Alendronate or alfacalcidol in glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

BACKGROUND: Treatment with glucocorticoids is associated with bone loss starting soon after therapy is initiated and an increased risk of fracture. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-placebo, double-blind clinical trial of 18 months' duration among patients with a rheumatic disease who were starting glucocorticoids at a daily dose that was equivalent to at least 7.5 mg of prednisone. A total of 201 patients were assigned to receive either alendronate (10 mg) and a placebo capsule of alfacalcidol daily or alfacalcidol (1 mu g) and a placebo tablet of alendronate daily. The primary outcome was the change in bone mineral density of the lumbar spine in 18 months; the secondary outcome was the incidence of morphometric vertebral deformities. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients received alendronate, and 101 received alfacalcidol; 163 patients completed the study. The bone mineral density of the lumbar spine increased by 2.1 percent in the alendronate group (95 percent confidence interval, 1.1 to 3.1 percent) and decreased by 1.9 percent in the alfacalcidol group (95 percent confidence interval, -3.1 to -0.7 percent). At 18 months, the mean difference of change in bone mineral density between the two groups was 4.0 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 2.4 to 5.5 percent). Three patients in the alendronate group had a new vertebral deformity, as compared with eight patients in the alfacalcidol group (of whom three had symptomatic vertebral fractures) (hazard ratio, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 1.4). CONCLUSIONS: During this 18-month trial in patients with rheumatic diseases, alendronate was more effective in the prevention of glucocorticoid-induced bone loss than was alfacalcidol

Hypothetical model ignores many important pathophysiologic mechanisms in fibromyalgia

okpublishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

rephrasing an established mechanistic model?’

okpublishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

Difficult-to-treat rheumatoid arthritis : an area of unmet clinical need

Increased effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in early RA has led many to believe that difficult-to-treat, established RA is a condition of the past. However, there are still plenty of RA patients who continue to have signs and symptoms suggestive of inflammatory disease activity, despite consecutive treatment with multiple conventional synthetic and biological DMARDs. We argue that difficult-to-treat RA constitutes an area of unmet clinical need and propose a definition of this concept. An overview of what is known about the multiple contributory factors varying for each individual patient, and an approach towards improved patient-tailored management are presented. This management approach involves thorough assessment to determine whether persistence of signs and symptoms is based on inflammatory disease activity, and the role of comorbidities. Furthermore, it addresses medication-related issues, such as non-adherence, patient beliefs and expectations, and setting of realistic treatment goals

Lack of correlation between the mean tender point score and self-reported pain in fibromyalgia

Objectives:\ud To study the validity and nature of self-assessed symptoms among patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and to compare our data with findings reported in the US. To determine whether tender point scores correlate with self-reported pain and other symptoms and to study the influence of disease duration. - \ud \ud Methods:\ud Tender point scores were assessed in 113 consecutive patients with FMS. All patients completed 2 self-assessment questionnaires (an extended Campbell list, the Enschede Fibromyalgia Questionnaire, and the Dutch Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales).\ud \ud Results:\ud The self-assessed symptoms of the Dutch FMS patients seem to be valid and are comparable with those of American patients. No association between disease duration and number of self-reported symptoms was found. An association between self-reported pain and mean tender point score was lacking for patients with disease of shorter duration and was weak for patients with disease of longer duration.\ud \ud Conclusions:\ud The use of a self-report questionnaire for patients with FMS is feasible and appears to be valid. Tender point scores and self-reported pain represent very different aspects of pain in FMS

Performance of the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics classification criteria versus the 1997 American College of Rheumatology classification criteria in adult and juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To evaluate the performance in classifying systemic lupus erythematosus by the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria (SLICC'12), versus the revised American College of Rheumatology criteria from 1997 (ACR'97) in adult and juvenile SLE patients. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for studies comparing SLICC'12 and ACR'97 with clinical diagnosis. A meta-analysis was performed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of SLICC'12 and ACR'97. To assess classification earlier in the disease by either set, sensitivity and specificity were compared for patients with disease duration <5 years. Sensitivity and specificity of individual criteria items were also assessed. Results: In adult SLE (nine studies: 5236 patients, 1313 controls), SLICC'12 has higher sensitivity (94.6% vs. 89.6%) and similar specificity (95.5% vs. 98.1%) compared to ACR'97. For juvenile SLE (four studies: 568 patients, 339 controls), SLICC'12 demonstrates higher sensitivity (99.9% vs. 84.3%) than ACR'97, but much lower specificity (82.0% vs. 94.1%). SLICC'12 classifies juvenile SLE patients earlier in disease course. Individual items contributing to diagnostic accuracy are low complement, anti-ds DNA and acute cutaneous lupus in SLICC'12, and the immunologic and hematologic disorder in ACR'97. Conclusion: Based on sensitivity and specificity SLICC'12 is best for adult SLE. Following the view that higher specificity, i.e. avoidance of false positives, is preferable, ACR'97 is best for juvenile SLE even if associated with lower sensitivity. Our results on the contribution of the individual items of SLICC'12 and ACR´97 may be of value in future efforts to update classification criteria