Search

Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Normal bone remodeling depends of a balance between bone forming cells, osteoblasts and bone resorbing cells, the osteoclasts. In chronic arthritides and some inflammatory and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, there is a great constellation of cytokines produced by pannus that impair bone formation and stimulate bone resorption by inducing osteoclast differentiation and inhibiting osteoblast maturation. Patients with chronic inflammation have multiple causes that lead to low bone mineral density, osteoporosis and a high risk of fracture including circulating cytokines, impaired mobility, chronic administration of glucocorticoids, low vitamin D levels and post-menopausal status in women, among others. Biologic agents and other therapeutic measures to reach prompt remission might ameliorate these deleterious effects. In many cases, bone acting agents need to be added to conventional treatment to reduce the risk of fractures and to preserve articular integrity and independency for daily living activities. A limited number of studies related to fractures in chronic arthritides were published, and future investigation is needed to determine the risk of fractures and the protective effects of different treatments to reduce this risk., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Guidelines and recommendations developed and endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are intended to provide guidance for particular pattern of practice for physicians who usually prescribe glucocorticoid (GC) therapy, and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. Adherence to the recommendations within this guideline is voluntary and the ultimate determination regarding their application should be made by the physician in light of each patient's circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote a desirable outcome but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. This guideline and its recommendations are not intended to dictate payment, reimbursement or insurance decisions. Guidelines and recommendations are subjected to periodic revisions as a consequence of the evolution of medicine, technology and clinical practice. A panel of Latin American (LATAM) experts specialized in osteoporosis with recognized clinical experience in managing patients with glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO) met to produce evidence-based LATAM recommendations for the diagnosis and management of GIO. These guidelines are particularly intended to general practitioners and primary care physicians who prescribe GC treatments in LATAM to guide their daily clinical practice in terms of evaluation, prevention and treatment of GIO. These recommendations were based on systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and COCHRANE Library database during the period from 2012 to 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCT), systematic reviews of RCT, controlled observational studies, guidelines and consensus were considered. Based on the review and expert opinion the panel members voted recommendations during two successive rounds of voting by panel members. Agreements for each statement were considered if a concordance of at least 70% was achieved following Delphi methodology. Grading of recommendations was made according to the Oxford Centre for the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) criteria. Among five GIO guidelines and consensus initially identified, two of them (American College of Rheumatology 2017 and the Brazilian Guidelines 2021) were selected for comparison considering the latter as the most current guides in the LATAM region. Based on this methodology fifty statements were issued. All of them but four (1.20, 1.21, 1.23 and 4.2) attained agreement., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Hip fracture incidence rates in three representative geographic areas in Brazil over a period of 2 years (2010-2012) were assessed for the first time. Estimated incidence rates varied regionally, and markedly differed from those previously reported. Thus, national guidelines as well as FRAX Brazil should be revised in light of this new data., Purpose: To determine the annual incidence of hip fractures in individuals aged 50 years and over, living in 3 cities located in different regions of the country. To investigate the age, gender, and regional differences in fracture rates. Based on the obtained data, to estimate the national incidence of hip fractures resulting from osteoporosis, in order to improve prevention strategies., Methods: Retrospective, observational study including all patients aged ≥ 50 years admitted in hospitals because of a hip fracture in three cities (Belem, Joinville, and Vitoria) from representative geographic areas in Brazil from 2010 to 2012. Data were obtained from medical records in those cities. We analyzed incidence rates (crude and age- and gender-standardized rates) for hip fractures., Results: There were 1025 (310 in men and 715 in women) hip fractures in the over 50-year-old merged population from the three cities. The crude incidence rate for hip fracture was 103.3/100,000 (95% confidence interval [CI = 97.0; 109.7), in men 77.4/100,000 (95% CI = 68.8; 86.0), and in women 125.2/100,000 (95% CI = 116.0; 134.4). Incidence standardized for age and gender was 105.9 cases per 100,000 persons per year (95% CI = 99.4; 112.4); 78.5 cases per 100,000 (95% CI = 69.8; 87.3) in men and 130.6 cases 100,000 in women (95% CI = 121.0, 140.2) per year. Belem, located in the equatorial region (latitude 1° 27' S), had significantly lower crude and age-adjusted incidence than Joinville (latitude 26° 18' S) and Vitoria (latitude 20° 19' S), which were no different from each other. The incidence of fractures increased exponentially with age, and women had about twice the risk of fractures than men., Conclusions: Hip fracture mainly affects elderly women and presents great variability in incidence between the different regions in Brazil. The incidence of hip fractures in Brazil differed markedly from that reported previously, so that national guidelines and the FRAX model for Brazil should be revised., (© 2022. International Osteoporosis Foundation and National Osteoporosis Foundation.)

Background: Active immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech) has been a critical mitigation tool against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. In light of reports of waning protection occurring 6 months after the primary two-dose vaccine series, data are needed on the safety and efficacy of offering a third (booster) dose in persons 16 years of age or older., Methods: In this ongoing, placebo-controlled, randomized, phase 3 trial, we assigned participants who had received two 30-μg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least 6 months earlier to be injected with a third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine or with placebo. We assessed vaccine safety and efficacy against Covid-19 starting 7 days after the third dose., Results: A total of 5081 participants received a third BNT162b2 dose and 5044 received placebo. The median interval between dose 2 and dose 3 was 10.8 months in the vaccine group and 10.7 months in the placebo group; the median follow-up was 2.5 months. Local and systemic reactogenicity events from the third dose were generally of low grade. No new safety signals were identified, and no cases of myocarditis or pericarditis were reported. Among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated, Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after dose 3 was observed in 6 participants in the vaccine group and in 123 participants in the placebo group, which corresponded to a relative vaccine efficacy of 95.3% (95% confidence interval, 89.5 to 98.3)., Conclusions: A third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine administered a median of 10.8 months after the second dose provided 95.3% efficacy against Covid-19 as compared with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine during a median follow-up of 2.5 months. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591031 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: This ongoing follow-up study evaluated the persistence of efficacy and immune responses for 6 additional years in adults vaccinated with the glycoprotein E (gE)-based adjuvanted recombinant zoster vaccine (RZV) at age ≥50 years in 2 pivotal efficacy trials (ZOE-50 and ZOE-70). The present interim analysis was performed after ≥2 additional years of follow-up (between 5.1 and 7.1 years [mean] post-vaccination) and includes partial data for year (Y) 8 post-vaccination., Methods: Annual assessments were performed for efficacy against herpes zoster (HZ) from Y6 post-vaccination and for anti-gE antibody concentrations and gE-specific CD4[2+] T-cell (expressing ≥2 of 4 assessed activation markers) frequencies from Y5 post-vaccination., Results: Of 7413 participants enrolled for the long-term efficacy assessment, 7277 (mean age at vaccination, 67.2 years), 813, and 108 were included in the cohorts evaluating efficacy, humoral immune responses, and cell-mediated immune responses, respectively. Efficacy of RZV against HZ through this interim analysis was 84.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.9-89.8) from the start of this follow-up study and 90.9% (95% CI, 88.2-93.2) from vaccination in ZOE-50/70. Annual vaccine efficacy estimates were >84% for each year since vaccination and remained stable through this interim analysis. Anti-gE antibody geometric mean concentrations and median frequencies of gE-specific CD4[2+] T cells reached a plateau at approximately 6-fold above pre-vaccination levels., Conclusions: Efficacy against HZ and immune responses to RZV remained high, suggesting that the clinical benefit of RZV in older adults is sustained for at least 7 years post-vaccination. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02723773., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable., Methods: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-μg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination., Results: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed., Conclusions: Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The Active-Controlled Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women With Osteoporosis at High Risk (ARCH) trial (NCT01631214; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01631214) showed that romosozumab for 1 year followed by alendronate led to larger areal bone mineral density (aBMD) gains and superior fracture risk reduction versus alendronate alone. aBMD correlates with bone strength but does not capture all determinants of bone strength that might be differentially affected by various osteoporosis therapeutic agents. We therefore used quantitative computed tomography (QCT) and finite element analysis (FEA) to assess changes in lumbar spine volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD), bone volume, bone mineral content (BMC), and bone strength with romosozumab versus alendronate in a subset of ARCH patients. In ARCH, 4093 postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis received monthly romosozumab 210 mg sc or weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for 12 months, followed by open-label weekly oral alendronate 70 mg for ≥12 months. Of these, 90 (49 romosozumab, 41 alendronate) enrolled in the QCT/FEA imaging substudy. QCT scans at baseline and at months 6, 12, and 24 were assessed to determine changes in integral (total), cortical, and trabecular lumbar spine vBMD and corresponding bone strength by FEA. Additional outcomes assessed include changes in aBMD, bone volume, and BMC. Romosozumab caused greater gains in lumbar spine integral, cortical, and trabecular vBMD and BMC than alendronate at months 6 and 12, with the greater gains maintained upon transition to alendronate through month 24. These improvements were accompanied by significantly greater increases in FEA bone strength (p < 0.001 at all time points). Most newly formed bone was accrued in the cortical compartment, with romosozumab showing larger absolute BMC gains than alendronate (p < 0.001 at all time points). In conclusion, romosozumab significantly improved bone mass and bone strength parameters at the lumbar spine compared with alendronate. These results are consistent with greater vertebral fracture risk reduction observed with romosozumab versus alendronate in ARCH and provide insights into structural determinants of this differential treatment effect. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR)., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).)

