OBJECTIVE: . The aim of this study was to examine the association between physical fitness and depressive symptoms in women with fibromyalgia (FM). We also assessed whether different fitness components present independent relationships with depressive symptoms.

DESIGN: . Cross-sectional study.

SETTING: . University facilities and FM associations.

SUBJECTS: . Four hundred and forty-four patients with FM according to the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria.

METHODS: . Depressive symptoms were assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II). Physical fitness (aerobic fitness, muscle strength, flexibility, and motor agility) was assessed using the standardized Senior Fitness Test battery and the handgrip strength test. A standardized composite score for fitness was computed and divided into quintiles.

RESULTS: . Overall, the fitness tests presented inverse associations with the total BDI-II score (P < 0.05). The patients in the highest fitness quintile had 8.4% lower depressive symptoms than the patients in the lowest fitness quintile (P = 0.014). The odds of severe symptoms of depression were between 3.7% and 16.9% lower for each performance unit in the back-scratch, handgrip, arm-curl, and eight-feet up-and-go tests. When all the fitness tests were simultaneously considered, the back-scratch test was the only one independently associated with the total BDI-II score (P = 0.001; R(2) = 0.023).

CONCLUSIONS: . Although higher physical fitness was generally associated with lower symptoms of depression in women with FM, the observed associations were somewhat weak and inconsistent, differing from those previously observed in healthy adults. Further research to determine the clinical relevance of the association between physical fitness and depression in FM is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), with no accepted evidence-based management guidelines. Evidence suggests that biologic interventions improve symptoms and signs in RA as well as reducing joint damage.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of biologic interventions on fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to 1 April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Current Controlled Trials Register, the National Research Register Archive, The UKCRN Portfolio Database, AMED, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Web of Science, and Dissertation Abstracts International. In addition, we checked the reference lists of articles identified for inclusion for additional studies and contacted key authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials if they evaluated a biologic intervention in people with rheumatoid arthritis and had self reported fatigue as an outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers selected relevant trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS: We identified 32 studies for inclusion in this current review. Twenty studies evaluated five anti-tumour necrosis factor (anti-TNF) biologic agents (adalimumab, certolizumab, etanercept, golimumab and infliximab), and 12 studies focused on five non-anti-TNF biologic agents (abatacept, canakinumab, rituximab, tocilizumab and an anti-interferon gamma monoclonal antibody). All but two of the studies were double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trials. In some trials, patients could receive concomitant disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). These studies added either biologics or placebo to DMARDs. Investigators did not change the dose of the latter from baseline. In total, these studies included 9946 participants in the intervention groups and 4682 participants in the control groups. Overall, quality of randomised controlled trials was moderate with a low to unclear risk of bias in the reporting of the outcome of fatigue. We downgraded the quality of the studies from high to moderate because of potential reporting bias (studies included post hoc analyses favouring reporting of positive result and did not always include all randomised individuals). Some studies recruited only participants with early disease. The studies used five different instruments to assess fatigue in these studies: the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Domain (FACIT-F), Short Form-36 Vitality Domain (SF-36 VT), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (0 to 100 or 0 to 10) and the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). We calculated standard mean differences for pooled data in meta-analyses. Overall treatment by biologic agents led to statistically significant reduction in fatigue with a standardised mean difference of -0.43 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.38 to -0.49). This equates to a difference of 6.45 units (95% CI 5.7 to 7.35) of FACIT-F score (range 0 to 52). Both types of biologic agents achieved a similar level of improvement: for anti-TNF agents, this stood at -0.42 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.49), equivalent to 6.3 units (95% CI 5.3 to 7.4) on the FACIT-F score; and for non-anti-TNF agents, it was -0.46 (95% CI -0.39 to -0.53), equivalent to 6.9 units (95% CI 5.85 to 7.95) on the FACIT-F score. In most studies, the double-blind period was 24 weeks or less. No study assessed long-term changes in fatigue.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with biologic interventions in patients with active RA can lead to a small to moderate improvement in fatigue. The magnitude of improvement is similar for anti-TNF and non-anti-TNF biologics. However, it is unclear whether the improvement results from a direct action of the biologics on fatigue or indirectly through reduction in inflammation, disease activity or some other mechanism.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the 2009 Cochrane overview and network meta-analysis (NMA) of biologics for rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of nine biologics (abatacept, adalimumab, anakinra, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab, rituximab, tocilizumab) and small molecule tofacitinib, versus comparator (MTX, DMARD, placebo (PL), or a combination) in adults with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to methotrexate (MTX) or other disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), i.e., MTX/DMARD incomplete responders (MTX/DMARD-IR).

METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (via The Cochrane Library Issue 6, June 2015), MEDLINE (via OVID 1946 to June 2015), and EMBASE (via OVID 1947 to June 2015). Data extraction, risk of bias and GRADE assessments were done in duplicate. We calculated both direct estimates using standard meta-analysis and used Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons approach for NMA estimates to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% credible intervals (CrI). We converted OR to risk ratios (RR) which are reported in the abstract for the ease of interpretation.

MAIN RESULTS: This update included 73 new RCTs for a total of 90 RCTs; 79 RCTs with 32,874 participants provided usable data. Few trials were at high risk of bias for blinding of assessors/participants (13% to 21%), selective reporting (4%) or major baseline imbalance (8%); a large number had unclear risk of bias for random sequence generation (68%) or allocation concealment (74%).Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in ACR50 versus comparator (RR 2.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36 to 3.10); absolute benefit 24% more patients (95% CI 19% to 29%), number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 5 (4 to 6). NMA estimates for ACR50 in tumor necrosis factor (TNF) biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 3.23 (95% credible interval (Crl) 2.75 to 3.79), non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 2.99; 95% Crl 2.36 to 3.74), and anakinra + MTX/DMARD (RR 2.37 (95% Crl 1.00 to 4.70) were similar to the direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with a clinically and statistically important improvement in function measured by the Health Assessment Questionnaire (0 to 3 scale, higher = worse function) with a mean difference (MD) based on direct evidence of -0.25 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.22); absolute benefit of -8.3% (95% CI -9.3% to -7.3%), NNTB = 3 (95% CI 2 to 4). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -10.3% (95% Crl -14% to -6.7%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute benefit, -7.3% (95% Crl -13.6% to -0.67%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically and statistically significantly greater proportion of participants achieving remission in RA (defined by disease activity score DAS < 1.6 or DAS28 < 2.6) versus comparator (RR 2.81 (95% CI, 2.23 to 3.53); absolute benefit 18% more patients (95% CI 12% to 25%), NNTB = 6 (4 to 9)). NMA estimates for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 17% (95% Crl 11% to 23%)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute improvement 19% (95% Crl 12% to 28%) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for inconsistency), radiographic progression (scale 0 to 448) was statistically significantly reduced in those on biologics + MTX/DMARDs versus comparator, MD -2.61 (95% CI -4.08 to -1.14). The absolute reduction was small, -0.58% (95% CI -0.91% to -0.25%) and we are unsure of the clinical relevance of this reduction. NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction -0.67% (95% Crl -1.4% to -0.12%) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (absolute reduction, -0.68% (95% Crl -2.36% to 0.92%)) were similar to respective direct estimates.Based on direct evidence of moderate quality (downgraded for imprecision), results for withdrawals due to adverse events were inconclusive, with wide confidence intervals encompassing the null effect and evidence of an important increase in withdrawals, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.30). The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.24 (95% Crl 0.99 to 1.57)) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (RR 1.20 (95% Crl 0.87 to 1.67)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low for both imprecision and indirectness.Based on direct evidence of high quality, biologic+MTX/DMARD was associated with clinically significantly increased risk (statistically borderline significant) of serious adverse events on biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR [can be interpreted as RR due to low event rate] 1.12 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.27); absolute risk 1% (0% to 2%), As well, the NMA estimate for TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.20 (95% Crl 1.01 to 1.43)) showed moderate quality evidence of an increase in the risk of serious adverse events. The other two NMA estimates were downgraded to low quality due to imprecision and indirectness and had wide confidence intervals resulting in uncertainty around the estimates: non-TNF biologics + MTX/DMARD: 1.07 (95% Crl 0.89 to 1.29) and anakinra: RR 1.06 (95% Crl 0.65 to 1.75).Based on direct evidence of low quality (downgraded for serious imprecision), results were inconclusive for cancer (Peto OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68) for all biologic+MTX/DMARD combinations. The NMA estimates of TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 1.21 (95% Crl 0.63 to 2.38) and non-TNF biologic+MTX/DMARD (Peto OR 0.99 (95% Crl 0.58 to 1.78)) were similarly inconclusive and downgraded to low quality for both imprecision and indirectness.Main results text shows the results for tofacitinib and differences between medications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based primarily on RCTs of 6 months' to 12 months' duration, there is moderate quality evidence that the use of biologic+MTX/DMARD in people with rheumatoid arthritis who have failed to respond to MTX or other DMARDs results in clinically important improvement in function and higher ACR50 and remission rates, and increased risk of serious adverse events than the comparator (MTX/DMARD/PL; high quality evidence). Radiographic progression is slowed but its clinical relevance is uncertain. Results were inconclusive for whether biologics + MTX/DMARDs are associated with an increased risk of cancer or withdrawals due to adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Positional MRI (pMRI) allows for three-dimensional visual assessment of navicular position. In this exploratory pilot study pMRI was validated against a stretch sensor device, which measures movement of the medial plantar arch. We hypothesized that a combined pMRI measure incorporating both vertical and medial displacement of the navicular bone induced by loading would be correlated with corresponding stretch sensor measurements.

