A Novel Technique for the Evaluation and Interpretation of Elastography in Salivary Gland Involvement in Primary Sjögren Syndrome.

Ultrasound (US) of major salivary glands (MSG) evaluates echogenicity, border features and vascularization, with elastography, it can detect tissue elasticity and glandular fibrosis, related to inflammation in Primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). This study aimed to develop a novel technique by pixel analysis for evaluation and interpretation of elastography in MSG in pSS. A cross-sectional and observational multicenter study was conducted. The US of MSG performed in orthogonal planes in grayscale, Doppler, and shear-wave elastography. For elastography images of each gland were analyzed with the open-source program ImageJ to perform a pixel analysis. Statistical analysis was performed with the IBM-SPSS v25 program. Fifty-nine women with a mean age of 57.69 (23-83) years were recruited; pSS mean duration of 87 (5-275) months, and 12 healthy women without sicca symptoms as a control group with a mean age of 50.67 (42-60) years. Intragroup analysis showed p-values >0.05 between sicca symptoms, ocular/dryness tests, biopsy, US, and pixel analysis; correlation between Hocevar and pixel analysis was not found (rho < 0.1, p >0.5). MSG anatomical size was 41.7 ± 28.2 mm vs. 67.6 ± 8.8 mm (p ≤ 0.0001); unstimulated whole saliva flow rate was 0.80 ± 0.80 ml/5 min vs. 1.85 ± 1.27 ml/5 min (p = 0.016). The elastography values (absolute number of pixels) were 572.38 ± 99.21 vs. 539.69 ± 93.12 (p = 0.290). A cut-off point risk for pSS identified with less than 54% of red pixels in the global MSG mass [OR of 3.8 95% CI (1.01-15.00)]. Pixel analysis is a new tool that could lead to a better understanding of the MSG chronic inflammatory process in pSS.

Eficacia de leflunomida 100 mg semanales comparado con dosis bajas de metotrexate en pacientes con artritis reumatoide activa. Estudio clínico doble ciego aleatorizado / Efficacy of leflunomide 100 mg weekly compared to low dose methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Double blind, randomized clinical trial

Objetivos. Estudio clínico aleatorizado para determinar la eficacia y seguridad de leflunomida (LFN) 100mg/semana en artritis reumatoide (AR), comparado con dosis bajas de metotrexate (MTX) 10mg/semana a 52 semanas. Pacientes y métodos. Se incluyeron pacientes con criterios de AR activa (ACR1987). Fueron realizados estudios de laboratorio, radiografías de manos y determinaciones clinimétricas para establecer criterios de respuesta clínica de ACR y EULAR. El análisis estadístico se obtuvo a través de mejoría ACR20. La eficacia se estableció por análisis de ANOVA de muestras independientes entre ambos grupos (p<=0,05). La seguridad fue analizada con porcentaje de eventos adversos. Resultados. De 90 pacientes evaluados, 5 fueron eliminados; 85 aleatorizados e incluidos en 2 grupos: 43 (LFN) y 42 (MTX). Completaron el estudio con LFN el 72% y con MTX el 74,4%. El criterio de mejoría de ACR20 al final del estudio fue alcanzado para LFN en 90,3% y para MTX 78,1%, p=0,14. El valor DAS28 al final para LFN fue de 3,45, y para MTX de 3,67, no existiendo diferencias significativas (p=0,43). Los pacientes excluidos para LFN fueron 11, y 10 para MTX. La falla terapéutica se definió en 5,2% para LFN, y 12,1 en el caso de MTX. No se reportaron eventos adversos graves que pusieran en riesgo la vida de los pacientes. Conclusiones. Los resultados confirman que LFN usada en dosis semanales de 100mg, ofrece una adecuada y sostenida mejoría de las manifestaciones clínicas de AR, al compararlo con una dosis baja de MTX. Pudiendo ser una opción terapéutica en algunos pacientes como monoterapia o en combinación con otros antirreumáticos (AU)

Objective: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of Leflunomide (LFN) 100 mg/week compared to low dose Methotrexate (MTX) 10 mg/week in a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial with 52 weeks of follow up in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients. Patients and methods: Patients who met ARC1987 criteria for RA were included. All patients had medical records, including laboratory tests and hand X-rays. Clinical evaluations for improvement and ACR and EULAR response criteria were performed. Statistical analysis for independent’s samples between both groups defined a P value of <= .05. Safety was evaluated by comparing the proportion of adverse events (AE) registered. Results: Of 90 patients screened; five were withdrawn; the remaining 85 patients were randomised: 43 LFN and 42 MTX. Sixty-three patients completed the study; 72% in the LFN group and 74.4% in the MTX group. ACR20 improvement criteria were achieved by LFN group in 90.3%, and in MTX 78.1% (P = .14) at week 52. EULAR improvement criteria applied at the end point showed a DAS28 score for the LFN group of 3.45, and for the MTX group was 3.67(P = .43). Total withdrawals, including loss during follow up, AE and lack of efficacy for each group was 12 patients in the LFN group, and 10 patients in the MTX group. Regarding safety, no serious AE of a life threatening nature were reported. Conclusions: These outcomes confirm that LFN 100 mg/week offers an adequate and sustained improvement effect on the clinical manifestations of RA, similar to low dose treatment with MTX 10 mg/every week after 52 weeks of follow up; it may be a good therapeutic option alone or in combination with others anti-rheumatic drugs (AU)