Introduction: To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: This was a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled, phase III study in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX. Patients ( n  = 290) receiving stable background MTX were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or baricitinib 4 mg once daily with a primary endpoint at week 12. PROs assessed included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Level index scores and visual analogue scale, and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration of morning joint stiffness, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain. Treatment comparisons were made with logistic regression and analysis of covariance models for categorical and continuous variables, respectively., Results: Statistically significant ( p  ⩽ 0.05) improvements in all PROs were observed in the baricitinib 4 mg group compared to placebo as early as week 1 to week 4; and were sustained to week 24. These improvements were maintained until week 52 for the baricitinib group. A significantly larger proportion of patients met or exceeded the minimum clinically important difference for HAQ-DI (⩾0.22) and FACIT-F (3.56) profiles in the baricitinib group., Conclusion: Baricitinib provided significant improvements in PROs compared to placebo to 52 weeks of treatment in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX.Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02265705; NCT02265705; RA-BALANCE. Registered 13 October 2014., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: Yue Yang, Jianhua Xu, Jian Xu, Xingfu Li, Jiankang Hu, Xiangpei Li, Xiao Zhang, Dongyi He, Zhijun Li, Alberto J Spindler and Zhanguo Li have nothing to disclose. Chunde Bao and Guochun Wang serve as advisory board members for baricitinib and have received consulting and/or speaking fees from Eli Lilly and Company (<$10,000 USD). Cristiano AF Zerbini reports grants from Eli Lilly and Company, Pfizer, Sanofi, and AbbVie outside the submitted work. Carol L Kannowski is a full-time employee of Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, USA; reports personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company outside the submitted work; and is a stockholder in Eli Lilly and Company. The authors Lujing Zhan and Mengru Liu are full-time employees of Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China. The authors Hanjun Wu and Fei Ji are full-time employees of Lilly Suzhou Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China and own stock in Eli Lilly and Company., (© The Author(s), 2021.)

Objectives: To evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy., Methods: SELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts ('non-responders') and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 ('incomplete-responders') without washout., Results: A total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups., Conclusions: These observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RMF has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, EMD-Serono, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, UCB and Viela and is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. RB has received grants/research support from AbbVie, MSD and Roche and had consultation fees/participation in company-sponsored speaker’s bureau from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Pfizer, and Roche. SH has received research grants and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. GTDT has received a research grant from AbbVie and consulting fees from Amgen. FEVdB has received speaker and/or consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. CZ has received grants/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi. LB has received grant/research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB and is a consultant for AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. JE, YL, YS, RD and I-HS are full-time employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: This integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks)., Results: 3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups., Conclusion: In the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab., Trial Registration Numbers: SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SBC received grants and consultation fees from Amgen, AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche and Sandoz. RFvV received grants from AbbVie, Arthrogen, BMS, GSK, Lilly, Pfizer and UCB and personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biotest, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. KLW received consulting fees and research grants from AbbVie, BMS, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. CAFZ received research grants from Amgen, GSK, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier and Roche, participated on advisory boards and speaker’s bureau for Merck, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis and served as a consultant for Pfizer. YT received speaking fees and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Asahi-Kasei, Astellas, BMS, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and YL Biologics and received research grants from Asahi-Kasei, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, Takeda and UCB. LB received speaking fees, consulting fees and research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB. YZ, NK, BH and JVE are full-time employees of AbbVie and may hold AbbVie stock or stock options. GRB received speaking or consulting fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and UCB., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The Brazilian guidelines for prevention and treatment of glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis were updated and important topics were included such as assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, use of denosumab, and also recommendations for the use of glucocorticoid pulse therapy and inhaled glucocortiocoid., Introduction: Glucocorticoids (GCs) are used in almost all medical specialties and the incidences of vertebral/nonvertebral fractures range from 30 to 50% in individuals treated with GCs for over 3 months. Thus, osteoporosis and frailty fractures should be prevented and treated in patients initiating treatment or already being treated with GCs. The Committee for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Disorders of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology (BSR) established in 2012 the Brazilian Guidelines for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIO). Herein, we provide a comprehensive update of the original guidelines based on improved available scientific evidence and/or expert experience., Methods: From March to June 2020, the Osteoporosis Committee of the BRS had meetings to update the questions presented in the first consensus (2012). Thus, twenty-six questions considered essential for the preparation of the recommendations were selected. A systematic literature review based on real-life scenarios was undertaken to answer the proposed questions. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases were searched using specific search keywords., Results: Based on the review and expert opinion, the recommendations were updated for each of the 26 questions. We included 48 new bibliographic references that became available after the date of the publication of the first version of the consensus., Conclusion: We updated the Brazilian guidelines for the prevention/treatment of GIO. New topics were added in this update, such as the assessment of risk fracture using FRAX Brazil, the use of denosumab, and approaches for the treatment of children and adolescents. Furthermore, we included recommendations for the use of inhaled GCs and GC pulse therapy in clinical settings.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of a new formulation of a fixed dose combination of glucosamine sulfate (GS; 1500 mg) and bovine chondroitin sulfate (CS; 1200 mg) versus the reference product (RP) in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blind trial, 627 patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA)-Kellgren-Lawrence grades 2 or 3 and mean score ≥ 40 mm in the WOMAC pain subscale-were randomized to receive GS/CS or the RP for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the absolute change in WOMAC pain subscale score. The secondary endpoints included the following: WOMAC total and subscale scores, overall assessment of the disease by the patient and the investigator, SF-12 score, OMERACT-OARSI response rate to the treatment, and rescue medication use., Results: Mean reductions of WOMAC pain score were - 35.1 (sd = 23.2) mm in the GS/CS group and - 36.5 (sd = 24.9) mm in the RP group. The difference between the adjusted means of both treatments confirmed the non-inferiority of GS/CS versus the RP. Improvement was observed in pain, stiffness, physical function and total WOMAC score, as well as in overall OA assessment by the patient and the investigator for both groups. No improvement was observed in SF-12. The rate of OMERACT-OARSI responders was 89.4% in GS/CS group and 87.9% in the RP group. Headache and changes in glucose tolerance were the most frequent treatment-related adverse events., Conclusions: The new formulation of a fixed-dose combination of glucosamine sulfate and bovine chondroitin sulfate was non-inferior to the RP in symptomatic treatment of knee OA, with a high responder rate and good tolerability profile., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov; Registration number NCT02830919 ; Date of registration: July 13, 2016; First randomization date: December 05, 2016).

