A two year randomised controlled trial of intramuscular depot steroids in patients with established rheumatoid arthritis who have shown an incomplete response to disease modifying antirheumatic drugs

Exploring the Potential of Electronic Patient-Generated Health Data for Evaluating Treatment Response to Intramuscular Steroids in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Case Series

BACKGROUND

Mobile health devices are increasingly available, presenting exciting opportunities to remotely collect high-frequency, electronic patient-generated health data (ePGHD). This novel data type may provide detailed insights into disease activity outside usual clinical settings. Assessing treatment responses, which can be hampered by the infrequency of appointments and recall bias, is a promising, novel application of ePGHD. Drugs with short treatment effects, such as intramuscular steroid injections, illustrate the challenge, as patients are unlikely to accurately recall treatment responses at follow-ups, which often occur several months later. Retrospective assessment means that responses may be over- or underestimated. High-frequency ePGHD, such as daily, app-collected, patient-reported symptoms between clinic appointments, may bridge this gap. However, the potential of ePGHD remains untapped due to the absence of established definitions for treatment response using ePGHD or established methodological approaches for analyzing this type of data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to explore the feasibility of evaluating treatment responses to intramuscular steroid therapy in a case series of patients with rheumatoid arthritis tracking daily symptoms using a smartphone app.

METHODS

We report a case series of patients who collected ePGHD through the REmote Monitoring Of Rheumatoid Arthritis (REMORA) smartphone app for daily remote symptom tracking. Symptoms were tracked on a 0-10 scale. We described the patients' longitudinal pain scores before and after intramuscular steroid injections. The baseline pain score was calculated as the mean pain score in the 10 days prior to the injection. This was compared to the pain scores in the days following the injection. "Response" was defined as any improvement from the baseline score on the first day following the injection. The response end time was defined as the first date when the pain score exceeded the pre-steroid baseline.

RESULTS

We included 6 patients who, between them, received 9 steroid injections. Average pre-injection pain scores ranged from 3.3 to 9.3. Using our definitions, 7 injections demonstrated a response. Among the responders, the duration of response ranged from 1 to 54 days (median 9, IQR 7-41), average pain score improvement ranged from 0.1 to 5.3 (median 3.3, IQR 2.2-4.0), and maximum pain score improvement ranged from 0.1 to 7.0 (median 4.3, IQR 1.7 to 6.0).

CONCLUSIONS

This case series demonstrates the feasibility of using ePGHD to evaluate treatment response and is an important exploratory step toward developing more robust methodological approaches for analysis of this novel data type. Issues highlighted by our analysis include the importance of accounting for one-off data points, varying response start times, and confounders such as other medications. Future analysis of ePGHD across a larger population is required to address issues highlighted by our analysis and to develop meaningful consensus definitions for treatment response in time-series data.

The Effect of Low-Dose Glucocorticoids Over Two Years on Weight and Blood Pressure in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Individual Patient Data From Five Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Weight gain and hypertension are well known adverse effects of treatment with high-dose glucocorticoids.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of 2 years of low-dose glucocorticoid treatment in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DESIGN

Pooled analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials with 2-year interventions allowing concomitant treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

SETTING

12 countries in Europe.

PATIENTS

Early and established RA.

INTERVENTION

Glucocorticoids at 7.5 mg or less prednisone equivalent per day.

MEASUREMENTS

Coprimary end points were differences in change from baseline in body weight and mean arterial pressure after 2 years in intention-to-treat analyses. Difference in the change of number of antihypertensive drugs after 2 years was a secondary end point. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were done to assess the robustness of primary findings.

RESULTS

A total of 1112 participants were included (mean age, 61.4 years [SD, 14.5]; 68% women). Both groups gained weight in 2 years, but glucocorticoids led, on average, to 1.1 kg (95% CI, 0.4 to 1.8 kg; P < 0.001) more weight gain than the control treatment. Mean arterial pressure increased by about 2 mm Hg in both groups, with a between-group difference of -0.4 mm Hg (CI, -3.0 to 2.2 mm Hg; P = 0.187). These results were consistent in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Most patients did not change the number of antihypertensive drugs, and there was no evidence of differences between groups.

LIMITATION

Body composition was not assessed, and generalizability to non-European regions may be limited.

CONCLUSION

This study provides robust evidence that low-dose glucocorticoids, received over 2 years for the treatment of RA, increase weight by about 1 kg but do not increase blood pressure.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Metabolic adverse events associated with systemic corticosteroid therapy-a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the risk of new-onset or worsening hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia with systemic corticosteroid therapy (CST) as reported in published randomised control trial (RCT) studies.

DATA SOURCES

Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and Scopus STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Published articles on results of RCT with a systemic CST arm with numerical data presented on adverse effect (AE).

PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

Reports of hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia associated with systemic CST in patients or healthy volunteer's ≥17 years of age.

STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS

Risk of bias tool, assessment at the level of AE and key study characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 5446 articles were screened to include 118 studies with 152 systemic CST arms (total participants=17 113 among which 8569 participants treated with CST). Pooled prevalence of hyperglycaemia in the CST arms within the studies was 10% (95% CI 7% to 14%), with the highest prevalence in respiratory illnesses at 22% (95% CI 9% to 35%). Pooled prevalence of severe hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia within the corticosteroid arms was 5% (95% CI 2% to 9%), 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%), 13% (95% CI 8% to 18%), 8% (95% CI 4% to 17%), respectively. CST was significantly associated hyperglycaemia, hypertension and weight gain as noted in double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel-arms studies: OR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.72), 1.68 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.95) and 5.20 (95% CI 2.10 to 12.90), respectively. Intravenous therapy posed higher risk than oral therapy: OR of 2.39 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.91).

LIMITATIONS

There was significant heterogeneity in the AE definitions and quality of AE reporting in the primary studies and patient populations in the studies. The impact of cumulative dose effect on incidental AE could not be calculated.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Systemic CST use is associated with increased risk of metabolic AEs, which differs for each disease group and route of administration.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020161270.

Low dose, add-on prednisolone in patients with rheumatoid arthritis aged 65+: the pragmatic randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled GLORIA trial

Background

Low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but the balance of benefit and harm is still unclear.

Methods

The GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in RheumatoId Arthritis) pragmatic double-blind randomised trial compared 2 years of prednisolone, 5 mg/day, to placebo in patients aged 65+ with active RA. We allowed all cotreatments except long-term open label GC and minimised exclusion criteria, tailored to seniors. Benefit outcomes included disease activity (disease activity score; DAS28, coprimary) and joint damage (Sharp/van der Heijde, secondary). The other coprimary outcome was harm, expressed as the proportion of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE) of special interest. Such events comprised serious events, GC-specific events and those causing study discontinuation. Longitudinal models analysed the data, with one-sided testing and 95% confidence limits (95% CL).

Results

We randomised 451 patients with established RA and mean 2.1 comorbidities, age 72, disease duration 11 years and DAS28 4.5. 79% were on disease-modifying treatment, including 14% on biologics. 63% prednisolone versus 61% placebo patients completed the trial. Discontinuations were for AE (both, 14%), active disease (3 vs 4%) and for other (including covid pandemic-related disease) reasons (19 vs 21%); mean time in study was 19 months. Disease activity was 0.37 points lower on prednisolone (95% CL 0.23, p<0.0001); joint damage progression was 1.7 points lower (95% CL 0.7, p=0.003). 60% versus 49% of patients experienced the harm outcome, adjusted relative risk 1.24 (95% CL 1.04, p=0.02), with the largest contrast in (mostly non-severe) infections. Other GC-specific events were rare.

Conclusion

Add-on low-dose prednisolone has beneficial long-term effects in senior patients with established RA, with a trade-off of 24% increase in patients with mostly non-severe AE; this suggests a favourable balance of benefit and harm.

Trial registration number

NCT02585258.

Intravenous pegylated liposomal prednisolone outperforms intramuscular methylprednisolone in treating rheumatoid arthritis flares: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are potent anti-inflammatory drugs but their use is limited by systemic exposure leading to toxicity. Targeted GC delivery to sites of inflammation via encapsulation in long-circulating liposomes may improve the therapeutic index. We performed a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multi-center study in which intravenously (i.v.) administered pegylated liposomal prednisolone sodium phosphate (Nanocort) was compared to equipotent intramuscular (i.m.) methylprednisolone acetate (Depo-Medrol®; i.e. a current standards-of-care for treating flares in rheumatoid arthritis patients). We enrolled 172 patients with active arthritis who met all eligibility criteria, eventually resulting in 150 patients randomized in three groups: (1) Nanocort 75 mg i.v. infusion plus i.m. saline injection; (2) Nanocort 150 mg i.v. infusion plus i.m. saline injection; and (3) Depo-Medrol® 120 mg i.m. injection plus i.v. saline infusion. Dosing in each group occurred at baseline and on day 15 (week 2). Study visits occurred at week 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 12, to assess both efficacy and safety. The primary endpoint was the "European League Against Rheumatism" (EULAR) responder rate at week 1. Safety was determined by the occurrence of adverse events during treatment and 12 weeks of follow-up. Treatment with Nanocort was found to be superior to Depo-Medrol® in terms of EULAR response at week 1, with p-values of 0.007 (good response) and 0.018 (moderate response). Treatments were well tolerated with a comparable pattern of adverse events in the three treatment groups. However, the Nanocort groups had a higher incidence of hypersensitivity reactions during liposome infusion. Our results show that liposomal Nanocort is more effective than Depo-Medrol® in treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis flares and has similar safety. This is the first clinical study in a large patient population showing that i.v. administered targeted drug delivery with a nanomedicine formulation improves the therapeutic index of glucocorticoids.

