Marc C. Hochberg

Comparison of Upper Gastrointestinal Toxicity of Rofecoxib and Naproxen in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis

BACKGROUND Each year, clinical upper gastrointestinal events occur in 2 to 4 percent of patients who are taking nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). We assessed whether rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, would be associated with a lower incidence of clinically important upper gastrointestinal events than is the nonselective NSAID naproxen among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS We randomly assigned 8076 patients who were at least 50 years of age (or at least 40 years of age and receiving long-term glucocorticoid therapy) and who had rheumatoid arthritis to receive either 50 mg of rofecoxib daily or 500 mg of naproxen twice daily. The primary end point was confirmed clinical upper gastrointestinal events (gastroduodenal perforation or obstruction, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers). RESULTS Rofecoxib and naproxen had similar efficacy against rheumatoid arthritis. During a median follow-up of 9.0 months, 2.1 confirmed gastrointestinal events per 100 patient-years occurred with rofecoxib, as compared with 4.5 per 100 patient-years with naproxen (relative risk, 0.5; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 0.6; P<0.001). The respective rates of complicated confirmed events (perforation, obstruction, and severe upper gastrointestinal bleeding) were 0.6 per 100 patient-years and 1.4 per 100 patient-years (relative risk, 0.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.2 to 0.8; P=0.005). The incidence of myocardial infarction was lower among patients in the naproxen group than among those in the rofecoxib group (0.1 percent vs. 0.4 percent; relative risk, 0.2; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.1 to 0.7); the overall mortality rate and the rate of death from cardiovascular causes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with rheumatoid arthritis, treatment with rofecoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, is associated with significantly fewer clinically important upper gastrointestinal events than treatment with naproxen, a nonselective inhibitor.

Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States. Part II.

OBJECTIVE To provide a single source for the best available estimates of the US prevalence of and number of individuals affected by osteoarthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica and giant cell arteritis, gout, fibromyalgia, and carpal tunnel syndrome, as well as the symptoms of neck and back pain. A companion article (part I) addresses additional conditions. METHODS The National Arthritis Data Workgroup reviewed published analyses from available national surveys, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National Health Interview Survey. Because data based on national population samples are unavailable for most specific rheumatic conditions, we derived estimates from published studies of smaller, defined populations. For specific conditions, the best available prevalence estimates were applied to the corresponding 2005 US population estimates from the Census Bureau, to estimate the number affected with each condition. RESULTS We estimated that among US adults, nearly 27 million have clinical osteoarthritis (up from the estimate of 21 million for 1995), 711,000 have polymyalgia rheumatica, 228,000 have giant cell arteritis, up to 3.0 million have had self-reported gout in the past year (up from the estimate of 2.1 million for 1995), 5.0 million have fibromyalgia, 4-10 million have carpal tunnel syndrome, 59 million have had low back pain in the past 3 months, and 30.1 million have had neck pain in the past 3 months. CONCLUSION Estimates for many specific rheumatic conditions rely on a few, small studies of uncertain generalizability to the US population. This report provides the best available prevalence estimates for the US, but for most specific conditions more studies generalizable to the US or addressing understudied populations are needed.

Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and selected musculoskeletal disorders in the United States

OBJECTIVE To provide a single source for the best available estimates of the national prevalence of arthritis in general and of selected musculoskeletal disorders (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, the spondylarthropathies, systemic lupus erythematosus, scleroderma, polymyalgia rheumatica/giant cell arteritis, gout, fibromyalgia, and low back pain). METHODS The National Arthritis Data Workgroup reviewed data from available surveys, such as the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey series. For overall national estimates, we used surveys based on representative samples. Because data based on national population samples are unavailable for most specific musculoskeletal conditions, we derived data from various smaller survey samples from defined populations. Prevalence estimates from these surveys were linked to 1990 US Bureau of the Census population data to calculate national estimates. We also estimated the expected frequency of arthritis in the year 2020. RESULTS Current national estimates are provided, with important caveats regarding their interpretation, for self-reported arthritis and selected conditions. An estimated 15% (40 million) of Americans had some form of arthritis in 1995. By the year 2020, an estimated 18.2% (59.4 million) will be affected. CONCLUSION Given the limitations of the data on which they are based, this report provides the best available prevalence estimates for arthritis and other rheumatic conditions overall, and for selected musculoskeletal disorders, in the US population.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II. OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines

