AB0477 EFFECT OF ANTI-TNF THERAPY ON BONE MINERAL DENSITY IN ANKYLOSING SPONDYLORTHITIS
Background:Osteoporosis is common in spondyloarthritis, due to reduced spinal mobility, and inflammation. Anti-inflammatory treatments have a beneficial effect on the bone, and there is a significant increase in bone density during treatment with anti-TNF alpha.Objectives:to study bone mineral density in patients with ankylosing spondyloarthritis (AS) treated with anti-TNF alpha.Methods:This is a retrospective descriptive study of patients with AS meeting the modified New York criteria. Bone mineral density, assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA), of AS patients treated with anti-TNF alpha was compared to that of a control group of AS patients not treated with anti-TNF alpha.Inclusion criteria:- Male patients- Patients who do not have an abnormality disrupting phosphocalcic and bone metabolism- For Patients on anti-TNF alpha: the treatment must be received for more than 6 monthsResults:A total of 22 patients were included, including 11 patients on anti-TNF alpha and 11 patients not on anti-TNF. The mean age (standard deviation) was 28 (± 7.2) years and 41 (± 14.8) in the cases and controls respectively. The mean body mass index in the AS group on anti-TNF was 22.16 kg / m2 and in the control group was 19.64 kg / m2. In the AS group on anti-TNF alpha, the mean bone mineral density of the spine was 1.092 g / cm2 (mean T score = -0.63) and that of the femoral neck, the mean bone mineral density was 0.888g / cm2 (mean T score = -1.04). In the control group, the mean bone mineral density of the spine was 0.959 g / cm2 (mean T score = -1.91) and the mean bone mineral density of the femoral neck was 0.774 g / cm2 (mean T score = -1.99). Bone mineral density in the spine and cervix was higher in the group receiving anti-TNF alpha (p = 0.09, p = 0.173 respectively)Conclusion:Our study shows the increase, although not statistically significant, in bone mineral density in AS patients receiving anti-TNF alpha agents compared to controls. Our results agree with those of the literature which support the bone protective effect of anti-TNF alpha. The non-significant difference can be explained by the delay in the introduction of biotherapy at the advanced stage of the structural evolution of AS. The best solution is to start TNF inhibitors at the early inflammatory stage of AS.Disclosure of Interests:None declared.