The efficacy of systemic glucocorticosteroids for pain in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Glucocorticosteroids (GCs) are recommended to suppress inflammation in people with active RA. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify the effects of systemic GCs on RA pain.

Methods

A systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in RA comparing systemic GCs to inactive treatment. Three databases were and spontaneous pain and evoked pain outcomes were extracted. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and mean differences were meta-analysed. Heterogeneity (I², tau statistics) and bias (funnel plot, Egger’s test) were assessed. Subgroup analyses investigated sources of variation. This study was pre-registered (PROSPERO CRD42019111562).

Results

A total of 18 903 titles, 880 abstracts and 226 full texts were assessed. Thirty-three RCTs suitable for the meta-analysis included 3123 participants. Pain scores (spontaneous pain) decreased in participants treated with oral GCs; SMD = −0.65 (15 studies, 95% CI −0.82, −0.49, P <0.001) with significant heterogeneity (I² = 56%, P =0.0002). Efficacy displayed time-related decreases after GC initiation. Mean difference visual analogue scale pain was −15 mm (95% CI −20, −9) greater improvement in GC than control at ≤3 months, −8 mm (95% CI −12, −3) at >3–6 months and −7 mm (95% CI −13, 0) at >6 months. Similar findings were obtained when evoked pain outcomes were examined. Data from five RCTs suggested improvement also in fatigue during GC treatment.

Conclusion

Oral GCs are analgesic in RA. The benefit is greatest shortly after initiation and GCs might not achieve clinically important pain relief beyond 3 months. Treatments other than anti-inflammatory GCs should be considered to reduce the long-term burden of pain in RA.

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE

The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

DESIGN

This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol.

SETTING

The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study.

INTERVENTIONS

This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial.

RESULTS

Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial.

LIMITATIONS

Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research.

CONCLUSIONS

A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial.

FUTURE WORK

This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: the silent companion in the therapeutic strategy

INTRODUCTION

Glucocorticoids (GCs) are key actors in RA management, despite the increasing number of available drugs. In fact, due to their efficacy and safety, the combination therapy between GCs and conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) is still recommended in the early phase of RA treatment, because improving the long-term results.

AREAS COVERED

In this paper, we reviewed the role of GCs in RA management, focusing on mechanisms of action as well as the benefit/risk ratio of GCs and newer therapeutic formulations. Furthermore, we analyzed GCs DMARDs proprieties on disease activity and their long-term effects on radiographic damage. We designed a narrative review aimed to provide an overview concerning GCs in RA management.

EXPERT OPINION

A large amount of evidence supports the use of GCs in RA, especially in the earliest phases of the disease. Besides GCs symptomatic effects due to their strong anti-inflammatory effects, data from several randomized clinical trials have shown a substantial benefit of low-dose GCs in inhibiting the radiographic damage, thus highlighting GCs DMARDs properties. Besides their recognized role in the treatment of early RA, systematic monitoring of adverse events should be recommended to minimize GCs toxicity.

Efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis: Systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

1) To systematically and critically review the evidence on the characteristics, efficacy and safety of glucocorticoids (CS) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA); 2) to generate practical recommendations.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed through a sensitive bibliographic search strategy in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library. We selected randomized clinical trials that analyzed the efficacy and/or safety of CS in patients with RA. Two reviewers performed the first selection by title and abstract. Then 10 reviewers selected the studies after a detailed review of the articles and data collection. The quality of the studies was evaluated with the Jadad scale. In a nominal group meeting, based on the results of the systematic literature review, related recommendations were reached by consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 47 articles were finally included. CS in combination with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs help control disease activity and inhibit radiographic progression, especially in the short-to-medium term and in early RA. CS can also improve function and relieve pain. Different types and routes of administration are effective, but there is no standardized scheme (initial dose, tapering and duration of treatment) that is superior to others. Adverse events when using CS are very frequent and are dose-dependent and variable severity, although most are mild. Seven recommendations were generated on the use and risk management of CS.

CONCLUSIONS

These recommendations aim to resolve some common clinical questions and aid in decision-making for CS use in RA.

EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update

Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.

Glucocorticoids and Rheumatoid Arthritis

Glucocorticoids (GCs) were discovered in the 1940s and were administered for the first time to patients with rheumatoid arthritis in 1948. However, side effects were subsequently reported. In the last 7 decades, the mechanisms of action for both therapeutic properties and side effects have been elucidated. Mechanisms for minimizing side effects were also developed. GCs are the most frequently used class of drugs in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis because of their efficacy in relieving symptoms and their low cost. A review of clinical applications, side effects, and drug interactions is presented.