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently., Methods: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety., Results: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups., Conclusions: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Introduction: Baricitinib is an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 and JAK 2, which has demonstrated significant efficacy in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This analysis aims to describe the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in Chinese RA patients with an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX-IR), and to analyze the effects of baseline characteristics on the efficacy of baricitinib treatment., Methods: In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 231 Chinese patients with moderately to severely active RA who had MTX-IR were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 115) or baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 116). The primary endpoint was American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response at week 12. Other efficacy measures included ACR50, ACR70, Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity, patient's assessment of pain, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, remission and low disease activity rates according to Simplified Disease Activity Index or Clinical Disease Activity Index, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, and mean duration and severity of morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness and worst joint pain were analyzed. Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed across baseline characteristics., Results: Statistically significant improvement in ACR20 response was achieved with baricitinib at week 12 (53.4 vs. 22.6%, p = 0.001) in Chinese patients, compared to placebo. Most of the secondary objectives were met with statistically significant improvements. Efficacy of baricitinib was irrespective of patient demographics and baseline characteristics. Safety events were similar between the baricitinib and placebo groups., Conclusions: The efficacy of baricitinib 4 mg in Chinese patients with moderately to severely active RA and prior MTX-IR was clinically significant compared to placebo regardless of baseline characteristics. Baricitinib was well tolerated with an acceptable safety profile during the full study period., Trial Registration: NCT02265705.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here we present data from the completed Phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) ORAL Scan (NCT00847613), which evaluated the impact of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) through 24 months in patients with active RA and inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR)., Methods: Patients were randomised 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg, plus background MTX. Patients receiving placebo advanced to tofacitinib at month 3 (non-responders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Mean changes from baseline in PROs, assessed at months 1-24, included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), Patient Assessment of Arthritis Pain (VAS), health-related quality of life (Short Form-36 version 2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep., Results: Overall, 539/797 (67.6%) patients completed 24 months' treatment. At month 3, tofacitinib-treated patients reported signi cant (p<0.05) mean changes from baseline versus placebo across all PROs, and significantly more patients reported improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences versus placebo. Improvements in PROs with tofacitinib were sustained to month 24. Following advancement to tofacitinib, placebo-treated patients generally reported changes of similar magnitude to tofacitinib-treated patients., Conclusions: Patients with RA and MTX-IR receiving tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID plus MTX reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo at month 3, which were sustained through 24 months.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of maintaining baricitinib monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) originally treated with baricitinib monotherapy or switched from methotrexate (MTX) or the combination of baricitinib plus MTX to baricitinib monotherapy., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of patients from the RA-BEGIN study who entered a long-term extension, RA-BEYOND, and were assessed for up to 24 weeks. In RA-BEGIN, MTX-naive patients with early active RA were randomized to MTX monotherapy, baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy, or baricitinib 4 mg plus MTX. At week 52, all patients entering RA-BEYOND received baricitinib 4 mg monotherapy. MTX could be prescribed during RA-BEYOND at the investigator's discretion., Results: Patients in RA-BEYOND who were not rescued in RA-BEGIN (n = 423) were evaluated. Of these, 47% continued baricitinib monotherapy and 53% added MTX, with similar proportions from the 3 original arms. Patients with lower disease activity at the RA-BEYOND baseline generally continued to do well with baricitinib monotherapy as assessed by the Simplified Disease Activity Index, the Clinical Disease Activity Index, and the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores. Patients prescribed MTX had higher disease activity at the RA-BEYOND baseline and had improved disease activity after the addition of MTX. Safety outcomes were similar across treatment groups., Conclusion: Many patients responded well to continued baricitinib monotherapy or to switching to baricitinib monotherapy from MTX monotherapy or baricitinib plus MTX, showing sustained or improved disease control. The groups of patients who had less disease control on their original therapies showed sustained or improved disease control with the addition of MTX to baricitinib., (© 2019, American College of Rheumatology.)

Objectives: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK)1/JAK2 inhibitor, in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX) therapy., Methods: In this phase 3, double-blind, 52-week, placebo-controlled study, 290 patients with moderately to severely active RA and inadequate response to MTX were randomly assigned 1:1 to placebo or baricitinib 4-mg once daily, stratified by country (China, Brazil, Argentina) and presence of joint erosions. Primary endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) at week 12. Secondary endpoints included changes in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI) and Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts (DAS28)-high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3, mean duration of morning joint stiffness, severity of morning joint stiffness numeric rating scale (NRS 0-10), worst tiredness NRS, and worst joint pain NRS at week 12., Results: Most patients (approximately 80%) were from China. More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib than with placebo (58.6% vs. 28.3%; p<0.001). Statistically significant improvements were also seen in HAQ-DI, DAS28-hsCRP, morning joint stiffness, worst tiredness, and worst joint pain in the baricitinib group compared to placebo at week 12. Through week 24, rates of treatment-emergent adverse events, including infections, were higher for baricitinib compared to placebo, while serious adverse event rates were similar between baricitinib and placebo., Conclusions: In patients with RA who had an inadequate response to MTX, baricitinib was associated with significant clinical improvements as compared with placebo.

Odanacatib (ODN), a selective oral inhibitor of cathepsin K, was an investigational agent previously in development for the treatment of osteoporosis. In this analysis, the effects of ODN on bone remodeling/modeling and structure were examined in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven, Phase 3, Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT; NCT00529373) and planned double-blind extension in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. A total of 386 transilial bone biopsies, obtained from consenting patients at baseline (ODN n = 17, placebo n = 23), month 24 (ODN n = 112, placebo n = 104), month 36 (ODN n = 42, placebo n = 41), and month 60 (ODN n = 27, placebo n = 20) were assessed by dynamic and static bone histomorphometry. Patient characteristics at baseline and BMD changes over 5 years for this subset were comparable to the overall LOFT population. Qualitative assessment of biopsies revealed no abnormalities. Consistent with the mechanism of ODN, osteoclast number was higher with ODN versus placebo over time. Regarding bone remodeling, dynamic bone formation indices in trabecular, intracortical, and endocortical surfaces were generally similar in ODN-treated versus placebo-treated patients after 2 years of treatment. Regarding periosteal modeling, the proportion of patients with periosteal double labels and the bone formation indices increased over time in the ODN-treated patients compared with placebo. This finding supported the observed numerical increase in cortical thickness at month 60 versus placebo. In conclusion, ODN treatment for 5 years did not reduce bone remodeling and increased the proportion of patients with periosteal bone formation. These results are consistent with the mechanism of action of ODN, and are associated with continued BMD increases and reduced risk of fractures compared with placebo in the LOFT Phase 3 fracture trial. © 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research., (© 2020 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.)

