Evaluation of Bone Erosions in Rheumatoid Arthritis: The Ultrasound Score for Erosions Versus the Modified Sharp/van der Heijde Score for Erosions.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between the UltraSound Score for Erosions (USSe) and the modified Sharp/van der Heijde score for erosions (SHSe). METHODS: One hundred eight patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were included. On radiography, SHSe was evaluated by 2 or 3 blinded readers (in case of discordance). On ultrasonography, erosions were scored on 6 bilateral joints (metacarpophalangeal joints 2,3,5; metatarsophalangeal joints 2,3,5) with a 4-point scale to calculate the USSe. RESULTS: The Pearson correlation was good (r = 0.68, P < 0.001) and the agreement illustrated by a Bland-Altman plot was excellent (91%) between the 2 scores, which were complementary in detecting erosions. CONCLUSION: The USSe seems to be a valuable tool for assessing erosive damage in RA.

ACPA-positive versus ACPA-negative rheumatoid arthritis: two distinct erosive disease entities on radiography and ultrasonography.

The objective of this study is to assess the prevalence, localization, and severity of bone erosions on radiography (RX) and ultrasonography (US) according to ACPA status in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). 78 patients with ACPA-positive (ACPA+) RA and 30 patients with ACPA-negative (ACPA-) RA fulfilling the ACR 1987 and/or ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria were consecutively included. On RX, a modified Sharp erosion score (SHSe) was evaluated by two blinded readers and one adjudicator for discordant cases (number of eroded joints ≤ three). On US, erosions were scored on six bilateral joints (MCP2, 3, 5; MTP2, 3, 5) with a four-point scale to calculate the total US score for erosions (USSe). The mean total SHSe and USSe were 3.7 and 4.4 times higher in the ACPA+ group than in the ACPA- group, respectively (P < 0.001). On both RX and US, the most discriminating joint between the two groups was MTP5, especially in cases with bilateral erosion. Based on multivariate analyses, ACPA + status was associated with erosive RA on RX according to the EULAR 2013 definition criteria [OR 4.4 (95% CI 1.2-16.4)], and on US according to the following two definitions: the presence of at least two eroded joint facets [OR 3.7 (95% CI 1.4-9.9)] or at least one grade 2 joint facet erosion [OR 9.0 (95% CI 2.8-28.4)]. Compared to ACPA- RA, ACPA + RA is associated independently with more severe erosive disease on RX and US. Both US and RX bilateral erosions in MTP5 joints are highly discriminant for ACPA + RA patients (97.8% in US and 100% in RX).

Optimization of ultrasonographic examination for the diagnosis of erosive Rheumatoid Arthritis in comparison to erosive hand Osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVE: to determine thresholds and better scenario for the diagnosis of erosive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by ultrasonography (US) in RA in comparison to osteoarthritic (OA) patients. METHODS: Patients, prospectively included, fulfilling ACR 1987; ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria for RA or hand OA criteria. Radiographic assessment (RX): Sharp erosion score, evaluated by two blinded readers and one adjudicator for discordant cases (number of eroded joints ≤ three). Definition of eroded RX RA: EULAR 2013 Definition. In US, erosions were scored on six bilateral joints (MCP2-3, 5; MTP2-3, 5) with a four-grade scale. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included: 122 RA (32 early RA < 2 years; 90 late RA ≥ 2 years); 46 OA patients. On RX: 42 RA patients (6 early; 36 late) and 5 OA patients have erosive diseases (sensitivity: 34.4%, specificity: 89.1%). On US, 95 RA patients (21 early; 78 late) and 12 OA patients have erosive diseases. Considering at least two joint facets eroded (threshold 1) or at least one joint facet eroded at grade 2 (threshold 2), sensitivities were good (68 and 72.1%), specificities excellent (89.1 and 100%). With only six targeted joint facets examined (6/30), sensitivities and specificities remained good (59.8 and 60.0%) and excellent (95.6 and 100%) with threshold 1 and 2 respectively. For all scenarios, agreement between RX and US for erosive RA was excellent ranged from 88.1% to 92.8%. CONCLUSION: US erosion assessment of six targeted joint facets detected 1.7 times more erosive RA patients than RX in late and early RA with good sensitivity and excellent specificity.

Ultrasonographic criteria for the diagnosis of erosive rheumatoid arthritis using osteoarthritic patients as controls compared to validated radiographic criteria.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to compare characteristics of radiography (RX) and ultrasound (US) erosive lesions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA) patients (prevalence, topography and severity), to determine thresholds for the diagnosis of erosive RA based on US and to evaluate the performance of US and RX to establish a diagnosis of erosive RA differentiated from hand OA. METHODS: Patients fulfilling ACR 1987 and/or ACR/EULAR 2010 criteria for RA or ACR hand OA criteria were prospectively included. A modified Sharp erosion score was assessed by two blinded readers and one adjudicator for discordant cases (number of eroded joints ≤ three). Erosions in US were scored on six bilateral joints (MCP2-3, 5; MTP2-3, 5) with a four-grade scale to calculate total US score for erosions (USSe). RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included: 122 RA (32 early RA < 2 years; 90 late RA ≥ 2 years); 46 OA patients. On RX: 42 RA patients (6 early; 36 late) and 5 OA patients were eroded according to EULAR 2013 definition criteria with sensitivity at 34.4% and specificity at 89.1%. On US, 95 RA patients (21 early; 74 late) and 12 OA patients were eroded. Considering at least two joint facets eroded or at least one joint facet eroded at grade 2 on US, sensitivities were good (68-72.1%) and specificities excellent (89.1-100%). Agreement between RX and US was excellent (90-92%). The positive and negative likehood ratios were respectively 3.16 and 0.73 for radiography and 6.64 and 0.31 for US (for two facets eroded). CONCLUSION: USSe can differentiate RA from OA in erosive disease and detect two times more patients with erosive RA than RX with excellent specificity and agreement.

