Explore the vast range of titles available.

SummaryVertebral fractures are independent risk factors for vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. Since vertebral fractures are often missed, the relatively new introduction of vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) for imaging of the lateral spine during DXA-measurement of the spine and hips may contribute to detect vertebral fractures. We advocate performing a VFA in all patients with a recent fracture visiting a fracture liaison service (FLS). Fracture liaison services (FLS) are important service models for delivering secondary fracture prevention for older adults presenting with a fragility fracture. While commonly age, clinical risk factors (including fracture site and number of prior fracture) and BMD play a crucial role in determining fracture risk and indications for treatment with antiosteoporosis medications, prevalent vertebral fractures usually remain undetected. However, vertebral fractures are important independent risk factors for future vertebral and nonvertebral fractures. A development of the DXA technology, vertebral fracture assessment (VFA), allows for assessment of the lateral spine during the regular DXA bone mineral density measurement of the lumbar spine and hips. Recent approaches to the stratification of antiosteoporosis medication type according to baseline fracture risk, and differences by age in the indication for treatment by prior fracture mean that additional information from VFA may influence initiation and type of treatment. Furthermore, knowledge of baseline vertebral fractures allows reliable definition of incident vertebral fracture events during treatment, which may modify the approach to therapy. In this manuscript, we will discuss the epidemiology and clinical significance of vertebral fractures, the different methods of detecting vertebral fractures, and the rationale for, and implications of, use of VFA routinely in FLS.Summary points• Vertebral fracture assessment is a tool available on modern DXA instruments and has proven ability to detect vertebral fractures, the majority of which occur without a fall and without the signs and symptoms of an acute fracture.• Most osteoporosis guidelines internationally suggest that treatment with antiosteoporosis medications should be considered for older individuals (e.g., 65 years +) with a recent low trauma fracture without the need for DXA.• Younger individuals postfracture may be risk-assessed on the basis of FRAX® probability including DXA and associated treatment thresholds.• Future fracture risk is markedly influenced by both site, number, severity, and recency of prior fracture; awareness of baseline vertebral fractures facilitates definition of true incident vertebral fracture events occurring during antiosteoporosis treatment.• Detection of previously clinically silent vertebral fractures, defining site of prior fracture, might alter treatment decisions in younger or older FLS patients, consistent with recent IOF-ESCEO guidance on baseline-risk-stratified therapy, and provides a reliable baseline from which to define new, potentially therapy-altering, vertebral fracture events.

The therapeutic armamentarium for rheumatoid arthritis has increased substantially over the last 20 years. Historically antirheumatic treatment was started late in the disease course and frequently included prolonged high-dose glucocorticoid treatment which was associated with accelerated generalised bone loss and increased vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk. Newer biologic and targeted synthetic treatments and a combination of conventional synthetic DMARDs prevent accelerated systemic bone loss and may even allow repair of cortical bone erosions. Emerging data also gives new insight on the impact of long-term conventional synthetic DMARDs on bone health and fracture risk and highlights the need for ongoing studies for better understanding of “established therapeutics”. An interesting new antirheumatic treatment effect is the potential of erosion repair with the use of biologic DMARDs and janus kinase inhibitors. Although several newer anti-rheumatic drugs seem to have favorable effects on bone mineral density in RA patients, these effects are modest and do not seem to influence the fracture risk thus far. We summarize recent developments and findings of the impact of anti-rheumatic treatments on localized and systemic bone integrity and health.

IntroductionRheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common systemic autoimmune disease of unknown cause, characterized by a chronic, symmetric, and progressive inflammatory polyarthritis. One of the most deleterious effects induced by the chronic inflammation of RA is bone loss. During the last 15 years, the better knowledge of the cytokine network involved in RA allowed the development of potent inhibitors of the inflammatory process classified as biological DMARDs. These new drugs are very effective in the inhibition of inflammation, but there are only few studies regarding their role in bone protection. The principal aim of this review was to show the evidence of the principal biologic therapies and bone loss in RA, focusing on their effects on bone mineral density, bone turnover markers, and fragility fractures.MethodsUsing the PICOST methodology, two coauthors (PC, LM-S) conducted the search using the following MESH terms: rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, clinical trials, TNF- antagonists, infliximab, adalimumab, etanercept, certolizumab, golimumab, IL-6 antagonists, IL-1 antagonists, abatacept, tocilizumab, rituximab, bone mineral density, bone markers, and fractures. The search was conducted electronically and manually from the following databases: Medline and Science Direct. The search period included articles from 2003 to 2015. The selection included only original adult human research written in English. Titles were retrieved and the same two authors independently selected the relevant studies for a full text. The retrieved selected studies were also reviewed completing the search for relevant articles. The first search included 904 titles from which 253 titles were selected. The agreement on the selection among researchers resulted in a Kappa statistic of 0.95 (p < 0.000). Only 248 abstracts evaluated were included in the acronym PICOST. The final selection included only 28 studies, derived from the systematic search. Additionally, a manual search in the bibliography of the selected articles was made and included into the text and into the section of “small molecules of new agents.”ConclusionTreatment with biologic drugs is associated with the decrease in bone loss. Studies with anti-TNF blocking agents show preservation or increase in spine and hip BMD and also a better profile of bone markers. Most of these studies were performed with infliximab. Only three epidemiological studies analyzed the effect on fractures after anti-TNF blocking agent’s treatment. IL-6 blocking agents also showed improvement in localized bone loss not seen with anti-TNF agents. There are a few studies with rituximab and abatacept. Although several studies reported favorable actions of biologic therapies on bone protection, there are still unmet needs for studies regarding their actions on the risk of bone fractures.