Purpose: Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences., Patients and Methods: In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0-100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences., Results: 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively., Conclusion: These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making., Competing Interests: PCT has received research grants from Eli Lilly, Galapagos, and UCB; and is a consultant for AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, Gilead, and Pfizer Inc. NB is a consultant for Amgen, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, Pfizer Inc, Roche, and Sanofi; reports personal fees from GSK and from Global Alliance for Patient Access, and is International Liaison Officer for EULAR. TMB, DW, and OO-A are employees of RTI Health Solutions, who were paid consultants to Pfizer Inc in connection with the development of this manuscript. JW, CC, PD, DPdL, DG, and LF are employees and shareholders of Pfizer Inc. AJK is a shareholder of Novartis; a consultant for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Flexion, Genzyme, Janssen, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma, and UCB; a member of speakers’ bureaus for Celgene, Flexion, Genentech, Genzyme, Horizon, Ironwood, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, and Sanofi; and President of Altoona Center for Clinical Research. He also reports personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from GSK, outside the submitted work. CZ has received research grants from Amgen, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, and Sanofi; and is a member of speakers’ bureaus for Amgen, Eli Lilly, Pfizer Inc, and Sanofi. The authors report no other conflicts of interest in this work., (© 2020 Taylor et al.)

Background: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis., Methods: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66)., Findings: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051)., Interpretation: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis., Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To determine the burden of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) on patients' work productivity and health related quality of life (HRQoL), and examine the influence of several exposure variables; to analyze the progression of RA over 1 year and its impact on work productivity and HRQoL., Methods: International multicenter prospective survey including patients in 18 centers in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Mexico with diagnosis of RA and aged between 21-55 years. The following standard questionnaires were completed at baseline and throughout a 1-year follow-up: WPAI:RA, WALS, WLQ-25, EQ-5D-3 L and SF-36. Clinical and demographic variables were also collected through interview., Results: The study enrolled 290 patients on baseline visit. Overall mean scores at baseline visit were: WPAI:RA (presenteeism) = 29.5% (SD = 28.8%); WPAI:RA (absenteeism) = 9.0% (SD = 23.2%); WPAI:RA (absenteeism and presenteeism) = 8.6% (SD = 22.6%); WALS = 9.0 (SD = 6.1); WLQ-25 = 7.0% (SD = 5.1%); SF-36 Physical Scale = 39.1 (SD = 10.3) and Mental Scale = 45.4 (SD = 11.3); EQ-5D-3 L VAS = 69.8 (SD = 20.4) and EQ-5D-3 L index = 0.67 (SD = 0.23). Higher educational levels were associated with better results in WLQ-25, while previous orthopedic surgeries reduced absenteeism results of WPAI:RA and work limitations in WLQ-25. Higher disease duration was associated with decreased HRQoL. Intensification of disease activity was associated with decreased work productivity and HRQoL, except in WLQ-25. In the longitudinal analysis, worsening in disease activity was associated with a decrease in both work productivity and HRQoL., Conclusions: RA patients are dealing with workplace disabilities and limitations and loss in HRQoL, and multiple factors seems to be associated with this. Worsening of disease activity further decreased work productivity and HRQoL, stressing the importance of disease tight control.

Objectives: To identify baseline predictors of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from the GLADAR (Grupo Latino Americano De estudio de la Artritis Reumatoide) cohort., Methods: Patients with 1- and 2-year follow-up visits were included. Remission and LDA were defined by DAS28-ESR (< 2.6 and ≤ 3.2, respectively). Baseline predictors examined were gender, ethnicity, age at diagnosis, socioeconomic status, symptoms' duration, DMARDs, RF, thrombocytosis, anemia, morning stiffness, DAS28-ESR (and its components), HAQ-DI, DMARDs and corticosteroid use, and Sharp-VDH score. Multivariable binary logistic regression models (excluding DAS28-ESR components to avoid over adjustment) were derived using a backward selection method (α-level set at 0.05)., Results: Four hundred ninety-eight patients were included. Remission and LDA/remission were met by 19.3% and 32.5% at the 1-year visit, respectively. For the 280 patients followed for 2 years, these outcomes were met by 24.3% and 38.9%, respectively. Predictors of remission at 1 year were a lower DAS28-ESR (OR 1.17; CI 1.07-1.27; p = 0.001) and HAQ-DI (OR 1.48; CI 1.04-2.10; p = 0.028). At 2 years, only DAS28-ESR (OR 1.40; CI 1.17-1.6; p < 0.001) was a predictor. Predictors of LDA/remission at 1 year were DAS28-ESR (OR 1.42; CI 1.26-1.61; p < 0.001), non-use of corticosteroid (OR 1.74; CI 1.11-2.44; p = 0.008), and male gender (OR 1.77; CI 1.2-2.63; p = 0.036). A lower baseline DAS28-ESR (OR 1.45; CI 1.23-1.70; p < 0.001) was the only predictor of LDA/remission at 2 years., Conclusions: A lower disease activity consistently predicted remission and LDA/remission at 1 and 2 years of follow-up in early RA patients from the GLADAR cohort. Key Points • In patients with early RA, a lower disease activity at first visit is a strong clinical predictor of achieving remission and LDA subsequently. • Other clinical predictors of remission and LDA to keep in mind in these patients are male gender, non-use of corticosteroids and low disability at baseline. • Not using corticosteroids at first visit is associated with a lower disease activity and predicts LDA/remission at 1 year in these patients.

The original version of this article, unfortunately, contained an error. The first and family name of Loreto Massardo was interchanged and is now presented correctly in this article.

Objective: Tofacitinib is an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The phase III, 24-month, placebo-controlled Oral Rheumatoid Arthritis (ORAL) Scan trial was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy, including inhibition of structural progression, and safety of tofacitinib in patients with active RA and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX). Month 24 data from the completed study are reported here., Methods: Patients were randomized 4:4:1:1 to receive tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, switched to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, with stable background MTX. Patients receiving placebo switched to tofacitinib at month 3 (nonresponders) or month 6 (remaining patients). Clinical efficacy, structural progression, and treatment-emergent adverse events were evaluated. Analyses were performed on the full analysis set with observed data or nonresponder imputation with no advancement penalty for clinical efficacy, and imputation by linear extrapolation for structural progression., Results: Overall, 797 patients were treated; 539 (67.6%) completed 24 months of treatment. Responses according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria for 20% improvement (ACR20), ACR50, and ACR70; the proportion of patients in whom remission or low disease activity was achieved according to the 4-variable Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate, Clinical Disease Activity Index, or Simplified Disease Activity Index; Boolean remission; and Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index scores were maintained from month 12 to 24 and were similar between tofacitinib dosages. Limited structural damage was observed at months 12 and 24. Safety events were similar in type and frequency for both tofacitinib dosages, and were consistent with those previously reported., Conclusion: Our findings indicate that clinical and radiographic treatment effects are sustained in months 12-24 in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily plus MTX. The safety profile is consistent with that of other tofacitinib studies., (© 2019 Pfizer Inc. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Introduction: Osteoporosis is a very common disease, and data on its epidemiology is important for health care strategy implementation. Brazil is a developing country; its population is aging, leading to an expected increase in hip fractures and their undesirable consequences., Objective: Assess the incidence of osteoporotic hip fractures and subsequent mortality in Southern Brazil as part of a large epidemiological study aiming to reinforce the data for FRAX Brazil., Study Design: This study evaluated all admissions for fragility hip fractures between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2012, in the city of Joinville, including both genders of patients 50 years old or older, which corresponded to 19.2% of the local population. Joinville was chosen because it is the third largest city in the south of Brazil, with a representative population predominantly composed of descendants of European immigrants., Results: There were 213 cases of hip fractures, predominantly in Caucasians (n = 204, 96.7%) whose mean age was 77.7, ± 10.5, of which 143 (67.1%) were women (79.5 ± 9.6 years) and 70 (32.9%) were men (74 ± 11.3 years). The annual incidence of hip fractures was 268.8 for women and 153.0 for men/100,000 inhabitants. In the 60 to 64-year group, the overall incidence was 92.1/100,000, with an age-related increase of 1410.1/100,000 in the 80 to 84-year group. The mortality rate during hospitalization was 7.5%, and 25% died during the 12 months following their fractures., Conclusion: The incidence of hip fractures among the oldest in this predominantly Caucasian population living in Southern Brazil was similar to that of European populations from the northern hemisphere. The annual incidence of fragility hip fractures among people in their 80s was 59 times higher than that among people in their 50s. The mortality rate was 4.3 times higher in the first year after hip fracture than in the age-related local population.

