Ultrasound in management of rheumatoid arthritis: ARCTIC randomised controlled strategy trial.

OBJECTIVE:  To determine whether a treatment strategy based on structured ultrasound assessment would lead to improved outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis, compared with a conventional strategy. DESIGN:  Multicentre, open label, two arm, parallel group, randomised controlled strategy trial. SETTING:  Ten rheumatology departments and one specialist centre in Norway, from September 2010 to September 2015. PARTICIPANTS:  238 patients were recruited between September 2010 and April 2013, of which 230 (141 (61%) female) received the allocated intervention and were analysed for the primary outcome. The main inclusion criteria were age 18-75 years, fulfilment of the 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis, disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naivety with indication for disease modifying drug therapy, and time from first patient reported swollen joint less than two years. Patients with abnormal kidney or liver function or major comorbidities were excluded. INTERVENTIONS:  122 patients were randomised to an ultrasound tight control strategy targeting clinical and imaging remission, and 116 patients were randomised to a conventional tight control strategy targeting clinical remission. Patients in both arms were treated according to the same disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug escalation strategy, with 13 visits over two years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a combination between 16 and 24 months of clinical remission, no swollen joints, and non-progression of radiographic joint damage. Secondary outcomes included measures of disease activity, radiographic progression, functioning, quality of life, and adverse events. All participants who attended at least one follow-up visit were included in the full analysis set. RESULTS:  26 (22%) of the 118 analysed patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and 21 (19%) of the 112 analysed patients in the clinical tight control arm reached the primary endpoint (mean difference 3.3%, 95% confidence interval -7.1% to 13.7%). Secondary endpoints (disease activity, physical function, and joint damage) were similar between the two groups. Six (5%) patients in the ultrasound tight control arm and seven (6%) patients in the conventional arm had serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:  The systematic use of ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with early rheumatoid arthritis treated according to current recommendations is not justified on the basis of the ARCTIC results. The findings highlight the need for randomised trials assessing the clinical application of medical technology.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT01205854.

Development of a feasible and responsive ultrasound inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis through a data-driven approach.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a responsive and feasible ultrasound inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We used data from cohorts of early RA (development) and established RA starting/switching biologic therapy (validation). 4 tendons and 36 joints were examined by a grey scale (GSUS) and power Doppler semiquantitative ultrasound (PDUS) scoring system (full score). Ultrasound score components were selected based on factor analyses of 3-month change in the development cohort. Responsiveness was assessed by standardised response means (SRMs). We assessed the proportion of information retained from the full score by linear regression. RESULTS: 118 patients with early and 212 patients with established RA were included. The final ultrasound score included 8 joints (metacarpophalangeal 1-2-3, proximal interphalangeal 2-3, radiocarpal, metatarsophalangeal 2-3) and 1 tendon (extensor carpi ulnaris) examined bilaterally. The 6-month SRMs for the final score were -1.24 (95% CI -1.47 to -1.02) for GSUS, and -1.09 (-1.25 to -0.92) for PDUS in early RA, with 87% of total information retained for GSUS and 90% for PDUS. The new score performed somewhat better than formerly proposed scores in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The Ultrasound in Rheumatoid Arthritis 9 joint/tendon score (USRA9) inflammation score showed good responsiveness, retained most of the information from the original full score and overall performed better than previous scores in a validation cohort. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01205854, ACTRN12610000284066; Post-results.

First step in the development of an ultrasound joint inflammation score for rheumatoid arthritis using a data-driven approach.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate candidate sets of joints and tendons for assessment of ultrasound (US) joint inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Patients were included in one of two cohorts from 2010 to June 2013: disease-modifying antirheumatic drug naïve early RA or established RA starting/switching biologics. An extensive US examination was performed by experienced sonographers using a validated grey-scale (GSUS) and power Doppler (PDUS) semiquantitative scoring system with scores 0-3 for both GSUS and PDUS in 36 joints and four tendons. We performed factor analysis in the early RA US data and selected candidate joint/tendon sets based on these results. The proportion of information in the total US scores retained in these candidate sets was assessed by R(2) from linear regression analysis. Finally, the candidate sets and previously proposed joint scores were tested in the established RA cohort, and we also evaluated the sensitivity to change with standardised response means. RESULTS: 227 patients with early RA and 212 patients with established RA were included. We identified two candidate sets of joints/tendons: candidate set A consisted of seven joints/two tendons (meatacarpophalangeal 1 (MCP1), MCP2, proximal interphalangeal 3, radiocarpal, elbow, metatarsophalangeal 1 (MTP1), MTP2, tibialis posterior tendon, extensor carpi ulnaris tendon) and set B of nine joints/two tendons (MCP5 and MTP5 added to set A). Unilateral reduced scores retained 78%-85% of the information in total score, while bilateral reduced scores retained 89%-93%, and both sets performed better than previously proposed reduced joint scores, and similar or slightly better regarding sensitivity to change. CONCLUSIONS: The reduced GSUS and PDUS scores retained most of the information from the total score and performed well in a validation cohort of established RA. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: NCT01205854, ACTRN12610000284066.