Adalimumab reduces hand bone loss in rheumatoid arthritis independent of clinical response: Subanalysis of the PREMIER study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anti-TNF therapy has been shown to reduce radiographic joint damage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) independent of clinical response. This has previously not been examined for periarticular bone loss, the other characteristic feature of bone involvement in RA.</p> <p>The objective of this study was to examine if treatment with the TNF-α inhibitor adalimumab also could reduce periarticular bone loss in RA patients independent of disease activity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>RA patients were recruited from the PREMIER study and included 214 patients treated with methotrexate (MTX) plus adalimumab and 188 patients treated with MTX monotherapy. Periarticular bone loss was assessed by digital X-ray radiogrammetry metacarpal cortical index (DXR-MCI). Change in DXR-MCI was evaluated in patients with different levels of clinical response, as assessed by changes in DAS28 score at 52 weeks and in mean C-reactive protein (CRP) levels during follow-up.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In the MTX group, there was a greater median DXR-MCI loss among patients with moderate and high disease activity compared to those in remission or with low disease activity (-3.3% vs. -2.2%, p = 0.01). In contrast, periarticular bone loss was independent of disease activity (-1.9% vs. -2.4%, p = 0.99) in the combination group. In the MTX group patients with a mean CRP of ≥ 10 mg/l lost significantly more DXR-MCI than patients with low CRP (-3.1% vs. -1.9%, p <0.01) whereas in the combination group no significant differences between the two CRP groups was seen (-2.4% vs. -2.0%, p = 0.48).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Adalimumab in combination with MTX reduces periarticular bone loss independently of clinical response. These results support the hypothesis that TNF-α stimulates the osteoclast not only by the inflammatory pathway but do also have a direct effect on the osteoclast.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials (NCT): <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT001195663">NCT001195663</a></p

The perceived meaning of a (w)holistic view among general practitioners and district nurses in Swedish primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: The definition of primary care varies between countries. Swedish primary care has developed from a philosophic viewpoint based on quality, accessibility, continuity, co-operation and a holistic view. The meaning of holism in international literature differs between medicine and nursing. The question is, if the difference is due to different educational traditions. Due to the uncertainties in defining holism and a holistic view we wished to study, in depth, how holism is perceived by doctors and nurses in their clinical work. Thus, the aim was to explore the perceived meaning of a holistic view among general practitioners (GPs) and district nurses (DNs). METHODS: Seven focus group interviews with a purposive sample of 22 GPs and 20 nurses working in primary care in two Swedish county councils were conducted. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in three categories, attitude, knowledge, and circumstances, with two, two and four subcategories respectively. A professional attitude involves recognising the whole person; not only fragments of a person with a disease. Factual knowledge is acquired through special training and long professional experience. Tacit knowledge is about feelings and social competence. Circumstances can either be barriers or facilitators. A holistic view is a strong motivator and as such it is a facilitator. The way primary care is organised can be either a barrier or a facilitator and could influence the use of a holistic approach. Defined geographical districts and care teams facilitate a holistic view with house calls being essential, particularly for nurses. In preventive work and palliative care, a holistic view was stated to be specifically important. Consultations and communication with the patient were seen as important tools. CONCLUSION: 'Holistic view' is multidimensional, well implemented and very much alive among both GPs and DNs. The word holistic should really be spelt 'wholistic' to avoid confusion with complementary and alternative medicine. It was obvious that our participants were able to verbalise the meaning of a 'wholistic' view through narratives about their clinical, every day work. The possibility to implement a 'wholistic' perspective in their work with patients offers a strong motivation for GPs and DNs

Bone mineral density by digital X-ray radiogrammetry is strongly decreased and associated with joint destruction in long-standing Rheumatoid Arthritis: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aims were to explore bone mineral density (BMD) by digital X-ray radiogrammetry (DXR) in postmenopausal women with long-lasting rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in relation to dual x-ray absorptiometry (DXA)-BMD, joint destruction by conventional radiographs and disease related variables in a cross-sectional study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Seventy-five postmenopausal women with RA were examined by DXA measuring DXA-BMD of the forearm, total hip and lumbar spine, by scoring joint destruction on plain radiographs by the method of Larsen and by DXR-BMD in metacarpals two to four. The DXR-BMD results of the RA women were compared with an age and sex-matched reference database. A function of DXR-BMD in relation to age and disease duration was created. Associations were investigated by bivariate and multiple linear regression analyses.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>DXR-BMD was strongly decreased in RA patients compared to the reference database (p < 0.001). Calculations showed that DXR-BMD was not markedly influenced the first years after diagnosis of RA, but between approximately 5-10 years of disease there was a steep decline in DXR-BMD which subsequently levelled off. In multiple regression analyses disease duration, CRP and DXR-BMD were independent variables associated with Larsen score (R²= 0.64). Larsen score and BMD forearm were independent determinants of DXR-BMD (R²= 0.79).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>DXR-BMD was strongly reduced and associated with both Larsen score and DXA-BMD forearm in these postmenopausal women with RA implying that DXR-BMD is a technique that reflects both the erosive process and bone loss adjacent to affected joints.</p