Purpose: Using data from the 2-year, randomized, double-dummy VERO trial, we examined the changes in 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25[OH]D) concentrations over time, and whether the fracture risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate varies by baseline 25(OH)D sufficiency category., Methods: Postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis received subcutaneous daily teriparatide 20 μg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg, with concomitant 500-1000 mg of elemental calcium and 400-800 IU/day of vitamin D supplements. Fracture endpoints were analyzed by predefined subgroups of 25(OH)D insufficient and sufficient patients. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on fractures was investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models., Results: At baseline, mean serum 25(OH)D was 31.9 ng/mL in the teriparatide group and 31.5 ng/mL in the risedronate group, and 16.8% and 17.9% of patients, respectively, were 25(OH)D insufficient. At month 6, the mean serum 25(OH)D concentration decreased in teriparatide-treated patients to 24.5 ng/mL (by approximately 23%) but remained relatively constant in risedronate-treated patients (32.2 ng/mL) (p < 0.001). Proportions of 25(OH)D insufficient patients at month 6 were 26.7% and 5.6%, respectively (p < 0.001). The risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate for any of the fracture endpoints did not significantly differ between subgroups by 25(OH)D sufficiency status at baseline, with nonsignificant (p > 0.1) treatment-by-25(OH)D interactions in all fracture analyses., Conclusions: Serum 25(OH)D concentration decreases during teriparatide treatment. Fracture risk reduction with teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ between the two groups of patients defined by baseline 25(OH)D., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01709110 EudraCT Number: 2012-000123-41.

Background: In order to better understand the perspectives of patients and physicians regarding the treatment and management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), we present and compare results from a patient-based and a physician-based survey developed by the RA NarRAtive advisory panel., Methods: The RA NarRAtive initiative is directed by a global advisory panel of 39 healthcare providers and patient organization leaders from 17 countries. A survey of patients self-reporting a diagnosis of RA and a physician-based survey, designed by the advisory panel, were fielded online by Harris Poll from September 2014 to April 2016, and from August 2015 to October 2015, respectively., Results: We present findings from 1805 patients whose RA was primarily managed by a rheumatologist, and 1736 physicians managing patients with RA. Results confirmed that RA carries a substantial disease burden; half of the patients surveyed reported stopping participation in certain activities as a result of their disease. While 90% of physicians were satisfied with their communications with their patients regarding RA treatment, 61% of patients felt uncomfortable raising concerns or fears with their physician. Of the patients providing responses, 52% felt that improved dialogue/discussion would optimize their RA management, and 68% of physicians wished that they and their patients talked more about their RA goals and treatment. Overall, 88% of physicians agreed that patients involved in making treatment decisions tend to be more satisfied with their treatment experience., Conclusion: The results of these surveys highlight the impact of RA on patients, and a discrepancy between patient and physician views on communication. Further research, focused on improving patient-physician dialogue, shared goal-setting, and treatment planning, is needed.

Background: Current guidelines on the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) recommend early therapy targeting the achievement of low disease activity (LDA) or clinical remission. Little published information is available on the success of this treatment strategy in Latin America. In a subset analysis of patients from Latin America, we compared efficacy maintenance with etanercept 50 mg once weekly (ETN50) versus placebo (PBO), on a background of methotrexate (MTX) ± other non-biologic, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, in patients with moderate-to-severe RA who had achieved LDA with ETN50., Methods: In the Treat-to-Target trial, adult patients with active RA nonresponsive to MTX were treated with ETN50 for 24 weeks (Period 1). Patients achieving LDA were randomized to receive ETN50 or PBO for 28 additional weeks (Period 2). The proportion of patients maintaining LDA at week 52 and other efficacy and quality-of-life measures were assessed. Descriptive statistics are presented using last observation carried forward imputation of data., Results: Of the 64 patients from Latin America treated in Period 1, 61 (95.3%) achieved LDA. Among patients receiving ETN50, 13/34 remained in LDA and 6/14 maintained remission at week 52 versus 6/27 and 4/10 patients receiving PBO. The median time to flare was 113 days and 33 days for the ETN50 and PBO groups, respectively. In the overall population, adverse events were reported in 37% and 43%, serious adverse events in 1% and 4%, and serious infections in 0% and 2% of patients in the ETN50 and PBO groups, respectively., Conclusions: In patients with RA from Latin America, continuing treatment with ETN50 after achieving LDA appears to result in a higher proportion of patients maintaining LDA and remission compared with switching to PBO. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Registration: NCT01578850.

In the pivotal Fracture Study in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis (FRAME; NCT01575834), 1 year of the bone-forming agent romosozumab significantly reduced new vertebral and clinical fracture risk versus placebo. Nonvertebral fracture risk was not significantly reduced in the overall population, influenced by a low placebo-group fracture rate, observed particularly in the highest-enrolling region of Latin America. In year 1 of FRAME, postmenopausal women with a T-score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck were randomized to subcutaneous romosozumab 210 mg or placebo once monthly for 12 months. Of 7180 randomized women, 43% were from Latin America, largely Colombia and Brazil. Prespecified analyses assessed fracture risk reductions by geographic regions. A significant treatment-by-geographic region interaction for the clinical (p = 0.029) and nonvertebral fracture (p = 0.042) endpoints led to further characterization of the Latin American population and comparison with the remaining study population, grouped post hoc as rest-of-world. Nonvertebral fracture efficacy in the overall population was also assessed by baseline fracture risk using the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX). Romosozumab significantly and consistently reduced new vertebral fracture risk in Latin America (70% reduction; p = 0.014) and rest-of-world (74% reduction; p < 0.001). For nonvertebral fracture, risk reductions were observed in rest-of-world (42% reduction; p = 0.012), with no treatment effect observed in Latin America, where background nonvertebral fracture risk was low (1.2% in the placebo group). Consistent with this finding, in the overall population, greater reductions in nonvertebral fracture risk were observed among women with higher FRAX scores. These findings suggest that fracture risk assessment should consider regional factors in addition to classical risk factors, such as bone mineral density. In women at high risk for fracture, romosozumab reduced nonvertebral fracture risk within 1 year. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib in Brazilian patients from Phase 2 (P2) and Phase 3 (P3) global studies of up to 24 months' duration were evaluated., Methods: Data were pooled from Brazilian patients with RA and an inadequate response to conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs enrolled in P2/P3 tofacitinib studies who received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), or placebo, as monotherapy or in combination with methotrexate. Efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed over 24 months., Results: Patients (226) from Brazil were treated in tofacitinib global P2/P3 studies. At Month 3, there were improvements in American College of Rheumatology 20/50/70 response rates, Disease Activity Score in 28 joints, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index scores with both tofacitinib doses. Improvements from baseline in pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were reported. Efficacy improvements were sustained up to Month 24. The most frequent class of adverse events was infections and infestations. No cases of tuberculosis or other opportunistic infections were reported., Conclusion: In a Brazilian subpopulation of patients with RA, tofacitinib reduced disease signs and symptoms and improved physical function up to Month 24, with a safety profile consistent with findings from global studies.

