2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to update recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) for patients with rheumatic or nonrheumatic conditions receiving >3 months treatment with glucocorticoids (GCs) ≥2.5 mg daily. METHODS: An updated systematic literature review was performed for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential therapy. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A Voting Panel achieved ≥70% consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: For adults beginning or continuing >3 months of GC treatment, we strongly recommend as soon as possible after initiation of GCs, initial assessment of fracture risks with clinical fracture assessment, bone mineral density with vertebral fracture assessment or spinal x-ray, and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool if ≥40 years old. For adults at medium, high, or very high fracture risk, we strongly recommend pharmacologic treatment. Choice of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, or parathyroid hormone analogs should be made by shared decision-making. Anabolic agents are conditionally recommended as initial therapy for those with high and very high fracture risk. Recommendations are made for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, people who may become pregnant, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment. New recommendations for both discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy and sequential therapies are included. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for management of GIOP. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

2022 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective is to update recommendations for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) for patients with rheumatic or nonrheumatic conditions receiving >3 months treatment with glucocorticoids (GCs) ≥2.5 mg daily. METHODS: An updated systematic literature review was performed for clinical questions on nonpharmacologic, pharmacologic treatments, discontinuation of medications, and sequential therapy. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A Voting Panel achieved ≥70% consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: For adults beginning or continuing >3 months of GC treatment, we strongly recommend as soon as possible after initiation of GCs, initial assessment of fracture risks with clinical fracture assessment, bone mineral density with vertebral fracture assessment or spinal x-ray, and Fracture Risk Assessment Tool if ≥40 years old. For adults at medium, high, or very high fracture risk, we strongly recommend pharmacologic treatment. Choice of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates, denosumab, or parathyroid hormone analogs should be made by shared decision-making. Anabolic agents are conditionally recommended as initial therapy for those with high and very high fracture risk. Recommendations are made for special populations, including children, people with organ transplants, people who may become pregnant, and people receiving very high-dose GC treatment. New recommendations for both discontinuation of osteoporosis therapy and sequential therapies are included. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides direction for clinicians and patients making treatment decisions for management of GIOP. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies.

Safety of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections in Osteoarthritis: Outcomes of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Some controversy exists regarding the safety of intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) in the management of osteoarthritis (OA). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to re-assess the safety profile of IAHA in patients with OA, through a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with IAHA in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Authors and/or study sponsors were contacted to obtain the full report of AEs. The primary outcomes were overall severe and serious AEs, as well as the following MedDRA System Organ Class (SOC)-related AEs: gastrointestinal, cardiac, vascular, respiratory, nervous system, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, musculoskeletal, renal and urinary disorders, infections and infestations, and hypersensitivity reaction. RESULTS: Database searches initially identified 1481 records. After exclusions according to the selection criteria, 22 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and nine studies having adequate data were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. From the studies excluded according to the pre-specified selection criteria, 21 with other pharmacological OA treatments permitted during the trials were a posteriori included in a parallel qualitative synthesis, from which eight studies with adequate data were finally included in a parallel meta-analysis. Since this meta-analysis was designed to assess safety, the exclusion criterion on concomitant anti-OA medication was crucial. However, due to the high number of studies that allowed mainly concomitant oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), we decided to include them in a post hoc parallel analysis in order to compare the results from the two analyses. No statistically significant difference in odds was found between IAHA and placebo for all types of SOC-related disorders, except for infections and infestations, for which significantly lower odds were found with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (odds ratio [OR] = 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.93; I2 = 0%) and in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89). There were significant increased odds of reporting serious AEs with IAHA compared with placebo, both overall (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.21-2.63; I2 = 0%) and in studies with concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.10-2.89), but not in studies without concomitant anti-OA medication (OR = 1.78, 95% CI 0.92-3.47). CONCLUSIONS: Using the available data on studies without any concomitant anti-OA medication permitted during clinical trials, IAHA seems not to be associated with any safety issue in the management of OA. However, this evidence was associated with only a "low" to "moderate" certainty. A possible association with increased risk of serious AEs, particularly when used with concomitant OA medications, requires further investigation.

Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO).

BACKGROUND: There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses. METHODS: Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs. RESULTS: These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.

Can we identify patients with high risk of osteoarthritis progression who will respond to treatment? A focus on epidemiology and phenotype of osteoarthritis.

