-related quality of life, disruption of performance of activities of daily living, and reduced employment participation.

Facilitated access to an integrated model of care for arthritis in an urban Aboriginal population.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a model of care to improve arthritis detection and treatment in an urban Aboriginal population. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: The Elbow River Healing Lodge in Calgary, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 26 participants with noninflammatory arthritis and 12 with inflammatory arthritis. INTERVENTION: A monthly rheumatology clinic was embedded in the primary health care service and received referrals from primary care providers and allied health care professionals, or self-referrals. All participants had a standardized assessment to determine their diagnosis. Those with noninflammatory musculoskeletal conditions were returned to primary care management and those with inflammatory arthritis conditions were followed by the rheumatologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Accessibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and cultural safety were evaluated as measures of quality for the model of care. RESULTS: Nearly all participants (87%) thought the services were very easy or easy to obtain, and overall satisfaction with the model of care was high (89% were very satisfied or satisfied). For inflammatory arthritis patients, the swollen and tender joint counts improved over time (both P < .01) and patient safety was assured. A high degree of cultural safety was provided, with 95% of participants responding that they did not perceive discrimination on the basis of race. CONCLUSION: This model of care facilitated access for diagnosis and return to care of inflammatory arthritis conditions, and was acceptable to participants. This model of care removes the complexities of access to non-family physician specialty care while providing health care in a setting valued by Aboriginal patients.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: A network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is considered the preferred disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, but controversy exists on the additional benefits and harms of combining methotrexate with other DMARDs. OBJECTIVES: To compare methotrexate and methotrexate-based DMARD combinations for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naïve to or with an inadequate response (IR) to methotrexate. METHODS: We systematically identified all randomised controlled trials with methotrexate monotherapy or in combination with any currently used conventional synthetic DMARD , biologic DMARDs, or tofacitinib. Three major outcomes (ACR50 response, radiographic progression and withdrawals due to adverse events) and multiple minor outcomes were evaluated. Treatment effects were summarized using Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses, separately for methotrexate-naïve and methotrexate-IR trials. Heterogeneity was explored through meta-regression and subgroup analyses. The risk of bias of each trial was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and trials at high risk of bias were excluded from the main analysis. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior. MAIN RESULTS: 158 trials with over 37,000 patients were included. Methotrexate-naïve: Several treatment combinations with methotrexate were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: methotrexate + sulfasalazine + hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), methotrexate + several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%, moderate to high quality evidence), compared with 41% for methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression (moderate to high quality evidence) but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of five units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Methotrexate + azathioprine had statistically more withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate, and triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate + infliximab (rate ratio 0.26, 95% credible interval: 0.06 to 0.91). Methotrexate-inadequate response: In patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + hydroxychloroquine (low quality evidence), methotrexate + leflunomide (moderate quality evidence), methotrexate + intramuscular gold (very low quality evidence), methotrexate + most biologics (moderate to high quality evidence), and methotrexate + tofacitinib (high quality evidence). There was a 61% probability of an ACR50 response with triple therapy, compared to a range of 27% to 64% for the combinations of methotrexate + biologic DMARDs that were statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate. No treatment was statistically significantly superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate + cyclosporine and methotrexate + tocilizumab (8 mg/kg) had a statistically higher rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than oral methotrexate and methotrexate + abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate to high quality evidence that combination therapy with methotrexate + sulfasalazine+ hydroxychloroquine (triple therapy) or methotrexate + most biologic DMARDs or tofacitinib were similarly effective in controlling disease activity and generally well tolerated in methotrexate-naïve patients or after an inadequate response to methotrexate. Methotrexate + some biologic DMARDs were superior to methotrexate in preventing joint damage in methotrexate-naïve patients, but the magnitude of these effects was small over one year.

Methotrexate monotherapy and methotrexate combination therapy with traditional and biologic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: abridged Cochrane systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare methotrexate based disease modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) treatments for rheumatoid arthritis in patients naive to or with an inadequate response to methotrexate. DESIGN: Systematic review and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis of trials assessing methotrexate used alone or in combination with other conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic drugs, or tofacitinib in adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis. DATA SOURCES: Trials were identified from Medline, Embase, and Central databases from inception to 19 January 2016; abstracts from two major rheumatology meetings from 2009 to 2015; two trial registers; and hand searches of Cochrane reviews. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized or quasi-randomized trials that compared methotrexate with any other DMARD or combination of DMARDs and contributed to the network of evidence between the treatments of interest. MAIN OUTCOMES: American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 50 response (major clinical improvement), radiographic progression, and withdrawals due to adverse events. A comparison between two treatments was considered statistically significant if its credible interval excluded the null effect, indicating >97.5% probability that one treatment was superior. RESULTS: 158 trials were included, with between 10 and 53 trials available for each outcome. In methotrexate naive patients, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine ("triple therapy"), several biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, etanercept, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab), and tofacitinib. The estimated probability of ACR50 response was similar between these treatments (range 56-67%), compared with 41% with methotrexate. Methotrexate combined with adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, or infliximab was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression, but the estimated mean change over one year with all treatments was less than the minimal clinically important difference of 5 units on the Sharp-van der Heijde scale. Triple therapy had statistically fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than methotrexate plus infliximab. After an inadequate response to methotrexate, several treatments were statistically superior to oral methotrexate for ACR50 response: triple therapy, methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine, methotrexate plus leflunomide, methotrexate plus intramuscular gold, methotrexate plus most biologics, and methotrexate plus tofacitinib. The probability of response was 61% with triple therapy and ranged widely (27-70%) with other treatments. No treatment was statistically superior to oral methotrexate for inhibiting radiographic progression. Methotrexate plus abatacept had a statistically lower rate of withdrawals due to adverse events than several treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Triple therapy (methotrexate plus sulfasalazine plus hydroxychloroquine) and most regimens combining biologic DMARDs with methotrexate were effective in controlling disease activity, and all were generally well tolerated in both methotrexate naive and methotrexate exposed patients.