The 2-year, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled fracture endpoint VERO study included postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis, who had at least 2 moderate or 1 severe baseline vertebral fractures (VFx), and bone mineral density (BMD) T-score ≤-1.5. Patients were treated with either s.c. daily teriparatide 20 μg or oral weekly risedronate 35 mg. As previously reported, the risk of new VFx and clinical fractures (a composite of clinical VFx and nonvertebral fragility fractures [NVFFx]) was statistically significantly reduced with teriparatide compared with risedronate. Here we present the prospectively planned subgroup analyses of fracture data across subgroups, which were predefined by the following baseline characteristics: age, number and severity of prevalent VFx, prevalent nonvertebral fractures (NVFx), glucocorticoid use, prior osteoporosis drugs, recent bisphosphonate use, clinical VFx in the year before study entry, and baseline BMD. Heterogeneity of the treatment effect on the primary endpoint (new VFx), and the four key secondary endpoints (including clinical fractures and NVFFx) were investigated by logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression models. A total of 1360 women were randomized and treated (680 per group). Mean age was 72.1 years, mean (SD) number of prevalent VFx was 2.7 (2.1), 55.4% had a BMD T-score <-2.5, 36.5% had a recent clinical VFx, 28.3% had a prior major NVFx, 43.2% were osteoporosis drug-naïve, 39.3% were recent bisphosphonate users, and 9.3% were taking glucocorticoids at a prednisone-equivalent dose of >5 mg/d. For most fracture endpoints, the risk reduction of teriparatide versus risedronate did not significantly differ in any of the subgroups analyzed (treatment-by-subgroup interaction p > 0.1), with most subgroups mirroring results from the total study population. In conclusion, in postmenopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the antifracture efficacy of teriparatide compared with risedronate was consistent in a wide range of patient settings, including treatment-naïve and previously treated patients. © 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals Inc., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: Tofacitinib has been investigated for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in phase III studies in which concomitant glucocorticoids (GC) were allowed. We analyzed the effect of GC use on efficacy outcomes in patients with RA receiving tofacitinib and/or methotrexate (MTX) or conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARD) in these studies., Methods: Our posthoc analysis included data from 6 phase III studies (NCT01039688; NCT00814307; NCT00847613; NCT00853385; NCT00856544; NCT00960440). MTX-naive patients or patients with inadequate response to csDMARD or biological DMARD received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily alone or with csDMARD, with or without concomitant GC. Patients receiving GC (≤ 10 mg/day prednisone or equivalent) before enrollment maintained a stable dose throughout. Endpoints included the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 response rates, rates of Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI)-defined low disease activity (LDA; CDAI ≤ 10) and remission (CDAI ≤ 2.8), and changes from baseline in CDAI, 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28-4)-erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain visual analog scale (VAS), and modified total Sharp score., Results: Of 3200 tofacitinib-treated patients, 1258 (39.3%) received tofacitinib monotherapy and 1942 (60.7%) received tofacitinib plus csDMARD; 1767 (55.2%) received concomitant GC. ACR20/50/70 response rates, rates of CDAI LDA and remission, and improvements in CDAI, DAS28-4-ESR, HAQ-DI, and pain VAS with tofacitinib were generally similar with or without GC in monotherapy and combination therapy studies. GC use did not appear to affect radiographic progression in tofacitinib-treated MTX-naive patients. MTX plus GC appeared to inhibit radiographic progression to a numerically greater degree than MTX alone., Conclusion: Concomitant use of GC with tofacitinib did not appear to affect clinical or radiographic efficacy. MTX plus GC showed a trend to inhibit radiographic progression to a greater degree than MTX alone.

Background: No clinical trials have compared osteoporosis drugs with incident fractures as the primary outcome. We compared the anti-fracture efficacy of teriparatide with risedronate in patients with severe osteoporosis., Methods: In this double-blind, double-dummy trial, we enrolled post-menopausal women with at least two moderate or one severe vertebral fracture and a bone mineral density T score of less than or equal to -1·50. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 20 μg of teriparatide once daily plus oral weekly placebo or 35 mg of oral risedronate once weekly plus daily injections of placebo for 24 months. The primary outcome was new radiographic vertebral fractures. Secondary, gated outcomes included new and worsened radiographic vertebral fractures, clinical fractures (a composite of non-vertebral and symptomatic vertebral), and non-vertebral fractures. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01709110) and EudraCT (2012-000123-41)., Findings: We enrolled 680 patients in each group. At 24 months, new vertebral fractures occurred in 28 (5·4%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group and 64 (12·0%) of 680 patients in the risedronate group (risk ratio 0·44, 95% CI 0·29-0·68; p<0·0001). Clinical fractures occurred in 30 (4·8%) of 680 patients in the teriparatide group compared with 61 (9·8%) of 680 in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·48, 95% CI 0·32-0·74; p=0·0009). Non-vertebral fragility fractures occurred in 25 (4·0%) patients in the teriparatide group and 38 (6·1%) in the risedronate group (hazard ratio 0·66; 95% CI 0·39-1·10; p=0·10)., Interpretation: Among post-menopausal women with severe osteoporosis, the risk of new vertebral and clinical fractures is significantly lower in patients receiving teriparatide than in those receiving risedronate., Funding: Lilly., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs., Methods: Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models., Results: Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52., Conclusions: In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359 . Registered on 18 October 2012.

In this transglobal, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, treat-to-target study, the maintenance of efficacy was compared between biologic-and biologic-free-disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) combination regimens after low disease activity (LDA) was achieved with biologic DMARD induction therapy. Patients with moderate-to-severe rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy received open-label etanercept 50 mg subcutaneously once weekly plus methotrexate with or without other conventional synthetic (cs) DMARDs for 24 weeks. Patients achieving LDA [disease activity score in 28 joints based on erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR) <3.2] at week 24 were randomized to receive etanercept-methotrexate combination therapy or placebo-methotrexate combination therapy, with or without other csDMARDs, for 28 weeks. In the open-label period, 72% of patients achieved DAS28-ESR LDA at week 24. Patients enrolled in the double-blind period had long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline (mean duration, 8.1 years; DAS28-ESR, 6.4). In the etanercept and placebo combination groups, 44% versus 17% achieved DAS28-ESR LDA and 34 versus 13% achieved DAS28-ESR remission at week 52 (p < 0.001). Adverse events were reported in 37 and 43%, serious adverse events in 0 and 4%, and serious infections in 0 and 2% in these groups, respectively, in the double-blind period. After induction of response with etanercept combination therapy following a treat-to-target approach in patients with long-standing rheumatoid arthritis and high disease activity at baseline, the etanercept combination regimen was significantly more effective in maintaining LDA and remission than a biologic-free regimen. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier. NCT01578850.

