No abstract

Background:Low bone mineral density (BMD) is common in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The fracture risk (FR) is increased and its reduction with pharmacologic therapy is not clearly defined in this population. However, early screening and bisphosphonates as first-line treatment are recommended.Objectives:To investigate the influence of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) in the ten-year risk of fracture assessed by FR Assessment Tool (FRAX) and to determine possible demographic or clinical factors associated with an increased FR in a spondyloarthritis (SpA) population.Methods:Retrospective study including all the over 40 years-old SpA patients (ASAS classification criteria) followed at our Rheumatology Department and registered in the national database. Demographic, clinical and laboratorial data were collected at the time of the last follow-up visit. Data from the last DXA (until 3 years prior to the last visit) were collected. Indication for pharmacological treatment by FRAX was assessed according to the national recommendations.Results:A total of 231 SpA patients were included: 126 males (54.5%), 53 (22.9%) smokers; 171 (74%) had AS, 23 (10%) had Inflammatory Bowel Disease Associated SpA and 37 (16%) had Undifferentiated SpA. At the last follow-up visit, the mean age was 52.9 years (±9.6) and the median disease duration was 21.9 years [1.0-55.5]. The mean ASDAS-CRP was 2.5 (±0.9) and the majority of patients had moderate (25.5%) or high (48.5%) disease activity (according to ASDAS). One hundred and thirty patients (56.3%) were taking NSAIDs, 45 (19.5%) were taking glucocorticoids, 85 (36.8%) were under csDMARDs and 170 (73.6%) under bDMARDs [157 (68%) under TNFi, 11 (4.8%) under secukinumab and 2 (0.9%) under ustekinumab].Eleven patients (4.8%) had previous fragility fractures, 118 (51.1%) had DXA in the last 3 years and 167 (72.3%) were taking calcium and/or vitamin D supplements.Sixteen patients (6.9%) had indication for treatment by FRAX without DXA and 9 of these (56.3%) were already under treatment. Similarly, 16 (6.9%) had indication for treatment by FRAX with DXA and 13 of these (81.3%) were already under treatment. Ten patients (4.3%) were reclassified in FRAX with DXA: 7 (3%) had no indication for treatment by FRAX without DXA but obtained it by FRAX with DXA and 3 (1.3%) had indication for treatment by FRAX without DXA but they lost it by FRAX with DXA. We found a moderate level of agreement in the indication for treatment between FRAX with and without DXA (kappa=0.595; p<0.001). The use of DXA in FRAX estimated a significant higher median FR, both for major osteoporotic fracture (2.4% [0.8-31.0] vs 1.8% [0.6-20.0]; p<0.001) and for hip fracture (0.5% [0.0-23.0] vs 0.2% [0.0-14.0]; p<0.001).We found significant correlations between FR and some disease-related variables (table 1).Table 1.Correlations between the risk of fracture estimated by FRAX and disease-related variables.Disease durationBASDAIASDAS-CRPBASMIBASFIEstimated fracture risk by FRAX:without DXAmajor osteoporotic fracturer=0.352p<0.001r=0.204p=0.002r=0.214p=0.001r=0.301p<0.001r=0.317p<0.001hip fracturer=0.389p<0.001r=0.142p=0.034r=0.170p=0.011r=0.305p<0.001r=0.275p<0.001with DXAmajor osteoporotic fracturer=0.227p=0.014r=0.314p=0.001r=0.356p<0.001r=0.293p=0.002r=0.379p<0.001hip fracturen.s.r=0.197p=0.036r=0.269p=0.004r=0.271p=0.004r=0.258p=0.006Conclusion:Our results showed that a similar number of patients had indication for pharmacological treatment by FRAX both with and without DXA. Although the inclusion of DXA resulted in a higher estimated FR by FRAX, the observed moderate level of agreement between FRAX with and without DXA suggests that the FR estimation by FRAX, even without DXA, may be a reasonable approach in SpA patients. In line with literature, we found significant associations between the estimated risk fracture by FRAX and some disease activity and function measures.Disclosure of Interests:Bruno Miguel Fernandes: None declared, Salomé Garcia: None declared, Sara Ganhão: None declared, Maria Rato: None declared, Filipe Pinheiro: None declared, Miguel Bernardes Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Lúcia Costa: None declared

