Introduction With a worldwide ageing population, the importance of the prevention and management of osteoporotic fragility fractures is increasing over time. In this review, we discuss in detail the epidemiology of fragility fractures, how this is shaped by pharmacological interventions and how novel screening programmes can reduce the clinical and economic burden of osteoporotic fractures. Sources of data PubMed and Google Scholar were searched using various combinations of the keywords ‘osteoporosis’, ‘epidemiology’, ‘fracture’, ‘screening’, `FRAX’ and ‘SCOOP’. Areas of agreement The economic burden of osteoporosis-related fracture is significant, costing approximately $17.9 and £4 billion per annum in the USA and UK. Areas of controversy Risk calculators such as the web-based FRAX® algorithm have enabled assessment of an individual’s fracture risk using clinical risk factors, with only partial consideration of bone mineral density (BMD). Growing points As with all new interventions, we await the results of long-term use of osteoporosis screening algorithms and how these can be refined and incorporated into clinical practice. Areas timely for developing research Despite advances in osteoporosis screening, a minority of men and women at high fracture risk worldwide receive treatment. The economic and societal burden caused by osteoporosis is a clear motivation for improving the screening and management of osteoporosis worldwide.

BackgroundRheumatoid arthritis (RA) and periodontitis are both chronic inflammatory diseases, which demonstrate similarities in terms of mechanism, histopathology, and demography. An association between these conditions has been demonstrated previously but has been called into question more recently.MethodsThe published databases, such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, were searched using search terms related to RA and periodontitis. Articles were selected if they included data on the number of people with RA diagnosed with periodontitis (or periodontal disease parameters) compared to a control comparison group. Review articles, case reports, animal model studies, non-English language, and articles with unavailable abstracts were excluded. Data were extracted, critically appraised using the Downs and Black tool, and a random-effect Mantel–Haenszel meta-analysis was performed.ResultsTwenty-one papers met the eligibility criteria and provided data for the meta-analysis; 17 studies (including a total of 153,492 participants) comparing RA to healthy controls and 4 (including a total of 1378 participants) comparing RA to osteoarthritis (OA). There was a significantly increased risk of periodontitis in people with RA compared to healthy controls (relative risk: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.23; p = 0.006; N = 153,277) with a significantly raised mean probing depth, risk of bleeding on probing (BOP), and absolute value of clinical attachment loss in those with RA. When comparing RA and OA, there was no significant difference in the prevalence of periodontitis; however, the risk of BOP was greater in OA than RA.ConclusionA significant association between RA and periodontitis is supported by the results of our systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing RA to healthy controls. In our meta-analysis, however, this is not replicated when comparing RA to OA controls.

Sarcopenia is a condition that is characterized by loss of muscle mass, muscle strength and muscle functional impairment with ageing. The definition of sarcopenia has been through various permutations; however, an enormous recent breakthrough is the inclusion of the condition in the ICD-10 classification of diseases. This chapter covers the background issues regarding definition before describing the epidemiology of the disease according to human and environmental factors. It then provides a practical guide for the assessment of sarcopenia in a clinical setting and finishes with advice on present treatment and the exciting frontiers of future therapies.