Safety and efficacy of arimoclomol for inclusion body myositis: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Inclusion body myositis is the most common progressive muscle wasting disease in people older than 50 years, with no effective drug treatment. Arimoclomol is an oral co-inducer of the cellular heat shock response that was safe and well-tolerated in a pilot study of inclusion body myositis, reduced key pathological markers of inclusion body myositis in two in-vitro models representing degenerative and inflammatory components of this disease, and improved disease pathology and muscle function in mutant valosin-containing protein mice. In the current study, we aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of arimoclomol in people with inclusion body myositis. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study enrolled adults in specialist neuromuscular centres in the USA (11 centres) and UK (one centre). Eligible participants had a diagnosis of inclusion body myositis fulfilling the European Neuromuscular Centre research diagnostic criteria 2011. Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either oral arimoclomol 400 mg or matching placebo three times daily (1200 mg/day) for 20 months. The randomisation sequence was computer generated centrally using a permuted block algorithm with randomisation numbers masked to participants and trial staff, including those assessing outcomes. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to month 20 in the Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS) total score, assessed in all randomly assigned participants, except for those who were randomised in error and did not receive any study medication, and those who did not meet inclusion criteria. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02753530, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 16, 2017 and May 22, 2019, 152 participants with inclusion body myositis were randomly assigned to arimoclomol (n=74) or placebo (n=78). One participant was randomised in error (to arimoclomol) but not treated, and another (assigned to placebo) did not meet inclusion criteria. 150 participants (114 [76%] male and 36 [24%] female) were included in the efficacy analyses, 73 in the arimoclomol group and 77 in the placebo group. 126 completed the trial on treatment (56 [77%] and 70 [90%], respectively) and the most common reason for treatment discontinuation was adverse events. At month 20, mean IBMFRS change from baseline was not statistically significantly different between arimoclomol and placebo (-3·26, 95% CI -4·15 to -2·36 in the arimoclomol group vs -2·26, -3·11 to -1·41 in the placebo group; mean difference -0·99 [95% CI -2·23 to 0·24]; p=0·12). Adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in 13 (18%) of 73 participants in the arimoclomol group and four (5%) of 78 participants in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the arimoclomol group and 18 (23%) in the placebo group. Elevated transaminases three times or more of the upper limit of normal occurred in five (7%) participants in the arimoclomol group and one (1%) in the placebo group. Tubulointerstitial nephritis was observed in one (1%) participant in the arimoclomol group and none in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Arimoclomol did not improve efficacy outcomes, relative to placebo, but had an acceptable safety profile in individuals with inclusion body myositis. This is one of the largest trials done in people with inclusion body myositis, providing data on disease progression that might be used for subsequent clinical trial design. FUNDING: US Food and Drug Administration Office of Orphan Products Development and Orphazyme

Most Antidepressant Use in Primary Care Is Justified; Results of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common illness, often treated in primary care. Many studies have reported undertreatment with antidepressants in primary care. Recently, some studies also reported overtreatment with antidepressants. The present study was designed to assess whether treatment with antidepressants in primary care is in accordance with current guidelines, with a special focus on overtreatment. METHODOLOGY: We used baseline data of primary care respondents from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) (n = 1610). Seventy-nine patients with treatment in secondary care were excluded. We assessed justification for treatment with antidepressant according to the Dutch primary care guidelines for depression and for anxiety disorders. Use of antidepressants was based on drug-container inspection or, if unavailable, on self-report. Results were recalculated to the original population of primary care patients from which the participants in NESDA were selected (n = 10,677). PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 1531 included primary care patients, 199 (13%) used an antidepressant, of whom 188 (94.5%) (possibly) justified. After recalculating these numbers to the original population (n = 10,677), we found 908 (95% CI 823 to 994) antidepressant users. Forty-nine (95% CI 20 to 78) of them (5.4%) had no current justification for an antidepressant, but 27 of them (54.5%) had a justified reason for an antidepressant at some earlier point in their life. CONCLUSIONS: We found that overtreatment with antidepressants in primary care is not a frequent problem. Too long continuation of treatment seems to explain the largest proportion of overtreatment as opposed to inappropriate initiation of treatment