Objective: We undertook this phase III study to evaluate baricitinib, an orally administered JAK-1/JAK-2 inhibitor, as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) compared to MTX monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had received no or minimal conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and who were naive to biologic DMARDs., Methods: A total of 588 patients were randomized 4:3:4 to receive MTX monotherapy (once weekly), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily), or the combination of baricitinib and MTX for 52 weeks. The primary end point assessment was a noninferiority comparison of baricitinib monotherapy to MTX monotherapy based on the proportion of patients meeting the American College of Rheumatology 20% improvement criteria (achieving an ACR20 response) at week 24., Results: The study met its primary objective. Moreover, baricitinib monotherapy was found to be superior to MTX monotherapy at week 24, with a higher ACR20 response rate (77% versus 62%; P ≤ 0.01). Similar results were observed for combination therapy. Compared to MTX monotherapy, significant improvements in disease activity and physical function were observed for both baricitinib groups as early as week 1. Radiographic progression was reduced in both baricitinib groups compared to MTX monotherapy; the difference was statistically significant for baricitinib plus MTX. The rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were similar across treatment groups, while rates of some treatment-emergent AEs, including infections, were increased with baricitinib plus MTX. Three deaths were reported, all occurring in the MTX monotherapy group. Malignancies, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were reported in 1 patient receiving MTX monotherapy, 1 receiving baricitinib monotherapy, and 4 receiving baricitinib plus MTX., Conclusion: Baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX demonstrated superior efficacy with acceptable safety compared to MTX monotherapy as initial therapy for patients with active RA., (© 2016 The Authors. Arthritis & Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American College of Rheumatology.)

Osteoporosis is the leading cause of fractures in the population older than 50 years. This silent disease affects primarily postmenopausal women and the elderly, and the morbidity and mortality rates are high. The main goal of treating osteoporosis is the prevention of fractures. The identification of populations at risk through early diagnosis and treatment is essential. The last Brazilian guideline for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis was elaborated in 2002. Since then, new strategies for diagnosis and risk stratification have been developed, and drugs with novel action mechanisms have been added to the therapeutic arsenal. The Osteoporosis and Osteometabolic Diseases Committee of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology, in conjunction with the Brazilian Medical Association and other Societies, has developed this update of the guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis according to the best scientific evidence available. This update is intended for professionals in many medical and health specialties involved in the treatment of osteoporosis, for physicians in general and for health-related organizations., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.)

The World Health Organization influenza forecast now includes an influenza B strain from each of the influenza B lineages (B/Yamagata and B/Victoria) for inclusion in seasonal influenza vaccines. Traditional trivalent influenza vaccines include an influenza B strain from one lineage, but because two influenza B lineages frequently co-circulate, the effectiveness of trivalent vaccines may be reduced in seasons of influenza B vaccine-mismatch. Thus, quadrivalent vaccines may potentially reduce the burden of influenza compared with trivalent vaccines. In this Phase III, open-label study, we assessed the immunogenicity and safety of Southern Hemisphere inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (Fluarix™ Tetra) in Brazilian adults (NCT02369341). The primary objective was to assess hemagglutination-inhibition antibody responses against each vaccine strain 21 days after vaccination in adults (aged ≥18-60 years) and older adults (aged >60 years). Solicited adverse events for four days post-vaccination, and unsolicited adverse events and serious adverse events for 21 days post-vaccination were also assessed. A total of 63 adults and 57 older adults received one dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine at the beginning of the 2015 Southern Hemisphere influenza season. After vaccination, in adults and older adults, the hemagglutination-inhibition titers fulfilled the European licensure criteria for immunogenicity. In adults, the seroprotection rates with HI titer ≥1:40 were 100% (A/H1N1), 98.4% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria); in older adults were 94.7% (A/H1N1), 96.5% (A/H3N2), 100% (B/Yamagata), and 100% (B/Victoria). Pain was the most common solicited local adverse events in adults (27/62) and in older adults (13/57), and the most common solicited general adverse events in adults was myalgia (9/62), and in older adults were myalgia and arthralgia (both 2/57). Unsolicited adverse events were reported by 11/63 adults and 10/57 older adults. The study showed that inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine was immunogenic and well-tolerated in Brazilian adults and older adults., (Copyright © 2016 Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved.)

Osteoporosis, a metabolic disease characterized by low bone mass, deterioration of the bone tissue microarchitecture and increased susceptibility to fractures, is commonly regarded as a women's health problem. This point of view is based on the fact that compared with men, women have lower bone mineral density and longer lifespans and lose bone mass faster, especially after menopause, due to a marked decrease in serum estrogen levels. However, in the last 20 years, osteoporosis in men has become recognized as a public health problem due to the occurrence of an increasingly higher number of fragility fractures. Approximately 30% of all hip fractures occur in men. Recent studies show that the probability of fracture due to hip, vertebral or wrist fragility in Caucasian men older than fifty years, for the rest of their lives, is approximately 13% versus a 40% probability of fragility fractures in women. Men show bone mass loss and fractures later than women. Although older men have a higher risk of fracture, approximately half of all hip fractures occur before the age of 80. Life expectancy is increasing for both sexes in Brazil and worldwide, albeit at a higher rate for men than for women. This Guideline was based on a systematic review of the literature on the prevalence, etiology, diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis in men., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.)

Background: Romosozumab, a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increases bone formation and decreases bone resorption., Methods: We enrolled 7180 postmenopausal women who had a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Patients were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab (at a dose of 210 mg) or placebo monthly for 12 months; thereafter, patients in each group received denosumab for 12 months, at a dose of 60 mg, administered subcutaneously every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 months and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical (a composite of nonvertebral and symptomatic vertebral) and nonvertebral fractures., Results: At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3321 patients (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk with romosozumab; P<0.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3589 patients (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower risk with romosozumab; P=0.008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3589 patients (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P=0.10). At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3325 patients] in the romosozumab group vs. 2.5% [84 of 3327] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<0.001). Adverse events, including instances of hyperostosis, cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and two cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group., Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year. (Funded by Amgen and UCB Pharma; FRAME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01575834 .).

Importance: Additional therapies are needed for prevention of osteoporotic fractures. Abaloparatide is a selective activator of the parathyroid hormone type 1 receptor., Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of abaloparatide, 80 μg, vs placebo for prevention of new vertebral fracture in postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fracture., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Abaloparatide Comparator Trial In Vertebral Endpoints (ACTIVE) was a phase 3, double-blind, RCT (March 2011-October 2014) at 28 sites in 10 countries. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density (BMD) T score ≤-2.5 and >-5.0 at the lumbar spine or femoral neck and radiological evidence ≥2 mild or ≥1 moderate lumbar or thoracic vertebral fracture or history of low-trauma nonvertebral fracture within the past 5 years were eligible. Postmenopausal women (>65 y) with fracture criteria and a T score ≤-2.0 and >-5.0 or without fracture criteria and a T score ≤-3.0 and >-5.0 could enroll., Interventions: Blinded, daily subcutaneous injections of placebo (n = 821); abaloparatide, 80 μg (n = 824); or open-label teriparatide, 20 μg (n = 818) for 18 months., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was percentage of participants with new vertebral fracture in the abaloparatide vs placebo groups. Sample size was set to detect a 4% difference (57% risk reduction) between treatment groups. Secondary end points included change in BMD at total hip, femoral neck, and lumbar spine in abaloparatide-treated vs placebo participants and time to first incident nonvertebral fracture. Hypercalcemia was a prespecified safety end point in abaloparatide-treated vs teriparatide participants., Results: Among 2463 women (mean age, 69 years [range, 49-86]), 1901 completed the study. New morphometric vertebral fractures occurred less frequently in the active treatment groups vs placebo. The Kaplan-Meier estimated event rate for nonvertebral fracture was lower with abaloparatide vs placebo. BMD increases were greater with abaloparatide than placebo (all P < .001). Incidence of hypercalcemia was lower with abaloparatide (3.4%) vs teriparatide (6.4%) (risk difference [RD], −2.96 [95%CI, −5.12 to −0.87]; P = .006). [table: see text]., Conclusions and Relevance: Among postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, the use of subcutaneous abaloparatide, compared with placebo, reduced the risk of new vertebral and nonvertebral fractures over 18 months. Further research is needed to understand the clinical importance of RD, the risks and benefits of abaloparatide treatment, and the efficacy of abaloparatide vs other osteoporosis treatments., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01343004.

