There are several guidelines addressing the issues around the use of NSAIDs. However, none has specifically addressed the upper versus lower gastrointestinal (GI) risk of COX-2 selective and non-selective compounds nor the interaction at both the GI and cardiovascular (CV) level of either class of drugs with low-dose aspirin. This Consensus paper aims to develop statements and guidance devoted to these specific issues through a review of current evidence by a multidisciplinary group of experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was adopted to determine the level of agreement with each statement and to determine the level of agreement with the strength of evidence to be assigned to the statement. For patients with both low GI and CV risks, any non-selective NSAID (ns-NSAID) alone may be acceptable. For those with low GI and high CV risk, naproxen may be preferred because of its potential lower CV risk compared with other ns-NSAIDs or COX-2 selective inhibitors, but celecoxib at the lowest approved dose (200 mg once daily) may be acceptable. In patients with high GI risk, if CV risk is low, a COX-2 selective inhibitor alone or ns-NSAID with a proton pump inhibitor appears to offer similar protection from upper GI events. However, only celecoxib will reduce mucosal harm throughout the entire GI tract. When both GI and CV risks are high, the optimal strategy is to avoid NSAID therapy, if at all possible. Time is now ripe for offering patients with osteoarthritis the safest and most cost-effective therapeutic option, thus preventing serious adverse events which could have important quality of life and resource use implications. Please see related article: http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1186/s12916-015-0291-x .

Introduction: B cell depletion therapy is efficacious in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients failing on tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blocking agents. However, approximately 40% to 50% of rituximab (RTX) treated RA patients have a poor response. We investigated whether baseline gene expression levels can discriminate between clinical non-responders and responders to RTX. Methods: In 14 consecutive RA patients starting on RTX (test cohort), gene expression profiling on whole peripheral blood RNA was performed by Illumina^® HumanHT beadchip microarrays. Supervised cluster analysis was used to identify genes expressed differentially at baseline between responders and non-responders based on both a difference in 28 joints disease activity score (ΔDAS28 < 1.2) and European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response criteria after six months RTX. Genes of interest were measured by quantitative real-time PCR and tested for their predictive value using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves in an independent validation cohort (n = 26). Results: Genome-wide microarray analysis revealed a marked variation in the peripheral blood cells between RA patients before the start of RTX treatment. Here, we demonstrated that only a cluster consisting of interferon (IFN) type I network genes, represented by a set of IFN type I response genes (IRGs), that is, LY6E, HERC5, IFI44L, ISG15, MxA, MxB, EPSTI1 and RSAD2, was associated with ΔDAS28 and EULAR response outcome (P = 0.0074 and P = 0.0599, respectively). Based on the eight IRGs an IFN-score was calculated that reached an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.82 to separate non-responders from responders in an independent validation cohort of 26 patients using Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curves analysis according to ΔDAS28 < 1.2 criteria. Advanced classifier analysis yielded a three IRG-set that reached an AUC of 87%. Comparable findings applied to EULAR non-response criteria. Conclusions: This study demonstrates clinical utility for the use of baseline IRG expression levels as a predictive biomarker for non-response to RTX in RA.

Background Low-dose glucocorticoid (GC) therapy is widely used in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) but the balance of benefit and harm is still unclear. Methods The GLORIA (Glucocorticoid LOw-dose in RheumatoId Arthritis) pragmatic double-blind randomised trial compared 2 years of prednisolone, 5 mg/day, to placebo in patients aged 65+ with active RA. We allowed all cotreatments except long-term open label GC and minimised exclusion criteria, tailored to seniors. Benefit outcomes included disease activity (disease activity score; DAS28, coprimary) and joint damage (Sharp/van der Heijde, secondary). The other coprimary outcome was harm, expressed as the proportion of patients with ≥1 adverse event (AE) of special interest. Such events comprised serious events, GC-specific events and those causing study discontinuation. Longitudinal models analysed the data, with one-sided testing and 95% confidence limits (95% CL). Results We randomised 451 patients with established RA and mean 2.1 comorbidities, age 72, disease duration 11 years and DAS28 4.5. 79% were on disease-modifying treatment, including 14% on biologics. 63% prednisolone versus 61% placebo patients completed the trial. Discontinuations were for AE (both, 14%), active disease (3 vs 4%) and for other (including covid pandemic-related disease) reasons (19 vs 21%); mean time in study was 19 months. Disease activity was 0.37 points lower on prednisolone (95% CL 0.23, p<0.0001); joint damage progression was 1.7 points lower (95% CL 0.7, p=0.003). 60% versus 49% of patients experienced the harm outcome, adjusted relative risk 1.24 (95% CL 1.04, p=0.02), with the largest contrast in (mostly non-severe) infections. Other GC-specific events were rare. Conclusion Add-on low-dose prednisolone has beneficial long-term effects in senior patients with established RA, with a trade-off of 24% increase in patients with mostly non-severe AE; this suggests a favourable balance of benefit and harm. Trial registration number NCT02585258.

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

Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) is one of the most important side effects of glucocorticoid use, as it leads to an increased risk of fractures. Recently, many published studies have focused on the cellular and molecular mechanisms of bone metabolism, the pathophysiology of GIOP, and the intervention options to prevent GIOP. In this review, recent advances in GIOP are summarized, particularly recent progress in our understanding of the mechanisms of GIOP resulting in improved insight that might result in the development of new treatment options in the near future.

Osteoporosis is a silent disease with increasing prevalence due to the global ageing population. Decreased bone strength and bone quality is the hallmark of osteoporosis which leads to an increased risk of fragility fractures in elderly. It has been estimated that approximately ~50% of women will suffer during their lifetime from an osteoporotic fracture. This must be considered as a major health concern, as it has previously been established that fragility fracture has been associated with decreased quality of life due to increased disability, more frequent hospital admission and most importantly, osteoporotic fractures have been related to an augmented mortality risk. Anti-osteoporotic drugs are available for improving bone quality. Although there is access to these therapeutic options, there remain multiple unmet needs in the field of osteoporosis and fracture care, for example, the primary prevention of osteoporosis in young individuals (to reach a high peak bone mass), the optimization of the use of imaging techniques [dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) and new techniques measuring bone quality], the use of nonmedical treatment options and surgical techniques of fracture healing. In this review, we will discuss topics that play a role in the occurrence and prevention of fractures, and we give an overview of and insight into the critical issues and challenges around osteoporosis and fracture prevention.