Defining domains: developing consensus-based definitions for foundational domains in OMERACT core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a set of detailed definitions for foundational domains commonly used in OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology) core domain sets. METHODS: We identified candidate domain definitions from prior OMERACT publications and websites and publications of major organizations involved in outcomes research for six domains commonly used in OMERACT Core Domain Sets: pain intensity, pain interference, physical function, fatigue, patient global assessment, and health-related quality of life. We conducted a two-round survey of OMERACT working groups, patient research partners, and then the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group to establish their preferred domain definitions. Results were presented at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop, where participants discussed their relevant lived experience and identified potential sources of variability giving the needed detail in our domain definitions. RESULTS: One-hundred four people responded to both rounds of the survey, and a preferred definition was established for each of the domains except for patient global assessment for which no agreement was reached. Seventy-five participants at the OMERACT 2023 Methodology Workshop provided lived experience examples, which were used to contextualise domain definition reports for each of the five domains. CONCLUSION: Using a consensus-based approach, we have created a detailed definition for five of the foundational domains in OMERACT core domain sets; patient global assessment requires further research. These definitions, although not mandatory for working groups to use, may facilitate the initial domain-match assessment step of instrument selection, and reduce the time and resources required by future OMERACT groups when developing core outcome sets.

[Longterm treatment with glucocorticoids: problem or solution?] / Behandeling met glucocorticoïden voor onbepaalde tijd.

Glucocorticoids are often used long-term at low doses (often 5 mg/day prednisolone or less), but it is still unclear how much we should worry about this. This article provides an indication of the prevalence of such use, discusses the current state of knowledge about the balance of benefit and harm, and provides some suggestions. At this time long-term low dose glucocorticoid therapy appears acceptable under suitable precautions in cases where good alternatives are lacking.

Long-term effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis: 1-year follow-up of the 'Plants for Joints' randomised clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: In two randomised controlled trials, the Plants for Joints (PFJ) multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention reduced signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), or metabolic syndrome-associated hip or knee osteoarthritis (MSOA) compared with usual care. The current study investigated long-term outcomes. METHODS: After completion of two 16-week trials in people with (1) RA or (2) MSOA, control groups switched to the active PFJ intervention. At the end of the intervention, all participants were followed up in a 1-year observational extension study. Primary outcomes were 28-joint Disease Activity Score (DAS28) (RA) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (MSOA). Secondary outcomes included body composition, metabolic outcomes, medication changes and intervention adherence. An intention-to-treat analysis with a linear mixed model was used to analyse within-group changes. RESULTS: 65 (84%) of 77 RA participants and 49 (77%) of 64 MSOA participants completed the extension study. The effects of the PFJ intervention were replicated in the original control groups and sustained within the RA group a year after intervention completion (mean DAS28 -0.9 points; p<0.001), while in the MSOA group mean WOMAC increased towards but remained well under the starting value (-7.8 points, p<0.001). Improvements in C-reactive protein, waist circumference (RA and MSOA); low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (RA); and weight, haemoglobin A1c, blood pressure (MSOA) were also sustained. Participants had a net decrease of medication, and intervention adherence was largely sustained. CONCLUSIONS: A year after the PFJ lifestyle intervention, improvements of disease activity and metabolic outcomes within RA and MSOA groups were largely sustained and related to sustained adherence, with a net decrease of medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NL7800, NL7801.

Generating a list of potentially important contextual factors covering randomized trials, cohorts, and measurement property studies: An OMERACT initiative.

OBJECTIVES: To generate candidates for contextual factors (CFs) for each CF type (i.e., Effect Modifying Contextual Factors (EM-CFs), Outcome Influencing Contextual Factors (OI-CFs), and Measurement Affecting Contextual Factors (MA-CFs)) considered important within rheumatology. METHODS: We surveyed OMERACT working groups and conducted a Special Interest Group (SIG) session at the OMERACT 2023 meeting, where the results were reviewed, and additional CFs suggested. RESULTS: The working groups suggested 44, 49, and 21 generic EM-CFs, OI-CFs, and MA-CFs, respectively. SIG participants added 49, 44, and 55 factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Candidate CFs were identified, next step is a consensus-based set of endorsed (important) CFs.