2015 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new evidence-based, pharmacologic treatment guideline for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

We conducted systematic reviews to synthesize the evidence for the benefits and harms of various treatment options. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of evidence. We employed a group consensus process to grade the strength of recommendations (either strong or conditional). A strong recommendation indicates that clinicians are certain that the benefits of an intervention far outweigh the harms (or vice versa). A conditional recommendation denotes uncertainty over the balance of benefits and harms and/or more significant variability in patient values and preferences.

RESULTS

The guideline covers the use of traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), biologic agents, tofacitinib, and glucocorticoids in early (<6 months) and established (≥6 months) RA. In addition, it provides recommendations on using a treat-to-target approach, tapering and discontinuing medications, and the use of biologic agents and DMARDs in patients with hepatitis, congestive heart failure, malignancy, and serious infections. The guideline addresses the use of vaccines in patients starting/receiving DMARDs or biologic agents, screening for tuberculosis in patients starting/receiving biologic agents or tofacitinib, and laboratory monitoring for traditional DMARDs. The guideline includes 74 recommendations: 23% are strong and 77% are conditional.

CONCLUSION

This RA guideline should serve as a tool for clinicians and patients (our two target audiences) for pharmacologic treatment decisions in commonly encountered clinical situations. These recommendations are not prescriptive, and the treatment decisions should be made by physicians and patients through a shared decision-making process taking into account patients' values, preferences, and comorbidities. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Evidence-based Recommendations for the Management of Comorbidities in Rheumatoid Arthritis, Psoriasis, and Psoriatic Arthritis: Expert Opinion of the Canadian Dermatology-Rheumatology Comorbidity Initiative

Objective.

Comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases (CVD), cancer, osteoporosis, and depression are often underrecognized in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), or psoriasis (PsO). Recommendations may improve identification and treatment of comorbidities. The Canadian Dermatology-Rheumatology Comorbidity Initiative reviewed the literature to develop practical evidence-based recommendations for management of comorbidities in patients with RA, PsA, and PsO.

Methods.

Eight main topics regarding comorbidities in RA, PsA, and PsO were developed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (1960–12/2012), together with abstracts from major rheumatology and dermatology congresses (2010–2012), were searched for relevant publications. Selected articles were analyzed and metaanalyses performed whenever possible. A meeting including rheumatologists, dermatologists, trainees/fellows, and invited experts was held to develop consensus-based recommendations using a Delphi process with prespecified cutoff agreement. Level of agreement was measured using a 10-point Likert scale (1 = no agreement, 10 = full agreement) and the potential effect of recommendations on daily clinical practice was considered. Grade of recommendation (ranging from A to D) was determined according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine evidence levels.

Results.

A total of 17,575 articles were identified, of which 407 were reviewed. Recommendations were synthesized into 19 final recommendations ranging mainly from grade C to D, and relating to a large spectrum of comorbidities observed in clinical practice: CVD, obesity, osteoporosis, depression, infections, and cancer. Level of agreement ranged from 80.9% to 95.8%.

Conclusion.

These practical evidence-based recommendations can guide management of comorbidities in patients with RA, PsA, and PsO and optimize outcomes.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

2014 update of the Consensus Statement of the Spanish Society of Rheumatology on the use of biological therapies in rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVE

To establish recommendations for the management of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to serve as a reference for all health professionals involved in the care of these patients, and focusing on the role of available synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs).

METHODS

Consensual recommendations were agreed on by a panel of 14 experts selected by the Spanish Society of Rheumatology (SER). The available scientific evidence was collected by updating three systematic reviews (SR) used for the EULAR 2013 recommendations. A new SR was added to answer an additional question. The literature review of the scientific evidence was made by the SER reviewer's group. The level of evidence and the degree of recommendation was classified according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine system. A Delphi panel was used to evaluate the level of agreement between panellists (strength of recommendation).

RESULTS

Thirteen recommendations for the management of adult RA were emitted. The therapeutic objective should be to treat patients in the early phases of the disease with the aim of achieving clinical remission, with methotrexate playing a central role in the therapeutic strategy of RA as the reference synthetic DMARD. Indications for biologic DMARDs were updated and the concept of the optimization of biologicals was introduced.

CONCLUSIONS

We present the fifth update of the SER recommendations for the management of RA with synthetic and biologic DMARDs.

