Summary The National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) has revised the UK guideline for the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Accredited by NICE, this guideline is relevant for all healthcare professionals involved in osteoporosis management. Introduction The UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) first produced a guideline on the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in 2008, with updates in 2013 and 2017. This paper presents a major update of the guideline, the scope of which is to review the assessment and management of osteoporosis and the prevention of fragility fractures in postmenopausal women, and men age 50 years and older. Methods Where available, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials were used to provide the evidence base. Conclusions and recommendations were systematically graded according to the strength of the available evidence. Results Review of the evidence and recommendations are provided for the diagnosis of osteoporosis, fracture-risk assessment and intervention thresholds, management of vertebral fractures, non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments, including duration and monitoring of anti-resorptive therapy, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, and models of care for fracture prevention. Recommendations are made for training; service leads and commissioners of healthcare; and for review criteria for audit and quality improvement. Conclusion The guideline, which has received accreditation from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), provides a comprehensive overview of the assessment and management of osteoporosis for all healthcare professionals involved in its management. This position paper has been endorsed by the International Osteoporosis Foundation and by the European Society for the Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS It is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission. METHODS Between April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score <20 (range, 0 100); histologic remission was defined as a peak count of <20 eosinophils/ mm2 in a high-power field (corresponds to approximately <5 eosinophils/median high-power field); and endoscopic remission as absence of white exudates, moderate or severe rings, strictures, or combination of furrows and edema. We used receiver operating characteristic analysis to determine the best symptom score cutoff values for detection of remission. RESULTS Of the study subjects, 111 were in clinical remission (41.3%), 79 were in endoscopic remission (29.7%), and 75 were in histologic remission (27.9%). When the symptom score was used as a continuous variable, patients in endoscopic, histologic, and combined (endoscopic and histologic remission) remission were detected with area under the curve values of 0.67, 0.60, and 0.67, respectively. A symptom score of 20 identified patients in endoscopic remission with 65.1% accuracy and histologic remission with 62.1% accuracy; a symptom score of 15 identified patients with both types of remission with 67.7% accuracy. CONCLUSIONS In patients with EoE, endoscopic or histologic remission can be identified with only modest accuracy based on symptoms alone. At any given time, physicians cannot rely on lack of symptoms to make assumptions about lack of biologic disease activity in adults with EoE. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT00939263.

Fibromyalgia is a complex problem in which symptoms of anxiety and depression feature prominently. Low levels of vitamin D have been frequently reported in fibromyalgia, but no relationship was demonstrated with anxiety and depression. Seventy-five Caucasian patients who fulfilled the ACR criteria for fibromyalgia had serum vitamin D levels measured and completed the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS). Deficient levels of vitamin D was found in 13.3% of the patients, while 56.0% had insufficient levels and 30.7% had normal levels. Patients with vitamin D deficiency (<25 nmol/l) had higher HADS [median, IQR, 31.0 (23.8-36.8] than patients with insufficient levels [25-50 nmol/l; HADS 22.5 (17.0-26.0)] or than patients with normal levels [50 nmol/l or greater; HADS 23.5 (19.0-27.5); Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on ranks p<0.05]. There was no relationship with global measures of disease impact or musculoskeletal symptoms. Vitamin D deficiency is common in fibromyalgia and occurs more frequently in patients with anxiety and depression. The nature and direction of the causal relationship remains unclear, but there are definite implications for long-term bone health.

Esomeprazole 20 mg was superior to placebo for on-demand treatment of GORD; a higher dose did not confer additional clinical benefit. Over 90% of patients were willing to continue on-demand treatment with esomeprazole 20 mg over a 6-month period.