Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate, adalimumab or their combination in non-infectious non-anterior uveitis: a protocol for a multicentre, randomised, parallel three arms, active-controlled, phase III open label with blinded outcome assessment study.

INTRODUCTION: Non-infectious uveitis include a heterogeneous group of sight-threatening and incapacitating conditions. Their correct management sometimes requires the use of immunosuppressive drugs (ISDs), prescribed in monotherapy or in combination. Several observational studies showed that the use of ISDs in combination could be more effective than and as safe as their use in monotherapy. However, a direct comparison between these two treatment strategies has not been carried out yet. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Combination THerapy with mEthotrexate and adalImumAb for uveitis (CoTHEIA) study is a phase III, multicentre, prospective, randomised, single-blinded with masked outcome assessment, parallel three arms with 1:1:1 allocation, active-controlled, superiority study design, comparing the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of methotrexate, adalimumab or their combination in non-infectious non-anterior uveitis. We aim to recruit 192 subjects. The duration of the treatment and follow-up will last up to 52 weeks, plus 70 days follow-up with no treatment. The complete and maintained resolution of the ocular inflammation will be assessed by masked evaluators (primary outcome). In addition to other secondary measurements of efficacy (quality of life, visual acuity and costs) and safety, we will identify subjects' subgroups with different treatment responses by developing prediction models based on machine learning techniques using genetic and proteomic biomarkers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol, annexes and informed consent forms were approved by the Reference Clinical Research Ethic Committee at the Hospital Clínico San Carlos (Madrid, Spain) and the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products. We will elaborate a dissemination plan including production of materials adapted to several formats to communicate the clinical trial progress and findings to a broad group of stakeholders. The promoter will be the only access to the participant-level data, although it can be shared within the legal situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020-000130-18; NCT04798755.

Implementation of an assessment checklist for patients with spondyloarthritis in daily practice.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse the feasibility and changes in the collection of clinical measures after the implementation in daily practice of a checklist designed for an optimal evaluation and monitoring of patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: An observational prospective study was performed. The feasibility of the assessment checklist (paper/on-line format) for patients with SpA was tested (time to complete the checklist, simplicity, amenity clarity, usefulness). Through a medical files review, changes in the number of the checklist variables collected were analysed previous to the implementation of the checklist and 6 months later. A descriptive and bivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total 6 hospitals and 11 rheumatologists participated. The median time to checklist completion was 15 (12-20) minutes, and the mean scores for the rest of variables of the feasibility test were in general positives. A total of 83 and 68 medical files pre-implementation and post-implementation were reviewed respectively. We observed a significant increase in the collection of many of the checklist variables after the implementation. The record of BASDAI increased from 46.2% to 73.1% (p=0.001), physical activity from 48.2% to 88.2% (p<0.0001), physician global (VAS) from 28.0% to 73.5% (p<0.0001), patient global (VAS) from 48.8% to 85.3% (p<0.0001), morning stiffness from 62.8% to 84.8% (p=0.003), ASDAS from 12.2% to 32.8% (p=0.002), BASFI from 43.7% to 65.7% (p=0.008), or DAS28 from 24.7% to 46.3% (p=0.006). These changes were observed irrespectively of SpA classification. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an assessment checklist in daily practice is feasible and improves the assessment of SpA patients.

Color Doppler and spectral Doppler ultrasound detection of active sacroiliitis in spondyloarthritis compared to physical examination as gold standard.

Sacroiliac joint (SIJ) involvement is a distinctive feature of spondyloarthritis (SpA). The main objective of this study was to assess the validity of color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) in SIJ. This was a cross-sectional, blinded, case-control study of 108 cases divided into three groups: (a) 53 SpA patients with inflammatory back pain (IBP); (b) 28 SpA patients with no IBP; and (c) 27 healthy mechanical lumbar pain subjects. Physical examinations of the SIJs were assessed as positive or negative in each SIJ and were used as the gold standard. SIJs were examined with CDUS and spectral Doppler, and the SIJs were assessed as positive when both color Doppler and the resistance index (RI) were less than the cut-off point within the SIJs area. A total of 108 cases (53 female; mean age 36 ± 10 years old) were studied. The physical examination of the SIJs was positive in 38 patients (59 SIJs). Ultrasound detected Doppler signal within the SIJs in 37 cases (58 SIJs): 33 of them had symptomatic SpA (52 SIJs), 3 of them had asymptomatic SpA (5 SIJs), and 1 was a healthy control (1 SIJ). The accuracy of CDUS, when compared to physical SIJ examination, at the patient level in the overall group had a sensitivity of 70.3%, a specificity of 85.7%, a positive likelihood ratio of 4.9, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.36. For the spectral Doppler RI, with an optimal cut-off point ≤0.75, the sensitivity was 76.2%, and the specificity was 77.8%. CDUS of SIJs seems to be a feasible and valid method for detecting active inflammation in patients with SpA.