Alternative and complementary therapies in osteoarthritis and cartilage repair

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint condition and, with a burgeoning ageing population, is due to increase in prevalence. Beyond conventional medical and surgical interventions, there are an increasing number of ‘alternative’ therapies. These alternative therapies may have a limited evidence base and, for this reason, are often only afforded brief reference (or completely excluded) from current OA guidelines. Thus, the aim of this review was to synthesize the current evidence regarding autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), vitamin D and other alternative therapies. The majority of studies were in knee OA or chondral defects. Matrix-assisted ACI has demonstrated exceedingly limited, symptomatic improvements in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee and is not supported for the treatment of knee OA. There is some evidence to suggest symptomatic improvement with MSC injection in knee OA, with the suggestion of minimal structural improvement demonstrated on MRI and there are positive signals that PRP may also lead to symptomatic improvement, though variation in preparation makes inter-study comparison difficult. There is variability in findings with vitamin D supplementation in OA, and the only recommendation which can be made, at this time, is for replacement when vitamin D is deplete. Other alternative therapies reviewed have some evidence (though from small, poor-quality studies) to support improvement in symptoms and again there is often a wide variation in dosage and regimens. For all these therapeutic modalities, although controlled studies have been undertaken to evaluate effectiveness in OA, these have often been of small size, limited statistical power, uncertain blindness and using various methodologies. These deficiencies must leave the question as to whether they have been validated as effective therapies in OA (or chondral defects). The conclusions of this review are that all alternative interventions definitely require clinical trials with robust methodology, to assess their efficacy and safety in the treatment of OA beyond contextual and placebo effects

Osteopenia: A Diagnostic and Therapeutic Challenge

We discussed whether we are able to select a subgroup of patients with osteopenia having a high fracture risk, in which anti-osteoporotic drug treatment can be advocated. We concluded that in individuals in whom, based on clinical risk factors, a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) was performed in which osteopenia was diagnosed, anti-osteoporotic treatment should be prescribed in those patients with prevalent vertebral fractures, and in patients chronically using glucocorticoids, in a dosage of 7.5 mg per day or more. Although recent developments with regard to high-resolution imaging techniques (eg, peripheral quantitative computed tomography) seem to be promising, until now they do not provide substantial more reliable information than DXA in the prediction of fractures. We think that more data are urgently needed, since safe and effective drugs are available, but there is uncertainty to which patients with osteopenia these drugs should be prescribed

Advances in Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is one of the most important side effects of glucocorticoid use, as it leads to an increased risk of fractures. Recently, many published studies have focused on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone metabolism, the pathophysiology of GIOP, and the intervention options to prevent GIOP. In this review, recent advances in GIOP are summarized, particularly recent progress in our understanding of the mechanisms of GIOP resulting in improved insight that might result in the development of new treatment options in the near future

The utility of clinical decision tools for diagnosing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis have a higher risk of low bone mineral density than normal age matched populations. There is limited evidence to support cost effectiveness of population screening in rheumatoid arthritis and case finding strategies have been proposed as a means to increase cost effectiveness of diagnostic screening for osteoporosis. This study aimed to assess the performance attributes of generic and rheumatoid arthritis specific clinical decision tools for diagnosing osteoporosis in a postmenopausal population with rheumatoid arthritis who attend ambulatory specialist rheumatology clinics. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 127 ambulatory post-menopausal women with rheumatoid arthritis was performed. Patients currently receiving or who had previously received bone active therapy were excluded. Eligible women underwent clinical assessment and dual-energy-xray absorptiometry (DXA) bone mineral density assessment. Clinical decision tools, including those specific for rheumatoid arthritis, were compared to seven generic post-menopausal tools to predict osteoporosis (defined as T score < -2.5). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values and area under the curve were assessed. The diagnostic attributes of the clinical decision tools were compared by examination of the area under the receiver-operator-curve. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty seven women participated. The median age was 62 (IQR 56-71) years. Median disease duration was 108 (60-168) months. Seventy two (57%) women had no record of a previous DXA examination. Eighty (63%) women had T scores at femoral neck or lumbar spine less than -1. The area under the ROC curve for clinical decision tool prediction of T score <-2.5 varied between 0.63 and 0.76. The rheumatoid arthritis specific decision tools did not perform better than generic tools, however, the National Osteoporosis Foundation score could potentially reduce the number of unnecessary DXA tests by approximately 45% in this population. CONCLUSION: There was limited utility of clinical decision tools for predicting osteoporosis in this patient population. Fracture prediction tools that include risk factors independent of BMD are needed

Does osteoporosis predispose falls? a study on obstacle avoidance and balance confidence

Contains fulltext : 96832.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is associated with changes in balance and physical performance and has psychosocial consequences which increase the risk of falling. Most falls occur during walking; therefore an efficient obstacle avoidance performance might contribute to a reduction in fall risk. Since it was shown that persons with osteoporosis are unstable during obstacle crossing it was hypothesized that they more frequently hit obstacles, specifically under challenging conditions. METHODS: Obstacle avoidance performance was measured on a treadmill and compared between persons with osteoporosis (n = 85) and the comparison group (n = 99). The obstacle was released at different available response times (ART) to create different levels of difficulty by increasing time pressure. Furthermore, balance confidence, measured with the short ABC-questionnaire, was compared between the groups. RESULTS: No differences were found between the groups in success rates on the obstacle avoidance task (p = 0.173). Furthermore, the persons with osteoporosis had similar levels of balance confidence as the comparison group (p = 0.091). The level of balance confidence was not associated with the performance on the obstacle avoidance task (p = 0.145). CONCLUSION: Obstacle avoidance abilities were not impaired in persons with osteoporosis and they did not experience less balance confidence than the comparison group. These findings imply that persons with osteoporosis do not have an additional risk of falling because of poorer obstacle avoidance abilities