Novel optical spectral transmission (OST)-guided versus conventionally disease activity-guided treatment: study protocol of a randomized clinical trial on guidance of a treat-to-target strategy for early rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of disease activity is a critical component of tight-control, treat-to-target treatment strategies of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recently, the HandScan has been validated as a novel method for objectively assessing RA disease activity in only 1.5 min, using optical spectral transmission (OST) in hands and wrists. We describe the protocol of a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) to investigate whether HandScan-guided treatment aimed at 'HandScan remission' (HandScan arm) is at least as effective as and more cost-effective than clinically guided treatment aimed at ACR/EULAR 2011 Boolean remission (DAS arm). METHODS/DESIGN: The study is a multi-center, double-blind, non-inferiority RCT of 18 months duration. Patients ≥ 18 years with newly diagnosed, disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve RA according to the ACR 2010 classification criteria, will be randomized to the DAS arm or the HandScan arm. The efficacy of the arms will be compared by evaluating Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) scores (primary outcome) after 18 months of DMARD therapy, aimed at remission. The equivalence margin in HAQ scores between study arms is 0.2. Secondary outcomes are differences in cost-effectiveness and radiographic joint damage between treatment arms. The non-inferiority sample size calculation to obtain a power of 80% at a one-sided p value of 0.05, with 10% dropouts, resulted in 61 patients per arm. In both arms, DMARD strategy will be intensified monthly according to predefined steps until remission is achieved; in both arms DMARDs and treatment steps are identical. If sustained remission, defined as remission that persists consistently over three consecutive months, is achieved, DMARD therapy will be tapered. DISCUSSION: The study protocol and the specifically designed decision-making software application allow for implementation of this RCT. To test a novel method of assessing disease activity and comparing (cost-)effectiveness with the contemporary method in treat-to-target DMARD strategies in early RA patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register, NTR6388. Registered on 6 April 2017 ( NL50026.041.14 ). Protocol version 3.0, 19-01-2017.

Gouty arthritis: decision-making following dual-energy CT scan in clinical practice, a retrospective analysis.

To establish whether dual-energy CT (DECT) is a diagnostic tool, i.e., associated with initiation or discontinuation of a urate lowering drug (ULD). Secondly, to determine whether DECT results (gout deposition y/n) can be predicted by clinical and laboratory variables. Digital medical records of 147 consecutive patients with clinical suspicion of gout were analyzed retrospectively. Clinical data including medication before and after DECT, lab results, and results from diagnostic joint aspiration and DECT were collected. The relationship between DECT results and clinical and laboratory results was evaluated by univariate regression analyses; predictors showing a p < 0.10 were entered in a multivariate logistic regression model with the DECT result as outcome variable. A backward stepwise technique was applied. After the DECT, 104 of these patients had a clinical diagnosis of gout based on the clinical judgment of the rheumatologist, and in 84 of these patients, the diagnosis was confirmed by demonstration of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals in synovial fluid (SF) or by positive DECT. After DECT, the current ULD was modified in 33 (22.4%) of patients; in 29 of them, ULD was started and in 1 it was intensified. Following DECT, the current ULD was stopped in three patients. In the multivariable regression model, cardiovascular disease (OR 3.07, 95% CI 1.26-7.47), disease duration (OR 1.008, 95% CI 1.001-1.016), frequency of attack (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07-1.42), and creatinine clearance (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.91-1.00) were independently associated with positive DECT results. We found that the DECT result increases the confidence of the prescribers in their decision to initiation or discontinuation of urate lowering therapy regimen in of mono- or oligoarthritis. It may be a useful imaging tool for patients who cannot undergo joint aspiration because of contraindications or with difficult to aspirate joints, or those who refuse joint aspiration. We also suggest the use of DECT in cases where a definitive diagnosis cannot be made from signs, symptoms, and MSU analysis alone.