RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone microarchitecture as measured by the trabecular bone score (TBS) in patients with inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs). METHODS: Cross-sectional data from a prospective single-center cohort (2015 to 2022) of patients with iRMDs were used to evaluate 3 co-primary outcomes: BMD of the left femoral neck and the lumbar spine (as T-scores) and the TBS. Inverse probability weighting adjusted for numerous confounders including age, sex, body mass index, current and cumulative glucocorticoid (GC) dose, C-reactive protein levels, disability, and others. Analyses were based on general linear models, following a prespecified statistical analysis plan. RESULTS: The study included 1495 patients (75% women; mean age, 62.6±13.1 years; 49% and 63% with regular PPI and GC use, respectively). The PPI users had lower BMD at both spine (adjusted contrast -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; P=.02) and femoral neck (-0.17 [-0.35 to 0.01]; P=.07). Differences between PPI users and nonusers were statistically significant only in patients concurrently using GCs at more than 7.5 mg/d prednisone equivalent. The TBS was similar in PPI users and nonusers (adjusted contrast, 0.00 [-0.04 to 0.04]; P=.97). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that PPIs lead to a loss of BMD rather than an impairment of bone microarchitecture in patients with iRMDs. The negative association between PPI use and BMD appears to be dependent on concurrent GC use. Clinicians should carefully review the indication for PPI use in patients with iRMDs, especially in those receiving higher dose GCs.
Asunto(s)
Densidad Ósea , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones , Enfermedades Reumáticas , Humanos , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de la Bomba de Protones/administración & dosificación , Femenino , Masculino , Estudios Transversales , Persona de Mediana Edad , Densidad Ósea/efectos de los fármacos , Enfermedades Reumáticas/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Reumáticas/complicaciones , Estudios Prospectivos , Anciano , Glucocorticoides/efectos adversos , Glucocorticoides/administración & dosificación , Cuello Femoral/diagnóstico por imagen , Vértebras Lumbares/efectos de los fármacos , Vértebras Lumbares/diagnóstico por imagenRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: There is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients in clinical trials. This study evaluates what patients with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) consider important to know about symptomatic side effects they may experience from a new prescription drug. METHODS: Patients with inflammatory arthritis, who had one or more prescribed drugs for their disease for at least 12 months, participated in focus groups and individual interviews. Discussions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted seven focus groups with 34 participants across three continents. We found four overarching and two underpinning themes. The 'impact on life' was connected to participants 'daily life', 'family life', 'work life', and 'social life'. In 'psychological and physical aspects' participants described 'limitation to physical function', 'emotional dysregulation' and 'an overall mental state'. Extra tests, hospital visits and payment for medication were considered a 'time, energy and financial burden' of side effects. Participants explained important measurement issues to be 'severity', 'frequency', and 'duration'. Underpinning these issues, participants evaluated the 'benefit-harm-balance' which includes 'the cumulative burden' of having several side effects and the persistence of side effects over time. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment for RMDs, there seems to be an urgent need for feasible measures of patient-reported bother (impact on life and cumulative burden) from side effects and the benefit-harm-balance. These findings contribute new evidence in support of a target domain-an outcome that represents the patient voice evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related side effects for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic ultrasound (TUS) for detecting interstitial lung disease (ILD) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with respiratory symptoms. METHODS: Individuals with RA visiting rheumatologic outpatient clinics in the Region of Southern Denmark were systematically screened for dyspnea, cough, recurrent pneumonia, prior severe pneumonia, or a chest x-ray indicating interstitial abnormalities. Eighty participants with a positive screening were consecutively included. Individuals were not eligible if they had a chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) less than 12 months ago or were already diagnosed with ILD. A blinded TUS expert evaluated TUS, and TUS was registered as positive for ILD if at least 10 B-lines or bilateral thickened and fragmented pleura were present. The primary outcomes were TUS's sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value and negative predictive value. An ILD-specialized thoracic radiologist assessed HRCT, followed by a multidisciplinary team discussion, which was the reference standard. The accepted window of HRCT was less than 30 days after TUS was performed. RESULTS: A total of 77 participants received HRCT less than 30 days after TUS, and 23 (30%) were diagnosed with ILD. TUS had a sensitivity of 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.2%-95.0%) and a specificity of 51.9% (95% CI 37.8%-65.7%), corresponding to a positive predictive value of 42.2% (95% CI 27.7%-57.8%) and a negative predictive value of 87.5% (95% CI 71.0%-96.5%). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this prospective study is the first to use respiratory symptoms in RA as inclusion criteria. Systematic screening for respiratory symptoms combined with TUS can reduce the diagnostic delay of ILD in RA.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine the pain relief effects of comparators (placebos and untreated control groups) in hand osteoarthritis trials and the impact of contextual factors. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to December 26, 2021. We included randomised controlled trials of people with hand osteoarthritis with a placebo or an untreated control group. We assessed the Risk of Bias with Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool version 2. Each comparator was contrasted with a null-arm, imputed as having a zero change from baseline with the same standard deviation as the comparator. We combined the standardised mean differences with a random effects meta-analysis. The contextual factors' effect was explored in meta-regression and stratified models with pain as the dependent variable. RESULTS: 84 trials (7262 participants) were eligible for quantitative synthesis, of which 76 (6462 participants) were eligible for the stratified analyses. Placebos were superior to their matched null-arms in relieving pain with an effect size of -0.51 (95% confidence interval -0.61 to -0.42), while untreated control groups were not. When analysing all comparators, blinded trial designs and low risk of bias were associated with higher pain relief compared to an open-label trial design and some concern or high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The placebo response on pain for people with hand osteoarthritis was increased by appropriate blinding and a lower risk of bias assessment. Placebos were superior to a null-arm, while untreated control groups were not. Results emphasise the importance of using appropriate comparators in clinical trials. PROSPERO REGISTRATION ID: CRD42022298984.