Multireader assessment as an alternative to reference assessment to improve the detection of radiographic progression in a large longitudinal cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (ESPOIR).

INTRODUCTION: Structural damage progression is a major outcome in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Its evaluation and follow-up in trials should involve radiographic scoring by 1 or 2 readers (reference assessment), which is challenging in large longitudinal cohorts with multiple assessments. OBJECTIVES: To compare the reproducibility of multireader and reference assessment to improve the feasibility of detecting radiographic progression in a large cohort of patients with early arthritis (ESPOIR). METHODS: We used 3 sessions to train 12 rheumatologists in radiographic scoring by the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score (SHS). Multireader scoring was based on 10 trained-reader assessments, each reader scoring a random sample of 1/5 of all available radiographs (for double scoring for each X-ray set) for patients included in the ESPOIR cohort with complete radiographic data at M0 and M60. Reference scoring was performed by 2 experienced readers. Scoring was performed blindly to clinical data, with radiographs in chronological order. We compared multireader and reference assessments by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for SHS and significant radiographic progression (SRP). RESULTS: The intrareader and inter-reader reproducibility for trained assessors increased during the training sessions (ICC 0.79 to 0.94 and 0.76 to 0.92), respectively. For the 524 patients included, agreement between multireader and reference assessment of SHS progression between M0 and M60 and SRP assessment were almost perfect, ICC (0.88 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.93)) and (0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 0.99)), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Multireader assessment of radiographic structural damage progression is comparable to reference assessment and could be used to improve the feasibility of radiographic scoring in large longitudinal cohort with numerous X-ray evaluations.

Energy expenditure and nutritional complications of metabolic syndrome and rheumatoid cachexia in rheumatoid arthritis: an observational study using calorimetry and actimetry.

OBJECTIVE: Altered energy expenditure may contribute to the nutritional complications of RA, metabolic syndrome (MS) and rheumatoid cachexia (RC). The main aim of this study was to evaluate whether the altered resting energy expenditure (REE) and physical activity (PA)-related energy expenditure (EE) are related to the duration of RA and inflammatory activity and nutritional complications in RA. METHODS: Among patients with well-characterized RA (duration, activity: DAS28 ESR), we measured REE by indirect calorimetry, and PA-EE by actimetry (SenseWear Armband). MS was defined according to the International Diabetes Federation criteria and RC from DXA body composition analysis. The relations between the characteristics and nutritional complications, and EE were analysed by linear regression. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included [73% women, age 57 (10) years] with a wide range of disease duration: 3.8 (3.0) years, and DAS28 ESR: 3.9 (1.4). The mean REE was 1486 (256) kcal/day, associated with the DAS28 ESR (ß = +0.21, P = 0.02 after adjusting for gender and fat free mass). The prevalence of MS and RC was, respectively, 24 and 18%, and they were unrelated to each other. The patients with MS and/or RC had double the longstanding RA score (P < 0.05), twice the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance values (P = 0.052) and halved levels of PA (P < 0.05 for metabolic equivalent tasks (METs) and number of steps/day). Two modifiable factors were associated with the presence of MS and/or RC: a low level of PA as METs [exp(B) = 0.03, P = 0.009] and the use of glucocorticoids [exp(B) = 4.08, P = 0.046]. CONCLUSION: Low levels of PA and treatment by glucocorticoids are associated with the nutritional complications of RA, suggesting the potential for therapeutic interventions.

Meta-analysis of clinical and radiological efficacy of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis patients naive or inadequately responsive to methotrexate.

Our aim was to compare all eight biologics available for rheumatoid arthritis in two patient populations, methotrexate-naive patients and inadequate responders to methotrexate, based on a comprehensive literature review. The five TNFα antagonists, rituximab, abatacept and tocilizumab used with methotrexate were compared to methotrexate monotherapy using the ACR50 response as the primary clinical endpoint and absence of radiographic progression after 1 year as the primary radiological endpoint. Odds ratios (ORs) were computed, as well as the number needed to treat (NNT) to obtain an ACR50 response for each biologic. We included 22 studies. Overall, combined biologic therapy was significantly more effective than methotrexate alone in both the naive group (OR: 2.11; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 1.85-2.41) and the unresponsive group (OR: 4.82; 95%CI: 3.83, 6.08). Crude NNTs were as follows: etanercept, five in the naive group and three in the unresponsive group; adalimumab, seven and three; infliximab, seven and five; abatacept, seven and four; rituximab, five and five; and tocilizumab and certolizumab, four in the unresponsive group. None of the differences was statistically significant. In the naive group, combined biologic therapy was associated with a higher rate of absence of radiographic progression after 1 year compared to methotrexate alone (OR: 2.19; 95%CI: 1.55-3.08). All biologics had approximately the same efficacy. Methotrexate-naive patients treated with biologics had significantly less radiographic progression than those with cellular therapy.