Malignancy outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of malignancy (overall, breast, lung, and lymphoma) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs in clinical practice. METHODS: Four international observational data sources were included: ARTIS (Sweden), RABBIT (Germany), FORWARD (USA), and BC (Canada). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years of exposure with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a malignancy event were calculated; rate ratios (RRs) were estimated and adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, and other potential confounders. RRs were then pooled in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Across data sources, mean follow-up for patients treated with abatacept (n = 5182), csDMARDs (n = 73,755), and other b/tsDMARDs (n = 37,195) was 3.0-3.7, 2.9-6.2, and 3.1-4.7 years, respectively. IRs per 1000 patient-years for overall malignancy ranged from 7.6-11.4 (abatacept), 8.6-13.2 (csDMARDs), and 5.0-11.8 (other b/tsDMARDs). IRs ranged from: 0-4.4, 0-3.3, and 0-2.5 (breast cancer); 0.1-2.8, 0-3.7, and 0.2-2.9 (lung cancer); and 0-1.1, 0-0.9, and 0-0.6 (lymphoma), respectively, for the three treatment groups. The numbers of individual cancers (breast, lung, and lymphoma) in some registries were low; RRs were not available. There were a few cases of lymphoma in some of the registries; ARTIS observed an RR of 2.8 (95% CI 1.1-6.8) with abatacept versus csDMARDs. The pooled RRs (95% CIs) for overall malignancy with abatacept were 1.1 (0.8-1.5) versus csDMARDs and 1.0 (0.8-1.3) versus b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: This international, post-marketing observational safety study did not find any statistically significant increase in the risk of overall malignancies in pooled data in patients treated with abatacept compared with csDMARDs or with other b/tsDMARDs. Assessment of larger populations is needed to further evaluate the risks for individual cancers, especially lymphoma.

Initial glucocorticoid bridging in rheumatoid arthritis: does it affect glucocorticoid use over time?

OBJECTIVES: To compare the use of glucocorticoids (GC) over time in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who were or were not treated initially with GC bridging therapy. METHODS: Data from the BeSt, CareRA and COBRA trials were combined in an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. We compared GC use between bridgers and non-bridgers at 12, 18 and 24 months from baseline with mixed-effects regression analysis. Secondary outcomes were mean cumulative GC dose until 24 months after baseline with and without the bridging period, Disease Activity Score based on 28 joints (DAS28) over time and number of disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) changes. RESULTS: 252/625 patients (40%) were randomised to GC bridging (bridgers). Excluding the period of bridging, later GC use was low in both groups and cumulative doses were similar. Mean DAS28 was similar between the groups, but bridgers improved more rapidly (p<0.001) in the first 6 months and the bridgers required significantly fewer changes in DMARDs (incidence rate ratio 0.59 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)). GC use was higher in the bridgers at t=12 months (OR 3.27 (95% CI 1.06 to 10.08)) and the bridging schedules resulted in a difference in cumulative GC dose of 2406 mg (95% CI 1403 to 3408) over 24 months. CONCLUSION: In randomised trials comparing GC bridging and no GC bridging, bridgers had a more rapid clinical improvement, fewer DMARD changes and similar late use of GC compared with non-bridgers. GC bridging per protocol resulted, as could be expected, in a higher cumulative GC dose over 2 years.

Infection outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with abatacept and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: Results from a 10-year international post-marketing study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate risk of infections requiring hospitalization and opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with abatacept versus conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biologic/targeted synthetic (b/ts) DMARDs. METHODS: Five international observational data sources were used: two biologic registries (Sweden, Germany), a disease registry (USA) and two healthcare claims databases (Canada, USA). Crude incidence rates (IRs) per 1000 patient-years, with 95 % CIs, were used to estimate rate ratios (RRs) comparing abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. RRs were adjusted for demographic factors, comorbidities, and other potential confounders and then pooled across data sources using a random effects model (REM). RESULTS: The data sources included 6450 abatacept users, 136,636 csDMARD users and 54,378 other b/tsDMARD users, with a mean follow-up range of 2.2-6.2 years. Across data sources, the IRs for infections requiring hospitalization ranged from 16 to 56 for abatacept, 19-46 for csDMARDs, and 18-40 for other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections were 0.4-7.8, 0.3-4.3, and 0.5-3.8; IRs for tuberculosis were 0.0-8.4, 0.0-6.0, and 0.0-6.3, respectively. The pooled adjusted RR (95 % CI), only reported for infections requiring hospitalization, was 1.2 (0.6-2.2) for abatacept versus csDMARDs and 0.9 (0.6-1.3) versus other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Data from this international, observational study showed similar hospitalized infection risk for abatacept versus csDMARDs or other b/tsDMARDs. IRs for opportunistic infections, including tuberculosis, were low. These data are consistent with the known safety profile of abatacept.