Efficacy of leflunomide 100mg weekly compared to low dose methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis. Double blind, randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of Leflunomide (LFN) 100 mg/week compared to low dose Methotrexate (MTX) 10 mg/week in a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial with 52 weeks of follow up in Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who met ARC1987 criteria for RA were included. All patients had medical records, including laboratory tests and hand X-rays. Clinical evaluations for improvement and ACR and EULAR response criteria were performed. Statistical analysis for independent's samples between both groups defined a P value of ≤.05. Safety was evaluated by comparing the proportion of adverse events (AE) registered. RESULTS: Of 90 patients screened; five were withdrawn; the remaining 85 patients were randomised: 43 LFN and 42 MTX. Sixty-three patients completed the study; 72% in the LFN group and 74.4% in the MTX group. ACR20 improvement criteria were achieved by LFN group in 90.3%, and in MTX 78.1% (P=.14) at week 52. EULAR improvement criteria applied at the end point showed a DAS28 score for the LFN group of 3.45, and for the MTX group was 3.67(P=.43). Total withdrawals, including loss during follow up, AE and lack of efficacy for each group was 12 patients in the LFN group, and 10 patients in the MTX group. Regarding safety, no serious AE of a life threatening nature were reported. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes confirm that LFN 100 mg/week offers an adequate and sustained improvement effect on the clinical manifestations of RA, similar to low dose treatment with MTX 10 mg/every week after 52 weeks of follow up; it may be a good therapeutic option alone or in combination with others anti-rheumatic drugs.

Fascitis eosinofílica, respuesta favorable al tratamiento con ciclosporina A / Eosynophilic fasciitis. Favorable response to treatment with Cyclosporin A

Introducción: La fascitis eosinofílica (FE) es una enfermedad de origen desconocido, caracterizada por induración de la piel, debido a inflamación de las fascias del tejido conjuntivo. Afecta principalmente a las extremidades y se acompaña de elevación de inmunoglobulinas y eosinofilia periférica. Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia de ciclosporina A en pacientes con FE con resistencia al tratamiento convencional con glucocorticoides. Pacientes y método: Presentamos 3 pacientes con manifestaciones clínicas y serológicas de FE que tuvieron resistencia al tratamiento estándar con glucocorticoides (30 a 50 mg/día, durante un período de hasta 8 meses). Las manifestaciones clínicas principales fueron: induración de la piel de las extremidades y el tronco que se acompañó de eosinofilia periférica y elevación de la creatincinasa. Histológicamente se observó un engrosamiento con intensa inflamación linfocitaria de las fascias. Resultados: Todos los pacientes fueron tratados con ciclosporina A, a dosis de 5 a 7 mg/kg/día con una rápida mejoría clínica (2 meses). El tratamiento condujo, en todos los casos, a una remisión clínica que permitió reducir e incluso retirar la ciclosporina A durante el seguimiento. Conclusiones: La ciclosporina A parece una alternativa terapéutica eficaz en el tratamiento de pacientes con FE resistente a glucocorticoides (AU)

Introduction: Eosinophilic fasciitis (EF) is a disease of unknown aetiology characterized by cutaneous swelling and indurations. The disease affects predominantly the extremities and usually show an elevation of serum immunoglobulins, and eosinophilia. Objective: Evaluation of the efficacy of cyclosporine A as a therapeutic alternative in patients with EF refractory to steroids. Patients and method: We report 3 patients with clinical, laboratory and pathologic characteristics of EF who did not show a satisfactory response to steroids treatment. All patients disclosed scleroderma-like signs with orange skin, groove sign, and indurations of the affected extremities associated to peipheral eosinophilia and increased creatine-kinase. Epidermis histological findings were normal and intense linfocitary inflammation of the fascia was observed in all patients’ biopsies. All patients were treated for average of 8 months with prednisone 30-50 mg daily with an insufficient clinical response. Results: Patients started on cyclosporine A 5-7 mg/kg/day, showing a fast improvement (2 months). The treatment induces a clinical remission that permits to reduce or even stops the cyclosporine A treatment during follow-up. Conclusions: It seems that cyclosporine A may be a effective therapeutic alternative in patients with EF refractory to steroids (AU)