Background:Few studies have evaluated the prevalence and treatment of osteoporosis (OP) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and many of these patients are not screened using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA). FRAX makes it possible to stratify the risk and define which patients may benefit from anti-osteoporotic treatment, but its usefulness in this population is not well established.Objectives:The aim of this study was to determine whether the application of FRAX changes the indication for anti-osteoporotic treatment in PsA patients, according to the Portuguese guidelines.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated PsA patients from a tertiary hospital, registered in a national database (Reuma.pt), aged between 40 and 90 years and with a last consultation in 2019. FRAX was applied in all of them, regardless of being under anti-osteoporotic treatment and, when DXA was available, the femoral neck bone mineral density was used. Patients were stratified according to the risk of fracture, and those at high risk were considered candidates for anti-osteoporotic treatment, according to national guidelines [FRAX ≥11% for major osteoporotic fracture (MOF) or ≥ 3% for hip fracture (HF) without DXA; FRAX ≥9% for MOF or ≥ 2.5% for HF, with DXA].Results:We included 100 patients, 52 females, with a mean age of 54,4 ±8,9 years and a median disease duration of 10 (6-17) years. Only 43 had already performed DXA and 6 had OP according to World Health Organization criteria. Seven patients were identified as having a high risk of fracture; applying femoral neck bone mineral density, 2 more patients with indication for treatment were recognized, totalizing 9 patients. There was a low agreement between the indication for treatment based only on DXA and FRAX (Cohen’s k 0.066). There was a moderate and significant correlation between percentage of risk of MOF by FRAX with and without DXA (Spearman’s ρ 0.804, p <0.001); for the risk of HF by FRAX with and without DEXA the correlation was weaker but still significant (Spearman’s ρ 0.439, p = 0.004). There was no association between the indication for treatment by FRAX and the performance of DXA (chi-square test, p = 0.597), nor the fact of performing DXA significantly affected the risk of MOF (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.185) or of HF (Wilcoxon test, p = 0.785) by FRAX.Conclusion:In line with Portuguese guidelines, FRAX seems to be, in itself, a very useful tool in patients with PsA, and the performance of DXA does not significantly alter the indication for anti-osteoporotic treatment.References:[1]Rodrigues AM, Canhao H, Marques A, Ambrosio C, Borges J, Coelho P, et al. Portuguese recommendations for the prevention, diagnosis and management of primary osteoporosis - 2018 update. Acta Reumatol Port. 2018;43(1):10-31.[2]Del Puente A, Esposito A, Parisi A, Atteno M, Montalbano S, Vitiello M, et al. Osteoporosis and psoriatic arthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl. 2012;89:36-8.[3]Gulati AM, Michelsen B, Diamantopoulos A, Grandaunet B, Salvesen O, Kavanaugh A, et al. Osteoporosis in psoriatic arthritis: a cross-sectional study of an outpatient clinic population. RMD Open. 2018;4(1):e000631.[4]Adami G, Fassio A, Rossini M, Caimmi C, Giollo A, Orsolini G, et al. Osteoporosis in Rheumatic Diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(23).[5]Kanis JA, Harvey NC, Johansson H, Oden A, Leslie WD, McCloskey EV. FRAX Update. J Clin Densitom. 2017;20(3):360-7.Disclosure of Interests:Filipe Pinheiro: None declared, Maria Rato: None declared, Bruno Miguel Fernandes: None declared, Salomé Garcia: None declared, Sara Ganhão: None declared, Pedro Madureira: None declared, Miguel Bernardes Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Lúcia Costa: None declared