Effect of remission definition on healthcare cost savings estimates for patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biologic therapies.

OBJECTIVE: Sustained remission in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) results in healthcare utilization cost savings. We evaluated the variation in estimates of savings when different definitions of remission [2011 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Boolean Definition, Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) ≤ 3.3, Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) ≤ 2.8, and Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) ≤ 2.6] are applied. METHODS: The annual mean healthcare service utilization costs were estimated from provincial physician billing claims, outpatient visits, and hospitalizations, with linkage to clinical data from the Alberta Biologics Pharmacosurveillance Program (ABioPharm). Cost savings in patients who had a 1-year continuous period of remission were compared to those who did not, using 4 definitions of remission. RESULTS: In 1086 patients, sustained remission rates were 16.1% for DAS28, 8.8% for Boolean, 5.5% for CDAI, and 4.2% for SDAI. The estimated mean annual healthcare cost savings per patient achieving remission (relative to not) were SDAI $1928 (95% CI 592, 3264), DAS28 $1676 (95% CI 987, 2365), and Boolean $1259 (95% CI 417, 2100). The annual savings by CDAI remission per patient were not significant at $423 (95% CI -1757, 2602). For patients in DAS28, Boolean, and SDAI remission, savings were seen both in costs directly related to RA and its comorbidities, and in costs for non-RA-related conditions. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of the healthcare cost savings varies according to the remission definition used in classifying patient disease status. The highest point estimate for cost savings was observed in patients attaining SDAI remission and the least with the CDAI; confidence intervals for these estimates do overlap. Future pharmacoeconomic analyses should employ all response definitions in assessing the influence of treatment.

Discordant indigenous and provider frames explain challenges in improving access to arthritis care: a qualitative study using constructivist grounded theory.

INTRODUCTION: Access to health services is a determinant of population health and is known to be reduced for a variety of specialist services for Indigenous populations in Canada. With arthritis being the most common chronic condition experienced by Indigenous populations and causing high levels of disability, it is critical to resolve access disparities through an understanding of barriers and facilitators to care. The objective of this study was to inform future health services reform by investigating health care access from the perspective of Aboriginal people with arthritis and health professionals. METHODS: Using constructivist grounded theory methodology we investigated Indigenous peoples' experiences in accessing arthritis care through the reports of 16 patients and 15 healthcare providers in Alberta, Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between July 2012 and February 2013 and transcribed verbatim. The patient and provider data were first analyzed separately by two team members then brought together to form a framework. The framework was refined through further analysis following the multidisciplinary research team's discussions. Once the framework was developed, reports on the patient and provider data were shared with each participant group independently and participants were interviewed to assess validity of the summary. RESULTS: In the resulting theoretical framework Indigenous participants framed their experience with arthritis as 'toughing it out' and spoke of racism encountered in the healthcare setting as a deterrent to pursuing care. Healthcare providers were frustrated by high disease severity and missed appointments, and framed Indigenous patients as lacking 'buy-in'. Constraints imposed by complex healthcare systems contributed to tensions between Indigenous peoples and providers. CONCLUSION: Low specialist care utilization rates among Indigenous people cannot be attributed to cultural and social preferences. Further, the assumptions made by providers lead to stereotyping and racism and reinforce rejection of healthcare by patients. Examples of 'working around' the system were revealed and showed potential for improved utilization of specialist services. This framework has significant implications for health policy and indicates that culturally safe services are a priority in addressing chronic disease management.

Subsequent entry biologics/biosimilars: a viewpoint from Canada.

We have reviewed the issues surrounding the advent of biosimilars in the rheumatoid arthritis biologic field. Our proposals emphasize the need to focus primarily on patient safety and to assess the outcomes of therapy both in the short and longer term.

Effect of tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibition on bone density and turnover markers in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and spondyloarthropathy.

OBJECTIVES: Anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFalpha) therapy has proven efficacious in improving both disease activity and focal bone erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and spondyloarthopathies. We review the current literature reporting on the effect of anti-TNFalpha on bone density as measured by dual energy radiograph absorptiometry at the lumbar spine and hip, as well as markers of bone turnover and resorption, in patients using anti-TNFalpha for rheumatic disease indications. METHODS: A PubMed search, as well as manual search of related articles and references of articles retrieved, was performed to identify all studies pertaining to the effect of anti-TNFalpha therapy on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover markers. RESULTS: In RA, 4 studies (238 patients) showed a stabilization or increase of BMD at the spine (up to 2.8%) or hip (up to 13.1%), with only 1 negative study in 48 patients (decline of 3.2% at the spine and 2.7% at the hip). In spondyloarthopathies, 3 studies (75 patients) all demonstrated an increase in BMD at the lumbar spine (3.2-3.6%) and at the hip (1.8-2.2%). Changes in markers of bone formation and bone resorption were heterogeneous but in general represented a modest increase in formation and decline in resorption. CONCLUSIONS: In general, anti-TNFalpha therapy has a beneficial effect on bone density and bone turnover markers. Retrieved studies were heterogeneous with regards to patients studied, underlying risks for osteoporosis, and supplemental therapy, which may limit the findings of the true effect of anti-TNFalpha therapy on bone.