METHODS: 10 voluntary participants were included in the study. Both pMRI and subsequent stretch sensor measurements were performed in a) supine, b) standing and c) standing position with addition of 10 % body weight during static loading of the foot. Stretch sensor measurements were also performed during barefoot walking.

RESULTS: The total change in navicular position measured by pMRI was 10.3 mm (CI: 7.0 to 13.5 mm). No further displacement occurred when adding 10 % bodyweight (mean difference: 0.7 mm (CI: -0.7 to 2.0 mm), P = 0.29). The total navicular displacement correlated with stretch sensor measurement under static loading conditions (Spearman's rho = 0.66, P = 0.04) but not with measurements during walking (Spearman's rho = 0.58, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS: Total navicular bone displacements determined by pMRI showed concurrent validity with stretch sensor measurements but only so under static loading conditions. Although assessment of total navicular displacement by combining concomitant vertical and medial navicular bone movements would appear advantageous compared to monoplanar measurement the combined measure did not seem to predict dynamic changes of the medial foot arch during walking, which are among several possible factors depending on different walking patterns.

OBJECTIVE: Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) is a multifactorial joint disease affecting many people worldwide. Recommended treatments for KOA include exercise and steroid injections, or a combination of these. The objective of this exploratory outcome analysis of a randomized trial was to assess changes in inflammation markers assessed by ultrasound imaging (US) in KOA secondary to intra-articular corticosteroid injection given prior to exercise therapy.

DESIGN: This study is a sub-study to a larger clinical trial which compared the clinical effects of steroid injection in KOA to placebo injection, both given prior to exercise therapy. The US outcomes were changes from baseline in US-assessed synovial size, Doppler activity presence in the synovial membrane, and numbers of US-detected Baker's cysts. US was performed at baseline, week 14 (exercise stop), and week 26 (follow-up).

RESULTS: Fifty participants received steroid injection, and 50 received placebo injection. All participants received 12 weeks of exercise. Forty-five and 44, respectively, completed the study. At week 14, the group difference in the change in synovium thickness was 2.2 mm (95%, confidence interval (CI) -0.5 to 4.8), P = 0.11. There were no group differences in the changes in distribution of patients with presence of synovial Doppler activity (P = 0.98) or Baker's cysts (P = 0.35). There were no statistically significant differences between groups at week 26 in any outcome.

