Psoriatic arthritis treated by anti-TNFs: a monocentric trial of 102 cases in Auvergne, France.

OBJECTIVES: While several registries have already evaluated the retention of anti-TNF therapy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA), they sometimes reach divergent conclusions. Our study therefore sought to assess therapeutic retention rates and predictive factors of response in a patient cohort from Auvergne, France, followed up in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Medical records of all PsA patients treated from 2002 to May 2015 were analysed. PsA diagnosis was established based on the CASPAR criteria. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were analysed, comprising 62 men (44.6±12.6 years) and 40 women (37.8±13.4). Mean PsA evolution was 2.7 years (0.8-11.2). The most common forms were peripheral (47/102, 45.1%) and mixed (46/102, 46.1%) PsA. The anti-TNF treatment initiated was etanercept in 47 cases (45.2%), adalimumab in 29 (27.9%), infliximab in 20 (19.2%), and golimumab in six [5.8%]. In 28 cases (27.4%), anti-TNF was associated with methotrexate (MTX). Overall, the median duration of anti-TNF retention was 76.5 months. The hazard ratios (HR) for treatment cessation did not significantly differ between the etanercept and monoclonal antibody groups (HR=1.35[0.96-1.93], p=0.08). After 5 years, approximately 30.8% of etanercept patients and 68.8% of monoclonal antibody patients (adalimumab 71.2%; infliximab 67.2%) were still being treated. Combining with MTX did not prolong the overall retention rate (HR=0.85[0.37-1.96], p=0.71). Tobacco use was predictive of discontinuation (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates good anti-TNF treatment retention in PsA patients, as well as confirming the deleterious effect of smoking while providing no argument in favour of combined treatment with MTX to improve maintenance.

Viewpoints of dentists on the use of bisphosphonates in rheumatology patients.

OBJECTIVES: Alhough typically prescribed in oncology, bisphosphonates (BPs) are also employed in rheumatology, particularly for the treatment of osteoporosis, sometimes resulting in complications, such as osteonecrosis of the jaw. Because of different opinions between rheumatologists and dentists on BP use, this study aimed to assess the views of dentists regarding administration of BPs in rheumatology. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 880 dentists from the Auvergne region of France to determine their views on BP treatment. RESULTS: We obtained 382 (43.4%) responses and analysed 376 (58.7% men). In total, 156 (41.5%) of the responders analysed had attended an in-service training course (ISTC) on the topic. A total of 237 (63.0%) systematically inquired as to whether their patients were undergoing BP treatment; this proportion was higher among those who had been practicing for fewer than 10 years (P < 0.004). For patients receiving BPs, 84.5% of practitioners felt ill at ease about performing dental surgery (n = 318) and 11% felt ill at ease about performing nonsurgical dental care (n = 41); 67% stated that their practice differed depending on the method of BP administration (per os or intravenously). Overall, 53.7% of practitioners felt uncomfortable when asked by a rheumatologist whether a given patient's dental status permitted prescription of BP (n = 202). This proportion was higher among those who had never attended an ISTC (62.6% vs. 50.7%; P < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Dentists feel ill at ease providing dental surgery to patients receiving BPs. Closer collaboration and better information-sharing between rheumatologists and dentists is necessary to facilitate the administration of BPs in rheumatology.

Efficacy and safety of pamidronate in Modic type 1 changes: study protocol for a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Erosive degenerative disc disease, also known as Modic type 1 changes, is usually characterized by low back pain with an inflammatory pain pattern, as seen in spondyloarthropathies. Intravenous pamidronate has proven to be effective in patients with ankylosing spondylitis who are refractory to nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and in painful bone diseases in general, such as Paget's disease, fibrous dysplasia or vertebral fractures. We therefore hypothesize that pamidronate would be effective in treating low back pain associated with Modic type 1 changes. METHODS/DESIGN: This study, called PEPTIDE (short for the French title "Etude Prospective sur l'Efficacité et la tolérance du PamidronaTe dans les dIscopathies Degeneratives Erosives"), will be a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel group, phase two clinical trial. A total of 48 patients will be recruited. These patients will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups, with 24 patients in each group: one group will be given pamidronate and the other a placebo. Pamidronate will be administered at a dose of 90 mg per day for two days consecutively, and every patient, irrespective of treatment group, will be given paracetamol to maintain blinding by preventing drug-induced fever. The primary outcome measure is a between-group difference of 30 points on a 100 mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at three months. Secondary outcome measures are improvement in functional status and the drug's safety. Primary and secondary outcome measures will be assessed at each visit (inclusion, at six weeks, three months, and six months). If the primary goal is not attained, the patient will be offered a rigid or semi-rigid back brace, irrespective of the treatment group. DISCUSSION: To date, only local treatments, for example intradiscal corticosteroid therapy, lumbar arthrodesis or back braces have been studied in randomized, controlled trials, with controversial results. This trial is currently ongoing and, if conclusive, should provide physicians with an acceptable alternative to those treatments. The results should be publicly available in spring 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01799616.