Osteoarthritis is a syndrome affecting a variety of patient profiles. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society working meeting explored the possibility of identifying different patient profiles in osteoarthritis. The risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis include systemic factors (e.g., age, sex, obesity, genetics, race, and bone density) and local biomechanical factors (e.g., obesity, sport, joint injury, and muscle weakness); most also predict disease progression, particularly joint injury, malalignment, and synovitis/effusion. The characterization of patient profiles should help to better orientate research, facilitate trial design, and define which patients are the most likely to benefit from treatment. There are a number of profile candidates. Generalized, polyarticular osteoarthritis and local, monoarticular osteoarthritis appear to be two different profiles; the former is a feature of osteoarthritis co-morbid with inflammation or the metabolic syndrome, while the latter is more typical of post-trauma osteoarthritis, especially in cases with severe malalignment. Other biomechanical factors may also define profiles, such as joint malalignment, loss of meniscal function, and ligament injury. Early- and late-stage osteoarthritis appear as separate profiles, notably in terms of treatment response. Finally, there is evidence that there are two separate profiles related to lesions in the subchondral bone, which may determine benefit from bone-active treatments. Decisions on appropriate therapy should be made considering clinical presentation, underlying pathophysiology, and stage of disease. Identification of patient profiles may lead to more personalized healthcare, with more targeted treatment for osteoarthritis.

Phase 1 safety and tolerability study of BMP-7 in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: There are no proven therapies that modify the structural changes associated with osteoarthritis (OA). Preclinical data suggests that intra-articular recombinant human BMP-7 (bone morphogenetic protein-7) has reparative effects on cartilage, as well as on symptoms of joint pain. The objective of this study was to determine the safety and tolerability as well as dose-limiting toxicity and maximal tolerated dose of intra-articular BMP-7. The secondary objectives were to determine the effect on symptomatic responses through 24 weeks. METHODS: This was a Phase 1, double-blind, randomized, multi-center, placebo-controlled, single-dose escalation safety study consisting of 4 dosing cohorts in participants with knee OA. Each cohort was to consist of 8 treated participants, with treatment allocation in a 3:1 active (intra-articular BMP-7) to placebo ratio. Eligible participants were persons with symptomatic radiographic knee OA over the age of 40. The primary objective of this study was to determine the safety and tolerability of BMP-7 including laboratory assessments, immunogenicity data and radiographic assessments. Secondary objectives were to determine the proportion of participants with a 20%, 50%, and 70% improvement in the WOMAC pain and function subscales at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks. Other secondary outcomes included the change from baseline to 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks for the OARSI responder criteria. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 60 years and 73% were female. All 33 participants who were enrolled completed the study and most adverse events were mild or moderate and were similar in placebo and BMP-7 groups. The 1 mg BMP-7 group showed a higher frequency of injection site pain and there was no ectopic bone formation seen on plain x-rays. By week 12, most participants in both the BMP-7 and placebo groups experienced a 20% improvement in pain and overall the BMP-7 group was similar to placebo with regard to this measurement. In the participants who received 0.1 mg and 0.3 mg BMP-7, there was a trend toward greater symptomatic improvement than placebo. The other secondary endpoints showed similar trends including the OARSI responder criteria for which the BMP-7 groups had more responders than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: There was no dose limiting toxicity identified in this study. The suggestion of a symptom response, together with the lack of dose limiting toxicity provide further support for the continued development of this product for the treatment of osteoarthritis.

Changes in barometric pressure and ambient temperature influence osteoarthritis pain.

PURPOSE: Individuals with osteoarthritis often assert that change in the weather influences their pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. Our objective was to determine if short-term weather parameters influence knee osteoarthritis pain. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal analysis of pain reports from a 3-month clinical trial among individuals with knee osteoarthritis dispersed across the United States. Daily values for temperature, barometric pressure, dew point, precipitation, and relative humidity were obtained from the weather station closest to each participant. We used a longitudinal mixed-model random effects analysis with a first-order autoregressive error structure to test for associations while accounting for within-patient correlation. RESULTS: The study included 200 participants with knee osteoarthritis. Their mean age was 60 years (standard deviation [SD] 9.4), 64% were female, and 10.5% were African American or Hispanic. They had a mean body mass index of 32.5 kg/m2 (SD 8.4) and a baseline WOMAC pain score of 9.0 (SD 3.4). There were consistent associations of pressure change and ambient temperature with pain severity (change in barometric pressure, coefficient = 1.14, P = .02, ambient temperature = -0.01, P = .004; adjusted mutually and for age, gender, body mass index, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, opiate use, and prior pain score). Interaction terms between change in barometric pressure and ambient temperature had no influence in the models. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in barometric pressure and ambient temperature are independently associated with osteoarthritis knee pain severity.