Abatacept and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comprehensive evaluation of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) risk associated with abatacept treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: This evaluation included 16 abatacept RA clinical trials and 6 observational studies. NMSC incidence rates (IRs)/1000 patient-years (p-y) of exposure were compared between patients treated with abatacept versus placebo, conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and other biological/targeted synthetic (b/ts)DMARDs. For observational studies, a random-effects model was used to pool rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: ~49 000 patients receiving abatacept were analysed from clinical trials (~7000) and observational studies (~42 000). In randomised trials (n=4138; median abatacept exposure, 12 (range 2-30) months), NMSC IRs (95% CIs) were not significantly different for abatacept (6.0 (3.3 to 10.0)) and placebo (4.0 (1.3 to 9.3)) and remained stable throughout the long-term, open-label period (median cumulative exposure, 28 (range 2-130 months); 21 335 p-y of exposure (7044 patients over 3 years)). For registry databases, NMSC IRs/1000 p-y were 5-12 (abatacept), 1.6-10 (csDMARDs) and 3-8 (other b/tsDMARDs). Claims database IRs were 19-22 (abatacept), 15-18 (csDMARDs) and 14-17 (other b/tsDMARDs). Pooled RRs (95% CIs) from observational studies for NMSC in patients receiving abatacept were 1.84 (1.00 to 3.37) vs csDMARDs and 1.11 (0.98 to 1.26) vs other b/tsDMARDs. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the warnings and precautions of the abatacept label, this analysis suggests a potential increase in NMSC risk with abatacept use compared with csDMARDs. No significant increase was observed compared with b/tsDMARDs, but the lower limit of the 95% CI was close to unity.

Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of American College of Rheumatology, EULAR, and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Criteria Against Clinically Relevant Knee Osteoarthritis: Data From the CHECK Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the EULAR, American College of Rheumatology (ACR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria by using clinical experts' diagnosis of clinically relevant knee osteoarthritis (OA) as the outcome of interest. METHODS: In a previous study, we recruited clinical experts to evaluate longitudinal (5-, 8-, and 10-year follow-up) clinical and radiographic data of symptomatic knees from the Cohort Hip and Cohort Knee (CHECK) study for the presence or absence of clinically relevant OA. In the current study, ACR, EULAR, and NICE criteria were applied to the same 5-, 8-, and 10-year follow-up data; then a knee was diagnosed with OA if fulfilling the criteria at one of the three time points (F1), two of the time points (F2), or at all three time points (F3). Using clinically relevant OA as the reference standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the three criteria were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 539 participants for a total of 833 examined knees were included. Thirty-six percent of knees were diagnosed with clinically relevant OA by experts. Sixty-seven percent to 74% of the knees received the same diagnosis (OA or non-OA) by the three criteria sets for the different definitions (F1 to F3). EULAR consistently (F1 through F3) had the highest specificity, and NICE consistently had the highest sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The diagnoses only moderately overlapped among the three criteria sets. The EULAR criteria seemed to be more suitable for study enrollment (when aimed at recruiting clinically relevant OA knees), given the highest specificities. The NICE criteria, given the highest sensitivities, could be more useful for an initial diagnosis in clinical practice.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument. METHODS: OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting. RESULTS: Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s). CONCLUSION: We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

Effects of secukinumab on synovitis and enthesitis in patients with psoriatic arthritis: 52-week clinical and ultrasound results from the randomised, double-blind ULTIMATE trial with open label extension.