Background:Osteoporosis is commonly seen in patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE), even in pre-menopausal patients. The etiology is multifactorial and chronic glucocorticoid therapy seems to play a central role.Objectives:To investigate the ten-year risk of fracture assessed by Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX), with and without dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and to determine possible demographic or clinical factors associated with an increased risk of fracture in a SLE population.Methods:Retrospective study including all the over 40 years-old patients with the diagnosis of SLE (2012 SLICC classification criteria) followed at our Rheumatology Department registered in our national database. Demographic, clinical and laboratorial data were collected at the last follow-up visit. Data from the last DXA (until 3 years prior to the last visit) were collected. Indication for pharmacological treatment by FRAX was assessed according to the national recommendations: estimated fracture risk, without DXA, ≥11% for major osteoporotic fracture or ≥3% for hip fracture and/or estimated fracture risk, with DXA, ≥9% for major osteoporotic fracture or ≥2.5% for hip fracture.Results:We included 104 patients, 101 (97.1%) females, aged 54.5±9.9 years, with a median disease duration of 19.3 years [4.3-51.6]. Twelve patients (11.5%) were current smokers, 31 (29.8%) had elevated anti-dsDNA antibodies (≥100 IU/mL) and 27 (26.0%) had complement consumption (C3c<83mg/dL or C4<12mg/dL). 73 patients (70.2%) were taking glucocorticoids with a mean daily prednisolone equivalent dosage of 4.4±5.2 mg/day. Regarding SLE treatment, 69 patients (66.3%) were under hydroxychloroquine, 22 (21.2%) under azathioprine, 16 (15.4%) under mycophenolate mofetil, 5 (4.8%) under belimumab, 4 (3.8%) under methotrexate, 1 (1.0%) under leflunomide and 1 (1.0%) under rituximab.Ten patients (9.6%) had previous fragility fractures, 54 patients (51.9%) had DXA in the last 3 years and 81 (77.9%) were taking calcium and/or vitamin D supplements.Sixteen (15.4%) had indication for treatment by FRAX without DXA and 8 of these (50%) were under treatment. Moreover, thirteen (12.5%) had indication for treatment by FRAX with DXA and 8 of these (61.5%) were under treatment.Five patients (4.8%) were reclassified in FRAX with DXA: 3 patients (2.9%) had no indication for treatment by FRAX without DXA but conquered it by FRAX with DXA and 2 patients (1.9%) had indication for treatment by FRAX without DXA but lost it by FRAX with DXA. We found a good level of agreement in the indication for treatment between FRAX with and without DXA (kappa=0.741; p<0.001).There was no significant difference in the risk of fracture estimated by FRAX with or without DXA, both for major osteoporotic fracture and for hip fracture. Correlations between fracture risk and some clinical variables can be seen in table 1.Table 1.Correlations between the risk of fracture estimated by FRAX and disease related features.Age at SLE diagnosisDisease DurationESRSLEDAIEstimated fracture risk by FRAX:without DXAmajor osteoporotic fracturer=0.483p<0.001n.s.r=0.249p=0.012r=-0.586p=0.028hip fracturer=0.481p<0.001n.s.r=-0.552p=0.041n.s.with DXAmajor osteoporotic fracturer=0.386p=0.005r=0.299p=0.033n.s.n.s.hip fracturer=0.338p=0.015n.s.n.s.n.s.Conclusion:A higher number of patients had indication for pharmacological treatment by FRAX with DXA in comparison with FRAX without DXA. However, we found no statistically significant difference in the estimated fracture risk with and without DXA. This, together with the good level of agreement between FRAX with and without DXA, suggests that the fracture risk estimation, even without DXA, may be an appropriate approach. The low number of patients with indication for pharmacological treatment by FRAX, with and without DXA, may be explained by their low mean age and the high number of them under vitamin D/calcium supplementation.Disclosure of Interests:Bruno Miguel Fernandes: None declared, Salomé Garcia: None declared, Sara Ganhão: None declared, Maria Rato: None declared, Filipe Pinheiro: None declared, Miguel Bernardes Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Lúcia Costa: None declared