Objective: To create a tool to predict probability of remission and low disease activity (LDA) in patients with RA being considered for anti-TNF treatment in clinical practice., Methods: We analysed data from GO-MORE, an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic-naïve patients with active RA (DAS28-ESR ⩾3.2) despite DMARD therapy. Patients received 50 mg s.c. golimumab (GLM) once monthly for 6 months. In secondary analyses, regression models were used to determine the best set of baseline factors to predict remission (DAS28-ESR <2.6) at month 6 and LDA (DAS28-ESR ⩽3.2) at month 1., Results: In 3280 efficacy-evaluable patients, of 12 factors included in initial regression models predicting remission or LDA, six were retained in final multivariable models. Greater likelihood of LDA and remission was associated with being male; younger age; lower HAQ, ESR (or CRP) and tender joint count (or swollen joint count) scores; and absence of comorbidities. In models predicting 1-, 3- and 6-month LDA or remission, area under the receiver operating curve was 0.648-0.809 (R(2) = 0.0397-0.1078). The models also predicted 6-month HAQ and EuroQoL-5-dimension scores. A series of matrices were developed to easily show predicted rates of remission and LDA., Conclusion: A matrix tool was developed to show predicted GLM treatment outcomes in patients with RA, based on a combination of six baseline characteristics. The tool could help provide practical guidance in selection of candidates for anti-TNF therapy., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objectives: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have shown diminished clinical response following an inadequate response (IR) to ≥1 previous bDMARD. Here, tofacitinib was compared with placebo in patients with an IR to conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs; bDMARD-naive) and in patients with an IR to bDMARDs (bDMARD-IR)., Methods: Data were taken from phase II and phase III studies of tofacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo, as monotherapy or with background methotrexate or other csDMARDs. Efficacy endpoints and incidence rates of adverse events (AEs) of special interest were assessed., Results: 2812 bDMARD-naive and 705 bDMARD-IR patients were analysed. Baseline demographics and disease characteristics were generally similar between treatment groups within subpopulations. Across subpopulations, improvements in efficacy parameters at month 3 were generally significantly greater for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Clinical response was numerically greater with bDMARD-naive versus bDMARD-IR patients (overlapping 95% CIs). Rates of safety events of special interest were generally similar between tofacitinib doses and subpopulations; however, patients receiving glucocorticoids had more serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, serious infection events and herpes zoster. Numerically greater clinical responses and incidence rates of AEs of special interest were generally reported for tofacitinib 10 mg twice daily versus tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily (overlapping 95% CIs)., Conclusions: Tofacitinib demonstrated efficacy in both bDMARD-naive and bDMARD-IR patients with RA. Clinical response to tofacitinib was generally numerically greater in bDMARD-naive than bDMARD-IR patients. The safety profile appeared similar between subpopulations., Trial Registration Numbers: (NCT00413660, NCT00550446, NCT00603512, NCT00687193, NCT00960440, NCT00847613, NCT00814307, NCT00856544, NCT00853385)., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Objective: Intraarticular (IA) corticosteroid injections are broadly used in knee osteoarthritis (OA); however, the best corticosteroid agent is not well defined. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of triamcinolone hexacetonide (TH) and methylprednisolone acetate (MA) injections in knee OA., Methods: Patients with symptomatic knee OA and Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III were randomized to receive 40 mg of IA TH or MA. Evaluations were performed at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in the patient's assessment of pain by visual analog scale from baseline to Week 4. Secondary outcomes included a global assessment of the disease by patients and physicians, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lequesne index (LI), and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials and Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OMERACT-OARSI) criteria of response. Generalized estimating equations were used in statistical analysis., Results: The intention-to-treat population included 100 patients; 50 in each study arm. A significant improvement in pain was observed at Week 4 for both groups (p < 0.0001), with no difference between them (p = 0.352). This improvement was sustained up to Week 24. A significant improvement from the baseline was observed for both the patient's and the physician's global assessments, WOMAC questionnaire, and LI, with no differences between the groups. Improvements in the secondary outcomes were sustained during the study. The OMERACT-OARSI criteria of response was achieved by 74% and 72% of patients in the TH and the MA groups, respectively., Conclusion: Both IA therapies are equally effective, and improvement in pain and function can be sustained for up to 24 weeks. Controlled-trials.com identifier: ISRCTN15077843.

Objective: To assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for tofacitinib, an oral JAK inhibitor for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), in a 6-month, phase III, randomized controlled trial., Methods: Patients ages ≥18 years with active RA with an inadequate response to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) and receiving stable background methotrexate were randomized 2:2:1:1 to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. PROs measured at month 3 included patient global assessment of disease activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI), Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2; acute), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and MOS Sleep Scale., Results: Patients received tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 133) or 10 mg (n = 134) or placebo advanced to tofacitinib 5 mg (n = 66) or 10 mg (n = 66). HAQ DI (reported previously), PtGA (P < 0.0001), and SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary (P < 0.05) scores were improved for both tofacitinib doses versus placebo. Furthermore, improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference were more frequently reported by tofacitinib-treated patients versus placebo for PtGA (P < 0.05), pain (P < 0.0001), HAQ DI (P < 0.05), SF-36v2 physical and mental component summary scores (P < 0.05), and FACIT-F (P < 0.001 for 5 mg twice daily). No statistical differences were observed in the MOS Sleep Scale., Conclusion: Tofacitinib treatment resulted in significant, clinically meaningful improvements in multiple PROs versus placebo over 3 months of treatment in patients with active RA and a previous inadequate response to TNFi., (Copyright © 2015 by the American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) management involves improving clinical outcomes and quality of life (QOL). Golimumab is used as add-on therapy for patients who have failed disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). This GO-MORE subanalysis investigated relationships between patient and physician expectations and outcomes., Methods: GO-MORE was an open-label, multinational, prospective study in biologic agent-naive patients with active RA despite DMARD treatment. Patients received 50 mg subcutaneous golimumab monthly for 6 months. At baseline and month 3, patients rated treatment expectations for the following 3 months using 5-point scales (where 1 = good and 5 = poor). Outcomes were compared among expectation tertiles: most positive, intermediate, and least positive. At baseline and month 3, physicians predicted patient disease state 3 months later., Results: At baseline, 3,280 efficacy-evaluable patients with moderate (21.3%) or high (78.7%) disease activity had mean ± SD disease duration of 7.6 ± 7.9 years, mean ± SD Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) disability index (DI) score of 1.44 ± 0.67, and mean ± SD EuroQol 5-domain (EQ-5D) score of 0.42 ± 0.33. Patients reported high treatment expectations (mean 1.43); 95.9% expected golimumab to be better than current treatment. Patients with fewer DMARD failures, higher disease activity, shorter disease duration, younger age, and female sex reported higher expectations (P < 0.05 for all). After 6 months, patients with the most positive expectations had higher remission rates (P < 0.0001) and greater HAQ DI (P < 0.0001) and EQ-5D (P < 0.0001) score improvements. At baseline, physicians expected 29.6% and 59.2% of patients to attain remission and low disease activity, respectively, after 3 months., Conclusion: Patients had high expectations for golimumab treatment. Patients with more positive expectations had greater remission rates, improvements in function, and QOL., (Copyright © 2014 by the American College of Rheumatology.)