Treatment choices of paediatric rheumatologists for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: etanercept or adalimumab?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in baseline characteristics between etanercept- and adalimumab-treated JIA patients and to reveal factors that influence the choice between these TNF inhibitors, which are considered equally effective in the recent ACR recommendations for JIA treatment. METHODS: Biologic-naïve JIA patients with active arthritis who started treatment with adalimumab or etanercept between March 2008 and December 2011 were selected from the Dutch Arthritis and Biologicals in Children register. Baseline characteristics were compared. Focus group interviews with paediatric rheumatologists were performed to evaluate factors determining treatment choices. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients started treatment with etanercept and 21 with adalimumab. Adalimumab-treated patients had longer disease duration prior to the start of biologics (median 5.7 vs 2.0 years) and more often a history of uveitis (71% vs 4%). Etanercept-treated patients had more disability at baseline (median Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire score 1.1 vs 0.4) and more active arthritis (median number of active joints 6 vs 4). The presence of uveitis was the most important factor directing the choice towards adalimumab. Factors specific for the paediatric population-such as painful adalimumab injections-as well as the physician's familiarity with the drug accounted for the preference for etanercept. CONCLUSION: Although the two TNF inhibitors are considered equally effective, in daily practice etanercept is most often prescribed; adalimumab is mainly preferred when uveitis is present. In choosing the most suitable biologic treatment, paediatric rheumatologists take into account drug and patient factors, considering newly published data and cautiously implementing this into daily care.

The most reliable probe position in the ultrasonographic examination of the wrist in rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the inter-observer reliability of the ultrasonographic examination of the wrist in RA patients between 3 examiners and 3 probe positions. METHODS: Fifty-three RA patients were recruited at the University Clinical Hospital of Santiago de Compostela in Spain for ultrasonographic examination of the wrist. Ultrasonography (US) was performed on both wrists using a GE LOGIQ 9 machine, using three probe positions: Lister's Tubercle to digit II (position 1), Lister's Tubercle to digit III (position 2) and ulnocarpal (position 3), from the anatomic medial orientation. Three examiners (2 experienced ultrasonographers and 1 junior ultrasonographer) scored synovitis according to a 0-3 semiquantitative scoring system. Inter-observer reliability was expressed using the ICC (A,1). RESULTS: For grey-scale ultrasound (GSUS) the inter-observer reliability (ICC(A,1)) (single measure, agreement definition) ranged from 0.35 for the ulnocarpal joint, position 3, to 0.60 in both position 1 for the radiocarpal joint and position 2 for the inter-carpal joint. Using power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) the inter-observer reliability (ICC(A,1)) ranged from 0.36 in position 3, to 0.52 both in position 1 and 2 for the radiocarpal joint. CONCLUSIONS: The reliability of the GSUS-examination of the wrist joints of RA patients with GSUS shows highest, moderate reliability using the anatomical landmarks Tubercle of Lister and digit III (position 2). The reliability of the PDUS examination was similar and moderate in both position 1 (Lister's Tubercle to digit II) and position 2 (Lister's Tubercle to digit III). The reliability was poorest for position 3 (the anatomic medial view of the ulnocarpal joint) in both the GSUS and PDUS examination. This study suggests that position 2 should be used in clinical trials and daily practice.

Practice of ultrasound-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection, including training and implementation, in Europe: results of a survey of experts and scientific societies.

OBJECTIVES: To document the practice and training opportunities of US-guided arthrocentesis and joint injection (UGAJ) among rheumatologists in the member countries of the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR). METHODS: An English-language questionnaire, containing questions on demographics, clinical and practical aspects of UGAJ, training options in UGAJ for rheumatologists, UGAJ education in the rheumatology training curriculum and other structured education programmes in UGAJ was sent to three different groups: (i) all national rheumatology societies of EULAR; (ii) all national societies of the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (EFSUMB); and (iii) 22 senior rheumatologists involved in EULAR musculoskeletal US training from 14 European countries, who were also asked to circulate the questionnaire among relevant colleagues. RESULTS: Thirty-three (75%) of 44 countries responded to the questionnaire (61.3% of national rheumatology societies, 25% of the national US societies and 100% of expert ultrasonographers). In the majority of countries (85%) <10% of rheumatologists routinely perform UGAJ in clinical practice, while the remaining countries (15%) reported a rate of 10-50%. The percentage of rheumatologists receiving training in UGAJ was <10% in the majority (72.7%) of countries. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the relatively low prevalence of UGAJ as compared with the high (>80%) rate of rheumatologists performing conventional joint injection in most of the surveyed countries. The reported variations in practice and the lack of available structured training programmes for trainees in most countries indicates the need for standardization in areas including training guidelines.