PURPOSE To develop concise, patient-focussed, up to date, evidence-based, expert consensus recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), which are adaptable and designed to assist physicians and allied health care professionals in general and specialist practise throughout the world. METHODS Sixteen experts from four medical disciplines (primary care, rheumatology, orthopaedics and evidence-based medicine), two continents and six countries (USA, UK, France, Netherlands, Sweden and Canada) formed the guidelines development team. A systematic review of existing guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA published between 1945 and January 2006 was undertaken using the validated appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation (AGREE) instrument. A core set of management modalities was generated based on the agreement between guidelines. Evidence before 2002 was based on a systematic review conducted by European League Against Rheumatism and evidence after 2002 was updated using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library and HTA reports. The quality of evidence was evaluated, and where possible, effect size (ES), number needed to treat, relative risk or odds ratio and cost per quality-adjusted life years gained were estimated. Consensus recommendations were produced following a Delphi exercise and the strength of recommendation (SOR) for propositions relating to each modality was determined using a visual analogue scale. RESULTS Twenty-three treatment guidelines for the management of hip and knee OA were identified from the literature search, including six opinion-based, five evidence-based and 12 based on both expert opinion and research evidence. Twenty out of 51 treatment modalities addressed by these guidelines were universally recommended. ES for pain relief varied from treatment to treatment. Overall there was no statistically significant difference between non-pharmacological therapies [0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.16, 0.34] and pharmacological therapies (ES=0.39, 95% CI 0.31, 0.47). Following feedback from Osteoarthritis Research International members on the draft guidelines and six Delphi rounds consensus was reached on 25 carefully worded recommendations. Optimal management of patients with OA hip or knee requires a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological modalities of therapy. Recommendations cover the use of 12 non-pharmacological modalities: education and self-management, regular telephone contact, referral to a physical therapist, aerobic, muscle strengthening and water-based exercises, weight reduction, walking aids, knee braces, footwear and insoles, thermal modalities, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and acupuncture. Eight recommendations cover pharmacological modalities of treatment including acetaminophen, cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) non-selective and selective oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs and capsaicin, intra-articular injections of corticosteroids and hyaluronates, glucosamine and/or chondroitin sulphate for symptom relief; glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and diacerein for possible structure-modifying effects and the use of opioid analgesics for the treatment of refractory pain. There are recommendations covering five surgical modalities: total joint replacements, unicompartmental knee replacement, osteotomy and joint preserving surgical procedures; joint lavage and arthroscopic debridement in knee OA, and joint fusion as a salvage procedure when joint replacement had failed. Strengths of recommendation and 95% CIs are provided. CONCLUSION Twenty-five carefully worded recommendations have been generated based on a critical appraisal of existing guidelines, a systematic review of research evidence and the consensus opinions of an international, multidisciplinary group of experts. The recommendations may be adapted for use in different countries or regions according to the availability of treatment modalities and SOR for each modality of therapy. These recommendations will be revised regularly following systematic review of new research evidence as this becomes available.

American College of Rheumatology 2012 recommendations for the use of nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic therapies in osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee.

To update the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2000 recommendations for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and develop new recommendations for hand OA.

American College of Rheumatology 2008 Recommendations for the Use of Nonbiologic and Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs in Rheumatoid Arthritis

Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.

OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis: part III: Changes in evidence following systematic cumulative update of research published through January 2009.