OBJECTIVES: In the ULTIMATE study with an open label extension, we assessed the long-term effect of secukinumab at tissue level on synovitis and enthesitis, and across all psoriatic arthritis (PsA) manifestations, using both clinical evaluations and power Doppler ultrasonography (PDUS). METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 study (ULTIMATE) included biologic-naïve patients with PsA with active PDUS synovitis and clinical enthesitis, and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The study consisted of 3 treatment periods; in the first period (baseline to week 12) patients were randomised to receive subcutaneous secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg according to severity of skin psoriasis) or placebo every week until week 4 and once every 4 weeks up to week 12. In the second period (weeks 12-24) all patients received open-label secukinumab with placebo patients switching to secukinumab (150 mg or 300 mg). The third period (weeks 24-52) was an extended open-label treatment period. The long-term responsiveness of the Global EULAR-OMERACT Synovitis Score (GLOESS), clinical enthesitis and global PDUS-detected enthesitis score (using two candidate definitions of activity) at patient level, together with clinical efficacy across key manifestations of PsA and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 166 patients enrolled, 144 completed week 52. A significant reduction in GLOESS was demonstrated in the secukinumab group vs placebo at week 12, followed by a stable reduction of synovitis until week 52 in the secukinumab group while placebo switchers from week 12 reached a similar level of reduction at week 24 with stability thereafter. Likewise, a significant reduction in the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) enthesitis index was shown in the secukinumab group vs placebo at week 12 with sustained improvement to week 52. Global OMERACT PDUS enthesitis scores were numerically lower in secukinumab vs placebo switchers in the first two treatment periods, with some stability in the third period in both groups. Improvements in clinical responses were also observed across all key domains of PsA up to week 52 in both treatment groups with no new or unexpected safety signals. CONCLUSIONS: ULTIMATE showed consistent improvements in clinically and ultrasound-assessed synovitis and enthesitis and sustained clinical efficacy through week 52 in patients with PsA treated with secukinumab and placebo switched to secukinumab.

Changes in Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Drug Survival in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriatic Arthritis, and Ankylosing Spondylitis Over 15 Years.

OBJECTIVE: To study changes in retention of first biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) therapy over a period of 15 years in an inception cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: We assessed patient and disease characteristics and drug survival of patients starting a biologic (tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [TNFi]) therapy between 2004 and 2019 in routine care at the Amsterdam Rheumatology and Immunology Center, Reade, the Netherlands. Starts were classified as early (2004-2008), intermediate (2009-2013), and recent (2014-2018). Kaplan-Meier plots and log-rank tests assessed the overall difference in drug survival between the 3 observation groups and between diagnoses, followed by Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: We included 1938 consecutive patients starting TNFi therapy, 63% with RA, 19% with PsA, and 19% with AS; 65% were female. Drug survival decreased significantly over time (overall P < 0.001), mostly caused by decreases in the most recent 4-year period. The HR for drug continuation was 2.04 (95% CI 1.71-2.43, P < 0.001) for the early vs the recent group and 1.92 (95% CI 1.58-2.35, P < 0.001) for the intermediate vs the recent group. Drug survival time was significantly different between diseases (overall P < 0.001), mostly caused by shorter survival in RA. The HR for drug continuation was 0.58 (95% CI 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001) for RA vs PsA and 0.63 (95% CI 0.51-0.78, P < 0.001) for RA vs AS. CONCLUSION: Patients with RA, PsA, and AS currently initiating biologic (TNFi) therapy discontinue the drug much sooner than those starting shortly after the drugs were introduced. This is most likely because of the availability of alternative novel biologic and targeted synthetic DMARD treatments and treat-to-target protocols enabling and necessitating earlier switching.

Three-month tapering and discontinuation of long- term, low-dose glucocorticoids in senior patients with rheumatoid arthritis is feasible and safe: placebo-controlled double blind tapering after the GLORIA trial.

OBJECTIVE: The randomised placebo-controlled GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in RheumatoId Arthritis) trial evaluated the benefits and harms of prednisolone 5 mg/day added to standard care for 2 years in patients aged 65+ years with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here, we studied disease activity, flares and possible adrenal insufficiency after blinded withdrawal of study medication. METHODS: Per protocol, patients successfully completing the 2-year trial period linearly tapered and stopped blinded study medication in 3 months. We compared changes in disease activity after taper between treatment groups (one-sided testing). Secondary outcomes (two-sided tests) comprised disease flares (DAS28 (Disease Activity Score 28 joints) increase >0.6, open-label glucocorticoids or disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) increase/switch after week 4 of tapering) and symptoms/signs of adrenal insufficiency. In a subset of patients from 3 Dutch centres, cortisol and ACTH were measured in spot serum samples after tapering. RESULTS: 191 patients were eligible; 36 met treatment-related flare criteria and were only included in the flare analysis. Mean (SD) DAS28 change at follow-up: 0.2 (1.0) in the prednisolone group (n=76) vs 0.0 (1.2) in placebo (n=79). Adjusted for baseline, the between-group difference in DAS28 increase was 0.16 (95% confidence limit -0.06, p=0.12). Flares occurred in 45% of prednisolone patients compared with 33% in placebo, relative risk (RR) 1.37 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.98; p=0.12). We found no evidence for adrenal insufficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Tapering prednisolone moderately increases disease activity to the levels of the placebo group (mean still at low disease activity levels) and numerically increases the risk of flare without evidence for adrenal insufficiency. This suggests that withdrawal of low-dose prednisolone is feasible and safe after 2 years of administration.