Can simple ultrasonography predict the clinical effect of intra-articular injection therapy of the knee joint?

To investigate whether ultrasonographic joint assessment can predict the clinical response to intra-articular injection therapy of the knee. Patients with persistent gonarthritis intra-articularly received in a randomized double-blinded crossover fashion radiation synovectomy or a glucocorticoid injection, both followed by clinical bed rest. Prior to treatment and 3 months afterwards, grey-scale ultrasonography (US) of the knee was performed, measuring synovial thickness and extent of effusion. The final clinical effect of these two treatments was assessed at 3 months and finally at 6 months using a composite index. Ninety-seven patients, mainly suffering from undifferentiated arthritis (40%) or rheumatoid arthritis (31%), received 165 injections (including crossovers). Clinical effect at 6 months was not related to the baseline ultrasonographic extent of effusion or synovial thickness, nor with ultrasonographic decrease of effusion after the first 3 months. Nevertheless, it was associated with ultrasonographic decrease of synovial thickness within the first 3 months. Simple baseline US measurements fail to predict the final clinical effect of intra-articular treatment of the knee at 6 months, in contrast to early US changes of synovial thickness 3 months after therapy.

The OMERACT Ultrasound Group: status of current activities and research directions.

Ultrasound (US) is a relatively new imaging modality in rheumatology that offers great potential as a diagnostic and management tool. In 2004, an OMERACT Ultrasound Special Interest Group was formed to address the metric qualities of US as a potential outcome measure. A preliminary systematic review highlighted the deficiencies in the literature, particularly with regard to the reliability of interpreting and acquiring images; as a consequence, a number of exercises were proposed to address these issues. This report describes a series of iterative studies that have resulted in improved intra- and inter-reader reliability for detecting and scoring synovitis from both static and real-time images of the hand joints of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The reliability of acquiring images was also enhanced using standardized positions. Future studies will assess the value of US in clinical trials.

Is radiation synovectomy for arthritis of the knee more effective than intraarticular treatment with glucocorticoids? Results of an eighteen-month, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of radiation synovectomy (RSO) with intraarticular (IA) yttrium-90 plus glucocorticoids (GCs) with the efficacy and safety of IA placebo yttrium plus GCs and to identify parameters that predict efficacy. METHODS: The knees of 97 patients with persistent arthritis despite outpatient treatment with IA GCs (n = 113 knees), were treated with either IA (90)Y plus GCs (50%) or IA placebo yttrium plus GCs (50%), followed by 3 days of bed rest in the hospital clinic, with splinting of the treated knee. Predominant diagnoses were undifferentiated arthritis (39%) and rheumatoid arthritis (32%). The clinical effect of therapy was assessed at 6 months using a composite change index (CCI; range 0-12). The primary outcome measure was the response rate (i.e., the percentage of joints with a CCI > or =6). Knees with persistent arthritis after 6 months underwent crossover therapy (51% of the (90)Y plus GCs group versus 45% of the placebo plus GCs group). Adverse effects and radiologic damage during followup were documented. RESULTS: Neither the response rate (48% in both groups), the mean CCI, nor the duration of remission was significantly different between groups. No clinically relevant short-term adverse effects were observed, except for progression of radiologic damage in 34% of the (90)Y plus GCs group versus 28% of the placebo plus GCs group (knee prosthesis placement in 8% versus 1%). The functional and radiologic status at study entry predicted the clinical effect. CONCLUSION: Treatment with (90)Y plus GCs with bed rest and splinting is not superior to IA GCs with bed rest and splinting. Over the short term, both treatments appeared to be safe, although a negative effect of (90)Y on cartilage and bone cannot be ruled out. Thus, it appears that RSO with (90)Y should no longer be considered the treatment of first choice for persistent arthritis of the knee.