Effect of combination therapy on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Despite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

Methods and Findings

The following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989–2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.42, −0.22); triple DMARD: −0.46 SMD (CI: −0.60, −0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: −0.30 SMD (CI: −0.36, −0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: −0.20 SMD (CI: −0.33, −0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: −0.34 SMD (CI: −0.48, −0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: −0.32 SMD (CI: −0.40, −0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (−0.26 SMD (CI: −0.45, −0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (−0.16 SMD (CI: −0.31, −0.01)).

Conclusion

Combination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2–3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.

Optimizing current treatment of gout

Gout is the most common inflammatory arthritis worldwide. Although effective treatments exist to eliminate sodium urate crystals and to 'cure' the disease, the management of gout is often suboptimal. This article reviews available treatments, recommended best practice and barriers to effective care, and how these barriers might be overcome. To optimize the management of gout, health professionals need to know not only how to treat acute attacks but also how to up-titrate urate-lowering therapy against a specific target level of serum uric acid that is below the saturation point for crystal formation. Current perspectives are changing towards much earlier use of urate-lowering therapy, even at the time of first diagnosis of gout. Holistic assessment and patient education are essential to address patient-specific risk factors and ensuring adherence to individualized therapy. Shared decision-making between a fully informed patient and practitioner greatly increases the likelihood of curing gout.

The intelligent use of systemic glucocorticoids in rheumatoid arthritis

Glucocorticoids (GC) have potent anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects and are widely used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis in combination with other disease-modifying anti-rheumatoid drugs. Concern about the risk of adverse effects may be to some extent misplaced as low to moderate doses of GC have different mechanisms of action and risk profiles compared with high doses. This review discusses the current understanding about the different modes of action of GC, their strong disease-modifying properties and the efforts at improving the therapeutic ratio of GC through the development of new drugs which promise greater safety such as selective GC receptor agonists, liposomal GC and modified-release (MR) prednisone.

EULAR evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations on the management of medium to high-dose glucocorticoid therapy in rheumatic diseases

To develop recommendations for the management of medium to high-dose (ie, >7.5 mg but ≤100 mg prednisone equivalent daily) systemic glucocorticoid (GC) therapy in rheumatic diseases. A multidisciplinary EULAR task force was formed, including rheumatic patients. After discussing the results of a general initial search on risks of GC therapy, each participant contributed 10 propositions on key clinical topics concerning the safe use of medium to high-dose GCs. The final recommendations were selected via a Delphi consensus approach. A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library was used to identify evidence concerning each of the propositions. The strength of recommendation was given according to research evidence, clinical expertise and patient preference. The 10 propositions regarded patient education and informing general practitioners, preventive measures for osteoporosis, optimal GC starting dosages, risk-benefit ratio of GC treatment, GC sparing therapy, screening for comorbidity, and monitoring for adverse effects. In general, evidence supporting the recommendations proved to be surprisingly weak. One of the recommendations was rejected, because of conflicting literature data. Nine final recommendations for the management of medium to high-dose systemic GC therapy in rheumatic diseases were selected and evaluated with their strengths of recommendations. Robust evidence was often lacking; a research agenda was created.

Histone deacetylase inhibitors as suppressors of bone destruction in inflammatory diseases

OBJECTIVES

Despite progress in developing many new anti-inflammatory treatments in the last decade, there has been little progress in finding treatments for bone loss associated with inflammatory diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis and periodontitis. For instance, treatment of rheumatic diseases with anti-tumour necrosis factor-alpha agents has been largely successful in reducing inflammation, but there have been varying reports regarding its effectiveness at inhibiting bone loss. In addition, there is often a delay in finding the appropriate anti-inflammatory therapy for individual patients, and some therapies, such as disease modifying drugs, take time to have an effect. In order to protect the bone, adjunct therapies targeting bone resorption are being developed. This review focuses on new treatments based on using histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) to suppress bone loss in these chronic inflammatory diseases.

KEY FINDINGS

A number of selected HDACi have been shown to suppress bone resorption by osteoclasts in vitro and in animal models of chronic inflammatory diseases. Recent reports indicate that these small molecules, which can be administered orally, could protect the bone and might be used in combination with current anti-inflammatory treatments.

SUMMARY

HDACi do have potential to suppress bone destruction in chronic inflammatory diseases including periodontitis and rheumatoid arthritis.

The association between systemic glucocorticoid therapy and the risk of infection in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of glucocorticoid (GC) therapy on the risk of infection in patients with RA.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database to January 2010 to identify studies among populations of patients with RA that reported a comparison of infection incidence between patients treated with GC therapy and patients not exposed to GC therapy.