OBJECTIVE To update evidence for available therapies in the treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to examine whether research evidence has changed from 31 January 2006 to 31 January 2009. METHODS A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. The quality of studies was assessed. Effect sizes (ESs) and numbers needed to treat were calculated for efficacy. Relative risks, hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios were estimated for side effects. Publication bias and heterogeneity were examined. Sensitivity analysis was undertaken to compare the evidence pooled in different years and different qualities. Cumulative meta-analysis was used to examine the stability of evidence. RESULTS Sixty-four systematic reviews, 266 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 21 new economic evaluations (EEs) were published between 2006 and 2009. Of 51 treatment modalities, new data on efficacy have been published for more than half (26/39, 67%) of those for which research evidence was available in 2006. Among non-pharmacological therapies, ES for pain relief was unchanged for self-management, education, exercise and acupuncture. However, with new evidence the ES for pain relief for weight reduction reached statistical significance, increasing from 0.13 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12, 0.36] in 2006 to 0.20 (95% CI 0.00, 0.39) in 2009. By contrast, the ES for electromagnetic therapy which was large in 2006 (ES=0.77, 95% CI 0.36, 1.17) was no longer significant (ES=0.16, 95% CI -0.08, 0.39). Among pharmacological therapies, the cumulative evidence for the benefits and harms of oral and topical non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, diacerhein and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid was not greatly changed. The ES for pain relief with acetaminophen diminished numerically, but not significantly, from 0.21 (0.02, 0.41) to 0.14 (0.05, 0.22) and was no longer significant when analysis was restricted to high quality trials (ES=0.10, 95% CI -0.0, 0.23). New evidence for increased risks of hospitalisation due to perforation, peptic ulceration and bleeding with acetaminophen >3g/day have been published (HR=1.20, 95% CI 1.03, 1.40). ES for pain relief from IA hyaluronic acid, glucosamine sulphate, chondroitin sulphate and avocado soybean unsponifiables also diminished and there was greater heterogeneity of outcomes and more evidence of publication bias. Among surgical treatments further negative RCTs of lavage/debridement were published and the pooled results demonstrated that benefits from this modality of therapy were no greater than those obtained from placebo. CONCLUSION Publication of a large amount of new research evidence has resulted in changes in the calculated risk-benefit ratio for some treatments for OA. Regular updating of research evidence can help to guide best clinical practice.

Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials

Summary Background The vascular and gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including selective COX-2 inhibitors (coxibs) and traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs), are not well characterised, particularly in patients at increased risk of vascular disease. We aimed to provide such information through meta-analyses of randomised trials. Methods We undertook meta-analyses of 280 trials of NSAIDs versus placebo (124 513 participants, 68 342 person-years) and 474 trials of one NSAID versus another NSAID (229 296 participants, 165 456 person-years). The main outcomes were major vascular events (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or vascular death); major coronary events (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death); stroke; mortality; heart failure; and upper gastrointestinal complications (perforation, obstruction, or bleed). Findings Major vascular events were increased by about a third by a coxib (rate ratio [RR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·14–1·66; p=0·0009) or diclofenac (1·41, 1·12–1·78; p=0·0036), chiefly due to an increase in major coronary events (coxibs 1·76, 1·31–2·37; p=0·0001; diclofenac 1·70, 1·19–2·41; p=0·0032). Ibuprofen also significantly increased major coronary events (2·22, 1·10–4·48; p=0·0253), but not major vascular events (1·44, 0·89–2·33). Compared with placebo, of 1000 patients allocated to a coxib or diclofenac for a year, three more had major vascular events, one of which was fatal. Naproxen did not significantly increase major vascular events (0·93, 0·69–1·27). Vascular death was increased significantly by coxibs (1·58, 99% CI 1·00–2·49; p=0·0103) and diclofenac (1·65, 0·95–2·85, p=0·0187), non-significantly by ibuprofen (1·90, 0·56–6·41; p=0·17), but not by naproxen (1·08, 0·48–2·47, p=0·80). The proportional effects on major vascular events were independent of baseline characteristics, including vascular risk. Heart failure risk was roughly doubled by all NSAIDs. All NSAID regimens increased upper gastrointestinal complications (coxibs 1·81, 1·17–2·81, p=0·0070; diclofenac 1·89, 1·16–3·09, p=0·0106; ibuprofen 3·97, 2·22–7·10, p<0·0001; and naproxen 4·22, 2·71–6·56, p<0·0001). Interpretation The vascular risks of high-dose diclofenac, and possibly ibuprofen, are comparable to coxibs, whereas high-dose naproxen is associated with less vascular risk than other NSAIDs. Although NSAIDs increase vascular and gastrointestinal risks, the size of these risks can be predicted, which could help guide clinical decision making. Funding UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation.

