Endothelial dysfunction is regarded as an important factor in the pathogenesis of vascular disease in obesity-related type 2 diabetes. The imbalance in repair and injury (hyperglycemia, hypertension, dyslipidemia) results in microvascular changes, including apoptosis of microvascular cells, ultimately leading to diabetes related complications. This review summarizes the mechanisms by which the interplay between endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and apoptosis may cause (micro)vascular damage in patients with diabetes mellitus.

IntroductionB 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.MethodsIn 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).ResultsGenome-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.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates clinical utility for the use of baseline IRG expression levels as a predictive biomarker for non-response to RTX in RA.

BackgroundEarly, intensive treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with the combination of (initially high dose) prednisolone, methotrexate and sulfasalazine (COBRA therapy) considerably lowers disease activity and suppresses radiological progression, but is infrequently prescribed in daily practice. Attenuating the COBRA regimen might lessen concerns about side effects, but the efficacy of such strategies is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare the ‘COBRA-light’ strategy with only two drugs, comprising a lower dose of prednisolone (starting at 30 mg/day, tapered to 7.5 mg/day in 9 weeks) and methotrexate (escalated to 25 mg/week in 9 weeks) to COBRA therapy (prednisolone 60 mg/day, tapered to 7.5 mg/day in 6 weeks, methotrexate 7.5 mg/week and sulfasalazine 2 g/day).MethodAn open, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial in 164 patients with early active RA, all treated according to a treat to target strategy.ResultsAt baseline patients had moderately active disease: mean (SD) 44-joint disease activity score (DAS44) 4.13 (0.81) for COBRA and 3.95 (0.9) for COBRA-light. After 6 months, DAS44 significantly decreased in both groups (–2.50 (1.21) for COBRA and –2.18 (1.10) for COBRA-light). The adjusted difference in DAS44 improvement between the groups, 0.21 (95% CI –0.11 to 0.53), was smaller than the predefined clinically relevant difference of 0.5. Minimal disease activity (DAS44 <1.6) was reached in almost half of patients in both groups (49% and 41% in COBRA and COBRA-light, respectively).ConclusionsAt 6 months COBRA-light therapy is most likely non-inferior to COBRA therapy.Clinical Trial Registration Number55552928.

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.

IntroductionBoth cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis are important causes of morbidity and mortality in the elderly. The co-occurrence of cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis prompted us to review the evidence of an association between cardiovascular (CV) disease and osteoporosis and potential shared common pathophysiological mechanisms.MethodsA systematic literature search (Medline, Pubmed and Embase) was conducted to identify all clinical studies that investigated the association between cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. Relevant studies were screened for quality according to guidelines as proposed by the Dutch Cochrane Centre and evidence was summarized.ResultsSeventy studies were included in this review. Due to a large heterogeneity in study population, design and outcome measures a formal meta-analysis was not possible. Six of the highest ranked studies (mean n = 2,000) showed that individuals with prevalent subclinical CV disease had higher risk for increased bone loss and fractures during follow-up compared to persons without CV disease (range of reported risk: hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; odds ratio (OR) 2.3 to 3.0). The largest study (n = 31,936) reported a more than four times higher risk in women and more than six times higher risk in men. There is moderate evidence that individuals with low bone mass had higher CV mortality rates and incident CV events than subjects with normal bone mass (risk rates 1.2 to 1.4). Although the shared common pathophysiological mechanisms are not fully elucidated, the most important factors that might explain this association appear to be, besides age, estrogen deficiency and inflammation.ConclusionsThe current evidence indicates that individuals with prevalent subclinical CV disease are at increased risk for bone loss and subsequent fractures. Presently no firm conclusions can be drawn as to what extent low bone mineral density might be associated with increased cardiovascular risk.