RESULTS

In total, 21 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 42 observational studies were included. In the RCTs, GC therapy was not associated with a risk of infection (relative risk (RR), 0.97 (95% CI, 0.69, 1.36)). Small numbers of events in the RCTs meant that a clinically important increased or decreased risk could not be ruled out. The observational studies generated a RR of 1.67 (1.49, 1.87), although significant heterogeneity was present. The increased risk (and heterogeneity) persisted when analyses were stratified by varying definitions of exposure, outcome, and adjustment for confounders. A positive dose-response effect was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas observational studies suggested an increased risk of infection with GC therapy, RCTs suggested no increased risk. Inconsistent reporting of safety outcomes in the RCTs, as well as marked heterogeneity, probable residual confounding, and publication bias in the observational studies, limits the opportunity for a definitive conclusion. Clinicians should remain vigilant for infection in patients with RA treated with GC therapy.

Current view of glucocorticoid co-therapy with DMARDs in rheumatoid arthritis

Glucocorticoids are widely used anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The disease-modifying potential of low to medium doses of glucocorticoids has been reconfirmed in the past decade, and co-administration of DMARDs and glucocorticoids has become standard in many treatment protocols, especially those for early disease stages but also for long-standing RA. The glucocorticoid regimens used range from continuous low doses to intermittent high doses. Studies of the rationale for and clinical use of glucocorticoids as co-therapy with DMARDs in RA have shown that this approach has a place in modern (tight control) treatment strategies, and that glucocorticoid co-therapy has disease-modifying effects during the first 2 years of treatment in patients with early RA. Furthermore, medium and high doses of glucocorticoids are useful for bridging the interval between initiation of DMARDs and onset of their therapeutic effect. Intra-articular glucocorticoids give good local control and have been used in tight control strategies. New glucocorticoid compounds are becoming available for clinical use that might have an enhanced risk:benefit ratio. Better monitoring of glucocorticoid use will also improve this ratio, and help to allay both patient and rheumatologist concerns about treatment-related adverse effects.

Similar effects of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, glucocorticoids, and biologic agents on radiographic progression in rheumatoid arthritis: meta-analysis of 70 randomized placebo-controlled or drug-controlled studies, including 112 comparisons

OBJECTIVE

To define the differences in effects on joint destruction in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients between therapy with single and combination disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), glucocorticoids, and biologic agents.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials in RA patients, investigating the effects of drug treatment on the percentage of the annual radiographic progression rate (PARPR) were included in a meta-analysis performed with the use of Review Manager 5.0 software according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement protocol.

RESULTS

Data from 70 trials (112 comparisons, 16 interventions) were summarized in 21 meta-analyses. Compared with placebo, the PARPR was 0.65% smaller in the single-DMARD group (P < 0.002) and 0.54% smaller in the glucocorticoid group (P < 0.00001). Compared with single-DMARD treatment, the PARPR was 0.62% smaller in the combination-DMARD group (P < 0.001) and 0.61% smaller in the biologic agent plus methotrexate (MTX) group (P < 0.00001). The effect of a combination of 2 DMARDs plus step-down glucocorticoids did not differ from the effect of a biologic agent plus MTX (percentage mean difference -0.07% [95% confidence interval -0.25, 0.11]) (P = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with DMARDs, glucocorticoids, biologic agents, and combination agents significantly reduced radiographic progression at 1 year, with a relative effect of 48-84%. A direct comparison between the combination of a biologic agent plus MTX and the combination of 2 DMARDs plus initial glucocorticoids revealed no difference. Consequently, biologic agents should still be reserved for patients whose RA is resistant to DMARD therapy. Future trials of the effects of biologic agents on RA should compare such agents with combination treatments involving DMARDs and glucocorticoids.

Incident comorbidity among patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated or not with low-dose glucocorticoids: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of comorbidity in a cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), treated or not with low-dose glucocorticoids (GC) and who have been followed for at least 10 years.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study by review of medical records.

RESULTS

We identified 365 patients: 297 (81.3%) were GC users (4-6 mg methylprednisolone daily) and 68 (18.7%) were nonusers. We found that fragility fractures occurred in 18.2% of GC users and in 6.0% of GC nonusers (p < 0.02); arterial hypertension in 32.3% of GC users and in 10.4% of GC nonusers (p < 0.0005); acute myocardial infarction in 13.1% of GC users and in 1.5% of the nonusers (p < 0.01). Prevalence of diabetes mellitus, cataract, and infections was comparable. We divided GC users into groups of different duration of GC therapy: < 2, 2-5, and > 5 years; the mean duration of GC treatment was 1.3 ± 0.5, 3.6 ± 1.1, and 12.1 ± 5.1 years, respectively. GC treatment for > 5 years was associated with significantly higher prevalence of fragility fractures (26.6%; p < 0.001 vs the other groups), arterial hypertension (36.7%; p < 0.0002 vs nonusers and GC users < 2 years), myocardial infarction (16.1%; p < 0.01 vs nonusers), and infections (9.7%; p < 0.005 vs the other groups). GC treatment for 2-5 years was associated with a significantly higher prevalence of arterial hypertension (30.0%; p < 0.01) compared to nonusers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with RA treated with low-dose GC compared to patients never treated with GC show a higher prevalence of fractures, arterial hypertension, myocardial infarction, and serious infections, especially after 5 years of GC treatment. The high prevalence of myocardial infarction and fractures in patients with RA suggests that a more accurate identification of risk factors and prevention measures should be adopted when longterm GC treatment is needed.

