Use of ultrasound in treatment decisions for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study in Italy.

In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), treatment response is generally assessed using standard clinical disease activity measures. However, ultrasound has become increasingly popular among rheumatologists to monitor disease activity and response. The purpose of this analysis of ECOgraphic evaluation for STaging ARthritis (ECOSTAR) study data was to determine how ultrasound affects clinicians' decisions about changing treatment in RA. ECOSTAR was an observational, cohort study conducted between March 2010 and December 2012 at nine clinical centers in Italy in RA patients being considered for treatment change. After clinical evaluation of each patient, patients underwent diagnostic ultrasound (US) investigations and each patient was given a total echography score using a combination of scores for joint effusion, synovial hypertrophy, and power Doppler. The US results were provided to the clinicians and the influence of US on the clinicians' treatment choices were recorded. Ninety-five patients screened for study inclusion had confirmed RA (mean age 53.9 years; mean disease duration 8.9 years). Therapy changes were made by clinicians according to the hand and wrist joint US scores: score 0 appeared to have no influence on clinicians' decision to modify treatment, scores >0-3 were associated with a numerically higher estimated probability of not changing therapy than changing therapy, and scores >3 had a greater influence on the clinician to modify therapy and an increased probability of the clinician changing therapy versus not changing therapy. Ultrasonography scores appear to influence treatment decisions in patients with RA, with clinicians appearing less likely to alter treatment regimens in patients with low ultrasound scores and more likely to change treatment regimens when higher scores are obtained. Further research is warranted.

Favourable outcome of adefovir-dipivoxil treatment in acute de novo hepatitis B after liver transplantation.

Adefovir-dipivoxil has been shown to be effective against lamivudine-resistant mutants in immunocompetent patients and in a small number of liver transplant recipients with recurrent hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. The therapeutic role of adefovir-dipivoxil in acute de novo HBV infection after transplantation is uncertain. We describe a case of acute de novo HBV infection that occurred after liver transplantation and that was treated with lamivudine followed (when viral escape mutants emerged) by adefovir-dipivoxil rescue. Treatment outcome was excellent, with complete viral clearance and development of a protective titer of antibodies to anti-hepatitis B surface antigen. Because the donor was vaccinated against HBV, it is conceivable that clearance of HBV infection in the recipient might have been favored by adoptive transfer of immunity to HBV. The immune status of the donor might be a factor to consider when determining the treatment options for de novo hepatitis B.