Background:Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a higher risk of osteoporosis not only due to chronic inflammation status, but also due to the treatment with glucocorticoids. FRAX is a computer-based algorithm developed by the World Health Organization for estimation of the 10-year risk of a hip or major osteoporotic fracture. Inclusion of femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD) in the estimation is optional.Objectives:The study aimed to identify the RA patients under treatment with biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bDMARD), who have FRAX scores, calculated with and without BMD, classified as high fracture risk and evaluate if they are receiving treatment for osteoporosis. The authors also investigated the intra-individual agreement between FRAX fracture risk calculated with and without BMD.Methods:Demographic and clinical data and BMD results from RA patients followed in a tertiary university hospital and registered in the Rheumatic Diseases Portuguese Register were used for analysis. Patients under 40 years of age at the last visit were excluded. McNemar test was applied for the identification of discordance of risk categories. The Wilcoxon test was used to characterize the intraindividual differences between paired FRAX risks with and without BMD. Correlations between pairs of variables were evaluated by the Spearman test. For independent variables Mann-Whitney test was used.Results:A total of 303 patients were included, 244 were females (80.5%) and 49 current smokers (16.2%). Mean age was 59.5 ± 9.54 years and mean disease duration 18.5 ± 10.4 years. Two hundred and twenty patients (72.4%) and 243 (80.2%) were RF and ACPA positive, respectively, and 51.5% had erosive disease. Mean disease activity score (DAS28-4V-CRP) was 3.08 ± 1.18 and mean femoral neck BMD 0.84 ± 0.12 g/cm2. One hundred and seventy nine patients (58.9%) were concomitantly treated with conventional synthetic DMARDs and 215 (70.7%) with glucocorticoids. Among all the patients, 35 (11.6%) had previous fractures and 19 (6.3%) have family history of fracture. The median 10-year risk of a major fracture and a hip fracture, calculated without BMD, was 6.0 (1.2-50) and 1.5 (0.1-39), respectively; with BMD it was 6.9 (1.3-61) and 1.7 (0-49). When FRAX score is calculated without BMD (n=303), 76 (25.1%) patients were categorized as high fracture risk. Among them, only 41 (54%) were receiving osteoporosis treatment. FRAX assessment with BMD (n=231) identified 99 (32.7%) patients with high fracture risk, 51 (51,5%) in treatment for osteoporosis. Thirty patients (21%) previously classified as low fracture risk using FRAX without BMD were recategorized as high risk (p<0.001). Despite that, there was a strong correlation between fracture risks assessed with and without BMD for both major and hip fracture (r = 0.867, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.728, p < 0.0001, respectively). ACPA and RF positive patients did not have higher FRAX scores (including or not BMA). Patients with erosive disease had a higher 10-year probability of major fracture evaluated by FRAX when it includes BMD (p=0.041).Conclusion:It is very important to accurately assess the risk of osteoporotic fractures in RA patients to treat them properly. The authors highlight the high number of patients who are not receiving treatment according to FRAX categorization. In spite of the correlation between estimated fracture risk by FRAX with and without BMD, there is a discordance in fracture risk categorization, as one fifth of patients of low risk were reclassified as high risk. For the RA population treated with bDMARDS, our findings raise the need to request a DXA not only for patients classified as having an intermediate risk of fracture, but also for low-risk patients.Disclosure of Interests:Maria Rato: None declared, Filipe Pinheiro: None declared, Salomé Garcia: None declared, Bruno Miguel Fernandes: None declared, Sara Ganhão: None declared, Rita Gaio: None declared, Miguel Bernardes Speakers bureau: Abbvie, Amgen, Biogen, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Pfizer, Janssen, Novartis, Alexandra Bernardo: None declared, Lúcia Costa: None declared