In whom and how to prevent glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

Management of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

This review summarizes the available evidence-based data that form the basis for therapeutic intervention and covers the current status of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) management, regulatory requirements, and risk-assessment options. Glucocorticoids are known to cause bone loss and fractures, yet many patients receiving or initiating glucocorticoid therapy are not appropriately evaluated and treated. An European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis workshop was convened to discuss GIOP management and to provide a report by a panel of experts. An expert panel reviewed the available studies that discussed approved therapeutic agents, focusing on randomized and controlled clinical trials reporting on bone mineral density and/or fracture risk of at least 48 weeks' duration. There is no evidence that GIOP and postmenopausal osteoporosis respond differently to treatments. The FRAX algorithm can be adjusted according to glucocorticoid dose. Available antiosteoporotic therapies such as bisphosphonates and teriparatide are efficacious in GIOP management. Several other agents approved for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis may become available for GIOP. It is advised to stop antiosteoporotic treatment after glucocorticoid cessation, unless the patient remains at increased risk of fracture. Calcium and vitamin D supplementation as an osteoporosis-prevention measure is less effective than specific antiosteoporotic treatment. Fracture end-point studies and additional studies investigating specific subpopulations (pediatric, premenopausal, or elderly patients) would strengthen the evidence base and facilitate the development of intervention thresholds and treatment guidelines.

Bisphosphonates and glucocorticoid osteoporosis in men: results of a randomized controlled trial comparing zoledronic acid with risedronate

BACKGROUND

We studied 265 men (mean age 56.4 years; range 18-83 years), among patients enrolled in two arms of a double-blind, 1-year study comparing the effects of zoledronic acid (ZOL) with risedronate (RIS) in patients either commencing (prednisolone 7.5 mg/day or equivalent) (prevention arm, n=88) or continuing glucocorticoid therapy (treatment arm, n=177).

METHODS

Patients received either a single ZOL 5 mg infusion or RIS 5 mg oral daily at randomization, along with calcium (1000 mg) and vitamin D (400-1200 IU). Primary endpoint: difference in percentage change from baseline in bone mineral density (BMD) at the lumbar spine (LS) at 12 months. Secondary endpoints: percentage changes in BMD at total hip (TH) and femoral neck (FN), relative changes in bone turnover markers (β-CTx and P1NP), and overall safety.

FINDINGS

In the treatment subpopulation, ZOL increased LS BMD by 4.7% vs. 3.3% for RIS and at TH the percentage changes were 1.8% vs. 0.2%, respectively. In the prevention subpopulation, bone loss was prevented by both treatments. At LS the percentage changes were 2.5% vs. -0.2% for ZOL vs. RIS and at TH the percentage changes were 1.1% vs. -0.4%, respectively. ZOL significantly increased lumbar spine BMD more than RIS at Month 12 in both the prevention population (p=0.0024) and the treatment subpopulation (p=0.0232) in men. In the treatment subpopulation, ZOL demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in serum β-CTx and P1NP relative to RIS at all time-points. In the prevention subpopulation, ZOL significantly reduced β-CTx at all time-points, and P1NP at Month 3 (p=0.0297) only. Both treatments were well tolerated in men, albeit with a higher incidence of influenza-like illness and pyrexia events post-infusion with ZOL.

INTERPRETATION

Once-yearly ZOL preserves or increases BMD within 1 year to a greater extent than daily RIS in men receiving glucocorticoid therapy.

Immunosuppressive therapies in myasthenia gravis

Immunosuppression is the mainstay of treatment for myasthenia gravis (MG). In this paper, we review the mechanisms of action and clinical application of corticosteroids and different classes of immunosuppressive drugs that are currently used in MG patients, and present the results of their use in more than 1000 patients with MG seen at our two centers. Immunosuppressive treatment was considered along with, or as an alternative to thymectomy in MG patients with disabling weakness, not adequately controlled with anticholinesterase drugs. Overall, 82% of our patients received immunosuppressants for at least 1 year, with frequencies varying according to disease severity, from 93-95% of those with thymoma or MuSK antibodies to 72% in ocular myasthenia. Prednisone was used in the great majority of patients, azathioprine was the first-choice immunosuppressant; mycophenolate mofetil and cyclosporine were used as second-choice agents. All clinical forms of MG benefited from immunosuppression: the rate of remission or minimal manifestations ranged from 85% in ocular myasthenia to 47% in thymoma-associated disease. Treatment was ultimately withdrawn in nearly 20% of anti-AChR positive early-onset patients, but in only 7% of thymoma cases. The risk of complications appears to depend on drug dosage, treatment duration, and patient characteristics, the highest rate of serious side effects (20%) having been found in late-onset MG and the lowest (4%) in early-onset disease. Although nonspecific, current immunosuppressive treatment is highly effective in most MG patients. Lack of randomized evidence, the need for prolonged administration, and unwanted effects are still relevant limitations to its use.

Doping and musculoskeletal system: short-term and long-lasting effects of doping agents

Doping is a problem that has plagued the world of competition and sports for ages. Even before the dawn of Olympic history in ancient Greece, competitors have looked for artificial means to improve athletic performance. Since ancient times, athletes have attempted to gain an unfair competitive advantage through the use of doping substances. A Prohibited List of doping substances and methods banned in sports is published yearly by the World Anti-Doping Agency. Among the substances included are steroidal and peptide hormones and their modulators, stimulants, glucocorticosteroids, β₂-agonists, diuretics and masking agents, narcotics, and cannabinoids. Blood doping, tampering, infusions, and gene doping are examples of prohibited methods indicated on the List. Apart from the unethical aspect of doping, as it abrogates fair-play's principle, it is extremely important to consider the hazards it presents to the health and well-being of athletes. The referred negative effects for the athlete's health have to do, on the one hand, by the high doses of the performance-enhancing agents and on the other hand, by the relentless, superhuman strict training that the elite or amateur athletes put their muscles, bones, and joints. The purpose of this article is to highlight the early and the long-lasting consequences of the doping abuse on bone and muscle metabolism.

Glucocorticosteroids in football: use and misuse

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Glucocorticosteroids are widely used in medicine and have shown unchallenged therapeutic potential in several chronic inflammatory and other diseases. They are also widely used in sports medicine for the treatment of conditions such as asthma and acute injuries. In fact, as banned substances, most requests for therapeutic use exemption concern glucocorticosteroids. Nevertheless, their beneficial effect in certain conditions in sports, where inflammation is only a secondary reaction, remains to be validated. This paper aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the literature covering the therapeutic use of glucocorticosteroids since 1977 in conditions ranging from chronic rheumatic illness to peritendinous or intra-articular injection in acute injuries.

METHODS

Search of the medical literature published between 1977 and 2006 using PubMed. Articles relevant to the question "When and if at all is the use of glucocorticosteroids justified in football?" were selected and analysed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings clearly point out that, despite the common use of glucocorticosteroids in acute injuries in sports, there is actually limited evidence of the true benefits of such a practice. Physicians must take the possible adverse effects into consideration. In an athlete with clinically verified asthma, inhalational glucocorticosteroids remain first line therapy. Finally, for the purposes of education and prevention of misuse, it should be stressed that a measurable performance enhancing effect of glucocorticoids could not be proved on the basis of the results of the scientific studies to date.