No abstract

No abstract

Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common joint condition and, with a burgeoning ageing population, is due to increase in prevalence. Beyond conventional medical and surgical interventions, there are an increasing number of 'alternative' therapies. These alternative therapies may have a limited evidence base and, for this reason, are often only afforded brief reference (or completely excluded) from current OA guidelines. Thus, the aim of this review was to synthesize the current evidence regarding autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), vitamin D and other alternative therapies. The majority of studies were in knee OA or chondral defects. Matrix-assisted ACI has demonstrated exceedingly limited, symptomatic improvements in the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee and is not supported for the treatment of knee OA. There is some evidence to suggest symptomatic improvement with MSC injection in knee OA, with the suggestion of minimal structural improvement demonstrated on MRI and there are positive signals that PRP may also lead to symptomatic improvement, though variation in preparation makes inter-study comparison difficult. There is variability in findings with vitamin D supplementation in OA, and the only recommendation which can be made, at this time, is for replacement when vitamin D is deplete. Other alternative therapies reviewed have some evidence (though from small, poor-quality studies) to support improvement in symptoms and again there is often a wide variation in dosage and regimens. For all these therapeutic modalities, although controlled studies have been undertaken to evaluate effectiveness in OA, these have often been of small size, limited statistical power, uncertain blindness and using various methodologies. These deficiencies must leave the question as to whether they have been validated as effective therapies in OA (or chondral defects). The conclusions of this review are that all alternative interventions definitely require clinical trials with robust methodology, to assess their efficacy and safety in the treatment of OA beyond contextual and placebo effects.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is considered to be, in many respects, an archetypal autoimmune disease that causes activation of pro-inflammatory pathways resulting in joint and systemic inflammation. RA remains a major clinical problem with the development of several new therapies targeted at cytokine inhibition in recent years. In RA, biologic therapies targeted at inhibition of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) have been shown to reduce joint inflammation, limit erosive change, reduce disability and improve quality of life. The cytokine TNFα has a central role in systemic RA inflammation and has also been shown to have pro-inflammatory effects in the brain. Emerging data suggests there is an important bidirectional communication between the brain and immune system in inflammatory conditions like RA. Recent work has shown how TNF inhibitor therapy in people with RA is protective for Alzheimer's disease. Functional MRI studies to measure brain activation in people with RA to stimulus by finger joint compression, have also shown that those who responded to TNF inhibition showed a significantly greater activation volume in thalamic, limbic, and associative areas of the brain than non-responders. Infections are the main risk of therapies with biologic drugs and infections have been shown to be related to disease flares in RA. Recent basic science data has also emerged suggesting that bacterial components including lipopolysaccharide induce pain by directly activating sensory neurons that modulate inflammation, a previously unsuspected role for the nervous system in host-pathogen interactions. In this review, we discuss the current evidence for neuro-inflammation as an important factor that impacts on disease persistence and pain in RA.

Objective Our aim was to assess the safety of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Methods A comprehensive literature search was undertaken in the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Ovid CENTRAL) and Scopus. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trials that assessed adverse events (AEs) with COX-2 inhibitors in patients with OA were eligible for inclusion. Two authors appraised titles, abstracts and full-text papers for suitability and then assessed the studies for random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data and selective outcomes reporting. The primary outcomes of interest were gastrointestinal disorders, cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, nervous system disorders, skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders, hepatobiliary disorders, renal and urinary disorders, as well as overall severe and serious AEs, drug-related AEs and mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to AEs (i.e. the number of participants who stopped the treatment due to an AE) and total number of AEs (i.e. the number of patients who experienced any AE at least once). Results Database searches identified 2149 records from which, after exclusions, 40 trials were included in the meta-analysis. The use of COX-2 inhibitors in OA was associated with a significant increased risk of drug-related AEs compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 1.26, 95% CI 1.09–1.46; I 2 = 24%). The risk of upper gastrointestinal complications (including dyspepsia, gastritis and heartburn) was significantly increased with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.03–1.38; I 2 = 0%), particularly for abdominal pain, which increased by 40% with COX-2 inhibitors (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; I 2 = 0%). The risk of hypertension increased by 45% overall (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.01–2.10; I 2 = 25%); however, when rofecoxib was removed from the analysis the risk of hypertension in the COX-2 inhibitor group was no longer significant (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80–1.83; I 2 = 20%). The overall risk of heart failure and edema was increased by nearly 70% with COX-2 inhibitors versus placebo (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.22–2.31; 0%) and this level of risk did not change appreciably when rofecoxib was excluded (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.21–2.29; 0%). Conclusions In our analysis, COX-2 inhibitors were associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal AEs, especially abdominal pain. We also found an increased risk of cardiovascular AEs with COX-2 inhibitors, namely hypertension, heart failure and edema. ...