Adverse effects of corticosteroid therapy in neuromuscular diseased patients are common and receive insufficient prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid therapy is known to have long-term adverse effects and complications, but our knowledge of the adverse effects of corticosteroids within a neuromuscular patient population is limited.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

We sought to determine the prevalence and impact of corticosteroid use in a population of patients with neuromuscular diseases, as well as possible clinical associations for presence of adverse effects.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review from a comprehensive database from a tertiary care neuromuscular clinic spanning 1988-2007 was performed.

RESULTS

Corticosteroids led to adverse effects in 74% of exposed patients, without proper prophylaxis considered in about 50% of cases. There were no associations determined to have impact upon adverse effect occurrence, including the exposure to cumulative corticosteroid dosing or diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Corticosteroid therapy is frequently associated with adverse effects, although prediction of their occurrence is not clear. Prophylaxis of their occurrence is underperformed in our tertiary care clinic patient population.

Drug delivery systems for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a severe immune-mediated disease characterized by chronically progressive inflammation and destruction of joints and associated structures. Significant advances in our understanding of its pathophysiology and early diagnosis have led to improved therapy and better outcome. Nevertheless, a number of details in the pathogenesis of RA are still unknown and thus the disease cannot be cured at present. Therefore, current therapy aims at accomplishing complete and long-lasting remission. However, this goal is only achieved in a small proportion of patients, and partial remission and frequent relapses are a common problem. A significant number of patients still do not respond at all to available treatments. In addition, all antirheumatic and immune-modulating drugs developed so far carry a considerable risk of adverse effects, some of which can be severe or even life threatening. This is due, at least in part, to a lack of specificity of most drugs for the target tissue, and to a high volume of distribution for systemic application, which, together with rapid clearance of most drugs, requires frequent application of high dosages. Targeted drug delivery and prolongation of bioavailability would alleviate this issue significantly. This article, therefore, reviews a selection of studies that report promising strategies for joint specific delivery of antiarthritic drugs.

Response-Driven Combination Therapy with Conventional Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Can Achieve High Response Rates in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis with Minimal Glucocorticoid and Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Use

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of combination therapy in recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with dose adjustments determined by response, in a clinic setting over 3 years.

METHODS

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with RA of median duration of 12 weeks (n = 61) attending an early arthritis clinic were treated with methotrexate, sulfasalazine, hydroxychloroquine, and fish oil. Dosage adjustments and additions of further DMARDs were contingent on response to therapy and tolerance. Outcome measures for efficacy were Disease Activity Score (DAS28), clinical remission, and modified Sharp radiographic score and for safety, adverse events, and DMARD withdrawal.

RESULTS

At baseline, subjects had at least moderately active disease (mean +/- SD DAS28 was 5.3 +/- 1.1), impaired function as measured by the modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) (0.9 +/- 0.5), and 37% had bone erosions. By 3 months, 29% were in remission; this increased to 54% at 3 years. The greatest fall in DAS28 and improvement in mHAQ scores occurred in the first 12 months. Erosions were detected in 62% at 3 years. The mean dose of parenteral glucocorticoid was equivalent to 0.1 mg/d of prednisolone. After 3 years, 48% remained on triple therapy; fish oil was consumed by 75% of patients, and 21% used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Gastrointestinal intolerance was the most frequent unwanted event (leading to DMARD withdrawal in 17 patients). Sulfasalazine was most frequently withdrawn (30%).

CONCLUSION

This implementation study demonstrates the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of combination therapy with inexpensive DMARDs, fish oil, and minimal glucocorticoid use, in routine clinical practice using predefined rules for dosage adjustment.

An update on glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Glucocorticoids are widely used, often long term, and a major side effect is osteoporosis and increased risk of fracture. This review considers how common is the problem, the patients who are most at risk, our current understanding of mechanisms, and how to prevent and effectively treat glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. The actions currently being undertaken in clinical practice are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is an increasing problem that occurs not only in those on high-dose therapy. Advances in our knowledge of the cellular and cytokine mechanisms of bone turnover and glucocorticoid mechanisms of action are leading to a better understanding of how glucocorticoids affect bone cells and novel ways of prevention. Although there are effective treatments to prevent and control glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis as well as guidelines for their use, they are still not being applied in routine clinical practice.