The Effect of Low-Dose Glucocorticoids Over Two Years on Weight and Blood Pressure in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Individual Patient Data From Five Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Weight gain and hypertension are well known adverse effects of treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). DESIGN: Pooled analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials with 2-year interventions allowing concomitant treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. SETTING: 12 countries in Europe. PATIENTS: Early and established RA. INTERVENTION: Glucocorticoids at 7.5 mg or less prednisone equivalent per day. MEASUREMENTS: Coprimary end points were differences in change from baseline in body weight and mean arterial pressure after 2 years in intention-to-treat analyses. Difference in the change of number of antihypertensive drugs after 2 years was a secondary end point. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done to assess the robustness of primary findings. RESULTS: A total of 1112 participants were included (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 14.5]; 68% women). Both groups gained weight in 2 years, but glucocorticoids led, on average, to 1.1 kg (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.8 kg; P < 0.001) more weight gain than the control treatment. Mean arterial pressure increased by about 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a between-group difference of -0.4 mm Hg (CI, -3.0 to 2.2 mm Hg; P = 0.187). These results were consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Most patients did not change the number of antihypertensive drugs, and there was no evidence of differences between groups. LIMITATION: Body composition was not assessed, and generalizability to non-European regions may be limited. CONCLUSION: This study provides robust evidence that low-dose glucocorticoids, received over 2 years for the treatment of RA, increase weight by about 1 kg but do not increase blood pressure. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Studies on Reliability and Measurement Error of Measurements in Medicine - From Design to Statistics Explained for Medical Researchers.

Reliability and measurement error are measurement properties that quantify the influence of specific sources of variation, such as raters, type of machine, or time, on the score of the individual measurement. Several designs can be chosen to assess reliability and measurement error of a measurement. Differences in design are due to specific choices about which sources of variation are varied over the repeated measurements in stable patients, which potential sources of variation are kept stable (ie, restricted), and about whether or not the entire measurement instrument (or measurement protocol) was repeated or only part of it. We explain how these choices determine how intraclass correlation coefficients and standard errors of measurement formulas are built for different designs by using Venn diagrams. Strategies for improving the measurement are explained, and recommendations for reporting the essentials of these studies are described. We hope that this paper will facilitate the understanding and improve the design, analysis, and reporting of future studies on reliability and measurement error of measurements.

Sex and age do not modify the association between glucocorticoids and bone mineral density in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether sex or age modify the association of glucocorticoid (GC) use with reduced bone mineral density (BMD) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We studied cross-sectional data of RA patients with current or previous GC treatment in a single center cohort study (Rh-GIOP cohort). Our primary outcome was the minimum T-score (measured by DXA) of either lumbar spine, total femur, or femoral neck. Current GC dose was the main exposure; cumulative GC dose and cumulative duration of GC use were also assessed. Following a predefined statistical analysis plan, linear regression analyses with adjustment for confounders assessed whether the association of GC use with BMD was modified by sex (men versus women) or age (≥ 65 versus < 65 years). RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-three patients with RA (mean age 64 ± 12 years, 80% women) were included. 33% were not currently taking GCs, 32% were treated with a dose of 5 mg/d prednisone equivalent and 11% with more than 7.5 mg/d. 23% of patients had osteoporosis by DXA (minimum T-score ≤ -2.5). The slope, i.e., the association between changes in minimum T-scores with 1 mg/d change in current GC dose, was similar in men and women (-0.07 and -0.04, respectively; difference -0.03 [-0.11 to 0.04]; p for interaction = 0.41). Slopes were also similar for elderly and non-elderly patients (-0.03 and -0.04, respectively; difference -0.01 [-0.06 to 0.05]; p for interaction = 0.77). Using cumulative dose and duration of use as exposures did not lead to substantial changes of these results. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, the association of GC use with reduced BMD in RA was not modified by sex or age.