Objectives:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have an increased cardiovascular risk, but the magnitude of this risk is not known precisely. A study was undertaken to investigate the associations between RA and type 2 diabetes (DM2), a well-established cardiovascular risk factor, on the one hand, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) on the other.Methods:The prevalence of CVD (coronary, cerebral and peripheral arterial disease) was determined in 353 randomly selected outpatients with RA (diagnosed between 1989 and 2001, aged 50–75 years; the CARRÉ study) and in participants of a population-based cohort study on diabetes and CVD (the Hoorn study). Patients with RA with normal fasting glucose levels from the CARRÉ study (RA, n = 294) were compared with individuals from the Hoorn study with normal glucose metabolism (non-diabetic, n = 258) and individuals with DM2 (DM2, n = 194).Results:The prevalence of CVD was 5.0% (95% CI 2.3% to 7.7%) in the non-diabetic group, 12.4% (95% CI 7.5% to 17.3%) in the DM2 group and 12.9% (95% CI 8.8% to 17.0%) in those with RA. With non-diabetic individuals as the reference category, the age- and gender-adjusted prevalence odds ratio (OR) for CVD was 2.3 (95% CI 1.1 to 4.7) for individuals with DM2 and 3.1 (95% CI 1.6 to 6.1) for those with RA. There was an attenuation of the prevalences after adjustment for conventional cardiovascular risk factors (OR 2.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 4.5) and 2.7 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.9), respectively).Conclusions:The prevalence of CVD in RA is increased to an extent that is at least comparable to that of DM2. This should have implications for primary cardiovascular prevention strategies in RA.

Osteoarthritis affects the whole joint structure with progressive changes in cartilage, menisci, ligaments and subchondral bone, and synovial inflammation. Biomarkers are being developed to quantify joint remodelling and disease progression. This article was prepared following a working meeting of the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis convened to discuss the value of biochemical markers of matrix metabolism in drug development in osteoarthritis. The best candidates are generally molecules or molecular fragments present in cartilage, bone or synovium and may be specific to one type of joint tissue or common to them all. Many currently investigated biomarkers are associated with collagen metabolism in cartilage or bone, or aggrecan metabolism in cartilage. Other biomarkers are related to non-collagenous proteins, inflammation and/or fibrosis. Biomarkers in osteoarthritis can be categorised using the burden of disease, investigative, prognostic, efficacy of intervention, diagnostic and safety classification. There are a number of promising candidates, notably urinary C-terminal telopeptide of collagen type II and serum cartilage oligomeric protein, although none is sufficiently discriminating to differentiate between individual patients and controls (diagnostic) or between patients with different disease severities (burden of disease), predict prognosis in individuals with or without osteoarthritis (prognostic) or perform so consistently that it could function as a surrogate outcome in clinical trials (efficacy of intervention). Future avenues for research include exploration of underlying mechanisms of disease and development of new biomarkers; technological development; the ‘omics’ (genomics, metabolomics, proteomics and lipidomics); design of aggregate scores combining a panel of biomarkers and/or imaging markers into single diagnostic algorithms; and investigation into the relationship between biomarkers and prognosis.

SummaryA panel of European experts was convened to establish consensus on a treat-to-target strategy in osteoporosis. Panellists agreed that the ultimate goals of treating osteoporosis are recovering pre-fracture functional level and reducing subsequent fracture risk; there was consensus that total hip bone mineral density is currently the most appropriate treatment target in clinical practice.IntroductionA modified Delphi approach was convened to establish consensus among European experts on best practice management for patients with fragility fractures and whether a treat-to-target (T2T) strategy is applicable in osteoporosis.MethodsA panel of 12 clinical experts (from eight European countries) voted on 13 final statements relating to a T2T strategy for osteoporosis across three rounds of blinded, remotely conducted electronic surveys (Likert scale: ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘unable to answer’, ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’). When panellists disagreed, they were asked how the statement could be adjusted to allow for a positive response, which was used to refine the statement for the following round. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% agreement with a statement. Panellists were selected by UCB Pharma, which provided financial and logistical support.ResultsConsensus was reached for 13/13 statements. Panellists agreed that the most important goals for fragility fracture patients are recovery of pre-fracture functional level and reduction of subsequent fracture risk. There was also consensus that a T2T strategy is applicable to osteoporosis and that bone mineral density (BMD) is currently the most clinically appropriate target. With regard to the definition of a specific BMD treatment target and timeframes applicable to T2T in osteoporosis, no clear consensus was reached; panellists emphasised that these would need to be individually determined.ConclusionsAccording to a panel of European experts, the main goals of fracture management are to recover pre-fracture functional level and reduce fracture risk. Total hip BMD seems to be the most clinically appropriate treatment target within a T2T strategy.