SUMMARY

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis is a significant problem. Although our understanding of effective prevention and treatment strategies is improving, there needs to be better implementation of these strategies.

Management of established rheumatoid arthritis with an emphasis on pharmacotherapy

The goals for the management of established rheumatoid arthritis (RA) differ slightly from the goals for the management of early RA. In established RA, in most cases, joint damage will be present, therefore the main goals are aimed at keeping the disease activity as low as possible to prevent joint damage progression. Furthermore, patients with RA have a reduced life expectancy, mainly due to co-morbid conditions such as cardiovascular disease. As in early disease, pharmacotherapy is the cornerstone of the management of patients with established RA. In this article we will discuss the characteristic manifestations of established RA, the pharmacological treatment strategies available for reaching the management goals of established RA, the role of prognostic factors and the measurements available for evaluating the outcomes of the management of individual patients with established RA in daily clinical practice.

Effects of glucocorticoids on radiological progression in rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Glucocorticoid use in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is widespread. Two Cochrane Reviews have been published examining the short term clinical benefit of low dose glucocorticoids compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and demonstrate good short term and medium term clinical benefits. The possibility that glucocorticoids may have a fundamental 'disease modifying' effect in RA, which would be seen by a reduction in the rate of radiological progression, has been raised by several authors.

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review of studies evaluating glucocorticoid efficacy in inhibiting the progression of radiological damage in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search of MEDLINE (from 1966 to 22 February 2005) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register was undertaken, using the terms 'corticosteroids' and 'rheumatoid arthritis' expanded according to the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Identified abstracts were reviewed and appropriate reports obtained in full. Additional reports were identified from the reference lists and from expert knowledge.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled or cross-over trials in adults with a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis in which prednisone or a similar glucocorticoid preparation was compared to either placebo controls or active controls (i.e. comparative studies) and where there was evaluation of radiographs of hands, or hands and feet, or feet by any standardised technique. Eligible studies had at least one treatment arm with glucocorticoids and one without glucocorticoids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardised data extraction obtain the mean and standard deviation (SD) of change in erosion scores over 1 year or 2 years. (Where SD for change was not given a conservative estimate was taken from baseline data.) At least two authors selected the studies and extracted the data. Radiographic erosion scores were expressed as a percentage of the maximum possible score for the method used. The results were pooled after weighting in a random effects model to provide a standardised mean difference (SMD).

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search produced 217 citations, and 15 were added from experts, abstracts and review of reference lists. Authors of 4 trials being prepared for publication (and subsequently published) kindly shared their data. After application of eligibility criteria 15 studies and 1,414 patients were included. The majority of trials studied early RA (disease duration up to 2 yrs), and the mean cumulative dose of glucocorticoid was 2,300 mg prednisone equivalent (range 270 mg - 5,800 mg) over the first year. Glucocorticoids were mostly added to other disease modifying anti-rheumatoid drug (DMARD) treatment. The standardised mean difference in progression was 0.40 in favour of glucocorticoids (95% CI 0.27, 0.54). In studies lasting 2 years (806 patients included), the standardised mean difference in progression in favour of glucocorticoids at 1 year was 0.45 (0.24, 0.66) and at 2 years was 0.42 (0.30, 0.55). All studies except one showed a numerical treatment effect in favour of glucocorticoids. The beneficial effects of glucocorticoids were generally achieved when used in conjunction with other DMARD treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Even in the most conservative estimate, the evidence that glucocorticoids given in addition to standard therapy can substantially reduce the rate of erosion progression in rheumatoid arthritis is convincing. There remains concern about potential long-term adverse reactions to glucocorticoid therapy, such as increased cardiovascular risk, and this issue requires further research.

Standards for performing DXA in individuals with secondary causes of osteoporosis

This document addresses skeletal health assessment in individuals with secondary causes of osteoporosis. Recommendations are based on consensus of the Canadian Panel of the International Society for Clinical Densitometry and invited international experts. Bone mineral density (BMD) testing in these populations is performed in conjunction with careful evaluation of the disease state contributing to bone loss and increased fragility fracture risk, as well as assessment of other contributing risk factors for fracture. The presence of secondary causes of bone loss may further increase the risk of fracture independently of BMD and may necessitate earlier pharmacologic intervention. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is indicated in the initial workup of secondary causes of osteoporosis. The BMD fracture risk relationship is not known for individuals with chronic renal failure (CRF). The BMD testing in this population may be normal in the presence of skeletal fragility, and quantitative bone histomorphometry is better at evaluating skeletal status than BMD in CRF. Dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry is a valuable tool in assessing skeletal health in individuals with secondary causes of osteoporosis.