1,13resuMo A evolução dos métodos de avaliação da massa óssea trouxe diferentes tecnologias, modos de aquisição de imagens, bancos de dados de referência, terminologias, critérios diagnósticos fez com que a International Society for Bone Densitometry (ISCD) tomasse a iniciativa de promover reuniões periódicas de consenso, a última em 2007. A Sociedade Brasileira de Densitometria Clínica (SBDens), com apoio de várias sociedades brasileiras ligadas ao estudo da saúde óssea, reuniu diversos especialistas para discutir as propostas da ISCD e validar a aplicação destas normas à população brasileira. A reunião de Posições Oficiais da SBDens produziu um documento extremamente útil para a compreensão e interpretação da densitometria e de outros métodos de avaliação da massa óssea. Arq Bras endocrinol metab. 2009;53(1):107-112. descritores Densitometria; densidade mineral óssea; osteoporose; risco de fratura; absorciometria duplo-energética, posições oficiais aBstract With the evolution of bone densitometry, differences in technologies, acquisition techniques, reference databases, reporting methods, diagnostic criteria and terminology have developed and the International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) periodically holds Position Development Conferences, the latest in 2007. The Brazilian Society for Clinical Densitometry (SBDens), with support from many Brazilian societies interested in bone health, gathered numerous specialists to discuss the ISCD proposals and to evaluate the validity of the extension of those norms to Brazilian population. The SBDens reunion of consensus made a very utile document to help the understanding and interpretation of bone densitometry and other methods of bone assessment. O resultado deste trabalho está detalhado em um documento que pode ser acessado em sua íntegra no site da entidade (www.sbdens.org.br), e que passa a representar, até

Glucocorticoids (GC) are used in almost all medical specialties, and approximately 0.5% of the general population of the United Kingdom receives those medications. With the increased survival of patients with rheumatological diseases, morbidity secondary to the use of those medications represents an important aspect of the management of our patients. The incidences of vertebral and non-vertebral fractures are elevated, ranging from 30% to 50% of the individuals on GC for over three months. Thus, osteoporosis and frailty fractures should be prevented and treated in all patients initiating or already on GC. There are several recommendations on this topic elaborated by several international societies, but consensus still lacks. Recently, the American College of Rheumatology has published new recommendations, but they are based on the WHO Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX®) to evaluate the risk for each individual, and, thus, cannot be completely used for the Brazilian population. Thus, the Committee for Osteoporosis and Bone Metabolic Disorders of the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology, along with the Brazilian Medical Association and the Brazilian Association of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, has elaborated the Brazilian Guidelines for Glucocorticoid-Induced Osteoporosis (GIO), based on the better available scientifi c evidence and/or expert experience. Method of evidence collection: The bibliographic review of scientifi c articles of this guideline was performed in the MEDLINE database. The search for evidence was based on real clinical scenarios, and used the following keywords (MeSH Osteoporosis/prevention & control, Calcium, Vitamin D, Vitamin D defi ciency, Calcitriol, Receptors, Calcitriol; Hydroxycholecalciferols, Prevention and Control, Spinal fractures/prevention & control, Fractures, Spontaneous, Lumbar Vertebrae/injuries, Lifestyle, Alcohol Drinking, Smoking OR tobacco use disorder, Movement, Resistance Training, Exercise Therapy, Bone density OR Bone and Bones, Densitometry, Radiography, (Diphosphonates Alendronate OR Risedronate Pamidronate OR propanolamines OR Ibandronate OR Zoledronic acid, Men AND premenopause, pregnancy, pregnancy outcome maternal, fetus, lactation, teratogens,, adolescence (13-18 years). Grade of recommendation and level of evidence: A) Data derived from more consistent experimental and observational studies; B) Data derived from less consistent experimental and observational studies; C) Case reports (uncontrolled studies); D) Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal, or based on consensus, physiological studies or animal models. Objective: To establish guidelines for the prevention and treatment of GIO.

No abstract

BackgroundNonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most common type of medication used in the treatment of acute pain. Ketorolac trometamol (KT) is a nonnarcotic, peripherally acting nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug with analgesic effects comparable to certain opioids.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of KT and naproxen (NA) in the treatment of acute low back pain (LBP) of moderate-to-severe intensity.Patients and methodsIn this 10-day, Phase III, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, noninferiority trial, participants with acute LBP of moderate-to-severe intensity as determined through a visual analog scale (VAS) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sublingual KT 10 mg three times daily or oral NA 250 mg three times daily. From the second to the fifth day of treatment, if patient had VAS >40 mm, increased dosage to four times per day was allowed. The primary end point was the reduction in LBP as measured by VAS. We also performed a post hoc superiority analysis.ResultsKT was not inferior to NA for the reduction in LBP over 5 days of use as measured by VAS scores (P=0.608 for equality of variance; P=0.321 for equality of means) and by the Roland–Morris Disability Questionnaire (P=0.180 for equality of variance test; P=0.446 for equality of means) using 95% confidence intervals. The percentage of participants with improved pain relief 60 minutes after receiving the first dose was higher in the KT group (24.2%) than in the NA group (6.5%; P=0.049). The most common adverse effects were heartburn, nausea, and vomiting.ConclusionKT is not inferior in efficacy and delivers faster pain relief than NA.