Asunto(s)
Articulaciones de la Mano , Osteoartritis , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Grupos Control , Articulaciones de la Mano/fisiopatología , Osteoartritis/tratamiento farmacológico , Placebos/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
The objective of this meta-epidemiological study was to explore the impact of attrition rates on treatment effect estimates in randomised trials of chronic inflammatory diseases (CID) treated with biological and targeted synthetic disease-modifying drugs. We sampled trials from Cochrane reviews. Attrition rates and primary endpoint results were retrieved from trial publications; Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated from the odds of withdrawing in the experimental intervention compared to the control comparison groups (i.e., differential attrition), as well as the odds of achieving a clinical response (i.e., the trial outcome). Trials were combined using random effects restricted maximum likelihood meta-regression models and associations between estimates of treatment effects and attrition rates were analysed. From 37 meta-analyses, 179 trials were included, and 163 were analysed (301 randomised comparisons; n = 62,220 patients). Overall, the odds of withdrawal were lower in the experimental compared to control groups (random effects summary OR = 0.45, 95% CI, 0.41-0.50). The corresponding overall treatment effects were large (random effects summary OR = 4.43, 95% CI 3.92-4.99) with considerable heterogeneity across interventions and clinical specialties (I2 = 85.7%). The ORs estimating treatment effect showed larger treatment benefits when the differential attrition was more prominent with more attrition in the control group (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.55-0.96). Higher attrition rates from the control arm are associated with larger estimated benefits of treatments with biological or targeted synthetic disease-modifying drugs in CID trials; differential attrition may affect estimates of treatment benefit in randomised trials.
Asunto(s)
Inflamación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Oportunidad Relativa , Enfermedad Crónica , Resultado del Tratamiento , Inflamación/tratamiento farmacológico , Pacientes Desistentes del Tratamiento , Estudios Epidemiológicos , Funciones de Verosimilitud , Proyectos de InvestigaciónRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Data concerning the global burden of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) are limited. Reported prevalence estimates vary between 0.0003% and 4.1%, and data from various geographical regions are still to be collected. Previously reported prevalences have been limited by the methodological approach and source of data. This has resulted in great heterogeneity as prevalence data from physician-diagnosed cases poorly match those of self-reported apparent HS disease. METHODS: The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) introduces an innovative approach to determine the global prevalence of HS. This approach involves using a previously validated questionnaire to screen apparently healthy adults accompanying a patient to a non-dermatological outpatient clinic visit in a hospital or a private/family medicine clinic. The screening questionnaire (i.e., the index test) is combined with a subsequent physician-based in-person validation (i.e., the reference standard) of the participants who screen positive. Approximately ten percent of the screen-negative participants are also clinically assessed to verify the diagnostic precision of the test. The local prevalence (pi) will be estimated from each country that submits the number of patients who are HS positive according to the index test and clinical examination (n), and the corresponding total number of observations (N). CONCLUSION: The GHiSA Global Prevalence studies are currently running simultaneously in 58 countries across six continents (Africa, Europe, Australia, North America, South America, and Asia). The goal of the combined global proportion is the generation of a single summary (i.e., proportional meta-analysis), which will be done after a logit transformation and synthesized using a random-effects model. The novel standardization of the Global Prevalence Studies conducted through GHiSA enables direct international comparisons, which were previously not possible due to substantial heterogeneity in past HS prevalence studies.