CONCLUSION: Intra-articular steroid injection of KOA-patients prior to a 3 months exercise programme did not reduce synovial hypertrophy, synovial Doppler activity, or Baker's cyst presence more than a placebo saline injection according to US-assessments.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2012-002607-18.

OBJECTIVES: To study clinical and radiographic outcomes after withdrawing 1 year's adalimumab induction therapy for early rheumatoid arthritis (eRA) added to a methotrexate and intra-articular triamcinolone hexacetonide treat-to-target strategy (NCT00660647).

METHODS: Disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naive patients with eRA started methotrexate (20 mg/week) and intra-articular triamcinolone (20 mg/ml) for 2 years. In addition, they were randomised to receive placebo adalimumab (DMARD group, n=91) or adalimumab (40 mg/every other week) (DMARD+adalimumab group, n=89) during the first year. Sulfasalazine and hydroxychloroquine were added if disease activity persisted after 3 months. During year 2, synthetic DMARDs continued. Adalimumab was (re)initiated if active disease reoccurred. Clinical response, remission, disability, quality of life and radiographic changes were assessed.

RESULTS: One year after adalimumab withdrawal, treatment profiles and clinical responses did not differ between groups. In the DMARD/DMARD+adalimumab groups, the median 2-year methotrexate dose was 20/20 mg/week (p=0.45), triple DMARD therapy had been initiated in 33/27 patients (p=0.49), adalimumab was (re)initiated in 12/12 patients and cumulative triamcinolone dose was 160/120 mg (p=0.15). The treatment target (disease activity score, 4 variables, C-reactive protein (DAS28CRP) ≤3.2 or DAS28>3.2 without swollen joints) was achieved at all visits in ≥85% of patients in year 2; remission rates were DAS28CRP<2.6:69%/66%; Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤2.8:55%/57%; Simplified Disease Activity Index <3.3:54%/49%; American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism (28 joints):44%/45% (p=0.66-1.00). Radiographic progression (Δtotal Sharp score/year) was similar 1.31/0.53 (p=0.12). Erosive progression (Δerosion score (ES)/year) was year 1:0.57/0.06 (p=0.02); year 2:0.38/0.05 (p=0.005). Proportion of patients without erosive progression (ΔES≤0) was year 1: 59%/76% (p=0.03); year 2:64%/79% (p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS: An aggressive triamcinolone and synthetic DMARD treat-to-target strategy in eRA provided excellent 2-year clinical and radiographic disease control independent of adalimumab induction therapy. ES progression was slightly less during and following adalimumab induction therapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00660647.

AIM: Evidence of comparative effectiveness of different treatment approaches is important for clinical decision-making, yet absent for most recommended treatments of knee osteoarthritis pain. The objective of this study was to estimate the comparative effectiveness of exercise versus orally administered analgesics for pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS: The Cochrane Database of systematic reviews was searched for meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies comparing exercise or analgesics with a control group (placebo or usual care) and with pain as an outcome. Individual study estimates were identified and effect sizes were calculated from group differences. We combined study-level effects on pain with a random effects meta-analysis and compared effect sizes between exercise trials and trials with analgesic interventions.

RESULTS: We included six Cochrane reviews (four pharmacology, two exercise). From these, 54 trials were eligible (20 pharmacology, 34 exercise), with 9806 participants (5627 pharmacology, 4179 exercise). The pooled effect size of pharmacological pain interventions was 0.41 (95% CI: 0.23-0.59) and for exercise 0.46 standardized mean difference (95% CI: 0.34-0.59). There was no statistically significant difference between the two types of intervention (difference: 0.06 standardized mean difference [95% CI: -0.28-0.16; p = 0.61]).

CONCLUSION: This meta-epidemiological study provides indirect evidence that for knee osteoarthritis pain, the effects from exercise and from oral analgesics are comparable. These results may support shared decision-making where a patient for some reason is unable to exercise or who consider exercise as unviable and analgesics as a more feasible choice. PROSPERO registration: CRD42013006924.