Can clinical trials requiring frequent participant contact be conducted over the Internet? Results from an online randomized controlled trial evaluating a topical ointment for herpes labialis.

BACKGROUND: The Internet has tremendous appeal for conducting randomized clinical trials and may be especially applicable to trials requiring frequent participant contact. Trials of cold sore remedies, for example, often require daily clinic visits during outbreaks, imposing substantial burden on participants. An Internet-based randomized clinical trial design may reduce this burden, permitting frequent symptom reports with considerably less effort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a Web-based randomized clinical trial requiring frequent participant interaction, using a 6-month, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot trial of a topical ointment containing dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS) (Zilex; Meditech Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA) intended for treatment of recurrent herpes labialis. A secondary objective was to obtain preliminary data on effectiveness outcomes, to assist in planning a fully-powered trial of DSS. METHODS: Adults with physician-confirmed herpes labialis were recruited to apply to the trial. Eligible applicants were randomized to DSS or placebo, mailed to them upon enrolment with instructions to apply topically every 2 hours for the duration of every cold sore outbreak. Participants were instructed to complete online questionnaires at 2-week intervals and, at the initiation of a cold sore, daily "outbreak questionnaires" until outbreak termination. Feasibility outcome measures included trial participant characteristics, frequency of cold sores, participant retention and adherence (to study medication), and data completeness. Treatment effectiveness outcome measures included outbreak duration, days to crust formation, and pain. RESULTS: Of the 292 individuals applying, 182 screened eligible; 32 participants with confirmed herpes labialis enrolled in the trial. 16 were randomized into the verum group and 16 into the placebo group. 29 (91%) participants completed the trial. During the trial, 34 outbreaks were reported among 23 (72%) participants, resulting in a cold sore incidence rate of 19.8 per 100 person-months of observation. Online data were available for 32 outbreaks; the absence of a resolution date made it impossible to accurately calculate the duration of 12 (38%) outbreaks. Although the DSS treatment group had a shorter mean outbreak duration (6.6 vs 7.7 days, P =.2) and fewer mean days to crust formation (3.5 vs 4.9, P =.1), these differences did not reach statistical significance. The DSS group has statistically significant lower mean pain scores (3.1 vs 7.6, P =.04), but participants in this group also consumed more acetaminophen tablets than the placebo group (1.1 versus 0.5, P=.55). Adherence to medication was similar in both groups: 7 (50%) of the verum group reported using the cream as directed compared to 6 (46.2%) in the placebo group; (P =.8). CONCLUSIONS: We efficiently recruited participants and achieved high overall retention rates. However, participant adherence to the daily outbreak visit schedules was low and only 7 (50%) participants used the cream as directed. These limitations could be addressed in future Internet-based studies by using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), using reminder devices, and providing incentives. By enhancing participant adherence, clinical trials requiring frequent participant contact may be feasible over the Internet.

Why are clinical trials of glucosamine no longer uniformly positive?

In contrast to earlier industry-funded trials of for knee OA, recent studies have generated negative results. While there will be a tendency to assume that these studies were negative because of the absence of any conflicts of interest, a number of issues must be taken into consideration before drawing such conclusions. These issues include design issues and important differences in sample characteristics. Ultimately, it is clear that more work needs to be done to clarify issues surrounding the efficacy and utility of the various glucosamine compounds.

Environmental factors predicting nephritis in systemic lupus erythematosus

OBJECTIVES - To evaluate social class, ethnic origin, and various endocrine variables as potential risk factors in the development of nephritis in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). METHODS - A cross-sectional survey was carried out of all outpatients with SLE attending the lupus clinic of St Thomas's Hospital from March to October 1992 using retrospective survival data. The main outcome measure was to duration of SLE before the onset of nephritis. RESULTS - Two hundred and ninety six women and 11 men were studied; the male patients were excluded from the analysis. Univariate analysis showed an increased risk of nephritis in patients with SLE of West Indian origin with 54 v 19 percent with nephritis at five years, in patients of lower social class, in patients who did not drink alcohol and in those with a history of fetal loss after the onset of lupus. No significant effect of the age of onset of SLE, use of oral contraceptives, normal pregnancy, or smoking was seen. Multivariate analysis showed that ethnic origin did not infulence the risk of nephritis independently of social class. CONCLUSIONS - Factors associated with socioeconomic deprivation may increase disease severity in patients with SLE (AU)