Greater trochanteric pain syndrome: predicting who will respond to a local glucocorticoid injection.

Objectives: This study aimed to explore whether certain clinical tests or a rapid improvement in lateral hip pain following periarticular injection are predictive of subsequent efficacy of local glucocorticoid (GC) injection in greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS).Method: This secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial of an injection of GC and local anaesthetic (LA) versus placebo included 44 patients with GTPS. Two subgroups of patients were defined: (i) 30 min responders, reporting a decrease of ≥ 50% of the initial pain at 30 min post-injection; and (ii) positive triple test, presenting a combination of three positive clinical tests (30-second single-leg stance, FABER, and Lequesne). Median level of numeric rating scale for pain at 1 month was the primary outcome. Interaction analysis of treatment effect in the subgroups was performed using a linear regression adjusting for pain at baseline.Results: Sixteen patients (36%) were 30 min responders. In this group, GC treatment was associated with a significant improvement in pain at 1 month compared to non-responders (p = 0.03). The 30 min response was not associated with the use of LA. Positive triple test (22% of patients) was associated with higher pain scores at baseline (p = 0.03). In this group, patients who received placebo had significantly more pain at 1 month than those with the cortisone injection (p = 0.04).Conclusion: Patients with GTPS who present a rapid decrease in pain after periarticular injection, and those who display a combination of three specific clinical tests, are more likely to benefit from an injection with GC and anaesthetic.

[Musculoskeletal ultrasound in the management of tendinopathy]. / Apport de l'echographie dans les tendinopathies.

Musculoskeletal ultrasound (US) appears to be a major tool for the management of tendi- nopathy because of its accessibility and re- liability. For example, except for partial tears, experts agree to consider US as reliable as MRI for the diagnosis of rotator cuff disorders. US may also be useful in confirmation of epi- condylitis of unusual clinical presentation, re- vealing sometimes tendon tears or lesion of the lateral collateral ligament. Moreover, joint disease or nerve compression may be de- monstrated. However, there is no US finding which is specific of inflammatory or mechani- cal diseases. US needs to be integrated in the clinical context.

Which subgroup of patients with rheumatoid arthritis benefits from switching to rituximab versus alternative anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) agents after previous failure of an anti-TNF agent?

BACKGROUND: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with an inadequate response to TNF antagonists (aTNFs) may switch to an alternative aTNF or start treatment from a different class of drugs, such as rituximab (RTX). It remains unclear in which clinical settings these therapeutic strategies offer most benefit. OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effectiveness of RTX versus alternative aTNFs on RA disease activity in different subgroups of patients. METHODS: A prospective cohort study of patients with RA who discontinued at least one aTNF and subsequently received either RTX or an alternative aTNF, nested within the Swiss RA registry (SCQM-RA) was carried out. The primary outcome, longitudinal improvement in 28-joint count Disease Activity Score (DAS28), was analysed using multivariate regression models for longitudinal data and adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of the 318 patients with RA included; 155 received RTX and 163 received an alternative aTNF. The relative benefit of RTX varied with the type of prior aTNF failure: when the motive for switching was ineffectiveness to previous aTNFs, the longitudinal improvement in DAS28 was significantly better with RTX than with an alternative aTNF (p = 0.03; at 6 months, -1.34 (95% CI -1.54 to -1.15) vs -0.93 (95% CI -1.28 to -0.59), respectively). When the motive for switching was other causes, the longitudinal improvement in DAS28 was similar for RTX and alternative aTNFs (p = 0.40). These results were not significantly modified by the number of previous aTNF failures, the type of aTNF switches, or the presence of co-treatment with a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. CONCLUSION: This observational study suggests that in patients with RA who have stopped a previous aTNF treatment because of ineffectiveness changing to RTX is more effective than switching to an alternative aTNF.

Comparative effectiveness of antitumour necrosis factor agents, biologics with an alternative mode of action and tofacitinib in an observational cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Multiple biologic and targeted synthetic disease-modifying rheumatic drugs (b/tsDMARDs) are approved for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), including TNF inhibitors (TNFi), bDMARDs with other modes of action (bDMARD-OMA) and Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi). Combination of b/tsDMARDs with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARDs) is recommended, yet monotherapy is common in practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare drug maintenance and clinical effectiveness of three alternative treatment options for RA management. METHODS: This observational cohort study was nested within the Swiss RA Registry. TNFi, bDMARD-OMA (abatacept or anti-IL6 agents) or the JAKi tofacitinib (Tofa) initiated in adult RA patients were included. The primary outcome was overall drug retention. We further analysed secondary effectiveness outcomes and whether concomitant csDMARDs modified effectiveness, adjusting for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: 4023 treatment courses of 2600 patients were included, 1862 on TNFi, 1355 on bDMARD-OMA and 806 on Tofa. TNFi was more frequently used as a first b/tsDMARDs, at a younger age and with shorter disease duration. Overall drug maintenance was significantly lower with TNFi compared with Tofa [HR 1.29 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.47)], but similar between bDMARD-OMA and Tofa [HR 1.09 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.24)]. TNFi maintenance was decreased when prescribed without concomitant csDMARDs [HR: 1.27 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.49)], while no difference was observed for bDMARD-OMA or Tofa maintenance with respect to concomitant csDMARDs. CONCLUSION: Tofa drug maintenance was comparable with bDMARDs-OMA and somewhat higher than TNFi. Concomitant csDMARDs appear to be required for optimal effectiveness of TNFi, but not for bDMARD-OMA or Tofa.