Asunto(s)
Salud Global , Hidradenitis Supurativa , Humanos , Hidradenitis Supurativa/epidemiología , Hidradenitis Supurativa/diagnóstico , Prevalencia , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , AdultoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Despite scarce evidence, guidelines recommend weight loss as a management strategy for patients with gout. We investigated the effect of an intensive dietary intervention on body weight and clinical measures of gout severity in individuals with obesity and gout. METHODS: We conducted a 16-week randomized nonmasked parallel-group trial in Denmark, randomly assigning (one-to-one) individuals with obesity and gout to a low-energy diet or a control diet. The primary outcome was change in body weight. Key secondary outcomes were changes in serum urate (SU) level and visual analog scale-assessed pain and fatigue. RESULTS: Between December 1, 2018, and June 1, 2019, 61 participants were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to the intensive diet group (n = 29) or control diet group (n = 32). Participants had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 9.9) years and mean body mass index of 35.6 (SD 5.0), and 59 (97%) were men. After 16 weeks, there was a significant difference in change in body weight between the diet and control groups (-15.4 vs -7.7 kg; difference -7.7 kg [95% confidence interval -10.7 to -4.7], P < 0.001). Despite results being potentially in favor of a low-energy diet, we could not confirm differences in SU level changes and fatigue between groups. No differences in pain and gout flares were observed between groups. No serious adverse events or deaths occurred during the trial. CONCLUSION: An intensive dietary intervention was safe and effectively lowered body weight in people with obesity and gout, but the weight loss did not directly translate into effects on SU level, fatigue, and pain.
Asunto(s)
Gota , Obesidad , Prueba de Estudio Conceptual , Pérdida de Peso , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Índice de Masa Corporal , Dieta Reductora , Fatiga/etiología , Gota/complicaciones , Gota/dietoterapia , Obesidad/complicaciones , Ácido Úrico/sangreRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To study the benefit and harm associated with continuing versus tapering low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who have achieved low disease activity/remission. METHODS: A protocolised (PROSPEROCRD42022325175) systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials was performed. Trials compared, in patients with low disease activity/remission and GCs at baseline, continued low-dose GCs (≤7.5 mg/d prednisone equivalent) with a taper. Co-primary outcomes were time to flare and adverse events (AEs), accompanied by secondary benefit and harm outcomes. We performed meta-analyses and evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence (QoE). Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients with RA. RESULTS: Four trials (three: RA; one: SLE; study duration 24-104 weeks) with 472 participants were included. Tapering GCs resulted in a shorter time to flare (hazard ratio 3.41 [95 %-CI 1.96-5.93]; p<0.01; very low QoE). The risks of AEs, serious AEs, and withdrawal due to AEs were similar in both groups (very low to low QoE). There were more withdrawals due to lack of efficacy with tapered GCs (risk ratio 3.02 [1.56-5.87]; low QoE). In RA, the disease activity score-28 was lower with continued GCs (mean difference 0.49 [0.07-0.91]; low QoE). One of 238 patients in the tapering groups experienced adrenal insufficiency. Subgroup analyses yielded consistent results. CONCLUSION: In RA and SLE with low disease activity, continuing low-dose GCs may provide better sustained disease control, but QoE is insufficient. Adrenal insufficiency is very rare when tapering low-dose GCs. Longer-term safety concerns for GCs remain.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Suprarrenal , Antirreumáticos , Artritis Reumatoide , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico , Humanos , Insuficiencia Suprarrenal/inducido químicamente , Insuficiencia Suprarrenal/tratamiento farmacológico , Antirreumáticos/uso terapéutico , Artritis Reumatoide/tratamiento farmacológico , Glucocorticoides/efectos adversos , Lupus Eritematoso Sistémico/tratamiento farmacológico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To educate and discuss pain mechanisms (nociceptive, neuropathic, nociplastic) illuminating its possible impact when measuring different outcomes, which may modify, confound and potentially bias the outcome measures applied across various aspects of Rheumatic Musculoskeletal Diseases (RMDs) clinical trials. METHODS: In the plenary presentations, PM lectured on different pain mechanisms and impact on disease activity assessment. Data from two data sets of RMDs patients, which assessed the prevalence and impact of nociplastic pain were presented and reviewed. Audience breakout group sessions and polling were conducted. RESULTS: Mixed pain etiologies may differentially influence disease activity assessment and therapeutic decision-making. Polling demonstrated a consensus on the need to assess different types of pain as a phenotype, as it constitutes an important contextual factor (a variable that is not an outcome of the trial, but needs to be recognized [and measured] to understand the study results), and to standardize across RMDs. CONCLUSION: There is need for a standardized pain measure that can differentiate underlying pain mechanisms.