Risk factors for coronary artery disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

PURPOSE To estimate the frequency of and examine risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a prospective longitudinal study. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were SLE are enrolled in The Johns Hopkins Lupus Cohort, a prospective study of outcomes in 229 subjects with SLE. CAD was defined as angina, myocardial infarction, or sudden death. Data on CAD risk factors were obtained prospectively every 3 months and were analyzed using univariate and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS CAD occurred in 19 (8.3%) of 229 patients with SLE and accounted for 3 (30%) of 10 deaths as of December 31, 1990. Compared to subjects without CAD, those with CAD were more likely to have been older at both diagnosis of SLE (37.1 years versus 28.9 years, p = 0.004) and at entry into the cohort (47.1 years versus 34.7 years, p < 0.0001), to have a longer mean duration of SLE (12.3 years versus 8.1 years, p = 0.013) and a longer mean duration of prednisone use (14.3 years versus 7.2 years, p < 0.0001), to have a higher mean serum cholesterol (271.2 mg/dL versus 214.9 mg/dL, p < 0.0001) or a cholesterol level greater than 200 mg/dL (odds ratio [OR] 14.5, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.9, 112.1), and to have both a history of hypertension (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3, 9.6) and a history of use of antihypertensive medications (OR 5.5, 95% CI 1.8, 17.2). There were no significant associations with other known CAD risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, family history of CAD, race, or sex, or variables related to steroid therapy including the presence of cushingoid features or ever use of corticosteroids. The best multiple logistic regression model for CAD included age at diagnosis, duration of prednisone use, requirement for antihypertensive treatment, maximum cholesterol level, and obesity (using NHANES-II [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] definitions). CONCLUSION Primary and secondary prevention strategies directed at hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and obesity, as well as other known CAD risk factors, should be routinely employed in the management of patients with SLE.

Comparison of 2 frailty indexes for prediction of falls, disability, fractures, and death in older women

BACKGROUND Frailty, as defined by the index derived from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS index), predicts risk of adverse outcomes in older adults. Use of this index, however, is impractical in clinical practice. METHODS We conducted a prospective cohort study in 6701 women 69 years or older to compare the predictive validity of a simple frailty index with the components of weight loss, inability to rise from a chair 5 times without using arms, and reduced energy level (Study of Osteoporotic Fractures [SOF index]) with that of the CHS index with the components of unintentional weight loss, poor grip strength, reduced energy level, slow walking speed, and low level of physical activity. Women were classified as robust, of intermediate status, or frail using each index. Falls were reported every 4 months for 1 year. Disability (> or =1 new impairment in performing instrumental activities of daily living) was ascertained at 4(1/2) years, and fractures and deaths were ascertained during 9 years of follow-up. Area under the curve (AUC) statistics from receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and -2 log likelihood statistics were compared for models containing the CHS index vs the SOF index. RESULTS Increasing evidence of frailty as defined by either the CHS index or the SOF index was similarly associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Frail women had a higher age-adjusted risk of recurrent falls (odds ratio, 2.4), disability (odds ratio, 2.2-2.8), nonspine fracture (hazard ratio, 1.4-1.5), hip fracture (hazard ratio, 1.7-1.8), and death (hazard ratio, 2.4-2.7) (P < .001 for all models). The AUC comparisons revealed no differences between models with the CHS index vs the SOF index in discriminating falls (AUC = 0.61 for both models; P = .66), disability (AUC = 0.64; P = .23), nonspine fracture (AUC = 0.55; P = .80), hip fracture (AUC = 0.63; P = .64), or death (AUC = 0.72; P = .10). Results were similar when -2 log likelihood statistics were compared. CONCLUSION The simple SOF index predicts risk of falls, disability, fracture, and death as well as the more complex CHS index and may provide a useful definition of frailty to identify older women at risk of adverse health outcomes in clinical practice.