Objective To investigate how antibodies against anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents influence response after switching from infliximab to adalimumab in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods This cohort study consisted of 235 patients with RA, all treated with adalimumab. At baseline 52 patients (22%) had been previously treated with infliximab (‘switchers’), and 183 (78%) were anti-TNF naive. Disease activity (using the 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28)) and presence of antibodies against infliximab and adalimumab were assessed. Clinical response to adalimumab was compared between switchers and anti-TNF naive patients and their anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody status. Results After 28 weeks of adalimumab treatment the decrease in DAS28 (ΔDAS28) for the 235 patients was 1.6±1.5 (mean±SD). Anti-adalimumab antibodies were detected in 46 patients (20%). ΔDAS28 was 1.8±1.4 in patients without anti-adalimumab and 0.6±1.3 in patients with anti-adalimumab (p<0.0001). Thirty-three of the 52 switchers (63%) had anti-infliximab antibodies. Patients with anti-infliximab more often developed anti-adalimumab than anti-TNF naive patients (11 (33%) vs 32 (18%); p=0.039). ΔDAS28 was greater for anti-TNF naive patients (1.7±1.5) than for switchers without anti-infliximab antibodies (ΔDAS28=0.9±1.4) (p=0.009). ΔDAS28 for switchers with anti-infliximab was 1.2±1.3 and did not differ significantly from anti-TNF naive patients (p=0.262). Conclusion Switchers with anti-infliximab antibodies more often develop antibodies against adalimumab than anti-TNF naive patients. Response to adalimumab was limited in switchers without anti-infliximab antibodies, which raises the question whether a second anti-TNF treatment should be offered to patients with RA for whom an initial treatment with an anti-TNF blocker fails, in the absence of anti-biological antibodies.

Purpose of Review We review the literature about patients 50 years and older with a recent clinical fracture for the presence of skeletal and extra-skeletal risks, their perspectives of imminent subsequent fracture, falls, mortality, and other risks, and on the role of the fracture liaison service (FLS) for timely secondary fracture prevention. Recent Findings Patients with a recent clinical fracture present with heterogeneous patterns of bone-, fall-, and comorbidity-related risks. Short-term perspectives include bone loss, increased risk of fractures, falls, and mortality, and a decrease in physical performance and quality of life. Combined evaluation of bone, fall risk, and the presence of associated comorbidities contributes to treatment strategies. Summary Since fractures are related to interactions of bone-, fall-, and comorbidity-related risks, there is no one-single-discipline-fits-all approach but a need for a multidisciplinary approach at the FLS to consider all phenotypes for evaluation and treatment in an individual patient.

Summary In this observational study in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the incidence of fractures was decreased during 18 months of teriparatide treatment with no evidence of further change in the subsequent 18-month post-teriparatide period when most patients took other osteoporosis medications. Fracture reduction was accompanied by reductions in back pain. Introduction To describe fracture outcomes and back pain in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis during 18 months of teriparatide treatment and 18 months post-teriparatide in normal clinical practice. Methods The European Forsteo Observational Study (EFOS) was a prospective, multinational, observational study. Data on incident clinical fractures and back pain (100 mm Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] and questionnaire) were collected. Fracture data were summarised in 6-month intervals and analysed using logistic regression with repeated measures. Changes from baseline in back pain VAS were analysed using a repeated measures model. Results A total of 208 (13.2%) of 1,576 patients sustained 258 fractures during 36 months of follow-up: 34% were clinical vertebral fractures and 66% non-vertebral fractures. The adjusted odds of fracture were reduced during teriparatide treatment and there was no evidence of further change in the 18-month post-teriparatide period, during which 63.3% patients took bisphosphonates. A 74% decrease in the adjusted odds of fracture in the 30- to <36-month period compared with the first 6-month period was observed ( p  < 0.001). Back pain decreased during teriparatide treatment and this decrease was sustained after teriparatide discontinuation. Adjusted mean back pain VAS decreased by 26.3 mm after 36 months ( p  < 0.001) from baseline mean of 57.8 mm. Conclusions In a real-life clinical setting, the risk of fracture decreased during teriparatide treatment, with no evidence of further change after teriparatide was discontinued. The changes in back pain seen during treatment were maintained for at least 18 months after teriparatide discontinuation. These results should be interpreted in the context of the design of an observational study.